A day after the Tennessee Supreme Court decided Satterfield (see first post of Sept. 11, 2008) , which is also a case involving the element of duty, it decided Downs ex rel. Downs v. Bush, M2005-01498-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2008).
As in Satterfield, Chief Justice Holder issued a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. She disagrees with the majority about whether foreseeability should be considered in determining the existence of a duty (majority approach) or whether it should be considered only in determining the breach of a duty (Justice Holder's approach).
This case, along with Satterfield, offers a fascinating look into how the Supreme Court views the element of duty. Both cases should be read by Tennessee practitioners.
As in Satterfield, Chief Justice Holder issued a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. She disagrees with the majority about whether foreseeability should be considered in determining the existence of a duty (majority approach) or whether it should be considered only in determining the breach of a duty (Justice Holder's approach).
This case, along with Satterfield, offers a fascinating look into how the Supreme Court views the element of duty. Both cases should be read by Tennessee practitioners.
Here is the link to the majority opinion in that case: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TSC/PDF/083/DownsOPN.pdf.
Here is Chief Justice Holder's opinion: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TSC/PDF/083/DownsConDissOPN.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment