|
Posted on Jan 28 2014 9:28AM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Analysis: The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently dealt
with the question of the responsibility of an individual who becomes unconscious,
while driving, causing an automobile accident.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals in George Smith v.
General Tire and Emily Alexander, No. M2012-01446-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 2395047 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 2013)
involved a case where a man was injured in a head-on collision. The unconscious defendant in this case testified she did not remember
anything on the day of the accident from the point she came to a red light on
Gallatin Road until she woke up in an ambulance on the way to the
hospital. She had a long history of diabetes
but she had never experienced a loss of consciousness prior to the accident in
question. Additionally, she had never
been advised by her physician that she should not drive a vehicle. Her treating physician testified her blood
sugar level must have dropped too quickly for her to realize before she became
unconscious.
There was medical testimony submitted by
both sides pertaining to the possibility of her becoming unconscious based on the
medication and diagnosis of the defendant.
The Smith court found that
the Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted a rule that embodies how to deal with evaluating
the situation where a driver suddenly loses consciousness. This rule is as follows:
A sudden loss of
consciousness or physical capacity experienced while driving which is not
reasonably foreseeable is a defense to a negligence action. To constitute a
defense, defendant must establish that the sudden loss of consciousness or
physical capacity to control the vehicle was not reasonably foreseeable to a
prudent person. As a result, the defense is not avail...
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on Jan 20 2014 2:32PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Analysis: The statute of limitations for a medical
malpractice cause of action (now known as a “healthcare liability action” due to recent
changes in the Tennessee statutes) is one year as established by T.C.A. § 29-26-116. If the alleged injury is not discovered
within the one year period then the period of limitations is one year from the
date of the discovery of the alleged injury (this is known as the “discovery
rule” which is applied to many different statutes of limitations in Tennessee). However, no cause of action can be brought
greater than three years after the date of the negligent act or omission except
when there is fraudulent concealment by the defendant. If there is fraudulent concealment then the
case must be commenced within one year after the discovery that the cause of
action exists. This three year time
period is considered a statute of repose under Tennessee law and the “discovery
rule” does not save a claim from being barred under this statute of repose
under the plain language of this statute (unless fraudulent concealment is
present as stated in the statute).
There is one other exception to the
limitation time periods identified in this statute - when a foreign object is
negligently left in the patient’s body.
In this circumstance the statute of limitations is one year from the
time the alleged injury is discovered or should have been discovered. This exception also applies to the three year
statute of repose based on the plain language in the statute. (See also Bloomer v.
Wellmont Holston Valley Medical Center, 299 F.Supp.2d 810 (E.D.Tenn. 2004)).
T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a) in totality provides
as follows:
(a)(1) The statute
of limitations in health care liability actions shall be one (1) year as set
forth in § 28-3-104.
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on Jan 11 2014 4:59PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Sometimes
I want to bring your attention to other great legal blog commentary on things
that may be of interest to those that are involved in Tennessee litigation. A recent post
by the Sixth Circuit
Appellate Blog discussed recent Sixth Circuit
decisions on arbitration. There is a clear
trend in the Sixth Circuit and in many of the other Federal Circuits of
favoring arbitration and providing great deference to the decisions of
arbitrators. One recent case is
discussed in this blog post is a Sixth Circuit decision supporting the decision
of the arbitrator even though the decision was contrary to Sixth Circuit precedent. The Court supported the decision because it
provided a “colorable” reading of an ERISA statute and therefore the arbitrator’s
decision was upheld.
I
recommend that you read this post (it
can be found here) and these cases if you have any desire to
appeal an arbitration decision in the Sixth Circuit. These recent cases may make you reconsider such
an appeal unless you have rock solid grounds for the appeal.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the
Tennessee Defense Litigation blog.
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on Jan 5 2014 10:00PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Analysis: Under Tennessee law, as a general rule, the
statute of limitations for a product liability cause of action is the same as
what applies to a personal injury or injury to property cause of action. (See T.C.A. § 29-28-103). As a result, injuries to the person are
subject to a one year statute of limitation for a products liability injury. (See T.C.A. §
28-3-104). Injuries to personal or real property are
governed by the three year statute of limitations found in T.C.A. § 28-3-105. Regardless, all claims must be brought within
6 years of the date of injury as stated explicitly in T.C.A. § 29-28-103.
There is also a statute of repose found in
T.C.A. § 29-28-103. This statute states the following (see the
highlighted portion of the statute for the statute of repose language):
(a) Any action
against a manufacturer or seller of a product for injury to person or property
caused by its defective or unreasonably dangerous condition must be brought
within the period fixed by §§ 28-3-104, 28-3-105, 28-3-202 and 47-2-725, but
notwithstanding any exceptions to these provisions, it must be brought within
six (6) years of the date of injury, in
any event, the action must be brought within ten (10) years from the date on
which the product was first purchased for use or consumption, or within one (1)
year after the expiration of the anticipated life of the product, whichever is
the shorter, except in the case of injury to minors whose action must be
brought within a period of one (1) year after attaining the age of majority,
whichever occurs sooner.
As a result, the outer limit for a
products liability cause of action (the statute of repose) is ten years after
the product was first purchased or within one year of the expiration of the
anticipated life of the product – whichever is shorter. There is one exception to the statute...
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|