Day on Torts

March 16, 2022

Injury Involving ATV Winch Case Will Be Tried Before Jury

Where there were genuine issues of material fact in a products liability case filed against the manufacturer and seller of an ATV, summary judgment for defendants was reversed.

In Vaulton v. Polaris Industries, Inc., No. E2021-00489-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 628502 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2022), plaintiffs filed this product liability suit after their 14-year-old son was injured, losing his finger, when he and a friend were using a Polaris ATV. The accident occurred when the son noticed that the hook attached to the winch was in the wrong position. While the son was holding the hook, he had his friend push the out button on the winch, but the winch went inward instead of outward, causing the severe injury.

March 11, 2022

Ruling that nursing home arbitration agreement was invalid reversed.

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

Where plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement in conjunction with his brother’s admission to defendant nursing home, and plaintiff had a durable power of attorney for health care executed by his brother naming plaintiff as the attorney-in-fact, the trial court “erred in looking beyond the durable power of attorney for health care to examine the patient’s competency at the time it was executed.”

In Welch v. Oaktree Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC d/b/a Christian Care Centers of Memphis, No. W2020-00917-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 589926 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2022), plaintiff was the brother of a patient who had died after a brief stay at defendant nursing home. When the brother was admitted, plaintiff filled out admission paperwork, including an arbitration agreement, as plaintiff had a durable power of attorney for healthcare executed by the brother and naming plaintiff as the attorney-in-fact.

March 9, 2022

Attorney’s fees allowed as compensatory damages in inducement of breach of contract case.

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

Where the evidence clearly established the elements of intent and malice in an inducement of breach of contract case, summary judgment for plaintiff was affirmed. Moreover, the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff could recover attorney’s fees as compensatory damages under the independent tort theory was also affirmed.

In HCTEC Partners, LLC v. Crawford, No. M2020-01373-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 554288 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2022), plaintiff was the former employer of defendant Crawford, who had worked for plaintiff in healthcare information technology recruitment. When Crawford was hired by plaintiff, he signed a “Confidentiality, Non-Competition, and Non-Solicitation Agreement,” which, among other things, provided that he would not work in the same field for 12 months after leaving plaintiff’s employment.

Defendant Rezult made Crawford a job offer while he was still working for plaintiff, which Crawford accepted. Plaintiff communicated to Rezult and Crawford about the Agreement, but Crawford was nonetheless placed in a position that involved healthcare information technology recruiting. Plaintiff thereafter brought this suit asserting breach of contract against Crawford and inducement of breach of contract against Rezult. After entering an injunction, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against both defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

March 7, 2022

No liability for inmate-on-inmate assault where assault was not foreseeable.

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

Where defendants had no prior notice of foreseeable harm to plaintiff, who was assaulted while he was an inmate at a Tennessee county jail, summary judgment was affirmed.

In Koffman v. Madison County Tennessee, No. W2021-00385-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2022), plaintiff was arrested and booked into the county jail after violating his probation. Plaintiff was put into a unit that held “ten or more inmates depending upon the number of inmates incarcerated in the jail at any given time.” On the night he was booked, plaintiff was assaulted by a group of inmates and subsequently transported to the hospital for treatment.

Plaintiff filed this suit against the County and the County Sheriff based on the injuries he received in the assault. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted based on a lack of foreseeability, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

March 4, 2022

Defendant had no duty to remove tire debris from interstate after blowout.

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

Where defendant was driving a truck that had a blowout on the interstate, defendant did not have a duty to remove the tire debris from the road.

In Walker v. McMillin, No. M2020-01507-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 420666 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2022), plaintiff was injured in a one-car accident caused by tire debris on the interstate. The tire debris came from a blowout on defendant’s truck, which occurred around 5-7 minutes before the accident. After the blowout, defendant slowed and pulled onto the shoulder of the road about half a mile away from the debris. Defendant set out triangle warnings around his truck and called a tire service provider and his employer.

Plaintiff filed this negligence suit against defendant truck driver and his employer one month after the accident. Plaintiff sent defendants an evidence preservation notice, which included a request that defendants preserve the tires that were on the truck, but the old tires were not preserved.

February 25, 2022

Claims Commission decision to credit defense witnesses affirmed.

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

Where the claims commission credited defendants’ witnesses and found that plaintiffs had not proven their HCLA case, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Cavaliere v. State, No. M2021-00038-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 320241 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2022), plaintiffs filed an HCLA suit against the state based on treatment received by decedent at the Tennessee State Veterans Home. Decedent was over 90-years-old and was a patient at the Veterans Home before being transferred to a hospital when the staff at the Veterans Home noticed concerning issues. Decedent died a few days after the transfer, and at the time suffered from numerous medical concerns. His medical charts indicated that in the months preceding his death, he had been noted as likely to have continuing/recurring problems with pneumonia and dehydration, both of which were at issue in this case.

Plaintiffs asserted that staff at the Veterans Home had failed to meet the standard of care, but defendant put forth an expert witness and staff who had worked with decedent to show that the standard of care was met. The Claims Commission credited the testimony of defendants’ witnesses and found for defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

February 24, 2022

Plaintiff who was returning domesticated pigs to owner was not a trespasser.

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

Where plaintiff entered defendant’s property to return two pot-bellied pigs that were owned by defendant’s stepson but lived on defendant’s property and were running loose, and plaintiff had been on the property before without defendant objecting, plaintiff was not a trespasser and had implied permission to come onto the property.

In Cook v. Fuqua, No. M2021-00107-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 244532 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022), plaintiff’s father and defendant were neighbors. Defendant’s adult stepson lived at defendant’s residence and kept pot-bellied pigs on the property. When plaintiff was visiting her father, she heard the pigs at her father’s door, rounded them up, then went onto defendant’s porch to inform someone at the residence that the pigs were loose. While she was knocking, one of the pigs knocked her off the porch and she sustained injuries. Notably, defendant had not been to the residence in the preceding month due to an order of protection, but he was still the owner.

Plaintiff filed this negligence suit, and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff was a trespasser and he thus only “owed her a duty to not cause her injury intentionally, with gross negligence, or by willful and wanton conduct.” The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, but that ruling was reversed on appeal.

February 24, 2022

$1.5M Verdict Affirmed in Tennessee Car Wreck Case.

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

Where there was material evidence to support the jury’s verdict of more than $1.5 million in a car accident case, the verdict was affirmed.

In Malone v. ASF Intermodal LLC, No. W2020-00430-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 353697 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2022), plaintiff was in a car accident caused by an employee of defendant, and defendant had admitted fault. The only issue in this personal injury case was damages. The evidence at trial showed that plaintiff drove himself home from the accident, but that he developed leg and back pain soon thereafter. Plaintiff and his experts also testified that plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident. Defendant’s experts disputed that plaintiff’s pain was caused by the accident, pointing out that plaintiff had begun treatment for a chronic leg condition in his other leg seven years before the accident. While plaintiffs’ experts opined that his pain was caused by the accident, defendants’ experts testified that the chronic condition was the likely cause.

February 22, 2022

Summary judgment affirmed where defendant did not place structure creating nuisance on defendant’s easement.

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

Where the State had an easement on plaintiff’s property for the construction and maintenance of a drainage facility, but plaintiff had no evidence that the faulty concrete structure causing flooding on his property was installed by the State, summary judgment on his nuisance claim was affirmed.

In Walker v. State, No. M2020-01626-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 244108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022), plaintiff purchased a piece of property in a distress sale and did not perform an inspection before the purchase. The previous owners of the property had granted the State a permanent easement “for construction and maintenance of a drainage facility.” Shortly after the purchase, plaintiff began having flooding issues, which he attributed to a concrete structure located within the easement that was broken and/or defective. Plaintiff initially sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) for damage to his property, which ended in summary judgment for Metro based on sovereign immunity. After that decision was affirmed on appeal, plaintiff filed this nuisance claim against the State.

The State moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff “failed to offer any evidence that the State installed the drainage structure and that the State is not responsible for maintaining materials it did not place on the easement.” In support of its motion, the State pointed to deposition testimony that the structure in question was “funky,” was not something the State would have used at any point, and was available to consumers. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court granted summary judgment to the State, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.