Chapter 14: Comparative Fault

1.  Carl Anderson, Ed Howell Anderson, and Gary Anderson v. U.S.A. Truck, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, and Lonzie E. Neal, No. W2006-01967-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2008).

The Court's Summary:

"This is a vehicular accident case. The three plaintiffs, a father and two grown sons, were riding in a truck pulling a trailer. An 18-wheeler driven by the individual defendant rear-ended the plaintiffs. In the days after the accident, all three plaintiffs sought medical treatment for back and neck pain. They filed this lawsuit against the defendants for injuries sustained in the accident. In the jury trial, after the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of punitive damages. At the conclusion of the six-day trial, the jury awarded two of the plaintiffs $10,000 each in damages and awarded the other plaintiff $200,000. Fault for the accident was apportioned 70% to the defendant and 30% to the driver of the plaintiffs’ truck, so the plaintiffs’ awards were reduced by 30%. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to for additur or for a new trial. The plaintiffs now appeal, claiming that the issue of punitive damages should have been presented to the jury, that the amount of the jury’s awards were de minimus and outside the realm of reasonableness, and that there was no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm, finding inter alia that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict on the issue of punitive damages, and that material evidence supported the jury’s verdict."

2.  Curtis Robin Russell, et al vs. Anderson County, et al, No. E2008-00925-COA-R3-CV (Sept. 8, 2009).

The Court's Summary:

In this wrongful death action, the Trial Court assessed 50% fault for the death to plaintiff mother, and 50% fault to defendant. The Complaint charged that the motor vehicle operator who struck decedent was at fault in the accident, but plaintiff settled with that defendant and the action was dismissed as to the defendant. The Trial Judge pretermitted the issue of fault chargeable to the dismissed defendant. On appeal, we vacate the Trial Court’s Judgment and remand with instructions to rule on the pretermitted issue.

§14.1 Abolition of Joint and Several Liability as General Rule

§14.2 Addition of Defendants After Expiration of Statute of Limitations (Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119)

§14.3 Allocation of Fault to One Protected by Governmental Immunity

§14.4 Allocation of Fault to One Protected by Statute of Repose

§14.5 Allocation of Fault to One Whose Conduct Cannot Be the Legal Cause of an Injury

§14.6 Allocation of Fault to a Product

§14.7 Allocation of Fault to an Unknown Party Generally

§14.8 Allocation of Fault to an Unknown Party in a Motor Vehicle Case

§14.9 Applicability to Breach of Implied Warranty Cases

§14.10 Applicability to Fraud

§14.11 Applicability to Nuisance

§14.12 Bifurcated Fault Allocations

§14.13 Duty of Defendant to Allege Causative Acts or Omissions of Another

§14.14 Effect of Concerted Action

§14.15 Effect of Co-Tortfeasor Committing Intentional Wrong

§14.16 Effect of Injured Plaintiff’s Fault on Recoverability in Loss of Consortium Claimant’s Action

§14.17 Effect on Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(UM Claim)

§14.18 Factors Considered in Fault Allocations

§14.19 Fault of Plaintiff’s Employer or Co-Employee

§14.20 Fifty Percent Rule

§14.21 Financial Impact of Settlement With One of Multiple Tortfeasors

§14.22 Indemnity

§14.23 Modification by Trial Judge of Fault Percentages Assigned by Jury

§14.24 Negligent Entrustment

§14.25 Several Liability as a General Rule

§14.26 Strict Liability Cases

§14.27 Tortfeasors in a Single Event May be Tried Separately

§14.28 Vicarious Liability After Comparative Fault