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.

Facts and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant driver struck the plaintiff while she was jogging. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant driver, setting forth negligence claims. She named the driver’s mother as a defendant as well, arguing that she negligently entrusted the driver with the vehicle he was operating during the accident and that she was vicariously liable for the harm he caused. The court dismissed the vicarious liability claim against the defendant mother via summary judgment, and the remaining claims proceeded to trial.

It is reported that, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant mother moved for a directed verdict on the negligent entrustment claim. The trial court denied her motion, and the court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff. She did not file a post-trial motion but later appealed the court’s judgment against her, arguing it erred in failing to grant her motion for a directed verdict. The plaintiff argued the defendant mother waived her right to appeal.

Recourse Following a Denial of a Motion for Directed Verdict

Under Tennessee law, in any case, tried by a jury, a party that seeks to file an appeal based on an act committed during the trial must first file a motion for a new trial; otherwise, the issue is considered waived. Further, a motion for a new trial must be filed within thirty days of when a judgment is entered. The court explained that the failure to file a post-trial motion denies the trial court the opportunity to reconsider an alleged mistake made during the course of the trial, and therefore precludes appellate review of the issue. As the defendant mother did not file a post-trial motion in the subject case, the appellate court found that, in accordance with the prevailing law, she waived her right to appeal.

Speak to an Experienced Tennessee Attorney

In some instances in which a driver causes a collision, people other than the driver may be deemed liable for the losses sustained. If you lost a loved one in a car accident, it is in your best interest to meet with a lawyer to assess your possible claims. Eric Beasley is an experienced Tennessee car accident attorney with the skills and resources needed to help you seek a just outcome, and he will advocate tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or via the online form to set up a conference.

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.

Factual History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a collision in the parking lot of a shopping center. The plaintiff sustained injures in the accident, after which he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging a claim of negligence. The case was tried in front of a jury, who found that the plaintiff was sixty percent at fault for the accident. Thus, pursuant to Tennessee’s comparative negligence law, the jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing that the jury’s finding was against the weight of the evidence. On appeal, the jury’s verdict was affirmed.

Comparative Fault in Tennessee

Under Tennessee law, allocation of fault is an issue of fact to be determined by a jury. Thus, when a jury’s finding of fault is called into question, a court reviewing the matter will only set aside the jury’s verdict if it finds a complete lack of material evidence in support of the verdict. In determining whether such evidence exists, a court will take the strongest view of the evidence that supports the verdict and assume it to be truthful. The court will also allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict and discard any evidence that disfavors the verdict.

An appellate court will not, however, re-evaluate the evidence or re-weigh the jury’s assessment of the preponderance of the evidence, as that is not within the purview of the courts. Evidence is material if it relates to the issue in controversy, and either independently or in conjunction with other evidence is determinative of the case. In the subject case, the appellate court found that upon review of the evidence presented, there was ample support for the jury’s verdict. Thus, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Speak to a Trusted Tennessee Attorney About Your Accident

People injured in car accidents are often owed damages even if they are partially responsible for causing the crash. If you suffered harm in a collision, it is prudent to talk to an attorney as soon as possible regarding your rights. Eric Beasley is a trusted Tennessee car accident attorney with the skills and experience needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Beasley at 615-859-2223 or via the form online to set up a conference.

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 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.

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.