Paul Luvera does a nice job in this post  hitting the high points of David Ball’s book Ball on Damages.  

An excerpt: 

[W]e must shed our law school training about advocacy and learn to present cases consistent with the way that people really make decisions. You were probably taught in law school to carefully examine all of the facts and law, following which you were expected to analyze intellectually in order to arrive at the right decision. You were probably taught to speak and write as an intellectual or like a scholar might. Law students try to sound like intellectuals to impress everyone. The problem with approaching a trial in that manner is that it doesn’t work when we are talking about groups of people we call jurors..

AAJ’s upcoming seminar Growing on the Vine:  Maximizing Profitability in Changing Times (cosponsored by AAJ’s Sole Practitioner and Small Firm Section) is about the business of running a successful law practice. The program is taking place April 9–10 at Caesars Place in Las Vegas. Program highlights include “Controlling Cost and Maximizing Revenue”, “Electronic Medical Research”, and “Technology at Trial—Cutting Costs Not Corners”, all of which are designed to help you run your firm more effectively and efficiently. 

For more information and to register visit www.justice.org/education/growingonthevine or call the education department at (800) 622-1791.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has reversed a judgment for the plaintiffs in a case against Ford Motor Company.  The plaintiffs claimed that the Ford Explorer in which they were riding had a defective cruise control and defective seat belts.

The court ruled that the trial judge should have excluded Bill Williams as an expert on cruise control diagnosis.  The court also ruled that Dr. Anoty Anderson was not qualified to reliabily testify as to alternative designs and his theory concerning the cause of teh sudden acceleration.

Finally, the court ruled that certain claimed "other similar incidents" were not substantially similar.

Brian Tannebaum is a Florida lawyer who handles bar grievance cases and shares information on the subject in his blog, My Law License.   He has been kind enough to share an e-book with us called  "I Got A Bar Complaint" that is both informative and entertaining.   The book discusses the Florida grievance process, but includes tips that will benefit lawyers around the country.

Enjoy.

As I mentioned in three previous posts,  Shannon Ragland of the Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter has graciously agreed to permit me to share some of the information he has gathered concerning jury trials in Tennessee.

This multi-part series will discuss some of the data contained in Shannon’s 359-page 2009 report.  You can buy the report yourself for $175.00.  It is well worth the money.  Click here to buy the report.  The same link will permit you to order Shannon’s monthly newsletter.

Shannon’s 2009 report gathers data about the most common retail defendants in premises cases, employment discrimination cases, dog bite cases, loss of consortium awards, soft tissue cases and more.   I think I have gone about far enough in giving away the data he collected and sells (at a reasonable price, I might add) but I will go a little bit further and talk about one more subject.

Various television stations are reporting that a medical helicopter crashed outside of Brownsville, Tennessee.  The NTSB has sent a team to the scene.

Apparently, the company operating the helicopter was Memphis Medical Center Air Ambulance Service, Inc., also known as  Hospital Wing

The helicopter was a Eurocopter Astar AS350B3 model. 

I am pleased (no, overjoyed) to report that the new edition of my tort book has gone to the printer.

The book is now in its third edition, with a title change to more accurately reflect what the book contains.   Day on Torts:  Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law  contains  79 chapters and 345 sections highlighting the most prominent tort case on 345 different subjects.   There are citations to another several thousand cases.   The original volume of the book just 66 chapters and  233 sections.  The page count has increased from 437 pages to 667 pages.

The new edition has abandoned the effort to update the rules of civil procedure, evidence and relevant tort law statutes.  This will result in a substantial price drop for the book.

As I mentioned in two previous posts,  Shannon Ragland of the Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter has graciously agreed to permit me to share some of the information he has gathered concerning jury trials in Tennessee.

This multi-part series will discuss some of the data contained in Shannon’s 359-page report.  You can buy the report yourself for $175.00.  It is well worth the money.  Click here to buy the report.  The same link will permit you to order Shannon’s monthly newsletter.

Today we look at medical malpractice verdicts.  There were 32 trials in Tennessee in 2009.  Plaintiffs won 9 of those cases, and the defense won 23.  Seven of those cases were tried in Nashville and  five were tried in Memphis.

Effective July 1, 2010 a party to a litigation may serve papers in Adobe PDF format via electronic mail to the attorney’s email address.  The process is a little more cumbersome than it need be, but it is a step-forward toward increasing the efficiency of law practice and reducing cost.

The rule change is a modification to Rule 5.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.  View this rule change (and the other changes to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure) here. 

Note:  the amendments proposed to Rules 3, 4 and 26 have not been adopted.

 

The Georgia Supreme Court has struck down a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, declaring the cap to be a violation of the right to trial by jury.   The case is Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt,  NO. SO9A1432  (Ga. March 22, 2010).  Read the opinion here.

The Court ruled that by "requiring a court to reduce a noneconomic damages award determined by a jury that exceeds the statutory limit, OCGA Sec. 51-13-1 clearly nullifies the jury’s findings of fact regarding damages and thereby undermines the jury’s basic function."

Contact Information