A truck driver who negligently caused a car wreck on an interstate highway cannot be held responsible for an accident occurring four hours later in traffic backed-up because of the original crash.

In Blood v. VH-1 Music First, No. 09-399 (7th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012), the appellate court affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the original at-fault truck driver arising from a claim brought by persons injured and killed in the later crash.  The plaintiffs in the second crash did not sue the driver of the first crash.  Rather, the defendants in the second case filed third-party complaints against the driver in the original crash.  Only then did the plaintiffs in the second crash sue the driver in the first crash.

The case was dismissed because the trial court found, and the appellate court agreed, that there was no proximate cause as a matter of law.  The 7th Circuit explained that there was no real dispute about what happened:  the second wreck was 4 and 1/2 miles away and 4 hours after the first.  In addition, the Blood vehicle slowed to a stop in traffic and the second defendants slammed into the rear of that car.

I am in a lawsuit and had to answer interrogatories.  I didn’t tell the truth about some things and the other side found out about it.  Can I get sent to jail for not tellling the truth?

There is a risk of jail or a fine because interrogatories are answered under oath and lying under oath is perjury.  However, I am unaware of any person actually having been jailed for not telling the truth in answers to interrogatories.

A more realistic risk is that the trial judge may sanction you (he or she would have the right to dismiss your case or, if you were sued, strike the answer in the case and enter judgment against you.)   Lesser sanctions would include telling the jury what you did, awarding attorneys fees against you, and other penalties.  Your mistake will also hurt your credibility with the judge and jury.

Four professors have written an article titled "Do Poor People Sue Doctors More Frequently? Confronting Unconscious Bias and the Role of Cultural Competency."

The article concludes that "Contrary to popular perception, existing studies show poor patients, in fact, tend to sue physicians less often. This may be related to a relative lack of access to legal resources and the nature of the contingency fee system in medical malpractice claims."

Quite frankly, there is no original research in this article, but it is a good collection of research that has been out there for several years.

State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company, the Tennessee medical malpractice insurer owned by the doctors themselves, has had another profitable year even with its significant rate decrease.

The company, which insures about 75% of the doctors in the state, has announced the following financial results and other data for the year ending December 31, 2011:

  • Net income – $28,012,000.
  • Policyholder’s Surplus (equivalent to net worth): $436,424,000
  • 2011 Dividend – $20,100,000
  • Total Dividends paid during company existence – $300,000,000
  • Rate of return on investments – 5.3%
  • Average decrease in premiums over last 3 years – 31%  (mature, base premiums)
  • Insured physicians – 14, 476

The gross premiums written have decreased since 2007 for two reasons. First, SVMIC has lost almost 1600 doctors as clients during that period.  Second, rates have declined substantially during that period.  The combination of the two factors has resulted in a decreased of gross premium written of a little over $90,000,000.  Profits remain high because investment income has remained about the same (actually, it is a little higher) and net paid loss and loss adjustment expenses have increased only about 5% in five years.  Surplus during the 5 year period has increased over 80% despite payment (through premium credits) of $48,000,000.

Forbes recently published a fascinating article about Steve Susman’s thoughts on saving money in litigation. 

The article reports that Susman has launched a website called "Trial by Agreement" that "provides a sort of 0pen-source repository of pre-trial agreements that lawyers can use to reduce the often needless expense of electronic discovery, depositions and tit-for-tat motions."

The "Trial by Agreement" website has form pretrial agreements and trial agreements that lawyers can use in their own cases.  Here is a list of the proposed pretrial agreements:

Robert Ambrogi has shared the existence of a fascinating service concerning expert witnesses.

The service, called Expert Witness Profiler, checks into the expert’s background, testimonial history, social media profile, and more.  Here is what the profile includes:

  • Testimonial history.
  • Challenge (Daubert/Frye) history.
  • Disciplinary history.
  • Licensing and certifications (including verification).
  • Educational background (including verification).
  • Professional background.
  • Associations and memberships.
  • Personal information.
  • Publications.
  • Teaching and research.
  • Patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
  • References in news, blogs and social media.

Purchasers of the profile receive a booklet covering the items listed above. Hyperlinks within the document take you to relevant cases, orders, and other documents. The service will also include transcripts, motions and briefs relating to the expert or to challenges to the expert.  The company’s website includes this sample profile.

Insurance Journal reports that the parents of a child born with cystic fibrosis sued various Montana  health care providers,  saying that had they known of the genetic disorder they would have terminated the pregnancy.

Cystic fibrosis causes sticky mucus buildup in the lungs and other organs, leading to infections, digestive problems and death in young adulthood. The typical life expectancy is about 37 years, according to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The couple alleges that genetic testing the mother underwent in the first trimester failed to explore whether the child was likely to have cystic fibrosis. The parents would have terminated the pregnancy because they claim they were not emotionally or financially equipped to care for a child with that illness.

I have a column that bears the same name as this blog that appears three times per year in the Tennessee Bar Journal. The January 2012 edition of the publication includes the column, this time titled “Retailers Escape Responsibility for Dangerous Foreign-Made Products.” 

The column addresses one provision of the poorly-named Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011 that limits the responsibility of those who sell unreasonably dangerous or defective products. The column is available at no charge by clicking on the link.

 

Paul Luvera has a nice article on his Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips blog that discusses virtual focus groups.

He mentions three different services that lawyers can use to test their cases: Virtual Jury.com; Trial Juries, and eJury.com. eJury has a sample case presentation available for review that includes not only a sample verdict form but also a list of questions that call for narrative answers from the jurors.

Does anyone use these services? Virtual Jury’s client list is impressive to say the least.

Two recent cases from the Alabama Supreme Court hold that a parent may bring a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of a stillborn child that was incapable of life outside the womb.

In Hamilton v. Scott, No. 1100192 (Ala. Feb. 17, 2012, Amy Hamilton alleged that several defendants negligently caused the death of the child she was carrying in utero. After discovery, defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Alabama law required that the fetus had to viable outside the womb before the mother could maintain a wrongful death lawsuit.   The case was dismissed.

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, citing the recent decision in Mack v. Carmack, No. 1091040 (Ala. Sept. 9, 2011) that raised the same issue. This is the holding in Mack, re-affirmed in Hamilton:

Contact Information