badge
badge
Justia Lawyer Rating for Eric Beasley
badge
badge
badge
badge

|

Product liability is an area of the law that deals with when and how product manufacturers can be held liable for the creation or manufacture of products that cause injury to consumers. A central tenet of product liability is that manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers of known hazards in a product. Thus, for instance, toy manufacturers who create toys for children with small parts must be careful to warn consumers of the hazards that such small parts may pose for young children, such as toddlers.  Recently, the Sixth Circuit looked closely at product liability based on a failure to warn when the consumer was already aware of the known hazards of the product.

In Smith v. Joy Technologies, Mr. Smith was employed at a coal mine owned by Southern Coal Corporation in Kentucky.  The coal mine used a high wall mining (HWM) system to remove coal from the coal mine. Under this system, conveyor cars are pushed into the mine through a hydraulic system that pushes the cars forward.  The cars are loaded with coal, and, when all the cars are full, the system is reversed so that the cars can be extracted from the mine and the coal removed.  Guide rails typically operate alongside the car system in order to maintain the alignment of the cars.  Here, Mr. Smith was working to empty cars as they returned from the mine when an electrical cable on a car became stuck.  Mr. Smith went to dislodge the electrical cable and in so doing, placed his foot between the guide rail and the hydraulic pusher for the cars.  One of his coworkers mistakenly activated the hydraulic system, and the pusher engaged, crushing Mr. Smith’s foot between the pusher and the guide rail.  After several surgeries, Mr. Smith’s lower leg was ultimately amputated, and he was declared fully disabled.

Continue reading ›

|

The doctrine of premises liability in Tennessee provides that, in certain situations, property owners can be held liable for injuries or accidents that occur to members of the public on their property. As Tennessee courts have previously acknowledged, however, “negligence cannot be presumed by the mere happening of an injury or accident.” Instead, a plaintiff seeking to recover compensation for injuries must show that there was a duty of care that the property owner owed to the plaintiff and that the property owner’s actions, or lack thereof, amounted to a breach of that duty, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. While a duty of care should prevent property owners from knowingly ignoring obvious dangerous conditions on their property, it does not require them to prevent every possible injury from occurring, especially those that could not have been foreseen. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals illustrates this point.

Continue reading ›

|

Under Tennessee law, universities and colleges often owe basic duties to their students to protect them from known harms. This is particularly true for students living in dorms on university campuses, where the universities often function as landlords and caretakers of the students.  However, under basic negligence law, individuals, entities, and corporations cannot be held accountable to protect students against dangers of which they did not know or could not have known.  A recent case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks specifically at whether the Tennessee Technological University was liable for hearing damage caused to a hearing-impaired student by dormitory fire alarms.

Continue reading ›

|

When an individual dies as the result of another’s actions, it is common for family members and friends to want to seek justice on behalf of the individual who has been killed. In most states, including Tennessee, state statutes dictate who is entitled to bring such a claim, in order to prevent friends or distant relatives from bringing claims that rightfully belong to a family member like a child or spouse.  However, these statutes often have specific provisions that set forth when and how such wrongful death actions can be brought, as well as who can bring them. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered whether surviving spouses may bring wrongful death actions on behalf of a deceased family member when the spouse owed outstanding child support obligations.

Continue reading ›

|

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.  Things that may not be obvious at first glance often become painfully clear after the fact.  Such is the case for many of the dangerous conditions that present themselves in personal injury and premises liability cases.  While a broken stair or a slick sidewalk may seem innocuous at first, after a life-changing accident, it can become all too obvious that the circumstances constituted a dangerous condition that should have been addressed.  However, not all injuries arise from dangerous conditions.  Some are simply the consequence of bad luck or unfortunate circumstances.  How do courts tell the difference?  A recent case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses this issue.

In Singletary v. Gatlinburlier, a seemingly impossible set of circumstances gave rise to a tragic accident.  While inside the Gatlinburlier Tobaccoist, Carol Singletary became suddenly light-headed and fainted into an antique glass display case.  Her fall onto the glass caused the glass to shatter, and a single piece of glass pierced Ms. Singletary’s skin, piercing her heart. She died almost instantly.

Continue reading ›

|

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a federal law that governs claims for benefits under retirement and disability plans, among other things.  In enacting ERISA, Congress explicitly stated that ERISA is an area of federal law that can preempt related state law claims. This means that when a state law claim duplicates or supplants the federal enforcement schemes set forth under ERISA, Congress makes ERISA the exclusive remedy for relief, and the state law claim is preempted.  While such preemption may seem straightforward, plaintiffs are still entitled to bring tort and personal injury claims that may be tangentially related to an ERISA violation, as long as the claims do not essentially duplicate the ERISA claim.  In many cases, plaintiffs may also attempt to artfully plead personal injury claims so that they appear to be independent of an ERISA violation, when they are in fact the same thing.  A recent case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals takes a look at claims of negligence against medical practitioners involved in an ERISA-related evaluation of disability.

Continue reading ›

|

All professionals who provide services to others are required to uphold a high standard of care when dealing with clients.  In the medical professional field, this means abiding by certain tenets of medical care and prioritizing the well-being of the patient. In the legal field, lawyers are required to abide by certain codes of ethics that govern the profession and protect clients from abuse or negligent representation.  When a lawyer is believed to have failed to meet his or her professional standards, a client may sue for legal malpractice, a type of tort similar to medical malpractice. A recent case in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considered a legal malpractice action against an attorney for allegedly failing to draft a proper prenuptial agreement.

In Dustin Scott Roberts v. William R. Ray, Mr. Roberts engaged the services of Mr. Ray to prepare a prenuptial agreement for him before his marriage to his wife, Ms. Freeman. Mr. Ray drafted an agreement that set forth the separate property owned by each couple, as well as stating an intention to keep all property and debts separate, even in marriage. In addition, the agreement provided that each party understood the assets owned by the other and waived any claim to the assets of the other, including 401K accounts, brokerage accounts, and real estate.

Continue reading ›

|

When we think about personal injury cases and negligence lawsuits, we typically imagine slip and fall accidents, car crashes, and faulty railings.  But personal injuries can arise in virtually in any situation, even in the most unpredictable of conditions. A recent case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals takes a look at personal injuries arising from dirty bathrooms on a train moving from North Carolina to Tennessee. Despite the best efforts of the plaintiff, a train engineer, the Sixth Circuit held that there are limits to federal government liability for the unpleasant conditions in public restrooms.

In Edwards v. CSX Transp., Inc., Edwards was a train engineer working for CSX.  On the morning of May 28, 2012, he boarded a train headed to Tennessee with an upset stomach.  After rushing quickly to the bathroom, Edwards was dismayed to find that it was, in his words, “nasty.” Unwilling to use the toilet, which he alleged was splattered with various substances, Edwards rushed outside to a catwalk along the side of the train and attempted to throw up over the side. In the process, he fell over the handrail and off the catwalk, landing on the ground below. He broke several bones and walked away with lasting injuries.

Continue reading ›

|

Under Tennessee law, family members of individuals wrongly killed as a result of another’s actions may sue for damages under the Tennessee Wrongful Death Statute.  However, wrongful death claims cannot be brought whenever a family member wishes to bring one, but instead they must be brought within the statute of limitations (deadline period) for such claims. While this is generally a hard and fast rule, in certain circumstances, the statute of limitations period can be “tolled” or put on hold until a family member makes a proper claim. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals considers whether a pro se complaint incorrectly filed within the statute of limitations period tolls the deadline such that a later, correctly filed complaint is also timely.

In Beard v. Branson et al., Ruth Hartley underwent colon surgery performed by Dr. Branson. After the surgery, Ms. Hartley developed complications from the surgery, but Dr. Branson dismissed the medical issues as insignificant. Ms. Hartley’s condition deteriorated, and she passed away on September 29, 2004. A year later, in September 2005, Mr. Hartley, the surviving spouse, filed a pro se (without representation) wrongful death complaint against Dr. Branson. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Branson moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was incorrectly filed, and for that reason it was void. In the meantime, the statute of limitations had also expired under Tennessee’s Wrongful Death Statute.

Continue reading ›

|

In most instances, when an individual has a claim for personal injury, negligence, or wrongful death against another individual or corporation, a lawsuit can be brought in federal or state court. While there are certain limitations on who can bring a lawsuit (someone who has actually been injured) or when the lawsuit can be brought (within the statute of limitations period), the courts generally prefer to give individuals as much opportunity as possible to seek justice through the court system.  One special exception to this policy is the concept of immunity.  The legislature, or the courts, may grant immunity to certain individuals or entities so that they are insulated from a lawsuit. Governmental departments may be immune from suit, as may individuals acting on behalf of the government, such as police officers, in certain circumstances.  But immunity is not limited to public officials. A recent case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses the possibility of immunity for ski resorts from lawsuits that arise on their property.

Continue reading ›