If You Don't Know What Hurt You, You Cannot Sue

Yesterday the Court of Appeals affirmed 6 more criminal convictions.  But that's not today's subject.  Today's subject is tort reform, sort of.  We hear anecdotal evidence that plaintiff's personal injury cases are out of control, and that "the government" (see, first post) isn't doing anything about it.  In this sense, "the government" is identified as the legislative branch, who is implored to pass one statute or another to stop the purported madness.  That's where knowing what the branch of government that deals with lawsuits on a daily basis is doing can add something to the debate.  The judicial branch took some action yesterday, but darned if you will read about it anywhere.

In Anderson v. Canup, the plaintiff slipped and fell while exiting the defendant's place of business.  Plaintiff sued defendant to recover for the injuries she suffered as a result of this fall.  However, when asked how she fell, what caused her to fall, she testified that she was "not sure" and she "did not remember" what happened. The trial court threw her case out of court before it even reached the jury, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court of Appeals explained that the "mere possibility" that this may have been defendant's fault was not enough to justify the suit proceeding.

This result is not shocking.  I am sure that future posts will point out results like this one.  Because it is the government controlling lawsuits, which apparently is what some are clamoring for.