Court Rulings

This case involves a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process and for expiration of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff filed this health care liability suit against a defendant physician. A process server went to the defendant's office to serve him, and after the process server was unable to locate the defendant, he served the summons and complaint on an employee of the hospital where the defendant's office was located. The defendant answered the complaint and raised the defense that there was insufficient service of process. More than a year after the complaint was filed, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant and that the statute of limitations had run on the health care liability action. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Judge Appellants, mother and father, challenge the termination of their parental rights, arguing that the record does not support the district court's determination that multiple statutory bases for termination were proved at trial and that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. Appellants also argue that the district court's findings regarding the children's best interests are inadequate and lack record support. We affirm.

The district court terminated a man's parental rights to a child. We conclude that the district court did not err by finding that the petitioner proved at least one statutory serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. ground for termination and that termination is in the child's best interests. Therefore, we affirm.

Following a condemnation proceeding, respondent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) took title to approximately 12 acres of land appellants (the 1 Comparts) previously owned. The district court appointed three commissioners who held a hearing to determine damages. The Comparts hired legal counsel and several experts to represent them at the hearing. Because the commissioners' final damages determination was more than 40% greater than MnDOT's last written offer prior to filing the condemnation petition, the Comparts moved the district court for "reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, appraisal fees, expert fees, and other related costs." See Minn. Stat. § 117.031(a) (2022). The district court granted the Comparts' motion in part, but did not award the full amount of fees, costs, and expenses requested. The Comparts appeal, arguing the district court abused its discretion in its calculation of appropriate fees, costs, and expenses. Because the district court abused its discretion when it misapplied the law as it relates to fees, costs, and expenses, we reverse and remand.

This interlocutory appeal involves an alleged slip and fall incident that occurred at the defendant's grocery store. The plaintiff's amended complaint included allegations of vicarious liability, premises liability, negligent training, and negligent supervision against the defendant. In an attempt to dismiss the plaintiff's negligent training and supervision claims, the defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and asserted two alternative arguments, both of which the trial court rejected. First, the trial court rejected the defendant's argument that courts must dismiss "negligent activity" claims, such as claims for negligent training and supervision, when asserted concurrently with a premises liability theory of recovery. Second, the trial court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's direct negligence claims were no longer legally viable due to the defendant admitting it was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employee, commonly referred to as the "preemption rule." After denying the defendant's motion, the trial court granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant's application. The defendant then appealed to this Court, and we granted review. We hold that the preemption rule is incompatible with Tennessee's system of comparative fault and decline to adopt it. In addition, we decline to adopt the rule proposed by the defendant pertaining to "negligent activity" claims asserted alongside premises liability claims. As a result, we affirm the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.