Swift Currie attorneys have attained significant victories and other achievements on behalf of our clients. Below is a list of representative cases that highlight the depth and breadth of our experience.
Spoliation of evidence sanction requires notice of “contemplated or pending litigation”
With turmoil in the area of the spoliation of evidence field, given a series of “bad fact” appeals, the Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to consider the standard under which spoliation sanctions could be initiated. Plaintiff Silman was seriously injured when a deck on a rental house owned by the Defendant collapsed.
Hotel Entitled to Summary Judgment in Apparent Suicide of Guest
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the ruling of Fulton Superior Court Judge John Goger who granted in part and denied in part the hotel defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which plaintiff’s decedent either committed suicide by jumping out the seventh floor window of his room or accidentally fell out of the window of his room.
Plaintiff's verdict of zero ($0.00) in $22,000,000 product recall products liability claim sustained
Shasta Beverages claimed that its Sun Tea’s total failure and recall, measured by $2,000,000 inventory and out of pocket costs and $20,000,000 in commercial loss of profits, warranted some $ verdict. The jury found (after a four-week jury trial) a technical warranty violation by the Defendant Tetley Tea, but also found that Defendant had successfully offered a complete defense to any causation or damages.
Anti-SLAPP statute bars claims based on speech, even in a commercial context
The Fulton County school board hired the defendants to consult and assist with the implementation of computer software for the school district. The consultants made statements critical of the technology department, which the plaintiff managed. Plaintiff sued the consultants for defamation.
Summary Judgment for Defendants/Parental Guardians Affirmed in Child Molestation Case
The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the Defendants in a case in which the Plaintiffs had sued the Defendants for negligence allegedly resulting in the sexual molestation of Plaintiffs’ five year old son by the 13-year-old boy for whom the Defendants were acting as parental guardians.