Thanks Rapunzel. What is odd is that the trial court cites PA law when we have case law in TN that differs....Perhaps she thinks we
Anyway, I have found lots of case law from PA that addresses why LOIC needs to evolve into a negligence action, rather than battery.
So, I am assuming that is why she chose PA law as controlling.....Anyway, as the doctor I have several TN cases cited in the opinion that are more "gap fillers" than anything else.
At this point, it just doesn't matter as much as it used to...KWIM?
Hmmm, it would be lovely if you had an arguement that it was an intentional tort, but if the state supreme court insists that it sounds in negligence, then you must argue there. If you can't find any Tenn. case law with similar facts that comes down on the doctor's side, that would be problematic. I'd look for cases where the courts have drawn a legal line in that sand by not finding proximate cause. Preferably in your jusrisdiction, but look outside the state too. All you need is to kill one element. This is my general advice without seeing the hypo. Also, unless the author of the vehicle is a complete idiot, there will be caselaw that helps you somewhere.