Day on Torts

September 5, 2024

Is discovery rule triggered by information received by plaintiff’s attorney?

Where plaintiff’s workers’ compensation attorney received documents that provided notice of a potential HCLA claim, that notice was not imputed to plaintiff because the HCLA claim was not within the scope of the attorney’s representation of plaintiff.

In Marc v. Eck, No. E2023-01643-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2024), plaintiff was represented by an attorney in a workers’ compensation matter. In preparation for mediation in that matter, the attorney was given voluminous medical records on November 10, 2020. Included in these records were files related to a back surgery defendant performed on plaintiff on August 2, 2019.

Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation attorney began reviewing the records on November 30, 2020. During this review, she found notes from the surgery indicating that defendant had operated on the wrong section of plaintiff’s spine. The attorney informed plaintiff of this discovery sometime between November 30 and December 4, 2020, which was plaintiff’s first notice that the surgery had been performed incorrectly.

September 5, 2024

White 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 White 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 White County court system.

September 3, 2024

Carroll 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 Carroll 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 Carroll County court system.

August 30, 2024

Jury’s apparent credibility finding dooms appeal.

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

In a car accident case where the jury found the defendant not liable, the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict based partially on evidence from which the jury could have found the plaintiff not credible.

In Summerrow v. Welsh, No. E2023-00772-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2024), plaintiff and defendant were involved in a car accident in a mall parking lot. A police officer who was called to the scene reported very minor damage to the vehicles, which were corner to corner on the front bumpers. Plaintiff did not report any injuries to the officer.

According to plaintiff, he began having neck and shoulder issues the day after the wreck that required various treatments over the following years. Plaintiff filed this personal injury suit based on this neck and shoulder injury.

August 29, 2024

Henderson 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 Henderson 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 Henderson County court system.

August 27, 2024

Marion 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 Marion 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 Marion County court system.

August 26, 2024

Defamation claim allowed to proceed under TPPA.

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

While a plaintiff faced with a TPPA petition to dismiss could not make out a prima facie case for his false light invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, his defamation claim related to an allegedly false Title IX rape complaint was allowed to proceed.

In Doe v. Roe, No. M2023-00045-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2024), plaintiff had filed suit against defendant based on defendant’s allegations that plaintiff raped her on a college campus. Plaintiff’s complaint included claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on defendant’s statements to friends and family, postings on social media, and filing of a Title IX complaint.

After the complaint was filed, defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”). The trial court denied the petition, finding the TPPA inapplicable to this case. In a first appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that defendant’s “filing of a Title IX complaint fell within the scope of the TPPA.” The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court “for a determination regarding whether there is a prima facie case for [plaintiff’s] claims against [defendant] insofar as they pertain to her Title IX complaint…” On remand, the trial court granted the TPPA petition to dismiss the false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims connected to the Title IX filing, but it denied dismissal of the defamation claim. This appeal followed, where the trial court ruling was affirmed.

August 23, 2024

Apartment complex dog park fell within residential exception of Tennessee dog bite statute.

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

A dog park located within an apartment complex being used by residents of the complex was considered to fall within the residential exception of the Tennessee dog bite statute, so plaintiff, who was bitten at her apartment complex’s dog park, had to show that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities to establish liability.

In Cruise v. Byrd, No. M2022-01578-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2023), plaintiff lived at an apartment complex which included a dog park which was open to residents only. While at the dog park, plaintiff’s dog was attacked by defendant’s dog, and plaintiff was bitten by defendant’s dog when she intervened. Defendant was also a resident at the apartment complex.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for negligence and negligence per se. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the dog bite occurred on residential property rather than public property and that defendant had no notice of the dog’s dangerous propensities. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the dog park was not a public place, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

August 22, 2024

Giles 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 Giles 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 Giles County court system.

August 21, 2024

Law Firm Seeks to Enforce Arbitration Agreement in Legal Malpractice Case

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

Apparently, at least in Georgia, Morgan & Morgan requires is clients to sign a fee agreements wherein the client waives the right to a jury trial in the event the client brings a claim against the firm for legal malpractice. Instead, the client must pursue any claim via arbitration.

Apparently, this is the operative language:

[A]ny and all disputes between me and the Firm arising out of this Agreement, The Firm’s relationship with me or The Firm’s performance of any past, current or future legal services, whether those services are subject of this particular engagement letter or otherwise, will be resolved through a binding arbitration proceeding to be conducted under the auspices of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in Georgia. The disputes subject to binding arbitration will include without limitation, disputes regarding attorneys’ fees, or costs and those alleging negligence, malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud or any claim based upon a statute . . . .