Tennessee Injury Lawyer BlogAt the start of any lawsuit, a plaintiff must file an initial complaint, detailing the reasons why he or she is suing. In order to weed out frivolous or unsupported lawsuits that will only bog down the court system, plaintiffs must plead their claims with sufficient specificity and facts so that the claim that they are making is obvious from the face of the complaint. This is known as the Twombly/Iqbal standard. Thus, for instance, a plaintiff cannot simply file a complaint that says that he or she was injured because the defendant hurt him or her. Instead, the complaint must provide some degree of detail on how the injury occurred and why the defendant is at fault in order for a claim against the defendant to survive. However, this does not mean that the plaintiff must know every fact and detail. That is what the discovery phase of litigation is meant to address. A recent case before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considers what to do when a court holds litigants to too high a standard of pleading under Twombly and Iqbal.
Articles Posted in Auto Accidents
Automobile Accidents Involving Rental Cars in Tennessee – Who Is Liable for Insurance Coverage?
As anyone who has rented a rental car knows, figuring out who would be responsible for providing insurance coverage in the event of an accident can be very tricky. Most drivers will already be insured under their own private automobile insurance policies, but it can be unclear whether those policies extend to rental cars. Rental agencies often offer their own insurance, but often at a hefty price that can leave drivers uncertain whether the offer is genuine or merely a revenue-generating tactic. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at liability and the payment of damages when accidents occur in rental cars.
Tennessee Courts Consider When a Party Can Be Held Liable For an Agent’s Negligence
In most situations, an individual can only be responsible for his or her own negligent actions. However, under certain principles known as “agency” laws, individuals or entities who are the employers, bosses, or superiors of another person may sometimes be responsible for the actions of their agent. Principals may be responsible for their agents only when they exert a certain level of control over them. This is usually a legal determination that must be made by a court. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at whether the negligent actions of a truck driver could be attributed to the larger shipping company that contracted with the driver.
The Necessity of Proving Causation in Tennessee Auto Accident Claims – Denton v. Taylor
When a plaintiff brings a claim in an auto accident or personal injury case, he or she generally bears the responsibility of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of the defendant fell below a standard of care and contributed to his or her injuries. A failure to prove any one of these elements can lead to a claim being denied. For instance, if the plaintiff cannot show that injuries were suffered, there may not be damages for the jury to award. And if the defendant was taking all necessary precautions and acting with the utmost responsibility, a jury may find that although injuries occurred, the defendant did not act negligently in causing them. When approaching a personal injury lawsuit, it is important that plaintiffs not forget their burden to prove the elements of their claim. Assumptions that elements can be presumed, or inferred from the circumstances, can lead to disappointment and financial losses.
Tennessee Court Declines to Review Apportionment of Fault – Bachar v. Partin
Tennessee is a modified comparative fault state. This means that when considering claims of negligence or personal injury, jurors or the court must look at the percentage of fault attributable to each party when determining liability. For instance, if a patron of a restaurant is slightly drunk and trips stepping off a sidewalk and onto the street, jurors must determine which percentage of her injury is attributable to the fact that she had been drinking (her fault) and which percentage of her injury is attributable to the restaurant’s failure to properly mark a drop-off in the sidewalk or otherwise notify patrons of a dangerous condition (the restaurant’s fault). If the patron is 25% at fault and the restaurant 75% at fault, the patron may only receive 75% of the damages that she claims. Under the modified comparative fault system, if the restaurant’s fault is 50% or less, the patron is not entitled to any damages at all. As illustrated in a recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals, when jurors assign percentages of fault to parties, courts are reluctant to second-guess these percentages or reverse a jury’s determination.
In Bachar v. Partin, Mr. Bachar was involved in an automobile accident with a truck driven by Mr. Partin. According to Mr. Bachar, Mr. Partin failed to properly stop at a stop sign. In order to avoid colliding with Mr. Partin as he entered the intersection, Mr. Bachar swerved his car and ended up colliding with another vehicle. Mr. Bachar sued for negligence, and Mr. Partin responded by alleging that Mr. Bachar was partly to blame for the accident that occurred. According to Mr. Partin, Mr. Bachar was speeding at the time of the accident.
Direct and Vicarious Liability In Tennessee – Can Employers Be Held Liable for Both?
When an employee causes an injury to another person while acting within the scope of his or her employment, many times an employer can also be held liable for such injuries under the idea of vicarious liability. Thus, when a bus driver is in an accident while performing the duties of his job, a bus company, or the employer who hired the driver, may also be responsible for the driver’s negligent actions because they occurred on the job. At the same time, employers may be directly responsible for injuries caused by an employee when they fail to correctly train an employee, or are negligent in their hiring of the employee and overlook red flags that should have been addressed. A recent case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses a novel question before the Tennessee courts: can employers be both vicariously liable for injuries caused by their employees and directly liable for those injuries as well? Jones v. Windham et al. suggests that they can.
Government Liability in Tennessee for Automobile Accidents Involving Police Officers
As discussed on this blog, private individuals are frequently the subject of negligence and wrongful death lawsuits for automobile accidents that resulted in injuries to others or lost lives. But it is not always private individuals or private automobiles that are the cause of deadly car crashes. In many instances, employees may be driving company cars when they suddenly run a red light, or a government official may be using a government vehicle that becomes part of an accident scene. In these situations, liability can become more complicated and extend beyond the driver to the corporation or government agency that was “controlling” the driver or the car at the time of the accident. A recent case in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considers what happens when government employees and their vehicles are involved in life-changing accidents.
Tennessee in Limbo Over Updates to Child Safety Seat Requirements
In an effort to reduce driving fatalities in Tennessee, lawmakers have long advocated for seat belt laws and requirements for adult drivers and passengers. For younger passengers, however, seat belt laws often are not enough. Babies, toddlers, and even young children do not receive the same protection from seat belts that adults do, and need additional measures to ensure their safety while in a vehicle. For this reason, many states have additional safety seat requirements for children of a younger age.
The science on necessary safety seat requirements has changed over the years, as our understandings over how to best protect children progress. For instance, forward facing and rear facing child seats have both been used at different times and for different ages. Recently, the Tennessee legislature considered whether new information on safety seats warranted increasing the age at which children are no longer required to sit in safety seats, from eight to twelve years of age.
The Future of Tennessee’s Motorcycle Helmet Law
Tennessee is one of a significant number of states that currently have a mandatory motorcycle helmet law. This law requires that all drivers and passengers of motorcycles wear a helmet while the motorcycle is in operation, for their own safety and the safety of others. The law, Section 55-9-302 of the Tennessee Code, requires not only that passengers and drivers wear a helmet, but also that the helmet comply with the federal safety regulations and standards for helmets. Certain individuals are exempted from Tennessee’s mandatory helmet requirements, including people riding on a motorcycle with an enclosed cab or one on which three wheels are touching the ground. In all other instances, a failure to wear a motorcycle helmet can be charged as a class C misdemeanor, resulting in fines or up to 30 days in jail.
Can Tennessee Emergency Vehicles Be Held Liable for Accidents That Occur While On Emergency Calls?
We have all experienced the sudden sound of sirens in the distance and the quickly approaching flashing lights that signal an emergency vehicle making its way to an urgent situation. We are all no doubt familiar with the laws that require us to pull over to the side of the road to allow such vehicles to pass, or to defer to emergency vehicles entering or exiting a traffic intersection. Yet, despite such safety laws, can emergency vehicles be held liable for accidents that may occur while they are urgently trying to reach their destination point? A recent case out of the Court of Appeals in Tennessee suggests that they can.
In Robin G. Jones v. Bradley County, Ms. Jones filed a governmental tort action against Bradley County Fire and Rescue as a result of an accident that she experienced when a Fire and Rescue vehicle was making its way to an emergency call. In July 2012, Ms. Jones was approaching an intersection when a Bradley County Fire and Rescue vehicle received notice of a fire alarm. The Fire and Rescue vehicle immediately turned on its emergency lights and sirens and approached the same intersection as Ms. Jones. As it entered the intersection, the emergency vehicle approached carefully and looked for oncoming traffic before turning on a red light. At the same time, Ms. Jones, who did not hear or notice the emergency vehicle, was passing through the intersection. The two cars collided, and Ms. Jones was injured.