Day on Torts
In a car accident case where the jury found the defendant not liable, the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict based partially on evidence from which the jury could have found the plaintiff not credible.
In Summerrow v. Welsh, No. E2023-00772-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2024), plaintiff and defendant were involved in a car accident in a mall parking lot. A police officer who was called to the scene reported very minor damage to the vehicles, which were corner to corner on the front bumpers. Plaintiff did not report any injuries to the officer.
According to plaintiff, he began having neck and shoulder issues the day after the wreck that required various treatments over the following years. Plaintiff filed this personal injury suit based on this neck and shoulder injury.
At a jury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant pulled suddenly from a parking lot into his lane of traffic. Defendant’s widow testified that defendant came to a full stop, looked both ways, then began pulling into the lane. She stated that plaintiff’s car came out of nowhere and that defendant brought his vehicle to a full stop before being “bumped” by plaintiff’s car.
Plaintiff testified at trial that he had not had any previous neck and shoulder issues, but on cross examination he admitted that he “previously dealt with neck problems off and on.” Two of plaintiff’s treating medical professionals testified. One stated that plaintiff had informed him he had no previous issues. When asked if plaintiff having previous neck issues would have changed his opinion on causation, the witness responded that “it could.” In addition, defendant presented testimony from a doctor that the x-ray plaintiff received the day after the accident showed an underlying, pre-existing condition that was degenerative in nature and would not have been related to the accident.
The jury returned a verdict finding defendant not at fault. In this opinion, where the only issue was whether there was material evidence to support the verdict, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court noted that “fault or negligence is not presumed from the mere fact of an accident or injury,” and that “where there is conflicting evidence…, the question of fault is for the jury to decide.” (internal citations omitted). Although plaintiff argued on appeal that defendant violated two statutory rules of the road, therefore establishing negligence per se, the Court explained that the jury could have believed defendant’s version and found that plaintiff actually violated a statute. (And, to the author, it is obviously that that is exactly what the jury found!)
The Court pointed out that plaintiff was the only witness who testified that defendant was at fault in the accident, so the jury’s verdict could have been based on its credibility determinations. Plaintiff was shown to have been less than forthcoming on multiple occasions regarding his previous neck and shoulder pain. Defendant also introduced evidence that plaintiff stated he was not referred to a certain doctor by his attorney, but the doctor’s records stated that such a referral did occur. The Court wrote that “there was material evidence upon which the jury could discredit Plaintiff’s testimony,” but there was no evidence whatsoever calling into question the credibility of defendant’s widow.
Because there was material evidence to support the defense verdict, the jury verdict was affirmed.
This was a classic “he said, she said” case on the liability issue and a “he said, doctor’s records said” case on the injury issues. The decision reminds us on how jury decisions on credibility on an issue in the case can potentially impact other issues in the case. While we don’t know exactly why the jury decided that there was no fault on the part of defendant’s decedent, we do know that the defense lawyer was given additional ammunition on the credibility issue given some of plaintiff’s testimony on the damages side of the case.
One final point. After the loss of a jury trial, litigants (and some lawyers) think that the jury was so obviously wrong that its verdict will be reversed on appeal. There are some jury verdicts reversed on appeal, such as when there are erroneous evidentiary rulings by the judge, inappropriate jury instructions, etc. But where the sole basis of an appeal is that a trial court-approved jury verdict is in error, the odds of a reversal are about the same as a majority of Tennessee voters selecting Vice President Harris for President in November, 2024.
In fact, the odds of winning such an appeal are probably worse.
The Court of Appeals released this opinion one month after oral arguments in this case.