Tag Archives: Clinton Personal Injury Attorney
Personal Injury Lawsuits Often Turn on Procedural Issues
When it comes to personal injury cases, Tennessee law does not treat all claims the same. Certain cases may be subject to different procedural rules. It is important to understand these differences because they can negatively affect your ability to seek and recover damages against a responsible party. Distinguishing Negligence from Health Care Liability… Read More »
Should My Personal Injury Case Be Heard in Federal or State Court?
It is not uncommon for a defendant in a product liability or other personal injury lawsuit to prefer federal over state courts. Although the substantive law of Tennessee governs such cases regardless of venue, federal courts apply different procedural rules which often prove more favorable to defendants. That is why, if you are a… Read More »
Volvo Faces Trial in Nashville Over Defective Wiring in Truck
Defective products cause thousands of injuries to consumers every year. Product liability is an especially serious concern when dealing with motor vehicles, as even small defects can lead to car accidents. While manufacturers attempt to correct defects through the government-supervised recall system, that is often not sufficient to prevent potentially deadly accidents. Recall Not… Read More »
Tennessee Court Says Home Inspector Not Liable for Missing Defective Deck Railing
If you are seriously injured on someone else’s property, you may be able to recover damages against the owner if he or was negligent in maintaining the property. Such personal injury lawsuits may also extend to others responsible for the property’s maintenance, such as a management company. But what about third parties who might… Read More »
When Is the State Liable for Dangerous Road Conditions?
Car accidents are not always solely the result of negligent driving. In many cases, defective road design or maintenance may contribute to an accident. Under Tennessee law, the state can be sued for “dangerous conditions on state maintained highways.” The burden of proof is on a plaintiff, however, to demonstrate the “foreseeability of the… Read More »
In Personal Injury Cases, The Thing Does Not Always Speak for Itself
In personal injury cases, a plaintiff may establish a defendant’s liability through a legal doctrine known as “res ipsa loquitur.” As explained by Tennessee courts, this rule—named for the Latin phrase, “the thing speaks for itself”—holds “the injury was probably the result of negligence, even though the exact nature of the negligence is unknown,… Read More »
Does My Employer Have to Pay If I Am Injured While Returning to the Office?
A car accident can leave you with serious, long-term injuries which may prevent you from returning to work. And if your accident occurred in the course of your employment, you may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. It is therefore critical to understand the difference between an accident which occurs while commuting to work—which… Read More »
Massive GM Fine May Mean Little for Accident Victims
Many Tennessee car accidents are the result of manufacturing defects in the vehicles themselves. A single defective part may cause an automobile to crash, killing or seriously injuring its passengers. Although federal and state regulators may subsequently punish a manufacturer for marketing a defective vehicle, the actual victims must often pursue their own litigation… Read More »
Are Police Responsible for Failing to Prevent an Accident?
Although police in Tennessee are generally responsible for maintaining traffic and public safety, this does not mean a person injured in a car accident has an automatic right to seek damages against a municipality for failing to prevent the incident. In limited circumstances, federal civil rights law will support a claim against police if… Read More »
How “Consumer Expectations” Can Determine Product Liability
In product liability cases, the Tennessee Supreme Court has said a plaintiff may use the “consumer expectation test” to prove a product is “in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous.” The consumer expectation test means a plaintiff must present evidence “that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated… Read More »
