At 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.
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.
Determining Damages in Tennessee When the Jury’s Verdict Exceeds the Amount Requested
It 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.
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.
Notification Requirements for Medical Malpractice Claims in Tennessee
Tennessee’s medical malpractice statute provides very specific requirements for individuals seeking to bring medical malpractice claims against Tennessee physicians and hospitals. These measures are enacted, in part, to reduce the filing of frivolous malpractice claims, as well as to ensure that all plaintiffs and defendants have equal access to sensitive financial information. Although Tennessee courts understand that not all litigants will be able to understand the sophisticated requirements of Tennessee statutes, they have also determined that, in most instances, these requirements must be carefully followed.
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.
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.