 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schindel v. Bass6/18/1999
This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile collision. Geary Schindel and Susan Schindel, on their behalf and on behalf of their two minor children, Graham and Aspen Schindel, ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against Richard Bass and his employer Comdata Network, Inc. ("Defendants") for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.
On December 20, 1993, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Susan Schindel ("Schindel") was driving her car southbound on Franklin Pike toward the intersection of Franklin Pike and Harding Place in Nashville, Tennessee. Schindel's two children, Graham and Aspen, were passengers in the car. It was a dark and rainy night. At the intersection, the traffic light indicated a green light. Schindel yielded to oncoming traffic and allowed several cars to pass through the intersection before turning left. Schindel saw no more cars and began to make the left turn. Her vehicle was struck by a van driven by Richard Bass ("Bass"), who was traveling northbound on Franklin Pike. Schindel acknowledges that she did not see Bass but alleges that it was because Bass was driving without headlights.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Richard Bass on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to establish the essential elements of their negligence claim through competent evidence. Plaintiffs appeal.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted when the movant demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, allow all reasonable inferences in favor of that party, and discard all countervailing evidence. Bain, 936 S.W.2d at 622. In Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993), our Supreme Court stated:
"Once it is shown by the moving party that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must then demonstrate, by affidavits or discovery materials, that there is a genuine, material fact dispute to warrant a trial. In this regard, Rule 56.05" provides that the nonmoving party cannot simply rely upon his pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 211 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Summary judgment is only appropriate when the facts and the legal Conclusions drawn from the facts reasonably permit only one Conclusion. Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995). Since only questions of law are involved, there is no presumption of correctness regarding a trial court's grant of summary judgment. Bain, 936 S.W.2d at 622. Therefore, our review of the trial court's grant of summary judgment is de novo on the record before this Court. Warren v. Estate of Kirk, 954 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tenn. 1997).
On appeal, Schindel contends that she submitted sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Bass was driving without headlights at the time of the accident. Schindel argues that a reasonable inference of fact may be drawn from her testimony that she failed to observe Bass, and that her failure to see Bass must have been because Bass was driving without headlights at the time of the accident.
In support of her argument, Schindel cites Rogers v. Bouchard,
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|