[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/car-accident-settlement-5250000-after-employer-denies-fault\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/car-accident-settlement-5250000-after-employer-denies-fault\/","headline":"Car Accident Case Settles for $5,250,000 After Employer Denies Fault","name":"Car Accident Case Settles for $5,250,000 After Employer Denies Fault","description":"Butler Kahn recently settled a car accident case for $5,250,000.\u00a0 This case was hard-fought from beginning to end, with the at-fault driver\u2019s employer denying that they had any legal responsibility.\u00a0 This case was unique in that it involved a complicated theory of liability that was dependent upon a jury making numerous factual findings in our… Continue reading Car Accident Case Settles for $5,250,000 After Employer Denies Fault<\/span><\/a>","datePublished":"2025-02-06","dateModified":"2026-04-17","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/author\/butler\/#Person","name":"Jeb Butler","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/author\/butler\/","identifier":9,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a02bc71d91db5fc8645f129c4424ce6ef7af7e24fe54f4a85315a9dd28f317?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a02bc71d91db5fc8645f129c4424ce6ef7af7e24fe54f4a85315a9dd28f317?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Butler Kahn","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Butler-Law-Firm-Logo.png","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Butler-Law-Firm-Logo.png","width":210,"height":93}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/unnamed-5.png","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/unnamed-5.png","height":702,"width":834},"url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/car-accident-settlement-5250000-after-employer-denies-fault\/","video":{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"VideoObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM#VideoObject","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM","name":"Holding a Georgia Employer at Fault for $5,250,000 Intoxicated Driver Car Accident Settlement","description":"In Georgia, an employer can be held liable for an employee's car accident even when the crash occurs after the employee's shift, if the employer directed the employee to perform a special errand outside ordinary commuting. Butler Kahn used that principle to secure a $5.25 million settlement against a Georgia store and the at-fault driver after a single-vehicle crash that left a passenger severely injured.\n\n\ud83d\udcde 678-940-1444 | \ud83c\udf10 butlerfirm.com\n\n--------------------\n\nButler Kahn attorneys Jeb Butler and Matt Kahn break down the $5.25 million settlement they secured for their client, who was a passenger in a single-vehicle crash that occurred at approximately 3:30 a.m. after a closing shift. The case involved two unusual proof challenges: showing that the at-fault driver was intoxicated when neither driver received a breathalyzer at the scene, and showing that the at-fault driver was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the crash happened on the way home from work.\n\nThe crash itself was harrowing. Butler Kahn's client was riding as a passenger when she looked over and saw her boyfriend, who was driving, slumped over the wheel and unresponsive. The vehicle left the road and struck a tree with such force that the impact pinned the passenger inside and the vehicle caught fire. A passing truck driver stopped, pulled the client from the vehicle moments before it exploded, and the entire rescue was captured on the 911 call. The driver, by contrast, ran from the wreck and left the client behind.\n\nProving intoxication was unusually difficult because both drivers were transported to the hospital before any field sobriety or breathalyzer testing could be performed. After litigating to obtain the at-fault driver's medical records, Butler Kahn found admissible evidence of intoxication in three places: the driver's own statements to medical providers about being under the influence of multiple substances (admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis), the treating physician's firsthand observation that the patient was intoxicated by an unknown agent, and a urine drug screen showing positive results for multiple substances. Some drug screen evidence had to be excluded because the driver had received fentanyl in the ambulance after the crash, which complicated the timing analysis. The court had not yet ruled on all evidentiary objections when the case settled.\n\nThe course-and-scope question was the heart of the case. Under Georgia law, employers are generally not liable for employee car accidents during ordinary commuting to and from work. But there is a longstanding exception, historically called the \"special errand rule,\" under which an employer can be liable when it directs the employee to perform an errand outside ordinary work duties for the employer's benefit. Butler Kahn established through witness testimony that the store manager had directed the at-fault driver to take a coworker home, and that the store had agreed to provide transportation to and from work as a condition of that coworker's employment. Multiple witnesses overheard the manager give the direction. The defense argued on summary judgment that the driver had deviated so far from the route that the special errand had ended, but the court denied summary judgment and ruled that the course-and-scope question would go to the jury.\n\nThe combination of admissible intoxication evidence and the surviving course-and-scope theory brought the at-fault driver's insurance and the store's separate insurance into play, ultimately producing the $5.25 million settlement.\n\nRead the full case breakdown: https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/5250000-settlement-in-car-accident-case\/\n\nDisclaimer:\nWe are not your lawyer. All content provided is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Any verdicts, settlements, or other case results discussed are not guaranteed and must be evaluated on their own merits. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.\n\nLEARN MORE AT:\n\nWebsite: https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/\n\nLocations:\nAtlanta, Georgia: https:\/\/maps.app.goo.gl\/UxgV44FRkw4yDgLQA\nLawrenceville, Georgia: https:\/\/maps.app.goo.gl\/gZR2tVfw9gr2V24ZA\nRoswell, Georgia: https:\/\/maps.app.goo.gl\/GPqoTxk49QAy35jH6\nJonesboro, Georgia: https:\/\/maps.app.goo.gl\/QcgWM5R5ii1TnLHt5\n\nFree Guides:\nWhat To Do After a Car Accident: https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/georgia-car-accident-lawyers\/what-to-do-after-an-accident\/\nShould I Hire an Accident Lawyer: https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/atlanta-car-accident-lawyers\/when-needed\/\nGeorgia Wrongful Death Statute Explained: https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/georgia-wrongful-death-statute-explained\/\n\nFOLLOW US ON SOCIAL:\n\nFacebook: https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/butlerfirmllc\nTwitter: https:\/\/twitter.com\/Butler_Firm\nInstagram: https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/butler_law_firm\/\nLinkedIn: https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/butlerfirm\/","thumbnailUrl":["https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/01EH8v9B4pM\/default.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/01EH8v9B4pM\/mqdefault.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/01EH8v9B4pM\/hqdefault.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/01EH8v9B4pM\/sddefault.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/01EH8v9B4pM\/maxresdefault.jpg"],"uploadDate":"2025-02-06T19:01:08+00:00","duration":"PT9M28S","embedUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/01EH8v9B4pM","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCeMYGr94Sf4LpYwIcO3P2Qw#Organization","url":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCeMYGr94Sf4LpYwIcO3P2Qw","name":"Butler Kahn","description":"We help people and families.\n\nOur firm specializes in personal injury and wrongful death cases. We are based in Atlanta, Georgia. We handle cases across Georgia and, for certain types of cases, all across the country.\n\nTOP-QUALITY LEGAL WORK. We do the work that lots of law firms skip. We track down witnesses, dig into the evidence, and prepare intensely for every deposition, trial, and hearing. We take a small number of cases so that we can devote our full attention to the clients we represent.\n\nPERSONAL SERVICE. If you hire us, you get us. You won't get blocked by a receptionist or leave unreturned messages. If you want to speak with your lawyer, you can.\n\nDOING WHAT WE SAY WE'LL DO. Some law firms make big promises at the beginning, then don\u2019t follow through. We shoot straight \u2013 when we tell you something about your case, good or bad, we mean it. No fake promises.\n\nButler Kahn\n10 Lenox Pointe\nAtlanta, GA 30324\n678-940-1444\n","logo":{"url":"https:\/\/yt3.ggpht.com\/NTOsbNEALVOnRbUCg7jUzYGcC4kNKsUTEVHm5TtiTQdLlfFKksLTnmiZG_t6zDG_e4ygtnva=s800-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj","width":800,"height":800,"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM#VideoObject_publisher_logo_ImageObject"}},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM#VideoObject_potentialAction","target":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM&t={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"},"interactionStatistic":[[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM#VideoObject_interactionStatistic_WatchAction","interactionType":{"@type":"WatchAction"},"userInteractionCount":176}],{"@type":"InteractionCounter","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=01EH8v9B4pM#VideoObject_interactionStatistic_LikeAction","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":4}]},"about":["Car Accident"],"wordCount":740,"articleBody":"Butler Kahn recently settled a car accident case for $5,250,000.\u00a0 This case was hard-fought from beginning to end, with the at-fault driver\u2019s employer denying that they had any legal responsibility.\u00a0 This case was unique in that it involved a complicated theory of liability that was dependent upon a jury making numerous factual findings in our favor.\u00a0 In other words, a jury trial could have gone either way.\u00a0Here\u2019s more about the case.Facts of the WreckThis case arose from a single-car collision into a tree in the early morning hours, but the story began the night before.\u00a0The night before, James Peterson* and Samantha Godfrey worked the closing shift at a local store.\u00a0 After the store closed, the manager told James to drive another employee home.\u00a0 James drove the employee home, but Samantha \u2013 who was dating James \u2013 joined to keep James company.\u00a0\u00a0After dropping the employee off at her home, James and Samantha began their trip home.\u00a0 They took back roads and stopped along the way for a snack and to use the restroom at a gas station.\u00a0 They resumed their journey home along dark, back roads.\u00a0\u00a0At one point, Samantha looked toward James and saw that he was hunched over the wheel of the car.\u00a0 She screamed at him to try to wake him up, but he was out cold.\u00a0 The car left the roadway, collided into a tree, and caught fire. After the collision, Samantha realized that the car was on fire and James had passed out in the driver\u2019s seat.\u00a0 She struggled to open the passenger door and fell to the ground.\u00a0 By that time, James regained consciousness and ran away, leaving Samantha by the burning car.\u00a0 Fortunately, a passing truck driver stopped and found Samantha on the ground next to the car. \u00a0 He pulled her away moments before the car exploded.\u00a0James\u2019 post-collision medical records revealed that he had been under the influence of drugs at the time of the collision. \u00a0 Personal injuries sustained by our clientThe injuries that our client suffered in the collision were serious.\u00a0 The force of the impact fractured Samantha\u2019s pelvis, femur, and tibia, and broke seven ribs.\u00a0 Samantha had to have surgery to repair all of the broken bones in her leg. Samantha\u2019s foot was also seriously burned while she was stuck in the fiery car. \u00a0 The burns required a skin graft, which was painful and left permanent scarring.\u00a0 Proving that the company was responsible\u00a0Generally, when someone is either on the way to or from work, they are not within the scope of their employment.\u00a0 However, when an employee is on the way home from performing some special errand on behalf of his employer, the employer can be legally responsible.\u00a0In our case, the evidence showed that the store manager had directed James to take another employee home.\u00a0 Through witness testimony, we were able to prove that the manager told James to drive the other employee home and that the company had promised the other employee that they would arrange transportation for her to and from work.\u00a0The company argued that it was not responsible for a few different reasons.\u00a0 First, the company argued that it received no benefit from James driving the other employee home.\u00a0 Second, the company argued that, even if James had been driving for the company, he wasn\u2019t at the time of the crash because he had gone so far out of the way.\u00a0 Third, the company argued that if James was an employee, Samantha was too, and her claims were barred by the Workers Compensation Exclusion.\u00a0Ultimately, the Court found that the jury was responsible for deciding the answers to each of those defenses.\u00a0SettlementAlthough we were able to neutralize some of the obstacles, we still faced a significant risk that a jury would find that James was not acting on behalf of the store or that Samantha\u2019s claim was a co-employee who could not recover.\u00a0 On the other hand, the company faced the potential for a large verdict based on the serious injuries caused by an intoxicated driver.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The case was placed on a trial calendar, which provided the parties with an opportunity to mediate the case.\u00a0 Both parties realized the risks of placing the case before the jury.\u00a0 The case ended with a settlement of $5,250,000, and we had a happy client.\u00a0\u00a0* The names of those involved have been changed to preserve confidentiality.\u00a0"},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Blog","item":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/#breadcrumbitem"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Car Accident Case Settles for $5,250,000 After Employer Denies Fault","item":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/car-accident-settlement-5250000-after-employer-denies-fault\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]