Exculpatory clauses are found in a variety of contracts and work to relieve one party from liability based on negligence.  The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that not all exculpatory clauses are enforceable.  Generally, Tennessee law has favored parties’ ability to contract freely.  However, at times, that collides with public policy and societal expectations. In Olson v. Molzen, a 1977 decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “subject to certain exceptions, parties may contract that one shall not be liable for his negligence to another.”  One of those exceptions was certain professional relationships, such as those with doctors or lawyers.  Those

If you believe the loser pays the attorney’s fees of the winner in a lawsuit, you are probably wrong. The general rule in the United States is that each party is liable for its own attorney’s fees. The loser pays only court costs (filing fees) and in some cases, in the discretion of the Court, is awarded other costs such as court reporter fees and expert witness fees. This is contrary to the so-called “English rule” followed by most other countries where the losers pay the other party’s legal costs, including attorney’s fees. There are exceptions: suits involving civil rights

We are often called upon to litigate disputes involving lost or missing documents. Contracts, receipts, cancelled checks, invoices and other documents are often the best evidence to prove – or disprove – a claim. A litigant who enters a courtroom without this evidence is at a serious disadvantage. Consider, for example, the case of a vendor who swears that invoices were unpaid. If the buyer cannot produce receipts, cancelled checks or other documentation of payment, the dishonest vendor will have a significant advantage.  Likewise, it is difficult to enforce a contract that can’t be produced in its signed form. A well-drafted document retention

When is a homeowner or business owner responsible for injuries occurring on his or her property? Like many legal questions the answer is "it depends." As a general rule the owner is required to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition for those who come on the property. An owner must correct or warn against any dangerous condition of which he is aware or reasonably should have known of. The duty applies not only to those invited onto the property but others such as delivery and repair persons, door to door salesmen and those soliciting contributions.

The short answer is no.  First, the report contains multiple instances of hearsay, which are statements, other than ones made by the witness while testifying at trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c).  Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it fits within one of the recognized exceptions contained in Tenn. R. Evid. 803.  The subsection of Rule 803 that covers public records and reports contains fairly broad language for the admissibility of records, reports, and data compilations in any form from a public office or agency that is under a

Wilson Worley shareholder, Steve Huret, and associate, Katie Steffen, obtained a verdict of zero dollars ($0.00) after a two day jury trial in Hawkins County Circuit Court on behalf of their client, who was the defendant in a personal injury and property damage lawsuit that resulted from a car wreck.  The defendant admitted liability for the car wreck, so only the amounts of the plaintiff's alleged damages were before the jury.  The plaintiff sought substantial damages for past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, past lost wages, future loss of earning capacity, past and