Jay obtained summary judgment in federal court on behalf of a property management company in a case involving an allegation that a tenant of an apartment building was bitten by snakes that infested her apartment.  Plaintiff alleged that after being bitten her organs failed and she almost died.  Utilizing a medical expert Jay was able to establish that there was no evidence that a snake could cause the injuries alleged, or that a snake did, in fact, cause the type of injuries alleged by Plaintiff.  Because Plaintiff was not able to establish causation, the court granted summary judgment.  Plaintiff was seeking in excess of $10,000,000.00 for her damages.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

On August 14, 2020, Jay O’Brien obtained summary judgment on behalf of the owner and manager of a mobile home community.  Plaintiff filed a lawsuit after she tripped and fell on two separate occasions over a concrete slab on the property adjacent to her mobile home.  She sustained significant facial injuries, as well as injuries to her neck and back, and claimed in excess of $100,000.00.  Plaintiff contended that Defendants allowed a hazardous condition to exist for many years on the premises despite her complaints and assurances it would be removed.  The Court held that because the concrete slab was not on her property she did not need to walk upon it for ingress to, or egress from, her home.  Despite that, she continued walking over the slab on multiple occasions, including the same areas where she fell.  Because Plaintiff had equal knowledge of any hazardous conditions posed by the concrete slab, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien recently won summary judgment in favor of two national home security companies.  Plaintiff alleged that he suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ negligence and breach of contract after his home was burglarized, resulting in over $50,000.00 worth of personal property being stolen.  The contact included a one-year limitation clause requiring all actions be brought within one year of the complained of incident.  Plaintiff waited almost three years to file his lawsuit.  Pursuant to the one year contractual limitation, the Court granted summary judgment.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay M. O’Brien and Alyssa S. Rogers obtained a defense verdict for their inflatable amusement rental company client after a three day trial in Cobb County.  The case involved a minor that was ejected from an inflatable obstacle course which was rented for a community event.  The minor was seriously injured and the case involved some horrible facts and significant exposure.  Plaintiffs argued that the inflatable rental company failed to follow industry standards and a number of rules and regulations applicable to the inflatable industry, causing the incident and injuries. Jay and Alyssa put together a formidable defense and arguments that helped convince the jury to make the correct decision in a very difficult case.  A defense verdict was obtained after just over an hour of deliberations.  The last demand prior to trial was $1 million.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property owner and management company in a heavily contested slip and fall case.  Plaintiff slipped and fell as he was walking back to his apartment on the only cement walkway that led to his apartment.  Plaintiff alleged that the walkway was covered in mud and water, a problem which he testified that he and others had previously reported to the owner and manager, but that they failed to repair.  Jay argued that there was an alternate route leading to the apartment which should have been considered, and that Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety.  The court granted the summary judgment motion after oral argument.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien obtained a defense verdict in DeKalb County for a limousine company and its driver.  Plaintiff filed his lawsuit alleging injuries to his neck and back as a result of a motor vehicle accident that took place while he was being transported by a limousine from a concert.  Plaintiff alleged that the driver was intoxicated and caused the accident as a result.  Defendants denied liability and disputed damages.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien obtained summary judgment on behalf of his insurance company client in DeKalb County.  Plaintiff in that case filed suit seeking in excess of $6 million, plus punitive damages.  He made allegations of misconduct against the attorneys, law firms, and insurance companies involved in a personal injury action he filed.  In the motion, Jay argued that the insurance company was not the employer of the attorneys, and it was not vicariously liable for the actions of the attorneys that handled the personal injury litigation.  The Court agreed and granted summary judgment.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien obtained summary judgment on behalf of a social service agency that serves low-income individuals in the metro Atlanta area.  Plaintiff filed her lawsuit alleging she was injured while going through a revolving door at the entrance to the building where the defendant was a tenant.  Jay argued in the motion that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff because it did not own, operate or manage the area where Plaintiff alleges she was injured.  The Court agreed, granting the motion.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O'Brien prevailed on a motion to dismiss with prejudice in favor of an employee and the owner/operator of a residential reentry facility, or halfway house, that provides services to inmates that are transitioning from a federal correctional facility back to society.  The Plaintiff, one of the residents assigned to the facility, alleged that he was forced by the Defendants to register as a sex offender with the Fulton County Sheriff’s Department, despite Plaintiff’s understanding that there was no such requirement that he register as a sex offender.  Plaintiff alleged that he eventually registered as a sex offender, but it was determined three weeks later by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, that Plaintiff was not a sex offender, so his name was removed from the list.  Plaintiff alleged that his name continued to be listed on internet sites as a registered sex offender. The initial lawsuit was filed in 2015, and alleged defamation.  The lawsuit was later dismissed without prejudice, but then re-filed within the six month period permitted by the Georgia renewal statute.  After the suit was re-filed, Plaintiff failed to timely serve the corporate defendant with process until 87 days after re-filing his lawsuit; and he never served the employee.  A motion to dismiss was filed on the grounds that the claims were barred by the statute of limitation because Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in perfecting service of process in a timely manner on the Defendants.  After the motion to dismiss was filed, in an effort to avoid the statute of limitation bar, Plaintiff amended his complaint to allege that the defamation was a continuing tort, as he was still listed on the internet as a sex offender, and therefore, the statute had not yet started to run.  The judge agreed with the Defendants and granted the dismissal with prejudice.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien obtained summary judgment in Fulton County in favor of the owner/operators of a residential reentry facility, or halfway house, that provides services to inmates that are transitioning from a federal correctional facility back to society.  One of the residents absconded from the facility two weeks after his placement by the United States Probation Office.  The resident was later involved in a failed kidnap for ransom scheme that ended with two victims being executed, one of which was seven months pregnant.  Wrongful death and estate claims were asserted on behalf of one of the deceased.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were negligent in that they failed to supervise the resident, failed to monitor his location and movement, and failed to prevent him from “escaping” from the facility.  Plaintiffs also alleged punitive damages.  Defendants argued (1) they did not owe a duty to the victim; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause because the intervening criminal act was not foreseeable.  The Court agreed and granted the Defendants’ motion.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay O’Brien and Quinn Bennett obtained a defense verdict in a heavily contested premises liability case on behalf of their two clients, a condominium association and property management company.  Plaintiff alleged that as she was walking through the parking lot at the condominium, she fell into a large hole in front of a storm drain, all the way down to the middle of her chest.  As a result, Plaintiff claimed injuries to her knee and a shoulder rotator cuff tear that ultimately required surgery.  Plaintiff’s medical bills were in excess of $100,000.00.  Plaintiff asked the Jury for her medical bills and an additional $485,000.00 for pain and suffering.  The jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning a defense verdict.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay obtained dismissal on behalf of a major airline in a case where Plaintiff alleged that he was discriminated against based upon his race when he was not allowed to board a flight.  Plaintiff’s complaint sought a declaratory judgment, injunction, compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of 42 USC 1981, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Georgia Civil Rights Act, 1964.  Jay argued that Plaintiff’s 1981 and Title VI claims were barred by the statute of limitation.  While neither federal statute established a time limitation, the settled practice is to adopt a local time limitation as federal law.  In this case, Plaintiff’s claims were determined to be personal injury claims subject to a two year statute of limitation, rather than a six year statute of limitation for contracts.  Therefore, his claims for discrimination under 1981 and Title VI were properly dismissed.  Regarding the state claim for violation of the “Georgia Civil Rights Act of 1964,” there is no such law, and therefore, that claim was dismissed as well.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay obtained summary judgment on behalf of a national retailer in a case involving allegations of a defective product and breach of numerous warranties.  Plaintiff also alleged that he suffered personal injuries as a result of the defective product.  The Court found that the retailer was the product seller, not the manufacturer or designer of the product, and therefore, could not be held liable under a products liability theory.  The Court also found that the retailer did not breach the terms of the contract between the parties, and found that the personal injury claims were barred by the statute of limitation.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major airline in a case alleging that Plaintiff sustained injuries when she fell out of her motorized scooter while riding across an uneven and misaligned area on the jet bridge.  Plaintiff had in excess of $300,000.00 in medical bills.  Plaintiff contended that the area constituted a hazardous condition and the airline provided no warnings.  Jay argued that the Plaintiff had equal knowledge of the condition because she admitted seeing the uneven area prior to the fall, the alleged hazardous condition was open and obvious, and Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety and assumed the risk of injury.  The Court agreed and granted summary judgment.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay obtained dismissal on behalf of a major airline pursuant to the preemption provision of the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”).  The dismissal was affirmed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  See 631 Fed. Appx. 657 (11th Cir. 2015).  Plaintiff contended that she suffered humiliation, embarrassment, fright, and violation by being subjected to verbal abuse, an unknown leaking liquid from the air vent, and her removal from the plane despite having turned off her cell phone.  Plaintiff’s claims related to the airlines “price, route, or service,” which included the airline staff conduct, removal from the plane, and leaking air vent, were expressly preempted under the ADA, and properly dismissed.  The remainder of the claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, training and supervision, and slander were dismissed because they were preempted under the ADA or Plaintiff failed to state a claim.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay obtained dismissal of a major airline in a lawsuit related to the death of a passenger.  The deceased suffered from an aggressive cancer, and was in the United States from Nigeria to receive palliative treatment.  On his way back to Nigeria he boarded a plane with his equipment that he needed as part of his continued treatment.  Plaintiffs allege that the deceased was kicked off the flight and was not allowed to retrieve his life saving equipment.  He checked into a hotel and was found the next morning lethargic and having trouble breathing.  He was taken to the hospital, but died as a result of suffocation due to an accumulation of fluid in his abdomen (his equipment was to drain the fluid from his abdomen).  Jay argued that Plaintiffs’ state law claims were preempted by the Montreal Convention and that the claims were precluded under the Montreal Convention.  The court agreed that the personal injury and wrongful death claims fell within the Montreal Convention, and therefore, required dismissal.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Jay obtained summary judgment on behalf of an airport operator in a case involving allegations that the premises were unsafe due to a defect at the bottom of an escalator leading to the airport train.  Because the Plaintiff worked at the airport and had crossed over the same area numerous times in the past, the Court found that the Plaintiff had equal knowledge of any defective conditions, and therefore, granted summary judgment.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP welcomes two new attorneys to their Atlanta offices. Jay M. O’Brien has joined Carlock, Copeland & Stair LLP as Of Counsel attorney. His litigation practice is focused primarily in General Liability, Premises Liability, and Trucking and Transportation. Jay regularly defends clients in cases involving serious injuries, wrongful death, and property damage. His experience includes matters involving premises liability, toxic torts, aviation, trucking, products liability, pharmaceuticals, construction, and insurance coverage disputes. Prior to joining Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP, Jay worked for a litigation firm in Atlanta defending airlines, major national retailers, trucking companies, and individual defendants in both state and federal courts. Jay regularly practices in all Georgia and Florida State Courts, the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Georgia. Jay earned his Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, from Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in 2005. In law school, he was a member of both the Law Review and Moot Court. Jay is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and The Florida Bar. He earned his B.A. in Economics from Hobart College in 2002. Jay has been named on Georgia Super Lawyers Rising Stars® list for 2014-2017 in the area of personal injury defense, an honor awarded to less than 2.5 percent of Georgia attorneys. Marvis L. Jenkins has joined Carlock, Copeland & Stair LLP as Of Counsel attorney. His practice focuses on General Liability, Commercial Litigation and Transportation law.  Most recently, Marvis has represented a wide variety of clients in the transportation industry including commercial motor vehicle companies and motor carriers, their drivers, specialty haulers, bus lines and motor coaches, automobile dealerships, emergency and non-emergency transportation providers, and their insurers.  Marvis has extensive case management, dispute resolution and writing experience and confidently guides his clients through all phases of litigation. Prior to joining Carlock, Copeland, Marvis worked at another well-respected insurance defense firm in the Atlanta area, after moving from the Birmingham, Alabama area.  In Alabama, Marvis also practiced defense litigation and maintains his license to practice there. He is a member of the Alabama Bar Association, American Bankruptcy Institute, American Bar Association, Birmingham MS Leadership Class of 2013, Defense Research Institute, Georgia Defense Lawyers Association, State Bar of Georgia, North Fulton Bar Association, DeKalb Bar Association, and was formerly treasurer of the Magic City Bar Association. Jenkins received his law degree from Nova Southern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center where he served as a member of the Moot Court Society and staff member of the International Citator Research Journal. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Clemson University. Please click here to read Press Release.

Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP is proud to announce that several of our lawyers have been selected for inclusion on the Georgia Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars® lists for 2018. Super Lawyers recognizes attorneys who have distinguished themselves in their legal practice. Attorneys are chosen for this honor through a nomination process, peer review by practice area and independent research on candidates. The lengthy process identifies lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Meet our Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars®! Super Lawyers®, only five percent of attorneys in the state of Georgia are selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers list: Thomas S. Carlock Wade K. Copeland Eric J. Frisch Johannes S. Kingma D. Gary Lovell, Jr. Rolfe M. Martin David F. Root Douglas W. Smith  Kent T. Stair Fred M. Valz, III Rising Stars® list recognizes the top up-and-coming attorneys in the state – those who are 40 years old or younger, or those who have been practicing for 10 years or less. No more than 2.5 percent of eligible attorneys are named to the Rising Stars list, here are ours: Lauren E. H. Meadows Jay M. O'Brien