REBECCA W. FORD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2012)
Rebecca W. Ford (“Plaintiff”) sued the State of Tennessee (“State”) regarding a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of Plaintiff’s daughter, Lynsey M. Ford.
After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that the State had not violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) or § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), and that the actions of Zachary L. Robinson were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We reversed the Trial Court’s judgment as to Zachary L. Robinson being solely at fault, and held that the State was 50% at fault for the Accident in our Opinion in Robinson v. State, docket No. E2011-01540-COA-R3-CV (“Robinson v. State”), released contemporaneously with this Opinion. We, therefore, remand this case to the Trial Court for the calculation of damages awarded to Plaintiff from the State for the death of Lynsey M. Ford.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/fordr_073112.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 Damages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Damages. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Court reviews an award for damages in a wrongful death claim brought before the Tennessee Claims Commission
IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES B. LEHMAN (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2012)
Claimant filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission to recover for the wrongful death of his father, a resident of Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute; the Commission awarded damages for loss of consortium, pain and suffering, and medical and funeral expenses. Claimant appeals the amount of damages awarded for loss of consortium and pain and suffering. We affirm the damages awarded for loss of consortium and modify the award of damages for pain and suffering.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lehmanc_052912.pdf
Claimant filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission to recover for the wrongful death of his father, a resident of Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute; the Commission awarded damages for loss of consortium, pain and suffering, and medical and funeral expenses. Claimant appeals the amount of damages awarded for loss of consortium and pain and suffering. We affirm the damages awarded for loss of consortium and modify the award of damages for pain and suffering.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lehmanc_052912.pdf
Monday, April 30, 2012
Court reviews a remittitur in a case involving an automobile accident
KAREN JOHNSON v. BEVERLY NUNIS AND FARMER’S INSURANCE EXCHANGE (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2012)
This appeal involves remittitur of a jury verdict. The defendant driver caused a vehicular accident that resulted in substantial personal injuries to the plaintiff. At trial, several witnesses testified to the amount of the plaintiff’s economic damages as well as the noneconomic impact of her injuries. After a trial, the jury returned a special verdict with awards for various categories of economic and non-economic damages.
The trial court denied the defendant insurance company’s motion for a new trial but suggested an overall remittitur as to the total verdict. The plaintiff accepted the remittitur under protest and filed this appeal. We affirm the denial of a new trial, reverse the suggestion of remittitur, and reinstate the original jury verdict.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/johnsonk_042712.pdf
This appeal involves remittitur of a jury verdict. The defendant driver caused a vehicular accident that resulted in substantial personal injuries to the plaintiff. At trial, several witnesses testified to the amount of the plaintiff’s economic damages as well as the noneconomic impact of her injuries. After a trial, the jury returned a special verdict with awards for various categories of economic and non-economic damages.
The trial court denied the defendant insurance company’s motion for a new trial but suggested an overall remittitur as to the total verdict. The plaintiff accepted the remittitur under protest and filed this appeal. We affirm the denial of a new trial, reverse the suggestion of remittitur, and reinstate the original jury verdict.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/johnsonk_042712.pdf
Monday, November 14, 2011
Court reviews a jury's determination that plaintiffs did not suffer personal injuries as a result of an explosion
CHARLES ROACH AND JOYCE ROACH V. DIXIE GAS COMPANY; BEN THOMAS WILLIAMS, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OWNER AND MANAGER OF DIXIE GAS COMPANY; SEMSTREAM, L.P.; SANTIE WHOLESALE OIL COMPANY, A DIVISION OF BLUE RHINO RELIABLE PROPANE; AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. November 14, 2011)
This lawsuit for damages arises out of an explosion. The plaintiff customers went to the defendant propane gas facility to fill their recreational vehicle with propane. Soon after they arrived, one of the propane hoses began to leak, and propane gas vapor began to envelope the premises. After a short period of time, the propane gas tank exploded, causing devastating property damage and destroying the plaintiffs' recreational vehicle.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that they were near the explosion site when the explosion occurred, and that the explosion caused them numerous physical and psychological injuries. The defendants admitted liability and compensated the plaintiffs for their property damage. The defendants claimed, however, that the plaintiffs were not present at the explosion site when the explosion occurred and did not sustain any personal injuries caused by the explosion. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, determining that the explosion did not cause any personal injuries to the plaintiffs and awarding zero damages. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm.
The Full Opinion may be found here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/roachc_111411.pdf
This lawsuit for damages arises out of an explosion. The plaintiff customers went to the defendant propane gas facility to fill their recreational vehicle with propane. Soon after they arrived, one of the propane hoses began to leak, and propane gas vapor began to envelope the premises. After a short period of time, the propane gas tank exploded, causing devastating property damage and destroying the plaintiffs' recreational vehicle.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that they were near the explosion site when the explosion occurred, and that the explosion caused them numerous physical and psychological injuries. The defendants admitted liability and compensated the plaintiffs for their property damage. The defendants claimed, however, that the plaintiffs were not present at the explosion site when the explosion occurred and did not sustain any personal injuries caused by the explosion. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, determining that the explosion did not cause any personal injuries to the plaintiffs and awarding zero damages. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm.
The Full Opinion may be found here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/roachc_111411.pdf
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Court Reviews a Summary Judgment Ruling in a Case in Which Defendant Negated the Damages Element
PAMELA CHAMPION, ET AL. v. CLC OF DYERSBURG, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 22, 2011)
The trial court awarded Defendant summary judgment on the basis that Defendant had negated the element of damages in this personal injury action. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/championp_022211.pdf
The trial court awarded Defendant summary judgment on the basis that Defendant had negated the element of damages in this personal injury action. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/championp_022211.pdf
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Rear end collision plaintiff awarded zero, discretionary costs remanded for reconsideration
BERNARD HUGHES v. DEMAR HUDGINS (Tenn. Ct. App. August 17, 2009)
The plaintiff claimed that he suffered neck and back injuries after the automobile in which he was riding was rear-ended by the defendant's automobile. The defendant admitted breach of the standard of care, but the jury found that the plaintiff had suffered no damages as the result of the accident, and he was not awarded any recovery. The trial court awarded the defendant $645.95 in discretionary costs to cover the court reporter fees he incurred for depositions. The plaintiff argues on appeal that there was no material evidence to support the jury's verdict. For his part, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in declining to award him all of the discretionary costs he requested. We affirm the jury verdict, but we remand the issue of the award of discretionary costs.
The opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hughesb_081709.pdf
CLEMENT concurring in part and dissenting in part:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hughesb_CON_081709.pdf
"The basis for the trial court’s decision to award Mr. Hudgins some, but not all, of his discretionary costs is unclear from the record. Because of the discretion given to the trial court and its authority to apportion costs “as the equities demand,” we must remand this matter to the trial court for consideration of the award of discretionary costs." Id.
The plaintiff claimed that he suffered neck and back injuries after the automobile in which he was riding was rear-ended by the defendant's automobile. The defendant admitted breach of the standard of care, but the jury found that the plaintiff had suffered no damages as the result of the accident, and he was not awarded any recovery. The trial court awarded the defendant $645.95 in discretionary costs to cover the court reporter fees he incurred for depositions. The plaintiff argues on appeal that there was no material evidence to support the jury's verdict. For his part, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in declining to award him all of the discretionary costs he requested. We affirm the jury verdict, but we remand the issue of the award of discretionary costs.
The opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hughesb_081709.pdf
CLEMENT concurring in part and dissenting in part:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hughesb_CON_081709.pdf
"The basis for the trial court’s decision to award Mr. Hudgins some, but not all, of his discretionary costs is unclear from the record. Because of the discretion given to the trial court and its authority to apportion costs “as the equities demand,” we must remand this matter to the trial court for consideration of the award of discretionary costs." Id.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)