Under the law, economic damages refer to payments to a plaintiff to compensate them for quantifiable monetary losses. These damages typically include medical expenses, pay stubs, and repair bills. Non-economic or non-monetary damages often called general damages, include subjective losses that are harder to quantify. Common examples include pain and suffering damages, payments for emotional distress, and loss of companionship or consortium.

Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are designed to punish and deter the defendant. Courts rarely award these damages, and they are available in a narrow set of circumstances. Under Tennessee Statute § 29-39-104(a)(1) (2014), punitive damages are only applicable when a plaintiff establishes by “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently, or recklessly.” The statute provides caps on the number of punitive damages a plaintiff can recover. However, there are certain exceptions to the cap, including;

• When the defendant had specific intent to inflict injury and the intentional conduct injured the plaintiff;
• When the defendant intentionally concealed, falsified, or destroyed records;
• If the defendant was under the influence of non-prescription alcohol, drugs, or intoxicants that resulted in substantial impairment and caused the death of the victim; and
• If the defendant’s conduct results in the defendant being convicted of a felony, that act caused the victim’s demise.

For instance, a Tennessee news publication recently reported that a man faces multiple charges, including vehicular homicide, after an Antioch crash. According to reports, a 44-year old Escalade driver was driving at a high rate and passing vehicles when he veered off the roadway. The driver tried to overcorrect and ended up slamming into an SUV in the opposite lane. Emergency responders transported the SUV driver to the hospital; however, the passenger died at the accident scene. Officers explained that the 44-year-old driver showed signs of impairment. In cases like this, the family members may pursue punitive damages against the negligent and reckless driver.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Car Accident in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died due to another’s negligence, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The firm consistently provides high-quality legal representation to those who have suffered injuries in Tennessee. Attorney Hartsoe has decades of experience successfully representing accident victims in their claims stemming from Tennessee car accidents, defective products, premises liability, and medical malpractice. Through his diligence and experience, he has secured significant amounts of compensation for injury victims and their loved ones. Contact Knoxville car accident lawyer Mark Hartsoe at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your rights and remedies.

Tennessee good Samaritan law protects those giving aid in an emergency without financial gain and so long as they act in good faith. Good faith generally includes situations where a person holds a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of situations requires them to render aid or care. The law does not define precisely what constitutes an “emergency.” However, in most cases, life-threatening situations fall under that umbrella. The law applies to the general public and certain medical providers providing emergency care at an accident scene.

Good Samaritans often put themselves in precarious positions to provide care, safety, and rescue to those in imminent danger. In some situations, these helpers can sustain serious injuries or even death in their effort to aid another. For instance, national news reports described a tragic accident involving a Tennessee good Samaritan. According to reports, the 22-year-old man was on his way to church when he stopped to help a driver involved in an accident. The man parked his vehicle and approached the car accident victim. While rendering aid, another driver slammed into the man’s unoccupied vehicle, which was pushed into him. Tragically the man died from his injuries, leaving behind a one-month-old daughter and wife.

In cases like this, the victim’s family may pursue a claim against the driver who slammed into his unoccupied car. However, these cases are very fact-specific, and a successful case requires the assistance of an experienced attorney. Moreover, while the law protects good Samaritans from negligence, there are situations where they can be held liable, such as if they acted with gross negligence. Gross negligence generally includes situations where a person knowingly acts with a willful disregard for another’s safety.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Tennessee Accident?

If you or someone you love has suffered serious injuries or died in a Tennessee car accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The personal injury lawyers at the firm have extensive experience successfully handling complex Tennessee cases. Our firm represents clients in cases stemming from Tennessee car and other motor vehicle collisions, premises liability, medical malpractice, nursing home negligence, product liability, and wrongful death. Attorney Hartsoe understands the life-changing impact these accidents can have on a person and their family. As such, he works to ensure that his clients secure the compensation they deserve for their trauma and damages. Compensation in these cases typically includes payments for medical expenses, ongoing treatment, psychological care, lost wages, pain and suffering, and reasonable funeral and burial expenses. Contact injury lawyer Hartsoe at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation.

Tennessee head-on collision lawsuits typically fall under the theory of negligence. As such, the victim must establish that the at-fault party failed to use reasonable care in preventing the accident. Specifically, the claimant must prove that the other party had a duty of care to the victim; they breached the duty of care, and that breach caused the victim’s injuries and damages. While head-on collisions may seem straightforward, at-fault parties often purport theories to avoid liability and pay compensation.

Defendants in Tennessee frontal crashes may blame their actions on inclement weather, road conditions, incorrect traffic signals, or even the victim’s conduct. While the Tennessee law allows claimants to recover even if they hold some fault for the accident, the law bars recovery if the victim was 50% or more responsible for the accident. As such, it is crucial that accident victims consult with an experienced attorney to ensure that they recover the damages the law entitles them.

Recovering compensation is critically essential because head-on collisions often result in serious injuries or death. For instance, local news reports described a recent Tennessee head-on collision. According to sources, the overnight accident occurred when a westbound traveler slammed into two eastbound drivers. The head-on collision caused one car to catch on fire, and the wrong-way driver and all three of their occupants died at the collision scene.

Head-on collisions often stem from some act of negligence. The leading causes of a Tennessee head-on car accident are:

• Driver distraction
• Driver impairment
• Unsafe lane changes
• Wrong-way accidents
• Vehicle defects
• Unsafe road conditions

As the above case illustrates, head-on collisions often result in severe and life-threatening injuries. If a victim survives an accident, they are often left with life-long injuries and hefty medical expenses. Some common injuries include:

• Traumatic brain injuries
• Spinal cord damage
• Paralysis
• Broken bones
• Internal bleeding
• Lacerations
• Disfigurement

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Tennessee Car Accident

If you or someone you know has suffered serious injuries or died in a Tennessee auto accident, contact a Knoxville injury attorney at the Hartsoe Law Firm. Attorney Mark Hartsoe has extensive experience practicing law in Tennessee and has successfully represented accident victims in their claims for damages. The firm handles Tennessee accident cases involving motor vehicles, wrongful death, premises liability, slip and falls, inadequate security, dog bites, injuries to children, product liability, food-borne illnesses, birth injuries, and elder abuse. Mr. Hartsoe provides his clients with individualized attention, prioritizing their concerns and recovery. He has recovered significant amounts of compensation on behalf of Tennessee injury victims. Compensation in these cases typically includes payments for medical expenses, ongoing treatment, lost wages and benefits, pain and suffering, and more. Contact the office at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation with an attorney on our team.

Tennessee pile-up accidents typically occur on moderate to high-speed roadways, like highways and freeways. After an initial collision, the vehicles following may be unable to reduce their speed to avoid the initial crash. The subsequent impact may result in a series of impacts that may cause the vehicles to pile upon each other. This differs from a chain-reaction accident which may cause subsequent impacts; however, those impacts may cause vehicles to change directions.

Pile-up accidents can result from various negligent and reckless conduct. Some common causes of Tennessee multiple impact collisions include driver distraction, recklessness, fatigue, impairment, and general carelessness. This conduct can have devastating and costly consequences to anyone in the vicinity of the incident.

For instance, a Tennessee news report recently described a pile-up wreck involving four vehicles. According to sources, an abrupt traffic slowdown caused vehicles to slam into each other in a series of rear-end impacts. The first impact occurred when a Dodge SUV slammed into a Nissan van. The Nissan then crashed into a Ford SUV, propelling the SUV into a tractor-trailer. The Nissan and Ford drivers suffered injuries, and one person was life-flighted to a hospital.

While details of every car accident are important because of the state’s comparative negligence laws, the details are critical in Tennessee’s personal injury and wrongful death claims. Tennessee follows the theory of modified comparative negligence. Under this scheme, a plaintiff can recover if they were partially responsible for the accident; however, recovery is only possible if they were 49% or less at fault for their injuries. The law bars a plaintiff’s recovery if a fact-finder concludes that they were more than 50% at fault for their injuries. A Tennessee accident attorney can assist a victim in establishing that another party was negligent and that negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries and property damage. Further, a lawyer can ensure that the court appropriately attributes liability.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Car Accident in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered serious injuries in a Tennessee car accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. Attorney Mark Hartsoe has over 35 years of legal experience and has been repeatedly selected as a Mid-South Super Lawyer. The firm handles Tennessee injury claims involving motor vehicle accidents, wrongful death, premises liability, slip-and-falls, dog bites, injuries to children, fire and burn incidents, boating accidents, airplane accidents, product liability, nursing home abuse, product liability, and lead poisoning. He provides every client with individualized attention, ensuring that they effectively pursue the compensation that they deserve. Contact our Knoxville personal injury law firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your legal matter.

In this case, the inquiry focuses on whether the City maintains immunity through the GTLA. Generally, local governmental entities are immune from Tennessee injury lawsuits, except in cases defined by statute or explicitly permitted by the General Assembly. The dispute at issue arises from section 29-20-203, which removes immunity for injuries resulting from a “defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition” of roadways owned and controlled by the governmental entity. However, plaintiffs asserting this exception must prove that the defendant had “actual or constructive” knowledge of the condition.

In this case, the plaintiffs presented evidence of a work order that shows that the trench at issue was inspected a day before the accident and that the City determined that it needed to be replaced. However, the City argued that regardless of the work order, the plaintiffs did not present any other evidence that the road was defective or dangerous. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that although they did not present opposing affidavits to the City’s motion for summary judgment, procedural rules do not demand this. Instead, when responding, the plaintiffs must present evidence that could lead a trier of fact to find in their favor.

Here, the plaintiffs presented the work order to establish that the trench was dangerous and would be replaced. As such, the work order could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find that the defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that the road or trench was dangerous, defective, or unsafe. The defendants further argued that the integrity of the trench does not show that they were on notice that the road was also dangerous. However, the appeals Court found that it raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City should have known the road was dangerous. Ultimately, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs.

Have You Suffered Serious Injuries in a Tennessee Accident?

If you or someone you love has suffered serious injuries in a Tennessee accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. Attorney Hartsoe has extensive experience successfully representing injury victims and their loved ones in their claims stemming from Tennessee motor vehicle accidents, premises liability claims, product liability lawsuits, incidents of medical malpractice, and wrongful death lawsuits. Attorney Hartsoe represents clients with compassion, dedication, and respect, ensuring that they recover the compensation that they deserve. Contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011, to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your Tennessee accident case.

While 2020 saw a .3% decrease in accidents, there has been a nearly 11% increase in Tennessee crashes from 2020 to 2021. According to data, the summer months, specifically July and August, show the highest rate of crashes. The majority of accidents involve a senior driver between the ages of 65 and 99 years old. Further, other leading causes of accidents in the state include drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs and distracted drivers. Moreover, an overwhelming number of Tennessee car accidents involve unbelted occupants.

It is no surprise that these accidents can have a devastating toll on accident victims and their families. Accident victims are often left with significant medical bills related to the incident. At the same time, being unable to work during the recovery process makes it even harder to cover these expenses. While insurance may cover some costs, the coverage rarely covers the extent of an accident victim’s damages. As such, it is critical that Tennessee car accident survivors and their loved ones recoup the compensation they deserve.

Tennessee maintains a series of statutes that may pose challenges to victims wishing to recover damages after an accident. A critical statute is the Tennessee damages cap for non-economic damages. Non-economic damages typically refer to subjective non-monetary losses such as emotional distress, inconvenience, and pain and suffering. The Tennessee legislature placed a $750,000 cap for non-economic damages. However, accidents involving severe burns, amputation, wrongful death of a minor child’s parent, and paralysis related to spinal cord injuries have a slightly higher cap at $1 million.

Further, unlike many other states that maintain a two-year statute of limitations, Tennessee requires that plaintiffs file their claims within one year of the injury giving rise to the claim. Additionally, the state has a series of restrictions when a claim involves the negligence of the state government or its employees. In these situations, the claimants still have one year to file their claims. However, it is essential to note that claimants who receive an automatic denial of compensation have ninety days to appeal their claims.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Car Accident in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries in a Tennessee car accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm for assistance. Attorney Hartsoe is a premier Tennessee injury attorney and has received many accolades for his service and representation of his clients across the state. The law firm handles claims stemming from Tennessee motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, medical malpractice, elder abuse, and products liability. Mr. Hartsoe maintains an active practice working on behalf of Tennessee injury victims to ensure that they secure the compensation they deserve. To learn more, contact the Knoxville injury law firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation.

What may come as more of a surprise, however, is a situation in which the party moving for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case is his or her own insurance company. This very thing happened in a recent case in which the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance company filed a motion to dismiss his suit as untimely because of an alleged defect in the complaint – even though the complaint itself was timely-filed.

Facts of the Case

In a car accident case that recently made its way to the intermediate court of appeals, the plaintiff was a man who was involved in an automobile accident on December 2, 2017. He filed suit on November 30, 2018, seeking to recover monetary compensation for certain personal injuries that he suffered as a result of the wreck. The plaintiff served a copy of the complaint against his own uninsured motorist insurance carrier, who was an “unnamed defendant” to the suit.

In February 2019, the insurance carrier filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that it did not comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.01(a) insomuch as the plaintiff’s attorney did not sign the e-filed complaint. The insurance company filed another motion to dismiss a few months later, averring that the statute of limitations had run, and that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as untimely. The Circuit Court of Shelby County granted the insurance company’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. The court began by stating that the dispositive issue was whether the plaintiff’s complaint complied with Rule 11.01(a). Under the rule, every pleading is to be signed by at least one attorney of record, in that attorney’s individual name. In signing the pleading, the attorney is effectively making a statement that the pleading is filed in good faith.

Here, the complaint was signed “by permission” by another attorney who was a member of the plaintiff’s attorney’s law firm, rather than by the plaintiff’s attorney himself. Insomuch as there were no allegations that the plaintiff’s attorney did not give the other firm member his permission to sign the complaint, that the plaintiff’s attorney was not familiar with the contents of the complaint, or that the plaintiff’s attorney had not otherwise complied with the requirements of Rule 11, the appellate court found that the signature in question, although signed by another lawyer “by permission,” was sufficient to satisfy the rule.

Car Accident Attorney Offering Free Case Evaluations in Knoxville

If you have questions about your legal rights and need to speak to an east Tennessee car accident attorney, the Hartsoe Law Firm is here to help. To schedule an appointment, use the contact form on this website of call us at (865) 804-1011. As the case discussed above indicates, timeliness can be a crucial component of the process of seeking compensation following an automobile collision caused by another’s negligence, so please do not delay in seeking counsel about your situation.

Tennessee has some of the shortest statutes of limitations in the country when it comes to lawsuits for, for instance, automobile accidents caused by negligence. Generally speaking, a person hurt by another’s negligence in a Knoxville car accident has just one short year to file a claim, or else his or her right to seek compensation is forfeited.

Of course, the one-year filing period is only a guideline. As the case discussed below indicates, there may occasionally be exceptions to the general rule, as circumstances can occasionally extend (or, sometimes, reduce) the limitations period, so it is very important to talk to a lawyer if you or someone in your family has been involved in a motor vehicle collision.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appeals court case, the plaintiff and the defendant were motorists who were involved in a traffic accident in Roane County, Tennessee, in September 2017. In April 2019, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in Davidson County Circuit Court; the case was removed to federal district court and then remanded to circuit court. It was later transferred, by an agreement of the parties concerning proper venue, to Roane County Circuit Court.

The defendant filed an answer in which he pled the statute of limitations as a defense. Thereafter, he filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s case against him on the basis that it was time-barred. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and he appealed.

The Appellate Court’s Opinion

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the lower court’s order denying summary judgment to the defendant. In so holding, the appeals court agreed with the lower tribunal that, under the particular circumstances presented in the case at bar, the plaintiff’s cause of action was not time-barred because of an exception to the one-year statute of limitations that would normally have applied. More specifically, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104(a)(1), the statute of limitations was extended to two years when criminal charges were brought against a person who allegedly caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. Under this exception, the charges must have been brought by a law enforcement officer, a district attorney general, or a grand jury, and the suit in which the extension was to apply was brought by a person injured by the defendant in the criminal case.

Here, the investigating officer (a state trooper) issued a traffic citation to the defendant, citing him for failure to exercise due care. The defendant did not contest the citation and paid a fine to the court in which the citation was issued. Although the defendant argued that the citation did not constitute a “criminal charge or prosecution” within the meaning of the statute, the appellate court disagreed, ruling that, under the exception to Tennessee’s general rule for the statute of limitations in a car accident case, the plaintiff’s claim was timely filed.

Call an East Tennessee Car Accident Lawyer

It is very important to note that the case discussed above hinged on the particular facts involved in the dispute at hand. Any extension of the statute of limitations by a Tennessee court is extremely rare and certainly should not be counted on in a given case. If you or someone in your family has been hurt in a car accident, please do not wait until the “last minute” to seek legal advice. By doing so, you risk having your case dismissed on grounds that it is untimely filed. For an appointment to discuss your situation, call the Hartsoe Law Firm today at (865) 804-1011 or use the contact form on this website.

This may seem like a straightforward question, but it can be a more complex issue than one might imagine. This is especially true in cases involving persons who have passed away.

Determining who has standing to sue on behalf of a person who, had he or she lived, had the right to bring a lawsuit against an allegedly negligent individual can be a matter of statutory law in some cases. It may also be resolved based on prior case law in some situations.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent appellate case was the mother of a young man who was hurt in a multi-vehicle car accident in 2017. The son died the following year, but his death was not related to the accident. The mother, who was driving the car in which the son was riding at the time of the accident, filed suit against the allegedly at-fault defendant driver. According to the styling of her complaint, the mother sued both “individually and as the surviving mother and next of kin” of the deceased son.

The Circuit Court of Fayette County partially dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, agreeing with the defendant that the mother’s commencement of the suit as to the son’s claims was a nullity.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson reversed the circuit court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit. There were two primary issues for the court’s consideration on appeal: 1) whether the trial court’s order constituted a final judgment in light of the mother’s voluntary dismissal of her individual claims and 2) whether the trial court acted in error in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the mother’s claims on behalf of her son.

With regard to the issue of whether the judgment in question was a final, appealable judgment, the court noted that, although the dismissal order may not have been final at the time it was entered, it became a final judgment when the remaining claims (brought by the mother on her own behalf) were dismissed. Because of the mother’s voluntary dismissal of her own claims, the order dismissing her claims on behalf of her son was ripe for appeal, according to the court on appeal.

As to the other issue – the propriety of the trial court’s dismissal of the right of action that had belonged to the son – the court also agreed with the mother. In so holding, the court found that the defendant had mischaracterized the nature of the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant insisted that the action was a nullity because it was “brought in the name of a deceased person,” but the appellate court pointed out that the complaint was not filed in the name of the deceased son. The appellate court then referred to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 20-5-102, -106 for the proposition that the death of a party did not cause the abatement of a cause of action. Under the relevant statutes and prior Tennessee case law, this right of action passed to the decedent’s next of kin, here his mother, the plaintiff.

To Talk to a Car Accident Lawyer in Knoxville

Being involved in a car wreck can be devastating to an individual or family. In addition to the pain and suffering of the injuries sustained in the crash, the stress and financial strain of missed work, medical bills, and other expenses caused by the collision can take a heavy toll. If you have been hurt in a crash and need to talk to an experienced car accident attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. We handle cases throughout the greater Knoxville and east Tennessee areas.

Although the case may not be styled in the case of “insured versus insurer,” the reality is that the insurance company is the real defendant in the case because it is the party who will be paying out any monies awarded to the plaintiff. It is possible that the insurance company may eventually recoup some of these funds from the party that caused the crash, but a full recovery is unlikely.

Therefore, the insurance company effectively stands in the shoes of the at-fault, uninsured motorist during the litigation of the case and may assert the same types of defenses that the motorist could have asserted had he or she been present at trial. Of course, the insurance company may have a few defenses of its own, in addition.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate court case, the plaintiff was a man who was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2008. According to both the plaintiff and a witness to the accident, an unknown driver caused the crash and then left the scene. The plaintiff’s brother was the owner of the car that he was driving at the time of the accident. The brother’s vehicle was covered by a policy of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in the amount of $50,000. In addition, the plaintiff had UM coverage with the defendant insurance company in the amount of $500,000.

The plaintiff settled with the brother’s UM carrier for policy limits. He then filed a “John Doe” lawsuit, seeking to recover UM benefits from the defendant insurer. Settlement negotiations failed, and the case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $275,000. After the entry of judgment upon the jury’s verdict, the plaintiff filed a post-trial motion for prejudgment interest. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and he appealed.

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order denying the plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest, holding that the lower tribunal acted in error in holding that such relief was precluded under the plaintiff’s UM policy. The appellate court then remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to consider whether prejudgment interest was necessary and equitable under the specific facts of the case. In so holding, the court of appeals found that the language of the plaintiff’s UM insurance policy was sufficiently broad to include the prejudgment interest sought by the plaintiff.

Get Advice About a Knoxville Car Accident

If you have been hurt in a wreck caused by a negligent, uninsured, or underinsured motorist and need to talk to a knowledgeable car accident attorney about your case, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 or use the contact form on this website. We will be glad to explain the process of pursuing maximum UM benefits from your insurance company. In the meantime, please remember that you and your insurance company are not “on the same side” of a UM coverage case, so do not give a statement without speaking to an attorney first.

Obviously, the employer has an incentive to deny that the worker was “on the clock,” so to speak. However, simply denying the obvious will not go very far in avoiding a finding of liability for the employer.

In a recent case, both the employer and the employee (a father and son) denied that the employee was still acting on behalf of the employer when he crashed the employer’s car and killed a woman. Instead, they argued that the employee had planned to stop off and pick up a pizza, thereby deviating from his task and interrupting the chain of events that would have resulted in a finding of vicarious liability. Fortunately for the woman’ surviving spouse, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a case recently considered by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville was the surviving spouse of a woman who passed away in a motor vehicle accident in 2015. The plaintiff was also the administrator of the accident victim’s estate. He filed suit against the defendants, the driver of the at-fault vehicle and the owner of the vehicle, asserting claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium. The owner of the vehicle was the father and employer of the driver. The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims against the father, asserting that, although the son had taken the father’s vehicle to run a business errand (to pick up a check) on the day in question, the son was no longer “on duty” at the time of the crash. In support of this contention, the son claimed that he had decided to pick up a pizza to take home to eat with his wife, rather than return to his place of employment with the check that he had picked up earlier in the day.

The Circuit Court for Rutherford County granted summary judgment to the father based on the affidavits and deposition testimony of the father and son on the issue of whether the son was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the crash occurred. The plaintiff appealed, seeking appellate review of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. At the hearing on summary judgment in the court below, the plaintiff argued that the evidence relied upon by the father, namely his testimony and that of his son, was insufficient to refute the prima facie evidence of vicarious liability created by Tenn. Code. Ann. §§ 50-10-311 and -312 insomuch as both the father and the son were interested witnesses. (The statute upon which the plaintiff relied stated that proof of ownership of a vehicle was prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being operated by the owner’s servant (here, the son) within the course and scope of the employment relationship.)

Although the trial court rejected this argument, the court of appeals agreed that resolution of this disputed issue of material fact was best left to the jury, rather than to pre-trial resolution on summary judgment. In so holding, the court acknowledged that the credibility of both the father and the son could be called into question given the circumstances of the case.

Discuss Your Car Accident Case With an Attorney

Losing a loved one is one of the most difficult things that a family can experience. Having to fight an at-fault party’s insurance company for a fair settlement or judgment of a wrongful death claim can compound the loss, but having an effective and hard-working legal advocate on your side can help. To schedule a free consultation to discuss your personal injury or wrongful death case with a seasoned attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 today.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case ultimately considered by the state’s highest court, the original plaintiff was a man who was injured in an automobile accident that was allegedly caused by the negligence of the original defendant. A collection service acting on behalf of the hospital at which the plaintiff had been treated following the accident filed a hospital lien in the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking to collect the full amount of the hospital bill. Notably, the hospital did not file a claim with the plaintiff’s health insurance company. The second plaintiff was injured in a different accident and was treated at a different hospital; however, the same collection service filed a lien for the full amount of her hospital bill; again, the (second) hospital did not file a claim with the second plaintiff’s health insurance company.

The first plaintiff added the second plaintiff to his suit and added the hospitals and collection service as defendants, asserting a claim that the defendants violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-18-101 et seq (hereinafter “the Act”), by filing hospital liens under the Hospital Lien Act for the full, undiscounted amount of the hospitals’ charges rather than billing plaintiffs’ health insurance companies and accepting the negotiated discounted charges. The Circuit Court for Madison County granted the hospitals’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the second plaintiff’s claim for lack of venue. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the first plaintiff’s claim and remanded the second plaintiff’s claim to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under the Act.

Decision of the Court

On further appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Accepting the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true for purposes of the appeal, the state’s high court found that the plaintiffs had stated a cause of action under the Act. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiffs had alleged that they were injured by the hospitals’ unfair and/or deceptive acts and that these actions affected the conduct of trade and/or commerce. By deciding the issue in the plaintiffs’ favor, the Tennessee Supreme Court joined several other jurisdictions across the country that have held that their respective states’ consumer protection laws applied to health care providers when the providers were acting in their business capacities.

Contact a Knoxville Injury Attorney

Having an experienced attorney can make a big difference in the outcome of a personal injury case. To schedule an appointment with a knowledgeable East Tennessee car accident attorney about your specific situation, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and schedule a free consultation. Please note that we are open during the COVID-19 crisis; if you are not comfortable coming into our office for an in-person interview, we will be glad to make alternative arrangements.

Factual Allegations

In a recent case, the plaintiff filed a putative Tennessee state court class action lawsuit against the defendant insurance company, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully charged customers a deductible in accidents in which uninsured motorists were positively identified and solely at fault. The defendant admitted that this scenario did happen to the plaintiff but denied that there had been a policy or practice regarding charging deductible in uninsured motorist cases. The defendant further alleged that it was justified in denying the plaintiff’s claim because he had failed to accurately report that he was using his car to provide ridesharing services.

After the state court lawsuit had been pending for some time, the state court allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a request for punitive damages. This amendment increased the damages at issue to the threshold for removal to federal court, and the defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. At the time of the removal, a motion to compel was pending.

The Court’s Ruling on the Issues

The federal district court granted the defendant’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part. The court denied the defendant’s motion for sanctions against the plaintiff. The court first noted that the state court had issued an oral order in the case, but this order had not been put into writing at the time the case was removed to federal court. Based on the weight of authority in similar cases, the federal court ruled that the state court’s oral ruling was valid and binding on the parties.

With regard to whether the plaintiff had properly responded to the state court’s order, the federal district court granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to answer some particular interrogatories which he had refused to answer; the defendant’s motion regarding the plaintiff’s identification of claims mishandled by the defendant was denied on the basis that the plaintiff had complied with the request by producing a spreadsheet that identified the files (as provided in a sample from the defendant) that the plaintiff contended had been handled. Although the defendant sought claim-specific reasons about its alleged mishandling of the putative class members’ uninsured motorist claims, the court was of the opinion that this was unnecessary. Requiring such detailed discussion of hundreds of individual claims would have undermined the benefit of a class action lawsuit, the very purpose of which is to avoid unnecessary litigation of individual claims that could be resolved on a class wide basis.

Contact an East Tennessee Car Accident Lawyer

Many insurance companies refuse to do the right thing until they are made to do so by a court of law. If you need to talk to a knowledgeable car accident lawyer, please phone the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and ask for a free consultation. We handle a variety of motor vehicle collision cases, including hit and run accidents, distracted driving accidents, and tractor trailer accidents.

Statistically speaking, about three people lose their lives in car crashes in Tennessee each day. Far too many of these accidents are caused by distracted driving, including cell phone and smart phone usage. The problem isn’t just in Tennessee, of course. Nationally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that over 3000 lives are lost annually in the United States because of distracted driving.

Distracted Driving is Extremely Dangerous

A driver can be distracted by many different things – carrying on a heated conversation with a passenger, eating or drinking, and applying cosmetics or engaging in other grooming (such as shaving) are all considered to be forms of distracted driving. However, the usage of electronic devices – especially smart phones, but also navigation systems, radios, and the like – is especially problematic.

Not only does engagement with an electronic device take a driver’s mind from the task at hand, it can also cause him or her to look at the device instead of the road. As a result, a driver can easily “drive blind” for a distance exceeding the length of a football field by just “glancing” at a single text. As any sports fan can tell you, a lot can happen in the length of a football field!

A distracted driver can run a stop sign or red light, causing a collision with someone approaching from a side street. The driver may fail to notice slowing or stopped traffic ahead, resulting in a rear-end collision. The car may begin to drift into the oncoming lane while the driver focuses his or her attention on the phone. Any of these situations can result in serious injuries or death.

What Tennessee Is Doing About Distracted Driving

Beginning earlier this year, the State of Tennessee has begun to crack down on those who endanger themselves and others by paying more attention to their phones than to the road. Under the state’s “Hands-Free Tennessee” law, it is now illegal for a driver to hold a cellular telephone (or other mobile device) with any part of his or her body. Drivers are also prohibited from writing, sending, or reading text messages; reaching for a phone in a way that results in him or her no longer being in a seated driving position; watching videos on cellphones; and/or recording video on a mobile device.

The purpose of the law is to decrease the number of distracted driving crashes in the state. According to promotional materials regarding the new law, Tennessee has the highest rate of distracted driving deaths in the country. Violation of the law is a Class C misdemeanor; fines increase with subsequent offenses, as well as in situations involving crashes or use of a device while in a work or school zone.

Have Questions for a Knoxville Attorney Regarding a Distracted Driving Crash

While the new law is a step in the right direction, it won’t end the epidemic of distracted driving accidents, nor will it provide compensation to those hurt in such accidents. In order to be paid for medical expenses, lost wages, and other losses caused by a distracted driver, an injured individual must file a claim against the responsible party. If you have been hurt by a driver who was on his or her phone, you should talk to a lawyer about seeking fair compensation. To schedule an appointment with an experienced east Tennessee car accident attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 for an appointment. We handle many different types of motor vehicle accident claims, as well as cases involving medical negligence or premises liability.

This can be very upsetting to policyholders who have been loyal customers, always paying their premiums on time and being careful drivers. What can come as an even worse surprise, however, is a customer thinking that he or she has uninsured motorist insurance coverage in place and then finding out – after an accident caused by another motorist – that he or she does not have such coverage.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who had previously lived in Georgia. When they lived in that state, they had $2,000,000 worth of excess uninsured motorist coverage, and their policy included a separate “line item premium” for the excess uninsured motorist coverage. After they moved to Tennessee in 2013, the plaintiff husband approached the defendant insurance broker and insurance agency about obtaining a personal umbrella insurance policy with the same coverage that the couple had in Georgia. According to the husband, he provided a copy of the Georgia policy so that the agent could help him obtain similar coverage in Tennessee.

After paying premiums on the new policy for over two years, the plaintiff wife was involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by another driver. She was injured, and her vehicle was a total loss. Upon learning that, contrary to what they had believed to be the case, the plaintiffs’ Tennessee insurance policy did not have excess uninsured motorist coverage, the plaintiffs filed suit against the responsible party and served a copy of the complaint on the defendants. The Circuit Court for Washington County granted summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-135(b) did not apply to actions against an insurance agent for failure to procure insurance coverage as directed and that, thus, it had been error for the lower court to grant summary judgment to the defendants. While the statute might have created a rebuttable presumption in some cases that a party had accepted coverage under a particular contract if he or she had paid premiums, the court found that this presumption applied only in actions between the parties to an insurance contract – namely, the insured and the insured(s).

Here, the action was between the insured and the insurance agent (and the agency for whom he worked) who failed to procure the insurance coverage requested by the insured. Because the trial court had erred in applying the presumption to the parties at bar, it had likewise erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants.

Talk to a Personal Injury Lawyer

If you need to talk to an experienced east Tennessee car accident lawyer about a collision in which you or a loved one has been injured, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and set up a free consultation. We will be glad to talk to you about your case, explain your legal rights, and help you decide if filing suit is the best course of action under the unique circumstances presented by your case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal court case, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, seeking compensation for personal injuries he allegedly suffered in a rear-end collision involving his van and their tractor-trailer. The defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s treating physician and medical expert, arguing that the doctor did not state in his deposition that he was serving as an expert witness, the doctor did not examine any documents other than the plaintiff’s medical records and was not aware of any facts related to the accident, the doctor’s report lacked a method of reasoning as to his conclusion that the accident at issue caused the injuries complained of by the plaintiff, the doctor did not connect his experience to his conclusions, and/or the doctor did not take into account possible causes of the plaintiff’s injuries other than the accident.

The plaintiff responded that, even if the doctor’s report was “technically deficient,” it would not be appropriate for the court to exclude it because any alleged failure to disclose it was harmless in that it did not prejudice the defendants.

Decision of the Court

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga denied the defendants’ motion to exclude the doctor’s testimony. The court began by acknowledging that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 sets forth the standard for expert testimony: a witness who has “sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may give an opinion if his or her knowledge will help the trier of fact determine a fact in issue and/or better understand the evidence offered by the parties at trial, the expert’s opinion is based on sufficient facts, the proffered testimony is based on reliable methods, and the expert witness has applied the established principles to the appropriate facts. The trial court judge serves as the “gatekeeper” is determining whether a particular expert’s opinion should be admitted at trial.

Here, the court found that the doctor’s report demonstrated that he relied upon information gained during his medical treatment of the plaintiff, along with his education, training, and experience as an orthopedic surgeon, and that there was no indication that he employed an unusual method as a treating physician. Insomuch as his testimony was reliable and would assist the jury in deciding the factual disputes regarding the plaintiff’s injuries, the court found that there was no reason to exclude his expert testimony at trial.

To Talk to a Truck Accident Attorney

Accidents involving big trucks can cause serious personal injuries and even wrongful death. To talk to a lawyer about filing a claim for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by the driver of an 18-wheeler, call the experienced Knoxville truck accident legal team at the Hartsoe Law Firm. You can schedule an appointment by calling us at (865) 804-1011.

When the insured does not cooperate in the way that he or she should, the insurance company may not have a duty to defend or indemnify him or her. Unfortunately, innocent people – namely, those injured by the insured’s negligence – may be negatively affected in such a situation.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case that was heard by the state’s highest court, the plaintiff was an insurance company that filed a declaratory judgment action against the defendant insured, seeking a declaration that it did not have to provide a defense to the insured in a personal injury lawsuit that had been file against him pertaining to an automobile accident or to indemnify him for any damages ultimately awarded to the claimant in that lawsuit. The insured reportedly did not respond, and the trial court entered a default judgment for the insurance company, holding that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the insured under the circumstances.

Two years later, the claimant who had filed the personal injury lawsuit against the insured filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and to intervene in the action on the basis that she was an indispensable party to the action. The trial court denied relief to the claimant. The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that, without the joinder of the claimant, whom it opined was a “necessary party,” the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the case. The insurance company sought further appeal from the state supreme court.

The Court’s Decision on Appeal

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision, holding that only the insurance company and the insured—not the claimant—were necessary parties to the declaratory judgment action. In the court’s opinion, the trial court was able to decide the coverage dispute between the insurance company and its insured with finality and certainty without the claimant’s participation in the action. Notably, the claimant did not yet have a judgment against the insured and, thus, had no right to bring a direct action against the insurance company seeking damages allegedly caused by the insured’s negligence.

Talk to Knoxville Personal Injury Attorney

If you have been involved in a Tennessee car accident, you need a legal professional looking out for your interests every step of the way. Insurance companies know all the tricks in the book when it comes to minimizing payouts or avoiding a finding of liability altogether; after all, it’s their job to make money for their stockholders – not to pay out maximum value on claims filed against their insured. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, our experienced team of east Tennessee legal professionals are here to look out for your interests following a car accident, truck wreck, or motorcycle collision. Call us at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation about your accident.

As the case set forth below explains, it is usually the plaintiff who decides where to file his or her lawsuit, if a choice of forum is a possibility (which it may or may not be, depending upon the circumstances), but there are sometimes exceptions to this general rule. As the court points out, there may also be an exception to the exception.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal appellate case, the original plaintiff was a woman who was reportedly hurt in a car accident. She sought medical treatment from the defendant healthcare provider, who later billed her some $8000 for her treatment. Three different insurance companies paid monies to the defendant towards the cost of the plaintiff’s care: her employer-sponsored medical plan, her husband’s medical plan, and her automobile insurance plan. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, which she filed in Tennessee state court, the defendant overcharged her for her care and commonly did the same to others. The plaintiff’s suit sought to assert the rights of a putative class of individuals who had been subjected to the defendant’s practices.

During discovery, the defendant learned that the plaintiff’s husband’s plan, which had paid $100 towards her $8000 bill, was an ERISA plan. Based on this information, the defendant removed the case from state court to federal court based on the doctrine of “complete preemption” under ERISA. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis agreed with the defendant that this was proper, denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand, and, ultimately, entered a judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The court began its opinion with a perplexing statement: “The only rule without an exception is that every rule has an exception.” According to the court, the general rule is that the plaintiff in a civil action gets to choose the court in which to begin his or her legal action. However, there is an exception to the usual rule: complete preemption under ERISA. It was due to this purported rule (the exception to the general rule) that the federal district court held that the defendant’s removal of the plaintiff’s action was proper.

The appellate court pointed out that there are two forms of ERISA preemption: the more broadly applied express preemption and the more narrowly applied complete preemption. Under the circumstances presented in the case at bar, the plaintiff’s case was only removable by the defendant because the complete preemption doctrine was implicated. According to the court, ERISA did not completely preempt the plaintiff’s claim because she had not alleged a denial of benefits under her husband’s ERISA plan. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s suit was that the hospital had overcharged her for the treatment of her automobile accident related injuries; this was, in the court’s words, “far afield from the ‘heart’ of what ERISA governs: the rights of beneficiaries… against plan administrators.” (In other words, the court ruled that there was an exception to the rule of completed preemption under ERISA, which the defendant had argued was an exception to the usual rule that the plaintiff chooses his or her forum.)

Talk to an East Tennessee Accident Lawyer

If you have questions about seeking payment for medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and suffering due to a motor vehicle collision, experienced car accident attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm can help. For a free consultation, call us now at (865) 804-1011. Please remember that you have a limited amount of time to take legal action and claims not filed within the statute of limitations are usually deemed to be barred. Thus, it is important that you talk to a qualified legal adviser as soon as possible.

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.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Shelby County, Tennessee. The accident happened when the plaintiff’s “bob truck” collided with a bucket truck driven by an employee of the defendant utility company. The plaintiff’s back was injured in the accident, and a doctor who performed an independent medical examination opined that the plaintiff had suffered a herniated disc that might require surgical intervention at some point in the future. If such surgery was required, the doctor stated that the plaintiff’s medical treatment could be between $59,500 and $76,500.

The case was tried to a trial court judge in the Circuit Court for Shelby County. The judge first ruled that the defendant was 70% at fault and the plaintiff was 30% at fault. The court further held that the plaintiff’s total damages were $150,000; after apportioning fault, the court entered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $105,000. The defendant appealed.

Decision of the Court

On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson, the defendant argued that the trial court had made two reversible errors: first, in including some $68,500 in future medical expenses in its assessment of the plaintiff’s damages and, second, in failing to properly consider evidence that the plaintiff had failed to mitigate his damages. After considering the issues and the respective arguments of the parties thereon, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The defendant argued that it was speculative for the trial court to include the cost of future surgery in its damages assessment because the plaintiff had repeatedly testified that he had elected not to have surgery. According to the court of appeals, the testimony of the plaintiff’s physician took the issue out of the realm of speculation, such that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to include the estimated cost of surgery in its damages award.

The appellate court also rejected the defendant’s argument concerning the plaintiff’s alleged failure to mitigate his damages, holding that, given the plaintiff’s previous experience with surgery and his need to support his family financially, he had made “reasonable efforts” to minimize his loss.

Hire a Knoxville Personal Injury Attorney

If you or a member of your family has recently been injured in a car accident, you need to talk to a lawyer about filing a claim for fair compensation. Medical costs, lost earnings, and the like can quickly add up, wreaking financial havoc on those hurt by others’ negligent and careless driving. To set up a free case evaluation with an experienced Knoxville automobile accident attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. We handle cases throughout east Tennessee, including Maryville, Oak Ridge, Gatlinburg, and Rockwood.

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.

Facts of the Case

A recent federal case arose from an accident at a military base in which the plaintiff cadet was injured while driving a vehicle made by the defendant manufacturer. After the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant seeking compensation for his injuries, a dispute arose regarding whether certain documents pertaining to the Army’s investigation of the incident were discoverable in the litigation. According to the Army, which was not a formal party to the suit, two investigations had been conducted: 1) an informal legal investigation aimed at inquiring into the facts and circumstances of the mishap (as well as obtaining and preserving all available evidence for possible later use in litigation or other actions) and 2) a safety investigation whose purpose was to “prevent mishaps.”

The Army produced the complete report of the legal investigation, not subject to any privilege. With regard to the safety investigation, however, the Army produced only a redacted copy of the report, citing the military safety privilege. The defendant filed a motion challenging the Army’s invocation of the safety privilege. A magistrate judge denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant sought further review from the district court judge.

Decision of the Court

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the magistrate judge’s order except as to three particular sentences of the report. The court began by noting that, unlike in a “typical” case involving an issue of privilege, both of the parties already knew what was contained in the unredacted report because someone from the Army had inadvertently sent the defendant a copy of it, and the defendant had produced it to the plaintiff. Thus, the court deemed that the true issue was not whether the safety investigation report could be discovered but, rather, whether it could be used by the parties at trial (particularly by the defendant, who apparently believed that the redacted report was more favorable to it than the report based upon the “legal investigation” of the accident).

In agreeing with most of the magistrate judge’s ruling as to the applicability of the military safety privilege to the document at issue, the court considered addressed several factors, including the relevance of the information at hand, the availability of other evidence, the seriousness of the litigation and issues involved, the government’s role in the litigation, and the possibility that government employees might be rendered timid by the recognition that their secrets were violable.

Contact an Experienced Knoxville Personal Injury Lawyer

At the Hartsoe Law Firm, we handle a wide variety of personal injury claims, including car, truck, and motorcycle accident cases. For a free, no-obligation consultation, call us now at (865) 804-1011 and request an appointment in our Knoxville or Maryville offices. Evidence can become more difficult to obtain with the passage of time, making a case more difficult to win, so talking to a lawyer sooner rather than later is advisable.