Day on Torts
Where the trial court found the plaintiff more credible in a bench trial surrounding a pedestrian accident, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion overturning a finding for the plaintiff on her negligence claim. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the negligence ruling, but it vacated the allocation of fault and award of damages for recalculation.
In a memorandum opinion in Easley v. City of Memphis, No. W2023-00437-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2025) (memorandum opinion), the Court of Appeals affirmed a negligence ruling it had previously overturned. The case involved a pedestrian injury, where the plaintiff was hit by a truck while crossing the street in the middle of the block. The truck was owned by the city and driven by a city employee. The nearest intersection had a crosswalk and was about forty feet away, but the plaintiff did not use the crosswalk.
During a bench trial, the plaintiff testified that the driver had stopped to allow a group of pedestrians to pass, but when she got to the middle of the truck, the truck moved forward and hit her. She also stated that the driver was on the phone and distracted. The driver, on the other hand, testified that he was stopped behind two other cars at an intersection. According to the driver, he began moving forward when the car in front of him moved forward, and the plaintiff stepped suddenly into his path.
The trial court specifically credited the plaintiff’s version of the accident. The trial court found defendant city liable for direct negligence for its negligent hiring and retention of the employee driver, as well as vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence. In response to the defendant’s comparative fault argument, the trial court attributed 10% of fault to the plaintiff and reduced the damages award accordingly.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially reversed the ruling for plaintiff, “finding that there was no proof of negligent hiring and that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s allocation of fault.” The Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff was at least 50% at fault, barring her recovery. The plaintiff appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which vacated the Court of Appeals opinion because the Court “fail[ed] to afford the trial court’s findings of fact appropriate deference.” This opinion followed.
In this second Court of Appeals opinion, the Court first considered the trial court’s ruling that the defendant driver was negligent. “The proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injury is an issue of fact to be determined by the factfinder,” and the Court of Appeals should “affirm the trial court’s decision unless the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s factual determinations or unless the trial court has committed an error of law affecting the outcome of the case.” (internal citation omitted). The Court noted that “the trial court relied heavily on its credibility determinations in finding that Plaintiff successfully established the causation elements of her negligence claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” (internal citation omitted). After reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, the Court concluded that “the trial court was faced with conflicting testimony regarding the cause of the accident, and resolved the dispute in favor of Plaintiff.” Because the evidence did not preponderate against this finding, the Court affirmed the ruling that the driver was negligent, and that the defendant city was vicariously liable for that negligence.
In its first opinion, the Court reversed the finding of direct liability on the part of the city. Because the plaintiff did not challenge that part of the ruling in her appeal to the Supreme Court, any argument that this reversal was error was waived.
The Court next reviewed the trial court’s allocation of 10% of fault to the plaintiff and 90% to the defendant. Because the Court vacated the finding of direct negligence by the city, it stated that the allocation of fault “may require an adjustment.” The removal of one party’s negligence meant that “the other parties necessarily have to fill in the vacuum that is left by the absent party.” (internal citation omitted). “When allocating fault between only [the driver’s] actions and Plaintiff’s actions, the trial court might find it necessary to alter its initial distribution.” (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, the fault apportionment was vacated.
The Court of Appeals also vacated the damages award with instructions for the damages to be recalculated. The Court pointed out that the trial court’s oral ruling mentioned different categories of damages and different amounts than its ultimate written ruling. Further, the written ruling included references to damages categories for which no evidence was presented. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to “be mindful to award only those damages for which reasonably certain proof was presented.” (internal citation omitted). The Court also, however, affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit testimony from the plaintiff’s expert that the plaintiff’s medical bills were reasonable and necessary, especially considering that the defendant presented no countervailing proof.
The second opinion analyzing this case illustrates how important a trial court’s credibility determinations can be. Because the trial court credited the plaintiff’s version of events, the plaintiff was successful in her appeal to the Supreme Court and won reinstatement of the negligence verdict in her favor.
This opinion was released three months after the issues were assigned on briefs.