Uncategorized

December 4, 2024

Discoverability of Surveillance Films

On Wednesday, December 4, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court heard an oral argument about the ability of a plaintiff to discover surveillance films a defendant took. Here is how the Court described the background of the case:

Plaintiffs/Appellants Teresa and Randy Locke filed a health care liability action alleging that Defendants/Appellees negligently performed a surgery on Ms. Locke’s colon. While the case was pending, Defendants hired a private investigator to take surveillance videos of the Plaintiffs in an attempt to show that Ms. Locke was exaggerating her injuries. Thereafter, the Defendants expressed their intention to use some of the surveillance footage at trial. The Plaintiffs sought to obtain all the private investigator’s surveillance videos, including those that the Defendants did not intend to use at trial. The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ request under the work-product doctrine, requiring the Defendants to produce only the videos they intend to use at trial. The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in shielding the surveillance videos from discovery and affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit production to the videos that the Defendants intended to use at trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether a litigant has a “substantial need” under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(3) to obtain surveillance footage collected in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial when the party who conducted the surveillance designates some, but not all, of the surveillance footage for use at trial.

The oral argument is being conducted at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, as part of the Court’s SCALES program. It begins at 9:00 a.m. and will be live-streamed on the Court’s YouTube channel.

October 18, 2024

Savings statute measured from dismissal of first tort complaint.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

A third complaint filed more than one year after dismissal of the original complaint did not fall within the savings statute and was time barred.

In Abdou v. Brown, No. 2023-01593-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2024), plaintiff filed a complaint alleging several tort claims, including assault, battery, and trespass. This was the third complaint alleging these claims against the same defendant. The first complaint was filed in July 2017 and voluntarily dismissed in September 2019. The second complaint was filed in October 2019 and voluntarily dismissed in September 2022. This third complaint was filed in September 2023.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The trial court granted dismissal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

September 24, 2024

Hickman County Tort Case Statistics and Outcomes – July 1, 2017- June 30, 2023

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Hickman County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.

BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.

Click on the link for more information on the Hickman County court system.

September 18, 2024

Government Road Not Responsible for Wreck

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Summary judgment based on immunity under the GTLA was reversed where plaintiff was injured when he had a car accident due a road washout.

In Roberts v. Carter, No. W2023-01316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2023), plaintiff was driving during rain when he had an accident caused by a washed out road. The speed limited for this road was 45 miles per hour, but plaintiff had slowed to 25 miles per hour before the accident. Although the area had sustained heavy rains, plaintiff left his home while it was not raining, but the rain resumed while he was driving. His visibility was thus reduced.

Three weeks before this accident, a county employee noted the presence of erosion at the outlet end of the culvert on this road. The county corrected this problem by “laying down riprap stone on the outlet end.” Plaintiff’s accident occurred at the opposite inlet end of this same culvert.

July 1, 2024

July 1 – Effective Date for New Rules of Procedure and Evidence

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

July 1, 2024 is the effective date for changes to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.

That is why I created a new book that contains the up-to-date Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition). It has the rules you need on motion day or in trial, and no other rules that only add only bulk. Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Court rules, the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? No one.

The book is in a 6 x 9 format. It uses a larger font that other rule books and is printed on white paper to make it easier to read. It weighs less than 20 oz. and is only 3/4″ deep. It is easily fits in your briefcase or bag.

June 19, 2024

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence 2024-2025 – Courtroom Edition

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Court rules, the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? No one.

That is why I created a new book that contains only the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition). It has the rules you need on motion day or in trial, and no other rules that only add only bulk.

The Courtroom Edition includes rule changes effective July 1, 2024.

May 20, 2024

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition)

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Court rules, the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? No one.

That is why I created a new book that contains only the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition). It has the rules you need on motion day or in trial, and no other rules that only add only bulk.

The Courtroom Edition includes rule changes effective July 1, 2024.

February 23, 2024

Gross negligence GTLA claim against 911 board can proceed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff filed suit against several governmental entities, including an emergency 911 board, based on the failure of the multiple entities to respond to and close a road that suffered a mudslide in a timely manner, the public duty doctrine barred plaintiff’s claims against two of those entities. For the claim against the 911 board, however, immunity was removed by plaintiff’s claim of gross negligence pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-108, and the claim fell within an exception to the public duty doctrine, allowing plaintiff to proceed against that defendant only.

In Lawson v. Hawkins County, No. E2020-01529-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2023), plaintiff filed a GTLA claim after her husband was killed when his car rolled down a mountain after a portion of highway on the mountain was washed away by a mudslide. On the night of the accident, a driver called 911 to warn that the road was washed away at 12:58 a.m. A sheriff’s deputy arrived at the scene at 1:13 a.m., who then called 911 again to discuss the situation. Neither the deputy nor the dispatcher suggested closing the road. The 911 dispatcher placed several calls to various agencies, but at around 1:46 am, the deputy called 911 again reporting that plaintiff’s husband’s car had flipped down the mountain. Shortly thereafter, the deputy stated that a second car had gone down the mountain, at which time the dispatcher stated that she would ask a neighboring county to block the road.

The trial court granted defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the GTLA “gave defendants immunity from claims alleging recklessness and that the public-duty doctrine independently barred any claims based on negligence.” In its first opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the GTLA “did not provide immunity for claims based on gross negligence or recklessness.” On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that “when the GTLA removes immunity for negligence, it does so for ordinary negligence only.” The case was then remanded back to the Court of Appeals.

January 22, 2024

3000th Post on this Blog

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

On February 17, 2005, this blog offered its first post. Almost 19 years later, this post represents the 3000th post that has appeared on this site.

That’s right – 3000 posts.

In that time period, both of my older children have finished grade school, high school, and college. They are living independent lives with excellent jobs. My oldest is living in Minneapolis and the youngest in Atlanta. My youngest daughter, not born when this blog was launched, is a junior in high school and actively exploring where she wants to attend college.

December 20, 2023

GTLA Did Not Remove City’s Immunity for Failure to Inspect Claim.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a plaintiff’s negligence claim against a city was based on a Tennessee city’s failure to inspect the LED lights on a crosswalk sign, the city retained immunity under the GTLA and summary judgment was affirmed.

In Packard v. Bentley, No. E2022-00982-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oc.t 23, 2023), plaintiff filed suit against several defendants, including the city of Gatlinburg, after he was hit by a car while using a crosswalk in Gatlinburg. The crosswalk and road were owned by the State, but the city owned a crosswalk sign on the side of the road. After a similar incident many years prior, the city had added LED lights to the sign, but the lights were not operational at the time of plaintiff’s accident.

The city filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on three grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, ruling that the city retained its immunity under the GTLA in this case.