It is not uncommon for a car accident to be caused by multiple factors. For example, in many instances, a crash will be brought about by a combination of inclement weather and reckless driving. When a collision is caused by the injured party’s negligence, however, it can preclude the recovery of damages. This was demonstrated in a recent Tennessee car accident case in which the court upheld a verdict in favor of the defendant due to the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was sixty percent at the fault for the crash. If you were injured in a collision, it advisable to consult a skillful Tennessee car accident attorney to determine whether you may be owed compensation.
Factual History of the Case
It is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a collision in the parking lot of a shopping center. The plaintiff sustained injures in the accident, after which he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging a claim of negligence. The case was tried in front of a jury, who found that the plaintiff was sixty percent at fault for the accident. Thus, pursuant to Tennessee’s comparative negligence law, the jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing that the jury’s finding was against the weight of the evidence. On appeal, the jury’s verdict was affirmed.
Comparative Fault in Tennessee
Under Tennessee law, allocation of fault is an issue of fact to be determined by a jury. Thus, when a jury’s finding of fault is called into question, a court reviewing the matter will only set aside the jury’s verdict if it finds a complete lack of material evidence in support of the verdict. In determining whether such evidence exists, a court will take the strongest view of the evidence that supports the verdict and assume it to be truthful. The court will also allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict and discard any evidence that disfavors the verdict. Continue reading ›