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).

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.

Contact Information