 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrews v. Salter11/9/2000
hit the rear of Ms. Andrews' car, were not relevant to the issues in this case. Defense counsel's reference to the failure to mention a "head-on collision" can only be interpreted as a reference to the earlier collision. There was uncontroverted evidence that Ms. Andrews suffered no injuries in the prior accidents and had not displayed any pain or other problems after those accidents. The defense provided absolutely no linkage between the prior accidents and Ms. Andrews' injuries. Absent any such linkage, evidence regarding the fact that she had experienced prior automobile accidents had no more relevance than any other mishap or accident she may have experienced without injury. She was not required to disprove any other possible cause of her injuries, which was the burden placed upon her by the evidence of only the occurrence the prior accidents and the speculation encouraged by its introduction. Without a greater connection between the accidents and her injuries, the prejudice created by the evidence of the prior accidents was greater than any probative value it may have had.
Reviewing all the evidence and the jury's verdict, we cannot uphold the judgment.
Whether it be said that there is no evidence to support the verdict, or that the jury overlooked or ignored uncontroverted evidence, or that the jury acted upon a misconception of the evidence or the law, or that the verdict is so inconsistent or inadequate or both as to indicate the various forms of improper consideration by the jury, this Court is satisfied that justice was not done, and that the verdicts are not consonant with the facts shown by the uncontroverted evidence and the law applicable thereto. Loftis v. Finch, 491 S.W.2d 370, 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).
Ms. Andrews proved by her own testimony and by that of her co-worker and her doctor that she incurred injuries as a result of the accident caused by Mr. Salter, and the law did not require her to disprove every other potential cause. The defense was allowed to introduce the fact of two prior accidents with no evidentiary predicate that they were related to her injuries. There was simply no evidentiary basis to allow the jury to conclude that Ms. Andrews was injured in the prior accidents. We are convinced that the limited and incomplete evidence that two prior accidents occurred, without any basis for connecting them to Ms. Andrews' injuries, invited the jury to speculate that she had been injured in the prior accidents when there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to support such a conclusion.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal shall be taxed to Appellee, for which execution may issue if necessary.
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.
|
|