 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schindel v. Bass6/18/1999
on at the time of the accident.
Additional conflicting circumstantial evidence was presented on the issue. Bass, in a deposition, testified that the headlights were on at the time of the accident. After the accident, according to Bass, he turned the headlights off because the lights were shining into oncoming traffic. A witness, John Butterfield, had a conversation with Bass after the accident in which Bass allegedly stated, "I should have left my lights on." Bass contends that he stated, "I should have left the headlights on after the accident had occurred."
We have recognized that " he range of reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence depends upon the unique facts of each case. An inference is reasonable and legitimate only when the evidence makes the existence of the fact to be inferred more probable than the nonexistence of the fact." Underwood v. HCA Health Services, Inc., 892 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Tenn. App. 1994) (citing Hollingsworth v. Queen Carpet, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Tenn. App. 1991); Benson v. H.G. Hill Stores, Inc., 699 S.W.2d 560, 563 (Tenn. App. 1985); Franklin v. Collins Chapel Connectional Hosp., 696 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Tenn. App. 1985)).
This case presents a very close question. Bass distinguishes Rogers by noting that, in Rogers, three witnesses testified that they looked in the direction of the defendant's vehicle and saw no cars coming; whereas, in this case, there is no evidence to corroborate Schindel's testimony. Bass also argues that, in Rogers, all three witnesses testified that they looked specifically in the direction of the defendant's vehicle and saw no cars approaching, while Schindel states only that she had seen and let by two cars from the turn lane from which Bass' vehicle approached, and that she did not see Bass' vehicle.
The fact that Schindel's testimony is not corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses is not fatal to her case, provided Schindel's testimony is sufficient to support a finding that Bass did not have his headlights on. See Rupe v. Sims, No. 223, 1990 WL 198902 (Tenn. App. Dec. 12, 1990). In Rogers, the witnesses testified specifically that they looked in the direction of the defendant's vehicle and saw no cars coming. In this case, Schindel testified that she had been looking in the direction of Bass' vehicle, saw two other cars with their lights on, let them turn and proceeded forward, not seeing Bass' vehicle. These facts are simply too similar to find that Rogers is distinguishable. We find that the evidence presented by the plaintiff is barely sufficient to support a factual finding that Bass was operating his vehicle without the headlights on. Consequently, we must conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The decision of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Costs are assessed against the Appellees, for which execution may issue if necessary.
HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.
CONCUR:
ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.
DAVID R. FARMER, J.
|