The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant employer may not avoid a claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment by simply agreeing that it is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee.

In James v. Kelly Trucking Company, the Court said that just because a company is vicariously liable for acts of an employee does not mean that it cannot be liable for its own negligence.  As the Court explained, "[a] plaintiff may, in a single lawsuit, assert many causes of action against a defendant. The considerations limiting a plaintiff’s available causes of action in the typical case are that the plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a prime facie case for each cause of action and that a plaintiff may ultimately recover only once for an injury."

The opinion also gives a nice summary of the common law of negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment:  "in circumstances where an employer knew or should have known that its employment of a specific person created an undue risk of harm to the public, a plaintiff may claim that the employer was itself negligent in hiring, supervising, or training the employee, or that the employer acted negligently in entrusting its employee with a tool that created an unreasonable risk of harm to the public. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 (1965) (Cited with approval in Degenhart v. Knights of Columbus, 309 S.C. 114, 116, 420 S.E.2d 495, 496 (1992))."

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has affirmed an en banc ruling of the Tennessee Claims Commission and ruled that the the State was liable for damages suffered by a college student as a result of being beaten after she left a parking garage on the University of Tennessee campus.

To reach that result, the Court first held that the McClung decision was applicable to the State of Tennessee.  The Court then examined the evidence and determined that the plaintiff met the burden of proving that "(1) that there was a negligently created or maintained dangerous condition on state controlled real property; (2) the risk was foreseeable; and (3) that notice was given to the proper state officials at a time sufficiently prior to the injury for the state to have taken appropriate measures."  Finally, the Court found that legal cause was present under the facts.

The decision is a nice reminder of what a plaintiff must prove to impose liability on a premises owner for failure to guard against criminal conduct by third persons.  Read the opinion here.

It’s over.

Rebecca Blair and I have been in trial in Columbia, Tennessee since February 25, 2008.  Our client was a eleven year-old boy who lost his 34 year-old mother to hyperkalemia (an excessive level of potassium which causes the heart to stop) a little over three years ago.

Ginger was a diabetic who suffered from end-stage renal disease.  She had several other health problems (pulmonary hypertension, obesity, sleep apnea, oxygen dependent lung disease, etc.) that resulted in a life expectancy of about 6.8 years.   She was determined to be totally disabled two months before her death.  Therefore, we were unable to make any claim for economic loss.  We  elected not to make a claim for funeral expenses or pain and suffering and sought damages for Jessie solely for loss of "love, society and affection" under Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital.

To those of you who had a medical malpractice judgment or settlement in 2007:  Please remember that  the 2007 "Counsel for Claimants" reports must be completed and sent to the Tennessee Dept of Commerce and Insurance on or before April 1, 2008.  Here is the website where you can download the form.

The purpose of gathering this data is to learn the truth about medical malpractice verdicts and settlements in Tennessee and the costs associated with medical malpractice litigation.  This is the second year that attorneys for claimants have been required to share information with the state.

Here is a summary of the report for the 2005 calendar year:

Well, it has been a longer break than I planned.  The trial started on February 25 and went to the jury shortly before lunch yesterday, March 11.   The jury actually started deliberations at about 12:45 and is returning to the courthouse for further deliberations today at 8:00 a.m.

Obviously, it  would not be appropriate for me to discuss the trial while the jury is still out. 

This blog started three years ago this week.  There have been 1175 posts totaling millions of words made to it.  In the process I have learned in a great deal and I sincerely hope that this blog has helped you represent your clients.

I am taking a break for a couple weeks.  I start a medical malpractice wrongful death trial on February 25 and I simply do not have time to post  between now and the end of trial. 

Trials are, well, trials – they are called that for a reason.  Medical malpractice trials are a particular challenge, and medical malpractice trials with multiple defendants that take place out of town are all-consuming.  Although I have been involved in the case from the start, Rebecca Blair has taken the lead on case and trial preparation to date.  We argued motions in limine ten days ago so for the last three weeks a substantial percentage of my time has been devoted to this case.

The Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel has a magazine called the FDCC  Quarterly.  There are some good articles in the publication, and I think many of you would enjoy an article in the Spring 2007 magazine called "Scientific and Other Expert Testimony:  Understand It; Keep It Out; Get It In." 

The article is by Robert Kolar, a defense lawyer from Chicago. 

This article is based on federal law, but as you know Tennessee’s  standard for admissibility of expert testimony is generally more relaxed than that in federal court.  Nevertheless, the article presents an insight into the minds of defense counsel on the issue of expert testimony.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals (Middle Section) has released an opinion in a products liability case.  As I have before, such decisions are few and far between and we can learn from everyone of them.

This decision is particularly important because it was authored by Judge (now Justice) Bill Koch.  It provides some insight into his views of compensatory and punitive damages.

The case is Duran v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., No. M2006-00282-COA-R3-CV  (Feb. 13, 2008).  Read the opinion here.

Great Trial Lawyers Understand the Importance of Depositions

Great trial lawyers understand the value of depositions, and whether the deposition is taken personally or the task is delegated to another, go into a deposition with clearly defined goals determined after adequate preparation. The diminishing number of trials means that many cases are won and lost in depositions. Indeed, virtually every deposition affects the value of every case.

Yet, a great trial lawyer need not take all of the depositions in any case or any of the depositions in a given case.  This is a task that can be delegated to another comptent lawyer.

We live in a log cabin in the woods in Williamson County.   This morning we are blessed with a strong rain – weather that we haven’t seen much of in the last year.

Other than frequent sightings of deer and turkeys, one of the joys of living here is the sound of rain pelting the  tin roof.  I love to sit on the front porch, drink strong coffee, and listen to the rain.  It is little cool to sit outside this morning but the rain is hard enough that I can enjoy the sound from inside our home.

Rain, Blue Mountain coffee, and thoughts of superceding cause.  It is going to be a great day.

Contact Information