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.

Determining Insurance Coverage for a Loaned Vehicle

The court noted that insurance policies are interpreted in the same manner as any other contract. In other words, the terms in an insurance policy should be afforded their ordinary and clear meaning so as to uphold the intent of the parties that drafted the contract. The court explained, however, that when an insurance contract contains an exclusion, the insurer bears the burden of proving that the exclusion applies. If an insurer meets this burden, the party seeking coverage must then prove that an exception to the exclusion garners coverage.

In the subject case, the court noted that an exclusion in the contract barred coverage for any accident caused by a driver using a rented vehicle. The court found this provision to be clear and unambiguous, noting it barred coverage for the subject incident. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that no rental agreement was entered into between the defendant and the dealership. Rather, the court found that the original agreement was modified, and the defendant consented to the modification by signing the agreement. Thus, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Meet with a Skilled Tennessee Attorney About Your Accident

In some car accident cases, even if liability is straightforward, it may be unclear who must pay for the harm suffered. If you were hurt in a crash, it is advisable to meet with an attorney to determine what claims you may be able to assert. Eric Beasley is a skilled Tennessee car accident attorney who is adept at assessing damages caused by car accidents, and he can aid you in seeking any compensation you may be owed. You can reach Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or through the online form to schedule a meeting.

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.

Establishing Causation in Car Accident Case

On appeal, the court stated that the plaintiff in a negligence action has the burden of proving that the defendant’s acts were the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s harm. In other words, proof that the defendant was negligent is irrelevant if no injuries were sustained. A defendant’s behavior will be the cause in fact of a plaintiff’s losses if the losses would not have occurred without the defendant’s acts. The court went on to explain that causation in a personal injury matter must typically be demonstrated by testimony from a medical expert, and that proof that an accident worsened a pre-existing condition is generally sufficient.

Here, the plaintiff argued that she met her burden of proof but that the jury ignored the unrefuted testimony of her expert. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument, finding that as the expert’s opinion was based on purely subjective findings, the jury was free to disregard it and to find that the accident did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries. As such, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the jury’s verdict.

Discuss Your Accident with a Knowledgeable Tennessee Attorney

If you were injured in a car accident, you may be owed damages and should meet with an attorney as soon as possible. Eric Beasley is a knowledgeable Tennessee car accident attorney who can advise you of your options and assist you in gathering any facts or evidence that will assist you in your pursuit of compensation. Mr. Beasley can be reached via the form online or at 615-859-2223 to schedule a meeting.

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.

Evidence of Comparative Negligence Under Tennessee Law

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the trial court erred in barring them from introducing evidence of the school’s internal policies. The appellate court noted that, regardless of whether the preclusion of such evidence was inappropriate, the plaintiffs were required to show the trial court’s alleged error affected their substantial rights, pursuant to Tennessee law. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such harm, however.

Specifically, the appellate court noted that the jury was tasked not only with determining whether the defendant school driver was negligent, but also the negligence of all other parties, using the nonexclusive factors established by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued the jury could not properly apply two of the factors, the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties when confronted with a risk, and the extent to which the defendant neglected to exercise an opportunity to avoid the plaintiff’s harm, without the precluded evidence.

The appellate court declined to adopt the plaintiffs’ reasoning, stating there was no evidence in support of their arguments. Further, the court stated that the jury was not instructed on any specific factors it should evaluate, but was merely told to determine the extent to which each party’s contribution contributed to the child’s harm. As such, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Tennessee Attorney

If you or a loved one suffered harm in a car crash, it is advisable to meet with an attorney to discuss your damages. Eric Beasley is a trusted Tennessee car accident attorney who possesses the skills and resources needed to seek favorable results, and he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Beasley through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to set up a conference.

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.

Vicarious Liability Under Tennessee Law

Under Tennessee law, a person seeking to impose vicarious liability for harm caused by a person operating a vehicle must establish that the person operating the vehicle was acting on behalf of his or her employer and in the scope of his or her employment at the time of the accident. The Tennessee Code provides, however, that when an employee is driving a vehicle owned by an employer, it is prima facie evidence that the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment. In other words, it is evidence that is sufficient to support the position asserted, unless it is contradicted or explained.

Thus, in the subject case, the defendant vehicle owner had the burden of proof of overcoming the presumption that the defendant driver was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The defendant, however, merely relied on his own testimony and the testimony of his son to refute the presumption. As such, the court found that the defendant vehicle owner failed to produce evidence sufficient to warrant a dismissal of the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims and reversed the trial court ruling.

Speak to a Capable Tennessee Attorney

If you or a loved one sustained injuries in a car accident caused by a person who was working for a company at the time of the accident, you should meet with an attorney to discuss what you can do to protect your interests. Eric Beasley is a capable Tennessee car accident attorney with ample experience helping injured parties seek redress for their harm, and he will work tirelessly on your behalf. Mr. Beasley can be reached at 615-859-2223 or through the form online to set up a conference.

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.

Evidence Needed to Establish Liability

In Tennessee, whether a duty is owed is a question of law, but issues of causation, proximate cause, and damages should be resolved by the factfinder. In the subject case, the plaintiff argued that the trial court should have awarded her $125,000, the amount sought in her complaint, based on the fact that the court granted her motion for summary judgment. The appellate court rejected this argument, however, pointing out that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the damages caused by the defendant’s negligence.

While proof of damages does not need to be precise, damages must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. Additionally, damages cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. Further, in cases in which a plaintiff seeks compensation for the cost of medical treatment, he or she must produce medical bills paid or accrued for treatment that is both reasonable and necessary. As the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence in support of her plea for damages, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Speak with an Experienced Tennessee Attorney

If you suffered harm in a car accident caused by another driver it is advisable to speak with an attorney regarding what claims you may be able to pursue to recover compensation for your harm. Eric Beasley is a trusted Tennessee car accident attorney with the knowledge and experience needed to help you seek a favorable outcome and he will aggressively advocate on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or via the online form to schedule a consultation.

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.

In turn, an appellate court will not overturn the trial court’s decision to deny a motion for a new trial, unless the appellate court finds that the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, the appellate court must determine whether the evidence is sufficient, by taking the strongest reasonable view of the evidence in favor of the verdict, allowing any reasonable inferences that will sustain the verdict, and disposing of any contrary evidence. If the material evidence supports the verdict, the verdict must be sustained.

In the subject case, the appellate court noted that evidence was presented at trial that showed the plaintiff was jogging in the dark on a highway without a pedestrian lane, on the wrong side of the road, and that the defendant was driving at or below the speed limit. Thus, the appellate court found the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion.

Meet with a Trusted Car Accident Attorney

If you suffered harm due to a motor vehicle collision, it is critical to engage an attorney who will zealously advocate on your behalf. Attorney Eric Beasley is a Tennessee car accident attorney with the skills and experience needed to help you seek a just result. Mr. Beasley can be contacted through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to set up a confidential and complimentary meeting to discuss your case.

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.

The court further explained that trial judges are granted the authority to control the proceedings in their court and that the authority is quite broad. Specifically, it includes the authority to dismiss a case for failure to comply with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or court order or for failure to prosecute. When a trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss a case due to the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the reviewing court will only overturn the ruling of the trial court, if it finds that the trial court acted arbitrarily or without reason. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the plaintiff routinely failed to show up for court hearings and was explicitly warned that if she did not appear for her trial the second time it was scheduled, her case would be dismissed. Thus, the appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s case.

Speak with an Experienced Tennessee Car Accident Attorney

If you sustained injuries in a car accident, it is in your best interest to retain an attorney to assist you in pursuing claims against the driver that caused the accident. Attorney Eric Beasley is an experienced Tennessee car accident attorney who will craft persuasive arguments in favor of your recovery of the full amount of compensation you may be owed. You can reach Mr. Beasley via the online form or by calling 615-859-2223 to schedule a complimentary and free meeting regarding your accident.

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.

The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior in Tennessee

In Tennessee, an employer may be held liable for the negligent acts of his or her employee if the acts are committed within the course and scope of employment. For an employer to be held liable for the tortious acts of his or her employee, the injured party must prove that the person who caused the injury was an employee, engaged in the employer’s business, and was acting in the course and scope of his or her employment at the time of the injury.

The court noted that an employee should not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior if the employee deviated or departed from his work to undertake a task unrelated to his or her employment, and the accident occurred during the deviation. In the subject case, the court found that the defendant driver left work early absent permission from her employer and that her travel during her shift was for personal reasons. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Consult an Experienced Injury Attorney Regarding Your Potential Claims

If you or a loved one sustained injuries in a Tennessee car accident it is critical to consult an experienced attorney as soon as possible regarding your potential claims. Attorney Eric Beasley is an assertive Tennessee car accident attorney who will work tirelessly to help you seek the best legal result available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or via the online form to schedule a consultation regarding your potential claims.

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.

Interpretation of Insurance Policy Exclusions

Policies of insurance are analyzed under contract principles. Thus, unless the terms of an insurance policy are ambiguous, it will be enforced as written. In the subject case, the policy contained and exclusion for coverage for injury resulting from criminal acts.  The court noted that other courts have sustained a denial of insurance coverage pursuant to an illegal acts policy exclusion when there was conclusive evidence that the insured driver was driving while under the influence.

Further, the court stated that there was no evidence that the accident and the other driver’s subsequent injuries was caused by anything other than the car owner’s intoxication. Specifically, the undisputed evidence of the case showed that the car owner was drinking prior to the accident and was unable to pass multiple field sobriety tests. Thus, the court found that the policy exclusion for criminal acts barred coverage for the car owner. Further, the court noted that the policy also barred coverage for any punitive damages. Accordingly, the court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.

Speak with a Knowledgeable Tennessee Car Accident Attorney About Your Case

If you were involved in a car accident and your insurer subsequently denied you coverage or benefits, you should meet with a trusted Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss whether you may be able to pursue a claim for benefits. Attorney Eric Beasley is a proficient attorney who can analyze the circumstances surrounding your accident and craft persuasive arguments in favor of your recovery of benefits. Mr. Beasley can be reached through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to set up a consultation to discuss your case.

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.

Sufficient Evidence to Prove Ownership

To grant a motion for summary judgment, the court must find that there are no true issues of the material facts of a case.  The plaintiffs argued that the trial court blindly accepted the defendant’s argument that he did not own the bull, despite the lack of evidence. On appeal, the court noted that there was conflicting testimony presented throughout the course of the case as to what type of cattle the defendant owned and as to what type of bull was involved in the accident. Thus, the court noted that a sufficient factual discrepancy existed to make summary judgment improper. Further, the court stated that the plaintiffs could prove their case via circumstantial evidence, and did not need to rely on direct evidence, as indicated by the trial court. Thus, the court reversed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Tennessee Car Accident Attorney to Discuss Your Case

If you were injured in a Tennessee car accident it is essential to meet with a trusted Tennessee car accident attorney to discuss your case and what evidence you must produce to hold another party responsible for your harm. Attorney Eric Beasley is a seasoned Tennessee car accident attorney who will craft effective arguments on your behalf to help you seek your desired outcome. Mr. Beasley can be contacted through the online form or at 615-859-2223 to set up a meeting to discuss your options.