Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

I never met Molly Ivins, but wish I had.  She was a gifted writer with a wonderful sense of humor.

Her death is a real loss for all of us who love to read about politics.

The Supreme Court of Arizona has ruled that  persons who are prescribed drugs owe a duty of care, making them potentially liable for negligence, when they improperly give their drugs to others.

The defendant shared his prescribed drug (oxycodone) with others at a party.  One of the women he shared the drugs with gave them to the plaintiff’s decedent, who died that night from the combined toxicity of alcohol and oxcyodone.  The plaintiff (decedent’s mother) sued, and defendant denied that he owed a duty to the decedent.

The Court held that because Arizona had  statutes prohibiting the sharing of prescription drugs a duty existed.  The Court said that "[b]ecause [the decedent] is within the class of persons to be protected by the statute and the harm that occurred here is the risk that the statute sought to protect against, these statutes create a tort duty."

Well, as you probably have heard, a woman who participated in a "Hold your wee for a Wii" contest died of water intoxication.   According to the Sacramento Bee, "the contestants were given two minutes to drink an 8 ounce bottles of water every ten minutes. The winner was the last one to use the restroom."

An attorney has announced that suit will be filed against the station.

The allegations – and apparently undisputed facts – are that the disc jockeys laughed about the risk to participants and knew the risk of the stunt could be fatal.  Indeed, according to the Bee article, "a nurse called into the program to warn that drinking too much water was dangerous."

Most of us know judges who from time to time have disagreements with their colleagues and know other judges who simply don’t like a judge they have to work with every day.  There is nothing unusual about this – judges are people and it is unrealistic for anyone to expect that the day a person puts on a robe he or she is able to silently accept the human failings of others (or not have failings of their own).

But in Tennessee those disagreements rarely find their way to the public eye.  Indeed, I have no memory of ever reading a Tennessee court opinion in which one judge criticized the intellect or integrity of another judge.  We simply don’t do that "down here."

Things are a little different in Michigan – an "up there" state.  Those of you who love the law (or lack a real life) already know that the Supreme Court in Michigan is polarized.  But I admit that I had no idea that it had gotten downright ugly, as reflected in this memo dissenting from the election of the chief justice.

Can you imagine sitting in your battery-powered wheelchair and having it catch on fire?

That’s what the plaintiff alleged happened to her late father in this California case.  It settled on the courthouse steps; the settlement is, of course, confidential.

The article reports that "in 2006, said court records, the company released a new product manual warning of the potential for hydrogen fire during recharging of the wheelchair’s battery."

Here is an interesting article from the New York Times that discusses a recent study of whether private practice lawyers or public defenders get better outcomes for citizens accused of crimes.

We have "Metoo" motions in Nashville.  They usually occur when one defendant takes the time to draft and file a motion and memorandum and the  co-defendants  file papers that simply say "Metoo."

But a "Metoo" motion has a special meaning Up North.  Or, should I say, it will from now on.

A judge in Hartford has permitted Ms Reed, a plaintiff suffering from PTSD, to have her dog "Metoo" with her in court during her trial.  The Hartford Courant reports that the plaintiff maintains that  "Metoo is a service dog that helps her through panic attacks and frees her from the use of medication. The dog is trained to stay close to Reed and lick her face when she becomes disoriented. Without the dog, Reed said, she might not have been able to get through the trial."  [Emphasis added.]

The Illinois Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate to certify a class of personal injury plaintiffs who received injuries as a result of chemical exposure after a train derailment.

The holding:  "Although proof of the cause of the derailment will be relatively straightforward, this alone will not establish the Railroad’s liability. Proof of proximate causation and damages will be highly individualized and will consume the bulk of the time at trial. Because the statutory requirement of predominance cannot be met in this case, we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the class."

The case is Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Company,  Docket No. 102060 (Ill. S. Ct. 11/30/06);  read it here.

Well, yesterday I had to be a lawyer again, taking a deposition in a matter pending in Bankruptcy Court where we have been hired to represent the Trustee.  I find myself doing more and more commercial litigation and, quite frankly, it is quite enjoyable.  I majored in business and economics in undergraduate school and like to have the opportunity to put some of what I learned into use.  Of course, I will always love tort law, but the fact of the matter there is a good deal of that can be put to use in commercial litigation.

Today I am in court in Clarksville on some motions in limine for a trial I have next month.  Therefore, I lack the time to write a substantive post. 

I’ll have something for you on Friday.

Law.com has published an interesting article titled "Who Killed the Mass Tort Bonanza?"

The opening paragraph:  "The power of the plaintiffs bar is on the wane in this country, and will be for a long time to come."  Followed shortly thereafter by this:  "Neither [business interests or trial lawyers], however, would deny that the civil justice system looks drastically different than it did even two years ago. The true triumph (or tragedy, depending on your perspective) of the tort reform movement has been its ability to leverage the success of its public relations campaign into concrete and hard-to-reverse changes. State legislatures have passed laws that undercut the trial lawyers’ successes in Washington, D.C. — especially in the asbestos litigation, which has declined precipitously since the early 2000s. "

This article has done a nice job of explaining the current lay of the land in mass tort litigation.