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’s Recreational Use statute provides the State with immunity for injuries occurring on state property during recreational use. The statute provides an exception in cases where the State acted with willful or wanton conduct or gross negligence. However, the statute is a high burden to meet, and the court has previously concluded that after-the-fact concerns about dangerous conditions are insufficient to establish a conscious indifference.

In this case, the plaintiffs concede that the Recreational Use statute provides immunity but argued that the gross negligence exception should apply.

In support of their argument, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the park rangers performed mere “drive-by” inspections where they would only look at the equipment from a distance. Further, they contend that the inspections were inadequate because photos show that the playground had little to no padding under the equipment. Moreover, the plaintiffs pointed to depositions of a park ranger who agreed that the photos depict a “hazardous” condition.

However, the court reasoned that gross negligence refers to instances where one acts with “utter unconcern” or reckless disregard of the safety of others. Further, the gross negligence exception to the Recreational Use statute only applies in the most egregious cases. Here, they found that the park ranger’s admission that the playground looked dangerous is not enough to establish utter disregard. Additionally, there is no dispute that the State lacked knowledge of the dangerous condition of the playground. As such, the court affirmed the Commission’s findings.

Have You Suffered Injuries at a Park or Playground?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died because of negligence, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The personal injury lawyers at our office provide clients with excellent representation. Attorney Hartsoe has decades of experience successfully resolving cases for those who have suffered injuries stemming from car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, premises liability, defective products, medical malpractice, construction site accidents, and nursing home abuse and neglect. He has recovered significant amounts of compensation on behalf of clients and their loved ones. These cases require the experience and diligence of an attorney who has a solid and in-depth understanding of complex Tennessee injury laws. In addition to that knowledge, Attorney Hartsoe consistently provides clients with respect and compassion during all stages of their claim. Contact the Knoxville accident lawyer Mark Hartsoe at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your case.

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.

While Tennessee law imputes liability on vessel owners for damages that their vessel causes, regardless of whether the owner is present, an exception exists when the vessel is used without the owner’s permission or consent. Moreover, the law requires vessels within 300 feet of commercial boat docks to reduce their speed, even when an area is unmarked. Although these laws are essential to reduce the likelihood of accidents and injuries, the most critical laws involve boating under the influence.

Despite the widespread knowledge of the dangers of boating or driving under the influence, people continue to engage in this harmful behavior. Tennessee prohibits individuals from operating a powered or sailing vessel under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Those who fail to abide by these crucial laws may cause significant injuries and property damages. Further, boating under the influence can result in civil and criminal penalties. In addition to collisions, boating injuries may stem from onboard carbon monoxide poisoning, electrical accidents, and equipment defects.

Local news sources recently reported that as of mid-September, there had been 18 Tennessee boating-related fatalities in 2021. While the state experienced a record number of deaths in 2020, the number of boating-related deaths is alarming. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) explained that last year’s fatalities were likely higher because more people were on the water during the lockdown. Unlike last year when TWRA enforcement officers were only approaching those engaging in blatant violations, the agency is making its presence more known this year. To date, there have been over 90 boating under the influence arrests in the state. In addition to fatalities, TWRA reports that many individuals suffer serious injuries.

After a Tennessee boating accident, the victim and their family may pursue a claim against any at-fault negligent party or entity. In most cases, liability typically lies with the entity which owned the boat, unless the victim’s actions caused their injuries. In other cases, liability may rest with a negligent product manufacturer or boat tour operator.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Boating Accident in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries in a Tennessee boating accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. Our firm handles claims stemming from Tennessee auto, truck, and motorcycle accidents, premises liability, wrongful death, nursing home abuse and negligence, and product liability. Attorney Hartsoe provides each client and claim with individualized attention to address the client’s specific needs and concerns. He has recovered significant amounts of compensation for Tennessee injury victims. Contact the law firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation with Attorney Mark Hartsoe. Calling is free, and we will not bill you for any of our legal services unless we can recover compensation on your behalf.

For the most part, motorists need to share the road with various types of vehicles, including large SUVs, trucks, motorcyclists, and cyclists. In most cases, claims against a negligent driver involve that driver, their insurance company, and possibly the vehicle owner. However, in claims against a truck driver, the lawsuit may include claims against the truck driver’s employer, truck manufacturer, shipping company, or other parties responsible for the care and maintenance of the truck. For those reasons, Tennessee accident claims involving tractor-trailers and large trucks tend to pose many challenges to injury victims.

One of the first issues is determining the cause of the accident. Truck accidents in Tennessee often result in chain-reaction accidents, and pinpointing an exact cause can be challenging. However, most truck accidents involve driver fatigue, driver distraction, impaired driving, and speeding. Most truck claims involve jackknife truck accidents, tire blowouts, unsecured loads, hazmat accidents, and underride accidents. However, because of these vehicles’ sheer size and strength, any slight error can result in devastating consequences.

For instance, earlier this month, local news sources described a harrowing tractor-trailer accident in Tennessee. According to reports, Tennessee Highway Patrol responded to an accident call between a tractor-trailer and a motorcycle. An investigation revealed that the tractor-trailer was traveling north along a curve when its trailer crossed the opposite lane. At the same time, a motorcycle driver was traveling south when his bike flipped over and skidded into the back of the truck’s trailer. The motorcycle driver was airlifted to a hospital, and the tractor-trailer driver did not suffer any physical injuries.

After narrowing the cause of the accident, the victim must establish the status of the at-fault truck driver. Typically, there are three types of truck drivers; owner-operators, company drivers, and independent operators. An attorney can help victims determine the driver’s classification and associated liability. The liable party may be responsible for covering the victim’s damages such as their medical treatment, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Truck Accident in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died in a Tennessee truck accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The personal injury lawyers at the Hartsoe Law Firm have extensive experience handling complex injury cases involving negligent motorists, business owners, insurance companies, and employers. Our firm handles accident claims involving motor vehicle accidents, wrongful death, premises liability, dog bites, airplane accidents, product liability, birth injury, elder abuse, and more. We have recovered significant amounts of compensation on behalf of Tennessee injury victims and their families, and look forward to seeing how we can help you with your case. Contact our office at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation with an attorney on our team.

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.

For example, a nurse’s medical error at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) took the life of a 75-year-old patient. The patient checked into the hospital to receive treatment for bleeding in her brain. Two days after her admission, the patient’s condition began to improve, and the staff was preparing for her release after a final scan. The nurse at issue was supposed to administer a sedative before the scan; however, she accidentally administered a paralyzing medication. The drug left the woman brain dead, and she was taken off life support a few days later.

The nurse explained that while she is responsible for the mistake, the hospital’s procedure made the event more likely to occur. She explained that the hospital permitted nurses to override the medication cabinet safety prompts. As such, since it was a regular practice, the nurse overrode the safety prompts that appeared on screen when she was gathering the medication. The mix-up occurred because the woman searched for the medication’s brand name, but the cabinet was set to search for generic names. Authorities reported that the bottle contained a warning label that indicated that the medication was a “PARALYZING AGENT.” The nurse admitted that if the bottle contained a warning label, she overlooked it.

The nurse’s attorney also purported that the hospital’s system was not working correctly on the day of the incident. He claims that VUMC is using the nurse as a scapegoat to hide their systemic issues. A state health investigator explained that she has a vague recollection of a medication cabinet error but does not know if the override function was a solution to the problem. The state nursing board recently revoked the woman’s nursing license because of a fatal medication error.

This tragic incident highlights the various ways a patient may receive inadequate or dangerous treatment at a healthcare facility. As such, it is essential that medication error victims contact an attorney to discuss their rights.

Have You Experienced Medical Negligence in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died because of a medical error in Tennessee, you should contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The Hartsoe Law Firm provides high-quality and effective legal representation to Tennessee injury victims and their families. The firm handles Tennessee motor vehicle claims, premises liability, slip-and-falls, dog bites, product liability medical malpractice, nursing home abuse and negligence, and wrongful death. Attorney Mark C. Hartsoe has years of experience successfully representing clients in their claims for damages. He has been repeatedly selected as a Super Lawyer by Law and Politics Magazine. Contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your injury case.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the company that operated the business the dogs escaped from. They alleged that their owners were liable under Tennessee Code 44-8-413, which mandates that dog owners maintain a duty to keep their dog “under reasonable control at all times and from keeping their dogs from running at large.” Further, the statute explains that those who breach the duty may be liable for civil damages to the injury victim.

In this case, the company argued that the statute did not apply to them because they were not the “owner” of the dog. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs might claim that the business had temporary custody or control of the animals; however, this temporary control is insufficient to impose liability. The trial court found in favor of the defendant, and the appeals court reversed the summary judgment.

In reviewing the matter, the appeals court inquiry primarily focused on whether the evidence established that the company was not the owner of the dogs in question. The court reviewed the definition of “owner” under the statute, finding that the statutory understanding of “owner” is broader than just one with a property interest in the dog. The court found that the mere presence of an animal at a business does not necessarily amount to ownership. Instead, ownership relies on whether the dog’s presence benefits the business in the matter. If the dog is for the employer’s benefit, the employer may be considered the dog’s owner. However, if the dog is on the premises for the employee’s convenience, the employer is not likely the dog’s keeper.

In this case, the company advertised the dogs as “shop dogs” and marketed the dogs on the store’s various social media accounts. Further, the company allows the dogs to roam around the store, and customers testified that the dogs were regularly on the store’s premises. Taking this evidence into account, it is clear that one can reasonably conclude that the dogs were at the business for the employer’s benefit. As such, the appeals court found that the trial court erred in finding in favor of the defendants.

Have You Suffered Injuries Because of a Dog Bite or Attack

If you or someone you love has suffered serious injuries or died because of a dog attack in Tennessee, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The Hartsoe Law Firm provides clients with advocacy and representation following a Tennessee accident. The firm handles claims stemming from car accidents, dog bites, premises liability, and medical malpractice. Attorney Hartsoe has years of experience successfully representing Tennessee accident victims and recovering the compensation they deserve. Contact Mark C. Hartsoe at (865) 804-1011 for a free consultation regarding your Tennessee accident case.

Under Tennessee Code 24-5-113(b), this evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of the reasonableness of the bills. Here, the City conceded to its liability but objected to the reasonableness of the undiscounted medical bills the plaintiff presented. The City sought to rebut the presumption through the testimony of two witnesses. One witness was a doctor who offered his opinion on the hospital’s billing practices. The other witness was presented as an expert in medical billing practices. The billing expert was the owner and co-founder of a medical billing software system. The trial court found that the doctor’s testimony violated the collateral source rule and the billing expert’s methodology was not proven or tested.

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court appropriately excluded the City’s evidence to rebut the reasonableness of the victim’s bills. Under the collateral source rule, a plaintiff can still recover the entire reasonable value of their damages, even if a third party paid some of the total damages. The doctor’s testimony sought to establish that the amount billed is not the actual amount paid because of private dealings between the hospital and the parties. The court concluded that the collateral source rule directly prohibits this type of testimony.

Further, the Tennessee Supreme Court has found that an expert’s testimony must be relevant and satisfy the state’s Rules of Evidence regarding reliability. Courts will look to various factors to determine whether a methodology is reliable, such as whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review. Here, the billing expert explained that he computes a “reasonable rate” by using the hospital’s data and state financial data to formulate an appropriate amount. While the expert possessed exemplary qualifications, his methodology has not been tested or subjected to peer review. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding in favor of the plaintiff.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Tennessee Accident?

If you or someone you love has suffered serious injuries or died in a Tennessee truck accident, the Hartsoe Law Firm can help you determine your rights and remedies. Attorney Hartsoe maintains an active practice advocating on behalf of and representing Tennessee injury victims and their families. He handles claims stemming from motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, products liability, medical malpractice, and other catastrophic injuries. He utilizes his extensive experience, knowledge, and resources to ensure that his clients recover the damages the law entitles them. Contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation.

It is important to note, however, that not all negligence cases involve physical harm or death to an individual. Property damage, too, can be an element of damages in a negligence case. For example, there may be a separate claim for property damage in a motor vehicle accident case.

Some negligence cases pertain only claims involving property, however. Sometimes, these negligence claims are brought along with other allegations, such as a breach of contract claim. When this happens, the plaintiff may receive additional damages that would not otherwise be available (attorney fees, for instance, are not typically awarded in simple negligence cases under the so-called “American rule”).

Facts of the Case

In a recent case considered on appeal by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendant homebuilder, by virtue of which the defendant agreed to build a certain house for the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the defendant. The home was built, and the plaintiffs moved into it in mid-2014. Unfortunately, there were numerous alleged problems with the construction of the house, resulting in the plaintiffs filing suit against the defendant, alleging, among other things, negligence in the construction process, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. Importantly, the parties had a written contract memorializing their agreement. This contract provided for attorney fees to the prevailing party in the event of a lawsuit.

After several years of litigation, the trial court granted judgment to the plaintiffs in the amount of $125,343 on their negligence and breach of contract claims. The plaintiffs then filed a motion asking the court to order the defendant to pay their attorney fees and certain discretionary costs associated with the litigation. The trial court granted the motion as to the discretionary costs but declined to grant attorney fees.

How the Court Resolved the Dispute

The court began by analyzing the defendant’s argument that the trial court had erred with regard to its damages award to the plaintiffs on their negligence and breach of contract claims. Concluding that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages based on the defendant’s breach of duty to them and that the amount awarded by the trial court was reasonable, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling on the issue of damages.

The court went on to reverse the lower court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, noting that the parties’ contract provided for attorney fees and other damages to the prevailing party in the event of a suit to enforce the agreement. Although the plaintiffs did not get everything they asked for in the lower court, the appellate tribunal explained that “prevailing parties” are those who succeed on a “significant claim” rather than on every allegation asserted.

To Schedule an Appointment with a Negligence Attorney in East Tennessee

Unfortunately, the awarding of attorney fees is usually limited to negligence cases in which there is a companion claim that provides for the payment of fees (such as the breach of contract claim here). Because we understand that it can be difficult for an injured person to pay attorney fees upfront, we structure our fee agreement in personal injury and wrongful death cases in a manner in which we only get paid if the case is ultimately successful. To learn more about our services in east Tennessee negligence cases, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011.

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.

There is a limited time for filing a healthcare liability action, and much is to be done in anticipation of the filing of the actual complaint. Seeking legal counsel sooner rather than later can help ensure that all of the necessary steps are completed in a timely fashion.

Facts of the Case

In a recent healthcare liability and wrongful death case originating in the Tennessee Claims Commission, the plaintiffs were the parents of a stillborn infant who was delivered in December 2017 when the mother was at about 29 weeks’ gestation. The delivery occurred at a hospital owed by the defendant state. The plaintiffs’ suit sought to assert claims for negligence and medical malpractice against several resident physicians and physicians who were employed by the defendant state at the time of the delivery. No claim was presented for damages to the plaintiff mother.

After the claim was transferred to the Claims Commission for litigation, the defendant state filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with both Tennessee Code Annotated 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) and the applicable statute of limitations. The Claims Commission denied the defendant state’s motion, prompting an appeal.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the Claims Commission’s denial of the defendant state’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court phrased the issue as whether the Claims Commission erred in denying the defendant state’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the medical records release provided by the plaintiffs allegedly failed to satisfy the requirements of § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), thus rendering the defendant state unable to obtain medical records of the deceased infant.

In affirming the Claims Commission’s denial of summary judgment, the reviewing court rejected the defendant state’s argument that the plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because they failed to provide a release for the plaintiff mother’s medical records (they only provided a release for the deceased infant’s records). According to the appellate tribunal, it would have been unreasonable to have placed a burden upon the plaintiffs to predict how a medical provider would identify and archive its records and/or to anticipate how a records custodian would respond to an otherwise properly executed medical authorization.

Schedule a Free Consultation with a Wrongful Death Attorney in Knoxville

Losing a loved one to an act of medical malpractice – especially when the loved one is a child – is tragic. The process of holding the negligent medical provider legally liable can be long and difficult. To talk to an experienced east Tennessee medical malpractice attorney about a potential medical negligence case, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. Our office also handles car and truck accidents, slip and fall cases, product liability claims, and cases involving elder abuse. There is no charge for the office visit; we do not expect a legal fee to be paid until your case is settled or a judgment is entered in your favor.

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.

The reality is that, regardless of how strong the plaintiff’s case might be, recovering fair compensation in a personal injury or wrongful death case depends heavily on whether or not the negligent party was insured. Technically, the plaintiff can pursue collection on a judgment by attaching the defendant’s assets, garnishing his or her wages, and the like, but this is usually a very slow process and one that, at best, typically yields only a fraction of the amount of money to which the plaintiff was entitled.

Because of the power of the insurance company lobbyists, jurors rarely hear a word about insurance. The insurance company would much rather jurors believe that every penny of a judgment was coming out of the defendant’s pocket – the idea being that a lower judgment will result when a person, not a big insurance company, is paying the plaintiff what he or she is due. Sometimes, however, there are cases in which the insurance company is front and center in a lawsuit.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee was an insurance company that provided a $1 million renters insurance policy to the defendant, a woman who operated a daycare out of the insured premises. The insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the woman with regard to the alleged July 2018 wrongful death of 23-month-old twins, who drowned in a backyard swimming pool while in the woman’s care. The twins’ parents were also named as defendants in the insurance company’s cause of action, and they filed a counter-claim against the insurance company.

The parties filed various motions for judgment on the pleadings and/or for summary judgment.

The District Court’s Decision

The trial court denied the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the parents’ motions for judgment on the pleadings on their counterclaim and for partial summary judgment on the insurance company’s claims. Although the insurance company attempted to rely on a purported “childcare services exclusion” in the insurance policy in order to avoid the possibility of paying out a wrongful death claim brought by the parents for their children’s drownings, the federal district court found that “non-excluded risks” concurrently and substantially caused the twins’ deaths, thus triggering the insurance company’s duty to indemnify the defendant.

While the parents will still have to prove their wrongful death claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the fact that the insurance company will have to indemnify the defendant will make it much more likely that the parents will prevail in the case, either at trial or via a settlement.

Get Started on an East Tennessee Wrongful Death Claim

If you have lost a loved one to a swimming pool drowning or other act of homeowner negligence, you may be entitled to substantial money damages for your family member’s wrongful death. To learn more about how to assert your legal rights, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm via this website or by calling (865) 804-1011. Tennessee has a very short statute of limitations for negligence claims, so it’s important that you seek counsel immediately if you believe that you may have a wrongful death or personal injury claim.

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.