|
In this issue
Practice Areas
Forward this email
Contact Us
|
September 24, 2009BIRMINGHAM OFFICE OPENING The Finley Firm is proud to announce the opening of our Birmingham, Alabama office. 905 Montgomery Highway  New Look
We have worked hard this summer to create a new client-friendly website. Our newest feature is the Staff Profiles page. Now you can see who works behind the scenes. Please check out our new website, staff members and attorneys at www.TheFinleyFirm.com. New Associate-Jep Bendinger
The Finley Firm, P.C. is proud to announce our newest associate, C. Jephson "Jep" Bendinger. Jep Bendinger is a native of Abbeville, Alabama. He graduated from Cumberland School of Law in May 2009. Before law school, he attended Auburn University where he graduated with a degree in History. Jep's practice will focus on business coverage disputes, commercial litigation, general civil litigation, premises liability, product liability and workers’ compensation. He took the Georgia Bar in July and is pending his results until October 2009. He plans on taking the Alabama Bar in February 2010.
Think Green
The Finley Firm, P.C. is environmental friendly. The Firm's Green Initiative Campaign was launched in August 2009 by recycling paper, cans and ink cartridges. Watch for more initiatives on our website at www.TheFinleyFirm.com. Upcoming EventsSeptember 8, 2009 - Kathy Rogers spoke at the Northwest Georgia National Women's Association of Construction (NAWIC) meeting about Workers' Compensation Laws and Changes. October 7, 2009 - Chris Reeves will attend the DRI Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. November 1, 2009 - Chris Reeves will run in the New York marathon for the Christopher & Dana Reeve Paralysis Foundation. November 5, 2009 - The Finley Firm will provide a FREE seminar at Maggiano's Perimeter. You will receive 6 CEU hours, which include 3 Ethics hours and 3 Regular hours. Please remember that we do have a limited amount of space available. To register for the seminar, contact Vanessa Williams at VWilliams@TheFinleyFirm.com or download the registration form at www.TheFinleyFirm.com/news. Med-Mal Issues – Evidence & Jury InstructionsIn American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown , 285 Ga. 442, 679 S.E.2d 25 (June 1, 2009) the Georgia Supreme Court revisited issues related to obtaining summary judgment in a slip and fall, premises liability case. In this case, Plaintiff, a movie theater patron, tripped on the edge of a wet floor sign, which had collapsed or been knocked over by a crowd of people exiting a movie theater. Plaintiff sustained injuries and sued the movie theater operator (AMC), which then moved for summary judgment. AMC sought summary judgment on the grounds that while its employees cleaned up a spill and placed the “wet floor” sign, the employees never observed the sign in its collapsed or fallen condition, so that AMC did not have knowledge of the sign in its collapsed or fallen condition and that Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care. Plaintiff countered by producing some evidence that the type of “wet floor” sign used by AMC was prone to collapse or fall over such that AMC had knowledge of the potentially dangerous condition resulting from a collapse or fall of the “wet floor” sign used. The Court first restated the two elements required by a plaintiff to prove liability in a slip and fall case: American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 444, citing Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980) The Supreme Court then revisited and discussed its decision in Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 493 SE2d 403, (1997) which addressed the summary judgment requirements and burdens of proof in a slip and fall case. American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 444-45. The court then noted that “… issues such as how closely a particular retailer should monitor its premises and approaches, what retailers should know about the property’s condition at any given time, how vigilant patrons must be for their own safety in various settings, and where customers should be held responsible for looking or not looking are all questions that, in general, must be answered by juries as a matter of fact rather than by judges as a matter of law.” American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 444-45. Finally that court noted that as “an ‘owner/occupier [of land] owes persons invited to enter the premises a duty of ordinary care to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition and not to expose the invitees to unreasonable risk.’ We think this principle extends to a merchant’s selection and use of devices designed to warn patrons of one hazard that have the inherent potential to expose them to a different one.” American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 447-48, quoting Robinson, at 740. While there have as of the time of this writing, there have been no follow up cases which have discussed or applied this ruling, this case seems to place an increased burden on merchants or other property holders/owners with business invitees with respect to the use of notice or safety devices on that property. Certainly this is not a drastic change in premises liability law, but merchants must now be cautious and/or aware that the selection and use of devices, which are used to alert or warn invitees of one danger, may, in and of themselves, be considered a separate and new danger for which the premises owner/manager may be liable. SBWC Rule and Form UpdateThe State Board of Workers’ Compensation has recently updated its rules and forms. Most of the changes are related to the Board’s newly implemented Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) program, wherein insurers and self-insurers will be required to file forms electronically. The following forms have been updated: WC-1, WC-2, WC-6, WC-15, WC-26, WC-104, WC-131, WC-207, WC-240, WC-Subpoena. Old forms will be rejected beginning October 1, 2009. A summary of the rule updates and form changes is available on the Board’s website at http://sbwc.georgia.gov, and you can contact Michael Memberg at MMemberg@TheFinleyFirm.com or 404-320-9979 with any questions. Additionally, we will be providing a full summary of the updates at The Finley Firm Seminar this upcoming November. Premises LiabilityIn American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown , 285 Ga. 442, 679 S.E.2d 25 (June 1, 2009) the Georgia Supreme Court revisited issues related to obtaining summary judgment in a slip and fall, premises liability case. In this case, Plaintiff a movie theater patron tripped on the edge of a wet floor sign, which had collapsed of been knock over by a crowd of people exiting a movie theater. Plaintiff sustained injuries and sued the movie theater operator (AMC), which then moved for summary judgment. AMC sought summary judgment on the grounds that while its employees cleaned up a spill and placed the “wet floor” sign, the employees never observed the sign in its collapsed or fallen condition, so that AMC did not have knowledge of the sign in its collapsed or fallen condition and that Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care. Plaintiff countered by producing some evidence that the type of “wet floor” sign used by AMC was prone to collapse or fall over such that AMC had knowledge of the potentially dangerous condition resulting from a collapse or fall of the “wet floor” sign used. The Court first restated the two elements required by a plaintiff to prove liability in a slip and fall case: American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 444, citing Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980) The Supreme Court then revisited and discussed its decision in Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 493 SE2d 403, (1997) which addressed the summary judgment requirements and burdens of proof in a slip and fall case. The Court noted that under Robinson in a summary judgment situation, the plaintiff must present evidence to meet the first element of the test, at which point the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the alleged injury was caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence, or that the plaintiff failed to meet part two of the test. If the defendant then meets that burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present evidence that creates an issue of fact or that shows any negligence on the plaintiff’s part was a result of defendant’s actions or conditions over which defendant had control. American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown , at 444-45. The court then noted that “… issues such as how closely a particular retailer should monitor its premises and approaches, what retailers should know about the property’s condition at any given time, how vigilant patrons must be for their own safety in various settings, and where customers should be held responsible for looking or not looking are all questions that, in general, must be answered by juries as a matter of fact rather than by judges as a matter of law.” American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 444-45. Finally that court noted that as “an ‘owner/occupier [of land] owes persons invited to enter the premises a duty of ordinary care to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition and not to expose the invitees to unreasonable risk.’ We think this principle extends to a merchant’s selection and use of devices designed to warn patrons of one hazard that have the inherent potential to expose them to a different one.” American Multi-cinema, Inc. v. Brown, at 447-48, quoting Robinson, at 740. While there have as of the time of this writing, there have been no follow up cases which have discussed or applied this ruling, this case seems to place an increased burden on merchants or other property holders/owners with business invitees with respect to the use of notice or safety devices on that property. Certainly this is not a drastic change in premises liability law, but merchants must now be cautious and/or aware that the selection and use of devices, which are used to alert or warn invitees of one danger, may, in and of themselves be considered a separate and new danger for which the premises owner/manager may be liable.
|
||
|
|||
