Here is an interview with two plaintiffs’ lawyers who are actively involved in seeking monies for tort claimants who have claims against Chrysler and General Motors.

I have also included an article from www.HispanicBusiness.com that says "Fiat will be protected from any product liability lawsuits arising from claims of flaws in Chrysler vehicles sold before the sale’s closing later this month. Anyone filing such lawsuits will be able to recover only from the limited assets of the old company."

Finally, here is the point of view of a claimant as published in the Daily News.

I have read Judge Gonzalez’s Order of June 1 concerning the sale of substantially all of the assets of Chrysler to Fiat, and it certainly appears to me that the sale will cut off  future products liability claims. 

Here is the key language Pages 42 – 44 of  the Court’s Order.

Category (3) consists of tort and consumer objections. Those objections relating to  lemon law and warranty claims have been resolved by the modification of relevant language in the Fale order. An objection (ECF Docket No. 1231) was raised regarding an environmental claim, but the property to which the claim related is no longer owned by the Debtors and the objection is therefore overruled. Various objections were raised related to property damage claims and personal injury and wrongful death claims, including those which have not yet occurred. Some of these objectors argue that their claims are not “interests in property” such that the purchased assets can be sold free and clear of them. However, the leading case on this issue, In re Trans World Airlines, Inc., 322 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2003) (“TWA”), makes clear that such tort claims are interests in property such that they are extinguished by a free and clear sale under section 363(f)(5) and are therefore extinguished by the Sale Transaction. See id. at 289, 293. The Court follows TWA and overrules the objections premised on this argument. Even so, in personam claims, including any potential state successor or transferee liability claims against
New Chrysler, as well as in rem interests, are encompassed by section 363(f) and are therefore extinguished by the Sale Transaction. See, e.g., In re White Motor Credit Corp., 75 B.R. 944, 949 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987); In re All Am. Of Ashburn, Inc., 56 B.R. 186, 190 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1986).

The June 2009 edition of the Tennessee Trial Law Report should be arriving in the mailboxes of our subscribers on Tuesday, June 2.   The Tennessee Trial Law Report is the only newsletter in Tennessee written to meet the complete needs of the tort law practitioner.

This edition includes a summary of 16 different cases addressing various aspects of the law of torts, civil procedure, evidence and trial as decided by Tennessee appellate courts between March 15 and April 15, 2009. The newsletter totals 39 pages, including 19 pages containing the full-text (in addition to our summary) of the most important opinion issued last month.

The newsletter also includes (a) Part 3 of my new, four-part article of the law of jury selection; and (b) a summary of the status of 13 cases of interest to tort lawyers that are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

A publication of The Doctors Company ("We were founded by doctors, for doctors.") lists 39 ways  for doctors to get sued for for not diagnosing breast cancer or not properly treating it when it has been diagnosed.    Here it is.

An excerpt:

Ways to Get Sued for Breast Cancer Involving the History and Physical Examination

I came across www.PowerPointforCourt.com, a website that offers a product to teach lawyers and their support staff how to effectively use Powerpoint.  The price?  $89 for a download.

Here are the chapter headings:

  • Introduction to Courtroom Technology
  • Utilizing Synchronized Deposition Videos
  • Formatting the Master Slide
  • Header and Footer
  • Custom Slide Backgrounds – Inserting Your Logo
  • Inserting Video
  • Re-Sizing Video
  • Linking Within a Presentation
  • Opening a PDF in PowerPoint
  • Opening a Web Page In PowerPoint
  • SmartArt Graphics
  • Text Links
  • Grouping
  • Ordering or Layers
  • The Impeachment Machine (Strategies for Using Video)
  • Creating Timelines
  • Cast of Character Exhibits
  • Bullet Point Summation
  • Day in the Life Presentations
  • Presentation Tips
  • Image Preparation
  • Working with Audio
  • Creating an Inhouse Graphic Design Department
  • Flashing Flash (Inserting in Presentation)
  • Choosing the Right Equipment
  • The Importance of an Index Page
  • Handouts are Essential (General Presentation)
  • How to Capture and Use Anything (digital)
  • Creating Legal Illustrations for use in Court
  • Crime Scene Layouts
  • Links to Valuable Resources

I have not purchased this product, but am curious to learn if any readers have.  Well, have you?  Any thoughts about the product you can share with your fellow readers?

The United States Supreme Court denied cert in  Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the products liability, punitive damages, and negligent infliction of the emotional distress case decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court last year.  Here is my post from last July on the decision by the Tennessee court.

 

"I’ve got a $1,000,000 lawsuit."

No – you have a lawsuit with a $1,000,000 ad damnum.   There is a huge difference between the two.

Tennessee law requires an ad damnum in all cases except medical malpractice cases.  An ad damnum must  be stated in the initial complaint only in products liability cases;  different judges impose different deadlines on when a specific ad damnum must be stated in other types of cases.

Contact Information