Day on Torts

July 11, 2011

The Vanishing Jury Trial

On Saturday, July 9, 2011 I was very fortunate to be asked to speak at the Pound Civil Justice Institute ‘s 2011 Forum for State Appellate Court Judges in New York City. This year’s program concerned the huge reduction in civil jury trials in our state and federal court and the impact of the reduced number of trials on our citizens, our democracy, our court system, and the Bar.

The program was moderated by Prof. Arthur Miller of NYU, perhaps the most famous law professor in the country and, without a doubt, the nation’s civil procedure guru.

Marc Galanter from the University of Wisconsin School of Law shared this data I thought your would find of interest;

July 8, 2011

No Cause of Action for Spoliation of Evidence in South Carolina

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

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that there is not cause of action for the negligent spoliation of evidence in that state.

In Cole Vision Corp. v. Hobbs, No. 26988 (S.C. 6/20/11) the defendant counterclaimed and sued plaintiff for negligent spoliation of evidence. Defendant maintained that plaintiff lost a key case of evidence that he needed to defend a malpractice claim brought by a former patient.

The Court held that "South Carolina does not recognize an independent tort for the negligent spoliation of evidence, third-party or otherwise." After referencing the differing views reached by other courts across the country on this subject, the court said as follows:

July 7, 2011

Nevada Supreme Court Affirms Sanction of Striking Liability Defense Because of Discovery Abuse

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

The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed a trial judge order that struck a defendant’s ability to argue liability, limiting it to contesting compensatory damages.

In Bahena v. Goodyear, the trial judge struck the defendant’s answer as to liability after it failed to follow prior court orders concerning several discovery matters, including the failure to produce a witness for a deposition. The court agreed with the trial judge that "repeated discovery delays attributed to Goodyear were such that continuing the trial date to allow discovery was not the appropriate remedy for Bahena since the prejudice was extreme and inappropriate." The Supreme Court explained that the trial judge "noted that the Bahena plaintiffs included a 14-year old who had been in a persistent vegetative state for the past two years together will the estates of three dead plaintiffs" and that "since the trial was scheduled to commence [shortly after the discovery deadline] Goodyear knew full well that not responding to discovery in good faith would require the trial date to be vacated" because "there could have been open questions as to the authenticity of approximately 74,000 documents that were the subject" of a prior court order.

In affirming the trial judge’s decision, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that the trial judge had prepared nine pages of carefully written findings of fact an conclusions of law analyzing the relevant factors, concluding that the degree of willfulness by Goodyear was "extreme" and "totally untenable and unjustified" and that the "responses to [p]laintiff’s’ interrogatories are nothing short of appalling."

July 6, 2011

Ten Ways to Avoid a Legal Malpractice Claim

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

The Attorney at Work site has a helpful post that reminds us of ten ways to avoid malpractice claims.

Here is an excerpt:

4. Document, document, document. It’s not practical to document everything on every matter, but document as much as you can in some contemporaneous manner. Letters are fine, but emails, detailed time entries and marginal notes on documents can be equally effective. In particular, you want to record advice or instructions that involve significant issues or outcomes and major client instructions or decisions. Memorialized communications help confirm what was said or done for the client should you need to look back to explain why or what work was done, to justify an account, or to defend on a malpractice claim.

July 6, 2011

Kentucky Supreme Court Holds That Personal Injury Plaintiff Lost Privilege By Claiming Mental Injury

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

The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff who asserted a claim of mental injury waived her right to assert that the psychotherapist-patient privilege protected her prior mental health records.

In Dudley v. Jefferson Circuit Court, 2010-SC-000458-M (Ken. S.C. 6/10/2011) plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim alleging, inter alia, mental and emotional pain and suffering. Defendants sought her prior mental health records, and plaintiff sought a protective order, claiming that they were protected by the statutory privilege protecting psychotherapy records.

The court held that the records were discoverable, saying " Appellant’s claim for mental pain caused by the alleged negligence, put into question her mental state at the time the medical treatment occurred . It would be fundamentally unfair to permit Appellant to allege and prove mental anguish caused by the negligence while denying the [defendants] from reviewing her mental health records for the possibility of pre-existing mental conditions."

June 30, 2011

A Surplus of New Lawyers

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

It comes of no surprise to lawyers that there are lots of lawyers looking for work. Our office receives resumes from lawyers almost on a daily basis, and many have impressive backgrounds.

This article from the June 29, 2011 New York Times describes the state of the employment market for new in the country. The writer explains that in Tennessee it is estimated that there will be 389 jobs for lawyers each year from 2010 through 2015. However, 735 people passed the Tennessee bar exam in 2009. Thus, if the bar exam completion rate stays the same, Tennessee will have 346 more new lawyers than jobs in each of the coming years.

The Tennessee numbers are pretty close to the national average, which reveals that there will only be legal jobs for one-half of the lawyers passing the bar exam.

June 29, 2011

Telephone Triage and Patient Safety

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

The Doctors Company, a professional liability insurer for physicians, has a "Knowledge Center" on its website that contains lots of useful information.

Here is a great example. In "Telephone Safety and Patient Triage," the writer explains that "implementing an effective telephone triage system in the office practice can improve physician-patient communication, confidence, service, satisfaction, and care. It can also reduce emergency department visits while ensuring access to the appropriate level of care. Telephone triage, which is just one of the ways that telemedicine is practiced, has its own risks."

The paper has some excellent recommendations for physicians on how to establish a safe and effective way to communicate with patients over the telephone.

June 28, 2011

Assumption of the Risk Cannot Be Used in Defense of an Amusement Park Case

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

The California Court of Appeals has ruled that an amusement park operator cannot assert primary assumption of risk as a complete defense to a case arsing from an injury at the park.

In Nalwar v. Cedar Fair, L.P. H03453 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. 6/10/11), held "that primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to regulated amusement parks, that it does not apply to cases where the illusion of risk (as opposed to actual risk) is marketed and finally that in this case issues of fact predominate."

As the Court explained, "the very reason we go on amusement park rides is because we ―seek the illusion of danger while being assured of [a ride‘s] actual safety. The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt.‖ (Gomez v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1125, 1136 (Gomez), emphasis added.) While some rides may have inherent dangers owning to speed or mechanical complexities, parks which operate for profit hold out their rides as being safe with the expectation that thousands of people, many of them children, will be riding. (U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Brian (5th Cir.1964) 337 F.2d 881, 883.)"

June 28, 2011

Making Sure the Jury Sees and Hears Your Evidence

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

Winning Trial Advocacy Tips is back, this time with a post giving great suggestions on how to make sure your jury sees and hears your evidence.

An excerpt:

1. How to guarantee that the jury hears every word of your recorded statement. As you start playing the audio recording, cup your hand over your ear and make eye contact with each and every juror. Non-verbally, you’re asking them if they can hear the statement. If they can hear it, they’ll nod their heads in agreement or give you a “thumbs-up” sign. If they can’t hear, they’ll give you a non-verbal clue to raise the volume (or maybe even tell you, “Turn it up, I can’t hear!”)

June 28, 2011

SCOTUS Releases Opinion on Specific Jurisdiction

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

In Goodyear Dunlap Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 1076, 564 U.S. ____ (2011) the United States Supreme Court was confronted with the following question: "Are foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation amenable to suit in state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State?" The answer: "No."

Here are the facts as reported by the Court:

A bus accident outside Paris that took the lives of two 13-year-old boys from North Carolina gave rise to the litigation we here consider. Attributing the accident to a defective tire manufactured in Turkey at the plant of a foreign subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear USA), the boys’ parents commenced an action for damages in a North Carolina state court; they named as defendants Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation, and three of its subsidiaries, organized and operating, respectively, in Turkey, France, and Luxembourg. Goodyear USA, which had plants in North Carolina and regularly engaged in commercial activity there, did not contest the North Carolina court’s jurisdiction over it; Goodyear USA’s foreign subsidiaries, however, maintained that North Carolina lacked adjudicatory authority over them.