Anthony W. Nance and Brandon Nance v. Christopher H. Strunk

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJune 6, 1997
Docket03A01-9701-CV-00037
StatusPublished

This text of Anthony W. Nance and Brandon Nance v. Christopher H. Strunk (Anthony W. Nance and Brandon Nance v. Christopher H. Strunk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony W. Nance and Brandon Nance v. Christopher H. Strunk, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

ANTHONY W NANCE, . ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00037 a n d BRANDON NANCE, ) ) CAMPBELL CI RCUI T Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s , ) ) HON. CONRAD E. TROUTMAN, J R. , v. ) J UDGE ) CHRI STOPHER H. STRUNK, ) AFFI RMED I N PART, ) REVERSED I N PART, De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e . ) AND REM ANDED

VI C PRYOR, BASI STA, PRYOR & BALLOFF, J a c ks bor o, f or Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s .

DANI EL M GASS, O’ NEI L, PARKER & W LLI AM . I SON, Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nd a nt - Appe l l e e .

DENNI S L. BABB a nd VONDA M LAUGHLI N, BUTLER, VI NES & BABB, . Kn o x v i l l e , f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e , Gua r a nt y Na t i ona l I ns ur a n c e Co mp a n y.

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s a c t i on a r i s i ng f r om a mot or ve hi c l e

a c c i d e nt , t he de f e nda nt s we r e gr a nt e d s umma r y j udgme nt a nd

p l a i n t i f f s h a ve a ppe a l e d.

An a c c i de nt o c c ur r e d be t we e n a mot or ve hi c l e dr i ve n

b y p l a i nt i f f Na nc e a nd a t r uc k dr i ve n by de f e nda nt St r unk.

Ta k i n g t he e vi de nc e mos t f a vor a bl e t o pl a i nt i f f s , bot h v e h i c l e s we r e t r a ve l i ng nor t h on I nt e r s t a t e 75, t hr ough t he

J el l i co Mount a i ns . Pl a i nt i f f wa s dr i vi ng hi s e mpt y f l a t be d

t r a c t or t r a i l e r i n t he l e f t l a ne a t a r a t e of a ppr oxi ma t e l y 60

mp h , whe n a gr e y s t a t i on wa gon s udde nl y s we r ve d i n f r ont of

h i m, c a us i ng hi m t o move i nt o t he r i ght l a ne t o a voi d t ha t

ve hi c l e . De f e nda nt St r unk’ s t r uc k wa s t r a ve l i ng i n t he r i g h t

l a n e a t a ppr oxi ma t e l y 10 t o 15 mi l e s pe r hour , a nd pl a i nt i f f ’ s

v e h i c l e c ol l i de d wi t h t he r e a r of St r unk’ s t r uc k.

St r unk s t a t e s t ha t he wa s t r a ve l i ng 40 t o 45 mi l e s

p e r h o ur a nd ne ve r s a w t he gr e y s t a t i on wa gon i n t he vi c i ni t y ,

a n d t ha t pl a i nt i f f ’ s ve hi c l e s i mpl y c a me ba r r e l i ng up t he

r i g h t l a ne a nd r e a r - e nde d hi m. The dr i ve r of t he gr e y ve hi c l e

h a s n e ve r be e n i de nt i f i e d or f ound.

I n p l a i nt i f f ’ s s ui t a ga i ns t De f e nda nt , p l a i nt i f f

a l l e g e d t ha t de f e nda nt wa s t r a ve l i ng a t s uc h a n unr e a s ona bl y

l o w r a t e of s pe e d s o a s t o i mpe de t r a f f i c on t he hi ghwa y i n

v i o l a t i on of T. C. A. §55- 8- 154 a nd hi s ne gl i ge nc e wa s a

p r o x i ma t e c a us e of t he a c c i de nt . Re s pondi ng t o de f e nda nt ’ s

mo t i o n f or s umma r y j udgme nt , t he Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d s umma r y

j u d g me nt on t he ba s i s t ha t t he pr oxi ma t e c a us e of t he a c c i d e n t

wa s t h e ne gl i ge nt ope r a t i on of t he gr e y mot or ve hi c l e .

Summa r y j udgme nt i s r e vi e we d wi t hout a t t a c hi ng a ny

p r e s u mpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s t o t he j udgme nt . M Cal l v . W l de r , c i

9 1 3 S. W 2d 150, 153 ( Te nn. 1995) . . Summa r y j udgme nt i s

a p p r o p r i a t e whe n, vi e wi ng a l l e vi de nc e a nd i nf e r e nc e s i n t h e

l i g h t mos t f a vor a bl e t o t he non- movi ng pa r t y, t he r e a r e no

d i s p u t e d i s s ue s of ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd t he movi ng pa r t y i s

e n t i t l e d t o j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of l a w. By r d v . Hal l , 847

S. W 2 d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) . .

2 The s t a t ut e pl e d i n t hi s c a s e r e a ds i n pe r t i ne nt

pa r t :

M ni m i um s pe e d r e gul at i on - Tur nout s - Pas s i ng bay s - Pe nal t i e s . - ( a ) No pe r s on s ha l l dr i ve a mot or ve hi c l e a t s uc h a s l ow s pe e d a s t o i mpe de t he nor ma l a nd r e a s ona bl e move me nt of t r a f f i c , e xc e pt whe n r e duc e d s pe e d i s ne c e s s a r y f or s a f e ope r a t i on or i n c ompl i a nc e wi t h t he l a w. . . .

T. C. A. § 55- 8- 154( a ) .

Thi s s t a t ut e i s c i t e d i n onl y t wo Te nne s s e e c a s e s ,

n e i t h e r of whi c h ma de a ny e xpl i c i t de t e r mi na t i on of wha t

c o n s t i t ut e s a v i ol a t i on of t he s t a t ut e . 1. W t s v . W l k e r s on at i

u p h e l d a j ur y ve r di c t f i ndi ng t he s l ow dr i ve r 40% a t f a ul t f o r

a n a c c i de nt . Thi s f i ndi ng of l i a bi l i t y i s c ons i s t e nt wi t h

c a s e s i nvol vi ng s i mi l a r s t a t ut e s i n ot he r s t a t e s , whi c h ha v e

h e l d a que s t i on of whe t he r s uc h a s t a t ut e ha s be e n vi ol a t e d

a n d whe t he r s uc h vi ol a t i on c ons t i t ut e s t he ne gl i ge nt pr oxi ma t e

c a u s i n g or c ont r i but i ng t o a n a c c i de nt i s f or t he j ur y. 66

A. L. R. 2d 1194; e . g . , Gr i f f i n v . I l l i noi s Be l l Te l e phone Co . ,

1 8 0 N. E. 2d 228, 230 ( I l l . Ct . App. 1962) ; Fonv i l l e v . Di x on,

1 9 3 S. E. 2d 406 ( N. C. Ct . App. 1972) ; Le o v . Adams , 208 N. W 2 d .

7 0 6 ( S. D. 1973) ; M na v . Boi s e Cas c ade Cor p. , 681 P. 2d 880 , i

8 8 4 ( W s h. Ct . App. 1984) . a The s e c a s e s a c knowl e dge t ha t

?d a wd l e r s , a s we l l a s s pe e de r s , c a n be c ome a me na c e t o t he

s a f e t y o f t he i r f e l l ow mot or i s t s . ? Che e k v . W i s s , 615 S. W 2 d e .

1 S e e Ca r r v . Oz b u r n - He s s e y S t o r a g e Co . , 1 9 9 6 W 3 8 3 2 9 5 ( Te n n . Ap p . L 1996) . I n Ca r r , p l a i n t i f f r e a r - e n d e d d e f e n d a n t , wh o h a d j u s t t u r n e d o n t o t h e h i g h wa y f r o m a n i n t e r s e c t i o n . Th e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s p e e d , wh i c h wa s n o t d i s p u t e d - 2 0 mp h - wa s n o t d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d b y t h e Co u r t . Al t h o u g h t h e Co u r t ma y h a v e ma d e a n i mp l i c i t j u d g me n t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t wa s n o t d r i v i n g i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e , t h e b a s i s u p o n wh i c h t h e s u mma r y j u d g me n t wa s u p h e l d wa s t h a t a n e x a mi n a t i o n o f t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e a c c i d e n t s u p p o r t e d f i n d i n g p l a i n t i f f mo r e t h a n 5 0 % a t f a u l t i n t h e a c c i d e n t .

Th e o t h e r c a s e i s Wa t t s v . Wi l k e r s o n , 1 9 9 4 W 8 5 9 5 1 ( Te n n . Ap p . L 1994) .

3 4 5 3 , 458 ( M Ct . App. 198 1) , quot i ng Laf f e r t y v . W t l e , 349 o. at

S. W 2 d 519, 528 ( M Ct . App. 1961) . . o.

The s pe e d of t he de f e nda nt ’ s ve hi c l e i s a n i s s ue o f

d i s p u t e d ma t e r i a l f a c t , a s i t be a r s on whe t he r t he s t a t ut e wa s

v i o l a t e d a nd whe t he r s uc h vi ol a t i on, i f a ny, c ont r i but e d t o

t h e pr oxi ma t e c a us e of t he a c c i de nt . Pr oxi ma t e c a us a t i on i s

t o b e de t e r mi ne d by t he t r i e r of f a c t , unl e s s a l l r e a s ona bl e

p e r s o n s woul d a gr e e on t he pr ope r out c ome . Se e M Cl e nahan v . c

Co o l e y , 806 S. W 2d 767 ( Te nn. 1991) . . Ac c or di ngl y, we va c a t e

s u mma r y j udgme nt on be ha l f of t he s e de f e nda nt s a nd r e ma nd f o r

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mina v. Boise Cascade Corp.
681 P.2d 880 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1984)
McClenahan v. Cooley
806 S.W.2d 767 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Griffin v. Linn
3 S.W.2d 148 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Cardin v. Campbell
920 S.W.2d 222 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Anthony W. Nance and Brandon Nance v. Christopher H. Strunk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-w-nance-and-brandon-nance-v-christopher-h--tennctapp-1997.