Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

There are two reasons there is not a substantive post today.  First, I am speaking for three hours at our Justice Programs seminar today and am quite busy.

Second, my wife Joy and I went to see Bruce Springsteen in concert last night in Nashville and I did not get to bed until 12:30 this morning.  The Boss gave a great 3-hour show, and included one of my favorite songs, Badlands;

Lights out tonight, trouble in the heartland.
Got a head-on collision, smashin in my guts man.
Im caught in a crossfire that I don’t understand.
But there’s one thing I know for sure girl:
I don’t give a damn for the same old played out scenes
I don’t give a damn for just the in-betweens.
Honey I want the heart, I want the soul, I want control right now.
You better listen to me baby:
Talk about a dream; try to make it real.
You wake up in the night with a fear so real.
You spend your life waiting for a moment that just don’t come.
Well don’t waste your time waiting

F. Chris Cawood v. Linda Booth, et al., E2007-02537-SC-R11-CV,  (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008) has a set of facts you don’t run into every day or, at least, I hope you don’t run into everyday.   Here is the description of the case from the opinion of the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff, F. Chris Cawood, is an attorney. He represented Tammy Clark  (“the Client”) in a divorce case. During the post-judgment phase of that representation, the plaintiff and the Client engaged in a sexual relationship. On occasion, while in the plaintiff’s office, the plaintiff would masturbate in the presence of the Client, following which he would give her a credit on her bill. After she complained to local authorities, the Roane County Sheriff’s Department equipped the Client with concealed audio and video equipment. Thereafter, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, she videotaped him while he was masturbating. During this event, the Client hit him on the buttocks and pinched his nipples. Following this event, the videotape was placed under the control of Linda Booth of the Sheriff’s Department. Booth gave the video to another investigator, Dennis Worley, who happens to be the Client’s uncle. Worley was not involved in the investigation but wanted to see the videotape to ascertain if his niece had done anything illegal. Worley viewed the videotape in an office shared by officers Randy Scarbrough and Jon French. During the viewing, the door to the office was open. The video was viewed not only by Worley, but also by Scarbrough and French, a bail bondsman who was passing by the office, and others. The plaintiff filed suit against Booth, Worley, Scarbrough and French alleging (1) a violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994, (2) invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, and (3) outrageous conduct. The trial court granted all defendants summary judgment as to all claims.Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the grant of summary judgment to Booth and Worley on the plaintiff’s outrageous conduct claim. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Hmmm.  The appellee’s brief will be filed in December, 2009.  Expect an opinion in the Summer of 2010.

A little over a week ago I wrote this post about the general rule in the law of torts that one person does not have a duty to rescue another from harm.  To be sure, there are exceptions to that general rule, but the fact remains that this is one area of tort law in where the duty imposed by law is generally less than that imposed by the moral code of most people.

This post from the Volokh Conspiracy notes that some states impose a duty to rescue crime victims or report crimes.  The 10 states listed by Volokh with "duty to rescue" statutes are California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Most of the statutes, however, impose only a very limited to duty to call the police if you witness a serious crime such as murder or rape, and can summon help without endangering yourself.  Vermont  imposes the highest level of responsibility by requiring assistance to the victim.

 Penny White, Joe Riley and I are on the road again this Fall for the 2009 Justice Programs seminars. This two-day, 15-hour is designed for Tennessee lawyers who do civil litigation and who are looking for substantive continuing legal education that will help them better serve their clients.

We will be in Nashville November 19 and 20, Chattanooga on December 3 and 4, Memphis on December 10 and 11, and Knoxville on December 17 and 18.

Here are the topics we are offering this year:

Focus groups are invaluable tools for exploring key issues in your case before taking it into the courtroom. Register for Case Plus: The Next Step in Developing and Testing Your Trial Story to benefit from not one, but three focus groups—now with extended focus group time spent on your case. And you can bring a second member of your trial team from your firm at no additional cost.

Case Plus Helps at Every Stage of Your Case:

• Explore the biases and beliefs surrounding your case in order to develop a discovery plan and case themes

I participated in a panel discussion at a local high school a week or so ago.  The attendees were high school students and their parents.  The other participants on the panel included a local juvenile court judge, a police officer, and an assistant district attorney.

Some of the questions included the potential liability of parents for furnishing alcohol to minors and various, easy-to-imagine spin-off questions.  One question was the liability of an adult who comes upon a drunken minor but did not nothing to furnish alcohol to the minor, did not own or occupy the site where the alcohol was given to the minor, and had no relationship with the minor.  If the adult simply ignores the minor and watches him get into a car and drive away, does the adult have any liability if the minor dies in a one-car wreck a block down the road?

This is a moral and a legal question – and I informed the group that I would leave  the moral question to" pillow test."  Legally, there is no liability on the adult because there is no duty on the adult to rescue another from the potential for harm or to otherwise come to the aid of a stranger.  We had a nice discussion about it, and also about the consequences of deciding to lend aid under such circumstances.

Rush Limbaugh is a gifted entertainer who has a propensity to say some pretty ridiculous things. That being said, it is pretty hard to be on the radio for three hours per day and not say some ridiculous things, especially when you have to appease an audience that feeds off of ridiculous things.

On Saturday Rush stepped in it again.  I am an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal, and the Saturday edition included an op-ed piece under Rush’s by-line complaining that he was kicked out of the group that was attempting to buy the St. Louis Rams.  What caused his expulsion?   You guessed it – the liberal media and its normal sources, including Al Sharpton.  Here is what Rush said about Sharpton:

In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie’s Fashion Mart riot.

The October 2009 edition of the Tennessee Trial Law Report  is in the mail.

This edition includes a summary of 17 different cases addressing various aspects of the law of torts, civil procedure, evidence and trial as decided by Tennessee appellate courts between August 15 and September 15, 2009. The newsletter totals 35 pages, including 17 pages containing the full-text (in addition to our summary) of the most important opinions issued last month.

The newsletter also includes (a) my continuing series on The Law of Trial (this month’s article concerns the "Rule;” and (b) a summary of the status of 11 cases of interest to tort lawyers that are pending before the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Contact Information