CHADWICK DAVID DORMAN MOYER v. NASHVILLE MIDNIGHT OIL, LLC, D/B/A CADILLAC RANCH (Tenn. Ct. App. January 12, 2012)
Plaintiff sued to recover for injuries sustained while riding a mechanical bull in a bar owned by Defendant. Defendant appeals the trial court's determination that it was 100% at fault and resulting judgment for plaintiff. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/moyerc_011212.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
Showing posts with label Allocation of Fault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allocation of Fault. Show all posts
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Court reviews a jury's allocation of fault and jury instructions in a case involving an injury that occurred at a construction site
BENJAMIN INDOCCIO v. M&A BUILDERS, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 15, 2011)
This appeal arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained after falling down a staircase while working on the construction of a home. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the general contractor and the subcontractor responsible for the construction of the custom staircase. The matter was tried before a jury, and the jury returned a verdict finding Plaintiff fifty percent at fault, the subcontractor thirty-five percent at fault, and the general contractor fifteen percent at fault.
After his motion for new trial was denied, Plaintiff filed this appeal. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the subcontractor's employees used marijuana while working on the construction of the staircase, and erred by excluding evidence of misdemeanor convictions and probation violations of one of the subcontractor's employees. Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding notice, negligence, and foreseeability.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence of alleged marijuana use or the evidence of misdemeanor convictions and probation violations. Similarly, we find that the jury instructions on notice, negligence, and foreseeability were proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/indocciob_111511.pdf
This appeal arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained after falling down a staircase while working on the construction of a home. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the general contractor and the subcontractor responsible for the construction of the custom staircase. The matter was tried before a jury, and the jury returned a verdict finding Plaintiff fifty percent at fault, the subcontractor thirty-five percent at fault, and the general contractor fifteen percent at fault.
After his motion for new trial was denied, Plaintiff filed this appeal. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the subcontractor's employees used marijuana while working on the construction of the staircase, and erred by excluding evidence of misdemeanor convictions and probation violations of one of the subcontractor's employees. Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding notice, negligence, and foreseeability.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence of alleged marijuana use or the evidence of misdemeanor convictions and probation violations. Similarly, we find that the jury instructions on notice, negligence, and foreseeability were proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/indocciob_111511.pdf
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Court reviews whether defendant owed a legal duty to a plaintiff in a premises liability case
MARGARET A. NORFLEET v. PULTE HOMES TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Tenn. Ct. App. November 10, 2011)
While touring a model home in a new residential home development, the plaintiff fell when she failed to see a four-inch step as she walked from the foyer into the sunken living room. This premises liability action followed. The defendant constructed, owned, and managed the model home in which the plaintiff fell. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint upon two findings: that the defendant did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault. We affirm upon the finding that the plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was owed to her by the defendant.
Full opinion is available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/norfleetm_111011.pdf
While touring a model home in a new residential home development, the plaintiff fell when she failed to see a four-inch step as she walked from the foyer into the sunken living room. This premises liability action followed. The defendant constructed, owned, and managed the model home in which the plaintiff fell. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint upon two findings: that the defendant did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault. We affirm upon the finding that the plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was owed to her by the defendant.
Full opinion is available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/norfleetm_111011.pdf
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Court Reviews the Jury’s Allocation of Fault in a Medical Malpractice Case
JAMES AND PATRICIA CULLUM, ET AL. v. BAPTIST HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 17, 2011)
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs, parents of child who suffered severe, permanent brain injuries during the course of his labor and delivery, filed suit against their physician, physician's employer, and related hospitals.
The physician and her employer settled prior to trial, leaving the related hospitals as the only defendants. This case has been tried twice. Following the first trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, which the trial court set aside pursuant to the thirteenth juror rule.
The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, with the jury assigning 3.75 percent of fault to the defendants and 96.25 percent of fault to the non-party physician. Because the evidence shows that the members of the jury agreed to be bound by the result of a predetermined averaging process, we have concluded that the jury reached a quotient verdict, which is impermissible. Consequently, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cullumj_021711.pdf
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs, parents of child who suffered severe, permanent brain injuries during the course of his labor and delivery, filed suit against their physician, physician's employer, and related hospitals.
The physician and her employer settled prior to trial, leaving the related hospitals as the only defendants. This case has been tried twice. Following the first trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, which the trial court set aside pursuant to the thirteenth juror rule.
The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, with the jury assigning 3.75 percent of fault to the defendants and 96.25 percent of fault to the non-party physician. Because the evidence shows that the members of the jury agreed to be bound by the result of a predetermined averaging process, we have concluded that the jury reached a quotient verdict, which is impermissible. Consequently, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cullumj_021711.pdf
Friday, February 11, 2011
Court Reviews Apportionment of Fault in a Wrongful Death Case Against the City of Clinton
CURTIS ROBIN RUSSELL, ET AL. v. ANDERSON COUNTY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 11, 2011)
This is the second appeal of this wrongful death action, arising from a pedestrian versus motor vehicle collision that fatally injured a seven-year-old child at a downtown Clinton intersection.
The action was filed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act ("GTLA"), Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-20-101 et seq., against the City of Clinton ("the City") by plaintiffs Curtis Robin Russell and Dorothy Louise Russell as next of kin of the decedent, their son Curtis Tyler Russell. The Russells settled with the driver of the vehicle, Ladislav Misek ("Mr. Misek"), who was subsequently dismissed as a party-defendant from the lawsuit. The trial court in the first trial entered judgment after a nonjury trial, apportioning equivalent liability to Mrs. Russell and the City.
On appeal, this court held that: (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to rule on the fault to be attributed to Mr. Misek; and (2) material evidence existed for the culpability and fault to be assigned to Mr. Misek. On remand, the trial court altered its judgment, attributing 45% of the fault each to Mrs. Russell and the City and 10% to Mr. Misek. The City appealed. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/russellc_021111.pdf
This is the second appeal of this wrongful death action, arising from a pedestrian versus motor vehicle collision that fatally injured a seven-year-old child at a downtown Clinton intersection.
The action was filed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act ("GTLA"), Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-20-101 et seq., against the City of Clinton ("the City") by plaintiffs Curtis Robin Russell and Dorothy Louise Russell as next of kin of the decedent, their son Curtis Tyler Russell. The Russells settled with the driver of the vehicle, Ladislav Misek ("Mr. Misek"), who was subsequently dismissed as a party-defendant from the lawsuit. The trial court in the first trial entered judgment after a nonjury trial, apportioning equivalent liability to Mrs. Russell and the City.
On appeal, this court held that: (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to rule on the fault to be attributed to Mr. Misek; and (2) material evidence existed for the culpability and fault to be assigned to Mr. Misek. On remand, the trial court altered its judgment, attributing 45% of the fault each to Mrs. Russell and the City and 10% to Mr. Misek. The City appealed. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/russellc_021111.pdf
Friday, December 17, 2010
Court Reviews Jury’s Apportionment of Fault
ZULA GRAY v. JOE BEDNARZ, JR. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 17, 2010)
Plaintiff appeals a jury's determination that she was 60 percent at fault for the injuries she sustained. We find there is material evidence to support the jury's verdict. Therefore, we affirm the judgment entered in accordance with the jury's findings.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/grayz_121710.pdf
Plaintiff appeals a jury's determination that she was 60 percent at fault for the injuries she sustained. We find there is material evidence to support the jury's verdict. Therefore, we affirm the judgment entered in accordance with the jury's findings.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/grayz_121710.pdf
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Court Reviews a Jury’s Determination of Allocation of Fault in an Automobile Accident Case
LIMMIE R. WALLS v. BOBBY G. HOPKINS (Tenn. Ct. App. November 23, 2010)
This tort action arises out of a two-vehicle accident. Plaintiff sued defendant under a negligence theory and sought damages. After a jury trial, the jury equally allocated fault between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the jury's verdict is not supported by material evidence and that the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding plaintiff's intention to use a shortcut. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/wallsl_112310.pdf
This tort action arises out of a two-vehicle accident. Plaintiff sued defendant under a negligence theory and sought damages. After a jury trial, the jury equally allocated fault between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the jury's verdict is not supported by material evidence and that the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding plaintiff's intention to use a shortcut. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/wallsl_112310.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)