Tennessee Injury Lawyer Blog

Tennessee imposes many duties on drivers within the state in order to make sure that they are driving in a reasonably safe manner. One such duty is the duty to keep a proper lookout. This duty extends not only to keeping a proper lookout for vehicles and other obstacles in the roadway, but also extends to keeping a lookout for pedestrians as well. Unfortunately many drivers fail to drive in a safe manner in areas where they know or should expect pedestrians to be present. Such places include school zones, college campuses, heavily populated areas, and crosswalks. Failure to keep a proper lookout in these areas can lead to serious injury or even death and is also likely to lead to a personal injury lawsuit in East Tennessee should the driver’s negligent behavior result in injury to the victim.

A memorial service is reportedly being planned for a sixty-four year-old college student at the University of Central Oklahoma who was killed on Tuesday in an automobile-pedestrian accident. The woman apparently took the bus to school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and was stepping out into the street to board the bus on Tuesday morning near her apartment complex when she was struck by a vehicle. Law enforcement officials say it looked like she may have walked into the side of a moving vehicle, and the manager of the apartment complex said she may have gotten her suitcase used to carry her books stuck on something and was trying to get it unstuck as she stepped out into the road. There is no indication in the article of who was at fault for the accident.

The unfortunate truth is that sometimes there is simply nothing a driver can do to avoid accidents, even if he or she is keeping a proper lookout. For this reason, drivers should drive much more slowly and with a much greater degree of caution in areas where they know pedestrians are present just in case something out of the ordinary might happen. Failure to take extra care may result in the driver being liable for the damages should a scenario take place like the one described above.

Source: http://newsok.com/memorial-service-planned-for-uco-student-killed-in-auto-pedestrian-accident/article/3443570

It just isn’t safe to walk the streets of Madison, Wisconsin anymore. Well, technically speaking, it just isn’t safe to cross the street, because drivers in that area are not particularly pedestrian-friendly as revealed by the results of an undercover operation recently conducted by the Madison Police Department. The operation involved an undercover officer posing as a pedestrian and crossing the street repeatedly over a four-hour period in a crosswalk. The location was chosen because it is a high-traffic area that also has a high number of pedestrians. The high number of pedestrians may not serve to deter drivers in the area, however, as some drivers reportedly almost ran over the officer despite the officer being in a crosswalk. Thirty-five drivers were cited in all for failure to yield.

Failure to yield is increasingly becoming a problem as drivers get busier and more distracted every day. This blog has discussed the causes and effects of distracted driving, which may be a major factor in why drivers are unaware of pedestrians. After all, it is hard to notice that a human being is in the road in front of you if you aren’t actually looking at the road. This phenomenon has increased in scope and potential effect since the advent of text messaging, which causes many drivers to completely divert their attention away from the road in front of them, even if only for a second, to immediately answer such pressing questions as “Wut r u doin 2day?.” Another potential reason for the failure to yield violations may simply be that the drivers are driving too fast to stop for the pedestrians, whether it be because they are in a hurry or because they do not care about the presence of pedestrians.

Continue reading "Undercover Operation Nets Thirty-Five Citations for Failure to Yield" »

Joe Rollino, who was once known as the World’s Strongest Man, died recently after being hit by a car while crossing the street in his home state of New York. Rollino, who gained fame in his younger days for amazing feats of strength including being able to move more than a ton of weight, bending nails and coins with his hands and mouth, and lifting over three thousand pounds of weight at once, was crossing the street on his daily multiple-mile walk when he was struck by a vehicle. He sustained head, chest, and pelvis injuries and died at the hospital. He reportedly never ate meat, drank, or smoked his entire life and was an astounding one hundred and four years old at the time of his death. The driver who struck Rollino was reportedly not at fault for the accident.

The sad fact is that something that may have been a part of a person’s daily routine for decades can turn deadly if either a driver or a pedestrian is negligent when using the roadway. Drivers should always be on the lookout for pedestrians crossing the road, even in the absence of crosswalks.

Continue reading "Former World's Strongest Man Killed by Car" »

A three year-old from Aurora, Colorado was reportedly rushing to pick up a coin in a parking space in a Wal-Mart parking lot last Saturday when he was ran over by a driver who was trying to pull into the parking space. Apparently, the lady pulling into the space did not see the toddler, who was in the process of bending over to pick up the coin, and ran over the little boy and dragged him for a short distance before coming to a stop. The boy is currently in intensive care as he tries to recover from his injuries.

At first glance this may seem like a pretty clear-cut case of a small child running out in front of an unsuspecting driver, but that may not necessarily be the case from a personal injury standpoint. Drivers who are navigating a parking lot are under a duty to keep a proper lookout for any obstacles that would be commonplace to the area. A jury could reasonably decide that someone driving through a Wal-Mart parking lot could have a duty to keep an extra careful lookout for children, who are frequently seen at Wal-Mart and can behave unpredictably. It is not an extremely rare occurrence that a child darts in front of a vehicle in a parking lot or at least makes an attempt to do so before being reined in by an attentive parent. In a comparative fault state like Tennessee, a jury could determine that at least a small percentage of liability for the accident should be attributed to the driver’s negligence, making the driver responsible for at least a portion of the damages suffered by the victim.

Continue reading "Toddler Injured While Picking Up Penny in Parking Space" »

Search “construction worker hit by car” or some derivation thereof on any search engine and you will literally find hundreds of articles discussing incidents where construction workers who were working on roadside jobs were struck by vehicles and suffered serious injury or death. The human body is an amazing organism, but it is no match for a moving vehicle, whether it is a semi or a Smart Car. Tennessee recognizes that proper road maintenance necessitates that people such as construction workers, utility company employees, and litter crews will have to work on or along the road. Accordingly, the duty to drive as a reasonable person would dictates that drivers react appropriately where they know workers will be working on or near the road.

Very rarely does any work take place along the road without it being made clear to drivers in the area that such work is taking place nearby. Construction zones are often delineated by orange and white barrels and signs that declare that men are working in the area. Utility crews are usually likewise noted by barrels or orange cones and signs warning the driver that utility work is being conducted. Litter crews generally do not use barrels, but may use cones, trucks with flashing lights, and, in the case of certain litter crews, fashionable vests that indicate why a particular individual is assisting the road maintenance effort on that particular day. Such efforts are often conspicuous, and rarely will a defendant in a Knoxville personal injury suit be able to claim that he or she was unaware of work being done in the area where the accident occurred.

Continue reading "Avoiding Negligence in Construction Zones" »

Tennessee follows a comparative fault approach to negligence claims. What this means is that when a plaintiff brings suit against a defendant alleging that the defendant’s negligence has caused some sort of harm to plaintiff, the court will first determine the amount of damages, if any, that the plaintiff should be awarded. Once this is done, the court will figure out which parties are responsible for the damages (including the plaintiff and unnamed parties to the suit) and what percentage of the damages each party is responsible for in order to figure out what percentage of the total damages the defendant(s) in the suit should pay. For example, if A sues B and the court determines that each party is one-half responsible for the damages suffered by A, then B will be ordered to pay half of the total damages. However, if A sued B, but the court found that A, B, and C (a third party not named in the suit) were each one-third responsible, then B would only have to pay one-third of the damages even though C was not named in the suit. This is so because the comparative fault approach focuses on each party’s responsibility for the damages caused in order to fairly impose liability for damages.

A recent decision by the Tennessee Court of Appeals illustrates the workings of the comparative fault approach. A mother recently sued six different parties after her seven year-old son was struck and killed by a truck owned by a company named Misek while crossing the street. Prior to the hearing of her case against the City of Clinton, the mother had settled and dismissed her suit against Misek and several other defendants had either reached settlement with the mother or had their cases dismissed as well. At trial, the City of Clinton relied in part on the affirmative defense of comparative fault, maintaining that the mother and the other parties involved in the accident also had some liability for any damages suffered by the mother. Since there were only two parties to the suit, the trial court found that each party was 50% responsible for the damages and ordered the City of Clinton to pay half of the total damages sustained by the mother, with the mother herself being responsible for the other half.

On appeal, the City of Clinton maintained that the apportioning of fault by the trial court was erroneous because there was evidence on the record proving that Misek bore some level of responsibility for the death of the child. The Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed. The court held that Misek’s driver knew of the presence of children in the area and failed to keep a reasonable lookout for them, thus making the company responsible in part for the child’s death. The fact that Misek had already settled with the mother did nothing to affect Misek’s level of responsibility for the damages caused under the comparative fault approach. Misek had already settled its suit, so it would not have to pay any further damages for the truck accident in Tennessee, but it would still bear the same percentage of responsibility for the accident in question for purposes of determining fault in the suit currently being tried. The Court of Appeals thus reversed the judgment of the trial court with an order to determine the percentage of fault for all parties involved in the accident, not just those who were currently involved in litigation with the mother.

Continue reading "Dismissal of Suit Does Not Affect Comparative Fault" »

The general rule in awarding injured workers compensation in Tennessee for work-related injuries is that employers “take injured workers as they find them.” This means that the presence of a pre-employment injury, disease or condition will not preclude the employer’s payment of compensation based on an accidental injury that aggravates a pre-employment injury. Likewise, if an employee injures his back while working for Employer A and then later re-aggravates the injury while working for Employer B, he can receive compensation for the subsequent injury regardless of his prior injury.

However, people with certain conditions can waive worker’s compensation for injuries resulting from the condition. The purpose in passing the waiver provisions is similar to the purpose of the second injury fund—to provide incentives for the hiring of impaired workers. The waivers apply to epilepsy, specific occupational diseases and heart disease. The following provisions control:

• T.C.A. 50-6-213 provides for an optional waiver for epileptics. Under the provision, epileptics may elect not to be subject to compensation provided certain procedures are followed. The waiver, however, does not apply to injuries that do not result from epilepsy.


• T.C.A. 50-6-307(a) provides for an optional waiver for workers or prospective workers who have been found to be affected by or susceptible to a specific occupational disease. To be valid, the waiver must be approved by the workers’ compensation division of the department of labor and workforce development.


• T.C.A. 50-6-307(b) provides for an optional waiver for workers or prospective workers that have a prior history of heart disease, heart attack or coronary failure or occlusion. If valid, the waiver only applies to claims growing out of an aggravation or repetition of the condition.

Continue reading "Employer’s Defenses to a Workers’ Compensation Claim: Waiver" »

The recent accident involving Cleveland’s star receiver, Donte Stallworth, and a pedestrian demonstrates some of the rights and duties a pedestrian has with respect to crossing the street. It further highlights the duty all drivers have to exercise due care in preventing motor vehicle accidents in Tennessee.

In Miami on March 14, 2009, at approximately 7 a.m., Mr. Stallworth crashed his Bentley into 59-year old Mario Reyes, resulting in the pedestrian’s death. Reportedly, Mr. Reyes was attempting to cross a major causeway without using the nearby crosswalk. Apparently, Mr. Stallworth saw Mr. Reyes because he later stated that he honked twice and flashed his lights in an attempt to warn Mr. Reyes of his oncoming car.

Mr. Stallworth’s statements seem odd because if he had the time to honk and flash his lights, he almost certainly had the time to brake. So why has Mr. Stallworth made such a strange defense? Perhaps he is already thinking about how to shield himself from liability for the death of Mr. Reyes.

If the family of Mario Reyes brought a wrongful death action in Tennessee, Mr. Stallworth would almost certainly bring up the fact that Mr. Reyes failed to stay in the crosswalk and proceeded into the road with knowledge of an oncoming vehicle. Thus, under Tennessee’s comparative fault defense, any judgment award resulting from a personal injury claim could be reduced by that percentage of fault attributed to Mr. Reyes.

However, while pedestrians have a duty to stay within the crosswalk and yield to oncoming vehicles, operators of vehicles have a greater duty to exercise due care and keep a look out for pedestrians. Thus, if this case were prosecuted with an experienced Tennessee personal injury attorney, Mr. Stallworth would likely be on the hook for the death of Mr. Reyes even though Mr. Reyes apparently broke a rule regarding staying within the crosswalk when one is provided.

For pedestrians and drivers alike, it is important to realize that each has rights and duties with respect to the other. If you have been injured in a parking lot or while attempting to cross a street, you may be able to recover for your injuries. Don’t sleep on your rights; call 866-853-2888 today to speak with one of Knoxville’s experienced car accident attorneys.