Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

John Travolta,  one of the better known actors in the world, has been hit with two lawsuits alleging that he engaged in sexual misconduct.

The allegations come from two masseurs who, so far,  have refused to reveal their names.  In one case, the masseuse claims that Travolta solicited sexual conduct with him on January 16, 2012 at the Beverly Hills Hilton.  Travolta allegedly began rubbing the masseuse’s leg, touched his scrotum and the shaft of his penis.  Travolta adamantly denies the accusations, and has offered proof that he was in New York at the time the alleged incident occurred. Now, the accuser says he got the date wrong, and that the real date was some time earlier.

Here is a copy of the complaint in  case.  The theories of liability are assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"1-800-Ask-Gary" is a medical and legal referral service in Florida founded by Sarasota chiropractor Gary Kompothecras.  If you have been to Central Florida you have seen their billboards, television ads and radio ads.  Television ad costs exceed $12M per year.

Business must be good –  last June Kompothecras paid a little more than $1 million for a three-year deal to put his service’s name on the amphitheater in Tampa.  And he built a home of almost 30,000 square feet.

However, 1-800-Ask-Gary has created more than a little controversy.  The referral business sends people to some 40  clinics operated by Kompothecras.  Lawyers pay to join the referral network and get cases from the referral service.

Subject to several exceptions, the Tennessee Supreme Court has the right to choose what cases it will hear.  A T.R.A.P. Rule 11 petition is filed when one seeks permission to appeal a case to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In the year ending June 30, 2011, 888 Rule 11 petitions were filed and only 61 were granted.  Of those 61 cases, the Court actually heard 52 of the cases.  The other 9 cases were immediately remanded for evaluation by a lower court.

Thus, the chance of the Tennessee Supreme Court actually accepting a Rule 11 application (or remanding the case for evaluation by a lower court) is about 1 in 14. 

A law student at the University of Texas, Michael T. Raupp, has written a note in the Texas Law Review  (Issue 90, Volume 1) titled "The Multiplication of Indivisible Injury."   The work is critical of the handling of the subject by the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which prompted a response by the Reporters.

This is a complicated area of the law, and Raupp does a good job gathering case law and describing the applicable public policy concerns. 

As Raupp, explains, "the indivisible injury doctrine,  [which operates] as an exception to the causation component of damages,  rescues the plaintiff from the position of not being able to recover simply because he happened to encounter two negligent actors instead of one.  Additionally, it prevents the tortfeasors from escaping liability for their negligent acts simply because the hapless plaintiff was injured a second time."

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has ruled that a father playing catcher in a softball game who was injured during a collision at home plate did not have a claim against the baserunner. 

In Cole v. Boy Scouts of America, Opinion No. 27072 (S.C. S. Ct. 12/5/11), South Carolina’s Supreme Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the baserunner (Wagner) who collided with the plaintiff’s husband at home plate.  Plaintiff’s husband sustained a serious brain injury in the collision.

Defendant Wagner moved for summary judgment contending that he owed no duty to Plaintiff’s husband because because he (the husband) assumed the risks of playing the sport of softball. Plaintiff alleged that Wagner’s behavior was inconsistent with the ordinary risks of softball because the game was intended to be noncompetitive.  He also argued that Wagner violated a rule of the game, and he acted recklessly.

Aggie Spirit took exception to my suggestion that Herman Cain encourage the NRA to waive the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreements with the women who lodged sexual harassment charges against him.

This was AggieSpirit’s comment::

I am sure your position as a trial lawyer (and likely member of ATLA) and your donation history (which shows that you donate to Democrats like Bruce Braley) have no influence on your hypocritical position on whether or not Cain should release his accusers from confidentiality agreements. Where were all the Democratic calls for openness for Ginnifer Flowers, nor where was the main stream media in revealing that Flowers was paid a 6 figure settlement by the Clintons? 
You democrats have a double standard at every aspect here — in your mind, Cain has been accused of wrongdoing, therefore, he must be guilty. But the benefit of the doubt is given to every accused Democrat, and the media turns the other way and essentially ignores wrongdoing by Democrats. You would think the media would have reported extensively about the close ties between Obama and American unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, but not one network outside of Fox reported on the relationship. 
This whole situation with Cain wreaks of one thing, and one thing alone — the political establishment and their media Obama worshiping allies will do anything to railroad the possibility that a black man become the GOP nominee — because Democrats, just like their slave master ancestor Southern Democrats of the 1800s, believe that they OWN black people, and deserve their vote. How dare Cain, or any other minority, leave the plantation of handouts, welfare, and failed affirmative action policy which have destroyed black America and created a generation of government dependency. But hey – you lawyers benefit directly from regulation, which is why you are overwhelmingly liberal. The more regulation and law, the richer you get. You sir, are disgusting.

There are two things wrong with this post.  First, it is not directly about tort law – it is about contract law.  And this is supposed to be a blog about tort law.  So perhaps this post shouldn’t be here.

Second, this post is about a victory our firm had in the Tennessee Court of Appeals on October 19, 2011.  Regular readers know that I typically don’t write about our firm’s cases on this blog.

That aside, I know that many of my fellow tort lawyers handle commercial litigation cases from time to time.  I have done so for most of my career and enjoy the work.  Thus, I thought that many readers could benefit from knowing about this new appellate court decision, particularly the readers from Tennessee.  

A man with a student pilot’s license crashed into a home, killing himself and his minor daughter.  The deceased child’s mother brought suit against the local aviation board and others for permitting him to take off in the plane despite the absence of a pilot’s license, seeking damages for the death of her daughter.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, saying that the father had intentionally crashed the plane into his mother-in-law’s house with the intent to kill his daughter and himself.  The father and his wife were in the process of a divorce, and the father was upset that his wife was dating another man.  Among other damning facts, the evidence showed that

 
Eric [the father] attempted to  contact Beth [the mother] on her cell phone, and he made angry and threatening statements when he reached Beth on the third attempt.  At some point during the conversation, Eric told Beth that she would never see Emily again. Just before the plane  crashed into Pace’s house, two bystanders witnessed the airplane abruptly angle downward and throttle its engines toward the ground, without taking the normal steps to prepare for landing, such as deploying flaps, reducing speed, and shallowing descent.    Eric  crashed the airplane into the house shortly thereafter.   As noted above, [his mother-in-law’s] residence  was one of 18,500 houses in  Lawrence County.  [Citations omitted.]

You have to give the Republican Party credit – they are working hard to create jobs for those who are out of work.

In Tennessee, for example, the right to trial by jury was limited for every Tennessean so that somebody somewhere could get a job.

The right that citizens had to sue those who design and build dangerous roads and bridges was severely limited with the promise of more jobs.

Contact Information