§19.2 Duty Arising Because of Special Relationship
1. Downs v. Bush, 2007 WL 2471484 ( Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"The mother of a deceased eighteen-year-old filed this wrongful death action against four defendants with whom her son had been partying prior to his death. Following the party and during the drive on Interstate 65 back to the deceased’s apartment, the deceased, who had been riding in the bed of the pickup truck because he was intoxicated and nauseous, fell out or jumped out of the bed of the truck. Thereafter, the deceased was seen standing near but off of the roadway, at which time he ran into traffic, was struck by two vehicles traveling north on Interstate 65, and later died from the trauma. Following discovery, each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment contending, inter alia, he owed no duty to the deceased, he did not breach a duty, and the deceased’s injuries and death were the result of the deceased intentionally running into traffic. The trial court granted summary judgment without stating its grounds. This appeal followed. Finding each defendant is entitled to summary dismissal as a matter of law, we affirm." View opinion.
Note: The Tennessee Supreme Court has granted a Rule 11 application in this case.
2. Collins v. Arnold, No. M2004-02513-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by a car driven by an impaired driver who was killed in the collision. The plaintiff’s suit named as defendants the estate of the deceased driver, the nightclub from which the driver departed immediately before the accident, and the company which provided security services to the bar. The jury declined to find the nightclub liable for serving alcoholic beverages, thereby making the only available basis for liability negligence in controlling the conduct of the deceased driver so as to prevent harm to others. The
jury heard evidence that employees of the club and the security company had made efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the driver from leaving the premises in an intoxicated state. The jury found the plaintiff’s damages resulted from negligence and amounted to over $1,162,000. They allocated 30% of the fault to the deceased driver, 30% to the security company, and 40% to the club’s owner. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million against the club’s owner and $500,000
against the security company. The club owner appealed. Because the jury was not instructed as to the conditions for liability under an assumed, rather than imposed, duty of care as established in Section 324A of the Restatement of Torts, we must reverse the verdict and judgment thereon. For separate and independent reasons, we reverse the award of punitive damages, because the conduct of the bar’s personnel in attempting to prevent its adult customer from driving while impaired did not reach the level of recklessness necessary to sustain a punitive award. Additionally, we find no error in evidentiary rulings or other procedures in the trial court that justify reversal.
View opinion.
3. Daniel Pantoja Garcia vs. Norfolk Southern Railway Company,
E2006-02674-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this appeal of a directed verdict in a wrongful death case, Daniel Pantoja Garcia (“Husband”) claims that Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk Southern”) was negligent in failing to warn his now-deceased wife, Lydia Garcia (“Wife”), of the presence of diesel fuel inside a fuel tank that Wife, as an employee of Progress Rail Services Corporation (“Progress Rail”), was assigned to dismantle. As Wife was cutting the tank with a torch-cutter on Norfolk Southern’s property, the tank exploded, killing Wife. The trial court granted a directed verdict because it found no evidence that Norfolk Southern owed any duty in this case. We affirm." View opinion.
4. Robin Cunningham v. Norman Jones, M.D., et al., M2007-01112-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. (Mar. 14, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal from a grant of a motion for summary judgment. In 2002, the treating physician referred his patient to the hospital for testing. A radiologist at the hospital reviewed the patient’s test results, creating a radiology report. The findings in the report indicated that the patient did not suffer from renal failure. The top portion of the report labeled “Indications” stated “renal failure.” Thereafter, the report was placed in the patient’s file and also sent to the treating physician, who told the patient that she did not have renal failure. It was reported to her insurance, though, that the patient had renal failure. The trial court granted summary judgment for the claim against the radiologist, and the patient appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings." View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"The mother of a deceased eighteen-year-old filed this wrongful death action against four defendants with whom her son had been partying prior to his death. Following the party and during the drive on Interstate 65 back to the deceased’s apartment, the deceased, who had been riding in the bed of the pickup truck because he was intoxicated and nauseous, fell out or jumped out of the bed of the truck. Thereafter, the deceased was seen standing near but off of the roadway, at which time he ran into traffic, was struck by two vehicles traveling north on Interstate 65, and later died from the trauma. Following discovery, each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment contending, inter alia, he owed no duty to the deceased, he did not breach a duty, and the deceased’s injuries and death were the result of the deceased intentionally running into traffic. The trial court granted summary judgment without stating its grounds. This appeal followed. Finding each defendant is entitled to summary dismissal as a matter of law, we affirm." View opinion.
Note: The Tennessee Supreme Court has granted a Rule 11 application in this case.
2. Collins v. Arnold, No. M2004-02513-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by a car driven by an impaired driver who was killed in the collision. The plaintiff’s suit named as defendants the estate of the deceased driver, the nightclub from which the driver departed immediately before the accident, and the company which provided security services to the bar. The jury declined to find the nightclub liable for serving alcoholic beverages, thereby making the only available basis for liability negligence in controlling the conduct of the deceased driver so as to prevent harm to others. The
jury heard evidence that employees of the club and the security company had made efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the driver from leaving the premises in an intoxicated state. The jury found the plaintiff’s damages resulted from negligence and amounted to over $1,162,000. They allocated 30% of the fault to the deceased driver, 30% to the security company, and 40% to the club’s owner. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million against the club’s owner and $500,000
against the security company. The club owner appealed. Because the jury was not instructed as to the conditions for liability under an assumed, rather than imposed, duty of care as established in Section 324A of the Restatement of Torts, we must reverse the verdict and judgment thereon. For separate and independent reasons, we reverse the award of punitive damages, because the conduct of the bar’s personnel in attempting to prevent its adult customer from driving while impaired did not reach the level of recklessness necessary to sustain a punitive award. Additionally, we find no error in evidentiary rulings or other procedures in the trial court that justify reversal.
View opinion.
3. Daniel Pantoja Garcia vs. Norfolk Southern Railway Company,
E2006-02674-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this appeal of a directed verdict in a wrongful death case, Daniel Pantoja Garcia (“Husband”) claims that Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk Southern”) was negligent in failing to warn his now-deceased wife, Lydia Garcia (“Wife”), of the presence of diesel fuel inside a fuel tank that Wife, as an employee of Progress Rail Services Corporation (“Progress Rail”), was assigned to dismantle. As Wife was cutting the tank with a torch-cutter on Norfolk Southern’s property, the tank exploded, killing Wife. The trial court granted a directed verdict because it found no evidence that Norfolk Southern owed any duty in this case. We affirm." View opinion.
4. Robin Cunningham v. Norman Jones, M.D., et al., M2007-01112-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. (Mar. 14, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal from a grant of a motion for summary judgment. In 2002, the treating physician referred his patient to the hospital for testing. A radiologist at the hospital reviewed the patient’s test results, creating a radiology report. The findings in the report indicated that the patient did not suffer from renal failure. The top portion of the report labeled “Indications” stated “renal failure.” Thereafter, the report was placed in the patient’s file and also sent to the treating physician, who told the patient that she did not have renal failure. It was reported to her insurance, though, that the patient had renal failure. The trial court granted summary judgment for the claim against the radiologist, and the patient appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings." View opinion.