COURT WATCH

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

• Multi-car Collision should constitute one “accident” for Insurance coverage purposes

  The Supreme Court of Georgia has issued a decision as related to the definition of accident for coverage purposes where there are multiple impacts in a collision.  See State Auto Property and Casualty Co. v. Matty, Ga. Supreme Court, No. S09Q1846.

  Read the case

• Can the time it takes to dispose of a traffic citation toll the statute of limitations in a personal injury action?

Yes.  So says the Georgia Supreme Court in its decision issued on September 28, 2009.  See Beneke v. Parker, --- S.E.2d ----, 2009 WL 3062640 (September 28, 2009).

  Read the case

• Court throws out Georgia’s left-turn law on June 8, 2009.

    Read the case

PREMISES LIABILITY

• If a patron trips over a "wet floor" sign designed to protect the patron, can the patron recover against the property owner?

Yes.  It is a jury question so says the Georgia Supreme Court in its decision issued on June 1, 2009.  See American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, S08G1934

  Read the case

TRIAL COURT

• Can excessive campaign contributions require judge recusal?

Yes, so says the United States Supreme Court in its decision issued on June 8, 2009.

  Read the case

• On June 18, 2009, in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. has held that a plaintiff bringing a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must show by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse employment decision, and that an employer need not show that it would have made the same decision regardless of age, even if the employee produces some evidence that age may have been a contributing factor in the decision. Thus, the burden-shifting framework in mixed motive Title VII cases does not apply to age discrimination claims under the ADEA.

  The practical effect of the Court's decision is to make it more difficult for a Plaintiff claiming  discrimination to prove a case under the ADEA than under Title VII.

FEDERAL COURT

• Not Sticks and Stones but Words Alone Can Lead to A Sexual Harassment Claim

The 11^th Circuit has opened up sexual harassment hostile work environment claims to women based on words alone.  This is a notable departure from the 11^th Circuit’s historically conservative interpretation of Title VII.   In an opinion remarkable for its unanimity and use of profanity, the full 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a woman’s claim for disparate treatment may go forward for “sex specific” profanity even if the epithets were not used against her.

  Read the case