Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was operating a motorcycle, was struck by a car exiting the drive-through area of the defendant’s fast-food restaurant. The plaintiff sued the defendant property owner on a theory of negligence, arguing that the drive-through lane, which allowed customers to exit the property onto a five-lane highway, created an unreasonably dangerous condition.

Specifically, the plaintiff reportedly argued that the lane promoted an unregulated flow of traffic onto the highway, with no warning signs or traffic control devices. The plaintiff further alleged that the lane was dangerous because it permitted drivers to turn left onto the highway. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a duty or proximate cause, and granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed.

Proving Liability of a Parking Lot Owner

A plaintiff seeking to prove negligence must establish a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, conduct that fails to meet the standard of care, and therefore constitutes a breach, an injury, and causation. Additionally, the plaintiff must prove that any injury sustained was a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach.

Under Tennessee law, a property owner may owe a duty to people on a public road next to the property, if a condition on the property creates a foreseeable risk of harm. A property owner is not required to warn against conditions that do not create a foreseeable risk, however. In the subject case, the court noted that although the plaintiff argued that the drive-through lane created a dangerous intersection that had a history of motor vehicle collisions, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence in support of his contention.

Further, the defendant property owner produced an affidavit stating that she was unaware of any accidents caused by a driver exiting the drive-through lane either prior to or after the plaintiff’s accident. The defendant also produced a report from an expert which stated that the drive-through lane met or exceeded the Department of Transportation requirements. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Speak with a Seasoned Motorcycle Accident Attorney

If you or someone you love suffered damages in a Tennessee motorcycle accident, it is advisable to speak with a seasoned attorney to discuss your right to seek damages. Attorney Eric Beasley is a diligent Tennessee attorney who will zealously pursue the full amount of compensation you may be able to recover under the law. Mr. Beasley can be contacted through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to set up a confidential and free consultation to discuss your accident.

A Tennessee court recently explained the evidence needed to sustain a claim against the State and a contractor hired by the State to pave a highway, in a case in which a motorcyclist was injured in an accident caused by loose gravel.  If you were injured in a Tennessee motorcycle accident that was caused by a dangerous condition on a road or highway, you should consult a seasoned Tennessee motorcycle accident attorney regarding the evidence you need to prove liability for your harm.

Facts Regarding the Accident

Allegedly, the plaintiff was traveling over a portion of a highway maintained by the defendant State, that was recently been paved by the defendant contractor when the plaintiff struck a patch of loose gravel and lost control of his motorcycle. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries in the accident, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging they were liable for his injuries due to negligence and defective construction. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff couldn’t produce evidence showing that the gravel was from the defendant contractor’s paving project, or that either defendant had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition prior to the accident. Further, the defendant contractor argued that the State Construction Projects Liability Act precluded liability. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and the plaintiff appealed.

Evidence Admissible to Prove Liability

The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions, in part, due to a finding that expert testimony was needed to establish the origin of the gravel. On appeal, the appellate court disagreed with the trial court, holding that expert testimony was not necessary to determine whether the gravel on the road came from the paving project, as the average layperson could understand the physical characteristics of gravel and the mechanics of the paving process. After determining that lay testimony was admissible, the court then turned to the issue of whether the admissible evidence was sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the defendants’ knowledge of the dangerous condition.

Upon review, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to show that it was possible the defendant contractor failed to comply with the specifications set forth under the project and that both the defendant contractor and the defendant State had constructive notice of the dangerous condition created by the gravel. Thus, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Consult an Experienced Tennessee Motorcycle Accident Attorney About Your Accident

If you sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident in Tennessee you should consult an experienced Tennessee motorcycle accident attorney regarding your case and what you need to prove to recover compensation. Attorney Eric Beasley is a skilled Tennessee motorcycle accident attorney who can assist you in seeking the best legal result possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or via the online form to schedule a consultation.

In a recent Tennessee motorcycle accident case, the court looked at circumstances in which the plaintiff attempted service, but the service was never actually finalized. In that case, J.E. delivered a copy of his complaint and summons to the local Sheriff’s office for service. He also sent a courtesy copy to the defendant, P.H.’s insurer, and J.E. and the insurer had ongoing discussions about the resolution of the case. After some time had passed, J.E. realized that he had never received proof of service of the complaint on P.H. and reached out to the Sheriff’s office to inquire. The Sheriff’s office could not confirm if they had served the complaint and requested more time to look into it.

The Sheriff’s office subsequently confirmed that they had not served the complaint because they believed that it had been lost within their office. The explained that J.E. could serve a second alias complaint and summons on P.H., but first the Sheriff’s office needed to confirm in writing that the original versions were lost. Several weeks passed, and J.E. did not receive this written confirmation. Eventually, he reached back out to the Sheriff’s office, and they confirmed that the originals had been lost, and service of alias documents would be appropriate. By this time, the deadline for service had passed, and P.H. moved to dismiss the case.

Under those circumstances, plaintiffs face the risk not that the defendant will deny liability but that the defendant, the insurance company, will refuse to pay based on some term of the insurance agreement. In a recent case before the Sixth Circuit, an insurance company did exactly that, seeking to deny coverage to a plaintiff based on a policy exception that the Sixth Circuit ultimately determined should not apply.

In this motorcycle accident case, B.H. was injured while riding motorbikes one night with friends. At the time, B.H. and his friends had been drinking, and during their ride B.H. ran into another of his friends. The injuries he suffered were severe, and B.H. accrued more than $200,000 in medical bills. At the time of the accident, B.H.’s alcohol limit was twice the legal limit, and he was charged with operating a motor vehicle over the legal limit. Shortly thereafter, B.H. filed a claim with his insurance company, Companion Life, for his injuries. The plan administrator denied his claim, stating that he fell within an exclusion that prohibited coverage for injuries resulting from the “illegal use of alcohol.” B.H. argued that his use of alcohol was not illegal at the time because he was over the age of 21. Instead, it was his use of a motor vehicle that was illegal. Companion Life disagreed.

In this accident case, L.M. was driving his motorcycle in Louisville shortly after a large windstorm when he ran into a tree that had not been cleared from the road. L.M. suffered serious injuries from the accident. L.M. sued the Louisville Gas and Electric Company, as well as the Assistant Director of Public Works for Louisville. He alleged a negligent failure to remove the trees or warn pedestrians about the hazards in the road. L.M. also alleged that under Kentucky statute 179.070, the Assistant Director of Public Works, R.S., who was also a county engineer, had the duty to remove all trees and obstacles from the road and was negligent in failing to fulfill this duty.

At trial, R.S. acknowledged that the statute existed but testified that he was not aware of the statute at the time of the accident or his duties under the statute. He also testified that the Department of Public Works had delegated the handling of tree removal to the operations and maintenance division, which had always handled tree removal. In light of this evidence, the jury ultimately determined that R.S. had not failed to comply with his duty under the statute. L.M. immediately moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict went against the weight of the evidence because R.S. had acknowledged the statute placing the duty on him to remove trees, and he had not actually removed the trees that caused L.M.’s injury. The trial court denied the motion, and L.M. appealed.

Steps for a Motorcycle Claim

With any type of accident, your health is the main priority. Seeking out medical care should be the first step for severe injuries, followed by gathering the necessary information to file a claim.