270.781.6500

law

08.18.2015

“Modified Comparative Fault” Rule Bars Recovery in Tennessee Car Crash

Car accidents fall under an area of tort law known as "negligence." To make out a successful case, a plaintiff must prove four things:  1) the defendant owed him or her a duty of care, 2) the defendant breached that duty, 3) the plaintiff sustained actual damages, and 4) the plaintiff's damages were caused by the defendant's breach of duty. It seems simple enough, right? Unfortunately, many cases are not as simple as they initially seem. Issues such as comparative fault - an allegation by the defendant that the plaintiff is responsible for some part of the accident - can quickly complicate matters. The resolution of such issues often depends upon the law of the state in which the wreck occurred. This Tennessee car crash case is an example. Kentucky is one of about a dozen states that follow the "pure comparative fault" doctrine, under which a plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to his or her fault, but he or she is still allowed to recover against the defendant for the defendant's percentage of fault. In Tennessee, however, the rule is one of "modified comparative fault," with the plaintiff only being allowed to recover if his or her fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff is found to be 49% at fault, he or she can recover 51% of his or her total damages, but there is no recovery at all if the parties are determined to bear equal fault. Read More

08.04.2015

A couple’s marital status determines who gets the estate

By Nathan Vinson, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, LLP Facebook has a neat little box that you can check to indicate your relationship status. There are some options that are clear cut – or at least seem to be: married, divorced, single. There’s another option that’s becoming more popular as of late called “it’s complicated.” It’s a handy box to check when life is messy. Unfortunately, though, there’s no “it’s complicated” box to check in legal documents. In the eyes of the law, you’re either single, legally separated or married. There’s no in-between for marital status. The lives of Luther and Shirley Mills definitely fell under the “it’s complicated” category, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled on whether or not the couple was legally married at the time of Luther’s death. At stake was Luther’s estate. ' Read More

07.14.2015

ELPO now has six Certified Kentucky Paralegals

ELPO now has six Certified Kentucky Paralegals Read More

07.07.2015

Bob Young interviewed for podcast, publishes chapter in book

Bob Young interviewed for podcast, publishes chapter in book Read More

06.16.2015

Kentucky Statute of Limitations for Car Accident Determined by Date of Issuance of Replacement Check, Not Date of Original Check That Was Lost – Beaumont v. Zeru

Most civil lawsuits involving personal injury are subject to a statute of limitations, or time limit, after which a party has no legal recourse unless a special exception applies. When this happens, it is often said that the statute of limitations has been "tolled." Both the length of the limitations period and the possibility of tolling can vary widely, depending upon the state in which the accident occurred. The recent case of Beaumont v. Zeru discussed the extent to which an insurance company's payment of certain benefits affects the time period during which an injured motorist may file suit against the responsible party. Read More

06.02.2015

Kentucky courts implementing e-filing program

Kentucky courts implementing e-filing program Read More

05.14.2015

ELPO hosting reception for UK Law professor

ELPO hosting reception for UK Law professor Read More

05.14.2015

Kentucky Federal Court dismisses woman’s medical device product liability lawsuit

In Babich-Zacharias v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a woman filed a product liability lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky after she allegedly suffered a number of adverse health effects from using the company’s intrauterine contraceptive device (“IUD”). According to her complaint, the woman developed idiopathic intracranial hypertension as a result of her use of the device that was designed to stay in the body for up to five years. If not properly treated, the condition can result in severe headaches and temporary blindness. The woman claimed the patient pamphlet provided to her when the IUD was inserted failed to warn her of the link between her condition and use of the product. Despite this, the woman admitted the information stated further research regarding the medical product was needed. The woman also claimed that the medical device manufacturer failed to conduct sufficient clinical testing and intentionally concealed known risks associated with use of the device from patients and medical professionals in the company’s marketing products. Read More

05.07.2015

Bob Young addresses strategic planning at Atlanta conference

Bob Young addresses strategic planning at Atlanta conference Read More

04.16.2015

Bob Young attends ABA Tech Show

Bob Young attends ABA Tech Show Read More