This Blog/Web site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this Blog/Web site you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web site publisher. The Blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
I want to leave you with this one question (and/or thought): Why should the healthcare industry not be held responsible for its negligent acts? Tort reform proponents believe that it shouldn't be; they want to limit the healthcare industry's liability (even when the negligence is clear). Is that fair? Is it just? Is it right? You decide.
The Court of Appeals released an opinion yesterday in Maino v. The Southern Co. Inc. W2007-00225-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2007). This case deals with the interplay among the savings statute, the statute of limitation (to a small extent), and the ten-year statute of repose for products liability cases.
We accordingly hold that a plaintiff who commences a products liability action within the products liability statute of limitations and ten-year statute of repose, voluntarily non-suits, and refiles within one year of the non-suit, may rely on the savings statute notwithstanding the expiration of the ten-year statute of repose.
P.S. This case is similar to Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 914-15 (Tenn. 1995) (holding that the savings statute will allow a timely filed medical negligence action to be re-filed outside the statute of repose).
The Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday in Thomas v. Oldfield, No. M2006-02767-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2007) holding that a defendant's liability insurance information is not discoverable.
In 1992 the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted a system of modified comparative fault in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (adopting the "49 percent" rule where a plaintiff must be found to be no more than 49 percent at fault to recover).
Based upon McIntyre, we all know that the trier of fact determines damages and assigns a percentage of fault to parties in the lawsuit. Here's the all-important question: Can fault be assigned to an unknown, or "phantom," tortfeasor? The answer is no, with one exception.
In Brown v. Wal-Mart Discount Cities, 12 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000) the Court wrote:
[W]e conclude that a defendant may not attribute fault to a nonparty who is not identified sufficiently to allow the plaintiff to plead and serve process on such person pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119, even if the defendant establishes the nonparty's existence by clear and convincing evidence...."
Id. at 789.
As such, a defendant is not permitted to blame an "empty chair" at trial. Fault can only be assigned to those who have been properly identified under the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03 (to invoke comparative fault as an affirmative defense a defendant must plead facts and state the identity of any alleged tortfeasor).
The one exception to this proscription is in the underinsured motorsist context. See Marler v. Scoggins, 105 S.W.3d 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (allowing for fault to be allocated to a "phantom tortfeasor" in an underinsured motorist context).
Bottom line: if a defendant attempts to plead the fault of nonparties insufficiently (i.e., his or her answer doesn't comply with Rule 8.03's requirement of stating both facts and identity) file a motion to strike under Rule 12.06. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03, 12.06. Do this after the answer has been on file for fifteen but less than thirty days. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01.
Here's the link to the slip opinion in Brown from the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts' Web site: