A federal judge in Chicago has agreed to allow a jury to consider whether airplane crash victims experience preimpact terror before their deaths. Faced with no Illinois law directly on point, the federal court determined that the reasoning in Haley v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 746 F.2d 311, 314-15…
Where defendant shared truthful information that was a matter of public record “concerning a matter of public significance,” summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy was affirmed. In Adreacchio v. Hamilton, No. M2021-01021-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2718659 (Tenn. Ct. App. July…
My newest article, ” A New Arrow in the Quiver to Fight Revenge Porn,” has been published in the May/June edition of Tennessee Bar Journal. An excerpt: Now, a new federal law effective October 1, 2022, expands the rights of revenge porn victims and certain others by creating a federal cause…
A plaintiff cannot bring a separate intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on a work-related incident for which he has already pursued a workers’ compensation claim. In Byrd v. Appalachian Electric Cooperative, No. E2017-01345-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2018), plaintiff alleged that an “interrogation” by his supervisors at…
In Stinson v. Mensel, No. M2016-00624-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017), a neighborly dispute about chickens turned into a suit and counter-suit for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs owned land on which several neighbors had an easement for access to their…
In a recent case where plaintiff was seeking damages for emotional injuries, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that plaintiff could not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress when the claim was based on the negligent destruction of property. In Lane v. Estate of Leggett,…
In Goetz v. Autin, No. W2015-00063-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2016), plaintiff filed a rather unclear complaint that appeared to assert four causes of action: (1) defamation, (2) malicious prosecution, (3) abuse of process and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the entire complaint for…
Erin Andrews won a jury verdict yesterday in Nashville for $55,000,000 in her case against the company that owned and managed a local hotel. What happens next? Andrews’ lawyers will prepare a judgment reflecting the jury’s verdict. Look for a fight over whether joint and several liability or several liability…
This week, the Tennessee Supreme Court overruled Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008), “return[ing] to a summary judgment standard consistent with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” In Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, PLLC, No. W2013-00804-R11-CV (Oct. 26, 2015), plaintiff had…
A recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case serves as a reminder that the bar for proving outrageous conduct is high for plaintiffs attempting to make a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). In Kindred v. Nat’l College of Bus. and Tech., Inc., No. W2014-00413-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. March…