Tennessee Injury Lawyer BlogPremises liability and negligence claims arise when property owners have knowledge of circumstance or conditions on their property that could potentially cause harm, but they do not do anything to address those risks. While knowledge or awareness of a risk can be broadly interpreted, courts have consistently held that property owners should not be held liable for conditions that they could not have anticipated would cause harm. Thus, when a stair breaks unexpectedly, without reason, the owner of the stairs usually will not be at fault. Similarly, as discussed in the case below, when a restaurant owner has never had problems with the safety of a handrail before, and a fall occurs, the restaurant owner will not be held responsible unless he had some indication that the injury and fall could happen.
Articles Posted in Personal Injury
Tennessee Court Vacates Summary Judgment When Court Failed to Explain Ruling
When a litigant appeals a decision by a lower court in a personal injury or wrongful death action, the appeals court must review the record that was before the lower court, the evidence presented to the judge or jury, and the reasoning behind the court or jury’s decision. In order to conduct an adequate review, the appellate court must have enough information from the lower court to fully understand what happened and how the court reached the outcome that it did. When a lower court fails to do so, the appellate court may be forced to overturn or vacate the decision, as it did in a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case.
Tennessee Court of Appeals Finds Merit in Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
When a party is injured by the negligence of another party, that individual typically has claims for the pain and suffering and other damages that they experienced. Additionally, in some states, like Tennessee, those who knew the party, were closely related to the person injured, or witnessed the injury that occurred may also have their own claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). Since NIED claims could potentially open a defendant up to many claims by many different parties, they are typically construed quite narrowly and require plaintiffs to show that they were immediately affected by an “injury producing event.” In a recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the court considered whether an injury producing event had to occur instantly or could be the product of prolonged negligence over time.
Tennessee Court Affirms Ruling Reducing “Grossly Disproportionate” Award
When a plaintiff wins a lawsuit, the jury must typically decide the amount of damages that the plaintiff should be awarded, based on the evidence that the plaintiff has presented at trial. When a plaintiff so requests, juries can award damages for both economic injuries that were suffered (such as costs incurred or wages lost) and noneconomic injuries, such as pain and suffering. While parties may attempt to quantify noneconomic injuries to make it easier for juries to decide what should be awarded, the jury has discretion in determining how much money they think is appropriate. When a jury awards a plaintiff an amount of money that seems far too low or far too high, parties may appeal to the court for relief, asking the court to add to the award or reduce the award, based on the evidence presented at trial.
Tennessee Court Holds That Prisons Owe Duty to Suicidal Prisoners That May Extend Beyond Release
At the heart of every negligence case is the question of whether the alleged defendant actually owed a duty to the plaintiff who was injured. Without the presence of a duty, the defendant simply cannot be held responsible for any accident or injury that might have occurred. In Tennessee, individuals generally do not owe a duty to prevent another individual from harming themselves or to prevent a harm that they had no part in creating. This is often known as the no duty to aid doctrine. However, as with most general rules, there are some exceptions. Recently, the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered whether a special exception applies to prisons when they are in custody of a prisoner, or even after the prisoner is released.
Tennessee Supreme Court Denies Claim of Res Ipsa Loquitur Negligence
In most negligence cases, a plaintiff must show how a defendant breached a duty and how that breach caused his or her injuries. But in certain scenarios, a plaintiff may be certain that a defendant caused the injury but uncertain how the breach occurred or why it caused the injury it did. For instance, a plaintiff may own a shop that sells safes on the second floor of a building, when a safe falls out of the window of the store and onto a passerby. The passerby does not know how or why the safe fell but can be reasonably certain that it is something that should not have happened and is likely a result of the store owner’s negligence. This is the type of scenario in which the res ipsa loquitur doctrine can be applied. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine means “the thing speaks for itself” and applies when a plaintiff lacks direct proof of a defendant’s negligence but is entitled to an inference that the defendant was negligent. In a recent case before the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court considered but rejected an argument based on res ipsa loquitur.
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 Judge Rules that Insurer and Injured Cannot Bring Accident Suits At The Same Time
As anyone who has been involved in a lawsuit can tell you, litigation is rarely a fast or efficient process. It may take years for a case to proceed from the initial complaint all the way to a jury trial, with plaintiffs left waiting in the wings throughout. Courts recognize that litigating lawsuits can be a time consuming and lengthy endeavor, and are constantly seeking to make the process more efficient and less costly for parties. One way to do this is to ensure that courts do not have to duplicate their efforts by dealing with the same issues in multiple different lawsuits. In a recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the court considered these issues in addressing whether the victim of a truck accident could bring his own lawsuit at the same time that his insurer had a lawsuit already in court.
Tennessee Court Finds No Negligence When School Could Not Foresee Student’s Sexual Assault
The question of foreseeability in negligence claims does not arise only when dealing with dangerous conditions or known defects. An individual’s propensity to commit certain acts of violence may also raise questions of foreseeability. Thus, when an entity has control over an individual, like a school or employer, and has reason to know that that individual may have committed bad acts in the past, but nothing is done to stop the individual, harm may be foreseeable, and a duty may be created. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered whether a school had a duty to protect a student from sexual assault by another student because the possibility of sexual assault was foreseeable.