Litigation in a world of comparative fault and several liability involves party planning. Planning a party is hard work. One essential component of the party planning process is determining who to invite, and party planning by committee presents a whole new set of challenges. Everyone agrees that some people must be at the party. Everyone agrees that certain people should not be there. And, while everyone agrees that the party should occur on the selected date, there is often a disagreement about whether certain people should be extended a party invitation.

2009 Act improves on '08

The New New Medical Malpractice Notice and Certificate of Good Faith Statutes

Everyone knows that Tennessee has rejected the historic invitee, licensee, and trespasser method of determining duty in premises liability cases.[1] Today, we know that when determining the duty that possessors of land owe to a particular plaintiff the court "balances the foreseeability and gravity of the potential harm against the feasibility and availability of alternatives that would have prevented the harm."[2] Right?

Judges on the federal appellate courts have a tough job. They routinely face a wide range of legal issues where federal law is applicable. Those federal issues may have been addressed by any one of the other appellate courts or the hundreds of federal district judges and therefore the author of an opinion must wade through lots of law before reaching a decision in each case.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has decided two negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cases within the past few months. This article summarizes the law after the release of these important opinions.

True NIED claims arise in two different situations. In the first situation, the plaintiff suffers emotional injury because of the negligence of another. The second arises when the plaintiff suffers emotional injury because the negligence of another caused an injury or death to a third person and that in turn caused emotional injury to the plaintiff.

I recently participated in a panel discussion for the Young Lawyers Division of the Tennessee Bar Association and was asked this question "what does it take to be a great litigator?" I changed the question to "what does it take to be a great trial lawyer?" I chose "trial lawyer" over "litigator" because I think many people view litigators as paper-pushing big-firm lawyers who don't try cases.

I hear the train a comin'. It's rollin' 'round the bend[1]