In common parlance, “damages” means physical harm to a person or thing, thus impairing its value and/or usual function. If a car sustains “damages” in a collision, we think of this as meaning that there was an impact to the car that make it less useful (a smashed headlight and a damaged radiator due to a head-on collision, for instance) or less valuable (a $50,000 SUV may be worth only $10,000 in its post-crash condition).

However, there is a separate definition in the law for the word “damages,” namely the amount of money claimed or awarded in compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. This means that, when a jury awards “damages” of a certain amount, the court then directs the party against whom the award was made to pay that amount of money to the injured individual. It is important to note that, sometimes, there are limitations on the amount of money “damages” that can be awarded to the plaintiff in an East Tennessee personal injury case. One example is discussed in the case below.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case appealed to the state’s highest court was a woman who underwent a laparoscopic procedure in July 2005 to remove one of her kidneys after a potentially malignant mass was discovered. A certain medical device was used by the defendant surgeon during the procedure. During a gallbladder removal surgery performed by a different doctor in 2013, it was discovered that a portion of the device had been left inside the patient’s body some eight years earlier. Thereafter, the plaintiff (joined in the suit by her husband, who asserted a loss of consortium claim) filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, seeking compensation against the defendant surgeon (who performed the laparoscopic procedure in 2005), as well as several other medical providers, some of whom the plaintiffs alleged should have discovered the device inside the female plaintiff’s body during the course of their treatment of her for various conditions over the years.

The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the female plaintiff for $2,000,000 for pain and suffering plus $2,000,000 for loss of enjoyment of life and $500,000 to the male plaintiff for loss of consortium. Applying the statutory noneconomic damages cap codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-39-102, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs a total of $1,250,000 ($750,000 to the female plaintiff and $500,000 to the male plaintiff). The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court’s Decision in the Case

The Supreme Court of Tennessee accepted appellate review in order to decide whether Tennessee’s noneconomic damages cap applied separately to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim. Reversing the lower courts’ orders, the supreme court ruled that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-39-102 allowed both plaintiffs to recover only $750,000 in the aggregate for noneconomic damages. Thus, although the plaintiffs won their case in the trial court, the amount of money damages that they will ultimately receive will be limited under Tennessee law.

Interestingly, the supreme court deemed the plaintiffs’ arguments about the constitutionality of the statute in question to have been waived, insomuch as they were not properly presented below. It is possible that, at some future point, the court might revisit the issue of the statute’s constitutionality, which arguably could fail to pass constitutional muster with regards to the Takings Doctrine and/or other provisions.

Contact a Lawyer About an East Tennessee Personal Injury Case

If you need to speak to an experienced east Tennessee injury and wrongful death attorney about a medical malpractice claim, car wreck case, premises liability action, or other personal injury suit, please use the contact form on this website to contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. Alternatively, you can call us at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation in our offices or, if you prefer, in your home.

A personal injury case can take many forms, such as a car accident suit, a medical malpractice claim, a product liability case, or a premises liability lawsuit. These are “typical” negligence cases, but sometimes other, more unusual circumstances can also give rise to a claim for negligence.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a personal injury case filed in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County was a woman who was allegedly injured when a headstone fell over onto her hand while she was setting some flowers on her brother’s grave. According to the plaintiff, the accident was severe enough to fracture several bones in her hand and necessitate her having surgery. The injuries also caused her a great deal of pain and suffering. The plaintiff’s complaint against the defendant monument company asserted that the defendant had been negligent in the construction, placement, and maintenance of her brother’s gravestone. The complaint further alleged that the defendant had either created the unsafe condition that led to her injuries or should have been aware of the unsafe condition.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that the plaintiff’s injury was not foreseeable and that there was no evidence that the defendant’s conduct was to blame for the accident. The trial court found in the defendant’s favor and granted summary judgment to the defendant.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In the appellate court’s view, the plaintiff had pointed to certain facts and evidence in the record that could allow a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant’s negligence in installing the headstone was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and to resolve the case in her favor. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiff had provided evidence to the effect that the putty that the defendant had used during its installation of the gravestone may not have been appropriate under the circumstances.

The court noted that its opinion was limited to the portion of the plaintiff’s case that related to the defendant’s alleged negligence in installing the monument and not to any other allegations concerning the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.

To Talk to a Lawyer About a Personal Injury Case

There seems to be no shortage of ways in which one person can be hurt by another’s negligence. If you have been hurt because someone else was careless, you owe it to yourself to talk to an experienced personal injury attorney. For an appointment with the Hartsoe Law Firm, call us at (865) 804-1011 or use the “contact us” section of this website. There is no charge to meet with us, and most cases are accepted on a contingency fee (we get paid when your case settles or a judgment is entered, rather than upfront).

Accordingly, it is vitally important to talk to a lawyer as soon as you suspect that you or a family member has been harmed due to a healthcare professional’s error. Waiting too long can seriously jeopardize the outcome of your case, as untimely claims will be dismissed by the court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate case, the plaintiff was the next of kin of a woman who died of acute respiratory failure after being a patient at the defendant hospital in January 2018. The plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Davidson County in May 2019, asserting a claim for healthcare liability pursuant to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 29-26-102 et seq. In his complaint, the plaintiff averred that the defendant was “both directly and vicariously liable” under the principles of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents. A copy of the complaint was mailed to the defendant on December 21, 2018, along with the notice required under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint against it, arguing that a principal could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of an employee or agent when the plaintiff’s direct claims against such employee or agent were procedurally barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville reversed the trial court’s decision. Phrasing the issue as whether the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims, the court turned to the provisions of the Act for instruction. Noting that Act specifically stated that the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to an action asserting a claim for health care liability were not to be shortened or lengthened thereunder, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s case as untimely.

In the court’s view, following the common law rule relied upon by the defendant would have effectively shortened the time for pre-suit resolution of claims for vicarious liability cases brought solely against a principal. Under the “trap” advocated by the defendant, a plaintiff who chose to sue a principal rather than its agents would have to give the principal pre-suit notice at least 60 days prior to the date upon which the statute of limitations applicable to the agent would expire, if the plaintiff was to benefit from the 120-day extension set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c). Thus, the court concluded that, in health care liability cases in which a plaintiff chooses to sue only the principal, the provisions of the Act regarding pre-suit notice prevailed over any previously declared common law exception with respect to the tolling of the statute of limitations.

Schedule a Free Consultation with an Injury Attorney in East Tennessee

A medical malpractice case in east Tennessee requires special handling and care. Because of the many procedural requirements in such cases, it is very important that a person who has been the victim of medical negligence or a family who has lost a loved one due to a medical professional’s mistake speak with an attorney as soon as possible. To schedule an appointment with the Hartsoe Law Firm to discuss your Knoxville or Maryville medical negligence case, call us at (865) 804-1011. If you prefer, you can contact us through the “contact us” section of this website.

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.

As the case develops toward trial, it is possible that some defendants and/or legal theories may be eliminated through a process known as “summary judgment.” When a court grants summary judgment, it is essentially saying that a particular defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on one or more of the claims asserted by the plaintiff. Summary judgment does not necessarily end the plaintiff’s case, however, as there may still be viable legal theories remaining against a defendant (or multiple defendants) that have not been dismissed from the case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal district court case, the plaintiffs sought to assert a product liability action against the defendants, whom they alleged negligently designed and/or manufactured a heated throw blanket that allegedly caused a fire in the plaintiffs’ home in 2018, resulting in both personal injuries and property damage. As evidence of their claim, the plaintiffs submitted video surveillance footage showing, first, a bright flash from an area around the blanket’s control, and, over five hours later, additional flashes, smoke, and, eventually, a fire. The manufacturing defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs had abused the blanket by violating at least four warnings contained in the user manual that came with the product. The plaintiffs, in turn, insisted that the fire resulted from a defective control unit, not from any actions or inactions on their part. The manufacturing defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs opposed.

The District Court’s Decision

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied the manufacturing defendant’s motion for summary judgment. After viewing the evidence, facts, and inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (as the party opposing the motion), the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the blanket’s control was unreasonably dangerous or defective. The court based its opinion on various affidavits and deposition testimony, experts’ opinions, and physical evidence. This included both the surveillance video and the fire investigation report.

In the court’s opinion, there was “more than enough” evidence to establish a prima facie product liability claim. The court further opined that, based on the evidence submitted by the parties regarding summary judgment, a reasonable jury could determine that the defect or danger existed when the blanket left the manufacturing defendant’s control, rather than, as alleged by the manufacturing defendant, after the plaintiffs were in possession of it.

Talk to an East Tennessee Product Liability Lawyer

If you or a member of your family has been hurt by a product that you believe may have been negligently designed, manufactured, or marketed, you need to talk to an attorney who can explain your legal rights. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, we serve clients in and around Knoxville, Maryville, and elsewhere in east Tennessee as they go about holding the makers and sellers of unreasonably dangerous or defect products liable for the injuries they have inflicted. Call us at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation of your claim. Keep in mind that there are time limits that can restrict the time for filing a product liability claim, so please do not jeopardize your case by putting off this important phone call.

Unfortunately, evidence of the proper owner’s negligence can disappear quickly. The accident scene may change when an employee cleans up the spill in which the customer slipped and fell. Video surveillance may be “recorded over” if not preserved. Even information about eyewitnesses may be lost over time.

Because of the compelling need to avoid spoliation of the evidence in a slip and fall case, it is important that the plaintiff seek legal counsel in a timely fashion. This can also help avoid the running of the statute of limitations, which is quite short for such matters in Tennessee.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent appellate court case arising in Shelby County was a woman who slipped in fell in standing water in a restroom on the defendant landowner’s property. The case was originally filed in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County and resulted in judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed the case to the Circuit Court of Shelby County. The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The circuit court had sided with the defendant on its summary judgment motion after finding that the plaintiff had actual notice of the wet floor before she attempted to traverse it and that, therefore, she could not establish the element of duty in her negligence action against the defendant. The appeals court, however, concluded that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the plaintiff had been presented with a reasonable alternative to using the flooded restroom under the circumstances. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiff had asserted that her need to use the restroom was “urgent.” In the court’s view, it was up to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff should have sought out an alternative restroom or whether she was held “captive” by the flooded restroom that she chose to use and in which she slipped and fell, causing injuries to her person.

Speak to a Premises Liability Attorney in Knoxville

Cases alleging that a slip and fall accident was the result of a business owner’s negligence can be difficult to win. This does not mean that such cases are impossible, only that it is very important that the injured individual seek an attorney’s services as soon as possible so that evidence of the landowner’s negligence may be property preserved. Otherwise, the proof needed in order to prevail in the case can easily slip away, making it extremely difficult for the plaintiff to win at trial. For an appointment to discuss a possible trip and fall case with an attorney experienced in such matters, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 or contact us through this website.

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.

Generally, the argument is that the employee in question acted reasonably under the circumstances presented and that the plaintiff was the one at fault. However, this is not always the government’s strategy.

A recent case against a large county school system was the “exception that proves the rule,” so to speak. In this case, the governmental entity insisted that its employee’s conduct was so egregious as to not be considered negligence, thus removing the case from the statute under which the injured party pursued compensation.

Facts of the Case

In an appellate court case appealed from the Circuit Court for Shelby County, the plaintiff was the parent and next friend of a minor child who received significant injuries to his skull and brain as a result of an incident in which a teacher (an employee of the defendant school system) threw a shot put and hit him in the head during track and field tryouts at a middle school. The plaintiff’s lawsuit sought to recover monetary damages for the child’s injuries, including pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, and medical expenses exceeding $60,000. At trial, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2), claiming that the plaintiff’s negligence claim had failed because the proof showed that the teacher’s actions were intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent and that the defendant school system was thus immune from liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

The trial court denied the motion, eventually entering an order finding that the teacher was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and that he had acted negligently in injuring the student. The court also found that the defendant was vicariously liable for the teacher’s negligence under the Act and that the plaintiffs were entitled to $200,000 in compensatory damages. The defendant appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling. While governmental entities such as the defendant generally enjoy immunity from liability, the case at bar fell squarely within the exception to the rule carved out by the Act. Under the Act, a governmental entity’s immunity is removed for injuries that are proximately caused by the negligent act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. While governmental immunity was not removed for intentional torts such as assault and battery, the court disagreed with the defendant’s argument that the teacher had acted intentionally in injuring the student.

The court so held based on the testimony of the teacher, who took responsibility for the accident but insisted that he did not hurt the child on purpose. Rather, he had made several efforts to avoid harm, such as moving the students back from the area in which he was throwing; ultimately, of course, those efforts had failed, and the child had been hurt. Given the teacher’s lack of experience and training in this particular area, the court found that his efforts were not a gross deviation from the standard of care of a person in his circumstances.

Schedule a Legal Consultation with a Personal Injury Lawyer in East Tennessee

The Hartsoe Law Firm is here to help with wrongful death and personal injury cases throughout the Knoxville and Maryville area. If you have been hurt by another’s negligence in Knox or Blount County (or in the surrounding area), call us at (865) 804-1011 for a free case evaluation.

If a party lacks standing, there is no reason for the case to move forward. The courts are busy enough without entertaining cases that would clearly be a waste of judicial economy.

Of course, opinions can vary on the issue of standing, just as they can on many other issues that arise during the litigation process. Like other decisions involving whether a case should move forward, there is the possibility of an appeal if one party is disgruntled with the trial court’s ruling on standing.

Facts of the Case

In a recent state supreme court case, the plaintiffs included not only several district attorneys general suing in their official capacities on behalf of various political subdivisions of the State of Tennessee but also two unnamed infants (“Baby Doe #1 and Baby Doe #2) who were born in east Tennessee and allegedly suffered neonatal abstinence syndrome because of their mothers’ usage of opioids during pregnancy. Several pharmaceutical companies were named as defendants in the lawsuit, which asserted claims under the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act (codified at Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 29-38-101 to -116) as well as claims based on the defendants’ alleged involvement in “fueling addiction to prescription opioid medications,” which in turn allegedly led to the over-prescription, over-distribution, and diversion of originally legal medications into the illegal street drug market.

The defendants moved for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that the attorneys general lacked standing to sue and that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. The trial court granted the motion, but the intermediate appellate court reversed. This led to an additional appeal to the state’s highest court.

The Court’s Decision

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s decision, holding that, although the attorneys general lacked standing to sue under the Act because they were not included thereunder as parties who could sue, the babies did have standing and had stated a case against the drug companies under the Act. In so holding, the court pointed out that, at the current stage of the litigation, the court had a duty to accept all of the babies’ allegations as true when determining whether they had stated a viable cause of action. Should the matter proceed to a jury trial on remand, the babies would have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendants had participated in the illegal drug market in order for their case to be successful.

Schedule a Legal Consultation

If you have been hurt by a dangerous or defective product, including medical devices and pharmaceutical products, you may have the right to pursue compensation for losses such as pain and suffering, medical expenses, disability, and lost wages. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, we can help you determine the likelihood of success of a case against a particular maker, seller, or marketer of the product that caused your injury. To schedule a free consultation of your Knoxville product liability case, call us at (865) 804-1011 or contact us through 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.

Failure to file the appropriate paperwork in a timely fashion can mean the end of the plaintiff’s case – and his or her chance of receiving fair compensation for a serious injury. Thus, it is very important that the injured person consult an east Tennessee personal injury attorney who can help him or her comply with all of the procedural requirements of the case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were a married couple who sought to recover monetary compensation for the alleged negligence of the defendants, an advanced practice nurse and a medical clinic. The plaintiffs began their case by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Shelby County on February 24, 2017. Summons were issued to the defendants at the time of the filing of the plaintiff’s suit, but they were returned without having been served. On September 5, 2017, alias summons were issued. These were served on the defendants on December 6, 2017, which was some 92 days after the complaint had been filed.

On November 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that the suit had been untimely. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely upon the original date that their suit was filed to toll the statute of limitations because the alias summons had not been served upon the defendants within 90 days of its issuance as is generally required under Tennessee law. The trial court agreed and ruled in the defendants’ favor. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Appeals’ Court Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson vacated the lower court’s order in the defendants’ favor and remanded the case with instructions to rule upon a motion filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court seeking an enlargement of time pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. In so doing, the appellate court noted that the lower tribunal had stated that it was “unaware” of any basis for expanding the time for service of process of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant; however, the appellate court pointed out that there had been a motion pending before the lower court seeking an enlargement of time under the rule when it granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. According to the reviewing court, Rule 6.02 “expressly contemplate[d]” a request for an enlargement of time “even after the expiration of the specified period” that an act would otherwise have been permitted if the moving party’s failure to act in a timely fashion was due to excusable neglect.

The appellate court acknowledged that there were other issues raised on appeal (such as whether the time for effecting service had actually elapsed and whether the defendants were entitled to rely on the service of process defense) but opined that, because the trial court’s written order contained no specific rulings on these issues, they were not appropriate for consideration on appeal. On remand, the trial court was directed to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time.

Speak to an Attorney About an Injury Case

The timely filing of a claim – and the effective service of process of the plaintiff’s complaint – are crucial in an east Tennessee personal injury case. If you have been hurt by another’s negligence or careless, you need to seek legal counsel as soon as possible so that the necessary court filings can be processed in a timely fashion. For an appointment to discuss your case with a helpful medical malpractice attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011.

Securing service of process and answering discovery requests is also required, and many cases require the plaintiff to respond to various motions, including summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of the case. Of course, each case is unique and must be addressed on its own merits.

In some cases, a plaintiff may even have to go through the appellate process before having an opportunity to have his or her day in court. In a recent case, the plaintiff actually had his case go up on appeal twice during the pre-trial phase of the litigation.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a long-distance truck driver who sought to assert a personal injury action against a second truck driver, whom the plaintiff alleged caused a crash in which the plaintiff was injured in 2011. The plaintiff’s wife joined in the action to assert a claim for loss of consortium. The second truck driver’s employer was also named in the suit as a defendant, with the plaintiffs seeking to hold the employer vicariously liable for the second truck driver’s alleged negligence. Although process was issued for both defendants when the plaintiffs’ suit was filed in 2012, only the defendant employer was served, as the plaintiffs were unable to obtain service of process on the second truck driver.

In 2013, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claim against the second truck driver but continued their action against the defendant employer. In 2015, the defendant employer filed a motion for summary judgment. This motion was granted by the trial court, but that decision was reversed on appeal. After the case was remanded following the appeal, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of their case, which they had filed in the Henderson County Circuit Court, and commenced a new cause of action against the defendant employer in the Wilson County Circuit Court. The defendant employer again sought summary judgment, this time on the grounds that it could no longer be held vicariously liable for the second truck driver’s actions because the plaintiffs cause of action against him was barred before the plaintiffs filed their new action against the defendant employer. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant employer appealed.

The Reviewing Court’s Decision

The Tennessee Court of Appeals framed the issue as “whether a common-law exception to the vicarious liability doctrine prevents a plaintiff from benefiting from the savings statute.” Answering the question in the negative, the court held that, in the particular case at bar, the plaintiffs’ case was “saved” because 1) the plaintiffs’ first action was instituted before their right of action against the second truck (i.e., the employee) was extinguished by operation of law and 2) the plaintiffs’ second complaint was timely filed pursuant to the Tennessee savings statute codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105.

In so holding, the court noted that a recent case upon which the defendant relied had held that a plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim against an employer such as the defendant herein failed in situations in which the plaintiff’s claim against the agent was procedurally barred by operation of law before the plaintiff asserted his or her vicarious liability action. Such was not the case here, in the court’s view, as the plaintiffs had already sued the defendant employer when their claim against the second truck driver had been extinguished. Although the defendant employer argued that the holding of the case upon which it relied should be extended to a situation involving a non-suit of a vicarious liability claim and a refiling under the saving statute, the reviewing court declined to so hold.

Have Questions for an East Tennessee Attorney?

Negligent truck drivers and trucking outfits can cause serious personal injury and/or wrongful death to other motorists, pedestrians, and passengers. When this happens, the injured parties (and the families of those who perish) have a right to seek fair compensation in a court of law. To talk to an experienced Knoxville truck accident attorney about your case, call the Hartsoe Law Firm today at (865) 804-1011. We handle cases throughout east Tennessee, including Maryville, Sevierville, Oak Ridge, and the Smoky Mountains.

Non-economic damages include such things as compensation for physical and emotional pain and suffering, loss of the ability to enjoy life, and loss of spousal consortium. Depending upon the law of the state in which the accident happened – and sometimes the particular claims upon which the plaintiff rests his or her case – there may be a maximum amount of damages available to the plaintiff, regardless of what his or her case would otherwise be worth.

When damages are capped in a case involving multiple defendants, disputes can arise regarding the amount that each defendant ultimately owes if the jury finds in the plaintiff’s favor. This can even be true in cases in which multiple defendants were sued but only a single defendant remained at the time of the trial.

Facts of the Case

The original plaintiffs in a recent case were a man who allegedly suffered mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos-containing materials at this workplace and the man’s wife, who joined in the suit to assert a claim for loss of consortium. They sought monetary compensation from several defendants, whom they alleged engaged in the mining, processing, manufacturing, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos, asbestos-containing products, and/or machinery that required or called for the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. After the male plaintiff died, the wife amended her complaint to assert a wrongful death action pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-5-106(a).

As the case developed toward trial, the wife settled with several defendants, and the trial court dismissed some of the other defendants on summary judgment. When only one defendant remained, that defendant filed a motion seeking clarification of the trial court’s intentions with regard to the handling of the state’s statutory cap for non-economic damages. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, with comparative fault being allocated among the remaining defendant, some of the dismissed defendants, and the decedent. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s application of the damages cap, the wife appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Although the amount of money that the wife received from the settling defendants was not disclosed in the court’s opinion, the jury’s verdict in her favor was substantial: $2,071,216.21, to be exact. The issue before the court revolved around how much of that verdict she would actually receive from the remaining defendant, given that $1,950,000 of the jury’s award was for non-economic damages and a statutory cap applied to such damages. Insomuch as the jury allocated 13% of the fault for the decedent’s death to the remaining defendant, the plaintiff argued that she was entitled to receive 13% of the $1,950,000 awarded by the jury for non-economic damages – an amount that was well within the capped amount.

The defendant argued, and the trial court ultimately held, that the wife was entitled to a different amount, one representing 13% of the statutory damage cap for non-economic damages plus the amount of economic damages awarded to her by the jury.

Contact an Injury Attorney in East Tennessee

If you have lost someone close to you because of another’s negligence, you may have grounds for a wrongful death claim. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, our team of experienced legal professionals are here to help you understand your rights with regard to an east Tennessee wrongful death case. For an appointment to learn more, call us at (865) 804-1011 or use the contact form on this website.

The reality of such accidents, however, is very different. A fall-down accident in a grocery store, restaurant, or other business can leave a shopper with serious injuries which may require extensive medical treatment.

When such an accident occurs as a result of the negligence of the business owner, the injured individual has a right to file a lawsuit seeking compensation for his or her medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. It should be noted that the burden of proof in such a case rests on the plaintiff, who must be able to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case arising in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, the plaintiff was a woman who was shopping at the defendant grocery store when her cart tipped over due to a missing wheel and caused her to fall. The plaintiff suffered numerous injuries as a result of the accident, including a fracture that required surgical repair; her medical expenses were approximately $90,000. She filed suit against the defendant, seeking compensation for her injuries under the legal theories of both ordinary negligence and premises liability. The defendant answered that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a non-party that maintained and serviced the defendant’s shopping carts. The plaintiff was granted leave to add the third-party to her complaint, but, ultimately, this claim was dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment.

The case proceeded to a jury trial on the plaintiff’s negligence claim (she opted to proceed only on this theory, having voluntarily dismissed her premises liability claim). The jury found that the defendant was 100% at fault in the accident and awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $850,000. The defendant appealed, arguing that the third-party defendant should not have been dismissed on summary judgment, that the defendant should have been granted a directed verdict, and/or that the trial court should have either granted a new trial or issued a remittitur of the damages award.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the grocery store had not met its burden to show reversible error. Although the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s case sounded in premises liability rather than simple negligence and that she had failed to meet the burden of proof for a premises liability action, the appellate court opined that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented from which a reasonable juror could have inferred both ordinary negligence by the defendant and the type of actual and/or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its property required to survive a motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict on a traditional premises liability claim.

With regard to the defendant’s argument that the verdict was excessive, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff was a senior citizen and that one of her most significant injuries was her loss of independence following the accident. According the court, such a loss could not be quantified. Because the defendant was unable to meet its burden of showing that there was no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the court of appeals agreed that denial of its motion for a remittitur or new trial was appropriate.

Call a Premises Liability Injury Attorney

If you or your spouse or child has been hurt on someone else’s premises, you may have a claim for money damages if the premises owner’s negligence caused or contributed to your accident. To speak to a seasoned premises liability and grocery store slip and fall attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. We are working during the COVID-19 pandemic and are here to respond to your calls, so please do not delay seeking legal advice about your case, as claims not filed in a timely fashion will be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

In most cases, this paperwork includes a summons and complaint, both of which must be filed with the clerk and served upon the defendant. In some kinds of cases, including those involving health care providers, there are other documents that may also need to be filed in order to perfect the filing of the complaint.

An attorney experienced in these types of cases can help a would-be plaintiff understand the filing requirements, assist him or her in preparation of the necessary documents, and represent the plaintiff’s interests during the litigation and trial of the matter. If an argument arises regarding whether all of the filing requirements have been met, the attorney can also prepare appellate briefs and argue the case in front of the appellate tribunal(s).

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was a woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted during a massage at the defendant’s salon and spa business in 2014. The plaintiff filed suit against the business in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, asserting claims for negligent training, negligent supervision, and negligent retention of the massage therapist (who was also named in the lawsuit and had been the subject of two previous complaints to the defendant from customers). The salon filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, asserting that the plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of good faith along with her complaint as required by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (in particular, § 29-26-122) was fatal to her claim. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed.

Decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Upon further appeal to the state’s highest court, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and vacated the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the defendant salon was a “health care provider” within the meaning of the Act, thus triggering certain filing requirements. Although the defendant maintained that the plaintiff was required to file a certificate confirming that she (or her counsel) had consulted with an expert witness and that there was a good faith basis for her legal action, the plaintiff insisted that the certificate of good faith referred to by the defendant was not required, given the nature of her complaint, which she insisted did not require expert testimony in order to succeed on its merits.

The intermediate appellate court had agreed with the defendant, holding that the plaintiff had waived the “common knowledge” exception; the court had went on to further hold that the plaintiff’s claim did, despite her insistence to the contrary, require the testimony of an expert witness in order to be viable. The supreme court disagreed with both of these contentions, ruling that the plaintiff had not waived the common knowledge exception and that the plaintiff’s claim against the salon was within the common knowledge of laypersons and, thus, did not require expert testimony about the standard of care in the massage industry. Because there was no requirement to file a certificate of good faith under the circumstances, the trial court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant.

To Speak to an Attorney About an East Tennessee Injury Lawsuit

If you have been hurt by a negligent individual or business, you need to consult an attorney about your legal rights. Knoxville personal injury lawyer Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm is here to help those in and around the east Tennessee area with a wide array of injury and wrongful death claims, including medical malpractice, car accidents, and product liability. For an appointment, call us at (865) 804-1011. We are open during the COVID-19 crisis, and we will make every effort to serve you in the safest manner possible in these trying times.

Often, however, the employer will attempt to get such claims dismissed prior to trial. One way to do this is to file what is known as a “motion for summary judgment.” In order to prevail on such a motion, the moving party must convince the court that he, she, or it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact that require the consideration of the jury at trial.

It is not unusual for a negligence case to be dismissed on summary judgment, but such an order is not necessarily the end of the case. The losing party can ask the appellate court to review the matter, and, if the appellate court reverses the trial court’s order, the case is remanded to the trial court and the case continues toward trial. If you or someone you love has been harmed by the negligent actions of others, it is in your best interest to consult with a Knoxville personal injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss damages you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a former student who brought suit against the defendant college, seeking monetary compensation for injuries he allegedly suffered while being hazed by a fraternity. According to the former student, he experienced hazing that included being blindfolded, beaten, paddled, burned, dragged on all fours by a dog collar, and being compelled to drink “numerous concoctions,” one of which included a live fish and one of which may have contained lighter fluid. The former student further alleged that, as a result of the hazing that he had experienced while at the college, he experienced complete renal/kidney failure, which required extensive hospitalization. With regard to his complaint against the college, the former student alleged both negligence and vicarious liability for the actions/failures to act of a college employee who worked in the housing department and also served as the fraternity’s faculty advisor.

The college filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe the former student a duty because the hazing was not foreseeable and there was no evidence that the college was on notice of the hazing. The college further argued that the former student was at least 50% at fault and that it could not be vicariously liable to him because its employee had acted outside the course and scope of his employment. The Circuit Court for Madison County granted summary judgment to the college, and the former student appealed.

The Court’s Ruling on Appeal

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed in part and reversed in part. Although there was some evidence that the former student was aware that some hazing (such as three strikes of paddling) would occur, the court found there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether he fully appreciated or understood the “whole nature” of the hazing that he allegedly endured. Because reasonable minds could thus disagree regarding what percentage of fault should be assessed to the former student, the appellate court found that it was error for the lower tribunal to grant summary judgment to the college based on comparative fault.

With regard to the college’s argument that it did not owe the former student a duty because it had not been put on notice of the hazing, the appellate court found that “this argument miss[ed] the mark.” In the court’s view, the critical question was not whether the faculty advisor would be engaged in hazing but, rather, whether the former student would be victimized and hazed as a pledge with the fraternity. Thus, to the extent that the trial court concluded that no duty existed on the part of the college under the circumstances presented, the court of appeals found this to be error. In so holding, the court noted that the fraternity in question had, “as a national fraternity generally” been involved in several hazing incidents involving death or serious injury. The court further acknowledged that the college had suspended the fraternity in 2012 and its former president had stated that the fraternity would not be reinstated as long as he was alive; after the president died, an interim president had allowed the fraternity to return, without accessing the former president’s records about the fraternity.

Speak to an Attorney About Your Personal Injury Case

At the Hartsoe Law Firm, we handle a wide array of personal injury and wrongful death cases in Knoxville, Maryville, and other cities and towns throughout east Tennessee. If you believe that you may have a claim against an individual, a business, or a branch of the government because of an injury or death caused by negligent, careless, or reckless behavior, you need to talk to a lawyer about filing a claim. To get a started with a free consultation about your car accident, premises liability, or other personal injury matter, contact us through this website or call us at (865) 804-1011.

During the pretrial phase of the litigation, the trial court is often called upon to decide whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to take the case to trial in front of a jury. Unless there is a genuine issue of material fact appropriate for the consideration of the jury, the case may be dismissed prior to trial.

In many cases, it is the defendant who creates and maintains custody of such evidence – such as video surveillance, witness statements, photographs, and the like. Because this evidence is so vitally important to the plaintiff in building his or her negligence case, there can be serious consequences for a defendant who “loses” such evidence.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently considered on appeal, the plaintiff was a woman who allegedly slipped and fell at a gas station/convenience store in Dandridge. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store’s owner, seeking to recover financial compensation for her medical expenses and other associated damages cause by the fall. In her complaint, the plaintiff asserted that her fall was caused by a gasoline spill in the defendant’s parking lot and that the defendant was aware or should have been aware of the dangerous condition but had failed to properly clean the area. The defendant answered the plaintiff’s complaint by insisting that the plaintiff’s fall was due to nothing but her own negligence.

The Circuit Court for Knox County granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to submit a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had caused, created, and/or should have discovered the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall and resulting personal injuries.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings. In so holding, the court noted that another customer had witnessed the plaintiff’s accident but that this customer’s contact information had been lost by the defendant. Video surveillance of the accident had likewise been lost by the defendant “due to an alleged power surge and hard drive failure.” During the summary judgment proceedings in the lower court, the plaintiff had raised the issue of spoliation and had argued that the defendant should not have been allowed to move forward on its motion for summary judgment due to its actions. The trial court rejected this argument.

On appeal, the plaintiff again argued that the trial court should have imposed an inference of negligence on the defendant due to its spoliation of evidence. While the reviewing court did not disturb the trial court’s ruling regarding inferring negligence against the defendant, it did find that, because the defendant had control of – and lost – two important pieces of evidence, there should be some consequence. In the court’s opinion, the proper course was to allow the plaintiff to testify “broadly” about her interaction with the missing witness, including the content of their conversation. (Under normal circumstances, the hearsay rule would likely have prevented such testimony regarding the witness’s out-of-court statements in front of the jury at trial.)

Contact a Premises Liability Attorney

If you have been hurt due to a store owner’s neglect, you may be entitled to substantial compensation for your medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. To schedule a no-cost, obligation-free consultation with an established Knoxville slip and fall attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. Please be mindful that negligence claims must be filed within a certain time period, or else a plaintiff’s right to seek compensation may be deemed waived.

In such a case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. If this burden is met, the plaintiff may be awarded substantial money damages for his or her pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses.

Premises liability claims must be promptly and thoroughly investigated, preferably by a person with the plaintiff’s best interests in mind. If an investigation is left up to the defendant and its insurance company, it may be difficult for the plaintiff to prove his or her case in court later on. For this reason, it is important to talk to an attorney as soon as possible if you have been hurt on someone else’s property.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who allegedly slipped and fell in antifreeze that had been spilled in the parking lot outside the defendant retail store. Earlier, a different customer had slipped and fallen in the same puddle of antifreeze and had reported the incident to the manager on duty. The manager had walked out to the parking lot, viewed the puddle, and went back into the store with the intent of getting a bag of kitty litter to pour over the spill in an attempt to clean up the antifreeze. Instead of returning to the parking lot, however, the manager stayed inside the store to help an employee complete a transaction. In the meantime, the plaintiff left the store with her purchases, slipped and fell in the antifreeze, and was hurt.

The plaintiff (joined by her husband) filed suit against the store and several other defendants who held property interests in the parking lot, asserting a claim for premises liability. The defendant store filed a motion for summary judgment, insisting that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because it did not owe the plaintiff a duty to correct the spill or to warn her about the dangerous condition because the store neither owned nor operated the parking lot in which the accident occurred. The Circuit Court for Knox County granted the defendant store’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the circuit court’s decision. While acknowledging that the defendant store had a lease agreement with another party in which it was specified that the other party was responsible for maintenance of the parking lot, the reviewing court found that summary judgment to the defendant store was inappropriate given that the defendant had exercised control over the area in which the plaintiff fell by doing thing such as clearing debris and cleaning spills caused by customers. Because the defendant store had exercised this level of control over the area in question without notifying the party whom it alleged was responsible for maintenance of the lot, the court of appeals disagreed with the lower court’s determination that the defendant store was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In the specific situation at bar, the court noted that the defendant store was on notice of the condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall and that it was foreseeable that another customer might slip and fall in the antifreeze puddle that had been reported to the manager. The determination of whether the defendant store’s conduct (specifically, its employee’s decision to attend to other tasks rather than crafting a barrier of the area or otherwise alerting customers of the danger) was best left to the trier of fact, in the appellate court’s view.

To Speak to an Attorney About Your Personal Injury Case

If you have suffered serious personal injuries because of a dangerous condition at a retail store or other business, you should talk to a lawyer about your legal rights. For a free consultation with a knowledgeable Knoxville premises liability attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and set up an appointment. We handle cases through east Tennessee, including Knoxville, Maryville, Sevierville, and Oak Ridge.

Facts of the Case

The primarily plaintiff in a recent appellate case was a man who was prescribed a certain medication for his diabetes in 2014. The following summer, the Food and Drug Administration issued a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy to warn of the risk of acute pancreatitis for those using the medication. According to the complaint filed by the plaintiff (joined by his wife), he was not warned of this risk by any of the defendants (a doctor, two medical groups, a home delivery pharmacy, and others). The plaintiff was later diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, sepsis, and acute respiratory failure; additional hospitalizations followed, as did a fall that occurred when the plaintiff was in a weakened physical state and which resulted in a severe traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit, filed in the Knox County Circuit Court, alleged that he had been damaged as a result of the acute pancreatitis and a subsequent traumatic brain injury caused by his use of the prescription medication and his medical providers’ failure to appropriately “prescribe, counsel, provide, utilize, and/or discontinue this medication.” The plaintiff alleged claims of both strict liability and simple negligence against the manufacturer of the medication; he also asserted health care liability claims against the other defendants. The home delivery pharmacy filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint based upon the “seller shield statute” of the Tennessee Product Liability Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-28-106. The trial court denied the motion.

Decision of the Court

Stating the issue as whether, where a plaintiff’s complaint asserted a claim under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act against a pharmacy and/or pharmacist, were the pharmacy/pharmacist able to assert the “seller shield” defense contained in the state’s product liability act, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In so holding, the court noted that the trial court had determined – and the pharmacy had conceded – that all of the plaintiff’s claims fell under the health care liability act rather than the product liability act. The court then opined that a “natural and reasonable reading” of the “seller shield” law demonstrated that it only applied to product liability actions, not health care liability actions. The court of appeals also noted that the health care liability act applied to all health care providers, including pharmacies and pharmacists, and contained no limitation based on seller immunity.

Speak to an East Tennessee Injury Attorney

Cases involving medical malpractice, pharmaceutical negligence, or product liability take considerable time, skill, and legal expertise. If you have been hurt by a doctor’s malpractice, a faulty product, or an individual or business’s negligence and need to talk to a knowledgeable Knoxville medical malpractice and personal injury attorney, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011.