 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grandstaff v. Hawks5/31/2000
all fault causing the collision between those whose conduct contributed to the accident. The jury then allocates the fault that caused the passenger's injuries between the passenger and the other tortfeasors. Thus, the passenger's award is reduced by the fault attributable to him that produced his injuries. Based on the facts of the previous scenario, the jury would have filled out the Wisconsin verdict form as follows:
(1) What percentage of all causal negligence which produced the collision do you attribute to:
(a) D1 45% as to causes
(b) D2 55% of the accident?
Total 100%
(2) What percentage of all causal negligence which produced the plaintiff's injuries do you attribute to:
(a) The combined causal negligence of D1 & D2 80% as to cause of plaintiff's injuries?
(b) The causal negligence of P1 20%
Total 100%
Based on this form, the trial court would translate the jury's findings as follows:
D1 45% x 80% = 36%
D2 55% x 80% = 44%
P1 20%
Total 100%
Accordingly, the judgment would order D1 to pay 36% of P1's damages and would order D2 to pay 44% of P1's damages and 55% of D1's damages.
Fairness, consistency, and efficiency are the hallmarks of the Tennessee Supreme Court's comparative fault scheme. Clearly linking liability with fault accomplishes these ends. See Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d at 428; McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d at 58. We find that the Wisconsin model creates a strong correlation between liability and fault and, accordingly, adopt a similar approach. In multi-party actions such as this one, the trial court should instruct the jury to engage in the following three-step process:
1. First, as in any comparative fault case, the jury should determine the actual dollar amount of the damages incurred by each claimant individually without taking fault into consideration.
2. Second, the jury should allocate percentages of fault (totaling 100%) to each actor whose fault caused or contributed to the collision.
3. Third, the jury should state the percentage by which the claimant's conduct caused or contributed to his or her own injuries along with the percentage of fault collectively attributable to the actor or actors whose fault was the cause of the collision.
Attached as an appendix to this opinion is a sample verdict form prepared in conformance with this opinion. Once the jury returns its verdict in this or a similar form, the trial court should then calculate the dollar amount of the damages recoverable by each claimant. To avoid error, these calculations should not be left to the jury.
D.
In light of our analysis of the significant difference between fault that contributes to causing a collision and fault that contributes only to the claimant's injuries, we find that the trial court's instructions in this case were erroneous. However, under the facts of this case, we find that the error more probably than not did not affect the verdict and the judgment from which State Farm appeals and did not result in prejudice to the judicial process. Accordingly, we decline to grant State Farm a new trial solely because the trial court instructed the jury to allocate fault not only to Messrs. Hawks and Forrest but also to Ms. Grandstaff. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b).
The following considerations are the necessary ingredients to our decision to invoke Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b) with regard to the instructions to compare Ms. Grandstaff's fault with the fault of Messrs. Forrest and Hawks. First
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|