TORTS – EVIDENCE – ETHICS: THE CUTTING EDGE REVIEW JUSTICE PROGRAMS 2009 TORT AND COMPARATIVE FAULT LAW UPDATE 2009 Presenter: JOHN A. DAY This paper includes summaries of what in my opinion are the most important tort opinions issued by Tennessee appellate courts in the last year. Table of Contents Appeals ..........................................................................................................3 Causation........................................................................................................3 Comparative Fault ..........................................................................................7 Damages .........................................................................................................11 Dram Shop Act ..............................................................................................12 Experts ...........................................................................................................14 General Tort Stuff ..........................................................................................19 GTLA .............................................................................................................30 Hospital Liens ................................................................................................38 In Personam Jurisdiction ...............................................................................39 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations ......................................40 Insurance ........................................................................................................46 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ..................................................46 Intentional Misrepresentation ........................................................................49 Judicial Estoppel ............................................................................................51 Jury Instructions .............................................................................................53 Legal Malpractice ..........................................................................................54 Limitation of Actions .....................................................................................55 Malicious Prosecution ....................................................................................55 Medical Expenses ..........................................................................................56 Medical Malpractice ......................................................................................57 Misrepresentation ...........................................................................................91 Motor Vehicle ................................................................................................97 Negligence .....................................................................................................100 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ....................................................107 Nuisance .........................................................................................................111 Nursing Home ................................................................................................111 Piercing the Corporate Veil ...........................................................................116 1 TORTS – EVIDENCE – ETHICS: THE CUTTING EDGE REVIEW JUSTICE PROGRAMS 2009 Pleading Requirements ..................................................................................117 Premises Liability ..........................................................................................118 Products Liability ...........................................................................................125 Punitive Damages ..........................................................................................129 Retaliatory Discharge.....................................................................................129 Sanctions ........................................................................................................130 Savings Statute ...............................................................................................131 Service of Process ..........................................................................................131 Statute of Limitations .....................................................................................137 Statute of Repose ...........................................................................................139 Tennessee Consumer Protection Act .............................................................140 Tennessee Peer Review Act ...........................................................................140 Uninsured Motorist ........................................................................................141 Workers’ Compensation – Subrogation .........................................................151 Wrongful Death .............................................................................................152 2 TORTS – EVIDENCE – ETHICS: THE CUTTING EDGE REVIEW JUSTICE PROGRAMS 2009 APPEALS • Frivolous Appeal Curtis Morris v. AmSouth Bank, No. W2007-01688-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4335077 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2008). Author: Judge Holly M. Kirby. Trial: Judge Rita L. Stotts. The Court of Appeals awarded Defendant fees and costs under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 for Plaintiff’s frivolous appeal of a summary judgment ruling. The court concluded that Plaintiff had no reasonable chance for success on appeal since he had not contested Defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts at the trial court level. The court remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of damages. Lesson: don’t appeal if you don’t follow the rules at the trial court level. • Waiver on Appeal State v. Pewitte, No. W2008-00747-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 29891 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2009). Author: Judge David H. Wells. Trial: Judge Clayburn Pepples. We bring this case to your attention only to remind you of two rules of appellate procedure. Criminal Defendant lost his right to complain about an alleged “confession” because (a) he failed to object at trial; and (b) failed to cite legal authority in support of his position in his brief. The former results in a waiver under Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a), the later results in a waiver under Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7). CAUSATION • Loss of a Chance Valadez v. Newstart, LLC., No. W2007-01550-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4831306 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2008). Author: Judge Allan E. Highers. Trial: Judge Donna M. Fields. As they were duty-bound to do, the Western Section rejected a valiant effort to reverse existing law and permit recovery on a “loss of chance” theory. Defendants failed to promptly notify Plaintiff parents that their unborn child was afflicted with spina bifida. The two month delay meant that the mother and child could not participate in an experimental study to repair the condition via intrauterine surgery. Defendants moved for summary judgment saying that the parents could not prove with greater that 50% certainty that they would have been admitted to the study. The parents asked the court to change existing law and permit recovery under a “loss of chance” theory. 3 TORTS – EVIDENCE – ETHICS: THE CUTTING EDGE REVIEW JUSTICE PROGRAMS 2009 The court reviewed Tennessee law and the law around the nation on the issue and concluded that it was bound by a Tennessee Supreme Court decision holding that Plaintiffs could not proceed on a “loss of chance” theory. There is no doubt that a Rule 11 appeal will be sought in this case. Assuming the facts stated are true, this is an egregious case that compels a serious discussion of the law. Should the law refuse access to the courthouse just because a plaintiff cannot meet the 50% threshold? That means 100 similarly wronged plaintiffs automatically lose even though 50 of them would have been saved. Is that fair? To be sure, the 50.1% rule is a bright-line test. It is efficient. But is it just? • Cause-in-Fact • Legal Cause Donald Wayne Robbins and Jennifer Lynn Robbins, For Themselves and As Next Friend Of Alexandria Lynn Robbins v. Perry County, Tennessee, A Governmental Entity, No. M2008- 00548-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1162579 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 28, 2009). Author: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. Trial: Judge Robert E. Lee Davies. Plaintiffs’ sixteen-year-old daughter died in a single-vehicle accident. The only other occupant of the vehicle was Decedent’s boyfriend, against whom Plaintiff Mother had obtained an ex parte order of protection eight days earlier. The order of protection had not yet been served by the Perry County Sheriff’s Department. By statute, it was not required to be served until a date after Decedent’s fatal accident. Plaintiffs sued Perry County, alleging negligence by failure to serve the order of protection before the accident occurred. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, finding no causation. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court found that the complaint did not state cause-in-fact, because it did not identify who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident or how the accident occurred. Likewise, the court found Plaintiffs’ complaint would not make out a sufficient legal cause of Decedent’s death, as it assumed (without explicitly alleging) that Decedent’s boyfriend would have stayed away from Decedent if he had been served with the order of protection. • Causation • Negligence in Placement of Child