To what extent are we our brother’s keeper? That is a constant question posed in cutting edge tort cases, and this case in Illinois is no exception.
Iseberg sued his two partners because they failed to warn him that a fourth partner, Slavin, had made threats against Iseberg’s life. Iseberg was a man of his word: he shot Iseberg and rendered him a paraplegic.
From the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court:
Day on Torts: A Handbook for Tennessee Tort Lawyers 2008 is at the printer. The printing date is October 18 and the books should be delivered to Brentwood on October 23, 2007.
You may recall that the book will be updated during the year via a website called "dayontortsbook.com." I have seen the mock-up of that site – the folks at Justia did a great job on it. (Justia also developed our firm’s website – www.dayblair.com. These folks are extremely competent and I really enjoy working with them.) It will be available for public viewing by the end of the month.
Part I of the book is called "Leading Tennessee Tort Cases by Subject." It contains detailed summaries of 233 cases on 233 tort law subjects. It also contains citations to well over 1000 additional cases. Here is the table of contents to this section of the book.
Yesterday afternoon I attended the funeral of Judge Bill Cain of Columbia.
Judge Cain served on the Court of Appeals and had served as a trial judge. He was a lawyer who loved the law and loved to discuss the subject. He prided himself on his ability to dive into the books and find the answer to a problem, and was justified in his pride. We debated many tort law subjects over the years and I found him to be a worthy adversary, someone who not only knew the law but understood why the law was the way it was.
Judge Cain despised the phrase "reasonable degree of medical certainty" and did his best to relegate it to the ash-heap of history. He thought the "locality" rule in medical malpractice cases was assine, but applied it because he was duty-bound to do so. He applied to plaintiffs and defendants, and in fact reversed a jury verdict for the defendant in a Clarksville case because the defendant’s experts did not know the local standard of care.
I have told you in the past that I love Blog 702. It is a blog of substance, written by someone who knows what they are talking about and who is willing to share what they know.
The authors of Blog 702 have started a series about the concept of "reasonable degree of medical certainty." Here are the first few paragraphs"
Quite some time ago now, we promised to respond to a Beck & Herrmann post decrying an ALI proposal to abolish any requirement that experts offer their opinions to a “reasonable degree” of medical, professional, or scientific “certainty.” (Call this the “RDC” rule for short.) The ALI proposal would abrogate any RDC requirement and demand only that the expert hold his or her opinion to be more likely true than not — at least in the context of opinions offered to prove causation in tort cases involving physical harm.
OK – the Pats got hit with a fine – $250,000 for the team and $500,000 for the coach – for cheating in professional football. They also face a loss of a draft pick or picks, depending on how they finish this season.
It’s not enough.
I want to know if this is an isolated event or, if not, how long have they been cheating. The coach implied that he mis-interpreted the rules. How long has he been running his team under this misunderstanding? Did their misconduct help them win any of the three Super Bowls in the last three years? If so, take the prize money back and pull the rings off the fingers of every coach aware of the practice. And put an asterick next to their name in the record books – *Cheaters.
I did not post for two days in a row and received four inquires about the state of my health.
I am alive.
I am in a middle of finishing a project that I will tell you more about next week. Today I will be consumed with four depositions and a meeting with a new client on what looks like a great products case against an automobile manufacturer. We are also filing two new cases today in Knoxville, a products case in federal court and a road construction / signage negligence case in state court. It has been more than the ordinary flurry of activity at Day & Blair this week, but I am scrambling to get everything done so that I can relax at the Titans-Colts game Sunday afternoon.
They have broken the $1000 per hour barrier in New York.
Of course, Gary Brewer and Steve Terry were charging that four years ago in Bulls Gap.
My wife Joy and I are pleased to announce the birth of our daughter, Kaitlin Irene Day, yesterday at 2:41 p.m. at Baptist Hospital in Nashville. Kate weighed in at an unbelievable 10 pounds, 9 1/2 ounces and is 21 an 3/4 inches long.
She began riding a tricycle last evening.
Kate and Joy are doing great. We are very blessed to have had an incident-free pregnancy followed by the delivery of a healthy, beautiful baby girl. Indeed, this is the third time I have been blessed with a strong, healthy child – Sarah was born 16 years ago and Michael 12 years ago.
I wrote on July 30 about a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that addressed the issue of the effect of the failure of a plaintiff in a personal injury action to disclose the existence of the claim on a bankruptcy petition and the failure to disclose the claim during a hearing.
Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Sharon Lee wrote to tell me about a decision from the Tennessee Court of Appeals (Eastern Section) that addressed the interaction of bankruptcy law and personal injury claims. Here is the summary paragraph in Headrick v. Bradley County Memorial Hospital written by Judge Lee:
"In this appeal, the issue presented is whether a party has standing to pursue a personal injury claim in state court that accrued after the filing of the party’s bankruptcy petition and before the closing of the bankruptcy case. Ms. Headrick filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. While the bankruptcy case was pending, Ms. Headrick was involved in a single car accident and was treated for her injuries by Dr. Daniel Johnson at Bradley County Memorial Hospital. Subsequently, she converted her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. While the Chapter 7 case was still pending, she discovered that she suffered a hip fracture in the car accident which she alleges that Dr. Johnson and the Hospital failed to timely diagnose and treat. Thereafter, Ms. Headrick received a discharge in bankruptcy and the bankruptcy case was closed. Ms. Headrick then filed a medical negligence case against Dr. Johnson and Bradley Memorial Hospital. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Ms. Headrick did not have standing to bring the case. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. After review of the record and applicable authorities, we hold that Ms. Headrick’s post-bankruptcy cause of action is not part of the bankruptcy estate and therefore, as a matter of law Ms. Headrick did have standing to bring the lawsuit. The trial court’s decision is reversed."
Judge Keeton, co-author of Prosser and Keeton on Torts, died July 1, 2007 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Keeton was a professor at Harvard and later became a federal district judge. He was 87.
Day on Torts