Day on Torts

January 22, 2016

Curb Cut for Wheelchair Ramp Held Not To Be “Dangerous Condition”

In Steele v. Primehealth Med. Center, P.C., No. W2015-00056-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2015), the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant in a premises liability case, “concluding that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the sidewalk [at issue] was unreasonably dangerous.”

Plaintiff was an office supply store delivery person, and he was making his first delivery to defendants’ building. The building was owned by one defendant and occupied by another defendant, a medical center. In front of the entrance, the sidewalk had a curb-cut for a wheelchair ramp. One side of the cut sloped down to the incline, but the other side did not slope and instead had a “single step riser approximately 5 inches high.” The ramp, the lower landing, and the curb cut were lighter in color than the surrounding concrete sidewalk, but there were no particular markings. While plaintiff was pulling his dolly down the sidewalk to make a delivery and “looking straight ahead toward the entrance as he walked,” he stepped off the single step riser and broke his leg.

Plaintiff brought this premises liability action, alleging that defendants “fail[ed] to either make the condition safe or warn others of the dangerous condition by appropriate warning signs.” Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment supported primarily by expert testimony. Defendant’s expert stated that the sidewalk in question met all building codes, was inspected and approved by city officials, and that it was “similar in detail to figures shown in the 1999 North Carolina Accessibility Code.” Further, defendant building owner testified that there had been no other incidents between the 2001 construction of the building and sidewalk and this litigation.

January 15, 2016

Expert Rejected. Motion to Continue Rejected. Case Dismissed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In a case that could have only arisen in Shelby County, Weatherspoon v. Minard, No. W2015-01099-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a health care liability claim after excluding the plaintiff’s expert witness five days before trial.

The alleged negligence occurred in 1998, and this case had been pending in different forms for over fifteen years. After defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in 2009 on the basis that plaintiff did not have a standard of care expert, plaintiff responded and provided the affidavit of Dr. Evans. Defendant served a notice of deposition for Dr. Evans on May 22, 2013, with the deposition to occur one week later. “The notice requested that [plaintiff] ensure Dr. Evans produced certain documents at the deposition, including those related to the income he earned as an expert witness.” Dr. Evans failed to provide this information at his deposition, and continued to refuse to do so, even after the trial court granted defendant’s motion to compel production pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum.

The trial was set for February 2, 2015. On January 13^th, counsel for defendant appeared at Dr. Evans’s office per the subpoena, but was told that Dr. Evans was not there and that counsel “did not have permission to be on the property.” Three days later, defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Evans based on his refusal to provide these financial documents. The trial court heard arguments on January 28^th and granted defendant’s motion excluding Dr. Evans. Because Dr. Evans was plaintiff’s only standard of care expert, and because standard of care must be proven by expert testimony in an HCLA case, the court dismissed plaintiff’s case.

January 11, 2016

HIPAA-Compliant Authorization Still Required where Defendant is only Health Care Provider at Issue

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The HIPAA release required by the Health Care Liability Act and the standards for HIPAA compliance continue to be a litigated issues in this evolving area of Tennessee law.

In Bray v. Khuri, No. W2015-00397-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a patient who committed suicide while admitted to a hospital under defendant doctor’s care. Before filing suit, plaintiff sent a notice letter and a medical authorization form to defendant. Once plaintiff filed her complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff failed to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) because the authorization provided “did not include a description of the information to be used and it failed to identify which health care providers were authorized to make the requested disclosure.” Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss, asserting that she did not have to provide a HIPAA-compliant authorization since the only health care provider at issue was defendant, and that “the form she provided was not deficient when read in conjunction with the potential claim letter accompanying it.” The trial court agreed with defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The first issue on appeal was whether plaintiff was required to provide defendant with a HIPAA-compliant authorization when defendant “was the only medical provider being sent the notice of potential claim.” In support of her argument that no medical authorization was required here, plaintiff pointed to the language of the statute, which states that a plaintiff’s written notice “shall include…[a] HIPAA compliant medical authorization permitting the provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from each other provider being sent a notice.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). Plaintiff asserted that “the inclusion of the phrase ‘from each other provider’ signals that it is unnecessary to include an authorization when only one provider is receiving the notice because that provider already has all the relevant records in its possession.”

January 7, 2016

Gross Negligence Affirmed where Advertisement Misrepresented Mini Storage

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Kuhn v. Panter, No. M2015-00260-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding of gross negligence against the owners of a mini storage facility.

Here, defendants had advertised the mini storage facility as “clean and dry.” Plaintiffs rented one of the units in 2011 and stored many personal belongings there, including photographs, a family Bible, clothes and furniture. In May 2013, plaintiffs found that their unit had flooded and ruined all of their personal property.

Plaintiffs filed suit in sessions court and were awarded a judgment there, which defendants appealed to circuit court. During a bench trial, the evidence showed that the building had “drainage issues” during construction and the city issued a stop work order on it. Moreover, when the building was eventually completed, there was never a final inspection by the city and a certificate of occupancy was never issued. A witness for plaintiffs testified that the building housing their storage unit was “eleven inches lower than the surrounding storage buildings.” Further, it was shown that an “agent [of defendants] testified in a prior hearing that the unit rented to [plaintiffs] had flooded on a prior occasion.” Based on these facts, the trial court found defendants had committed gross negligence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

January 5, 2016

Article in TBA Journal About Comparative Fault Issue

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Bar Association has published my article about the recent Moreno decision and the unintended consequences of that decision.

The article is titled “Donald Margolis, “Moreno,’ and Unintended Consequences.”

An excerpt:

January 2, 2016

2016 Rule Package Released

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has sent a package of rule changes to the Tennessee General Assembly for review. The proposed changes will be sent to the judiciary committee in each house. Click on the link to see the proposals.

December 29, 2015

Plaintiff Who Turned Left on Red 50% at Fault as Matter of Law

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Hall v. Owens, No. W2014-02214-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2015), the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff ran a red light and turned in front of defendant’s truck. As plaintiff approached an intersection, he had a red arrow for turning left. Defendant was approaching the same intersection driving a tractor-trailer truck, and defendant had a green light. Despite the red arrow, plaintiff proceeded into the intersection and turned left, at which time he was hit by defendant’s truck and severely injured.

Plaintiff sued defendant and his employer for negligence, asserting that defendant’s negligence was the “direct and proximate cause of the collision.” Defendant moved for summary judgment, relying heavily on the footage of the accident from two traffic cameras. Based on the footage, two experts for defendant testified that defendant was driving approximately 52 miles per hour in the 55 mile per hour zone. Further, it was undisputed that defendant had a green light and plaintiff had a red arrow. It was also undisputed that defendant’s truck was well-illuminated and visible.

In response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist asserting that defendant was traveling 60-65 miles per hour, and that defendant had “six to nine seconds of clear visibility of [plaintiff’s] car.” In light of the evidence, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that “no reasonable minds could find anything other than the fact that [plaintiff’s] actions in driving that morning of the accident constituted negligence, and negligence per se, and that his actions were the proximate cause of the accident, at least to the extent of 50% of fault.” The trial court further found that plaintiff’s expert’s testimony regarding defendant’s speed was “fundamentally flawed” in that it failed to consider several relevant factors.

December 28, 2015

Hotel’s Holiday Ice Slides Not a “Public Playground”

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

As the holiday season draws to a close, thousands of people have visited Nashville, Tennessee to enjoy the festivities and decorations at Opryland hotel. The Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff in a negligence case involving the hotel’s holiday ice activity area.

In Hall v. Gaylord Entertainment Co., No. M2014-02221-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015), plaintiff had gone to the holiday-themed ice exhibit and activity area at Gaylord Opryland hotel with his girlfriend in 2010. This exhibit included four ice slides. While there, plaintiff watched his girlfriend go down slide 3, then climbed the stairs to go down the slide himself. When he stepped from the carpeted landing area to the slide, he slipped and tore his rotator cuff. According to plaintiff, he did not see the rules and warnings posted instructing users to hold the handrails when sitting on the slide because his view was obstructed by guests in front of him. He also testified that he did not see the handrails at the top of the slide, and that he did not see a Gaylord employee on the slide landing or receive any instructions from one.

Plaintiff sued both Gaylord Entertainment (the owner of the hotel) and International Special Attractions (ISA), a company who had worked with Gaylord to design and construct the exhibit, under several theories. Pursuant to the agreement between these two entities, Gaylord provided the initial designs to ISA; ISA evaluated the plans for feasibility and structural integrity; ISA constructed the exhibit; and Gaylord was responsible for staffing the exhibit and placing warnings and rules around the exhibit. After both defendants filed motions for summary judgment, plaintiff eventually conceded that ISA was entitled to summary judgment on his claims for negligent operation, negligent failure to warn, and negligent post-construction inspection. The only remaining claim against ISA was for negligent design.*

In his argument against summary judgment on this claim, plaintiff relied on his expert’s testimony that the slide at issue did not meet “applicable standards and state laws on amusement devices.” Plaintiff’s expert asserted that slide 3 was defective “because it did not comply with the design specification standards of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM),” citing two specific sections of this standard that were not followed. These two sections were part of a portion of the standards titled “Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use.” At the trial level, the parties spent a great deal of time arguing over whether slide 3 should be considered an “amusement device” under Tennessee law. ISA argued that the slide did not meet the height requirements to be an amusement device, and that therefore the standards relied on by plaintiff were inapplicable under Tennessee law. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserted that the attraction as a whole was an amusement device and should be evaluated according to the ASTM standards cited.

December 21, 2015

Low Damage Award Set Aside by Appellate Court

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently vacated a judgment in a car accident case after finding that the “jury’s damages award [was] not supported by material evidence.” In Naraghian v. Wilson, No. W2014-02002-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015), plaintiff’s car was struck from behind by defendant’s vehicle. According to plaintiff, she had come to a complete stop at a red light and was then hit. Defendant asserted, though, that he slowed down for the red light, but the light then changed to green and plaintiff began driving off, only to suddenly stop and cause the accident.

At trial, plaintiff presented evidence regarding her medical damages. Her treating chiropractor testified that “the treatments he provided were reasonable and necessary and stated that [plaintiff’s] injuries were the result of the traffic accident involving [defendant].” The total bill for plaintiff’s treatment was $13,440, and there was no real dispute at trial regarding the reasonableness or necessity of the charges. “Defense counsel did not submit any witness controverting the reasonableness of the charges that were billed, nor did defense counsel submit any proof rebutting the medical opinions testified to by [the chiropractor] as to the reasonableness or necessity of the treatment or as to the medical causation as a result of this accident.”

The jury found in favor of plaintiff and found her damages to be $7,831.67. Although the jury found defendant to be responsible, they also apportioned 44.58% of the fault to plaintiff, so her damages were accordingly decreased. After having her motion for a new trial denied, plaintiff appealed, asserting that “the damages awarded by the jury were disproportionate to the amount of damages proven at trial.”

December 19, 2015

Merely Providing Affidavit To Employer Cannot Give Rise to Malicious Prosecution Claim

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Thompson v. Hamm, No. W2015-00004-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015), the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether an affidavit provided to the City of Memphis as an employer of both plaintiff and defendant was enough to establish that defendant “instituted a wrongful prosecution” of plaintiff, ultimately deciding that it was not in the circumstances at play.

Plaintiff was the maintenance manager at a water treatment plant for the city, and during his time as manager the city allegedly received several complaints that plaintiff discriminated on the basis of race. Defendant gave the city an affidavit detailing instances of racial discrimination by plaintiff. After receiving the affidavit, the City hired an independent firm to investigate the claims, and as a result of the investigation decided to charge plaintiff with violations of city policy. The city held a hearing and ultimately terminated plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission, who found that there was “tension” between plaintiff and defendant and issued a decision setting aside the termination. The Chancery Court affirmed the Commission, and plaintiff was reinstated to his position.

Based on defendant’s affidavit, plaintiff filed suit for malicious prosecution against defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment on several grounds, which the trial court granted, rulding that defendant’s “only involvement in the City’s internal investigation was providing the City information regarding Plaintiff’s conduct. Such action on the part of Defendant Hamm does not constitute the initiation of a lawsuit or judicial proceeding against Plaintiff as is required to succeed on a claim for malicious prosecution.” On appeal, plaintiff raised several issues, but the Court only analyzed one in affirming summary judgment, finding it dispositive of the case—defendant’s argument that “his provision of information to the City [was] insufficient to establish that [defendant] instituted a wrongful prosecution[.]”