Kelly on Malpractice

In Abels v. Gene Indus. Inc., 2005 WL 1079311 (W.D.Tenn.), plaintiff brought a products liability case for severe injuries sustained while using a man lift that was designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendant Gene Industries, Inc. The man lift was rented, leased, or distributed by Defendant Rental Services Corporation (“RSC”). Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the seventh defense of RSC’s answer, which stated that “RSC avers that a cause in fact of the accident of July 7, 2003, was the negligence of plaintiff’s employer, ICS, in failing to properly supervise its employee, Jerry Hunt, by allowing him unauthorized access to the subject lift and/or allowing him to use the lift without proper training and supervision. Plaintiff argued that pursuant to Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn.1996) and Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische, 955 S.W.2d 252 (Tenn.1997), the negligence of an employer, a co-employee, and/or a general contractor cannot be considered “to reduce a defendant’s liability.” In response to this motion, RSC argued that it may present evidence that the employer’s actions were a “cause in fact” of the plaintiff’s injuries. Both were right. The employer’s culpability is only relevant to the issue of causation, not a percentage of fault.