Although a $750,000 cap on non-economic damages is now the law in Tennessee, according to a recent Vanderbilt University poll only 41% of respondents approve such limitations, while 46% disapprove. This interesting survey was reported in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on June 19, 2011. Support among the public for the Tennessee legislature plummeted over the period of January to May during which the lawsuit “reforms” were enacted.
Category Archives: General
On Thursday, June 16, 2011, Governor Bill Haslam signed into law the lawsuit “reform” bill that caps non-economic damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and so forth) at $750,000. The Tennessee legislature, now dominated by Republicans, had passed the legislation “with comfortable margins” in both houses despite strong opposition from the Tennessee Association for Justice (TAJ) and the AARP. The legislation was the new Republican Governor’s “legislative centerpiece”. It does allow for up to $1,000,000 in non-economic damages in certain catastrophic injury cases. While the legislation may be good for business it is bad for accident victims and their families. No matter how bad the injury, no matter how devastating the loss, non-economic damages in Tennessee are now limited to $750,000 in most cases, or $1,000,000 in catastrophic injury cases.
Other bill provisions include “capping” punitive damages at $500,000, and the prohibition of punitive damages “in product liability actions unless the seller had substantial control over the design and manufacturing of the product or had actual knowledge of the defect in the product at the time it was sold.” The new legislation takes effect on October 1, 2011.
Such “caps” have been successfully challenged in the courts in other states, such as Georgia. The Mississippi Supreme Court will soon determine the constitutionality of lawsuit damage caps in that state. They are considering the constitutionality of a $1,000,000 noneconomic damage cap, following a request by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The requests stems from a Mississippi woman’s injury lawsuit against Sears, Roebuck and Co. after she collided with a company van. A jury initially awarded the plaintiff $2.2 million in noneconomic damages but a judge subsequently reduced the award. The issue is whether “the Legislature overstepped its authority in passing the law and whether the law violates a constitutional right to have a jury determines the facts of a case, including damages.”
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is under a court imposed deadline to adopt new regulations relating to hours of service (HOS) by July 26, 2011. The proposed changes are summarized at:
One of the major issues is whether the maximum hours for driving should be set at 10 or 11 within the “Driving Window.” This issue is being hotly debated among the various interest groups, with the trucking industry favoring the longer 11 hour period, while safety advocacy groups favor the shorter 10 hour period. FMCSA seems to be favoring the shorter, 10 hour, period. There are other proposed changes to the existing HOS rules, which are complicated, concerning the definition of the “driving window,” when the time limits “restart”, when time in the vehicle as a passenger is considered on-duty time, and so forth. There is a good summary of all the proposed changes on the FMCSA website. Public comment is being welcomed.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) implementation of the reporting requirements of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) for liability settlements and the penalties associated with improper lien resolution has created turmoil and delay for many lawyers and their clients trying to reach a settlement in a negligence case.
Today, November 15, 2010, CMS is announcing a one year delay in implementation on the reporting requirements for claims involving liability insurance, retroactive to October 1, 2010 through October 1, 2011. This delay should facilitate settlements and allow for faster resolution of certain cases. In addition, it is hoped that during this period, CMS will suspend the issuance of MSP guidance documents, which have often been contradictory and a source of confusion.
Huge tractor-trailers speed up and down our highways, frequently running at speeds far beyond the posted limit, and often tail-gating, weaving in and out and engaging in other dangerous maneuvers. These commercial vehicles may weigh up to 80,000 pounds when loaded. If not operated carefully and safely on our roadways, they present a clear and present danger to all of us. Professional drivers are held to different standards than ordinary automobile drivers, and trucking companies are required to carefully screen and monitor their drivers. Motor carriers are required to make sure that their drivers comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), 49 CFR Sec. 390.11, and it is illegal for anyone to “aid, abet, encourage or require” a driver to violate the regulations (49 CFR 390.13). A trucking company must perform an annual review on each driver to make sure the driver is still qualified and competent to drive a commercial vehicle after he or she is hired, 49 CFR Sec. 391.25. And, before hiring a driver, the trucking company must make inquiries of a driver’s prior employers for a three year period preceding the driver’s application for employment and run a moving violation report (MVR) to determine the qualifications of the driver, 49 CFR Sec. 391.23.
Engaging counsel experienced in battling the trucking industry is essential to success in accident cases involving tractor trailers and other large commercial vehicles.
O.C.G.A. Sec. 40-6-241.1, effective July 1, 2010, prohibits ALL drivers from texting with a wireless telecommunications device while operating a motor vehicle in Georgia. The Georgia State Patrol has stopped issuing warnings and will now write $150 tickets for violations. And, those under 18 cannot use a cellular telephone at all while driving. Adults can use cell phones while driving, but the use must be “proper” and must not be distracting. Headsets are now permitted by O.C.G.A. Sec. 40-6-250 provided they do not impair the driver’s ability to hear.
Georgia law also now requires adults in pickup trucks to wear seat belts. Georgia has had a primary seat belt law since 1996 but pickup trucks were exempted until this year.
On Monday, March 22, 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state legislature cannot limit the amount of money juries can award to victims of medical malpractice. The ruling struck down a 2005 state law, championed by Republicans, that capped jury awards at $350,000 for the pain and suffering of malpractice victims. The court held that the cap improperly removed a jury’s fundamental role to determine the damages in a civil case. “The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to trial by jury,” and “‘clearly nullifies the jury’s findings of fact regarding damages and thereby undermines the jury’s basic function,” Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein wrote in the decision. The ruling was praised by victims’ rights groups and plaintiffs’ lawyers and was condemned by doctors and Republican lawmakers.
The New York Times reports that thirty states, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico place caps on jury awards in malpractice cases, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But since the late 1980s, such caps have been struck down by courts in New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and, most recently, last month in Illinois, according to the conference. “Different states are reaching different conclusions,” said Thomas A. Eaton, a law professor at the University of Georgia who specializes in civil damage cases.
In Georgia, the court’s decision arose from the case of a 71-year-old woman, Betty Nestlehutt, who was permanently disfigured after face-lift surgery. A jury awarded her and her husband $1.26 million in damages, including $900,000 for her pain and suffering. But under the cap, that would have been reduced to $115,000 for medical expenses and $350,000 for noneconomic damages. On Monday, the original award was reinstated.
Medical malpractice cases are among the most challenging and expensive cases undertaken by The Hamilton Firm and other trial lawyers. Now the courtroom doors are open again to victims of medical malpractice in Georgia, as the arbitrary caps eliminated all but the most outrageous cases from consideration. However, the fight is not over. The 2005 legislation that imposed the caps also granted virtual immunity to emergency rooms and their doctors, making them liable only for committing gross negligence in the treatment of emergency room patients. The Supreme Court upheld those provisions the preceding week. Only legislative action can change this grossly unjust law.
Yesterday, January, 27, 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a “Notice of regulatory guidance” concerning texting while driving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV). The guidance is applicable to all interstate drivers of commercial motor vehicles, such as large trucks and buses, subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The regulatory guidance is effective immediately.
The Notice provides regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of 49 CFR 390.17, “Additional equipment and accessories,” to drivers engaged in “texting” on an electronic device while driving a CMV in interstate commerce. Currently, 49 CFR 390.17 states:
“Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit the use of additional equipment and accessories, not inconsistent with or prohibited by this subchapter, provided such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the commercial motor vehicles on which they are used.”
This provision, Section 390.17 has now been interpreted by the FMCSA as follows:
Question 1: Do the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations prohibit “texting” while driving a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce?
Guidance: Yes. Although the current safety regulations do not include an explicit prohibition against texting while driving by truck and bus drivers, the general restriction against the use of additional equipment and accessories that decrease the safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles applies to the use of electronic devices for texting. Handheld or other wireless electronic devices that are brought into a CMV are considered “additional equipment and accessories” within the context of § 390.17. “Texting” is the review of, or preparation and transmission of, typed messages through any such device or the engagement in any form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication through any such device. Texting on electronic devices while driving decreases the safety of operation of the commercial vehicles on which the devices are used because the activity involves a combination of visual, cognitive and manual distraction from the driving task. Research has shown that during 6-second intervals immediately preceding safety-critical events (e.g., crashes, near crashes, lane departure), texting drivers took their eyes off the forward roadway an average of 4.6 seconds. Therefore, the use of electronic devices for texting by CMV operators while driving on public roads in interstate commerce decreases safety and is prohibited by 49 CFR 390.17.
Who does this apply to?
CMVs are defined in 49 CFR 390.5 as “any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle —
1. Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or
2. Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or
3. Is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or
4. Is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C.”
Section 390.17 is therefore applicable to drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMV), as defined by §390.5, when the CMV is being used by a motor carrier operation subject to the FMCSRs.