.Jl 76 April Haskell, with whom was Joanne T. Belisle, Glastonbury, for appellant (intervening

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download ".Jl 76 April Haskell, with whom was Joanne T. Belisle, Glastonbury, for appellant (intervening"

Transcription

1 DURNIAK v AUGUST WINTER AND SONS, INC Conn 1277 Cite as 610 A (Conn 1992) of employee's eath Employer intervene been no formal eman mae upon the responent for support prior to this petition We agree General Statutes 46b-215 provies in pertinent part: "The superior court or a family support magistrate shall have authority to make an enforce orers for payment of support against any person who neglects or refuses to furnish necessary support to a chil uner the age of eighteen, accoring to his or her ability to furnish such support " (Emphasis ae) There is nothing in this language, or in the important public policy that it reflects, to suggest that the obligation of a parent to support her chil, accoring to her ability, is subject to a conition preceent of a formal eman That obligation is ongoing, an oes not require the trigger of a request by those persons who are shoulering that responsibility The orer is reverse, an the case is remane for a new hearing on the petition In this opinion PETERS, CJ, an CALLAHAN an GLASS, JJ, concurre BERDON, Associate Justice, concurring I concur in the result to seek reimbursement of worke:cs' compensation benefits Tort-feasor amene answer to assert employer's negligence as special efense The Unite States District Court for the District of Connecticut, N e vas, J, certifie question of law regaring valiity of efense The Supreme Court, Peters, CJ, hel that thir-party tort-feasor may not raise negligence of employer as special efense when employer intervenes in personal injury action as party plaintiff to secure employer's statutory right to reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits Certifie question answere 1 Workers' Compensation <P45 Responsibility for carving out exceptions to provisions of Workers' Compensation Act belonge to legislature an not to court CGSA (a), (a) 2 Workers' Compensation <P222S 1 Thir-party tort-feasor may not raise negligence of employer as special efense when employer has intervene in employee's personal injury action as party plaintiff to secure employer's statutory right to reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits CGSA (a), (a), h 222 Conn 775 _Jz 75 Barbara DURNIAK, Aministratrix (ESTATE OF Michael DURNIAK), et al v AUGUST WINTER AND SONS, INC No Supreme Court of Connecticut Argue June 3, 1992 Decie July 14, 1992 Action was brought in feeral court against thir-party tort-feasor arising out Jl 76 April Haskell, with whom was Joanne T Belisle, Glastonbury, for appellant (intervening plaintiff) Michael A Fitzhugh, with whom were Lori Watson an, on the brief, R Paul Roecker, Boston, Mass, for appellee (efenant) Before PETERS, CJ, an CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO an BORDEN, JJ PETERS, Chief Justice Our statutes permit an injure employee to pursue a personal injury action against a thir party tortfeasor, even though the employee's exclusive remey against his employer is the recovery of workers' compensation benefits General Statutes 31-

2 1278 Conn 610 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2 SERIES 284(a) ~77an (a) 2 The issue in this case is whether the thir party tortfeasor may raise the negligence of the employer as a special efense when the employer has intervene in the personal injury action as party plaintiff in orer to secure the employer's statutory right to reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits The plaintiff, Barbara Durniak, iniviually an as aministratrix of the estate of Michael Durniak, brought this action in the Unite States District Court to recover for negligence an for breach of contract because of fatal injuries suffere by her eceent on a construction site allegely uner the control of the efenant, August Winter an Sons, Inc The eceent's employer, CR Meyer an Sons Company (ern- 1 General Statutes provies in relevant part: "(a) An employer shall not be liable to any action for amages on account of personal injury sustaine by an employee arising out of an in the course of his employment or on account of eath resulting from personal injury so sustaine, but an employer shall secure compensation for his employees as follows, except that compensation shall not be pai when the personal injury has been cause by the wilful an serious misconuct of the injure employee or by his intoxication All rights an claims between employer an employees, or any representatives or epenents of such employees, arising out of personal injury or eath sustaine in the course of employment as aforesai are abolishe other than rights an claims given by this chapter, provie nothing herein shall prohibit any employee from securing, by agreement with his employer, aitional benefits from his employer for such injury or from enforcing such agreement for aitional benefits" 2 General Statutes provies in relevant part: "LIABILITY OF THIRD PERSONS TO EMPLOYER AND EM PLOYEE (a) When any injury for which compensation is payable uner the provisions of this chapter has been sustaine uner circumstances creating in some other person than the employer a legal liability to pay amages in respect thereto, the injure employee may claim compensation uner the provisions of this chapter, but the payment or awar of compensation shall not affect the claim or right of action of such injure employee against such other person, but such injure employee may procee at law against such person to recover amages for such injury; an any employer having pai, or having become obligate to pay, compensation uner the provisions of this chapter may bring an action against such other person to recover any amount that he has pai or has become obligate to pay as compensation to such inployer), then file a complaint, as intervening plaintiff, for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits in accorance with (a) Thereafter, the efenant amene its answer to a a thir special efense alleging that the eceent's injuries ha resulte from the negligence of the intervening plaintiff The District Court referre to the magistrate a motion by the intervening plaintiff to strike the thir special efense The magistrate recommene that the motion be grante but suggeste that the District Court consier requesting certification of the interpretation of (a) to this court pursuant to General Statutes a an Practice Book 4168 We grante the District Court's request for certification, an we jure employee If such employer an employee join as parties plaintiff in such action an any amages are recovere, such amages shall be so apportione that the claim of the employer, as efine in this section, shall take preceence over that of the injure employee in the procees of such recovery, after the euction of reasonable an necessary expenitures, incluing attorneys' fees, incurre by the employee in effecting such recovery The renition of a jugment in favor of the employee or the employer against such party shall not terminate the employer's obligation to make further compensation, incluing meical expenses, which the compensation commissioner thereafter eems payable to such injure employee If the amages, after eucting the employee's expenses as provie above, are more than sufficient to reimburse the employer, amages shall be assesse in his favor in a sum sufficient to reimburse him for his claim, an the excess shall be assesse in favor of the injure employee No compromise with such thir person by either employer or employee shall be bining upon or affect the rights of the other, unless assente to by him For the purposes of this section the employer's claim shall consist of (1) the amount of any compensation which he has pai on account of the injury which is the subject of the suit an (2) an amount equal to the present worth of any probable future payments which he has by awar become obligate to pay on account of such injury The wor 'compensation', as use in this section, shall be construe to inclue not only incapacity payments to an injure employee an payments to the epenents of a ecease employee, but also sums pai out for surgical, meical an hospital services to an injure employee, the one-thousan-ollar burial fee provie by law an payments mae uner the provisions of sections an "

3 DURNIAK v AUGUST WINTER AND SONS, INC Conn 1279 Cite as 610 A (Conn 1992) answer the certifie question, 3 "No" 485, 488, 528 A2 826 (1987) Secon, the The recor certifie by the District Court statute protects an employer by allowing provies the following factual information the employer to obtain reimbursement for The plaintiff's eceent, a carpenter em- workers' compensation benefits from a ploye by the intervening plaintiff, suf- thir party tortfeasor, either by becoming fere fatal injuries when he fell through a an intervening plaintiff in the employee's hole in the floor of a construction site The cause of action or by bringing a separate plai~ti~f'~ complaint alleges tha~ the ece- action erivative of the employee's cause of ents m~ury an eath were attrj?u~ble to action! Thir, the employer's statuthe negligence of the efenant m Its con- tory right to subrogation of the procees of ufct at tt~efc?lnstruction sit~ an to bthe the employee's claim against the tortfeasor e en an s a1 ure to mamtam proper ar- Imp 1 emen t s th e pu bl" IC po 1 Icy o f prencaes or guarrails IIUL79accorance with ~ bl b con t rae t spec1 "f" 1ca t" IOns Th e e f en an t' s ven ng?so ou e recovery y an InJUre thir special efense alleges that whatever employee Enqu~st v General Datacom, injuries the plaintiff's eceent might have 21 8 Conn 19, 26, 5~7 A (1991) suffere resulte from the negligence of the employer In his ruling on the employer's motion to strike, the magistrate note that the text of neither preclues nor authorizes the special efense raise by the efenant He conclue, however, that particular weight shoul be given to the absence of statutory authorization for the efense Because workers' compensation is governe by an "explicit legislative scheme," he hel that one woul reasonably expect to fin some express evience of legislative intent if the statutory claim for reimbursement provie in (a) were to be open to the "fault-base contest" propose by the efenant He therefore rule that, absent a certification of the question to this court, the motion to strike shoul be grante The District Court then initiate the certification process that le to the present proceeings Our analysis of the competing rights of a efenant an an intervening employer is guie by four overlapping principles that inform the rights establishe by (a) First, the statute protects an injure employee by allowing the employee to sue a thir party tortfeasor in a private cause of action for amages, such as pain an suffering, that are uncompensate by a workers' compensation awar Skitromo v Merien Yellow Cab Co, 204 Conn 3 The certifie question is: "Is it proper for a efenant to raise the negligence of the plain tiffs employer as a special efense in answer to the intervening complaint of the plaintiffs em- Fourth, the employer s statutory right to reimbursement reenforces the public policy that, between the employer an the employee, workers' compensation provies the exclusive remey for personal injury to the employee Bouley v Norwich, 222 Conn 744, , 610 A (1992); Sgueglia v Milne Construction Co, 212 Conn 427, 433, 562 A2 505 (1989) Bearing these principles in min, we turn to the language of (a) to see whether it authorizes the special efense against the employer that the efenant seeks to assert in this case The language is illuminating both for what it says an for what it oes not say The statute unconitionally authorizes reimbursement to the employer "[i]f such employer an employee join as parties plaintiff in such action an any amages are recovere" It provies for the apportionment of any amages awar so that "the claim of the employer, as efine in this section, shall take preceence over that of the injure employee in the procees of such recovery, after the euction of reasonable an necessary expenitures, incluing attorneys' fees, incurre by the employee in effecting such recovery" Although the statute thus recognizes the propriety of some euctions as offsets to the employer's statutory subrogation claim, the statute oes not make ployer in a case where the intervening com plaint is base solely upon the statutory rights accore the plaintiffs employer uner Connecticut General Statute[s] ?"

4 1280 Conn 610 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2 SERIES the employer's negligence a groun for limiting the employer's recovery The efenant maintains, however, that we shoul attach significance to the absence of language in (a) abolishing the common law rights of thir party tortfeasors He asks us to infer, from this absence, a legislative intent to treat the relationship between the tortfeasor an the employer as incorporating common law precepts of contributory or comparative negligence Such an inference is unwarrante [1, 2] Jl 81 We have repeately observe that our act represents a complex an comprehensive statutory scheme balancing the rights an claims of the employer an the employee arising out of work-relate personal injuries Because of the comprehensive nature of the act, the responsibility for carving out exceptions from any one of its provisions belongs to the legislature an not to the courts Bouley v Norwich, supra, 222 Conn at , 610 A2 1245; Panaro v Electrolux Corporation, 208 Conn 589, 605, 545 A (1988); Mingachos v CBS, Inc, 196 Conn 91, 106, 491 A2 368 (1985) The legislature manifestly has the competence to enact statutes relating workers' compensation to tort reform See, eg, General Statutes r(c) Absent such express legislative intervention, we have hel that we shoul not assume that the legislature intene to create an exception for aggravate torts; Mingachos v CBS, Inc, supra; or for uninsure motorist benefits; Bouley v Norwich, supra, 222 Conn at 761, 610 A It is similarly inappropriate, in this case, for us to unermine the traeoffs that unerlie workers' compensation by im- 4 General Statutes h provies in relevant part: "(b) In causes of action base on negligence, contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover amages resulting from personal injury, wrongful eath or amage to property if the negligence was not greater than the combine negligence of the person or persons against whom recovery is sought incluing settle or release persons un er subsection (n) of this section The economic or noneconomic amages allowe shall be iminishe in the proportion of the percentage of negligence attributable to the person recovering which percentage shall be etermine pursuant to subsection (f) of this section porting contributory or comparative negligence into the no-fault workers' compensation reimbursement program See J King, "The Exclusiveness of an Employee's Workers' Compensation Remey Against His Employer," 55 TennLRev 405, 411 (1988) This conclusion oes not create an irreconcilable conflict between the workers' compensation statute an General Statutes h, 4 the comparative neg!e_ence782 statute By its own terms, the comparative negligence statute applies only to "causes of action base on negligence" General Statutes h(b) Accoringly, its terms o not govern statutory causes of action that have no common law counterpart Lukas v New Haven, 184 Conn 205, 212, 439 A2 949 (1981); Belanger v Village Pub I, Inc, 26 ConnApp 509, , 603 A (1992) Because an employer's right to obtain reimbursement from a thir party tortfeasor is a statutory claim that is erive in its entirety from (a); Skitromo v Merien Yellow Cab Co, supra, 204 Conn at 489, 528 A2 826; Robinson v Faulkner, 163 Conn 365, , 306 A2 857 (1972); the employer's claim oes not fall within the compass of h Our conclusion comports with the result reache in a number of Superior Court ecisions in this state an in the majority of cases ecie in other jurisictions "[I]t is generally hel that the employee cannot be met with a efense that his own employer's negligence contribute to the injury" 2B A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1989) 7522, p ; Strou v "(c) In a negligence action to recover am ages resulting from personal injury, wrongful eath or amage to property occurring on or after October 1, 1987, if the amages are etermine to be proximately cause by the negligence of more than one party, each party against whom recovery is allowe shall be liable to the claimant only for his proportionate share of the recoverable economic amages an the recoverable noneconomic amages except as provie in subsection (g) of this section" 5 A ifferent result might follow if the special efense allege not merely the negligence of the employer but inclue some other basis for liability such as the existence of an inepenent

5 ST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS CO v SHERNOW Conn 1281 Cite as 610 A (Conn 1992) Dorr-Oliver, Inc 112 Ariz 403, 409, 542 No costs shall be taxe to either party P2 1102, llo?_usa(1975); Pyles v Briges, 283 So2 394, 396 (FlaApp1973); Ameri- curre can Ins Co v Duo Fast Dixie, Inc, 367 So2 415, (LaApp1979); C & K Lor, Inc v Carter, 74 MApp 68, 75, 536 A2 699 (1988); Van Hook v Harris Corporation, 136 MichApp 310, , 356 NW2 18 (1984); Nyquist v Batcher, 235 Minn 491, 498, 51 NW2 566 (1952); Biloeau v Oliver Stores, Inc, 116 NH 83, 88, 352 A2 741 (1976); Taylor v Deigarno Transportation, Inc, 100 NM 138, 141, 667 P2 445, 448 (1983); Pellone v Stratfor Tower, Inc, 56 AD2 647, 648, 891 NYS2 896 (1977); Layman v Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt, Inc, 343 NW2 334, 350 (ND1983); Bolman v Mt Hoo Chemical Corporation, 288 Or 121, 139, 602 P (1979); Bristol Telephone Co v Weaver, 146 1'enn 511, 522, 243 SW 299 (1921); Varela v American Petrofina Co, 658 SW2 561, 562 (Tex1983); Clark v Chicago, M, St P & PR Co, 214 Wis 295, , 252 NW 685 (1934) Although we recognize that some state courts have reache a ifferent result, some of these cases turn, at least in part, on statutory configurations that iffer from those that prevail in this state See, eg, Witt v Jackson, 57 Cal2 5'7, 72, 366 P2 641, 17 CalRptr 369 (1961); Runcorn v Shearer Lumber Proucts, Inc, 107 Iaho 389, , 690 P2 324 (1984); Brown v Keill, 224 Kan 195, 206, 580 P2 867 (1978); Leonar v Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, 309 NC 91, 97, 305 SE2 528 (1983) We therefore agree with the interpretation of Connecticut law reflecte in Cyr v FS Payne Co, 112 FSupp 526 (DConn), aff', 208 F2 356 (2 Cir1953), an isagree with Cirrito v Continental Can Co, 519 FSupp 638 (DConn1981) The certifie question is answere: "No" relationship between the efenant an the employer See Ferryman v Groton, 212 Conn 138,!43-45, 561 A2 432 (1989); 2B A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1989) 7600, p A ifferent result might also follow if, instea of relying on a special efense alleging the inter- 610 A2-29 In this opinion the other Justiees con- 222 Conn 823 J zast PAUL FIRE AND MAJRINE INSURANCE COMPANY v Robert SHERNOW, DDS et al No Supreme Court of Connecticut J 24 Argue Feb 11, 1992 Decie July 14, 1992 Insurer appeale from orer of the Superior Court, Juicial District of Waterbury, Langenbach, J, which ismisse its eclaratory jugment action regaring question of inemnity of entist uner ental malpractice insurance The Appellate Court, 22 ConnApp 377, 577 A2 1093, reverse an remane On reman, the Superior Court, McWeeny, J, entere jugment for insurer in part, an insurer appeale an intervening patient cross-appeale Transferring appeal to itself, the Supreme Court, Covello, J, hel that professional liability portion of malpractice insurance policy covere entist for allege sexual assault on patient after negligently aministering nitrous oxie, which cause irect, physical injury to patient Affirme Boren, J, issente an file opinion in which Callahan, J, joine vening employer's negligence, the efenant, having file a general enial, sought to make an evientiary showing that it was the employer's conuct rather than the efenant's conuct that ha proximately cause the employee's injuries See Williams v Union Carbie Corporation, 734 SW2 699, 703 (TexCtApp1987)

The Equality Act 2010 What Employers Need to Know Now

The Equality Act 2010 What Employers Need to Know Now October 2010 / Special Alert A legal upate from Dechert s Employment Law Group The Equality Act 2010 What Employers Nee to Know Now Introuction The Equality Act (the Act ) receive Royal Assent in early

More information

LESER Global Form Global Commodity Management General Conditions Purchasing

LESER Global Form Global Commodity Management General Conditions Purchasing Global Commoity Management General Conitions Page 1/7 I. General / scope of application 1. These General Conitions of Purchase apply to all contracts entere into by LESER an a supplier or subcontractor

More information

CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND BALLOT MEASURE GUIDE

CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND BALLOT MEASURE GUIDE VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND BALLOT MEASURE GUIDE These resources are current as of 11/5/2014: We o our best to perioically upate these resources an welcome any comments or questions regaring new evelopments

More information

Published in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Study Council 2017

Published in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Study Council 2017 EDUCATION LAW REPORT Publishe in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Stuy Council Volume XXVIII Number 1 2017 In This Issue Office of Open Recors Hols That School Vieos

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

The Doctor Is Out, But Is Resale Price Maintenance In?

The Doctor Is Out, But Is Resale Price Maintenance In? July 2007 / Issue 20 A legal upate from Dechert s Antitrust Group The Doctor Is Out, But Is Resale Price Maintenance In? Key Questions for Clients Consiering Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) after Leegin

More information

Motion for Rehearing Denied August 4, 1983 COUNSEL

Motion for Rehearing Denied August 4, 1983 COUNSEL TAYLOR V. DELGARNO TRANSP., INC., 1983-NMSC-052, 100 N.M. 138, 667 P.2d 445 (S. Ct. 1983) BILLY THOMAS TAYLOR, Plaintiff, vs. DELGARNO TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, and BMS INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation,

More information

Published in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Study Council 2017

Published in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Study Council 2017 EDUCATION LAW REPORT Publishe in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Stuy Council Volume XXVIII Number 2 2017 In This Issue Feeral Court Allows Title IX Claim to Procee

More information

APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT

APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS January 001 APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT WITH REPORTER S NOTES

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-175-CV ANNE BOENIG APPELLANT V. STARNAIR, INC. APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------

More information

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES We have compiled a list of the various laws in every state dealing with whether the state is a pure contributory negligence state (bars recovery

More information

The United States Supreme Court Upholds the Gartenberg Standard for Claims Alleging Excessive Advisory Fees

The United States Supreme Court Upholds the Gartenberg Standard for Claims Alleging Excessive Advisory Fees March 2010 / Issue 8 A legal upate from Dechert s Financial Services Group The Unite States Supreme Court Uphols the Gartenberg Stanar for Claims Alleging Excessive Avisory Fees Introuction On March 30,

More information

Industrial Commission, and accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals. Page 356

Industrial Commission, and accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals. Page 356 Page 356 495 S.E.2d 356 347 N.C. 530 Charles Lynwood JOHNSON v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. No. 282PA97. Supreme Court of North Carolina. Feb. 6, 1998. Taft, Taft & Haigler, P.A. by Thomas F.

More information

CRIMINALIZATION OF MARITIME ACTIVITIES

CRIMINALIZATION OF MARITIME ACTIVITIES CRIMINALIZATION OF MARITIME ACTIVITIES Charles M. Davis 2008 Vessel operators, incluing shoresie corporate officers an supervisors, an shipboar officers an crews, potentially are subject to criminal prosecution

More information

Can international human rights treaties (IHRTs)

Can international human rights treaties (IHRTs) Treaties, Tenure, an Torture: The Conflicting Domestic Effects of International Law Courtenay R. Conra Emily Hencken Ritter University of California, Merce University of California, Merce International

More information

Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group

Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Issue #26 11 August 2016 Alexander House 94 Talbot Road Manchester M16 0SP T. 03300 240 711 F. 03300 240 712 www.h-f.co.uk Page 1 Welcome to

More information

em" of, 9licImwnd on g fu.vt6day tire 16t day of, fjefvtuwty" 2018.

em of, 9licImwnd on g fu.vt6day tire 16t day of, fjefvtuwty 2018. VIRGINIA: Jn tire Sup't llre 0uvd of, VVtfJinia freid at tire Sup't llre 0uvd fjjuilciing in tire em" of, 9licImwnd on g fu.vt6day tire 16t day of, fjefvtuwty" 2018. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,

More information

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 491 RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): TIED BILL(S): Comparative Fault/Negligence Cases Representatives Baker, Kottkamp, and others None

More information

Sec Findings on the public health, safety, and welfare rationales of sign regulations.

Sec Findings on the public health, safety, and welfare rationales of sign regulations. Forsyth County Sign Orinance Chapter 66 - SIGNS FOOTNOTE(S): --- (1) --- Cross reference Builings an builing regulations, ch. 18; planning, ch. 58; unifie evelopment coe, app. A. (Back) State Law reference

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PRO-STAFFERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION July 23, 2002 9:05 a.m. v No. 231685 Genesee Circuit Court PREMIER MANUFACTURING SUPPORT LC No. 99-065387-NO

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MAKENZIE GREER, Minor, KENNETH GREER, Individually and as Conservator, and ELIZABETH GREER, FOR PUBLICATION May 13, 2014 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 312655

More information

KY DRAM SHOP MEMO II

KY DRAM SHOP MEMO II I. Kentucky s Dram Shop Act KY DRAM SHOP MEMO II KRS 413.241 Legislative finding; limitation on liability of licensed sellers or servers of intoxicating beverages; liability of intoxicated person (1) The

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 MARVIN I. HOROWITZ AND HOROWITZ & GUDEMAN, P.C., Appellants, v. CASE NO. 5D98-1944 EDWARD LASKE & RUTH E. LASKE, etc.,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-- CIVIL CASES (NO. 98-2) No. 93,320 [October 8, 1998] WELLS, J. The Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (the

More information

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. P.O. Box 270670, Hartford, WI 53027 Phone: (262) 673-7850 Fax: (262) 673-3766 gwickert@mwl-law.com www.mwl-law.com CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JUANITA RIVERA and JESUS M. RIVERA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED July 24, 2007 v No. 274973 Oakland Circuit Court ESURANCE INSURANCE CO, INC., LC No. 2005-071390-CK

More information

Texas Tort Reform Legislation. By: Judge Mike Engelhart 151 st District Court

Texas Tort Reform Legislation. By: Judge Mike Engelhart 151 st District Court Texas Tort Reform Legislation By: Judge Mike Engelhart 151 st District Court Net Worth Discovery (S.B. 735) Protects private financial information from disclosure in litigation by allowing pretrial discovery

More information

GREENWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT US Government Pacing Guide st Semester THIRD NINE WEEKS

GREENWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT US Government Pacing Guide st Semester THIRD NINE WEEKS Instructional Perio Pacing Guie 2017 2018 1 st Semester THIRD NINE WEEKS Acaemic Framework/ 1 Aug. 06 5, b, c 6a, b, c INTRODUCTION to COURSE Chapter 1: Government an the State Define Government an its

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CLYDE EVERETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2010 v No. 287640 Lapeer Circuit Court AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 06-037406-NF Defendant-Appellant.

More information

COUNSEL JUDGES. Walters, J., wrote the opinion. Lewis R. Sutin, J., (Dissenting), I CONCUR: Thomas A. Donnelly, J. AUTHOR: WALTERS OPINION

COUNSEL JUDGES. Walters, J., wrote the opinion. Lewis R. Sutin, J., (Dissenting), I CONCUR: Thomas A. Donnelly, J. AUTHOR: WALTERS OPINION TRANSAMERICA INS. CO. V. SYDOW, 1981-NMCA-121, 97 N.M. 51, 636 P.2d 322 (Ct. App. 1981) TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EMIL SYDOW, Defendant-Appellee. No. 5128 COURT OF APPEALS

More information

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Wisconsin Louisiana California Phone: (800) 637-9176 gwickert@mwl-law.com www.mwl-law.com CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES Matthiesen,

More information

Texas Courts Should Reduce a Plaintiff s Responsibility Before Applying the Noneconomic Damage Cap

Texas Courts Should Reduce a Plaintiff s Responsibility Before Applying the Noneconomic Damage Cap Texas Courts Should Reduce a Plaintiff s Responsibility Before Applying the Noneconomic Damage Cap Monica Litle* I. INTRODUCTION Throughout the course of tort reform, the Texas Legislature passed two bills

More information

November/December 2001

November/December 2001 A publication of the Boston Bar Association Pro Rata Tort Contribution Is Outdated In Our Era of Comparative Negligence Matthew C. Baltay is an associate in the litigation department at Foley Hoag. His

More information

October 11, Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft)

October 11, Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft) October 11, 2001 To: From: Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft) Roger Henderson, Reporter Re: Seattle, Washington Drafting Committee Meeting, November

More information

Damages - The Compensatory Theory Favored over the Colateral Source Doctrine - Coyne v. Campbell, 11 N.Y.2d 372, 183 N.E.

Damages - The Compensatory Theory Favored over the Colateral Source Doctrine - Coyne v. Campbell, 11 N.Y.2d 372, 183 N.E. DePaul Law Review Volume 12 Issue 2 Spring-Summer 1963 Article 13 Damages - The Compensatory Theory Favored over the Colateral Source Doctrine - Coyne v. Campbell, 11 N.Y.2d 372, 183 N.E.2d 891 (1962)

More information

Question 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by:

Question 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by: Question 1 A state statute requires motorcyclists to wear a safety helmet while riding, and is enforced by means of citations and fines. Having mislaid his helmet, Adam jumped on his motorcycle without

More information

COUNSEL JUDGES. Carmody, Justice. Chavez and Moise, JJ., concur. Compton, C.J., and Noble, J., not participating. AUTHOR: CARMODY OPINION

COUNSEL JUDGES. Carmody, Justice. Chavez and Moise, JJ., concur. Compton, C.J., and Noble, J., not participating. AUTHOR: CARMODY OPINION BROWN V. ARAPAHOE DRILLING CO., 1962-NMSC-051, 70 N.M. 99, 370 P.2d 816 (S. Ct. 1962) Bessie BROWN, Widow of Edward Lee Brown, Deceased, and parent of David Clyde Brown, Randy Lee Brown and Robert Donald

More information

In this case we must decide whether Kentucky law or Illinois law governs a lawsuit arising

In this case we must decide whether Kentucky law or Illinois law governs a lawsuit arising Third Division September 29, 2010 No. 1-09-2888 MARIA MENDEZ, as Special Administrator for the Estate ) Appeal from the of Jaime Mendez, Deceased, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

Codebook. A. Effective dates: In the data set, the law is coded as if it changes from one month to

Codebook. A. Effective dates: In the data set, the law is coded as if it changes from one month to Page 1 Codebook I. General A. Effective dates: In the data set, the law is coded as if it changes from one month to the next. However, the laws actually take effect on certain dates. If the effective date

More information

Government of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.

Government of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. Government of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 BY E-MAIL Gene N. Lebrun, Esq. PO Box 8250 909 St. Joseph Street, S.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DANNY CARL DOERSCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 13, 2005 v No. 255808 Roscommon Circuit Court JAMES C. GARRETT, d/b/a BULLDOG LC No. 04-724433-NO SECURITY,

More information

as amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT

as amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT (SA GG 5689) came into force in South Africa and South West Africa on date of publication: 1 June 1956 (see section 6 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 6 originally stated This Act shall

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH M. MAUER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of KRISTIANA LEIGH MAUER, MINDE M. MAUER, CARL MAUER, and CORY MAUER, UNPUBLISHED April 7,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida Nos. SC03-33 & SC03-97 PHILIP C. D'ANGELO, M.D., et al., Petitioners, vs. JOHN J. FITZMAURICE, et al., Respondents. JOHN J. FITZMAURICE, et al., Petitioners, vs. PHILIP C. D'ANGELO,

More information

Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977)

Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977) Florida State University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 4 Article 8 1978 Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977) Richard Gordon Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of

More information

The Contributory Negligence Act

The Contributory Negligence Act 1 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE c. C-31 The Contributory Negligence Act being Chapter C-31 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,

More information

Evan B. Beavers, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, and Edward L. Oueilhe, Deputy Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Carson City, for Appellant.

Evan B. Beavers, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, and Edward L. Oueilhe, Deputy Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Carson City, for Appellant. 134 Nev., Advance Opinion 49 IN THE THE STATE GREGORY FELTON, Appellant, vs. DOUGLAS COUNTY; AND PUBLIC AGENCY COMPENSATION TRUST, Respondents. No. 70497 FILED FEB 1 5 2 018 Appeal from a district court

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL P. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2010 v No. 293354 Mackinac Circuit Court SHEPLER, INC., LC No. 07-006370-NO and Defendant-Appellee, CNA

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Public Welfare, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2408 C.D. 2002 : Craig Tetrault : Argued: March 31, 2003 BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT MARKLEY, SR., as Personal Representative of the Estate of SALLY MARKLEY, FOR PUBLICATION February 7, 2003 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 230056 Branch Circuit

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. ALBERT J. BALAJADIA and WILLIAM L. GAVRAS, Plaintiff-Appellants, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. ALBERT J. BALAJADIA and WILLIAM L. GAVRAS, Plaintiff-Appellants, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM ALBERT J. BALAJADIA and WILLIAM L. GAVRAS, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee. Supreme Court Case No.: CVA16-004 Superior Court Case No.: CV0183-15

More information

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals

More information

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS NO. 12-07-00287-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS D JUANA DUNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR APPEAL FROM THE 7TH J. D., APPELLANT V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2009 WESTMINSTER COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES, INC., ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D08-1326 SHIRLEY MIKESELL, AS PERSONAL

More information

611 A.2d 862 Page Conn. 610, 611 A.2d 862 (Cite as: 223 Conn. 610, 611 A.2d 862)

611 A.2d 862 Page Conn. 610, 611 A.2d 862 (Cite as: 223 Conn. 610, 611 A.2d 862) 611 A.2d 862 Page 1 (Cite as: ) Supreme Court of Connecticut. HUDSON HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Michael B. BROOKS et al. No. 14345. Argued June 3, 1992. Decided Aug. 12, 1992. Condominium association

More information

Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED. Updated to 13 April 2017

Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED. Updated to 13 April 2017 Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED Updated to 13 April 2017 This Revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed April 21, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed April 21, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-134 / 09-1338 Filed April 21, 2010 TYSON FOODS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JAMIE DEGONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury

More information

2017 PA Super 31. Appeal from the Order of February 25, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No.

2017 PA Super 31. Appeal from the Order of February 25, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2017 PA Super 31 THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP ON BEHALF OF CHUNLI CHEN, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. KAFUMBA KAMARA, THRIFTY CAR RENTAL, AND RENTAL CAR FINANCE GROUP, Appellees No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FRANK HOFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 26, 2002 v No. 227222 Macomb Circuit Court CITY OF WARREN and SAMUEL JETT, LC No. 98-2407 NO Defendants-Appellees.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JACK A. Y. FAKHOURY and MOTOR CITY AUTO WASH, INC., UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2006 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, v No. 256540 Oakland Circuit Court LYNN L. LOWER,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHRISTOPHER HARWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 10, 2006 v No. 263500 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 04-433378-CK INSURANCE COMPANY,

More information

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS TREASURE HUNT

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS TREASURE HUNT LESSON 1 FOUNDING DOCUMENTS TREASURE HUNT OVERVIEW Stuents will trace the origins of some of the funamental principles an ieals foun in the Declaration of Inepenence an the Constitution of the Unite States.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC L.T. No. 1D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC L.T. No. 1D GAIL GILES, et al., vs. Petitioners CURTIS LUCKIE, Respondent. / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-1200 L.T. No. 1D01-1802 AMICUS BRIEF OF THE ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS BARBARA GREEN,

More information

ABA Fall 2016 National Legal Malpractice Conference

ABA Fall 2016 National Legal Malpractice Conference ABA Fall 2016 National Legal Malpractice Conference POINTING FINGERS AND SHARING THE PAIN: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE FAULT AND APPORTIONMENT IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS ABA National Legal Malpractice

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LADONNA NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2017 9:10 a.m. and No. 329733 Wayne Circuit Court MERIDIAN HEALTH PLAN OF MICHIGAN, LC No. 13-004369-NH also

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session CLIFFORD SWEARENGEN v. DMC-MEMPHIS, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-0057-2011 John R. McCarroll,

More information

Torts Tutorial Chapter 6 Joint Tortfeasors

Torts Tutorial Chapter 6 Joint Tortfeasors INTRODUCTION This program is designed to provide a review of basic concepts covered in a first-year torts class and is based on DeWolf, Cases and Materials on Torts (http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/torts/text

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JULY 27, 2012; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2010-CA-002074-MR JOSEPH D. GREENWELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DARREN

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 892 MDA 2012

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 892 MDA 2012 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KENNETH HUSTON, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 892 MDA 2012 Appeal from the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. GLENN W. GIBBS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants. vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. GLENN W. GIBBS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants. vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM GLENN W. GIBBS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. LEE HOLMES, JOAN HOLMES, and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Defendants-Appellees OPINION Filed: June

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL 2007 CA 1386 HELEN MATTHEWS VERSUS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION FIRST CIRCUIT SHARON MACK

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL 2007 CA 1386 HELEN MATTHEWS VERSUS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION FIRST CIRCUIT SHARON MACK NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 1386 HELEN MATTHEWS VERSUS SHARON MACK On Appeal from the 20th Judicial District Court Parish of East Feliciana Louisiana

More information

No SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1974-NMSC-030, 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 April 12, 1974 COUNSEL

No SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1974-NMSC-030, 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 April 12, 1974 COUNSEL 1 UNITED STATES FID. & GUAR. CO. V. RATON NATURAL GAS CO., 1974-NMSC-030, 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 (S. Ct. 1974) UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RATON NATURAL GAS COMPANY,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96287 PARIENTE, J. BRIAN JONES, et ux., Petitioners, vs. ETS OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., Respondent. [August 30, 2001] We have for review the Second District Court of Appeal's

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 11, 2011; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-001158-MR JEFF LEIGHTON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE FREDERIC COWAN,

More information

Edited'by: Uniting Plaintiff, Defense, Insurance, and Corporate Counsel to Advance the Civil Justice System

Edited'by: Uniting Plaintiff, Defense, Insurance, and Corporate Counsel to Advance the Civil Justice System " 3 iij ii i ; Edited'by: : ' Uniting Plaintiff, Defense, Insurance, and Corporate Counsel to Advance the Civil Justice System Tott Trial & Insurance Practice Section American Bar Association Defending

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TONYA LYN SLAGER, as Next Friend of CHADWICK VANDONKELAAR, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION September 30, 2010 9:00 a.m. v No. 292856 Ottawa Circuit Court

More information

Tort Reform (2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has and all medical records

Tort Reform (2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has and all medical records Tort Reform 2011 Medical Malpractice Changes (SB 33; S.L. 2011 400) o Enhanced Special Pleading Requirement (Rule 9(j)) Rule 9(j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires medical malpractice complaints

More information

AN UNFAIR ALLOCATION OF FAULT AND LIABILITY: A

AN UNFAIR ALLOCATION OF FAULT AND LIABILITY: A : A Proposal to Remedy an Unjust Legal Precedent and to Reconcile Comparative Fault and the Workers Compensation Act By Amending Tennessee Code Annotated 50-6-112 By: James B. Summers John R. Hensley II

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002 LANA MARLER, ET AL. v. BOBBY E. SCOGGINS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rhea County No. 18471 Buddy D. Perry, Judge

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KIMBERLY DENNEY, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MATTHEW MICHAEL DENNEY, FOR PUBLICATION November 15, 2016 9:05 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 328135 Kent Circuit

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ July

More information

WILLIAM MICHAEL BOYKIN, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS RAY MORRISON, RUFUS AARON WILSON, JR. and WILLIE PERRY, Defendants No. COA (Filed 28 December 2001)

WILLIAM MICHAEL BOYKIN, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS RAY MORRISON, RUFUS AARON WILSON, JR. and WILLIE PERRY, Defendants No. COA (Filed 28 December 2001) WILLIAM MICHAEL BOYKIN, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS RAY MORRISON, RUFUS AARON WILSON, JR. and WILLIE PERRY, Defendants No. COA01-80 (Filed 28 December 2001) 1. Insurance automobile--uninsured motorist--motion

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HELENE IRENE SMILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 26, 2001 9:05 a.m. v No. 217466 Oakland Circuit Court HELEN H. CORRIGAN, LC No. 96-522690-NI and Defendant-Appellant,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARY TIERNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION August 5, 2003 9:05 a.m. v No. 239690 Court of Claims UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, LC No. 99-017521-CM Defendant-Appellee.

More information

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA [Cite as Brewer v. State, 2009-Ohio-3157.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY JARED DUANE BREWER, : Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-041 : O P I N I O N

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-60662 Document: 00514636532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT MCGILL C. PARFAIT, v. Petitioner United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KIRK HANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2008 v No. 278402 Oakland Circuit Court MARTY MILES COLLEY and DUMITRU LC No. 2006-076903-NF JITIANU, Defendants-Appellees.

More information

Workmen's compensation: Should a Contributorily Negligent Employer be Subrogated?

Workmen's compensation: Should a Contributorily Negligent Employer be Subrogated? Indiana Law Journal Volume 42 Issue 3 Article 9 Spring 1967 Workmen's compensation: Should a Contributorily Negligent Employer be Subrogated? Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj

More information

Should North Carolina Enact the Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act?

Should North Carolina Enact the Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act? Should North Carolina Enact the Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act? by Burton Craige Burton Craige is Legal Affairs Counsel for the Academy (soon to be the North Carolina Advocates for Justice).

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,890. and. NORTHERN CLEARING, INC. and OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., Intervenors/Appellees.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,890. and. NORTHERN CLEARING, INC. and OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., Intervenors/Appellees. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,890 PAMELA HEIMERMAN, Individually, as Surviving Spouse and Heir At Law of DANIEL JOSEPH HEIMERMAN, Deceased, Appellant, v. ZACHARY ROSE and PAYLESS

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice DAVID T. SCHWARTZ, M.D., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 960395 CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO February

More information

Joint Tort-Feasors -- Contribution -- Effects of Statute on Covenant Not to Sue

Joint Tort-Feasors -- Contribution -- Effects of Statute on Covenant Not to Sue NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 35 Number 1 Article 21 12-1-1956 Joint Tort-Feasors -- Contribution -- Effects of Statute on Covenant Not to Sue Wilbur Ritchie Smith Jr. Follow this and additional works

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session TERRY JUSTIN VAUGHN v. CITY OF TULLAHOMA, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 42013 Vanessa A. Jackson,

More information

In Indiana, the nature and extent of damages recoverable for wrongful death are dependent on the status of the decedent and his/

In Indiana, the nature and extent of damages recoverable for wrongful death are dependent on the status of the decedent and his/ INDIANA S WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES A CHEAT SHEET FOR WHAT DAMAGES ARE RECOVERABLE BY: Laura K. Binford, RBE Attorney In Indiana, the nature and extent of damages recoverable for wrongful death are dependent

More information

36 East Seventh St., Suite South Main Street

36 East Seventh St., Suite South Main Street [Cite as Knop Chiropractic, Inc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2003-Ohio-5021.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KNOP CHIROPRACTIC, INC. -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant STATE FARM INSURANCE

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al. ERSKINE TROUBLEFIELD

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al. ERSKINE TROUBLEFIELD UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 767 September Term, 2016 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al. v. ERSKINE TROUBLEFIELD Arthur, Shaw Geter, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Judge,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DANIEL T. CHAPPELL, a single man, STEVE C. ROMANO, a single man, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. WILLIAM WENHOLZ, MICHAEL AND SHANA BEAN, Defendants/Appellees.

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC08-1525 WAGNER, VAUGHAN, MCLAUGHLIN & BRENNAN, P.A., Petitioner, vs. KENNEDY LAW GROUP, Respondent. QUINCE, J. [April 7, 2011] CORRECTED OPINION The law firm of Wagner, Vaughan,

More information

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER. Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.21 l(e)(2), orders:

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER. Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.21 l(e)(2), orders: Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.21 l(e)(2), orders: The opinions in the following appeals are hereby AMENDED to correct a clerical error in

More information