 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Barrow9/16/2003
t. App.1996); Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728, 733 n.4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
The courts give pro se litigants who are untrained in the law a certain amount of leeway in drafting their pleadings and briefs. Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d at 227; Paehler v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank, Inc., 971 S.W.2d at 397. Accordingly, we measure the papers prepared by pro se litigants using standards that are less stringent than those applied to papers prepared by lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S. Ct. 173, 176 (1980); Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 939 (Tenn. 1975); Winchester v. Little, 996 S.W.2d 818, 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Pro se litigants should not be permitted to shift the burden of the litigation to the courts or to their adversaries. They are, however, entitled to at least the same liberality of construction of their pleadings that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7, 8.05, and 8.06 provide to other litigants. Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d at 652. Even though the courts cannot create claims or defenses for pro se litigants where none exist, Rampy v. ICI Acrylics, Inc., 898 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), they should give effect to the substance, rather than the form or terminology, of a pro se litigant's papers. Brown v. City of Manchester, 722 S.W.2d 394, 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Usrey v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).
III. Mr. Young's Claims Against Harrison Brothers Insurance
We turn first to Mr. Young's assertion that the trial court erred when it granted Harrison Brothers Insurance a judgment on the pleadings. When reviewing orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 motion, we use the same standard of review we use to review orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Accordingly, we must review the trial court's decision de novo without a presumption of correctness, Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997), and we must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the non-moving party and take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true. We should uphold granting the motion only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that will entitle him or her to relief.
Harrison Brothers Insurance moved to dismiss the complaint or for a judgment on the pleadings because Mr. Young's pro se complaint contained no factual allegations regarding the company. Indeed, the complaint did not even mention Harrison Brothers Insurance except in the style of the case. In his response to the motion, Mr. Young faulted the company for paying the lowest repair estimate. Nevertheless, he never alleged that Harrison Brothers Insurance breached any duty it had by, for example, failing to pay enough to properly repair or replace the car. The bare allegation that an insurer refused to pay the most exorbitant estimate does not state a claim on which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Harrison Brothers Insurance.
IV. Mr. Young's Claims Against Ms. Barrow
Mr. Young also asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his renewed complaint because he was not a party in the original proceeding. He concedes that he participated in the proceeding, but he insists that he was only a witness for Ms. Buford. Now, he asserts that he wants his "day in court."
A.
This issue implicates the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata is a claim preclusion doctrine that promotes finality in litigation. Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|