 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McLean v. Bourget's Bike Works10/7/2005
non-moving party's favor. Godfrey v. Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d at 695; Doe v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., Inc., 46 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tenn. 2001). When reviewing the evidence, we must determine first whether factual disputes exist. If a factual dispute exists, we must then determine whether the fact is material to the claim or defense upon which the summary judgment is predicated and whether the disputed fact creates a genuine issue for trial. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 214; Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, Inc., 978 S.W.2d 102, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
III. Bourget's Statute of Limitations Defense
Mr. McLean first argues that the trial court erred by dismissing both his products liability claim and his Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim based on the statute of limitations. Specifically, he asserts that the trial court erred by concluding that he was on notice of the defective condition of the motorcycle when he filed his complaint against Custom Cycle and Mr. Appleton. We agree.
Products liability claims and claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act both have one-year statutes of limitations. Products liability claims must be filed within one year from the date of the "personal injury, not the negligence or sale of a product." Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(b)(1) (2000). Similarly, claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act must be filed within one year from the consumer's discovery of the unlawful act or practice. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-110 (Supp. 2004).
Mr. McLean asserts that he did not discover the defect in the motorcycle's frame until the second week of September 2000 when the frame allegedly snapped in half under the weight of the motorcycle. He filed his complaint against Bourget's on August 31, 2001. Thus, for the purposes of Bourget's statute of limitations defense, the time began to run on Mr. McLean's claims - to the extent that he has viable claims - in mid-September 2000.
Contrary to the trial court's conclusion, there is nothing in the record of the earlier suit against Custom Cycle and Mr. Appleton to indicate that Mr. McLean had been put on notice prior to September 2000 that the motorcycle's aluminum frame was defective. Mr. McLean's earlier lawsuit was based on the alleged misrepresentations regarding the motorcycle's age and prior ownership, as well as its mechanical problems. Mr. McLean made no mention in the prior suit that the aluminum frame was defective and could not support the weight of the motorcycle. Because Mr. McLean filed his lawsuit against Bourget's within one year from discovering the motorcycle's alleged defect, the trial court erred by dismissing his products liability and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims on the grounds that they were not timely filed.
IV. The Spoliation of the Evidence Defense
Mr. McLean also takes issue with the trial court's decision to summarily dismiss his complaint because he had sold the motorcycle back to Custom Cycle before he filed suit against Bourget's. He insists that the record does not substantiate a spoliation of the evidence claim because it contains no evidence that he sold the motorcycle back to Custom Cycle for the purpose of concealing or destroying the evidence. We agree.
The doctrine of spoliation of evidence permits a court to draw a negative inference against a party who has intentionally, and for an improper purpose, destroyed, mutilated, lost, altered, or concealed evidence. Bronson v. Umphries, 138 S.W.3d 844, 854 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682, 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Foley v. St. Thomas Hosp., 906 S.W.2d 448, 453-54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). This inference is rebuttable and arises
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|