This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
When appealing a trial court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a case under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), the appeal “must be filed within thirty days of the entry of that order.”. This is an important case, as it provides further interpretation of the TPPA, a relatively new statute in Tennessee.
Regarding the permanence of plaintiff’s injury, the Court found that plaintiffs’ experts had testified to some permanence for both his leg and back and his cognitive injuries, and that the medical testimony was “corroborated by [plaintiffs’] respective testimony that [plaintiff’s] physical and cognitive symptoms have not improved since the accident.”
In a unanimous decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) “removes immunity only for ordinary negligence,” not for gross negligence or recklessness. Hawkins County, Tennessee , No. The Court of Appeals reversed dismissal. In Lawson v. E2020-01529-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reviews very few cases in a given year. In the year ending June 30, 2020 (the last period for which information is publicly available) the High Court was asked to accept review in 569 cases. Seven of the civil cases are tort cases. Before now, the only way was to know where to look.
Where plaintiff real estate professional brought an action for defamation and false light based on an online review written by defendant, defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). In Charles v. McQueen , No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4490980 (Tenn. citing Tenn. Code Ann. §
The TennesseeCourt of Appeals has ruled plaintiffs can pursue claims based on recklessness and gross negligence under the GTLA. The Court reasoned: [C]onceptually distinct though it is, simple negligence is a subspecies of these heightened forms of negligence, and in turn, these concepts contrast with intentional torts.
Where defendant physician was employed by a state university and received no personal gain from the clinical services she rendered at a hospital, and plaintiff had brought an HCLA action based on these hospital clinical services, summary judgment pursuant to defendant’s absolute immunity under the Tennessee Claims Commission Act was affirmed.
Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert testified at his deposition that he was not very familiar with Kingsport and that he had only reviewed information about Kingsport the night before the deposition, rather than before forming his medical opinions, the trial court did not err by excluding the expert based on the locality rule.
The Court noted that plaintiff’s only evidence that the cap was dangerous was the evidence of her own fall and the fall of the alleged other unnamed homeowner, and that “[n]egligence cannot be presumed by the mere happening of an injury or accident.” internal citation omitted). Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
Under the modern discovery rule…, Plaintiffs were on constructive notice of their claim by October 5, 2009. Because plaintiffs had constructive notice of their claim in 2009, the Courtruled that the conversion claim should have been barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
The tort claims in this case were subject to the three-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real property, and the Court of Appeals agreed that this limitations period would not be tolled by the discovery rule under the facts here. Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
April 14, 2022), plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against several defendants, including the State of Tennessee as the employer of Dr. Landry, who was allegedly negligent. 3, 2019), the Courtruled that “language in a complaint cannot substitute for a proper certificate of good faith.” In Gilbert v. State , No. In Dotson v.
After discovery, DSS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial courtruled that plaintiff had asserted a premises liability claim, and that “DSS did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care under premises liability.” Plaintiff then amended his complaint to assert claims against DSS as well.
City of Clarksville, Tennessee , No. This suit followed, asserting several contract and property claims, as well as a tort claim for intentional interference with business relationships. The trial court dismissed the tort claim against the City pursuant to the GTLA, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In Robinson v.
While defendant urged the Court to “follow the modern trend taken in federal courts, which no longer requires renewal of a motion for directed verdict at the close of all the proof,” the Court declined to change long-standing Tennessee law. Accordingly, the Courtruled that, pursuant to Tenn.
Perry County, Tennessee , No. The Tennessee Supreme Court “has adopted a planning-operational test to determine whether a decision is discretionary within the meaning of the GTLA,” explaining that “planning or policy-making decisions are immune from liability” while “operational decisions do not enjoy the same protection.”
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that “Plaintiffs’ claims for medical battery and intentional misrepresentation were based on false statements the Defendants made to [plaintiff] before they established a doctor-patient relationship,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed this “temporal analysis” on interlocutory appeal.
Plaintiff attempted to rely on additional documents referred to in the SCES manual to support a finding of duty, but the Court noted that the Manual specifically referred to these additional documents in an attempt to provide proper pruning methods, not to add to defendant’s contractual duty. internal citations omitted).
When that friend could not find a Tennessee lawyer to take her case before the statute of limitations ran out, he sent her a sample pre-suit notice form. Note: Chapter 45, Sections 3, 9 and 12 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in TennesseeTort Law has been updated to include this decision.
More than two weeks after the order of dismissal was entered, defendants filed a “combined motion to alter or amend and petition to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act” (TPPA). voluntary dismissals in Tennessee. internal citation omitted). internal citation omitted).
City of Algood, Tennessee , No. At the close of plaintiff’s proof, defendant moved for involuntary dismissal of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to TennesseeRule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2), 2), which the trial court granted. 2), the trial court did not err in considering the testimony of [plaintiff’s wife].”.
The Courtruled that this response was insufficient and that the statement was thus admitted, explaining: Rule 56.03 Accordingly, the Courtruled that the fact was admitted and defendant could not “be charged with actual notice.”. internal citations and quotations omitted). Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to mean that a plaintiff must “provide pre-suit notice to prospective health care defendants each time a complaint is filed.” This conclusion is most aligned with Tennessee law and public policy. Here, [defendants] received the Notice on April 25, 2019.
There is an interesting and difficult free speech controversy brewing at Tennessee Tech University. The board rejected the proposal and Donadio, an assistant professor of nursing at Tennessee Tech as well as a local county commissioner , applauded loudly. Your hate & hypocrisy are not welcome at Tennessee Tech.
The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) governs suits against governmental entities in Tennessee, removing immunity for governmental entities only in certain situations. Defendants first argued that Mr. Mosby’s actions in this case qualified as an assault or battery, an intentional tort for which immunity would not be removed.
Where defendant doctor was an employee of a governmental entity and plaintiffs failed to name the employer in their HCLA suit, dismissal under the Tennessee GTLA was affirmed. WTMG is a governmental entity under the definitions in the Governmental Tort Liability Act. In Braylon W. Walker , No. W2020-00692-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
Where the other driver in a car accident case died before suit was filed and the plaintiff failed to “timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations,” summary judgment for the personal representative was affirmed. Luethke , No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
Dyer County Tennessee , No. 16, 2020), plaintiff filed suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) after he was injured in a car accident. The Court of Appeals first analyzed whether a special relationship was created by the deputy’s actions. In Kimble v. W2019-02042-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citation omitted).
The Court of Appeals first considered plaintiff’s claim that defendant created a “temporary nuisance by diverting water onto his property.” Tort cases based on the flow of surface water often include claims for trespass and/or nuisance. internal citation and quotation omitted).
The trial judge in this case specifically found defendant to be a credible witness, and the Courtruled that “[g]iving due deference to the trial court’s credibility determination, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that [plaintiff] failed to prove that [defendant] intentionally misrepresented the amounts owed.”.
Defendant implied in his brief that a check could not be considered “tangible personal property,” but the Court quickly pointed out that “conversion of checks is actionable” in Tennessee, as “checks designate specific amounts of money for use for specific purposes.” internal citations omitted). Code Ann. § 47-3-118(g). “In
ten years ago—at least in part due to longstanding common law rules on champerty, maintenance, [3] and patent law’s relative high risk—today third-party litigation funding (TPLF) [4] undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation, by conservative estimates. [5] 8; Tennessee Litigation Financing Consumer Protection Act, Tenn.
Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content