The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has released for public comment proposed changes in the local rules.  Here is a red-lined version of the proposed rules.  The comment period ends October 31, 2009.

Most of the rule changes address of change of the time periods required for responding to motions, providing information for settlement conferences, designating deposition testimony for trial, etc.  The rule changes are necessary because of changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

It was reported several months ago that nude videos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews were circulating on the Internet.  The pictures were taken in several hotels.  The man accused of taking the videos, Michael David Barrett,  has been arrested.

It turns out that a majority of the videos were taken at the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University. Apparently, the photographer was able to learn which room Ms. Andrews was staying in and was able to rent a room next door.  He allegedly modified the peep hole in the room to be able to video Ms. Andrews. Read more in The Tennessean.

Several interesting questions arise in the mind of the reasonably prudent tort lawyer.  First, how was Mr. Barrett (or whoever took the videos) able to learn Ms. Andrews’ room number?  Most hotels will not give anyone, even an alleged spouse, the room number of a guest.  Indeed, most hotels will not even announce your room number when you check in, preferring instead to write it on the inside of document that holds the card key that permits you to enter your room.  I wonder how Mr. Barrett (or whoever) was able to obtain the room number of a celebrity?

The October 2009 edition of the Tennessee Trial Law Report  is in the mail.

This edition includes a summary of 17 different cases addressing various aspects of the law of torts, civil procedure, evidence and trial as decided by Tennessee appellate courts between August 15 and September 15, 2009. The newsletter totals 35 pages, including 17 pages containing the full-text (in addition to our summary) of the most important opinions issued last month.

The newsletter also includes (a) my continuing series on The Law of Trial (this month’s article concerns the "Rule;” and (b) a summary of the status of 11 cases of interest to tort lawyers that are pending before the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office has issued an Opinion that provides that "Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-12-108 does not require a train engine operator to blow a train’s whistle or horn before crossing a private drive.  Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-12-108 only requires that a train engine operator blow a whistle or horn at public railway crossings."

The Opinion references a recent decision from the federal court in East Tennessee:

In Artrip v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, No. 2:08-CV-200, 2009 WL 152482
(E.D. Tenn. Jan. 22, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee relied on Tennessee state law in holding that there is no requirement for a train engineer to sound a whistle when approaching a private railroad crossing. In Artrip, the plaintiff brought a claim against Norfolk Southern Railway Company after the decedent was struck and killed at a private railroad crossing in Sullivan County, Tennessee. Id. at *1. The plaintiff alleged that the train operator’s failure to sound a whistle warning before crossing the private drive was an act of negligence. Id. at *3. However, the District Court found no merit in plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, concluding that “although the locomotive did not blow its whistle, there was no requirement that it do so at a private crossing.” Id. at *13 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 222.25 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-12-108(1)). Summary judgment was granted in favor of the train operator, and the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. Id. at *15.

There was a big conference in Washington, D.C. this week that addressed cell phone use and texting and how these practice impaired a driver’s ability to focus on the safe operation of his or her vehicle.

The two-day summit  brought together safety experts, researchers, industry representatives, elected officials and members of the public to share their expertise, experiences and ideas for reducing distracted driving behavior and addressing the safety risk posed by the growing problem across all modes of transportation. 

Department of Transportation Secretary LaHood  announced new research findings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that show nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver, and more than half a million were injured. On any given day in 2008, more than 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone using a hand-held cell phone.  To further study how cell phone distraction affects commercial truck and motor coach drivers, Secretary LaHood also announced a new study the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is undertaking this month through June 2010. The study will help FMCSA better understand the prevalence of cell phone distraction in conjunction with crashes and near-crashes.

A post from the Mass Tort Defense blog highlights a real problem:  jurors conducting independent research during trials.  Indeed, in the case featured in the post, the juror conducted the research before the trial (after he received his summons to serve as a juror) but shared what he knew during deliberations.  The result?  A reversal of a defense verdict.

The blog post does a nice job summarizing Russo v. Takata Corp., 2009 WL 2963065 (S.D. 9/16/09).  You can read the entire opinion here.

Here is an excerpt from Sean Wajert’s summary:

The Toyota Motor Corp. has announced that it will recall 3.8 million vehicles in the United States. The recall affects Toyota models from 2004 – 2010. Specific models affected include 2007-2010 Toyota Camry, 2005-2010 Toyota Avalon, 2004-2009 Toyota Prius, 2005-2010 Tacoma, 2007-2010 Toyota Tundra, 2007-2010 Lexus ES350 and 2006-2010 Lexus IS250 and IS350.

The problem?  Toyota says that "[r]ecent events have prompted [it] to take a closer look at the potential for an accelerator pedal to get stuck in the full open position due to an unsecured or incompatible driver’s floor mat. A stuck open accelerator pedal may result in very high vehicle speeds and make it difficult to stop the vehicle, which could cause a crash, serious injury or death."

What should you do if you have one of these vehicles?  Remove the floor mat and do not replace it with any other type of floor mat.  Owners can also contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331 and Lexus at 1-800-255-3987 for more information.

This column from the Business Section of today’s Los Angeles Times attacks the myth that restriction of the rights of patients to hold health care providers responsible for harming patients must be a part of national healthcare reform.  

An excerpt: 

Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform."

There are numerous differences in the state rules of civil procedure and the federal rules of civil procedure.  For example, Tennessee Rule 8.03 is different than F.R.C.P. Rule 8(c) because it requires a defendant who pleads an affirmative defense to set forth facts that form the basis of the defense.  Here is the text of the rule:

In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively facts in short and plain terms relied upon to constitute accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, express assumption of risk, comparative fault (including the identity or description of any other alleged tortfeasors), discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, statute of repose, waiver, workers’ compensation immunity, and any other matter constituting an affirmative defense. When a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court, if justice so requires, shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation.  {Emphasis added.}

Why is this important?  A defendant cannot simply say "there was insufficiency of service of process" or "I allege the comparative fault of Smith."  No, the defendant must go further and set forth the facts that support that defense.   Of course,  the allegations of those facts can be changed via amendment under Rule 15, but the initial pleading raising the defense must include facts.  If not, the court should strike the affirmative defense Rule 12.06 as insufficient.  

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff who lost a medical malpractice case in federal court was not estopped from pursing a case against a State-employed doctor even though the federal court jury assigned no fault to the doctor, a non-party in the federal court action.

An excerpt:

We have determined that the proceeding in federal court did not provide Ms. Mullins with a full and fair opportunity to litigate her medical negligence claims against Dr. Mejia. It is undisputed that Ms. Mullins could not, as a matter of law, recover monetary damages from either Dr. Mejia or the State in the federal proceedings. Common sense also dictates that it would have been foolhardy for Ms. Mullins to press her claim that Dr. Mejia had been negligent in the federal proceeding because doing so would have diluted the strength of her claims against the remaining defendants and would have profited her little in later proceedings against Dr. Mejia. [Footnotes omitted.]

Contact Information