Tennessee Injury Lawyer BlogIt is a well-established principle of the law that damages are, in most instances, for the jury to decide. When a plaintiff and a defendant have a jury trial, and a jury finds the defendant liable, the jury will then address the amount of damages that the plaintiff should receive. Typically, a jury’s award will follow logically from the evidence presented at trial, or the request for damages that the party has made. However, on some occasions, a jury’s damages may seem excessive, or too low, in relation to the evidence presented. When this happens, one or both parties may request to have the damages amount changed by arguing that the current amount is not supported by the material evidence. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed a request for a damages reduction in a negligence case.
Articles Posted in Personal Injury
Tennessee Court Finds Lack of Knowledge of Dangerous Condition Sufficient for Summary Judgment
Many negligence cases arise out of a failure of one party to properly protect others. A party may choose to cut corners, thereby creating a dangerous product, or may knowingly fail to correct an existing problem in order to save money. In these circumstances, when another person is injured as a result of such conditions, a claim for negligence or even wrongful death is often proper. However, in other situations, accidents happen when no one individual or party is to blame. A condition may arise that could not have been foreseen, or a danger may be created of which no one previously knew. When this happens, although the injury or death may be significant, it may also be the case that no one defendant is to blame. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals holds that liability cannot be assigned to a defendant who simply had no knowledge of the dangerous condition that existed.
In Landrum, et al. v. Methodist Medical Center, et al., Ms. Landrum was visiting her mother at the Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge when she slipped and fell in a puddle of water on the fifth floor of the hospital. As a result of the fall, she fractured her patella and had to have several surgeries. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Landrum sued Methodist for her injuries. During depositions, Ms. Landrum acknowledged that she had not noticed the puddle when she was leaving the fifth floor, but she slipped on it 15 minutes later when she returned. She did not know how the puddle was created, how long it had been there, or from where it came. Methodist employees who were working on the fifth floor at the time of the accident testified that they did not notice the puddle until Ms. Landrum slipped, that no one had alerted them to the danger, and that they were not previously aware of it.
After discovery was over, Methodist filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding that Ms. Landrum had provided no evidence to show that Methodist had any knowledge of the puddle, or the dangerous condition it caused, prior to Ms. Landrum’s fall. The trial court concluded that Methodist could not be held liable for a danger of which it was not aware. Ms. Landrum appealed.
Tennessee Courts Recognize Duty of Property Owners to Protect Volunteers
Central to every negligence claim in Tennessee is the requirement that a defendant actually owe a duty to a plaintiff. The question of whether one owes a duty to another party often turns on the relationship between the two parties. For instance, an employer may owe a different duty to an employee than he or she owes to an independent contractor. And these duties are likely to be entirely different from any duty the employer may owe, if at all, to a total stranger. For property owners, the duty owed to those who venture onto their property typically depends on whether the visitor was invited, there for purposes of business, or simply a trespasser. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed the duty owed to a special category of individuals: volunteers.
Sixth Circuit Denies Negligence Claim for Lack of Physical Injury
When considering the elements of a negligence claim, personal injury attorneys often focus on whether a duty can be established, or whether causation can be shown. Many times, the existence of an injury may be presumed, since, without an injury, it is unlikely that the plaintiff would be seeking to instigate a lawsuit in the first place. Proof of injury, however, is a critical aspect of any negligence claim. Without an injury, a defendant cannot be held liable, and a plaintiff has no damages to recover. Time and money would be spent on litigation with no prospect of financial reward. For these reasons, identifying your injury as a plaintiff is crucial to a negligence case.
In Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Tamesha Means brought a claim for ordinary negligence against the USCCB as the entity overseeing the hospital where she received treatment during her pregnancy. Ms. Means was diagnosed early in her pregnancy with preterm premature rupture of membrane. This condition often leads to stillbirth and abortion, or induced miscarriage is frequently recommended. In Ms. Means’ case, the hospital where she was, Mercy Health, diagnosed Ms. Means but did not give her any treatment options. Instead, it offered her pain medication and sent her home. Ms. Means repeatedly returned on several occasions for increasingly more painful contractions and a related bacterial infection. Ultimately, she delivered her baby early, in breech, and it died within three hours.
Foreseeability As a Question of Fact in Tennessee Courts
One of the more complicated aspects of a negligence claim is the determination of whether the injury was a foreseeable one and, if so, whether the foreseeability of such risks outweighed the cost incurred by the defendant in attempting to prevent it. Foreseeability is sometimes considered an aspect of the duty determination in negligence claims, and sometimes found to be part of the breach component. Either way, courts have generally held that if a risk was not foreseeable, a defendant cannot be held liable for failing to prevent it. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looked at the question of foreseeability in a school assault case and determined that the question of foreseeability was one for the jury.
In Richardson v. Trenton Special School District, the parents of a child sued the school district after their child, known here as C.N.R., was assaulted by another student in a school bathroom. Both of the children were six at the time. C.N.R.’s parents began to suspect that something was wrong when C.N.R. told them that he was afraid to use the bathroom at school, but they thought that he was just a victim of bullying. It was only after the incident was reported to a teacher, who then reported it to the principal, that the parents learned that another child was assaulting their son. While investigating the assault, the parents learned that another assault between two students had occurred earlier in the year, but in an after school program. As a result of that assault, the school changed its bathroom policy in the after school program to require that teachers accompany students into the bathroom. It did not similarly change the policy during normal school hours.
However, the school did have in place a requirement that teachers closely monitor students and “keep them in their sights.” Teachers were further instructed to monitor students in hallways and bathrooms. It was unknown, at this point in the case, what the impetus was for this policy.
Immunity From Personal Injury Claims for Contractors – Black v. Dixie
When injuries occur while an individual is taking on a task related to work, complicated legal issues can arise. Generally, injuries that occur on the job are addressed through a state’s workers’ compensation system. Workers’ compensation laws preclude employees from filing suit for personal injuries against an employer, but instead they provide that the employee is compensated for time off work and medical bills. But what happens when an employee is injured as a result of a third party’s actions, rather than the actions of the employer? Can negligence or other tort claims be brought against that individual or entity? A recent case in the Sixth Circuit looks at the question of whether individuals can bring suit for personal injuries against contractors with which their employer was working.
Tennessee Appeals Court Reviews Video Evidence of Negligence – Peters-Asbury v. KAT
Negligence in a personal injury lawsuit can be proven by a variety of means. A witness may testify to observing negligent behavior, or the negligent actions may be documented in writing. Alternatively, there may be independent objective evidence of negligence, or, in rare instances, negligence may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. When evidence of negligence is presented in a manner that the trial court is in the best position to observe, such as through witness testimony, appellate courts will generally give significant deference to the observations and conclusions of the trial court. However, when the evidence of negligence can be independently evaluated by the appellate court (such as in the case of a writing), the appellate court may, in some circumstances, re-evaluate that evidence on its own and reach an independent conclusion. In a recent case before the Court of Appeals in Knoxville, the Court took it upon itself to review video evidence previously provided to a trial court and ultimately reversed the trial court’s decision.
In Peters-Asbury v. Knoxville Area Transit, Ms. Peters-Asbury sued for injuries she incurred while riding Knoxville Area Transit (KAT) buses. Ms. Peters-Asbury was a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville at the time of the accident, and she had received a pass from the University to utilize KAT’s disability bus services. She had a lingering knee injury that gave her significant mobility restrictions. On Ms. Peters-Asbury’s first day of classes, she requested transport from KAT to get her from one of her classes, at Bueller Hall, to the Disability Services office on campus, which was at Dunford Hall. The KAT bus, driven by Michael Chigano, picked her up and transported her to Dunford. However, rather than using the main entrance, the bus dropped her off at a side entrance. As she was exiting the bus, Ms. Peters-Asbury tripped, fell, and fractured her ankle. She ended up in a wheelchair and ultimately had to withdraw for the semester, due to lingering complications from the injury.
The Risks and Rewards of Jury Trials for Personal Injury Claims
When bringing a case in court, all parties to a personal injury dispute have the opportunity to request a trial by jury. This means that the plaintiff can initially request a jury, or, if he or she fails to do so, a defendant can request a jury trial as well. Determining whether a judge or jury is better suited to hear your case is a complicated question that requires a careful evaluation of many factors. While juries may be sympathetic to plaintiffs who have been seriously injured or faced significant trauma, they can also be a risky proposition, since it is not always clear what they will believe or where they will come out. Indeed, even in the best of cases, juries can be unpredictable when a plaintiff’s attorney is unable to skillfully deal with them.
Implied Negligence Claims in Tennessee – Dennis v. Donelson Corporate Centre
Typically, when a plaintiff alleges a claim of negligence in Tennessee courts, the plaintiff must prove all the necessary elements of a negligence claim, including duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Without establishing each of these elements, a negligence lawsuit cannot succeed. However, in certain circumstances, a plaintiff may bring a negligence claim under a doctrine know as res ipsa loquitur, or implied negligence. This is a doctrine that can be invoked when a plaintiff believes that negligence has occurred but is without access to all the facts necessary to prove each element of negligence. Instead, the plaintiff must show that the circumstances of an injury are such that negligence can instead be implied under the law. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and when it can be successfully invoked.
Releases and Liability in Tennessee
Claims for negligence and premises liability can arise in many situations. A visitor may fall and break a bone while walking around a piece of property. A participant in a sports game may tweak a knee while playing. A passenger on an amusement park ride may fail to read all the safety instructions and be bruised or injured during the experience. Since it can be difficult for a property owner to anticipate all of these types of possible situations, many property and facility owners require visitors and guests to sign waivers, releasing them from liability for any injury that may occur on their property. Interpreting these waivers and how they may be applied is a source of much discussion in court opinions. While some states interpret these releases to strictly preclude claims of injury, others view them more flexibly. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals illustrates Tennessee’s approach to the issue of releases and waivers.
In Gibson v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee, Sandra Gibson was injured while entering the YMCA. She tripped on a crack in the sidewalk and fell, leading to injuries. Prior to that visit, Ms. Gibson had signed an application and membership form to become a member of the YMCA. As part of the application, Ms. Gibson signed a paragraph stating that she waived and released the YMCA from any claims arising from injuries she might incur while using the YMCA’s facilities or programs. Despite signing this release, Ms. Gibson filed a claim for negligence against the YMCA.