Emmett Clifford et al. v. Crye-Leike Commercial, Inc.
This appeal involves a business patron who tripped over a snow-covered wheelchair ramp during a snowstorm. The patron filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County alleging that the landowner was negligent for failing to keep the ramp clear of snow or to post warnings of the presence of a wheelchair ramp concealed by the fallen snow. The landowner filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it did not have a duty to remove the snow or provide warnings of the presence of the wheelchair ramp as long as the snow was falling. The trial court granted the summary judgment, and the patron appealed. We have determined that the landowner is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because it did not owe a duty to the public to keep the wheelchair ramp clear of snow during the snowstorm or to warn persons coming onto the property of the existence of the wheelchair ramp that was concealed under several inches of snow. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Diane V. Vannucci, et al. v. Memphis Obstetrics and Gynecological Association P.C. et al. and Diana V. Vannucci, et al. v. W.B. Moss, et al.
Following the untimely diagnosis of her cervical cancer, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit against several doctors and the laboratory that interpreted her test results. In addition to her individual suit, the plaintiff sued on behalf of her minor son for loss of consortium. Shortly after filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff died. The executrix of her estate was substituted as a plaintiff in the case. Some of the named defendants sought to enter into a settlement with the minor, who was the only beneficiary of any proceeds to be derived from the suit. Pursuant to section 34-1-121 of the Tennessee Code, the settling parties petitioned the trial court to approve the settlement. At the hearing, the trial court excluded the non-settling defendants from participating in the hearing. The trial court subsequently entered an order approving the settlement, but the court sealed the contents of the settlement. Thereafter, the non-settling defendants moved the trial court judge to recuse herself, arguing that she could no longer impartially preside over the remainder of the case by virtue of having heard disputed facts during the ex parte settlement hearing. When the trial court denied their motion, the non-settling defendants applied for and received the trial court’s permission to seek an interlocutory appeal to this Court. We decided to grant the non-settling defendants’ application for an interlocutory appeal to address the narrow issue of whether the trial court erred when it denied the motion to recuse. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the Appellants’ motion for recusal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael B.Todd v. Dean Jackson, et al.
Michael B. Todd (“Plaintiff”) filed a retaliatory discharge claim after being terminated from his position as a water plant operator for the City of Lexington, Tennessee. At trial, the court dismissed his retaliatory discharge claim after finding that Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. Plaintiff appeals raising the issues of whether the trial court erred in dismissing his retaliatory discharge claim and whether the trial judge erred in failing to recuse himself from this case. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Peggy Hayes v. Luther Carter
This is a Title IV child support case involving the validity of an Order modifying retroactive child support. Following the entryof an agreed order establishing paternity, Father/Appellee entered into an agreed order setting retroactive child support from the time of the child’s birth. Some five years after entering into this agreed order, Father/Appellee petitioned the court to modify the retroactive support order. The trial court granted Father/Appellee’s motion. The State of Tennessee ex rel. Peggy Hayes appeals. We vacate the order of the trial court modifying retroactive child support. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phyllis McCrary, et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Both Mother and Father appeal from the order of the Juvenile Court of Shelby County terminating their respective parental rights. Specifically, Mother asserts that the grounds cited for termination are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and that the Department of Children’s Services did not meet the statutory verification requirement. Father asserts that the grounds cited for termination of his parental rights are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and that the Department of Children’s Services did not meet the statutory verification requirement. Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the Juvenile Court’s findings terminating the parties’ parental rights based on at least one ground under the statute, and that the Department of Children’s Services did meet the statutory verification requirement,we affirm. Phyllis McCrary (“Ms. McCrary”) is the mother of the three minor children at issue in this case, A.L.M. (d.o.b. 9/18/92), D.D.M. (d.o.b. 9/4/93), and R.R.M. (d.o.b. 9/4/00). Randy Madison (“Mr. Madison”, together with Ms. McCrary, “Respondents”) is the father of R.R.M. (d.o.b. 9/4/00). The parental rights of the fathers of A.L.M and D.D.M. were terminated on November 10, 2005, and they are not parties to this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mary L. Whitley v. Marshalls of Ma., Inc., The Marmaxx Group, d/b/a Marshall's
The trial court awarded Defendant Marshalls summary judgment in this premises liability, slip and fall action. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Chester B. Owens, et al. v. Tennessee Rural Health Improvement Association, et al.
Plaintiffs filed this declaratory judgment action to determine whether their claims for insurance benefits were covered under their health insurance policy. Defendant insurance carrier asserted the policy of insurance was void where Plaintiffs’ application for insurance contained material misrepresentations that increased the risk of loss. The trial court entered judgment for Plaintiffs and Defendants appeal. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Laura D. Bledsoe v. Brian Keith Kerper
Father appeals the order of the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County setting child support and retroactive child support. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Xavier Sikora v. Douglas A. Vanderploeg
This appeal involves a dispute over the sale of a chiropractic practice. The purchaser made several significant changes in the practice following the sale and, when the practice began to fail, filed an action for breach of warranty against the seller in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The seller attributed the failure of the practice to the seller’s poor business judgment and counterclaimed for unpaid lease payments. Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court found that the seller had breached the warranties of sale and awarded the purchaser $34,443 in damages. The trial court offset this award with a $18,294 judgment in favor of the seller for unpaid lease payments and then awarded the purchaser an additional $52,592 in attorney’s fees and costs. We have determined that the trial court erred by failing to reform the purchase agreement to reflect the true agreement between the parties and by concluding that the seller violated his warranty to disclose all material or significant information regarding the practice. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin Winans v. Debra D. Winans
Father filed this post-divorce petition seeking a change in custody and a temporary restraining order to prevent Mother from relocating to Texas with the children. Mother responded with a counter petition for relocation and contempt due to Father’s failure to timely pay alimony and child support. The trial court denied Mother’s request to relocate based on a finding the parties were spending substantially equal time with the children, and it was not in the children’s best interest to relocate to Texas. It also denied Father’s custody petition, found Father in contempt for failure to pay alimony and child support, and assessed attorney fees against Father. Both parties appeal. Finding the trial court placed too great an emphasis on one factor in denying relocation, we reverse the denial of Mother’s petition to relocate. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Chinon Developments, LLC v. Farnsworth Office Products, LLC, et al.
This is an action for breach of contract to pay commissions for arranging a lease on commercial property. The brokerage firm insisted that Pam-Am, the tenant, maliciously induced the Landlord, not to pay additional commission. The Chancellor disagreed. We affirm the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gilbert Waters, et al. v. Wesley Coker, M.D.
Plaintiff in medical malpractice action appeals jury verdict alleging that the “dynamite charge” which supplemented the original instruction after the jury was apparently deadlocked violated Kersey v. State and its progeny. We agree and, because we find the instruction affected the result, we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bancorpsouth Bank, Inc. v. Billy J. Hatchel
In this appeal, we are asked to review the trial court’s decision regarding the damages incurred by the plaintiff in a breach of contract action. The plaintiff, a bank, attempted to sell a parcel of distressed real estate containing residential dwelling units at a foreclosure sale. The defendant placed the highest bid for the property, but he subsequently refused to consummate the transaction. After the sale, a dispute arose over who would be responsible for certain repairs, and the defendant, who did not inspect the property prior to placing a bid, apparently felt that the property was not worth the amount he bid for it. The bank brought suit for breach of contract, but it failed to present any evidence of the property’s fair market value on the date of breach. After a bench trial in the matter, but before the trial court entered its final judgment, the bank sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of a second foreclosure sale conducted post-trial. The bank asserted that the amount it received at the second foreclosure sale represented the fair market value of the property. After considering this additional evidence, the trial court entered a judgment finding that the bank failed to present evidence of the property’s fair market value on the date of the breach. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the bank was not entitled to the damages it sought as a result of the breach. The bank appealed that decision to this Court. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Brian N. Knight, M. Chance Dudley, Kristy Dudley, and D. Chad Dudley v. Flanary & Sons Trucking, Inc., Patrick Ray Strum, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. and Sean M. Hansen
This is an automobile accident case. The plaintiffs were traveling on the interstate in a pickup truck pulling a U-Haul trailer. The individual defendants were each driving a commercial eighteen-wheeler truck and were following the plaintiffs, one behind the other. The plaintiffs came upon road construction and slowed to a stop. The defendant driving the truck immediately behind the plaintiffs could not stop; he swerved to the right and hit the plaintiffs’ U-Haul. The defendant driving the second truck behind the plaintiffs was also unable to stop. He struck both the U-Haul and the pickup truck, causing both vehicles to catch fire and resulting in serious personal injuries to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued the drivers of both of the eighteen-wheeler trucks and their employers for damages resulting from the accident. The plaintiffs’ claim against the driver of the second truck and his employer was settled. The plaintiffs then proceeded to trial against the driver of the first truck and his employer. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant driving the first truck was 25% at fault for the accident. The defendants appeal, arguing that no material evidence supports the jury’s finding that their negligence caused the plaintiffs’ damages. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Woodall Hunt v. Gary Franklin Hunt
Husband appeals the action of the trial court asserting that the trial court erred in denying his pro se motion for a continuance after allowing his attorney to withdraw. He further asserts that the trial court erred in the disposition of marital property. The action of the trial court in denying a continuance and granting a divorce to Wife is affirmed. The action of the trial court on all other issues is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Donnie Diane Little v. James Gearin
This appeal involves a retroactive modification of a child support order. The legal custodian of the child at issue received state benefits on behalf of the child. The State, on behalf of the custodian, filed a petition against the father to set child support. In August 2000, the trial court granted the petition, set child support, and entered an order establishing that the father owed a child support arrearage of $14,000 as of the date of the order. This order was not appealed. Years later, the father filed a petition for custody of the child. After a hearing, the trial court granted him custody of the child and terminated his future child support obligation. The trial court’s order also gave the father a $2,962 “credit” toward the arrearage established in the August 2000 order. The State filed a motion to alter or amend, arguing that the trial court was not permitted to retroactively modify the arrearage established in the earlier order. This motion was denied. The State now appeals. We reverse, finding that the trial court erred in retroactively modifying the arrearage amount set out in the original order. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Herman Phillips v. Tennessee Department of Correction
This is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari arising out of prison disciplinary proceedings. The prison disciplinary board charged the petitioner with money laundering, a state offense. After a hearing, he was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to punitive and administrative segregation. He filed this petition for a common law writ of certiorari, challenging the board’s disciplinary decision. The writ was granted, and the record of the disciplinary proceedings was sent to the trial court for review. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. The respondent filed a notice that it did not intend to respond to the motion, because the record had already been sent to the trial court for review. The trial court dismissed the petition on the merits without first addressing the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The petitioner now appeals, arguing that the trial court was required to decide his motion for summary judgment before addressing the merits of his petition. We affirm, concluding that, under the circumstances, the trial court was under no obligation to address the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment prior to dismissing the action. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Betty G. Brown v. Gary A. Hugo
Betty Brown (“Plaintiff”) was involved in an automobile accident where her car was struck in the rear by the vehicle driven by Gary Hugo (“Defendant”). Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against Defendant in order to recover medical expenses for injuries Plaintiff claims to have incurred as a result of the accident along with other damages. At trial, the jury found that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover from Defendant. Plaintiff appeals arguing that the jury’s verdict was unsupported by competent and credible material evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Suntrust Bank v. Sheep Inc., and Marilyn Powell
The Trial Court dismissed the case on the grounds the process issued more than one year after the issuance of the previous process was invalid. On appeal, we vacate. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tracye Jenae Simpson (Brogden), et al. v. Ralph Edward Simpson - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in much of the judgment and rationale of the majority opinion. I agree with the majority’s statement “that the five payments made directly to the child totaling $2,740 were gratuitous or otherwise should not be considered as a credit against Father’s child support obligation.” I also agree with the majority’s treatment of Father’s issues pertaining to (1) the trial court’s refusal to permit Father to testify regarding child support payments made by him “when he had no documentary evidence supporting the amount of those payments,” and (2) the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. However, I disagree with the majority’s judgment that Father should be granted credit against his general $60 per week child support obligation to Mother for payments made by him “at the direction of [Mother].” |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Tracye Jenae Simpson (Brogden), et al. v. Ralph Edward Simpson
This appeal involves child support arrearages incurred by Ralph Edward Simpson (“Father”) over the course of many years. Following a trial, the Trial Court concluded that certain payments made directly to the child were gratuitous and should not count as a credit against Father’s child support obligation. The Trial Court also concluded that various payments made by Father to third parties for expenses incurred on the child’s behalf and which were made as expressly directed by Tracye Jenae Simpson (“Mother”) also should not count as credits against Father’s child support obligation. We affirm the Trial Court’s conclusion with respect to the money sent directly to the child. However, we conclude that the Trial Court erred in its conclusion that Father should not be given a credit for payments made to third parties for expenses related to the child and which were made by Father in accordance with the express directives of Mother. The judgment of the Trial Court is, therefore, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ennix Hariston, et al. v. Lillian B. Newsom
This appeal stems from a negligence action resulting from an automobile accident. A husband and wife filed suit against the defendant alleging personal injury and property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligence that caused the automobile accident involving the wife and the defendant. In addition to the wife’s claims, the husband brought claims against the defendant for loss of consortium and loss of services. Additionally, the wife’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier was served but unnamed. Both Newsom and the uninsured motorist insurance carrier filed Motions to Exclude All Medical Proof of Plaintiff and Motion for Summary Judgment. The circuit court granted the defendant’s and the unnamed but served uninsured motorist insurance carrier’s Motions to Exclude All Medical Proof of Plaintiff and Motion for Summary Judgment. The order adjudicated the wife’s personal injury claims only. On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the circuit court erred when it granted the defendant’s and the unnamed but served uninsured motorist insurance carrier’s Motions to Exclude All Medical Proof of Plaintiff and Motion for Summary Judgment. However, because we find that the circuit court failed to execute a final order disposing of all of the plaintiffs’ causes of action, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to rule 3(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Potter, et al. v. Ford Motor Company
While traveling on a rain-slick road at a moderate rate of speed, Betty Potter lost control of her 1997 Ford Escort which spun around and crashed into a tree. Her seat back collapsed into the rear seat and her spinal cord was severed. Betty Potter was rendered a paraplegic. She and her husband sued Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) for the enhanced injuries Ms. Potter received as a result of the collapse of her seat back. The jury found Ford to be 70% at fault, Ms. Potter to be 30% at fault, and determined Ms. Potter’s compensatory damages to be ten million dollars. Judgment was entered for Ms. Potter in the amount of seven million dollars. The primary issues Ford raises on this appeal are (1) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant Ford a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of intervening cause. We hold that Ms. Potter presented material evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the Ford Escort was defective, and that the trial court correctly found the intervening cause doctrine inapplicable in a case such as this one, where the alleged intervening cause is the negligent conduct of the plaintiff. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Potter, et al. v. Ford Motor Company - Concurring
While I agree with Ford, that Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2, comment f, requires: “To establish a prima facie case of defect, the plaintiff must prove the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff’s harm . . .”, unless and until Tennessee adopts Restatement (Third) of Torts on this issue, Judge Lee in my view, has correctly summarized the state of Tennessee law on this issue. Accordingly, I concur in her Opinion in affirming the Trial Court. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Michele Safa v. Martha A. Loving
This appeal stems from a negligence suit arising from an automobile accident. At trial, the circuit court entered two separate orders dismissing the case. One order dismissed the case based on the statute of limitations. The other order dismissed the case for a failure to prosecute based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a previous court order awarding discretionary costs to the defendant that was granted when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her first filing of the instant suit. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the circuit court erred when it dismissed her claims because the applicable statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to section 28-1-106 of the Tennessee Code as she was of “unsound mind.” The defendant has also asserted that the circuit court properly dismissed the case for a failure to prosecute based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
