Harris Interactive conducted a online poll about jury service in December 2007. The findings include the following:
* "Two-thirds (65%) of Americans have been called to serve jury duty, two-thirds of that (68%) actually attended, leaving one-third (32%) who did not.
* Of those who have attended jury duty, just over half (55%) have actually served on a jury.
As a 51 year old man happily married to a beautiful, intelligent 37 year old woman, I confess I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about thongs. I also confess that it never crossed my mind that a person wearing a thong could ever suffer a personal injury from the thong. Oh sure, I knew that a thong could cause financial loss, usually in the form of alimony paid by the married man dating a woman who wore one. And I could certainly image some degree of discomfort when wearing a thong in a foreseeable manner- clearly an assumed risk. But actionable personal injury? Nope, never crossed my mind.
Well, it has happened. Or at least Macrida Patterson, a 52 year old woman from California, says it happened. Her lawyer told The Smoking Gun that "a "design problem" caused [a] decorative piece [on the thong] to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea." The offending piece of merchandise was reportedly a "’low-rise v-string’ from the Victoria’s Secret ‘Sexy Little Thing’ line." Read the article and complaint here.
TSG also tells us that "v-strings" are an undergarment that serves as the Victoria’s Secret variant on the "g-string," " which has long been favored in the battle against visible panty lines" (also known as "vpls"). (Aren’t you men glad TSG saved us hours of time paging through the latest VS catalog trying to figure this out? For those of you who don’t trust TSG, go here and conduct your own research.)
The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an opinion interpreting Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 35 is the rule the permits a party to have a physician of the party’s choice examine the adverse party. Unfortunately, it is often referred to as an independent medical examination, and indeed the opinion mistakenly refers to it as such. Rule 35 exams usually have the same degree of objectivity as a mother opining on the character and physical appearance of her only son.
But on to substance. Very few civil procedure cases find their way to the Tennessee Supreme Court (exception: Rule 56) and when one does get there we need to read it. This is true even in this case where the plaintiff was pursuing a worker’s compensation claim and the issue is primarily covered by the Worker’s Compensation Act.
Governor Bredesen has signed the "Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act" into law. The Act is effective for discovery requests after July 1, 2008.
The legislation establishes a procedure for litigants in other states to do discovery in Tennessee. However, the Act is a uniform act, so Tennessee lawyers will benefit from knowledge of it when they have to do discovery in other states that also have the Act
The legislation also repeals on portion of the current chapter, T.C.A. Section 24-9-103.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a successful plaintiff may recover paralegal fees in a case against the government covered by the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Although not binding on Tennessee courts in those limited cases where attorneys’ fees are recoverable, the result can be used as support for the general notion that paralegals perform valuable services in litigation and therefore should be given fair consideration in fee awards.
Read Richin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, No. 06–1717 (USSC June 2, 2008) here.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has released an opinion that settles (and changes) the law on the "prior suit pending" doctrine. The issue rises infrequently in tort cases, but is still worthy of note.
In Tennessee a worker’s compensation lawsuit cannot be filed until after a benefit review conference (BRC) does not result in resolution of the case. Either the employer or the employee may file a worker’s compensation complaint. When the employee and employer reside in two different judicial circuits and one or both lawyers perceive that one forum is more favorable than the other there is a literal race to see who can file first where after an unsuccessful BRC. If both file on the same day which action is permitted to proceed?
The Court said that "a lawsuit becomes “pending” when the complaint is filed. Although the filing of the complaint initiates the pendency of the case, a subsequent case will be subject to dismissal under the prior suit pending doctrine only if the court in the prior case has acquired personal jurisdiction over the parties."
The website of the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts maintains a set of all of the Local Rules for the state’s circuit and chancery courts. View.
The site makes it clear that the AOC only posts what it has been given, so it would be prudent to check with the local clerk’s office and get a current set of the rules if you do not normally practice in the venue.
Grandstaff v. Bowman, No. E2007-00135-COA-R3-CV, (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2008), is a case that reminds careful readers of the perils of filing a personal injury case on the eve of the statute and then simply sitting on it. As a result of this conduct, the plaintiff lost the opportunity to add a corporate defendant who employed the individual defendant at the time of the car wreck.
Plaintiff attempted to use Sec. 20-1-119 to get around the problem; Judge Susano correctly ruled the statute inapplicable.
Plaintiff then tried to say that he did not discover the existence of the corporate defendant until a date within one year of the date of filing. Not a bad argument – unless one considers these facts:
Closing Thoughts
As I said in my first post on this subject, a great trial lawyer need not have all of the attributes set forth in this series of posts. Admittedly, the "great trial lawyer" hurdle has been set high. Very high. Indeed, if complete fulfillment of all of these attributes is required, the great trial lawyer may not exist at all.
These words and high standards are not meant to discourage lawyers from embarking upon the path to becoming a great trial lawyer. Every time a lawyer meets one of these super-standards clients will be better served, professional reputation will be enhanced, and profession satisfaction will increase. Thus, I believe that virtually every trial lawyer, even those who choose not to make the commitment to be a great trial lawyer, can benefit from the thoughts expressed in this series of posts.
