Many Americans are frustrated by the our health care system but quickly declare it to be the best in the world. 

A new study challenges that belief, pointing out that "the U.S. spends twice per capita what other major industrialized countries spend on health care, and costs continue to rise faster than income" and yet "the U.S. achieves an overall score of 65 out of a possible 100 when comparing national averages with U.S. and international performance benchmarks."

This is  an excerpt from the executive summary of the report in the issue of quality:

Smart defense counsel admit liability in cases where liability cannot seriously be questioned.

What will defense counsel do to hold the damages number down?  Read about the strategy of one defense lawyer in this article – Defending the Damages-Only Case.   The article is published in the Winter 2008 edition of Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel Quarterly and was written by Mercer K. Clarke.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must prove the collectibility of damages in "the case within the case" to recover them from a negligent lawyer.  In doing so, it specifically rejected the notion that the defendant lawyer must prove the lack of collectibility as an affirmative defense.

Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota have a similar rule.  I think Tennessee does, too, but there is one case that suggests to the contrary.

For my previous posts on this subject go here.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled that a product manufacturer "should be estopped as a matter of law from relying on the statute of limitations by virtue of its fraudulent concealment of defects associated with its product." 

Plaintiffs claimed that they were injured by a defective voltage meter.  The manufacturer of the product asserted a statute of limitations defense.  Plaintiffs argued that the "statute of limitations had been tolled by Fluke’s fraudulent concealment of the [meter’s] defect. They contended that as early as 1991, Fluke knew that operating the [meter] at low-battery status could result in inaccurate voltage readings, thus posing a risk of grave danger to its user. Nonetheless, they argued that Fluke ignored its reporting obligation and failed to disclose the potentially dangerous condition of its product to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The plaintiffs contended that Fluke should not be permitted or entitled to rely on the statute of limitations defense since it had engaged in a fraudulent concealment of its product’s defect."

The Court agreed, saying "[t]he common law principle of equitable estoppel is soundly established in Kentucky law. [citation omitted.]  It is aptly applied to prevent a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations defense." … [I]t appears that the manufacturer indeed remained silent when it had an affirmative statutory obligation to report information relative to the safety of its product. We adopt the cogent reasoning of the Supreme Court of Alaska and hold that parties are entitled to assume that a product is safe if there is no adverse information reported as required to indicate that it may pose a danger."

This post has nothing to do with torts.

How is it possible that the White House, which has direct access to and hopefully control  over the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the NSA, and  host of other agencies, possibly rely on a Web site called Encyclopedia of World Biography to prepare a biography on a world leader?   Want to know more?  Read this article in the Washington Post.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070802652.html

BTW, read this for George W. Bush’s bio on the same site.  A teaser: 

I spent the last week at Rosemary Beach, Florida with my family.  I took a week off from blogging and virtually everything else and did nothing.

Let the blogging begin!  Here is a Tort Law Tibit from June of 2005:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is available, free of charge, online at the Federal Highway Administration website. The site not only has the latest 2003 edition, but goes back as far as the 1993 revisions. You should be able to find the right edition to address any pending or potential claim for a roadway that is dangerously unmarked. Compliance with the MUTCD is necessary, but not always sufficient. The MUTCD and the law still require reasonableness by a contractor or highway planner.

State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company , the doctor-owned medical malpractice insurance carrier, continues to enjoy profitability, according to my review of its 2007 Annual Report that was recently filed with the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance.

A few highlights:

* Surplus, the insurance industry equivalent of net worth, increased almost $28,000,000 to a total of $245,000,000. This follows a $33 million dollar increase in 2006 and a $16.4 million dollar increase in 2005.

 What is the name of the case that tells us that violation of a statute is negligence per se? Cook By and Through Uithoven v. Spinnaker’s of Rivergate, 878 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tenn. 1994). What about the violation of a regulation? Long by Cotton v. Brookside Manor, 885 S.W.2d 70, 73-74 (Tenn. App. 1994). An ordinance? Kim v. Boucher, 55 S.W.2d 551 (Tenn. App. 2001).

(Originally appeared May 39, 2005).

Contact Information