§20.1 Admissibility of Testimony
1. Points v. Thompson, No. M2006-02425-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 1/9/2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this case arising from an automobile accident, the issues presented are whether there is material evidence supporting the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude, as inadmissibly speculative, portions of his own medical expert’s testimony on cross-examination. Because we find that there is material evidence supporting the jury verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion in limine, we affirm the judgment of the trial court." Read the opinion.
2. Heaton v. Sentry Insurance Co., No. M2006-02104-COA-R3-CV (1/9/2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this personal injury action, the sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to exclude the testimony of a medical expert as untrustworthy under Tenn. R. Evid. 703. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the expert’s opinion was based on sufficient credible facts and data to satisfy the trustworthy requirement of Tenn. R. Evid. 703. We therefore affirm the trial court judgment." Read the opinion.
3. Sparks v. Mena, E2006-02473-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff brought this action alleging that a surgical device manufactured by the defendant was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, which resulted in the accidental laceration of her aorta during abdominal surgery. Upon our determination that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of other similar incidents involving actual or potential surgical injuries with the same model of device, and that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial." Read the opinion.
4. Jones v. Shelby County Dept. of Corrections,
No. W2007-00198-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The Appellant, Shelby County Division of Corrections (“SCDC”), appeals the judgment of the trial court in favor of Appellee inmates. Appellee inmates filed suit against the SCDC, under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”), for injuries sustained when a metal ventilation system fell from the ceiling while officers were performing a search of the cell block. The SCDC asserts three points of error: (1) that the SCDC is not a governmental entity, as defined by T.C.A.§ 29-20-102(3)(A) of the GTLA so as to be subject to suit thereunder; (2) that expert testimony was required as to the cause of the system’s collapse; and (3) that the trial court erred in not considering the fault of unknown inmates in manipulating the ventilation system. Finding no error, we affirm." View opinion.
5. Robert A. Ward and wife, Sally Ward v. City of Lebanon, Tennessee; City of Lebanon Gas Department; James N. Bush Construction, Inc.; Foster Engineering & Energy, Inc. & Water Management Services, LLC, M2006-02520-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Plaintiff, while excavating, struck a gas line which resulted in an explosion and fire, seriously injuring plaintiff. Plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants and the case went to trial against the City of Lebanon and Bush Construction Company, Inc. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and allocated percentages of fault as to both defendants and the plaintiff. The Trial Court entered Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants appealed. We reverse the Trial Court Judgment and remand for a new trial on the grounds that a part of the charge to the jury was erroneous."
View opinion.
6. Donald W. McCuthcheon, et al vs. TND Associates, L.P., et al, E2007-01073-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"A jury awarded the plaintiff homeowners judgment against their residential building contractor for damages sustained by the plaintiffs when the slope upon which their home was constructed failed. The defendant contractor appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an expert witness to testify outside his area of expertise and by allowing another witness to testify as an expert when the plaintiff had failed to identify him as a witness before trial. Upon careful review of the record, it is our determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of the testimony of these witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."
View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"In this case arising from an automobile accident, the issues presented are whether there is material evidence supporting the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude, as inadmissibly speculative, portions of his own medical expert’s testimony on cross-examination. Because we find that there is material evidence supporting the jury verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion in limine, we affirm the judgment of the trial court." Read the opinion.
2. Heaton v. Sentry Insurance Co., No. M2006-02104-COA-R3-CV (1/9/2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this personal injury action, the sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to exclude the testimony of a medical expert as untrustworthy under Tenn. R. Evid. 703. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the expert’s opinion was based on sufficient credible facts and data to satisfy the trustworthy requirement of Tenn. R. Evid. 703. We therefore affirm the trial court judgment." Read the opinion.
3. Sparks v. Mena, E2006-02473-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff brought this action alleging that a surgical device manufactured by the defendant was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, which resulted in the accidental laceration of her aorta during abdominal surgery. Upon our determination that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of other similar incidents involving actual or potential surgical injuries with the same model of device, and that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial." Read the opinion.
4. Jones v. Shelby County Dept. of Corrections,
No. W2007-00198-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The Appellant, Shelby County Division of Corrections (“SCDC”), appeals the judgment of the trial court in favor of Appellee inmates. Appellee inmates filed suit against the SCDC, under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”), for injuries sustained when a metal ventilation system fell from the ceiling while officers were performing a search of the cell block. The SCDC asserts three points of error: (1) that the SCDC is not a governmental entity, as defined by T.C.A.§ 29-20-102(3)(A) of the GTLA so as to be subject to suit thereunder; (2) that expert testimony was required as to the cause of the system’s collapse; and (3) that the trial court erred in not considering the fault of unknown inmates in manipulating the ventilation system. Finding no error, we affirm." View opinion.
5. Robert A. Ward and wife, Sally Ward v. City of Lebanon, Tennessee; City of Lebanon Gas Department; James N. Bush Construction, Inc.; Foster Engineering & Energy, Inc. & Water Management Services, LLC, M2006-02520-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Plaintiff, while excavating, struck a gas line which resulted in an explosion and fire, seriously injuring plaintiff. Plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants and the case went to trial against the City of Lebanon and Bush Construction Company, Inc. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and allocated percentages of fault as to both defendants and the plaintiff. The Trial Court entered Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants appealed. We reverse the Trial Court Judgment and remand for a new trial on the grounds that a part of the charge to the jury was erroneous."
View opinion.
6. Donald W. McCuthcheon, et al vs. TND Associates, L.P., et al, E2007-01073-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"A jury awarded the plaintiff homeowners judgment against their residential building contractor for damages sustained by the plaintiffs when the slope upon which their home was constructed failed. The defendant contractor appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an expert witness to testify outside his area of expertise and by allowing another witness to testify as an expert when the plaintiff had failed to identify him as a witness before trial. Upon careful review of the record, it is our determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of the testimony of these witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."
View opinion.