Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog

June 11, 2019

Tennessee Grocery Store’s Motion to Dismiss Shopper’s Recklessness Claim is Denied by Federal Court

Slip and fall accidents are common in grocery stores and supermarkets. In a Knoxville premises liability lawsuit arising from such an incident, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in establishing the defendant’s negligence. In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty of care that was owed to him or her and that he or she was injured as a proximate result.

In some cases, the plaintiff may alternatively allege that the defendant’s conduct rose to the level of recklessness – a more serious allegation that can possibly result in punitive damages. Not surprisingly, most defendants will staunchly resist such an allegation. It is the trial court’s job to determine whether or not the facts of a given case are such that a plaintiff’s recklessness claim may proceed.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant grocery store after he allegedly slipped and fell in water left behind by a floor-cleaning machine. In his complaint for compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was both negligent and reckless. More specifically, he asserted that the defendant had used a machine that left water behind while it operated, that the defendant failed to schedule routine maintenance on its cleaning machines, that the defendant’s conduct created a hazardous condition that was not readily observable by its customers, that the defendant failed to post warnings about the dangers caused by the cleaning machine, that the defendant failed to develop or implement policies to prevent the risk of harm to customers, that the defendant had acted recklessly in failing to properly maintain its fleet of floor cleaners because the defendant routinely failed to replace the “squeegee” parts of the machines (which had a life of two to three months) until they were worn out and leaving water on the floor, and that the defendant was aware of – but consciously disregarded – the risk of injury. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss or strike the plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.

May 30, 2019

Federal District Court Holds that Tennessee Law Does Not Provide for Damages for a Plaintiff’s Own Loss of Household Services

by Mark Hartsoe

In an east Tennessee personal injury lawsuit for damages suffered in an airplane accident, car crash, or truck wreck, the plaintiff may seek compensation for several different elements of damages.

Typically, these damages include past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of earning capacity. If the plaintiff is married, his or her spouse may also seek monetary compensation for loss of consortium.

A recent case explored the distinctions between some of these potential elements of damages.

May 13, 2019

Tennessee Court of Appeals Affirms $105,000 in Motor Vehicle Accident Case

by Mark Hartsoe

In an east Tennessee automobile accident case, an injured party may receive compensation for his or her medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by a negligent driver.

If the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault in the accident, his or her judgment for compensation will be reduced in proportion to his or her fault. For example, if the court finds that the plaintiff’s total damages are $100,000 but he or she was 10% at fault, the net judgment will be $90,000.

It is important to note that this rule only applies to cases in which the plaintiff is found to have been less than 50% at fault; if the plaintiff is 50% or more to blame for an accident, he or she will not recover any compensation.

April 27, 2019

Federal Court Rules that Most of Army’s Report Concerning Accident is Subject to Military Safety Privilege

by Mark Hartsoe

In a Knoxville personal injury lawsuit arising from a car accident or other vehicular collision, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is legally liable for his or her medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages stemming from the accident.

In litigating his or her claim, the plaintiff will likely pursue the discovery of evidence from a variety of sources, including governmental entities. While the law of evidence provides a basic structure for the resolution of these issues, some matters must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A recent, rather unusual case arising from an accident in military vehicle is illustrative.

April 13, 2019

Federal Case for Negligence and Violation of OSHA Regulations Transferred from Ohio to Tennessee

by Mark Hartsoe

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.

March 27, 2019

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Defense Verdict in Case Involving Animal’s Death Due to Veterinarian’s Negligence

by Mark Hartsoe

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.

March 13, 2019

Auto Accident Case is Remanded for New Trial on Damages, Following UM Carrier’s Appeal to Tennessee Court of Appeals

by Mark Hartsoe

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.

February 27, 2019

Plaintiff Was Allowed to Take Voluntary Nonsuit in Medical Malpractice Case, Per Tennessee Court of Appeals

by Mark Hartsoe

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.

February 13, 2019

According to Tennessee Court of Appeals, Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Wrongful Death Case

by Mark Hartsoe

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.

January 30, 2019

Massage Therapist’s Intentional Sexual Battery Was Exempt from Certificate of Good Faith Requirement of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act

by Mark Hartsoe

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.