A post on twitter asks that question - or more precisely - do juries find liability.
In the South where icy conditions are not as rare as you think, that depends. The first reaction here in my office is - a wreck in icy conditions with injuries is often attributable to conditions. Some questions come to mind:
1)Get details of the wreck in excruciating detail. GA is a 50%+ state on negligence. If a person calls b/c of a wreck with injuries we talk about how long the person knew of and drove on the icy road. If the person is from a warm weather state, new to the city, or if the person was speeding, or on the phone, or late to work, or you get that sense that something isn't right, you get to 50% negligence here in a hurry. And 50% means zero recovery, and a denied claim. We work way too hard on cases with merit to get bogged down in cases with denials.
Second, we look to all circumstances.
Was the person driving a car or SUV with four wheel drive; was the road an interstate with patches of ice in the hammer lane, or a state road, or a county road. In that order you usually see a high degree of clearing., some clearing of ice, and no clearing of any.
What were the conditions. We had in Atlanta 3 days of sun while the roads were a total mess. To be candid, anyone with any sense should have stayed home, and that is what a jury will think if the case gets that far.
For us, we'd consider talking to someone if perhaps the person was at a stop, and a vehicle barrelled into him/her, causing extensive property damage. Again, facts to consider - abrupt stop? other cars pulled over?
2)Gather information from various sites about the weather details the date of the incident. Did the wreck happen after sundown, black ice, with forecast of ice and snow? Was the wreck two days later after snow melt and refreeze? NOAA and other sites will explain the conditions.
Educate yourself on the road where the incident happened: I285 in Atlanta was for the most part problem free after day 3. When a wreck occurred, I can almost predict it was driver error (speeding, lane changes). One road was, however, nearly impassable and I'd want to investigate to make sure the condition was as stated.
3)From a fault standpoint- My gut feeling is that if the incident happened on a road that most knew was tough to drive on, or nearly impassable we decide we can't help. If it's day 2 or 3, clear skies, no obstructions, we talk a bit more.
All of this of course presumes some serious injury happens.
4)Next: The reality is that insurance companies have been dealing with risk like this for more than 50 years. If the claim is questionable, it either won't get paid at all, or a minimal offer is made. In my experience, a real case of wrong doing never sees a lawsuit filing, much less jury selection.
If you agree or disagree, let me know.
