This is the sixth in a series of posts concerning changes in Tennessee statutory law that I believe to be of interest to tort lawyers. For more changes click on the Legislation 2009 category of this blog.
Public Chapter 201 prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, the reading or sending of text messages while operating a motor vehicle and while the vehicle is in motion.
Here are the key provisions of the new law:
"All objections, except those as to the form of the question, are reserved." This sentence, or one substantially similar to it, may be found at the beginning of every deposition. But what are objections to the form of the question?
Evan Shaeffer at The Trial Practice Tips Weblog shared a list of objections to form in a recent post. The post lists seven different objections – vague, compound, argumentative, asked and answered, assumes facts not in evidence, misstates the evidence, leading, lacks a questions, lacks foundation – and gives examples of several of the objections. It is a handy list that you may wish to keep as a part of your materials on the law of depositions. Of course, you can always come back to this site and find the link under the "Civil Procedure" category or by using the "Search" function.
Many people get upset when you object to leading at a deposition. And they should, assuming that they are taking the deposition of a party opponent or another person that they would be allowed to lead at trial. The law permits those witnesses to be lead during depositions. But the deposition of a co-party or a third-party witness is different. Why? Because they would not be able to lead that witness at trial (unless they are cross-examining that witness).
This is the fifth in a series of posts about changes in Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers. For other changes click on the Legislation 2009 category.
Tennessee has a "Ski Area Safety and Liability Act" codified at TCA Section 68-114-101 et seq. Public Chapter 85 changes the definition of skier to include "any person present in a ski area for the purpose of engaging in the sport of skiing, Nordic, freestyle, or other types of ski jumping, and who is using skis, or a sled, tube, or snowboard." It also increases the minimum insurance limits for each "ski area operator responsible for a passenger tramway" to $1,000,000.
Click on the link to read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 85.
This is the fourth in a series of posts that addresses new laws of interest to Tennessee tort lawyers. For other changes go to the Legislation 2009 category of this blog.
Those of us who keep an eye on the Tennessee General Assembly know that there is an ongoing battle over whether hospitals will be permitted to employ physicians. As of now, hospitals can employ hospitalists but they cannot employ ER doctors, anesthesiologists, radiologists, etc.
The renal dialysis clinics have cracked the door open slightly and won the right to employ doctors under certain circumstances. This will be of interest to medical malpractice lawyers, who will need to explore the vicarious liability of clinics for the acts of nephrologists and others caring for ESRD patients. The law will also be of interest to those representing such doctors, in tort as well as contract litigation.
Many lawyers think that the law concerning depositions is set out only in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and the case law interpreting those rules. That is not correct.
Public Chapter 55 creates a new subsection to TCA Section 24-9-101, which allows court to award attorney fees and expenses if motion to quash subpoena is granted when the witness is exempt from subpoena to trial. The new subsection is labeled (b).
What is the text of subsection (a)? In other words, what classes of people are exempt from subpoena to trial? Here is the list:
On July 20 I warned you about new federal regulations known as the "Red Flag" rules, which require businesses, including lawyers and law firms, to take pro-active measures to detect and prevent identity theft. The rules were scheduled to go into effect on August 1.
The FTC, the agency charged with the responsibility to enforce the rules, has delayed enforcement of the rules until November 1, 2009. The following is from the FTC press release:
Commission staff will create a special link for small and low-risk entities on the Red Flags Rule Web site with materials that provide guidance and direction regarding the Rule. The Commission has already posted FAQs that address how the FTC intends to enforce the Rule and other topics – www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm. The enforcement FAQ states that Commission staff would be unlikely to recommend bringing a law enforcement action if entities know their customers or clients individually, or if they perform services in or around their customers’ homes, or if they operate in sectors where identity theft is rare and they have not themselves been the target of identity theft.
The second post in this series reports on a new law that confers immunity from civil action upon victims of crime for testimony given at offender’s parole hearing unless testimony is intentionally or maliciously false and defamatory.
Here is the full text of the new statute:
T.C.A. Section 40-38-303.
For the last five or six years my friend Bill Marler, food poisoning lawyer extraordinaire, and I have worked together on food poisoning cases. Bill knows this area like the back of his hand and is widely understood to be the lawyer with the greatest expertise in this field.
One thing I really respect about Bill is that he still practices law at what I call the "retail" level. I contrast that with what I call lawyers who function as "wholesalers;" that is, lawyers who race to file personal injury cases as class actions (medical monitoring is different) and treat cases as "inventory." Bill actually cares about the people he represents, and despite the fact that he files cases across America (unfortunately there is a real food safety problem in America) and spends a lot of time in Washington DC speaking out for food safety he still is hands-on with clients and gives them the attention that they deserve.
Earlier today our firms filed a case on behalf of two people in Memphis who contracted salmonella poisoning after eating food served by A & R Barbecue in Memphis. Both plaintiffs, a father and his son, suffered acute kidney failure as a result of their Salmonella infections, and needed extensive medical treatment, including dialysis. Apparently twenty people were poisoned at this event. Read more about the litigation here.
As you would expect, the Tennessee General Assembly is not particularly fond of drug dealers. But did you know that the General Assemby had passed what they call the "Drug Dealer Liability Act?"
The Act, codified at TCA 29-38-101 et seq, permits the recovery of damages caused by drug dealers. We just used this Act to add an additional cause of action against a man who we alleged engaged in inappropriate conduct with two pre-teen females and from time to time used a drug to help accomplish his actions. The use of the Act was important because (a) it gave us a claim for attorney’s fees and (b) it provides for prejudgment attachment of assets of the defendant.
The Act contains several sections, but this is the section that creates the cause of action, identifies who can file suit, and states what damages can be recovered.
That is what Tennessee’s own Jim Hall called for in today’s New York Times. An excerpt from Jim’s op-ed piece:
Because American medicine accepts error as an inevitable consequence of treatment, our hospitals, insurers and government do little to respond to unnecessary deaths. If we are to address the problem in a serious manner, we must first change this culture.
Jim is the former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Read the entire op-ed piece here.
