Editor's Page

By Michael W. Tootooian

Welcome to our twelfth issue of The Tort Reporter. As always we are looking for members of the Tort Litigation Committee to join the newsletter committee, either as permanent members or contributing writers. We plan on having a third issue published before the end of the committee year in June. For those of you in the A-M group of attorneys needing to meet your current MCLE requirements by June 30, 2010, this newsletter can provide you with the opportunity to help you meet those requirements.

Writing articles for our committee is a great way to network with your fellow attorneys, impress your clients (and your parents) and build up your résumé. More importantly, Beth McMeen, CLE Director for the CBA, has confirmed that writing substantive law related articles for our newsletter will qualify for MCLE credit under MCLE Rule 795(d)(7)(ii). Furthermore, even if you have met your MCLE requirements for the current reporting period, you can carry 10 non-professional responsibility CLE hours into the next reporting period. (MCLE Rule 794(c)(1))

The newsletter is available via the CBA web site. Once there, enter your account number and password, click the Committees tab to get the submenu and then click Committees Home Page, select the Tort Litigation Committee by clicking the arrow under CBA Practice Committees and finally click the link entitled “The Tort Reporter.” The current issue as well as all back issues are available for your review.

If you are interested in joining the newsletter committee or submitting articles, please contact me at mwtootooian@aol.com or our Committee Chair, Bryan O’Connor, at boc@baaloconnor.com. The newsletter committee meets immediately after the conclusion of each Tort Litigation Committee meeting for about ten minutes with further communications via e-mails between committee meetings.

This issue of The Tort Reporter has four articles. They are as follows:

The first article is by Lawrence P. Devens on dealing with juror’s questions that may arise during their deliberations. It is quite common for the jury to seek guidance during their deliberations and counsel must be ready to respond with such inquiries in an appropriate fashion which includes preserving the issue for a possible appeal. This article explores the various options available to the court and counsel.

The second article is by Michael Griffin, an engineer and former attorney with the Right of Way Bureau of the County Highway Department, on how to determine which governmental entity is responsible for and hence the proper defendant in any litigation involving roadways, sidewalks, utility and telephone poles, water mains, traffic control devices and highway construction projects. This article contains useful information on how to determine who is the proper defendant, avoiding dismissal of the wrongly named party which may result in missing a particular statute of limitation and triggering a malpractice claim.

The third article is by Mark Szaflarski on the guidelines used by the courts in determining whether remittitur should be entered by the court. The burden is heavy on the party requesting remittitur. There are three avenues available to reduce a jury verdict which are discussed in a recent case.

The fourth article is by yours truly, Michael W. Tootooian, discussing a recent appellate court case finding that the homeowners’ insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify them for the alcohol related death of a minor. The holding in the case raises the possibility that many other acts or omissions heretofore not thought of as qualifying as an exclusion from coverage, resulting in such an exclusion. This case may encourage insurers to increase their denials of coverage in an effort to test the limits of what other acts or omissions can be excluded from coverage in a variety of policies.