The Accident and Trial

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving her car when she was struck by a commercial truck driven by the defendant. The plaintiff questioned the defendant during his deposition regarding his duties as a commercial truck operator under federal motor carrier regulations. The defendant then filed a motion to preclude the plaintiff from entering the regulations into evidence, on the grounds that she had not argued they formed the basis of a negligence per se claim or demonstrated that they established the standard of care. The plaintiff opposed the motion, but it was granted by the court. Following a trial, the jury found the parties equally liable and denied the plaintiff recovery. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to admit evidence of the federal motor carrier regulations.

Admission of Evidence in Truck Accident Cases

After reviewing the case, the appellate court ultimately ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff argued that the federal motor carrier regulations were relevant, and the refusal to allow her to introduce them into evidence was prejudicial. The court noted that under the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence will be considered relevant if it tends to make a fact more or less likely than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is important in deciding disputed issues.

The court went on to state that the regulations in question did not replace the Tennessee standard of care, but they did support the argument that a truck driver requires different skills and knowledge than an ordinary motorist. As such, the court found that they had some tendency to show the care required when driving a commercial vehicle and were arguably relevant. The court explained, though, that a court can exclude relevant evidence if its value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice or confusing the issues. In the subject case, the court found that the trial court’s reasons for precluding the evidence were sound. Thus, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Meet with a Trusted Tennessee Attorney

Truck drivers have an obligation to drive in a safe manner, and if they drive carelessly and harm people, they should be held accountable. If you were injured in a truck accident, you should meet with a lawyer to assess your potential claims. Eric Beasley is a trusted Tennessee truck accident attorney with ample experience fighting on behalf of people hurt by the negligence of others, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or through the form online to schedule a meeting.

Factual History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving on a road in Nashville when the defendant’s tractor-trailer crossed into the plaintiff’s lane and collided with the plaintiff. After the accident, the defendant truck driver fled the scene. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging claims of negligence. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed.

Establishing Liability in a Hit and Run Truck Accident

On appeal, the primary issue was whether the plaintiff set forth sufficient factual evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to determine that the defendant owned the truck involved in the accident. The court noted that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s passenger both testified in their depositions that they saw the defendant’s name on the trailer but not the tractor. The defendant’s representative, however, testified that it regularly exchanged its trailers with other companies, which would use their own tractors and drivers to pull the trailers.

Further, in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff produced an affidavit from his passenger, stating he saw the defendant’s name on the door of the tractor during the accident. The court noted that this contradicted the passenger’s earlier deposition testimony, and therefore, pursuant to Tennessee law, the contradictory statements had the result of canceling each other out. The court clarified that it was not an issue of credibility, but an issue of whether any evidence existed to support the plaintiff’s claim. In other words, the court explained, if a plaintiff’s proof of a fact lies solely with one witness and the witness both denies and affirms the fact without an explanation for the contradiction, the fact remains unproven. As such, the court found that the plaintiff had no evidence to support its position that the defendant caused the accident, and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims.

Speak with a Capable Truck Accident Attorney

If you were injured in an accident with a commercial truck, it is in your best interest to speak with an attorney regarding your rights and your possible claims for damages. Attorney Eric Beasley is a capable Tennessee truck accident attorney who is adept at helping injured parties seek recourse for their harm, and he will aggressively advocate on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Beasley can through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to schedule a confidential and free meeting.

Facts Regarding the Accident

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was assaulted at a convenience store, after which he was chased and struck in the head with a rock, rendering him unconscious in the left lane of a road. He was wearing camouflage. The defendant driver was driving a tow truck that was towing a police car. He turned into the left lane of the subject road at a speed slower than the posted speed limit. As he approached the decedent, another individual ran into the road to alert the defendant driver of the decedent’s presence. The defendant driver swerved to miss the individual and struck the decedent. The decedent ultimately died from his injuries. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant driver, his employer, and the County. A bench trial was held, during which the sole issue was whether the Defendant employer was liable for the purported negligence of the defendant driver.

Vicarious Liability Under Tennessee Law

The court stated that drivers have a duty to keep a lookout that an ordinary prudent person would keep in the same situation. Further, the duty to keep a lookout while driving is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-143.  The court noted, however, that merely because an accident occurs, it cannot be presumed that anyone acted negligently. Rather, the court explained that a person alleging negligence must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, but that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care, which amounted to a breach. The plaintiff must also establish proximate cause.

In the subject case, the court stated that while the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants breached the duty of care or caused the plaintiff’s decedent’s harm. Specifically, the defendant driver maintained a proper lookout and was traveling at a reasonable speed. He was not distracted and had no reason to anticipate that a pedestrian would be lying in the roadway. Thus, the court held that the defendant driver did not cause the accident. As the defendant driver did not act negligently, the court found that the defendant employer, which was a government entity, was entitled to immunity. Thus, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

Meet with a Truck Accident Attorney

If you suffered injuries in an accident with a truck, it is wise to speak with a seasoned attorney to discuss who may be liable for your harm. Attorney Eric Beasley is a capable Tennessee truck accident attorney who will work diligently to help you pursue any compensation you may be owed. You can contact Mr. Beasley through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to set up a complimentary and confidential meeting to discuss your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving a van when he was rear-ended by a truck driven by the defendant driver, on behalf of the defendant trucking company. Prior to the trial, the defendants stated their intention to offer the expert testimony of an accident reconstructionist during the trial. In response, the plaintiff filed a motion to preclude the reconstructionist’s testimony, arguing that he was not qualified to opine on the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries because he was not a medical doctor. The defendant argued, however, that the reconstructionist was testifying as to the force the accident would produce and the kinds of injuries that typically would arise out of such force, rather than the medical cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Upon review, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Opinions on Causation

In evaluating whether an expert should be permitted to testify, the court assesses if the expert’s testimony is reliable, and if so, if it is relevant. The court’s inquiry as to an expert’s qualifications must be related to the facts of the case, the nature of the issue, and the expert’s specific area of expertise. The party seeking to admit testimony must prove that it is admissible by a preponderance of the evidence. In evaluating whether testimony is reliable, the court will assess whether the expert’s theory can be tested or has been subject to peer review, the known error rate of the theory, and whether the theory is widely accepted.

In the subject case, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s proposed testimony fell outside of the realm of his expertise. Specifically, that his expertise in biomechanics did not qualify him to answer the ultimate issue of whether the accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court noted, however, that the defendant’s expert’s proposed testimony did not offer a conclusion as to the cause of the plaintiff’s harm. Rather, he stated that the force produced by the accident was not consistent with the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Thus, the court found that his opinions were within the realm of his expertise and denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Speak with a Dedicated Tennessee Truck Accident Attorney

If you were injured in an accident with a tractor-trailer, you should speak with a dedicated attorney regarding what damages you may be owed. Attorney Eric Beasley is a capable Tennessee truck accident attorney who will gather any available evidence in support of your claims to help you seek the best legal result available in your case. Mr. Beasley can be contacted through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to schedule a confidential and free conference regarding your case.

Factual Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving a tractor-trailer owned by his employer, when it was struck by another tractor-trailer, driven by the defendant. The plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the federal district court, seeking damages for injuries caused by the accident and loss of consortium. The plaintiff also filed a workers’ compensation claim with his employer to recover benefits.

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s employer filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The employer argued that it had paid $34,000 in benefits to the plaintiff and that it suffered property damage as a result of the accident and, therefore, should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. Upon review, the court granted the motion.

Permissive Intervention

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant a motion to intervene, if the request is timely and the party seeking to intervene wishes to assert a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the underlying action. In weighing whether to grant a motion to intervene, the courts will look at whether allowing a party to intervene will cause unjust delay or prejudice another party’s right to recover.

The Sixth Circuit developed a test for determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, that considers the progression of the underlying case, the amount of time the party seeking intervention knew or should have known of its interests in the case, and the purpose for seeking intervention. The test also assesses whether there are any factors weighing against permitting intervention and whether the intervenor’s failure to promptly seek intervention is prejudicial to the rights of the original parties.

In the subject case, the court found that the employer’s motion to intervene was timely as it was filed six weeks prior to the deadline for joining additional parties or amending pleadings. Further, the court found that intervention would allow the employer to protect its legal interests. The court noted that the plaintiff and employer may have some identity of interest, but found that it did not weigh against permitting intervention. Thus, the court granted the motion.

Meet with an Experienced Tennessee Truck Accident Attorney

If you sustained injuries in an accident with a commercial truck, it is important to speak with an experienced attorney regarding what damages you may be able to recover. Attorney Eric Beasley is a skillful Tennessee truck accident attorney who has the knowledge and experience needed to help you hold the parties that caused the accident accountable for your losses. You can reach Mr. Beasley via the online form or at 615-859-2223 to set up a free and confidential meeting regarding your potential claims.

Factual Scenario

Allegedly, the plaintiff and the defendant driver were involved in a car accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver, a truck driver, was negligent and that his employer should be held vicariously liable for her injuries. In response, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff caused the accident. The defendants served the plaintiff with expert disclosures as required by Federal law. The defendants’ expert reviewed photographs, video footage, and analyzed the specifications of the plaintiff’s vehicle, a reconstruction program and his own experience in determining that the plaintiff caused the accident by driving into the path of the defendant driver and that the collision was minor. The plaintiff moved to preclude the expert and his report, arguing that the report was contrary to the photographs of the accident and the physical evidence. The plaintiff also argued the report alleged negligent behavior on behalf of the defendant driver, not the plaintiff.

United States District Court of Tennessee Holding

The court stated that it is the duty of the party offering expert testimony to show the expert is qualified by a preponderance of the evidence. In determining whether an expert report is reliable, the court does not look to whether the opinion set forth is accurate, but whether the opinion is supported by factual evidence rather than mere speculation.

Upon review, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to preclude the defendants’ expert report. The court stated that the photographs of the scene did not support the conclusion that the report was unreliable, as any weakness in the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of the report. The court also explained that the fact that the plaintiff disagreed with the expert as to whether the defendant driver’s actions were reasonable was not grounds to exclude the report. Lastly, the court found the report included sufficiently reliable calculations regarding the force of the impact, that supported the expert’s opinion regarding the severity of the impact. Therefore, the court declined to exclude the report.

Retain an Experienced Tennessee Car Accident Attorney

Expert reports can provide strong evidence in support of your position in a car accident case, but they can also be used against you. If you were involved in a car accident, it is important to retain an experienced car accident attorney who can gather evidence in your favor and establish a strong argument that you are entitled to damages. Eric Beasley is a seasoned Tennessee car accident attorney with the knowledge and experience needed to assist you in recovering the damages you are owed. To schedule a meeting to discuss your case, call us at 615-859-2223.

More Blog Posts:

Tennessee District Court Holds That Boilerplate Language in an Incident Report is Insufficient to Provide Defendant Notice to Retain Records Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, October 25, 2018.

Tennessee Court of Appeals Rules Medical Records Are Admissible to Prove Plaintiff’s Prior Condition Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, September 25, 2018.

Spoliation of Evidence in Tractor-trailer accident in Tennessee Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, August 2, 2018.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff and a defendant tractor-trailer driver were involved in a collision in October 2016. Plaintiff sued defendant driver for negligence and defendant’s employer for vicarious liability. In June 2017, plaintiff sent defendants correspondence in which she requested that defendants preserve any evidence related to the accident, and specifically asked defendants to retain any daily logs produced by the electronic logging device in the truck for the date of the accident and the six months preceding the accident. Defendants advised plaintiff they no longer had the logs due to the fact that they were automatically overwritten every six months. Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against defendants alleging that defendants purposefully destroyed evidence related to the accident.

One way that plaintiffs can sometimes obtain a better chance of recovering on their award is to sue a defendant’s employer as well if the accident occurred while the defendant was on the job. This is called vicarious liability. While vicarious liability can be used to recover from employers who are responsible for their employees, the courts draw the line at making employers responsible for independent contractors that they may hire. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at what distinguishes an employee from an independent contractor in this analysis.

In this truck accident case, E.M. was struck by a truck driven by C.C. E.M. was thrown from his own vehicle and suffered serious injuries. He sued C.C. and Highways, Inc., for his injuries. At the time of the accident, C.C. was driving a dump truck for Highways, Inc., and was performing his duties as a driver for Highways, Inc.  E.M. argued that C.C. was acting in the role of employee, while Highways argued that C.C. was acting in the role of independent contractor. Highways quickly moved for summary judgment and, in support of their motion, submitted a list of nineteen undisputed facts, based on an affidavit from C.C., that they alleged showed that C.C. was a contractor. E.M. disputed nine of these facts and argued that this was enough to create genuine issues of material fact as to C.C.’s status and avoid summary judgment. The court held a brief hearing and ultimately concluded that there were no material facts in dispute. Accordingly, the court dismissed the claims.

In this truck accident case, J.G. and E.G. were injured after an accident involving their tractor and a trailer. On the day the accident occurred, J.G. was using his tractor to haul a trailer that belonged to R&J Express, LLC. According to the plaintiffs, the tandem axle on the trailer came loose while they were driving on the highway and the trailer quickly lost control. It eventually overturned, causing the tractor to overturn as well, and leading to both plaintiff’s injuries. Shortly thereafter, J.G. and E.G. retained counsel, and the counsel sent a litigation hold letter out to R&J instructing them to preserve the trailer at issue. Four days later, J.G. signed over the title of the tractor to his insurer, which had paid out for the accident, and the tractor was sold for scraps.

Several months later, J.G. and E.G. filed their lawsuit and R&J promptly responded. R&J then filed a motion for sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence. R&J argued that J.G. and E.G. knowingly failed to preserve evidence when they signed over title to the tractor after retaining legal counsel. R&J stated that because there were no witnesses to the accident, their defense would have to rely primarily on showing that some other technical error caused the accident. To the extent that the technical error came from the tractor, R&J were severely prejudiced as they had no ability to examine the tractor and determine any defects.

This Tennessee truck accident case resulted from a three-truck pileup that occurred in Shelby County, Tennessee. D.B. was working as a truck driver and driving his truck in July 2009 when he came upon significant traffic. D.B. slowed down and was able to come to a complete stop. However, H.F., who was also driving a truck for his employer, Celadon, was not able to stop in time and ran into the back of D.B.’s truck. As D.B. was recovering from that impact, a third truck driven by S.D., on behalf of his employer, Chickasaw, ran into the back of H.F., causing further damage to H.F. and D.B.’s trucks.

Although he did not initially believe he was injured, D.B. later began to suffer back and neck pain that increased in severity over time. He was ultimately forced to file a workers’ compensation claim and seek medical treatment. His neurosurgeon at the time found that he was suffering from a disc herniation and put him on reduced work. Eventually, D.B. was forced to stop working altogether. In 2010, D.B. filed a lawsuit against Celadon and Chickasaw, alleging that the accident with their vehicles caused his injuries.