Microsoft Money has an interesting article on the link between smaller cars and higher insurance bills.  Particularly useful given the statistics which show that Americans are turning to smaller cars to deal with higher gasoline costs.  An excerpt:

Americans are looking to smaller cars for savings on spiraling gas prices and for lower emissions, but auto insurance savings may not follow.

But does a smaller vehicle equate to smaller car insurance rates? The answer, surprisingly, is usually no.

According to’s research on auto insurance rates, switching from a larger vehicle to a small car such as a Civic or a Prius is likely to raise your insurance premium:

Click here to read the entire article.

The Court of Appeals has posted its minutes for July 4th, here.  There weren’t any published cases dealing with torts or insurance.

Congratulations to Mike Stevens and his Kentucky Law Review for consistently being in the national top ten of the nation’s blogs.  This is quite an accomplishment.  You can read Mike’s well deserved summary of his blogs accomplishments, here.

At last check the Court of Appeals did not post any minutes for July 4th, due to the holiday.  The site is currently down, so I can’t determine if any posts have been made since.  I’ll continue to check and post the link along with any new minutes for July 11th.

The Courier Journal reports on the dismissal of Delta in the lawsuit against Comair for the crash that killed 49 people two years ago.  According to the article Judge Forester stated; “In short, there is no allegation that any Delta employee failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his/her duty in any manner in respect to Flight No. 5191”.  The dismissal apparently will have no affect on the remaining claims against Comair.

To read the entire article click here.

The Mass Tort Litigation Blog has been reporting on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon v. Baker, the decision which reconsidered the punitive damages in the case arising out of the Exxon Valdez disaster. I’d recommend you read Professor Lahav’s wonderful musings in What’s So Weird About the Exxon Decision and Professor Stier’s background article SCOTUS Reduces Exxon Oil Spill Punitive Damages to Match Compensatory Damages for the ruling and its implication for future punitive damages recovery.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has published Kemper v. Gordon, involving the question of whether Kentucky would adopt the Lost of Diminished Chance Doctrine, or to put it, allow recovery by plaintiff’s whose death is not the result of the negligence, but who may have suffered a diminished chance of survival due to the negligence.  The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog actually has a good post on the court’s opinion, although the author, Ron Miller disagrees with it.  You can read the entire post here.

While I certainly agree that the results are tragic, I must confess my agreement with the majority in this 5-2 decision.  I agree that the determinations regarding minute percentages between a diminished life is not something Kentucky court’s should be willing to enter.  Frankly, I doubt science, especially medical science, can even begin to offer a scientific basis for such a determination and instead will rely, as the majority fears, on medical experts, whose basis appears to be nothing but lay opinion guised as medical fact.

That being said, the case actually reversed a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Kemper.  According to the majority it was error for the trial court to exclude evidence that an expert in the case, Dr. John, had given different medical testimony in a previous case.  It ruled that the exclusion of other experts was proper due to a lack of disclosure.

While I certainly sympathize with the family, it should be noted that they did settle with two other doctor’s, who it would appear, based on the evidence, had far more chance of being responsible.  Having looked at the record, at least from the opinion, I think it will be difficult for a jury to find Dr. Kemper liable and I don’t think potential plaintiff’s should be able to get around this difficulty by claiming loss of diminished chance.  However, the introduction of the impeachment evidence at a new trial may change my opinion and this result.