Tennessee Injury Lawyer BlogTypically, negligence and personal injury claims are evaluated by considering the testimony presented by each party as to what happened at the time of the accident and who was at fault. The credibility of witnesses is evaluated, experts and evidence may be provided to support each party’s version of the facts, and ultimately a judge or jury must determine whose story they believe. But what happens when one party can’t remember what happened at the time of the accident? A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses this issue.
Articles Posted in Auto Accidents
Tennessee Supreme Court Reviews Wrongful Death Benefits Awarded to Severely Injured Carpenter’s Family
If you’ve been severely injured in a Tennessee car accident, you may be able to access workers’ compensation funds if the car accident occurred while performing work for an employer. Workers’ compensation provides payments to an injured employee to cover lost wages and medical expenses. If the employee suffers a partial or total disability, he or she may receive a lump sum or series of payments to cover the wages that cannot be earned as a result of the disability. If the employee dies as a result of the workplace injury, the estate or family may recover the designated benefits.Workers’ compensation was designed to provide employees with quicker access to funds while shielding an employer from liability. However, this does not prevent an injured party from pursuing damages in a negligence action against other parties who share responsibility for the injuries.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently issued an opinion stemming from a workplace car accident that caused a carpenter to suffer numerous serious injuries. The accident fractured the C3 and C4 vertebrae in his neck and herniated discs in his lower back. The injured carpenter underwent surgery to alleviate his neck pain, but he still experienced back pain whenever he bent forward or backward. After reviewing the carpenter’s complaints, the surgeon recommended additional surgery to help heal the residual pain. The insurance company denied the coverage for surgery, due to the peer review performed by three other physicians, who did not think surgery was necessary. The additional request for epidural steroid injections was also denied. To manage the pain, the carpenter took opiates. When the pain became too great, he took a greater amount of medicine than prescribed and consumed alcohol. The injured carpenter admitted this to a pain management specialist, and he agreed to take his medication as directed and call before adjusting his dose.
Tennessee Court Considers Re-Opening Sealed Records When Multiple Personal Injury Lawsuits are Filed
One of the foundational principles of the public judiciary is that judicial proceedings should be open and transparent for the public. For this reason, filings, papers, and arguments made by parties in a lawsuit are typically considered part of the public record and can be viewed by others, although sometimes for a small fee. In very limited circumstances, parties can request that a court “seal” a paper that is filed, or the record of the proceeding in its entirety, in order to protect the privacy of parties involved. This can happen when one party is a minor or when sensitive information is being discussed, such as with medical records, cases involving sexual or child abuse, or situations when confidential financial information is at issue. Even when a court agrees to seal a record, the parties cannot use that to their advantage to keep important information from another party in a related lawsuit, as illustrated by a recent decision by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Tennessee Court Upholds Exclusion of Evidence For Lack of Relevance
While relevance may seem like a straightforward concept to grasp during a trial, it can often be surprisingly complex. Judges are tasked with the difficult directive of keeping a trial on task and on point, which includes excluding evidence that may not be relevant to the actual issues being decided. Often, parties may feel that negative evidence about the other party is relevant to their whole story and should be considered by the jury, or small details should be included so that the jury has the full picture, while a judge finds such evidence irrelevant, unnecessary, and maybe even prejudicial. As discussed below, a recent case out of the Tennessee Court of Appeals considers whether evidence of a driver’s error, ultimately irrelevant to any legal claims, was wrongfully excluded from trial.
Tennessee Court Finds No Claim of Emotional Distress Exists for Property Damage
When a plaintiff is injured as a result of a defendant’s actions, many different types of damages can be claimed. A plaintiff may seek reimbursement for medical expenses or lost wages, or the value of property destroyed or damaged. In certain situations, plaintiffs may also recover for the emotional distress that they suffered as a result of their accident or injury. While emotional distress damages are typically allowed when a personal injury has occurred, a recent Tennessee Court held that they were not allowed as a result of property damage.
Tennessee Court Enforces Terms of Accident Settlement Agreement
In this day and age of increasing litigation costs, more and more cases are settled long before trial begins. Plaintiffs frequently empower their attorneys to represent them in settlement negotiations, allowing lawyers to do much of the back and forth in reaching a settlement agreement. While it is important to have an attorney representing you in any settlement negotiations resulting from your auto accident or personal injury claim, plaintiffs must be careful to make sure that their attorney fully understands what they want and whether they are willing to compromise. Otherwise, as seen in a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case, errors and miscommunication can ensue.
Tennessee Court Fails to Find State Construction and Maintenance of Roads Defective
When auto accidents occur, most drivers are quick to point fault at another driver, unforeseen distractions in the road, or defects in their vehicle. However, negligence can also arise due to the construction and maintenance of the road itself. For instance, intersections may be constructed in such a manner so that visibility is limited, or a large danger in the road may not be corrected. In a recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals, a plaintiff argued that the State’s failure to properly maintain a road over years of wear and tear also created a defective condition that led to her car accident.
Tennessee Court Permits Daughter To Bring Wrongful Death Claim
Wrongful death claims are claims brought on behalf of an individual who has died as a result of another party’s tortious conduct. Since the deceased individual cannot bring a claim, certain family members are statutorily permitted to do so. Most state statutes, including Tennessee’s, carefully prescribe who is permitted to bring a wrongful death claim. This helps to avoid distant family members or acquaintances from bringing a claim that should rightfully belong to a spouse or child. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals recently looked at whether a daughter can bring a wrongful death claim when a spouse is also alive and wishes to bring a claim as well.
Tennessee Court Considers Whether An Employer Can Be Held Liable for a Failure to Prevent Intoxicated Employee From Driving
Under basic principles of negligence law, an individual or entity can only be held liable for injuries that another person suffers if the individual or entity had a duty to help prevent those injuries from occurring. A duty arises out of some obligation from one party to another. This can be created when there is a special relationship between the parties (such as parent-child) or when one party is aware of a foreseeable risk that it has the ability to prevent. This is illustrated in a recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in which an intoxicated employee asked for his employer to be held liable for allowing the employee to drive his own vehicle home while intoxicated, which resulted in a crash.
Tennessee Court Denies Sudden Emergency Defense in Car Accident Case
Generally, when an individual acts negligently, he or she can be held liable for any injuries that result from such negligence. In certain instances, however, affirmative defenses may be available that insulate the defendant from liability. For instance, if an individual is acting at the instruction of another party or while under duress, a court may decide that although negligent conduct occurred, the defendant should not be held liable for it. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at whether a police officer could successfully claim that he was acting in response to a sudden emergency in order to avoid liability for an accident he caused.