 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lawson v. Rines12/10/2003
Background
This case arises out of an automobile accident that caused the death of Mildred T. Lawson ("the Deceased"). The Deceased's vehicle was struck by a vehicle owned by Defendant, Service Radio Cab Co., Inc., and driven by Cynthia Gale Rines. Plaintiff, the Deceased's daughter and administratrix of the Deceased's estate, sued both Defendant and Ms. Rines for wrongful death.
At trial, Plaintiff attempted to introduce proof of Social Security benefits that the Deceased was receiving at the time of her death. Defendant provided the Trial Court with this Court's memorandum opinion in Lyons v. VonBramer as support for the position that Social Security benefits should not be considered in the calculation of damages in a wrongful death action. The Trial Court excluded the proof of Social Security benefits and Plaintiff made an offer of proof showing the amount of Social Security that the Deceased had been receiving monthly.
After trial, the jury returned a verdict against Defendant in the amount of $110,000. In addition, the Trial Court granted Plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest in the amount of $57,804.12. Defendant appeals the award of prejudgment interest. Plaintiff raises an issue on appeal regarding the exclusion of proof of the Deceased's Social Security benefits.
Discussion
Defendant raises two issues on appeal: 1) whether the Trial Court erred in granting prejudgment interest in an action for wrongful death; and 2) whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by making an award of prejudgment interest that was not equitable. Plaintiff raises one additional issue: whether the Trial Court erred by excluding the Deceased's Social Security benefits from the jury's determination of the pecuniary value of her life. We will address each issue in turn as necessary. Since the dispositive issues on appeal involve only the Trial Court's conclusions of law, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).
We begin by considering whether the Trial Court erred in granting prejudgment interest in an action for wrongful death. In essence, this issue hinges upon a determination of whether the Trial Court was authorized to award prejudgment interest in a wrongful death case.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-123 provides that prejudgment interest may be awarded "as permitted by the statutory and common laws of the state as of April 1, 1979 . . . ." Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123 (2003). Thus, the first question that must be answered is whether prejudgment interest was permitted in Tennessee by statutory or common law in wrongful death cases on April 1, 1979.
This Court has held that prejudgment interest was not allowed in personal injury cases, including wrongful death cases, as of April 1, 1979, and, thus, a trial court is not allowed to award prejudgment interest in such actions. E.g., Hollis v. Doerflinger, No. M2002-00222-COA-R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2003), appl. perm. appeal pending; McKinley v. Simha, No. W2001-02647-COA-R3-CV, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 941 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2002), no appl. perm. appeal filed. We agree with the reasoning and holding of these opinions concerning prejudgment interest.
Unfortunately, it can be argued that this Court may also have held to the contrary. Brough v. Adcroft, No. W2001-00786-COA-R3-CV, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2002), no appl. perm. appeal filed, (determining in a personal injury action that awards of prejudgment interest are left to the court's discretion and holding that the trial court did
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|