Articles Posted in Tort Law Tidbits

Many clients do not understand why their insurance company should have to pay out money because the driver that caused the wreck did not have insurance or did not have sufficient insurance to cover the loss. Those people are reluctant to “sue” their own company, in part because they are afraid that doing so will increase their insurance rates.

T.C.A. Sec. 56-7-1201 (f) gives you information that can help your client feel more comfortable about the decision to seek UM benefits. It provides that an insurer cannot raise insurance rates solely to the payment of a UM claim.

A significant percentage of drivers do not have insurance and a large number of those that do have it have only the mimimum amount prescribed by state law. Consider counseling your clients to increase their liability and UM limits. Many will be surprised how much more protection they can get for a relatively low cost.

Did you know that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act has a subrogation provision?

T.C.A. Sec. 29-013-113 requires that a crime victim who receives payments under the Act and later receives damages in a civil action re-pay the State for monies received under the Act. If a civil action is filed the local DA and others must be sent a copy of the complaint and all subsequent pleadings.

Did you know that you can view the Tennessee Rules of Evidence on line at no charge? Go to this site.

This is another tort law tidbit.

I do not know why anyone would ever take one of these cases, but Tennessee law gives immunity to those property owners or occupiers who intentionally or accidently cause injury or death to a person who a perpetrating one or more of several enumerated felonies. Immunity is only given to persons who harm the perpetrator while he or she is in the act or while the person is trying to apprehend the perpetrator.

This is the “Don’t Mess with Me or Mine or I’ll Blow Your *ss Away and Be Immune from Suit” Bill.

Is proof of privity required to file a products liability or other personal injury suit?

No – proof of privity was abolished by statute in T.C.A. Sec. 29-34- 104. It is no longer required in any negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty or UCC action.

Did you know that Tennessee has a specific statute addressing sex abuse claims against therapists?

The “Therapist Sexual Misconduct Victims Compensation Act” is set forth in T.C.A. Sec. 29-26-201 et seq. A “therapist” is defined as “any person who performs therapy regardless of whether the person is licensed by the state.” “Therapy” is also a defined term, and includes marital counseling, substance abuse treatment, family counseling, and other treatment.

The statute of limitations is two years and there is a discovery rule that is very patient-friendly. There are special rules applicable to minors. The Act prescribes situations under which the employer of the therapist can be held liable.

T.C.A. Sec. 20-9-303 permits a lawyer “to use a blackboard, models or similar devices, also any picture, plat or exhibit introduced in evidence, in connection with his argument to the jury for the purpose of illustrating his contentions with respect to the issues which are to be decided by the jury….” The statute prohibits a lawyer from making an argument “in writing” that could not properly be made orally.

In this era, I think this statute gives counsel the right to use Powerpoint or a similar program during closing argument.

Can a judge stop a lawyer from arguing the value of pain and suffering to a jury?

No. T.C.A. Sec. 20-9-304 gives a lawyer in a personal injury case the right to argue the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering. The argument must conform to the evidence or reasonable deduction from the evidence in the case.

The only possible exception to this rule is medical negligence cases.

I know the judge has to render a decision in my case in some time period. What is it?

T.C.A. Sec. 20-9-506 requires a judge who tries a non-jury case to render a decision and have the judgment entered within 60 days after completion of the trial.

Now, how do you enforce that statute? Well, the is a little more delicate. First, know your judge. Some judges will appreciate a “Motion to Determine Status.” Some judges let it be known that they want such a motion in the event something slips through the cracks.

Everybody knows that if you release the employee you release the employer, right? Try to find a case that says so.

Well, here it is: Craven v. Lawson, 534 S.W.2d 653, 654, 657 (Tenn.1976). This case holds that release of an employee discharges employer’s liability predicated on master-servant or principal-agent relationship.