Court Depositions Statute Tort 
Day on Torts
JUNE 7, 2022
Where plaintiff’s deposition created a “dispute of material fact” as to whether defendant had actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition in this GTLA premises liability case, summary judgment for defendant was reversed. In Vaughn v. Coffee County, Tennessee , No. M2021-00653-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1652552 (Tenn.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 4, 2021
First, the Claims Commissioner ruled that the claim was “barred by § 70-7-102(a) of Tennessee’s Recreational Use Statute, which protects landowners, including the State of Tennessee, from responsibility for injury to recreational visitors.” In Victory v. State , No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citation omitted).
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 31, 2022
Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert testified at his deposition that he was not very familiar with Kingsport and that he had only reviewed information about Kingsport the night before the deposition, rather than before forming his medical opinions, the trial court did not err by excluding the expert based on the locality rule.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
Where defendant driver stated that the accident that injured plaintiff passenger was due to her swerving to avoid a wild animal that unexpectedly entered the roadway, and plaintiff “presented no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant,” summary judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. In Owings v.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn. Code Ann. §
Day on Torts
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
In support of its motion, the State pointed to deposition testimony that the structure in question was “funky,” was not something the State would have used at any point, and was available to consumers. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court granted summary judgment to the State, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
The trial court eventually granted the motion for summary judgment, agreeing that defendant owed no duty here, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court began its negligence analysis by considering whether defendant owed a duty under the contract.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content