RESOURCE ARTICLES

A “statute of limitations” is a state law that sets a limit on the amount of time you have to file a lawsuit to recover damages related to a harm or loss you experienced because of someone else’s negligence.

In Tennessee, the statute of limitations for personal injury cases, including injury-related car accident lawsuits, is one year from the date the accident occurred. Specifically, Tennessee code 28-3-104 states:

(a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2), the following actions shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued:

(A) Actions for libel, injuries to the person, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or breach of marriage promise;

There are exceptions to the Tennessee one year statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits. For instance, minors who are injured in car accidents in Tennessee cannot file lawsuits on their own behalf, so the one year statute of limitations doesn’t start running until his or her 18th birthday.

The statute of limitations in Tennessee can affect your right to seek compensation following a car accident for injury. The state of Tennessee allows remuneration for people injured in a car accident. This can include drivers, passengers, skateboarders, bicyclists and pedestrians. If a child is injured as a pedestrian or a passenger, his or her parents can seek damages on the child’s behalf. Possible damages in these cases can include: pain and suffering, costs of permanent disability, loss of consortium, loss of earning capacity, lost wages, loss of enjoyment of life, past medical expenses and future medical expenses.

At Green, Waters Ogle and McCarter, we recommend injury victims begin their personal injury lawsuit as soon as possible—whether that means immediately filing a lawsuit, or meticulously gathering all the evidence related to your case, depends on the particular facts regarding your Tennessee personal injury claim. Either way, if the statute of limitations deadline passes, then the person named in the lawsuit can file to have your case against them dismissed and you will lose the right to seek compensation forever. Retaining an experienced personal injury lawyer from the start gives you a greater chance of winning your case, as evidence can be collected before it is destroyed and witnesses can be tracked down before their memories fade. Contact us to speak with an experienced Tennessee personal injury attorney. Protect yourself by understanding your options.

‍

In situations where an accident has taken place, it may seem that dealing with the insurance company yourself is the easiest option. Yet, too many people are not aware of their rights and covered benefits in the case of personal injury. An experienced injury attorney knows how to evaluate and document your claim to obtain that to which you are entitled. Without such experience, you may receive much less than you need to move on with your everyday life. Remember, insurance claims adjusters are skilled negotiators who are trained to settle accident claims as quickly and cheaply as possible; you also need an expert with knowledge of the claims process to guide you and to make sure you receive appropriate compensation. Here are some of the things an experienced attorney can do for you:

• Offer a free consultation to evaluate your claim
• Tell you how much money you may be entitled to receive
• Handle all communication with the insurance company
• Help get your medical bills paid
• Recover lost wages plus money for any future lost earning ability caused by your accident
• Collect medical records and evidence for your claim, and interview witnesses to present the best case
• Recover other damages you may be entitled to receive as a result of your accident

Adrienne Ogle worked many years for insurance companies and has extensive knowledge in handling claims. More than 90% of injury claims handled by Adrienne Ogle are resolved without a lawsuit. The bottom line is, we know the insurance companies and their representatives, and we get results.

If you are concerned and need help resolving a personal injury case, we would be honored to help you begin to put the pieces back together.

‍

Convince the carrier this is a liability case

The first step in establishing the reasonableness of a demand is to convince the insurance company (and a judge/jury who may ultimately read this letter in a subsequent bad faith case) that liability is either clear or reasonably clear, such that any reasonable insurance company would pay the policy limit to avoid financial ruin for the insured. This includes attaching copies of police reports, investigation reports, witness statements, the identities of witnesses by address and phone number so the insurance company can interview them, photographs or videos, and anything else that proves a prompt settlement is prudent and reasonable. Keep in mind, if you are sending a pre-litigation demand letter, it’s likely the insurance company is either unaware or just barely aware of the existence of the claim and has not retained counsel or investigators. Make it appear as though settlement is a no-brainer.

Include solid evidence of the complete array of your damages and include your total, undiscounted medical bills

Your demand should include medical reports and records, X-rays if applicable, wage loss verification, business income records, photographs of injuries or damages, and anything else a reasonable insurance company would need to evaluate your claim. Also, you are entitled to compensation for your full, undiscounted medical bills, regardless of what your health insurance carrier paid. (You should submit your medical bills related to the car accident to your health insurance company for payment.) For example, if you went to the emergency room and your total charges were $7000, but your health insurance carrier received a contractual adjustment from the hospital and only paid $1300, the adjuster will likely try and tell you that they can only consider the $1300 your health insurance paid when making a settlement offer. This is not true. The settlement offer for your claim should be based on your total, undiscounted medical charges of $7000. Tennessee adheres to the collateral source rule, which permits injury victims to prove and recover medical expenses, whether paid by health insurance or not (Donnell v. Donnell, 220 Tenn. 169, 415 S.W.2d 127, 134 [1967]). Tennessee law allows injury victims to use full, undiscounted medical bills to prove their medical expenses instead of the discounted amounts paid by their health insurance company. The at-fault driver and their liability insurance company should not benefit from the fact that you have health insurance which received a contractual discount on the total charges.

‍

‍

Set a deadline to accept the demand

Your demand should include a deadline, and it should be highlighted in bold lettering so there is no confusion. Although, it is important to make the deadline reasonable based on the facts of the case and the amount of supporting documentation that the adjuster will need to review. If negotiations have been ongoing for months and the carrier already knows everything it needs to know, a shorter deadline may be appropriate. Insurance companies usually complain the deadline is too short and they need more time. In anticipation of this excuse, it is advisable to address the subject up front. Consider including a procedure to request an extension in the demand letter. Tell the adjuster that no reasonable request for more time will be rejected; however, any request must be supported by specifics. The insurer must state precisely what additional facts, witnesses, authorities or information the insurance company needs that cannot be accessed by the original deadline. Tell the carrier that generic pleas of “I need more time” without more details will be rejected. This preemptive move communicates fairness on your part, but also forces the insurer to justify why it couldn’t complete its evaluation of the claim sooner.

Proper address and delivery confirmation

It seems like common sense, but make sure the demand package is sent to the correct address and actually arrives. Delivery confirmation via email or facsimile are advisable.

Catch-all

It’s a good idea to complete the demand letter by asking the insurer to contact you immediately if for any reason the carrier cannot accept the demand by the deadline because the demand package is missing important or crucial information.

Don’t make a specific settlement demand

Unless you really know what you are doing, making a demand is a mistake. You are either going to make a settlement demand that is too high or too low. Either is a catastrophic mistake. You can mitigate your risk by letting the insurance company make the first move. I usually say something to the effect of “please make a reasonable settlement offer within 15 business days.” While making a settlement demand for a specific amount before receiving an offer is a bad idea in most cases, demanding the policy limits makes sense if the value of the case is in the same ballpark as the policy limits.

Require the adjuster to respond to your demand in writing, preferably by email

This is a tip that claimants can use throughout their negotiations with the adjuster. We have found that adjusters are reluctant to use some of their shadier tactics when they know there is going to be a paper trail. Check out our article, “No, the Insurance Adjuster is Not Your Friend,” for more helpful information.

‍

There can be many variables that contribute to a personal injury attorney not taking your case. In this article, we examine the top five reasons our law firm may decline to represent someone in an injury case.

Liability isn’t clear.

One of the first and most crucial aspects of any potential injury case is whether or not the injury was caused by someone else’s negligence.

Timing.

An attorney is not going to accept your case if the one-year statute of limitations has expired. Even if the statute of limitations has not expired, waiting too long to consult with a personal injury attorney can make it difficult for you to find one who is willing to accept your case. There are many time-sensitive steps that are critical to the success of your claim, including seeking the appropriate medical treatment for your injuries, preserving evidence and contacting witnesses. If you wait several months after the injury before consulting an attorney, these critical steps may not have been done, making an attorney less likely to accept your case. (Side note: this is not a hard and fast rule at our law firm. We have accepted auto accident cases where our client first contacted us only one day before the statute ran. However, that is not always the case, and it depends on the particular facts and parties involved.)

‍

‍

Failing to seek treatment.

If you are injured in a car accident, but you fail to seek any medical treatment for your injuries for several months, it is much less likely that a personal injury attorney will accept your case. We understand there are extenuating circumstances that keep people from pursuing treatment after a car accident, even though they were truly injured. Common reasons include lack of health insurance, the financial burden of co-pays and deductibles, and family or work obligations that make seeking treatment difficult. Even with a legitimate reason, having a gap before initial treatment will inevitably hurt your injury claim, whether the value is determined by an adjuster or at trial.

You have been represented by several lawyers already.

This is a red flag to most personal injury attorneys.

Your case would be too expensive to litigate, and your damages are minimal.

Personal injury attorneys take cases on a contingency fee basis. This requires the lawyer to make a business judgment on each case they agree to handle. The amount of time that the lawyer will have to spend on the case and the out-of-pocket expenses, such as filing fees and expert fees (including doctor’s depositions), have to be considered in light of the expected recovery for the client. It does not make sense for the client or the attorney to litigate a case where the case expenses will eat up all or most of the client’s recovery.

‍

Businesses in Tennessee are under a duty to use ordinary care to prevent business invitees from being injured on their property.

Tennessee case law defines ordinary care as the care that ordinarily careful persons would use to avoid injury to themselves or others under the same or similar circumstances. There is no duty to guarantee the safety of those entering upon the property. The owner of a retail store or other premises is not responsible for an injury to a customer who is injured by a defect, unless it is shown that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the defect. See Henson v. F.W. Woolworth’s Co., 537 S.W.2d 923 (Tenn. App. 1974).

In Blair v. West Town Mall, the Tennessee Supreme Court first recognized that a plaintiff can prove a premises owner had constructive notice of the presence of a dangerous condition by showing a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition’s existence (Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 766-67). In that case, a plaintiff slipped and fell on slick oil spots as she exited the main entrance of a mall (Id. at 762). The defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony showed that:

prior to the accident, [plaintiff] never had difficulty entering or leaving the mall and had never seen anything on the roadway, 2) she did not notice any slippery substances as she was walking at the time of the accident, 3) she did not know how long the substance had been there, where it came from, or if anyone at the mall knew it was there, and 4) she did not know if anyone at the mall had an opportunity to do anything about the substance prior to the accident.

‍

‍

Id. at 763. Plaintiff responded, arguing that Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition because of Defendant’s “method of operation,” specifically that it allowed commercial and private vehicles to stop outside of the mall’s main entrance/exit to load and unload passengers and/or merchandise. Id. Plaintiff asserted that it was foreseeable that these vehicles w[ould] from time to time leak engine fluids that could cause a pedestrian to fall and sustain injury. Id. To support her response, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an automobile service consultant who alleged that motor vehicles commonly leak engine fluids when slowing down or stopping and that such leaks can create slick surfaces. Id. In addition, plaintiff submitted two photographs of the area where she fell. Id.

While the Supreme Court denounced use of the term “method of operation” to describe this theory of notice, it adopted the underlying premise of the theory. Specifically, a plaintiff can show that a premises owner is put on constructive notice of a dangerous condition that is ‘a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition,’ regardless of what caused the condition, and regardless of whatever method of operation the owner employs. (Id. at 767) Though the Supreme Court in Blair found for the plaintiff (Id. at 769), the Court did not elaborate on what facts would constitute a pattern of conduct or a recurring incident. Other Tennessee cases would indicate that proving this theory of constructive notice requires more than a random occurrence. See, for example, Beske v. Opryland, 923 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), finding that train passengers regularly discarding drinks before boarding on the ground near turnstiles, as opposed to in a trash can, was a common occurrence; see also Barrett v. Red Food Stores, No. 01-A-019108-CV-00302, 1992 WL 33891, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), finding that water spilling on the floor every time an ice cream vendor stocked the freezer was a common occurrence.

Our firm regularly represents individuals injured because a business allowed a dangerous condition to exist on their premises. Let us assist you in getting the help and resources you need.

In a political climate where everything from how often cows pass gas to whether you should be arrested for using plastic straws is suddenly a hot-button topic, perhaps no issue has been more politicized and aggrandized than illegal immigration.

A war of words has raged on regarding such inane topics as whether it’s appropriate to call individuals “illegal aliens” if they have emigrated here illegally (spoiler alert: the definition of “alien” includes someone belonging to another country or nation and is not a label exclusive to little green creatures who kidnap drunken middle-aged men who wander through corn fields in the night) or whether illegal immigration is a grave security threat to our nation (spoiler alert: the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hard-working, law-abiding individuals who are searching for a better way of life or fleeing danger). However, due to the inability of many politicos and pundits to find a middle ground or cease pushing an agenda, immigration has dominated the headlines over the past few years, with President Trump promising to enforce the strictest immigration policy known to date and those who vehemently oppose him calling for no restrictions to be placed on immigration at all. This has resulted in some cities declaring themselves “sanctuary cities” and refusing to cooperate with federal immigration laws when they require the deportation of individuals who are not in the country legally. Depending on which side of the government-issued fence you are on, a sanctuary city is either a victory for human rights in that it protects individuals from deportation, or a threat to security in that it places other citizens at risk by obstructing the deportation of individuals who might be violent or otherwise a threat for whom federal law calls for deportation.

‍

‍

In response to the advent of sanctuary cities, Republican Senator Thom Thillis of North Carolina has introduced legislation titled the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, which aims to penalize sanctuary cities when they protect individuals from deportation who then go on to injure a victim through the commission of a violent crime. While it should be no surprise that Senator Thillis is opposed to the establishment of sanctuary cities, it is quite surprising that in an effort to combat them he has essentially turned to the common-law personal injury doctrine of premises liability. President Trump highlighted this legislation during his State of the Union address and asked Congress to pass the legislation. As Congress seems to be unable to agree on anything besides wasting our tax dollars on its own entertainment, it seems unlikely to become law in this current political landscape. However, the Act’s reliance on premises liability principles still makes for an intriguing discussion.

Premises liability, along with auto accident or car wreck injuries, is one of the most frequently discussed and litigated branches of personal injury in both Tennessee and the nation. While most often associated with injuries resulting from a slip-and-fall or some similar-type injury, the concept of “premises liability” actually refers to the concept that the person who owns or maintains property is responsible for the safety of others that use the property. Very often, that property owner has invited or allowed guests to use the property or is actually making a profit off of the use of the property by some individual, who is then injured in some fashion while on the property. In such situations, the law states that the property owner has a duty to keep the premises safe from dangerous conditions or hazards which might injure others who use the property. When the property owner has failed to fulfill that duty, he or she is said to be negligent, meaning the person breached their duty to provide a safe premise for its guests by not taking reasonable precautions. If a party is injured by some condition on the property, that party must then prove that the defective or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of its injuries, simply meaning that the injuries it sustained were actually caused by the defective or dangerous condition that existed on the property and not by some other cause. For example, if your neighbor had steps that did not have a handrail, but you fell down the steps because you were scrolling through cat videos on your phone while walking and missed a step, you cannot legitimately claim that anything besides your love of cats actually caused your fall. Thus, in any premises liability case, you have a duty, a breach of that duty constituting negligence, an injury, and the issue of causation. While experienced personal injury attorneys are certainly familiar with these terms, it is rather unfamiliar to see them applied in an immigration or political context. That is, however, exactly what the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act seeks to accomplish by creating a cause of action whereby victims injured by illegal immigrants can sue the cities responsible for not deporting those individuals and ostensibly allowing them to remain in the United States, giving them an opportunity to commit violent crimes.

In the context of the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, the sanctuary cities themselves are positioned as the property owners. They control the city and are responsible for the safety of its citizens. Cities have superior knowledge than ordinary citizens with regard to the dangers that face all citizens situated within the city, just as a property owner should be more familiar with the dangers and hazards existent on his own property than would an invitee, guest or customer who uses the property infrequently. It is on the basis of this superior knowledge and control that the proposed legislation seeks to impose a duty on sanctuary cities to protect their citizens from being injured by individuals who might be dangerous or pose a safety threat in some fashion. The duty in this instance is the duty to comply with ICE detainers and other immigration mechanisms to ensure that individuals are deported or otherwise subjected to immigration-related government action rather than obstructing the immigration process, as sanctuary cities are designed to do (hence the term “sanctuary”). The breach of duty in the sanctuary city context is the failure to comply with federal law and thereby subjecting the local populace to the danger posed by whatever individual or individuals are allowed to remain in the sanctuary city that would otherwise be removed through immigration enforcement. The injury required under the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act is an injury caused by a violent crime, such as a burglary, assault or homicide offense, committed by an individual who was allowed to remain in the sanctuary city due to the city’s refusal to comply with federal immigration mandates. The proximate cause of the injury in such situations would be proving that the injury was in fact caused by the individual in question and that the individual would not have been in a position to injure the victim if the sanctuary city had complied with immigration enforcement. In short, just as Tennessee law seeks to impose liability on property owners who fail to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of others on their property, the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act seeks to impose liability on sanctuary cities for failing to take the reasonable step of complying with federal law in order to ensure the safety of their citizens.

The glaring issues in this proposed legislation beg discussion on an important premises liability principle that determines the outcome of many cases. That principle is the concept of notice. Under Tennessee law, a property owner has a duty to protect others based primarily on his superior knowledge of conditions that might exist on the property and generally cannot be held liable for failing to remedy a dangerous or defective condition if the owner did not or should not have notice that the condition existed. For example, if a child is injured by a swing set that just happened to break while in use, but was otherwise in good repair and showed no indications of improper assembly or maintenance, it is unlikely the property owner will be held liable, as she did not have notice that the condition would occur so that she could take steps to prevent its occurrence. Likewise, it will be a tenuous legal argument to assert that a city should be held liable for the violent acts of an illegal immigrant that injures a third party solely by virtue of allowing that individual to remain in the city, if the offending individual had never demonstrated a propensity for violent behavior previously, such that the city did not know that he or she posed a danger to the community. Thus, such cases would involve complex issues such as whether the city had notice of a danger posed by the offender, the inherent tension involved in enforcing the removal of illegal aliens but not other dangerous offenders who are in the country legally, proving that the individual would not have been able to injure the victim if not for the city’s inaction, examining the length of time between the city’s refusal to enforce immigration policy and the occurrence of the violent crime (would the individual have had time to be removed from the country and return to the city), did the city even have knowledge of that particular individual’s existence within the city, and so on. Many of these issues are murky, divisive, and open to interpretation given whatever your political bias happens to be, meaning that if this legislation passes there is a great likelihood that it will make its way to the United States Supreme Court and will be upheld or struck down depending on which political party Chief Justice Roberts decides to belong to that morning, or whether Justice Ginsburg can keep up her Weekend at Bernie’s routine long enough to vote against it. Regardless of the outcome, it is certainly interesting to see the concept of premises liability used to aid in immigration enforcement, and will make for good theater in the event it is able to gain some traction.

‍

Tennessee is ranked #12 in the top 20 most dangerous states for pedestrians. Based on population, Sevierville has the highest crash rate in the region, followed by Knoxville and Alcoa.

Overview of Pedestrian Crashes in Sevierville from November 2010–March 2018

• Between November of 2010 and March of 2018, there were 99 crashes involving either pedestrians or bicyclists. This results in a rate of 1.1 crashes per month, and 13 crashes per year. 66 crashes (67 percent) involved pedestrians, and 33 involved bicyclists.
• Most of the crashes (93 percent) involved the injury or death of a person walking or bicycling. 90 crashes involved injuries only, and another two involved a fatality. Of the two fatalities, both were killed while walking.
• 19 percent of injury-only crashes involved serious injuries.

‍

‍

Main Causes of Pedestrian Crashes

• 42% of pedestrian crashes involve drivers failing to yield while turning.
• 24% of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian hit by a car while walking in a location without sidewalks or other dedicated space for pedestrians.

Speed plays a huge role in determining whether a person struck by a car survives.

Green, Waters Ogle and McCarter has successfully represented pedestrians injured in Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge and Sevierville. Our attorneys have obtained favorable monetary settlements for pedestrians injured in crashes throughout Sevier County. We have also used the legal process to ensure that safety updates, such as improved signage, lowered speed limits and additional speed limit enforcement, have been added to the areas where our clients were injured. Our law firm is committed to raising awareness in the community regarding pedestrian safety.

‍

As a child of the 80’s, I spent no small amount of time playing what is a now-classic video game called Frogger, the object of which was to navigate a hapless frog across many lanes of busy traffic and across a river to a safe point, at which point you had won that round and moved on to a more difficult crossing scenario. Making the journey difficult were fast-moving obstacles, such as speeding cars and semi-trucks, which seemed determined to run over you and kill you, thus ending your game. While that game has been out of the public consciousness for quite a while now, fans of the genre will be glad to know that they can now participate in a real-life version of the game simply by walking through a crosswalk in any major metropolitan area or tourist destination.

‍

‍

If you have ever been walking along the sidewalk, looking at beautiful mountain views, and thought, “The only way this would get any better is if I had to try to dodge a speeding Jeep Wrangler while holding on to my cotton candy and my young child,” then I have news for you. At crosswalks all over the country, there are design defects, distracted drivers, and other forms of visual and driving impediments available to make your vacation more exhilarating. In places such as Gatlinburg, Tennessee, a beautiful town surrounded by the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, pedestrians are frequently struck in crosswalks by vehicles whose drivers are distracted by their surroundings, their cell phones or their passengers, or who simply cannot see them crossing the road because of the heavy traffic in the area or some defect in the design of the crosswalk that renders crossing in that area unsafe. Many such accidents result in serious injury or even death to the pedestrians, whose bodies are simply unable to withstand the impact of a moving vehicles and who, unlike our hero in Frogger, can’t simply start all over with unlimited lives and no injuries, and pretend it never happened.

It isn’t fair to you, the pedestrian, to have to lose your life or risk your life because a teenager in a convertible decides that her nineteenth Instagram selfie of the day should take place as her negligently operated vehicle crashes into you while you’re trying to use a crosswalk with your family. It’s even more unfair that in all likelihood you will be the one injured and may have deal with permanent disability, extraordinary medical expenses and the pain and suffering that goes along with them, for the rest of your life. Or even worse, you or a loved one may be killed by such a vehicle and will be faced with handling an unspeakable tragedy alone. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident or has been hit by a car while simply trying to walk across the road, contact the experienced car wreck attorneys at Green, Waters Ogle and McCarter to discuss how to protect yourself and recover from your injuries.

Green, Waters Ogle and McCarter obtained a total of $525,000 for a pedestrian struck in a Gatlinburg crosswalk. Our client was crossing the North Parkway in downtown Gatlinburg to reach a business on the opposite site of the street. As she was crossing the Parkway within a marked crosswalk, she was struck by a south-bound vehicle. She received severe injuries and was transported by LifeStar to the hospital. She required extensive medical attention and rehabilitation as a result of the accident.

There were various estimates of the speed of the defendant driver’s vehicle that struck our client provided by eyewitnesses to the accident. The crash report stated that our client was struck by the vehicle and flew into the air and into the road. Further, it was stated that a measurement was taken from the center of the crosswalk to the tip of the victim’s foot where she came to a final rest. It was exactly 35 feet. The defendant driver was cited for failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. One witness estimated that our client was thrown 100 feet into the street and that the defendant driver was traveling about 30 mph.

The at-fault driver carried only a minimal liability policy and had no significant assets. We accepted a policy limits settlement from the at-fault driver and then moved forward with an uninsured motorist claim under our client’s policy where we, again, were able to obtain full policy limits for our client. Both settlement agreements with the liability carrier and the uninsured motorist carrier were obtained without having to file a lawsuit, which means our client was able to receive that portion of her settlement quickly to help pay all her medical expenses. When our firm accepts a pedestrian accident case, we do not rest until we hold all liable parties accountable. If a city, town, county or other governmental entity did not maintain or properly design the road, then they can be held responsible for pedestrian accidents.

Ogle McCarter conducted an extensive investigation to determine all parties liable for our client’s horrific injuries. After our firm’s investigation, we filed a complaint in the Sevier County Circuit Court alleging the City of Gatlinburg was negligent in the design of the crosswalk in the following ways:

1. The crosswalk’s warning signals/signs and/or pedestrian-control devices were absent and/or inadequate to alert pedestrians, including plaintiff, traversing the crosswalk of on-coming traffic so that those pedestrians could safely traverse the crosswalk.
2. Further, the approaches to the crosswalk were not posted with appropriate warning signs of the existence of the crosswalk and/or with appropriate speed limit signs/signalization and/or other appropriate traffic-control devices and/or pedestrian-control devices to alert drivers of the presence of the crosswalk.
3. The problems enumerated above rendered the crosswalk dangerous to motorists approaching the crosswalk and rendered the crosswalk dangerous to pedestrians traversing the crosswalk, creating a trap for unwary motorists and pedestrians which was not readily apparent to those motorists and pedestrians. The condition of the crosswalk was such that warning signals/signs and traffic-control devices and/or pedestrian-control devices were necessary to warn of the dangerous condition which endangered the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians traversing the crosswalk and which would not be reasonably apparent to and could not have been anticipated by a person (motorist and/or pedestrian) exercising due care while traversing the crosswalk. The condition which existed was such that a motorist traversing and/or approaching the roadway/crosswalk would not be given sufficient advance warning of the existence of the crosswalk and any pedestrians, including plaintiff, traversing the crosswalk and, therefore, those motorists would not be able to slow and/or stop their vehicles in time to avoid colliding with pedestrians traversing the crosswalk, resulting in injuries to pedestrians using the crosswalk, as occurred to plaintiff in the instant case. This condition created a trap for unwary motorists and pedestrians which was not reasonably apparent to, and was not anticipated by said motorists and pedestrians, including plaintiff, while she was exercising due care.

Our firm retained a qualified engineer to analyze the crosswalk where our client was struck. The expert recommended five areas for improvement of the subject crosswalk:

• Advance warnings; ways to get drivers’ attention (e.g. flashing lights)
• Rumble Strips
• Continental pavement markings
• Signing
• Speed limit reduction

Our firm, along with our wonderful client, were both determined to do everything possible to see that this dangerous crosswalk was made safe so no one else would suffer severe injuries, or worse, lose their life. Our lawyers attended city workshops on the issue of pedestrian safety and spoke on behalf of our client.

As highlighted by WBIR News in their article, “Gatlinburg Business Owners Concerned About Crosswalk Safety,” many local business owners joined in vocalizing their concerns about the danger of the downtown Gatlinburg crosswalks. Ultimately, we were able to reach a settlement agreement with the city, and shortly thereafter, several crucial safety improvements were implemented at the crosswalk where our client was injured.

‍