Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

The Tennessee Supreme Court has just released the 2007-08 “Annual Report of the Tennessee Judiciary.”   It includes data for the 2007-08 fiscal year.  Here is some of the information revealed in the report:

  1. There were 537 medical malpractice cases filed during the fiscal year.  That is down almost 10%  from the 584 filed during the previous fiscal year.   There were dispositions of 462 of those cases but only 20 of them actually went to trial.
  2. There were 11,171 personal injury and wrongful death cases filed.
  3. There were 506 personal injury and wrongful death cases tried in fiscal 2007-08.  Of those, there were 246 jury trial and 260 non-jury trials.  Last year there were 590 such trials, and 289 of them were jury trials.  Thus, jury trials were down about 15%.
  4. In those 506 trials, there were damage awards in 237 ( a little over 45%).  Of course, the mere fact that there was a damage award does not mean that the plaintiff "won" the case because the plaintiff may have had an offer greater than the judgment awarded.
  5. The total damages awarded in the state increased over the previous fiscal year by over 25% to slightly over $58,000,000.  (Included in that amount is a judgment of over $17,000,000 awarded in a non-jury trial in Putnam County against 2 individuals.  If that judgment is collectible I will eat the Nashville phone directory.)
  6. There were 13 judgments totaling $1,000,000 or more in the entire stated ruing the entire fiscal year.  No county had more than one $1,000,000 verdict. 
  7. There were 191 judgments for the plaintiff less than $100,000.
  8. Shelby County had 36 jury trials in personal injury and wrongful death cases during the fiscal year.  Davidson County had 33, Hamilton County had 22, Madison County had 10 and Montgomery County had only 5  jury trials.  Knox County had the highest number at 44.    District 17 (Bedford, Lincoln, Marshall and Moore counties) did not have a single personal injury or wrongful death jury trial (and they had only 3 non-jury trials).
  9. The "average" amount awarded to a successful plaintiff was about $242,000.   This is the arithmetical mean, greatly influenced by what I am quite confident is the $17,000,000 Putnam County judgment that cannot be collected.  If one throws out that high verdict and the lowest verdict (assume the low verdict is $10,000 – the exact number is unknown) the arithmetical mean drops below $200,000.   The median award would be somewhere under $100,000 (because about 80% of the awards were under $100,000) but we do not have enough data to determine the exact number.

 

 

The state’s law libraries are closing their doors to lawyers and other citizens.  The Administrative Office of the Courts is cutting programs and staff.  Appellate court law clerks are fearing the loss of their jobs.

Tennessee budget problems are hitting the judiciary and it remains to be seen what impact the financial cuts have on civil jury trials.  In New Hampshire,  civil and criminal jury trials are being eliminated for an entire month.  Florida has cut 280 clerks, lawyers and staff members, and if another 10% budget cut is made civil jury trials will be suspended, according to one judge.

Will the budget crisis force the state to take a hard look at judicial system?  There are some tough questions that will be asked.  Do we need two sets of clerks – chancery and circuit?  Should the Tennessee Supreme Court be given the power to administer the court system, allocating resources across the state as needed?

Thank you to the hundreds of you who have said such kind words about our new newsletter, Tennessee Trial Law Report – Tort Law Edition.  Brandon Bass and I have worked hard to put together a newsletter than will save you time and make you money.

Our idea was to have one source where a tort lawyer could stay up-to-date with all of the case law in the field of torts, civil procedure, evidence and trial.  Your kind words, and your subscriptions, have confirmed that we are on the right track.

To read more about the newsletter and order a sample see our website.   It includes a handy list of references for  Tennessee tort lawyers.

It has been revealed that Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, host of NPR’s "Infinite Mind," earned at least $1.3M from drug makers.   He received the payments for giving lectures.   NPR says it did not know about the payments, Goodwin says it did, but clearly the show’s listeners did not.

Did the payments compromise the integrity of the show?  Who knows.  Did they compromise the perception of the integrity of the show?  Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Everyone understands that people who speak at seminars should be compensated for their time and expertise.  Seminar presentations require lots of work, and even if you have given the exact talk before you are still taking time away from your family, your work, or both.

The Florida Supeme Court has relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts to impose a duty on the manufacturer of anthrax "to avoid a an unauthorized intercepton and dissemination of the materials."

The lawsuit arose out of the mailing of stolen anthrax some seven years ago that resulted in the death of a man in Florida when he came into contact with the substance at his place of work.

The case is United States v. Stevens, No. SC07-1074  (Fl. Oct. 30, 2008).  Read it here.

Brandon Bass and I are pleased to announce that the inaugural edition of Tennessee Trial Law Report – Tort Law Edition has been printed and mailed to  Tennessee lawyers who we know  practice tort law. 

Brandon and I resigned from our position as editors of the Tennessee Tort Law Letter  and launched this new publication in an effort to better serve the needs of lawyers in the state that do tort work.  It is our view that tort lawyers need to stay current on the law of torts – but we also need to stay current on the law of evidence, civil procedure and trial.  So, Tennessee Trial Law Report summarizes opinions in all four fields, whether those opinions are primarily tort opinions or instead are domestic, commercial or criminal law opinions that have morsels of information tort lawyers need to know.

For example, one of our lead opinions this month is not a tort case at all but rather a Court of Criminal Appeals opinion by Presiding Judge Joe Tipton on expert testimony.  Another of our summaries addresses a non-tort Tennessee Supreme Court case on a important evidence issue. 

The Fall travel schedule begins again. 

Many of you know that  five years ago former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White, former Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Joe Riley and I establsihed a seminar company called "Justice Programs."  We offer a 15 hour CLE program each Fall that permits attendees to meet all mandatory CLE obligations for the entire year and, more importantly, gives civil trial practioners the opportunity to gain valuable information for their practice.   Tomorrow we make our first stop in the year in Chattanooga.

Here is the outline for our course in 2008:

A Handbook for Tennessee Tort Lawyers 2009 is scheduled to arrive in Brentwood on November 3 and will start being shipped to purchasers on November 4.

The 2009 of the book follows the same format as the 2008 version.   It has been expanded to include 8 new chapters and 28  new sections on tort law subjects for a total of  262 sections.  Each section includes the key language of the leading case on that subject and, as appropriate, citations to other important cases on the subject.  Also included is a reference to all opinions released in the last year on tort law organized by chapter and section.

The book also includes the full text of all of the new  statutes of interest to Tennessee tort lawyers.

The Tennessee Supreme Court  released its decision in Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Company and has affirmed Judge Susano’s reversal of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. 

The court, by a 4-1 margin, re-affirmed its decisions in Byrd, McCarley and Blair and held

a moving party who seeks to shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party who bears the burden of proof at trial must either: (1) affirmatively negate an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim; or (2) show that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of the claim at trial.

Contact Information