Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

|

Many car dealerships provide customers with loaned vehicles to use while their cars are being serviced. Drivers of loaned cars are as likely as other motorists to be involved in accidents. Still, if they are, the issue of who is ultimately responsible for any damages caused can be a convoluted question. This was demonstrated in a recent Tennessee ruling in which the court affirmed that an insurer of a dealership was not liable for damages caused by a person driving a loaned SUV. If you were hurt in a crash involving a rented or loaned vehicle, it is prudent to meet with a dedicated Tennessee car accident attorney to assess your options.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant took his vehicle to a dealership to have it serviced. The dealer provided him with an SUV to use in the interim, and he executed a rental agreement. He then saw another SUV that he wished to drive instead. Thus, a dealership employee crossed out the information in the agreement for the first SUV and wrote in the information for the second SUV, after which the defendant signed the agreement.

Allegedly, while the defendant was driving the SUV, he was involved in a collision with the plaintiff that caused the plaintiff to suffer significant injuries. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, and a jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. The plaintiff then filed a second action seeking a ruling from the court that the dealership’s insurer was required to pay the damages awarded in the verdict. The court found in favor of the insurer, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading ›

|

There are many elements that a plaintiff in a lawsuit arising out of a car accident must prove to demonstrate that damages should be awarded. In other words, the plaintiff must not only prove that the defendant’s acts led to the accident, but also that the accident caused the plaintiff to suffer actual harm; otherwise, the plaintiff may be denied compensation. This was demonstrated in a recent Tennessee case in which the defendant conceded liability, but the jury declined to grant the plaintiff any damages, finding that she had not established causation. If you were hurt in a car accident, it is in your best interest to speak to a seasoned Tennessee car accident attorney to assess what you must prove to present a winning case.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a 70-year-old widow, was driving to work when she was struck from the rear by the defendant driver. The plaintiff, who suffered from degenerative disc disease, alleged she suffered back and neck pain following the accident and filed a negligence claim against the defendant. Prior to the trial, the defendant conceded liability but argued that the crash was minor, in that the two cars barely touched and his airbags did not deploy.

It is reported that during the trial, the plaintiff presented the testimony of a medical expert, who stated that the accident had aggravated the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition. The expert admitted, however, that her opinion was based on subjective evidence. The jury found in favor of the defendant, denying the plaintiff damages. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Continue reading ›

|

Many parents rely on bus drivers to safely transport their children to school. If a driver does not arrive at a designated stop at the scheduled time, though, a child may have to seek alternate means of traveling to school, which could ultimately lead to a car accident that causes the child to sustain significant harm. Whether the driver will be deemed liable for the injuries suffered depends on whether any other parties contributed to causing the accident, as demonstrated in a recent Tennessee case in which parents were denied recovery for their child’s harm due to their comparative negligence. If your child was injured in an accident, it is prudent to confer with a dedicated Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss your possible claims.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the driver for the defendant school district arrived at the plaintiffs’ child’s stop seven minutes early, and left when the child was not present. The child later went to the stop, and after he realized the bus was not coming, he returned home, retrieved his bicycle, and told his father he was riding the bicycle to school. The child was struck by a pickup truck on the way to school and suffered severe injuries.

It is alleged that the plaintiffs, acting on behalf of their child, filed a lawsuit against the driver and the defendant school district, alleging claims of negligence. A jury ultimately found that the driver and defendant school district were negligent, but attributed fifty-six percent of the fault for the accident to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs were denied recovery of damages. They appealed.

Continue reading ›

|

Many people’s jobs require them to drive regularly, and therefore many employers provide people with company cars. As such, in many instances in which a person driving a company car causes an accident that injures another party, the injured party may not only pursue claims against the driver but also against the company that employed the driver on a theory of vicarious liability. Recently, a Tennessee appellate court discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence to impose vicarious liability on an employer in a case in which a person was killed in a collision with a driver using a company car. If you or a loved one suffered injuries in an accident involving a car owned by the driver’s employer, it is advisable to speak to a proficient Tennessee car accident attorney regarding what claims you may be able to pursue against the parties responsible for your harm.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s wife was involved in a car accident with the defendant driver, who was both the son and employee of the defendant vehicle owner. The plaintiff’s wife ultimately died due to the injuries caused by the accident, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging a vicarious liability claim against the defendant vehicle owner. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the defendant driver was acting in the scope and course of his employment during the accident, and therefore the defendant vehicle owner should be held accountable for the harm caused by the defendant driver.

It is reported that the defendant vehicle owner filed a motion for summary judgment, setting forth evidence that the defendant driver was acting outside of his employment at the time of the accident and asking the court to dismiss the claims against the defendant vehicle owner. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading ›

|

A person seeking compensation for harm suffered due to a car accident in Tennessee must not only establish liability, but he or she must also prove the damages caused by the accident. The consequences of the failure to adequately establish the economic and noneconomic harm caused by an accident were recently highlighted in a Tennessee appellate court case in which the court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant owed the plaintiff the damages she sought, despite the fact that she did not set forth any evidence supporting her damages claim. If you suffered harm in a car accident, it is prudent to consult an experienced Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss what evidence you must produce to present a winning case.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant driver rear-ended the plaintiff’s car, causing the plaintiff to suffer injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, setting forth a negligence claim and requesting $125,000 in damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The defendant did not answer the plaintiff’s discovery requests, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment and a request for admission against the defendant. The defendant did not reply to either pleading.

It is reported that the court granted the request for admission and the motion for summary judgment. The defendant then appealed, but the court denied the appeal. A hearing was then held to determine the plaintiff’s damages, after which the court awarded the plaintiff $5,000, based on the lack of expert testimony supporting the plaintiff’s claim for damages. The plaintiff then appealed.

Continue reading ›

|

Not all car accidents involve two vehicles. Instead, in many cases, a car accident will, unfortunately, involve a car and a pedestrian. In many lawsuits in which a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle, the driver of the vehicle will attempt to evade liability by arguing that the pedestrian caused the collision, and if the jury finds the defendant driver’s evidence to be compelling, the pedestrian may be denied compensation. This was shown in a recent Tennessee car accident case in which the court denied a plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after the jury found in favor of the defendant.  If you were struck by a vehicle, it is in your best interest to retain an experienced Tennessee car accident attorney to help you protect your rights.

Factual Background and Procedure of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff visited Tennessee as a tourist in 2005. During her stay, she jogged along the side of a highway. She decided to cross the highway, and while she was crossing, she was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a negligence claim. Following a trial, the jury found that the plaintiff was 80% at fault, and the defendant was 20% at fault for the accident. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion, after which she appealed.

The Standard for Setting Aside a Jury Verdict

Under Tennessee law, a court will only set aside a jury’s findings of fact if there is no material evidence in support of the jury’s verdict. A trial judge is tasked with acting as the thirteenth juror and independently weighing the evidence to determine if it is in favor of the jury verdict. If the trial judge finds the verdict to be dissatisfactory, he or she must grant a new trial or set aside the  verdict.

Continue reading ›

|

Some people who are involved in car accidents are tempted to avoid the expenses of retaining an attorney by representing themselves in a civil lawsuit. Few non-attorneys truly understand the nuances of the law, though, and self-represented parties often receive unfavorable outcomes due to their failure to comply with substantive and procedural requirements. This was demonstrated in a recent car accident case arising out of Tennessee, in which the court dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s case for lack of prosecution. If you suffered harm due to a collision caused by another person’s negligence, it is prudent to consult a Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss your options for seeking damages.

Facts and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries, emotional distress, property damage, and pain and suffering in a car accident caused by the defendant. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence claims. The plaintiff failed to appear on numerous occasions throughout the case and ultimately failed to appear at trial. She was granted a continuance but advised that if she failed to appear again, her case would be dismissed. The plaintiff did not show up for her second trial, however, after which the court dismissed her case with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her case. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

Under Tennessee law, courts are obligated to provide equal and fair treatment to parties that represent themselves in lawsuits. The courts are not permitted, however, to prejudice the substantive rights of other parties to be fair to parties that choose to represent themselves. In other words, self-represented parties are not permitted to refuse to comply with the procedural and substantive laws that apply to parties that are represented by counsel. Thus, the plaintiff was obligated to comply with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Continue reading ›

|

If a person is injured in a car accident in Tennessee, he or she will often file a lawsuit seeking compensation from the driver that caused the accident. If the driver was engaged in the course and scope of his or her employment at the time of the accident, the injured party may be able to recover damages from the driver’s employer as well. Recently, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville explained when an employer can be held liable for harm caused by its employee, in a case arising out of a car accident. If you were injured in a Tennessee car accident by a driver engaged in the course and scope of his or her job duties it is critical to meet with a seasoned Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss who may be held accountable for your harm.

Factual Background

It is alleged that in August 2016, the plaintiff was driving on a road in Greene County, Tennessee, when a car traveling in the opposite direction crossed the center line and struck her head-on.  The plaintiff sustained permanent and severe injuries in the accident. She subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting negligence claims against the defendant driver’s estate and the defendant driver’s employer, arguing that the defendant driver was engaged in the scope and course of her employment at the time of the accident.

It is reported that the plaintiff further alleged that the defendant driver was liable for negligent hiring and supervision. The defendant employer denied that the defendant driver was engaged in employment-related activities at the time of the accident, and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court erred in ruling that the defendant driver was not acting in the scope of her employment at the time of the accident and that the defendant employer could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior.

Continue reading ›

|

Most people purchase car insurance with the expectation that the insurance will provide coverage in the event of a car accident. If a car owner fails to comply with the terms of the policy and is subsequently injured in an accident, however, he or she may be denied any coverage or benefits pursuant to exclusions under the policy. Recently, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee analyzed policy exclusions in a case in which a car accident was caused by an unlicensed driver who was intoxicated at the time of the accident. If you were involved in a car accident in Tennessee and your insurance company is attempting to deny you coverage you should meet with a skillful Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss your options for recovering benefits.

Factual Background

It is alleged that the car owner was involved in an accident in which he rear-ended another driver. At the time of the accident the car owner did not have a valid license. Additionally, he admitted to the investigating officers that he had been drinking and failed multiple field sobriety tests. He was ultimately charged with and convicted of driving under the influence.

It is reported that the other driver filed a lawsuit against the car owner, seeking costs, and compensatory and punitive damages for the harm she sustained in the accident. The car owner was insured by the plaintiff insurer. The insurer subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action and a subsequent motion for summary judgment, seeking an edict from the court that it was not obligated to provide the car owner coverage under the terms of the policy. Continue reading ›

|

Driving a car is generally safe but it is not without risks and being involved in a car accident can cause substantial injuries and, in some cases, death. Although many car accidents are caused by other drivers, unexpected hazards in the roadway can cause collisions as well. While many roadway hazards are caused by natural conditions, in some cases a hazard may be caused by a person’s negligence. In a recent Tennessee case, an appellate court addressed the issue of what constitutes sufficient evidence of a defendant’s responsibility for creating a hazardous condition that caused an accident, to avoid dismissal of a case. If you suffered harm in a Tennessee car accident due to a hazardous condition that was created by another person you should speak with a trusted Tennessee car accident attorney as soon as possible regarding your options for seeking recourse.

Alleged Facts Regarding the Accident

It is reported that the plaintiffs’ decedent was driving his car on a roadway, when he hit a bull that was standing in the middle of the road. The impact caused his car to veer off the road and flip upside down in a nearby creek. The decedent subsequently drowned. The plaintiffs, the wife and children of the decedent, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he owned the bull and was negligent in failing to control it. The defendant denied that he owned the bull. Following the completion of discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.

Allegedly, the trial court stated that due to the lack of direct evidence that the defendant owned the bull, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Further, the court stated that there was not sufficient evidence that the defendant testified falsely at his deposition as to his ownership of the bull. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court ruling, which the appellate court reversed.

Continue reading ›