Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

In a decision handed down in October from the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court has vacated a prior decision by Hamilton County Circuit Judge Thomas, holding that the damages caps imposed through Tennessee’s tort reforms were unconstitutional.  Despite support for Judge Thomas’ decision among the Tennessee legal community and tort reform opponents across the country, the Tennessee Supreme Court ultimately determined that Judge Thomas’ opinion prematurely addressed the issue of the cap on tort damages and that the decision should be vacated.As previously discussed on this blog, in March of this year, Judge Thomas issued a stunning decision, determining that damages caps imposed on plaintiffs claiming non-economic damages in personal injury cases were unconstitutional. The limit – $750,000 – was statutorily imposed by the Tennessee legislature through the 2011 tort reform initiative known as the Tennessee Civil Justice Act.  Judge Thomas held that since plaintiffs are entitled to a right to trial by jury, and one aspect of the jury’s determination is the question of the amount and nature of damages, the damages cap unconstitutionally limited the jury’s authority. Accordingly, he struck down the cap.

Continue reading ›

Punitive damages are a type of damages meant to punish an individual for particularly egregious conduct and deter others from acting in a similar manner.  In Tennessee, punitive damages are available if a plaintiff can show that a defendant acted intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, or recklessly.  If successful, a plaintiff can easily be entitled to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of additional dollars in payments.  For this reason, punitive damages is a claim that should be considered by any individual who has been harmed in an auto accident or other personal injury incident.

One of the chief difficulties in bringing a punitive damages claim is determining what constitutes “malicious” or “reckless” conduct. Courts have been notoriously reluctant to discuss the differences between liability for an action or accident itself, and punitive damages liability for the intentional or malicious nature of the action.  Recently, however, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued just such an opinion.

Continue reading ›

According to the results of a recently published study by the Insurance Research Council, the cost and severity of personal injury claims arising out of automobile accidents continue to rise, despite an overall decrease in the number of auto accidents in Tennessee and other states throughout the country.

The study, Trends in Auto Injury Claims, 2015 Edition, was published earlier this month by the Insurance Research Council and evaluates the incidents of personal injury claims over the past year, as well as state-by-state statistics concerning automobile injuries and fatalities recorded on America’s roadways.

Continue reading ›

Tennessee’s cap on damages for pain and suffering, also known as “non-economic damages,” is unconstitutional according to a recent decision from Judge W. Neil Thomas of the Hamilton County Circuit Court.  The decision is one in a line of several recent rulings to question the constitutionality of many of the provisions enacted under the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011, and to cast doubt on the viability of Tennessee’s legislative efforts at tort reform.Under the statute at issue, plaintiffs seeking damages for pain and suffering as a result of an injury cannot receive more than $750,000 from a jury verdict. In this case, the two plaintiffs, victims of an automobile accident, sought non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life in the amount of $22,500,000.  The defendants, AT&T Corp and Amiee L. Cain, sought to dismiss this claim for damages in excess of the $750,000 cap.

Continue reading ›