 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlen v. Jackson9/19/2001
ty to produce evidence which would establish a genuine factual dispute." Brown v. J. C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 861 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). The Court in Byrd further explained the rule by stating:
When the party seeking summary judgment makes a properly supported motion, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts, not legal conclusions, by using affidavits or the discovery materials listed in Rule 56.03, establishing that there are indeed disputed, material facts creating a genuine issue that needs to be resolved by the trier of fact and that a trial is therefore necessary. The nonmoving party may not rely upon the allegations or denials of his pleadings in carrying out this burden as mandated by Rule 56.05.
The record reveals that the defendant had no basis for asserting fault against General Motors and Carlen Motors, Inc., and therefore had no basis for the affirmative defense. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not have a proper factual or legal basis for amending their Complaint to assert a claim against non-parties General Motors and Carlen Motors, Inc.
Rule 36.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure requires that:
Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party's attorney. . .
The effect of an admission is provided for in Rule 36.02: " ny matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission."
In Tennessee Dep't of Human Services v. Barbee, 714 S.W.2d 266 (Tenn. 1986), the Supreme Court opined:
Rule 36 is a useful tool in the preparation of a lawsuit, for it provides a procedure by which a party may request another party to admit the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26.02, T.R.C.P. . . . Unanswered requests for admission are deemed admitted and the matter requested is conclusively established for the purpose of the pending case. The admission is comparable to an admission in pleadings or a stipulation drafted by counsel for use at trial.
In Neely v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 906 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), the court granted summary judgment to defendant arising from plaintiff's failure to respond to requests for admission which the court recognized resulted in plaintiff admitting facts sufficient to establish that the manufacturer was not liable. In reaching its decision, the court stated that
n admission under Rule 36, unlike an evidentiary admission, `concludes the matter and avoids any need for proof' . . . Thus, no proof is necessary to establish a fact admitted, nor should evidence be allowed to refute the admission.
Likewise, in Porter v. Melton, 1992 WL 29821 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) we ruled that the "trial court erred by refusing to grant [plaintiff's] Motion to Rely Upon Requests for Admissions," after defendant failed to respond to the set of requests in accordance with Rule 36.
Finally, we think that the belated responses to the requests for admission essentially reveal that the defendant had no basis for asserting the affirmative defense.
The judgment is affirmed at the costs of the appellant, Ronald E. Jackson.
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.
|
|