Day on Torts

October 22, 2015

Circumstantial Evidence and Summary Judgment

In Jenkins v. Big City Remodeling, No. E2014-01612-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015), plaintiffs had hired defendant general contractor to construct a home for them. General contractor, in turn, had hired defendant flooring subcontractor for the project. When the home was almost complete, it caught fire and resulted in a total loss. Plaintiffs sued the general contractor and subcontractor for negligence, including negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment as to the general contractor but reversed as to the claim of negligence against the flooring subcontractor.

The facts established that the day before the fire, the owners had been in the home, and they had retained a key during construction. Further, the construction site was not fenced or otherwise blocked from public access. When the fire occurred, one of the only remaining projects was to stain the wood floors in the home. On the day of the fire, several subcontractors had been working on the house, including Julian Luu, who was working on the floor stain. Based on camera footage from a neighboring property, Mr. Luu was the last person to leave the property at around 6:10 p.m., and the fire started around 7:50 p.m.

Plaintiffs’ theory was that the flooring subcontractors, who had been known to smoke a lot on the site, “allowed flammable rags to remain on or near the exterior deck and also smoked cigarettes in the area.” Plaintiffs claimed that “the improper disposal of cigarette butts resulted in the stain-soaked rags igniting, causing the fire.” Although the fire destroyed any evidence of rags, buckets with staining rags and cigarette butts were found in a dumpster on the property. Plaintiffs’ expert testified that “he believed the fire began on the exterior deck,” but the expert admitted that he could not be certain and that he could not conclusively rule out arson or electrical problems.

October 16, 2015

Constitutional Challenge to Damage Cap Must Award Verdict

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

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutionality of the artifical cap on non-economic damages in tort cases should not be examined by the courts until after a plaintiff receives a verdict in excess of the cap.

The decision comes in the Clark case out of Chattanooga. The trial judge in that case ruled that the caps were unconstitutional. Tennesssee’s High Court said the ruling was premature. The Order can be reviewed by clicking on the link below

From a practical standpoint, this means that a supreme court review of the caps is at least two years off. Why? Because that is how long it takes, on average, from a verdict to go through the entire appellate process. It is possible that a case with a verdict over the caps is in the pipeline right now but I have not heard of such a pending case. Please let me know via a comment if you are aware of one.

October 13, 2015

Statute Trumps Court Decision – “Ordinary” Negligence Claims Essentially Gone in Medical Malpractice Cases

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

The Tennessee Supreme Court just issued an important decision regarding how to decide whether a claim falls under the Health Care Liability Act (HCLA) or ordinary negligence. In Ellithorpe v. Weismark, No. M2014-00279-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015), the Court held that the previous nuanced approach detailed in Estate of French v. Stratford House, 33 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011) had been abrogated by the HCLA amendments passed by the Tennessee legislature in 2011, and that the definition contained in the HCLA is now the authority under which a court should determine whether a claim falls under the HCLA.

In Ellithorpe, plaintiffs were the biological parents of a minor child but had lost custody of the child. The custodian arranged for and/or permitted defendant social worker to provide counseling to the child without the parents’ knowledge or consent. When the parents found out about the counseling, they brought this claim against defendant social worker. It was undisputed that the parents did not give pre-suit notice or file a certificate of good faith pursuant to the HCLA.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on parents’ failure to comply with the HCLA, to which parents responded that their claims sounded in ordinary negligence. The trial court, however, granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint, verbally ruling that “the THCLA was very broad and encompassed Parents’ claims because they related to the provision of health care services by a health care provider as those terms are defined by statute.”

October 6, 2015

Tennessee Effectively Reduces Statute of Limitations in Claims Filed Against the State

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

In Moreno v. City of Clarksville, No. M2013-01465-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2015), the central issue surrounded the interplay of the 90-day window provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 to add a non-party named by a defendant as a comparative tortfeasor and the process for filing a claim under the Tennessee Claims Commission Act.

Plaintiff was injured when a tree fell on his car as he was driving across a bridge on December 24, 2009. Within one year of the accident, plaintiff followed the procedure outlined by the Claims Commission and filed written notice of his claim against the State of Tennessee with the appropriate authority, the Division of Claims. The Division of Claims neither honored nor denied plaintiff’s claim within the 90-day period set out in the Claims Commission Act, and the claim was accordingly transferred to the administrative clerk of the Claims Commission. Plaintiff received an order from the Claims Commissioner on March 30, 2011, stating that he needed to file a complaint, which he did on April 14, 2011. The State filed an answer to the complaint on May 18, 2011, but did not mention comparative tortfeasors. On September 18, 2012, sixteen months after the initial answer, however, the State moved to amend its answer to name the City of Clarksville as being comparatively at fault. Pursuant to this new answer, plaintiff initially filed a motion to amend his complaint in the Claims Commission to add the City of Clarksville. He later, however, withdrew this amendment and instead filed suit against the City of Clarksville in Circuit Court.

October 5, 2015

Defamation by Implication under Tennessee Law

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

In Grant v. The Commercial Appeal, No. W2015-00208-COA-R3-CV (Sept. 18, 2015), plaintiff sued defendants for various causes of action related to an online and print newspaper article, although on appeal the only causes of action at issue were defamation and defamation by implication. The articles were about plaintiff’s involvement in a mall revitalization project in Memphis that had recently been approved by the Memphis City Council. The article, in part, contained information regarding the following:

plaintiff failed to tell the City Council that he owed a large sum of money to the federal government;
plaintiff “stated that he had no financial interest in the project, yet…various state records and other transactions [plaintiff] has been involved with suggested otherwise;”
upon investigation, it was discovered that plaintiff had an office on the mall’s property;
a city councilman was quoted as saying the project was the “worst project we ever approved” and that the city council was unaware that plaintiff was “one of the project’s principals;”
a quote from a “frat brother” of plaintiff saying plaintiff worked on the mall project as an adviser for free;
an online headline saying “Silent partner? [plaintiff’s] involvement clouds $1.5 million Southbrook Mall deal.”

Plaintiff asserted that “the substance of the articles [were] defamatory to him,” making it appear that he was dishonest and deceptive, and that defendants had acted with actual malice.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted on two bases: (1) “that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as the statements at issue ‘are not defamatory or capable of defamatory meaning,’” and (2) that the article fell within the fair report privilege.

September 28, 2015

Yet Another Nursing Home Arbitration Case

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

Add Bockelman v. GGNSC Gallatin Brandywood LLC, No. M2014-02371-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2015), to the long list of cases in which a Tennessee court affirmed an order upholding the validity of an arbitration agreement signed by the deceased’s designated health care agent.

The patient at issue here had signed a “Health Care Agent” form in December 2008, appointing her daughter as her agent. The form provided that the daughter was given “permission to make health care decisions for me if I cannot make decisions for myself, including any health care decision that I could have made for myself if able.” In January 2010, the patient’s doctor deemed her incompetent to make health care decisions, and he documented and signed such designation.

Following the incompetence designation, the patient had several other medical appointments. Some notes from these subsequent appointments indicated that she did not have any “neurological deficits,” while others referred only to a “physical incapacity.” She was treated at times based on her own preferences rather than her best interests, yet the official incompetence designation was never overturned or amended.

In May 2010, the patient was admitted to defendant nursing home. During the admission process, daughter presented the health care agent form and signed all the admission documents on patient’s behalf, although daughter later testified that patient was competent at this time. One document signed by daughter as patient’s agent was an Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement. At the top, this form noted in bold, capital letters that it was “not a condition of admission to or continued residence in the facility.”

September 22, 2015

Following Established Procedure Not A Discretionary Function Under Tennessee GTLA

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

In Parsons v. Wilson County, No. M2014-00521-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2015), plaintiff fell from the top bunk bed he was assigned while he was an inmate at Wilson County jail, and he sued the county under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for negligence in failing to assign him to a bottom bunk. According to plaintiff, he informed employees at the jail of his need for a bottom bunk during the intake procedure, citing “existing shoulder and neck injuries.” When he was assigned to a cell, though, he was assigned a top bunk. While getting out of the bunk after sleeping in it, he fell and injured his shoulder.

At trial, the county employee who oversaw management of the jail testified that “a procedure was in place to determine which inmates received a bottom bunk.” The procedure included forms completed during intake, which were then sent to a medical unit where nurses could “review the forms, meet with inmates, determine whether an inmate is able to be placed in the general population in that jail, and make the decision about whether or not the inmate’s medical needs necessitate that the inmate be assigned a bottom bunk.” Based on the testimony of this employee, plaintiff, and a physician, the trial court ruled in the County’s favor. The trial court ruled that the county was performing a discretionary function under the GTLA and thus retained immunity; that the county “had no duty in this case to provide Plaintiff with a bottom bunk;” that there was no breach of duty to plaintiff; that it was not foreseeable that plaintiff would jump from his bed; and that “Plaintiff was guilty of more than fifty percent (50%) of the fault.” While the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in the County’s favor regarding duty, it also reversed two of the trial court’s specific rulings.

September 21, 2015

Act Quickly To Solve Problems with Service of Process

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

A recent Court of Appeals case reminds plaintiffs’ attorneys of the importance of diligently reading any answer filed and working quickly to remedy problems related to the proper party being named and/or service of process. In Urban v. Nichols, No. E2014-00907-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2015), plaintiff filed a negligence claim after injuring her foot and heel while using a waterslide at Willow Brook Lodge. In her complaint, filed on July 11, 2012 (which was exactly one year to the date from her injury), plaintiff named Robin Nichols and Willow Brook Lodge as defendants. It was undisputed that the complaint was only served, however, by personal service to Robin Nichols’s son.

The named defendants filed an answer on August 27, 2012. Therein, they asserted that the Lodge was actually owned by Accommodations by Willow Brook Lodge, LLC and that Ms. Nichols was not an owner. Further, they plead “insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process.”

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to counsel for defendants on November 7, 2012, requesting permission to amend the complaint. Defendants responded by letter one week later denying the request. Plaintiff’s counsel took no further action in the case until February 7, 2013, again sending a letter requesting to amend the complaint to defendants. Defendants’ attorney sent another denial on July 22, 2013. Finally, on August 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend with the trial court. In response, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the “failure to correctly serve process on either Ms. Nichols or the Lodge required the dismissal of the action.” The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

September 16, 2015

Intentional Interference With Business Relations Requires Proof of Damages

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

In Springfield Investments, LLC v. Global Investments, LLC, No. E2014-01703-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2015), plaintiffs sued defendants for intentional interference with business relationships related to plaintiffs’ opening of a Wendy’s restaurant in Cleveland, Tennessee. Defendants already owned and operated a Wendy’s in Cleveland, and in 1998 one of plaintiff’s brothers signed a non-compete agreement with defendants agreeing not to open a Wendy’s in Cleveland. A later “Clarification and Confirmation” document signed by the brother included that no entities he was associated with would open a Wendy’s, including Springfield Investments, LLC (a plaintiff in this case). The individual plaintiff in this case was never a party to the non-compete, and by the time that the pertinent events took place the brother signing the non-compete was not the owner of Springfield Investments.

In January 2010, plaintiffs began the process of seeking approval from Wendy’s to build and open a restaurant in Cleveland. Because it would be 4.8 miles from defendants’ existing Wendy’s, the restaurant chain’s procedures required defendants to be notified and have the opportunity to oppose the new franchise. Over the course of the next several months, defendants followed the standard procedures allowed by Wendy’s to oppose the new restaurant. At one point Wendy’s, using its own discretion, allowed for additional time for defendants to submit certain requests, but otherwise the normal course of action provided for in Wendy’s franchise guidelines was followed.

September 11, 2015

Products Liability Case Given New Life By Sixth Circuit

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

In Bradley v. Ameristep, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01196 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2015), plaintiff appealed a district court dismissal of his product liability claims regarding ratchet straps he had purchased and used to secure a hunting treestand. Plaintiff bought the straps in 2007 or 2008, used the straps to secure his treestand for less than two months in 2008, stored the straps inside for almost three years, then used the straps to secure his treestand again in May or June 2011. He did not use the treestand until September 2011, at which time he visually inspected the straps. After plaintiff claimed into the stand, the straps broke and caused plaintiff to fall.

Plaintiff retained two expert witnesses to support his claims, but the district court granted defendant’s motion to exclude both of these experts. Because the expert testimony was excluded, the district court “concluded that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims for strict product liability or negligent design and manufacture and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those claims.” The district court also granted summary judgment as to the failure to warn claim, determining that plaintiff was aware of the dangers of leaving the straps exposed to the elements, that plaintiff would not have heeded a warning to use a safety harness, and that plaintiff failed to proffer an adequate alternative warning. Accordingly, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.

On appeal, the Court reversed the dismissal, and in doing so provided an informative summary of Tennessee product liability law. First, the Court addressed the exclusion of one of plaintiffs’ experts, noting that Fed. R. Evid. 702 “impose[s] a threshold requirement of qualification by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training or education,’ coupled with a two-part test for relevance…and reliability.” While the expert’s “qualifications contain[ed] numerous general attestations of expertise in materials analysis[,]” the district court focused on specific references to the expert’s metallurgical expertise to determine that he did not possess the necessary qualifications for this case. The Court of Appeals held that this was an error, pointing out that the proposed expert had “over thirty-five years of experience analyzing the forces and conditions that lead to product failures, “ that he had “served as an instructor in materials analysis and microscopic analysis” for multiple groups and organizations, and that he had conducted analysis on all types of polymer materials. Based on these qualifications, the expert testimony should have been allowed.