APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from the chancellor’s denial of Defendant’s motion to alter or amend findings of fact. The question to be answered is whether the “newly discovered evidence rule”  would allow the presentation post-trial of evidence which the proponent concedes he could have produced at trial. The defendant contends that evidence which tends to show misrepresentation on the part of a nonmovant should be allowed under a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52, 59 and 60 regardless of whether it was discoverable at trial. Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we cannot agree.

In this divorce action, the husband appealed from the award of alimony
to the wife.

I dissent because I do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. In fact, there is precious little evidence in the record bearing on the culpability of the City of Maryville (“the City”). In my judgment, the proof shows little more than that the plaintiff slipped and fell on icy pavement in a city park at a place near a functioning water fountain on a day when the temperature was at or below freezing. What the evidence does not show is negligence of an employee of the City; notice to the City of a condition of the type described in T.C.A. § 29-20- 203(a); or the necessary causal connection between actionable conduct on the part of the City and the plaintiff’s fall.

This appeal from the Circuit Court of Blount County concerns liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, which grants immunity, subject to certain statutory exceptions, to governmental entities pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-201. Cynthia Y. Long, the Plaintiff/Appellant, appeals the Trial Court’s judgment on directed verdict in favor of the City of Maryville, the Defendant/Appellee.

Defendant Nicholas S. Cakmes files a petition requesting that instead of adjudging the value of the remaining interest of Plaintiff Reuben N. Pelot, III, in their dentistry partnership, that the case be remanded for the Trial Court to make that determination.

In this tort action, the defendants appeal from an award of compensatory damages capped by the trial court at $130,000 pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). They also seek to reverse the trial court’s decision to assess them with discretionary costs of $3,440.98. We affirm all of the trial court’s judgment except the award of discretionary costs.

I dissent from the majority opinion affirming the judgment of the Trial Court awarding compensatory damages of $130,000. From my review of the record, Plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving that Defendant had notice of the condition of the roadway, and therefore I would reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.