Day on Torts

June 29, 2011

Telephone Triage and Patient Safety

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.

June 24, 2011

Use of Technology For Jury Selection

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

Many personal injury lawyers are looking for ways to improve access to data during voir dire. Here is an article that discusses the use of the IPad during jury selection. The article includes a video that reviews two software products for the IPad.

The IPad is amazing but I don’t think that those who have developed the jury selection software have a product that is very useful in the courtroom.

June 23, 2011

Consulting on a Budget

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

Jessica Brylo has written an very interesting article about obtaining services of trial consultants when money is tight. The article has a summary on the services that consultants provide and then offers suggestions about how to reduce the cost of the services while still have access to the expertise of the consultant.

June 23, 2011

West Virginia Supreme Court Fails to Strike-Down Damage Caps

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

The high court in West Virginia has refused to vacate legislation that placed a cap on damages for non-economic loss in medical negligence cases.

In McDonald v. City Hospital, Inc., No. 35543 (W.Va. 6/22/2011) the court ruled that the West Virginia Constitution did not limit the power of the Legislature to impose arbitrary limits on damages.

Here are the provisions of the West Virginia Constitution that were at issue in the case:

June 22, 2011

Value of Knee Injury Cases

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

Ronald Miller has a fascinating post on his The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog about the value of knee injury cases

Here is an excerpt:

According to a recent Jury Verdict Research study over the last ten years, the average verdict in a serious knee injury case is 359,149. The median knee injury verdict is $114,299. Eight percent of verdicts were over $1,000,000.