The substitution of the party is controlled by Rule 25.01 T.R.C.P.   Either party may file a suggestion of death with the court and serve on all parties.  A Motion for Substitution must be made within 90 days after the suggestion of death is served or the personal injury action may be dismissed. A personal representative is substituted for the deceased defendant, which is usually the administrator or executor of the estate.  If no estate exists, then you may have a personal representative appointed by the probate/chancery court in the county where the deceased defendant lived at the time of death to serve in a limited capacity as the proper party pursuant to T.C.A. §30-1-109. 

After an Order Appointing the Administrator Ad Litem for Cause of Action Only is entered and the letters of administration are issued, a motion to substitute should be filed as soon as possible.  After the Administrator Ad Litem is substituted for the deceased defendant, you must serve the Administrator Ad Litem with a summons and the amended complaint in accordance with Rule 4.04 T.R.C.P.  It is imperative that the Motion for Substitution for the deceased defendant is made within 90 days of the suggestion of death on the record, so it is best practice after learning of the deceased defendant’s death to have a personal representative appointed as soon as practicable if no estate was opened, even if a suggestion of death has not been filed by the defendant’s attorney.   

Essentially, social media addiction is the constant need to engage with social platforms despite consequences such as self-confidence issues, depression, anxiety, and other potentially long-term mental health effects. The constant use of social media, and the validation of a user’s interaction with the platform (such as likes, etc.), creates a release of dopamine, in many ways mimicking the use of painkillers.[1]

In a Master Complaint consisting of 300 pages of allegations, over 1,600 Plaintiffs alleged a total of thirteen causes of action against multiple defendants who designed and operated Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.[2] The Product Liability claims were dismissed because (i) the Defendants’ platforms are neither tangible products nor analogous to tangible products; (ii) the Defendants’ platforms were not suitable for analyzing liability under California’s Product Liability standard;[3] and (iii) because the Defendants’ liability should be determined by their conduct. Plaintiffs’ negligence causes survived (as did their claim for fraudulent concealment against Meta only).

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) has long provided near-absolute immunity to social media platforms by shielding them from liability for third-party user content. Thus, Plaintiffs are foreclosed from bringing suits against social media companies for harms stemming from content posted on their platforms. Historically this has created a daunting barrier to recovering against these companies. Here, though, Plaintiffs set forth a new and different legal theory that did not implicate the content on the platform, but rather they sued over the design of the platform(s) and the Defendants’ inclusion of various features was negligent. For example

• The “continuous scrolling” feature “makes it hard for users to disengage from the app,”

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-has-been-deliberately-designed-to-mimic-addictive-painkillers-2018-12

[2] Snapchat settled with Plaintiffs a week before trial commenced and TikTok settled on the day jury selection commenced. The terms of both settlements were confidential.

[3] For instance, the “consumer expectation test” would not be applicable because a “grandmother” might expect the platform to function differently than a business would, or serve different functions than a “young man” or a “child” would. P 34 of Order on Defendants’ Demurrer to Master Complaint and Three Short Form Complaints, *gov.uscourts.cand.414822.55.1.pdf

· The IVR algorithms deprived users of sleep by sending push notifications at night prompting children to reengage with the app rather than sleeping;

· Appearance altering tools (“filters”) provided by Defendants promote unhealthy “body image issues;”

· “Rewards” implemented by Defendants keep users checking the social media platform in ways that contribute to feelings of social pressure and anxiety.

Because Defendants allegedly negligently crafted and implemented these and many other similar features, Plaintiffs were not treating the Defendants as a “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” and thus their claims were not barred by Section 230. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). In other words, Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Defendants were liable for their own actions, not for the content of third-party postings.

The jury found that both Meta and Google were negligent in designing or operating their platforms, that their negligence was a “substantial factor” in harming the plaintiff, and that both failed to adequately warn users about the dangers of using their respective platforms and awarded $6 million to a single Plaintiff.

The implications of this verdict are likely to be far reaching and the success of this case should not be understated. There are thousands of similar social media addiction cases pending in courts throughout the country currently. This case was the first direct test of whether a jury would hold a major platform liable for design-based claims related to child addiction.

Social media litigation is at a pivotal inflection point. The rise of social media has created a new frontier for litigation, forcing courts to adapt traditional legal doctrines to digital platforms. While one may reasonably disagree with the finding that these platforms are not “products” under a product liability standard, that these companies can be held to account for knowingly putting children at risk of harm for the sake of their own profit is a watershed decision.

With billions of users worldwide, legal disputes involving social media platforms are on the precipice of reshaping fundamental questions about the role of technology in public life and the duties technology companies owe to their users. This case, and those that follow, will reshape the trajectory of tech litigation for the foreseeable future.

• Call 911 and Check for Injuries: Your safety comes first. In Tennessee, you should call 911 immediately if: Anyone is injured;  There is significant vehicle damage; The roadway is blocked. Even if injuries don’t seem serious, it may be critical to get medical attention. Many serious injuries—like concussions or internal trauma—don’t show symptoms right away.
• Move to Safety (If You Can): If your vehicle is drivable and it’s safe: Move out of traffic; Turn on hazard lights; Stay near the scene without putting yourself at risk.   Busy roads like I-24, I-75, and Highway 153 can be especially dangerous after a collision.
• Take photos of: All vehicles involved; Damage from multiple angles; License plates; Road conditions, debris, and skid marks; Traffic lights or signs.   You should also obtain: Names and contact info of drivers and witnesses; Insurance information; The responding officer’s name and report number
• Be Careful What You Say: Insurance Companies often try to miscontrue your statements
• Get Medical Care Right Away if You are Injured – get checked out if you’re unsure.
• Report the Crash to Your Insurance Company
• Notify your insurer promptly, but: Stick to basic facts; Do not speculate; Do not give recorded statements to the other driver’s insurance company without legal advice
• Stay Off Social Media
• Talk to a Chattanooga Car Accident Lawyer Early:  The sooner you speak with an attorney, the more protected you are.

At The Hamilton Firm, LLC, we help clients:

• Preserve time-sensitive evidence
• Deal with insurance companies
• Determine the full value of their case
• Avoid costly early mistakes

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident in Chattanooga or the surrounding area, getting the right legal guidance early can make all the difference.

The Hamilton Firm, LLC is here to help you understand your rights and take the next steps with confidence.

Putting Clients First, Not Marketing Budgets

Many law firms allocate a significant portion of their budget to advertising. While marketing can increase visibility, it doesn’t directly improve the outcome of your case. In fact, high advertising costs can sometimes mean fewer resources available for the things that truly matter—like building a strong, evidence-backed claim.

We believe your case deserves more than a catchy slogan or a familiar face on a billboard. It deserves time, attention, and real investment.

Where Your Case Actually Needs Resources

Serious injury and trucking accident cases are complex. Winning—or securing the maximum possible recovery—requires a deep level of preparation and strategy. That’s where we focus our resources:

• Expert Witnesses: We invest in top-tier experts, including accident reconstructionists, medical professionals, and industry specialists who can clearly explain what happened and how it impacted your life.
• Thorough Investigations: From gathering police reports to securing black box data and driver logs, we dig deep into every detail.
• Litigation Preparation: If your case needs to go to trial, we are fully prepared. That means investing in depositions, trial exhibits, and courtroom strategy—not cutting corners.
• Client Support: We prioritize communication, case updates, and making sure you feel supported every step of the way.

Why This Matters for You

Insurance companies pay attention to how a law firm operates. Firms that are known for investing in their cases—and being willing to go the distance—often have stronger negotiating power. When the opposing side knows your legal team is prepared and well-resourced, it can lead to better settlement offers and stronger outcomes.

A Different Kind of Commitment

Choosing a law firm is one of the most important decisions you’ll make after an accident. You deserve a team that prioritizes your recovery—not their advertising reach.

Our philosophy is simple: every dollar should work toward building your case, telling your story, and pursuing the best possible result.

Because at the end of the day, it’s not about how many people see our name—it’s about how well we serve the people who trust us when it matters most

In many situations, cases settle before reaching a courtroom. However, the ability and willingness to go to trial plays a critical role in the value of a case. Insurance companies carefully evaluate the lawyer representing the injured person. If they know the attorney rarely goes to trial, they may be less inclined to offer full and fair compensation. On the other hand, when a law firm has a reputation for taking cases before a jury, it often changes how the other side approaches negotiations.

At The Hamilton Firm, our attorneys understand that serious injury cases sometimes require litigation to achieve justice. We prepare every case as if it may ultimately be presented to a jury. This approach demonstrates to insurance companies and defense attorneys that we are prepared to fight for our clients when necessary.

One of the firm’s leading trial attorneys, Patrick Cruise, has extensive courtroom experience. Over the course of his career, he has tried cases before juries in Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana. These trials have resulted in numerous substantial jury verdicts on behalf of injured clients. His experience in the courtroom helps ensure that each case is approached with the preparation, strategy, and determination necessary to pursue meaningful results.

Trial experience is about more than just appearing in court—it’s about understanding how to present evidence, tell a client’s story effectively, and advocate before a jury. Lawyers who regularly handle trials develop the skills and confidence needed to stand up to large insurance companies and corporate defendants.

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured, it’s important to work with a lawyer who has the experience to pursue the full value of your case. At The Hamilton Firm, we are committed to standing by our clients and fighting for them—from the first consultation through trial if necessary.

When the stakes are high, experience in the courtroom matters.

Trucking accident litigation is far more complex than a typical car accident case. These claims often involve federal regulations, commercial insurance policies, multiple liable parties, and extensive accident reconstruction. Because of this, many attorneys choose to partner with firms that focus specifically on trucking cases to ensure their clients receive the best possible representation.

One of the reasons attorneys confidently refer these cases to our firm is the experience and reputation of Patrick Cruise, a leading advocate at The Hamilton Firm. Patrick is Board Certified and widely recognized by his peers as an outstanding advocate for individuals who have suffered serious injuries. Over the years, he has written extensively on personal injury and trucking litigation and has been published numerous times on these topics.

In addition to his written work, Patrick has also been invited to speak at bar associations and legal conventions, sharing his knowledge with other attorneys about the complexities of trucking accident litigation. His experience handling these cases allows our firm to approach them with the strategy, resources, and insight needed to pursue meaningful results for injured clients.

Insurance companies pay close attention to the attorneys involved in trucking cases. They know which lawyers regularly handle these complex claims—and which ones do not. That distinction matters. When insurance carriers recognize that a case is being handled by a firm with a proven track record in trucking litigation, it often changes how the case is evaluated and negotiated.

At The Hamilton Firm, we take pride in the trust that attorneys across the country place in us. When serious trucking accidents happen, having a lawyer who understands the unique challenges of these cases can make a significant difference in protecting the rights of injured individuals and their families.

If you are an attorney with a trucking case in Tennessee, Georgia, or the surrounding region, our team is always available to discuss how we can help.

If you have been in injured as in a trucking wreck in Georgia, contact The Hamilton Firm for a free consultation. Patrick Cruise is a Board Certified Trucking Lawyer, licensed in Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana.

If you are seriously injured in a truck wreck, or you are a lawyer handling a truck wreck case and want assistance, Patrick is available to discuss.

(a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or

(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

(b) A lawyer may act as an advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness, unless precluded from doing so by RPC 1.7 or RPC 1.9.

Courts have repeatedly cautioned, “because of the potential use of the advocate-witness rule for abuse, disqualification is a drastic measure which should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary.”  King v. Pattison, 2013-Ohio-4665 (5^th Dist. Sept. 30, 2013)(trial court abused discretion by disqualifying attorney). A high standard is imposed for disqualification not only because of the potential for abuse, but because it “separates a party from the counsel of its choice with immediate and measurable effect.” Zurich Ins. Co. v. Knotts, 52 S.W.3d 555, 560 (Ky. 2001).

The key inquiry is whether or not the lawyer is a necessary witness at trial. A lawyer is not a necessary witness “if the substance of their testimony can be elicited from other witnesses.” State v. Swift, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 195, *21 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 28, 2019).  A necessary witness is not just someone with relevant information, but someone who has material information that no one else can provide. Dinardo Seaside Tower, Ltd. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 153 Conn. App. 10, 49 (2014). “Testimony may be relevant and even highly useful but still not strictly necessary.”   Id.   In fact, the availability of other persons to testify about conversations and events surrounding them means that the attorney is not a necessary witness.Mettler v. Mettler, 50 Conn.Supp. 357 (2007).

At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses, including rebuttal witnesses, excluded at trial or other adjudicatory hearing. In the court’s discretion, the requested sequestration may be effective before voir dire, but in any event shall be effective before opening statements. The court shall order all persons not to disclose by any means to excluded witnesses any live trial testimony or exhibits created in the courtroom by a witness. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) a person designated by counsel for a party that is not a natural person, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause. This rule does not forbid testimony of a witness called at the rebuttal stage of a hearing if, in the court’s discretion, counsel is genuinely surprised and demonstrates a     need for rebuttal testimony from an unsequestered witness.

Rule 615 unequivocally only applies at trial and to trial testimony, and even then, the Rule is not absolute.  The Advisory Commission Comments reiterate this point and note that the Rule applies to “courtroom testimony” and to “what witnesses say in court.”  Moreover, the Advisory Commission Comments specifically state that the Rule applies to “courtroom testimony” and “does not prohibit a witness from reviewing depositions of other witnesses before testifying.” 

The issuance of the citation itself is not necessarily relevant or admissible. Admissibility depends on what happens after the citation is issued; and specifically, whether there is an admission of guilt. If the defendant pays the the fine, that in and of itself is not admissible. Howard v. Lay, 259 Ga.App. 391, 392 (2003). “We have consistently held inadmissible evidence of any traffic court initiation or disposition of a case against the parties to a collision unless the party has entered a guilty plead in traffic court, thereby admitting liability.” Eubanks v. Waldron, 263 Ga.App. 75 (Sept. 5, 2023).

However, if a defendant is cited for a traffic violation, posts a cash bond, and fails to appear in court, “such failure shall be construed as an admission of guilty and the cash bond may be forfeited.” That admission creates a prima facie showing of negligence. See: O.C.G.A. 40-13-58. See also: Coleman v. Fortner, 260 Ga.App. 373 (2003).

What if the defendant pays the fine and fails to appear in court on the date stated on the ticket? In Burnette v. Brown, 272 Ga.App. 383 (Feb. 16, 2005), the defendant driver was cited for failure to maintain lane. She did not appear in court for the hearing on the traffic citation and her husband paid the ticket. The Court found no error in the trial court allowing such evidence to be considered by the jury as an admission against interest. Essentially, because the defendant failed to appear before the court for her traffic citation and did not “take any other action to contest the citation”, it was admissible as to negligence. But see: Howard v. Lay, 259 Ga.App. 391 (2003) (tortfeasor unconscious and did not find out about the citation or that it had been paid until 18 months after the wreck).

Based on the jurisprudence, whether or not a traffic citation is admissible in a subsequent civil action can be summarized as follows:

• Defendant pays fine after pleading not guilty, nolo contendere, or being adjudicated guilty = not admissible. Waszczak v. City of Warner Robins, 221 Ga.App. 528 (1996).
• Defendant admits he failed to appear at the traffic citation hearing = Can be used to establish negligence per se. Roberts v. Ledbetter, 218 Ga.App. 860 (1995).
• Defendant admits he failed to appear in court on the citation and forfeited his cash fine = admissible. Robert v. Ledbetter, 218 Ga.App. 860 (1995).
• Defendant pays a fine on a citation and fails to appear in court on a citation = The party’s failure to appear is deemed an admission of guilt, and this admission may be used in a civil action as an admission against interest to establish negligence. Agic v. MARTA, 334 Ga.App. 679 (Nov. 18, 2015)(Paying a fine on a citation and not appearing in court equivalent to a cash bond forfeiture).

If you have been injured as the result of a driver that was cited for violating the law, contact The Hamilton Firm for a free consultation.

Georgia recognizes two separate types of claims in a wrongful death action. One is the claim filed by the family member(s) to recover the “full value of the life of the decedent”. This would include tangibles such as lost wages and value for services and intangibles such as loss of companionship and enjoyment of life. The second claim is the estate claim which are aimed at addressing the decedent’s own losses and include medical bills associated with the cause of death, funeral expenses, pain and suffering prior to death, and shock and terror experienced prior to death. There can also be a punitive damages claim.

The statute of limitations is two years from the date of death, regardless of when the cause of death is discovered, with certain exceptions. Potential exceptions include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) death caused by a criminal act, (O.C.G.A. §9-3-99); (2) incompetency (O.C.G.A. §9-3-90); and (3) the estate claim statute may be tolled if the decedent’s estate is unrepresented (O.C.G.A. §9-3-92). A shorter deadline may apply if the claim is against a governmental agency/entity.

Want to know more about Attorney Annette Kelley? Or do you need our law firm’s help with an injury claim in Chattanooga? Call (423) 634-0871 or submit an online contact form now.

More About Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers® is a nationwide organization that reviews, rates, and recognizes legal professionals who have “attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement,” as it is explained on the official Super Lawyers website. To make sure that no other organization can copy the unique way that Super Lawyers selects and honors attorneys, it has patented its multistep selection process. Also, when the selection process ends each year, no more than 5% of practicing attorneys will be included in the annual membership listing.

With the addition of William (“Bill”) Rieder to our team, we now offer mediation services throughout the State of Tennessee.

Bill’s extensive background as counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants gives him a unique ability to see issues from all perspectives. While some mediators focus on one side, Bill understands both—making him an invaluable resource for resolving disputes fairly and effectively.

⚖️ Bill’s Experience Includes:

• Handling cases from simple sessions court car wrecks to complex business litigation
• Conducting trials ranging from short bench hearings to a five-week trial with over 500 exhibits
• A broad range of trial and mediation experience that ensures balanced, thoughtful guidance

If you are in need of mediation services, contact Bill Rieder at 423 634 0871 to help bring resolution to your case.

Once again, please join us in congratulating Attorney Patrick Cruise for his Mid-South Top 100 Tennessee Super Lawyers® 2024 selection!

Want to know more about Attorney Patrick Cruise? Or do you need our law firm’s help with an injury claim in Chattanooga? Call (423) 634-0871 or submit an online contact form now.

More About Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers® is a nationwide organization that reviews, rates, and recognizes legal professionals who have “attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement,” as it is explained on the official Super Lawyers website. To make sure that no other organization can copy the unique way that Super Lawyers selects and honors attorneys, it has patented its multistep selection process. Also, when the selection process ends each year, no more than 5% of practicing attorneys will be included in the annual membership listing.