Tennessee Injury Lawyer BlogBringing claims in a Tennessee courtroom can be expensive. Getting a case ready for trial takes extensive preparation, discovery, and long days and nights thinking through the details of the case. This means that fees can add up, and lawyers may seem too expensive to consider. In these circumstances, some plaintiffs decide to go it alone in their case, acting as a pro se plaintiff, or a plaintiff without representation, in the courtroom. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals illustrates the complexity of bringing a premises liability lawsuit without an attorney and the care that must be taken in proving all of the elements of a negligence or failure to warn claim.
Articles Posted in Personal Injury
Tennessee Court Emphasizes That Dangerous Conditions Must Actually Cause Harm
One of the most overlooked aspects of any negligence claim is the requirement that a plaintiff show that the danger or harm she experienced actually caused the injuries that were incurred. Often, when an accident or injury occurs, and a dangerous condition existed, we simply assume that the two are connected. In court, however, plaintiffs bear the burden of making this connection, and without it, a court will not find a defendant responsible.
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.
Landlord Liability Even for Open and Obvious Dangerous Conditions in Tennessee
When dealing with premises liability and other personal injury cases, it is well accepted that landlords and owners have a duty to warn those entering or using their property of known dangerous conditions. If a plaintiff does not know that a condition exists, it is impossible for them to avoid it, and an injury or even death can result. When a landlord or an owner makes a plaintiff aware of a dangerous condition, but the plaintiff knowingly decides to encounter it anyway, liability may transfer from the defendant to the plaintiff. That is, the plaintiff may become comparatively negligent, and the defendant may be absolved from liability. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals deals with one of the more rare circumstances in a comparative negligence claim – when a plaintiff is aware of the risk and knowingly encounters it, but the defendant may still be liable for the injury that results.
Tennessee Court Considers Duties of Sellers and Purchasers of Defibrillator Devices
In recent years, more and more public spaces have begun to carry automated external defibrillators, also known as AEDs. These devices allow individuals to respond quickly to instances of cardiac arrest or other heart-related emergencies. AEDs do require training in order to be used effectively, and many of the distributors of AEDs now offer training in conjunction with the purchase of the devices so that they can be used safely. A recent case before the Tennessee Supreme Court considers the obligations and duties placed upon sellers and purchasers of AEDs when employees and individuals are not trained on how to safely use them.
In Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church, Ms. Wallis sued Brainerd Church for wrongful death after her husband died while working out at a gym owned by the Church. Several years before, Brainerd Church purchased several AED devices from a distributor known as ExtendLife, Inc. In conjunction with the purchase of the devices, Brainerd Church also purchased the “Annual Physician Oversight Program Management,” which gave the church access to training programs so that its employees could learn how to use the AEDs, as well as consultation, monitoring, and support. Brained Church, with ExtendLife’s assistance, held several classes to train members and employees on how to use the AEDs. In 2011, Mr. Willis was participating in a cycling class at Brainerd’s exercise facility when he collapsed. The cycling instructor at the time was trained in how to use an AED but believed Mr. Wallis was suffering from a stroke, rather than a heart-related event, and did not use the AED. Several other bystanders brought the AED over and called 9-1-1, but ultimately they did not use the device. By the time emergency personnel arrived, Mr. Wallis was dead.
Immunity From The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for Discretionary Actions
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, states and governments are often immune from liability and cannot be sued in state or federal courts. Similarly, many states have enacted governmental tort liability acts that provide immunity to governmental entities and actors within a state, such as local police departments and school districts. Tennessee has the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), which sets forth the circumstances under which a governmental entity can and cannot be sued. In a recent case before the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the court took a look at when immunity applies to discretionary actions performed by a school district.
Tennessee Court Employs Rule of Seven to Evaluate Comparative Negligence Claim Against a Minor
Tennessee is a comparative negligence state. This means that when a plaintiff’s negligence is greater than a defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff cannot recover compensation from the defendant, even if the defendant was partially negligent in causing an accident or injury. Comparative negligence assumes full capacity, however, and special rules must be applied when dealing with negligence claims involving children. The courts choose to treat them differently and apply a test known as the Rule of Seven to determine how responsible a child plaintiff is for his or her own negligence. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals applies this test in considering a negligence claim from a teenage plaintiff who fell while at summer school.
Tennessee Court Finds Law Permitting Ex Parte Communications with Doctors Unconstitutional
Tennessee Code Section 29-26-121(f) permits defendants in health care liability actions to seek an order from the court allowing them to have ex parte communications with a plaintiff’s health care providers. Under the terms of the statute, if a defendant seeking such an order meets all of the necessary statutory requirements, a court is essentially required to issue such an order. In a recent case before the Sixth Circuit Court in Tennessee, a plaintiff argued that an order allowing ex parte communications should be denied because Section 29-26-121(f) is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
Who Is Liable for Injuries Resulting From Open and Obvious Conditions? – Goodwin v. Al J Schneider Co.
Landowners and individuals who invite another person into their home owe their invitees a duty to protect them from unreasonably dangerous conditions. But what happens when an invitee is also aware of the dangerous condition and knowingly attempts to navigate it, but ultimately hurts him or herself? Is the landowner still liable for the injuries that occurred, or does the invitee take on liability because they willingly subjected themselves to such conditions? A recent case before the Supreme Court of Kentucky looks at liability when the danger is “open and obvious.”
In Goodwin v. Al J. Schneider Co., Mr. Goodwin was attending a convention at Galt House, owned by the defendant. On the second day of the convention, Mr. Goodwin slipped and fell while getting into the bathtub and injured his knee. The bathtub in his room did not have a bathmat, and the floor of the bathtub was quite slick. After his fall, the Galt House provided Mr. Goodwin with a bathmat, and he later learned that many of the other rooms at the Galt House already had bathmats. In response, Mr. Goodwin sued, arguing that the slick surface of his bathtub was a dangerous condition and that the Galt House knew it was dangerous because it provided other rooms with bathmats. By failing to put a bathmat in his room, Mr. Goodwin alleged that the Galt House knowingly failed to exercise reasonable care for his safety. In response, the Galt House moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Goodwin was equally aware of the slick surface of the bathtub and should have exercised care himself. Since he did not do so, he was liable.
The Duty of Reasonable Care in Tennessee When Assisting Others in Dangerous Activities
A duty of reasonable care can arise in many different types of circumstances. We often think of duties owed by professionals, business owners, or landlords, but the average individual also owes a duty of care when he or she takes on activities in which carefulness and safety are necessary. In a recent case before the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the court took a look at one scenario in which such a duty may arise: while working with ladders in possibly dangerous conditions.
In Hoynacki v. Hoynacki, the plaintiff, Hoynacki Jr., was helping his father, Hoynacki Sr., wax his father’s RV. Since the RV was so tall, they used a five-foot ladder to reach the upper portions of the RV. When Hoynacki Jr. would get on the ladder, his father would hold the ladder for him until he determined that it was stable, and then Hoynacki Jr. would proceed to wax. At one point, toward the end of their work, Hoynacki Jr. climbed the ladder while it was on sloped ground. Although the four feet of the ladder touched the ground, when Hoynacki Jr. went to descend the ladder, it tipped over, and he fell, resulting in serious injuries. He sued his father, alleging that his father had failed to exercise reasonable care by not holding onto the ladder while Hoynacki Jr. was working, or assisting him when he descended. Hoynacki Sr. moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it, finding that he did not owe a duty of care to his son. Hoynacki Jr. appealed.