The Tennessee General Assembly has adopted rule changes proposed by the Tennessee Supreme Court.  This is one of multiple posts discussing the new rules of most interest to tort lawyers.

Rule 26 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure has been changed to increase the disclosures required for expert witnesses.  The new rule requires that 

the party shall disclose the witness’s qualifications ( including a list of all publications authored in the previous ten years), a list of all other cases in which. during the previous four vears, the witness testified  as an expert. and a statement of the compensation to be  paid  for the  study and  testimony in the case.

The Tennessee General Assembly has adopted rule changes proposed by the Tennessee Supreme Court.  This is one of multiple posts discussing the new rules of most interest to tort lawyers.

Rule 611 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence has been changed to permit leading questions to be asked of a witness on direct examination if the witness is  "identified with an adverse party."  Previously, the rule permitted leading questions on direct of adverse parties or hostile witnesses.

Here is a copy of the new rule.  It goes into effect July 1, 2011.

State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company (SVMIC) had another outstanding year in 2010.  Here are some highlights from its "2010 Report to Policyholders:"

  • Surplus (think: net worth) increased almost 20% to $444 million, up from $364 million in 2009.
  • Earned premiums dropped to $218 million, due to a significant rate reduction (average:  23%) and a decrease in the number of policyholders secondary to increased competition in the marketplace.
  • Despite a decrease in earned premiums of over 15% (totaling over $43M),  post-tax net income declined only a little over $4M to $67,668,000.
  • Profits as a percentage of revenue were extraordinarily high, at over 25%. 
  • The unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserve actually dropped for 2010, a very unusual result.
  • On February 22, 2011, the company declared another $20M dividend to its policyholders.  This will decrease rates by an average of about 9%.  This follows a dividend of $20M in 2010.

SVMIC’s 2011-12 rate filing will be available shortly and, I predict, will show further rate declines.

Of course, the tort reform measures virtually certain to be enacted into law in the next couple weeks will further enhance this company’s profits.  

Some plaintiff’s lawyers are "givers" and others are "takers."   There are a fair number of givers, lawyers  who step up to the plate time and time again to help advance the cause of civil justice in this state and nation. Some give knowledge, some give time, some give money, and some give all of the above – and each of us is indebted to every single one of them.

On the other hand there are "takers."  These lawyers spend thousands of dollars every month advertising for clients but refuse to give money to support legislative efforts designed to support the rights of those clients. They are lawyers who make a good living representing plaintiffs but refuse to give time or money to support the state or national trial lawyers association. They are lawyers who constantly  talk about their big settlements and their big cases but somehow never have the ability to write a check to help the cause.  They are lawyers who ride around in $60,000 cars but refuse to give a political contribution to a pro-civil justice candidate. They are lawyers who seek the help of the association or its members when they are need, but turn away when asked to help. These men and women thrive off the efforts of others, giving nothing, taking whatever they can, and smiling all the way to the bank.

If you are a "giver," please keep giving. You already know that a rising tide lifts all boats and that our willingness to share advances the cause that we believe in with our heart and soul.   If you are fortunate enough to have earned a good income as a result of your hard work as a plaintiff’s lawyer, you should give serious consideration to support of AAJ through its Leaders Forum program.   Your money will be used to help inform the public about the critical role that trial attorneys play in holding wrongdoers accountable for their actions and thus assist in reframing the debate about the civil justice system.  The contribution is significant, a minimum of $1000 per month, but over 400 of the best lawyers and firms in the country  step up to the plate every month and give extraordinary support to AAJ.  You can sign up here.

The Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel Quarterly magazine has published an interesting article about jury questionnaires.   The authors of the article are John P.  Daniels and Annie L. Knafo.

The article includes a sample questionnaire that can serve as a starting point for drafting your own.

Read the article here.

Have you ever had an opponent attempt to back-out of a stipulation?  This post on the Federal Evidence Review blog tells us about a new case on the subject and gathers other cases on point.

The post explains that "after a stipulation is freely entered, the courts will view with great disfavor any efforts to walk from the stipulation."

This post will save you hours of legal research on the topic.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has released a new administrative order concerning the use of laptops, cell phones and other electronic devices in the federal courthouses in the Middle District.

The devices have to go through the screening process and cannot be used in courtrooms without permission.  Laptops and electronic calendering devices can be used in the courtroom unless the presiding judge prohibits there use.

One more thing to think about before going to federal court.

From time to time, some lawyer undertakes an effort to educate other lawyers on how to conduct cross-examinations. Francis Wellman did so over 100 years ago in his excellent book, The Art of Cross-Examination. In my generation, Irving Younger’s Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination was treated by law professors as if it was handed down by the Almighty. Now, Ronald H. Clark, George R. Dekle, Sr. and William S. Bailey add to these excellent works with the Cross-Examination Handbook:  Persuasion Strategies and Techniques.

The book begins by quoting the words of Wellman, who aptly explained the challenge of cross-examination with these words:

Cross-examination … requires the greatest ingenuity; a habit of logical thought; clearness of perception in general; infinite patience and self control; power to read men’s minds intuitively, to judge their motives; ability to act with force and precision; a masterful knowledge of the subject matter itself; an extreme caution and, above all, the instinct to discover the weak points in the witness under examination.

Burchfield v. CSX Transp., Inc. , __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. March 30, 2011) (No. 09–15417), is a interesting decision that addresses the issue of the admissibility of videos made by third parties.

The plaintiff  objected to the defendant’s use of the video and maintained that it 

depicted a recreation of his accident. In order for the video to be admissible, Burchfield asserts that CSX was required to prove that the testing on the video was performed under substantially similar conditions as those surrounding his accident. To make that showing," the defendant sought the testimony of the maker (Wolf, a rail consulting expert for the third party employer) of the video. The defendant proceeded on a different theory, The defense insisted that the "video was not a recreation such that it would be subject to a heightened foundational standard" of substantial similarity. Rather, the defendant contended that "the video was properly admitted because it was authenticated under Fed.R.Evid. 901(a), which requires a lesser showing from a witness laying a foundation for a photograph or motion picture.

When Senator Campfield slammed lawyers on March 29, 2011 in a Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Doug Overbey let it be known that he did not appreciate the unkind words of his fellow Republican.

See the debate on SB 0127 here.  Debate on the bill starts at 2:04:44.  Campfield’s remarks begin at 2:07:44 and his lawyer slam starts at 2:10:25.   Senator Overbey makes his statements beginning at 2:17.

Senator Campfield is a real estate developer from Knoxville.  Senator Overbey is a lawyer from Maryville.

Contact Information