Court reviews whether the trial court properly ruled that defendant negated the element of proximate cause in an automobile accident case

TIMOTHY A. MOORE v. HUGH A. BUTLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT AND SERVANT OF ANTHONY WOMMACK d/b/a WOMMACK TRUCKING, AND ANTHONY WOMMACK d/b/a WOMMACK TRUCKING, AND McCOY'S HEATING & AIR, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 1, 2011)

This appeal involves summary judgment in a vehicular accident case. In a line of vehicles, the defendant service vehicle was first, followed by the plaintiff's tractor-trailer, and then by the co-defendant's tractor-trailer. The defendant's service vehicle allegedly made a left turn without braking or using a turn signal, forcing the plaintiff's tractor-trailer to brake quickly. This resulted in the co-defendant's tractor-trailer rear-ending the plaintiff's tractor-trailer.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant tractor-trailer for rear-ending him, and against the defendant service vehicle that turned in front of him. The defendant service vehicle owner filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the defendant service vehicle owner had negated the element of proximate cause. The defendant tractor-trailer owner appeals. We reverse under the summary judgment standard in Hannan v. Alltel Publ'g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008).

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/mooret_.pdf

Court reviews claims of lost equity in a case involving a tractor trailer collision

LEROY JACKSON, JR. v. PURDY BROTHERS TRUCKING CO., INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 12, 2011)

This appeal arises from a tractor-trailer ("truck") collision involving two professional drivers, Leroy Jackson, Jr., who was driving as an owner operator for USA Trucking, and Blair B. Greene, who was employed by Purdy Brothers Trucking Company, Incorporated ("PBTCI") and Loudon County Trucking ("LCT"), both formerly doing business as Purdy Brothers Trucking ("PBT"). Mr. Jackson's truck was repossessed shortly after it was repaired, and he filed suit against Mr. Greene, PBTCI, and LCT (collectively "Trucking Company") for property damage, loss of income, lost equity in his truck, incidental expenses, and punitive damages. Trucking Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

The trial court granted the motion, in part, holding that Trucking Company was not liable for the lost equity in the truck but that the case could proceed on the remaining issues. Trucking Company made an offer of judgment, which was accepted by Mr. Jackson and set forth in the court's final order. Mr. Jackson appeals, contending that the court erred in granting partial summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal because Mr. Jackson accepted the offer of judgment without reserving the right to appeal.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/jacksonl_101211.pdf

Drug testing evidence allowed in motor vehicle accident to show causation and credibility, no relief for invited error

JOHN C. BLAIR v. ROBERT SULLIVAN, JR., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 22, 2009)

This appeal involves the plaintiff's negligence claim which arose from a motor vehicle accident with the defendant. Plaintiff first asserts that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff's positive drug test to be admitted as evidence. Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court's jury instructions were improper and that the jury's verdict is not supported by the evidence. Reviewing plaintiff's first assertion, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug test as evidence. Likewise, we find that the jury instructions were proper and that there is material evidence supporting the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The full text of this opinion is available at the TBA website: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/blairj_081309.pdf

“Here, Plaintiff does not explain how the introduction of the drug test result into evidence would result in unfair prejudice. Plaintiff’s sole complaint is that defendant’s attorney discussed the drug test’s effect on damages during closing argument. As mentioned above, plaintiff failed to object to these statements in the trial court. Because plaintiff does not point to any other prejudice, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the drug test result was not excluded under Tenn. R. Evid. 403.” Id.

“Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred by failing to explain the context of the statute and by failing to omit certain irrelevant provisions of the statute in its instruction. Parties, however, are not entitled to relief on appeal from invited error. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). Plaintiff asked the trial court to read the entire statute as a jury instruction. Consequently, he is not entitled to relief on appeal on this issue.” Id.