CHARLES ROACH AND JOYCE ROACH V. DIXIE GAS COMPANY; BEN THOMAS WILLIAMS, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OWNER AND MANAGER OF DIXIE GAS COMPANY; SEMSTREAM, L.P.; SANTIE WHOLESALE OIL COMPANY, A DIVISION OF BLUE RHINO RELIABLE PROPANE; AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. November 14, 2011)
This lawsuit for damages arises out of an explosion. The plaintiff customers went to the defendant propane gas facility to fill their recreational vehicle with propane. Soon after they arrived, one of the propane hoses began to leak, and propane gas vapor began to envelope the premises. After a short period of time, the propane gas tank exploded, causing devastating property damage and destroying the plaintiffs' recreational vehicle.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that they were near the explosion site when the explosion occurred, and that the explosion caused them numerous physical and psychological injuries. The defendants admitted liability and compensated the plaintiffs for their property damage. The defendants claimed, however, that the plaintiffs were not present at the explosion site when the explosion occurred and did not sustain any personal injuries caused by the explosion. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, determining that the explosion did not cause any personal injuries to the plaintiffs and awarding zero damages. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm.
The Full Opinion may be found here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/roachc_111411.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
Showing posts with label Emotional Distress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emotional Distress. Show all posts
Monday, November 14, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Court reviews whether a school resource officer exercised reasonable care when displaying graphic pictures in a case involving emotional distress
MARLA H., individually and as next best friend to her daughter MORIAH F. H. v. KNOX COUNTY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2011)
This is an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The mother of a middle school student filed suit against Knox County, the Knox County Board of Education, and the City of Knoxville after her daughter viewed graphic photographs of her dead father during a presentation on the dangers of drunk driving.
The trial court found the City of Knoxville liable for the student's emotional injuries because the school resource officer who distributed the photographs intended to evoke an emotional response. We conclude it was generally foreseeable that providing graphic accident scene photographs to seventh grade students could cause serious or severe emotional harm in a student related to a victim depicted therein. Thus, the school resource officer owed a duty to exercise reasonable care when displaying the photographs to a class that potentially included students related to the victims. The evidence, however, preponderates against the trial court's finding that the school resource officer failed to exercise reasonable care. We reverse the decision of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/marlah_070111.pdf
This is an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The mother of a middle school student filed suit against Knox County, the Knox County Board of Education, and the City of Knoxville after her daughter viewed graphic photographs of her dead father during a presentation on the dangers of drunk driving.
The trial court found the City of Knoxville liable for the student's emotional injuries because the school resource officer who distributed the photographs intended to evoke an emotional response. We conclude it was generally foreseeable that providing graphic accident scene photographs to seventh grade students could cause serious or severe emotional harm in a student related to a victim depicted therein. Thus, the school resource officer owed a duty to exercise reasonable care when displaying the photographs to a class that potentially included students related to the victims. The evidence, however, preponderates against the trial court's finding that the school resource officer failed to exercise reasonable care. We reverse the decision of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/marlah_070111.pdf
Monday, November 1, 2010
Court reviews summary judgment ruling in favor of a physician on the grounds of a patient's credibility.
TERESA L. WEAVER, ET AL. v. TRAVIS K. PARDUE, M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 1, 2010)
This appeal arises out of a primary care physician's alleged negligent and tortious treatment of a longtime patient. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the physician, questioning the credibility of the patient's allegations and holding in part that the physician's alleged conduct could not support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We reverse and remand.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/weavert_110110.pdf
This appeal arises out of a primary care physician's alleged negligent and tortious treatment of a longtime patient. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the physician, questioning the credibility of the patient's allegations and holding in part that the physician's alleged conduct could not support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We reverse and remand.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/weavert_110110.pdf
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Court Reviews Whether A Cause of Action Against an Employer Constitutes Negligence or a Workers’ Compensation Claim
MARY COLEMAN, ET AL. v. ST. THOMAS HOSPITAL (Tenn. Ct. App. August 5, 2010)
Plaintiffs filed suit against their employer, alleging common law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to their exposure to carbon monoxide in the workplace. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' tort claims were barred by Tennessee's workers' compensation law. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs' injuries did not "arise out of" their employment. The employer's application for an extraordinary appeal was granted. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting summary judgment to the employer.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/colemanm_080510.pdf
Plaintiffs filed suit against their employer, alleging common law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to their exposure to carbon monoxide in the workplace. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' tort claims were barred by Tennessee's workers' compensation law. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs' injuries did not "arise out of" their employment. The employer's application for an extraordinary appeal was granted. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting summary judgment to the employer.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/colemanm_080510.pdf
Monday, June 14, 2010
Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence in a case involving a hunting accident
BOBBY GERALD RILEY, and Wife, TANYA RILEY, Individually and as next of kin for HUNTER RILEY v. JAMES ORR (Tenn. Ct. App. June 14, 2010)
This is an appeal of a jury verdict. The plaintiff was hunting with his son. The defendant was also hunting in the general area, and accidentally shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for negligence, and included a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his son. The parties stipulated as to the defendant's liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages.
The jury instructions included instructions on the plaintiff father's mental pain and suffering and the son's emotional injury, but did not separately address the plaintiff father's emotional injury. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff father as well as an award for the son's emotional injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and approved the verdict. The defendant now appeals.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict on several elements of damages, and argues that the inconsistency in the jury instructions on emotional injury necessitates a new trial. We affirm in part, vacate in part, suggest remittitur as to the awards for future medical expenses and for emotional injury, and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rileyb_061410.pdf
This is an appeal of a jury verdict. The plaintiff was hunting with his son. The defendant was also hunting in the general area, and accidentally shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for negligence, and included a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his son. The parties stipulated as to the defendant's liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages.
The jury instructions included instructions on the plaintiff father's mental pain and suffering and the son's emotional injury, but did not separately address the plaintiff father's emotional injury. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff father as well as an award for the son's emotional injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and approved the verdict. The defendant now appeals.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict on several elements of damages, and argues that the inconsistency in the jury instructions on emotional injury necessitates a new trial. We affirm in part, vacate in part, suggest remittitur as to the awards for future medical expenses and for emotional injury, and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rileyb_061410.pdf
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Court reviews jury verdict for hunting accident case involving claims of emotional distress
BOBBY GERALD RILEY ET. AL v. JAMES ORR (Tenn. Ct. App. April 20, 2010)
This is an appeal of a jury verdict. The plaintiff was hunting with his son. The defendant was also hunting in the general area, and accidentally shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for negligence, and included a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his son. The parties stipulated as to the defendant's liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages.
The jury instructions included instructions on the plaintiff father's mental pain and suffering and the son's emotional injury, but did not separately address the plaintiff father's emotional injury. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff father as well as an award for the son's emotional injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and approved the verdict. The defendant now appeals. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict on several elements of damages, and argues that the inconsistency in the jury instructions on emotional injury necessitates a new trial. We affirm in part, vacate in part, suggest remittitur as to the award for future medical expenses, and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rileyb_042010.pdf
This is an appeal of a jury verdict. The plaintiff was hunting with his son. The defendant was also hunting in the general area, and accidentally shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for negligence, and included a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his son. The parties stipulated as to the defendant's liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages.
The jury instructions included instructions on the plaintiff father's mental pain and suffering and the son's emotional injury, but did not separately address the plaintiff father's emotional injury. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff father as well as an award for the son's emotional injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and approved the verdict. The defendant now appeals. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict on several elements of damages, and argues that the inconsistency in the jury instructions on emotional injury necessitates a new trial. We affirm in part, vacate in part, suggest remittitur as to the award for future medical expenses, and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rileyb_042010.pdf
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Court reviews whether photographs of a corpse at an automobile accident scene amounts to an invasion of privacy.
DEBBIE HARRIS, individually and as next of kin to her son JEREMY WOOTEN; CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, individually and as next of kin to his brother, JEREMY WOOTEN; CHASITY BROWN, individually and as next of kin to her brother JEREMY WOOTEN v. DON HORTON and ROBERTSON COUNTY (Tenn. Ct. App. December 15, 2009)
A young man died in a motor vehicle accident on a public highway. The defendant county's emergency medical services unit, including the defendant paramedic, responded to the accident. Photographs were taken of the accident scene, including photographs of the young man's body. Three months later, the defendant paramedic gave a presentation to a high school driver's education class. To aid his presentation, he circulated among the students photo albums containing photographs of automobile accident scenes. The albums included accident scene photographs of the young man's corpse. The young man's family then filed a lawsuit against the paramedic and the county, asserting claims for, inter alia, interference with and mishandling of human remains, invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy for publicizing private facts, and infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the claim for interference with human remains for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the paramedic and the county on the other claims. The family now appeals. We affirm.
The full text of this opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/harrisd_121509.pdf
A young man died in a motor vehicle accident on a public highway. The defendant county's emergency medical services unit, including the defendant paramedic, responded to the accident. Photographs were taken of the accident scene, including photographs of the young man's body. Three months later, the defendant paramedic gave a presentation to a high school driver's education class. To aid his presentation, he circulated among the students photo albums containing photographs of automobile accident scenes. The albums included accident scene photographs of the young man's corpse. The young man's family then filed a lawsuit against the paramedic and the county, asserting claims for, inter alia, interference with and mishandling of human remains, invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy for publicizing private facts, and infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the claim for interference with human remains for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the paramedic and the county on the other claims. The family now appeals. We affirm.
The full text of this opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/harrisd_121509.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)