When someone is hurt by the negligence of a corporation, the injured person may have multiple options as to where to file his or her claim. Generally speaking, most such claims are filed in a state court in the county in which the accident occurred.

However, in some cases, the plaintiff may prefer that his or her claim be filed in federal court, providing that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and that personal jurisdiction exists.

The defendant in a federal case may resist jurisdiction and/or venue for one reason or another. In such an event, the district court in which the action is initially filed must decide whether it does, in fact, have diversity jurisdiction over the case and whether venue is proper in that particular court.

Continue reading

In a typical Knoxville wrongful death case, a family is seeking compensation for the loss of a loved one whom they believe died as the result of the negligence of an individual, corporation, or governmental entity. Damages may include funeral and burial expenses, medical bills, lost earning capacity of the decedent, and related losses. Under Tennessee law, a family may also seek compensation for the loss of a nonhuman family member, i.e., a pet (or a farm animal), in some situations. However, the amount of monetary damages available in such a case are typically very limited unless the animal itself was very valuable.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in a recent case were the owners of a 10-year-old cat who allegedly died due to the negligence of the defendant veterinarians, who placed a feeding tube into the animal’s trachea rather than her esophagus, thus sending food into her lungs (instead of into her stomach, where it was supposed to go) and causing her to aspirate. The plaintiffs asserted a wrongful death action against the defendants, seeking compensation for their loss.

Many people labor under the mistaken impression that pursuing fair compensation is easier when the defendant in a car accident case is the victim’s own uninsured motorist insurance company. This is simply not true. As the case set forth below illustrates, an insurance company can likely align itself with the negligent motorist that caused the collision – not its own insured – and fight tooth and nail to pay out as little as possible on a claim, even when liability is clear.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was involved in an accident with the defendant driver in Shelby County, Tennessee, in January 2016. The man was joined in the suit by his wife as co-plaintiff. The plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier was served with a copy of the complaint pursuant to the Tennessee Uninsured Motorist Act. The defendants did not dispute that the driver was liable for the accident in question; rather, the primary issues before the court were the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and their impact on the plaintiff’s earning capacity.

Every negligence lawsuit requires that the plaintiff prove certain elements, such as the existence and breach of a legal duty, proximate causation, and damages. However, a Tennessee medical malpractice claim requires even more specific proof, including expert testimony as to the applicable standard of care and the defendant’s alleged deviation therefrom.

In addition, lobbying efforts from medical associations and those who provide liability insurance to physicians and hospitals have resulted in there being additional “hoops” that a plaintiff must jump through in order to file a claim seeking compensation for a doctor or hospital’s mistake.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case filed in the Circuit Court for Green County was a woman who asserted a health care liability action against the defendants, a regional hospital and three doctors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of good faith along with her complaint. After the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed, the plaintiff filed the certificate. The defendants then filed a purported “motion for summary judgment.” In response, the plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal (nonsuit) of her complaint. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and dismissed her complaint without prejudice (which would arguably allow her to refile the action within a certain time period, while still being considered filed within the statute of limitations). The defendants appealed.

Continue reading

When a loved one’s death was caused by negligence – or even reckless or intentional conduct – by another, the family should consult with a Tennessee wrongful death lawyer to discuss the possibility of filing suit against the responsible party.

While a lawsuit cannot bring back the loved one, the monetary damages available through a wrongful death claim can help ease the financial burden caused by the loved one’s death, as well as send a powerful message to others who might be tempted to engage in such dangerous and potentially deadly conduct in the future.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was the mother of a woman who died on a camping trip. The mother filed suit against the defendants, “friends “of the decedent who participated in the camping trip, in the Circuit Court for DeKalb County, alleging that the defendants  had caused the decedent’s death through negligence, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants had conspired to cover up the truth about how the decedent had passed away. The plaintiff sought compensation for the decedent’s wrongful death, as well as for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading

When a state legislature makes substantial modifications to existing medical malpractice law, the supposed intent is always phrased in terms of “addressing skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates.” However, the true reason behind these changes is rarely to save doctors money on their insurance premiums; the real purpose is most likely to increase the profits of the insurance companies who service these types of claims.

In Tennessee, we had a pretty major change in our malpractice laws a few years ago. Whereas before, all it took to file a medical malpractice lawsuit was to type up a basic complaint and file it at the courthouse within the statute of limitations, there are now many more steps to the process – and many more reasons for a medical negligence claim to be dismissed on a technicality before an actual inquiry into whether the medical professional did or did not commit an act of malpractice.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a female customer who filed suit against the defendants, a male massage therapist and his “day spa” employer, seeking compensation for damages associated with the alleged therapist’s sexual assault on her during a massage that she received in April 2014. Included in the plaintiff’s complaint were claims for assault and battery, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment against the therapist and claims for vicarious liability, negligence, and negligent supervision, retention, and training against the employer.

Continue reading

It seems as though more and more Tennesseans are being hurt by acts of medical negligence in Knoxville and the surrounding area each year. Unfortunately, it seems equally true that medical providers, their insurance companies, and related entitles are forever thinking of new and improved ways to attempt to avoid liability for their actions.

If you or a person close to you has been hurt by a medical provider’s negligence, you can be sure that the defendant will take every possible opportunity to avoid being held liable for your injuries. It is consequently very important that you talk to a Tennessee personal injury lawyer about your case as soon as possible so that you will have the best possible chance for success in your case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff had undergone knee replacement surgery and was a patient at a rehabilitation hospital in Memphis. The hospital arranged for the defendant transportation company to drive him to an appointment to see his orthopedic surgeon for followup in December 2014. After the plaintiff was seated in the van, he was asked to sign paperwork that contained exculpatory language purporting to release the transportation company from any and all liability related to its services. After his appointment with the surgeon, the plaintiff fell while attempting to get back into the van.

Continue reading

The plaintiff in a Knoxville car accident case must comply with several important deadlines, if his or her lawsuit against a negligent defendant is to be successful. One of the most important of these deadlines is the statute of limitations – that is, the deadline for filing a claim in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.

However, merely filing a claim is not enough to keep the plaintiff’s case on track for a positive outcome. The plaintiff’s complaint must also be served on the defendant, so that he, she, or it has an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s allegations.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent appellate court case was a woman whose car was allegedly struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant utility company. The accident happened on March 16, 2009, and the plaintiff’s suit was filed on March 12, 2010. Her suit was in the nature of a civil warrant filed in general sessions court by her then-attorney, who served the complaint on the defendant the next day via certified mail. According to the plaintiff’s then-attorney, he made a return-of-service to the clerk’s office after perfecting service on the defendant. The clerk, however, did not docket the case, and the defendant later claimed that the plaintiff’s then-attorney had failed to make the return-of-service as he alleged.

Continue reading

Everyone wants to be paid for his or her work, including medical providers who provide treatment to those who have been injured in an east Tennessee automobile accident. However, there are limitations under the law with regard to what a creditor can and cannot do in his or her collection efforts.

A recent case explored how two Tennessee statutes – the Tennessee Healthcare Liability Act (THL) and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) – applied in a personal injury case in which a healthcare provider attempted to assert a lien.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the original plaintiff was a man who was allegedly injured in a car crash in Madison County, Tennessee, and treated for his injuries at a hospital in Dyer County (where the plaintiff resided). After a “professional account services” provider filed a notice of a hospital lien in his lawsuit against the allegedly negligent driver whose actions injured the plaintiff, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add a second plaintiff (who had been injured in an car accident in Obion County, treated at a hospital in Weakly County, and served with a hospital lien by the same account services provider as the original plaintiff) and to name the defendant account services provider as a party defendant.

Continue reading

In a Knoxville motorcycle accident case, the defendant is typically a motorist whose negligence allegedly caused a collision that led to the cyclist being injured or killed. However, other individuals or businesses can also be named as parties in some motorcycle crash cases.

As in other types of negligence lawsuits, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant breached a legal duty that was owed to him or her and that this breach of duty was the proximate cause of damages complained of by the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a motorcyclist who was killed when his motorcycle collided with a sport utility vehicle in 2016. At the time of the crash, the SUV driver was turning left into a truck stop. The plaintiff filed suit against the driver of the SUV and the owners of the truck stop, seeking to recover damages for her husband’s wrongful death. According to the plaintiff, the truck stop owners were negligent in failing to place a visible sign directing the plaintiff to the proper entrance for passenger vehicles (the SUV driver was turning into an entrance intended for semi-trailer trucks, not passenger vehicles; the plaintiff averred that the truck entrance had a much more limited view of oncoming traffic).

Continue reading

Contact Information