TN Supreme Court reviews whether plaintiff's proof of serious mental injury was sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress

BETTY SAINT ROGERS v. LOUISVILLE LAND COMPANY ET AL. (Tenn. April 19, 2012)

In this appeal, the defendants seek a review of the trial court’s decision to award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of inadequate maintenance of the cemetery where the plaintiff’s son was buried.

To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was either intentional or reckless, was so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society, and caused a serious mental injury to the plaintiff.

The primary question presented is whether the plaintiff in this action proved the requisite serious mental injury to support the trial court’s award of compensatory and punitive damages. We hold that the plaintiff’s proof was deficient. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rogersb_041912.pdf

Court reviews a jury award in a products liability case

AUNDREY MEALS, as Natural Parent, Guardian, and Next Friend of WILLIAM MEALS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. April 13, 2012)

Following a seven week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff in this products liability action. The jury awarded compensatory damages in excess of $43 million, and assessed 15 percent fault against Defendant car manufacturer. Defendant appeals. We affirm the jury verdict with respect to liability but remand with a suggestion of remittitur.

Opinion is available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/mealsa_041312.pdf

Kirby's dissenting opinion is available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/meals_DIS_041312.pdf

Court reviews whether the trial court properly allowed a medical expert from a non-contiguous state in a medical malpractice case

MARSHA McDONALD v. PAUL F. SHEA M.D. AND SHEA EAR CLINIC (Tenn. Ct. App. February 16, 2012)



This is a medical malpractice appeal. The plaintiff patient was treated by the defendant physician for ear problems. After the treatment, she had a complete loss of hearing in one ear. The plaintiff patient filed this lawsuit against the physician, alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. After potential experts in Tennessee and contiguous states declined to testify against the defendant physician, the trial court permitted the plaintiff to use an expert physician witness from a non-contiguous state.

At the jury trial, after the jury was sworn and counsel gave opening statements, a juror notified the trial judge of the her concern about an upcoming social event she planned to attend, at which a relative of the defendant physician would be present. After voir dire, the trial judge noted that the plaintiff patient had unused remaining peremptory challenges and excused the juror. The trial court denied the defendant physician's motion for directed verdict on informed consent. The jury awarded the plaintiff substantial compensatory damages.

The defendant physician now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to obtain an expert from a non-contiguous state, in allowing the plaintiff to exercise a peremptory challenge after trial was underway, in permitting the informed consent claim to go to the jury, and in denying the defendants' motion to exclude the expert retained by the plaintiff. We affirm on all issues except the dismissal of the juror. We hold it would be error to permit the exercise of a peremptory challenge after the trial is underway, but find that any error was harmless under the facts of this case. Therefore, we affirm.


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/mcdonaldm_021612.pdf



HIGHERS, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/mcdonaldm_CON_021612.pdf