As the weather warms up and everyone gravitates towards spending more time outdoors, Employer's often host or sponsor recreational or social events for their employees. As the weather warms up and everyone gravitates towards spending more time outdoors, Employer’s often host or sponsor recreational or social events for their employees. Events such as picnics, sporting teams, festivals, and parties can be a good source of team building and a great morale boost for a workforce. While such events are a fun and relaxed way to socialize, encourage teambuilding and boost morale, they can also be a source of unexpected liability for injuries incurred by employees in the course of organizing, ... Continue Reading
Prior Traversal Of A Static Condition Remains Viable Grounds For Summary Judgment In Premises Liability Cases—For Now
Central to Georgia premises liability law is the requirement that the proprietor have superior knowledge of a hazardous condition on its premises in order to be liable for accidents and injuries Central to Georgia premises liability law is the requirement that the proprietor have superior knowledge of a hazardous condition on its premises in order to be liable for accidents and injuries resulting therefrom. Perkins v. Val D’Austa Co., 305 Ga. App. 126, 128 (2010); see also American Multi Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442, 444 (2009). In the context of static conditions (i.e. a step) the Georgia appellate courts have long held that an invitee/customer’s actual knowledge of the ... Continue Reading
First Party Property Div Claim: Federal District Court In Georgia Declines Request For Declaration That State Farm Homeowners Policies Provide Coverage For Future Div Claims
The decision in John Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 5:14-CV-32 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. May 14, 2015) reflects yet another effort by policyholders to benefit from The decision in John Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 5:14-CV-32 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. May 14, 2015) reflects yet another effort by policyholders to benefit from the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2012 landmark decision in Royal Capital Development v. Maryland Casualty, 728 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. 2012). In Royal, the Georgia Supreme Court held that there is no meaningful difference between diminution in value (“DIV”) coverage for automobiles (as permitted by the Georgia Supreme Court in State Farm ... Continue Reading