 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Secrest v. Haynes9/8/2003
s negligent.").
Given the Trial Court's conclusion that Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence who was at fault, we believe requiring the Trial Court to assess fault under these circumstances also would run afoul of the Tennessee Supreme Court's opinion in McIntyre v. Ballentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). In McIntyre, the Court adopted a modified comparative fault system which "more closely link liability and fault," thereby doing away with the "obsolete" common law doctrine of contributory negligence. McIntyre, 833 S.W.2d at 56-58. This new system also did away with the doctrine of joint and several liability, which may "fortuitously impose a degree of liability that is out of all proportion to fault." Id. at 58. Under this new system, the Court observed that "because a particular defendant will henceforth be liable only for the percentage of a plaintiff's damages occasioned by that defendant's negligence, situations where a defendant has paid more than his `share' of a judgment will no longer arise ...." Id. at 58. The Court's adoption of a comparative fault system in McIntyre did not alter a plaintiff's burden of proof with regard to causation in a negligence claim. If we required the Trial Court to assign fault to one or both Defendants herein, then that Defendant(s) would be assessed a percentage of fault and held liable for monetary damages, even though Plaintiff never proved by a preponderance of the evidence that either Defendant was causally at fault.
We are very much aware of the seemingly inherent unfairness of any decision we render in this case. If we accept Plaintiff's position, then one or both Defendants will be held liable even though Plaintiff failed to prove either one was the cause of the accident. This does not sound right. If we accept Defendants' argument, then Plaintiff recovers no damages even though we know, accepting the Trial Court's findings as we have, at least one of the Defendants (but not which one) was at fault. This does not sound right either. Nevertheless, we believe we have reached the correct result since it was Plaintiff who at all times was required to establish each element in her negligence claim by a preponderance of the evidence, something she did not do. Our conclusion also is in accord with the principles of fairness discussed in McIntyre, supra. Fortunately, it is a rare case indeed when a trial court simply will be unable to "break the tie," as in the present case.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings as necessary, if any, consistent with this Opinion, and for collection of the costs below. Costs on appeal are assessed against the Appellant, Shirley Secrest, and her surety.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|