Randall E. Deskins, et ux. v. Beulah M. Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedSeptember 9, 1997
Docket03A01-9701-CV-00023
StatusPublished

This text of Randall E. Deskins, et ux. v. Beulah M. Williams (Randall E. Deskins, et ux. v. Beulah M. Williams) 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
Randall E. Deskins, et ux. v. Beulah M. Williams, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED September 9, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk RANDALL E. DESKI NS, e t u x. ) SEVI ER COUNTY ) 03A01- 9701- CV- 00023 Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) v. ) HON. REX HENRY OGLE, ) J UDGE ) BEULAH M W LLI AM . I S ) AFFI RMED I N PART; REM TTI TUR I ) SUGGESTED I N PART; a nd De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e ) REMANDED

ROBERT L. OGLE, J R. , OF SEVI ERVI LLE FOR APPELLANTS

J AMES Y. ( BO) REED OF KNOXVI LLE a nd DW GHT E. STOKES OF I SEVI ERVI LLE FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

Ra nda l l E. De s ki ns a nd hi s wi f e The l ma J e a n De s ki ns ,

a p p e a l a j udgme nt of t he Ci r c ui t Cour t f or Se vi e r Count y, e nt e r e d

p u r s u a n t t o a j ur y ve r di c t , whi c h di s mi s s e d t he i r c l a i m a ga i ns t

Be u l a h M W l l i a ms f or pe r s ona l i nj ur i e s s uf f e r e d by M . De s ki n s . i r

a n d l o s s of c ons or t i um a nd s e r vi c e s by M s . De s ki ns , r e s ul t i ng r

f r o m a n a ut omobi l e a c c i de nt oc c ur r i ng on J une 3, 1989. M. r De s k i n s a l s o a ppe a l s a j udgme nt i n f a vor of t he or i gi na l

De f e n d a nt a nd Count e r - Pl a i nt i f f , Be ul a h M W l l i a ms . . i

The j ur y f ound M . De s ki ns t o be 100 pe r c e nt a t f a ul t r

i n t h e a c c i de nt a nd t ha t M . W l l i a ms ha d s uf f e r e d da ma ge s i n t h e s i

a mo u n t of $20, 000 a s a r e s ul t of t he i nj ur i e s s he r e c e i ve d.

The De s ki ns e s a p pe a l r a i s i ng t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue s :

I. WHETHER THE TRI AL COURT ERRED I N I TS RULI NGS RELATI VE TO THE FORTY- FI VE ( 45) MPH SPEED SI GN BEI NG PROPERLY ERECTED AFTER THE APPELLANTS RAI SED THE QUESTI ON OF THE AUTHENTI CI TY AND NON- COM PLI ANCE OF T. C. A §55- 8- 152, ET SEQ.

II. WHETHER THE TRI AL COURT ERRED I N NOT EXCLUDI NG THE TESTI MONY OF THE STATE TROOPERS RELATI VE TO THE SPEED OF APPELLANTS' VEHI CLE.

III. WHETHER THERE I S NO M ATERI AL EVI DENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDI CT I N THAT THE PHYSI CAL FACTS CAN NOT BE RECONCI LED W TH THE DI RECT TESTI M I ONY OF THE APPELLEE AND HER W TNESSES. I

I V. WHETHER THE VERDI CT OF THE J URY FI NDI NG THAT THE APPELLANT, DESKI NS, W GUI LTY OF ONE HUNDRED ( 100% AS ) PERCENT NEGLI GENCE THAT CAUSED THE ACCI DENT AND NOT FI NDI NG THE APPELLEE COM PARATI VELY NEGLI GENT I N ANY AM OUNT I NDI CATES PREJ UDI CE AGAI NST THE APPELLANTS AND UNACCOUNTABLE CAPRI CE ON THE PART OF THE J URY. APPELLEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GUI LTY OF NEGLI GENCE AS A M ATTER OF LAW .

V. W HETHER THERE W M AS ATERI AL EVI DENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXORBI TANT J UDGMENT RENDERED BY THE J URY, I N FAVOR OF APPELLEE, I N THE AM OUNT OF TWENTY THOUSAND ( $20, 000. 00) DOLLARS.

The a c c i de nt gi vi ng r i s e t o t hi s a ppe a l oc c ur r e d, a s

a l r e a d y not e d, on J une 3, 1989, a bout 9: 00 a . m. The s un wa s

2 s h i n i n g , t he r oa d wa s dr y, a nd t he we a t he r pl a ye d no f a c t or i n

i t s c a u s a t i on.

M . W l l i a ms wa s dr i vi ng a ve hi c l e i n a nor t he r l y s i

d i r e c t i on on J one s Cove Roa d, a l s o known a s St a t e Rout e 339.

J o n e s Cove Roa d i nt e r s e c t s i n a T i nt e r s e c t i on wi t h Ol d Ne wpor t

Hi g h wa y , a l s o known a s ol d U. S. Rout e 411, a t t he s c e ne of t hi s

a c c i de nt . M . De s ki ns , dr i vi ng a 1987 M r c e de s a ut omobi l e , wa s r e

p r o c e e d i ng i n a n e a s t e r l y di r e c t i on on Ol d Ne wpor t Hi ghwa y a nd,

a f t e r c r e s t i ng a hi l l s ome 100 ya r ds f r om t he i nt e r s e c t i on, wa s

u n a b l e t o s t op be f or e t he f r ont of hi s ve hi c l e c ol l i de d wi t h t h e

l e f t f r ont of M . W l l i a ms ' s i ve hi c l e , whi c h wa s pr oc e e di ng nor t h

o n J o n e s Cove Roa d a nd ha d pul l e d i nt o t he i nt e r s e c t i on i nt e nd i n g

t o t u r n l e f t , or we s t , on Ol d Ne wpor t Hi ghwa y.

M . De s ki ns ' s ve hi c l e l e f t s ki d ma r ks of 130 f e e t pr i o r r

t o s t r i ki ng M . W l l i a ms ' s i ve hi c l e .

Ac c or di ng t o M . W l l i a ms , s he s t oppe d a t t he s t op s i g n s i

f a c i n g he r on J one s Cove Roa d, dr ove up t o a whi t e l i ne s ome f e w

f e e t n o r t h of t he s t op s i g n, s t oppe d a ga i n, t he n pr oc e e de d i nt o

t h e i n t e r s e c t i on a f t e r l oo ki ng bot h wa ys a nd obs e r vi ng no

t r af f i c. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t he i mpa c t he r ve hi c l e wa s

k n o c k e d ba c kwa r d a nd, upon t r a ve l i ng i n ha l f - c i r c l e c our s e ,

u l t i ma t e l y c a me t o r e s t a ga i ns t t he out s i de wa l l of Howa r d' s

Gr o c e r y , whi c h wa s l oc a t e d i n t he s out hwe s t qua dr a nt of t he

i n t e r s e c t i on. ( Se e Appe ndi x. )

3 A d i s i nt e r e s t e d wi t ne s s t e s t i f i e d t ha t M . W l l i a ms , s i

u p o n o b s e r vi ng M . De s ki ns be a r i ng down upon he r , s t oppe d, put r

t h e ve hi c l e i n r e ve r s e , a nd, a f t e r i mpa c t , ba c ke d i t a ga i ns t t h e

Ho wa r d Gr oc e r y St or e Bui l di ng.

The pr oof wa s a l s o i n s ha r p di s put e a s t o whe t he r t he

c a r wa s i n d r i ve a t t he t i me i t hi t t he bui l di ng, a s M . W l l i a ms s i

t e s t i f i e d, o r wa s i n r e ve r s e , a s t e s t i f i e d by t he di s i nt e r e s t e d

wi t n e s s , who a l s o t e s t i f i e d t ha t a f t e r t he a c c i de nt he pl a c e d t h e

g e a r i n pa r k a nd r e move d t he ke ys .

Al t hough muc h of t he t e s t i mony, a s a bove not e d, i s i n

d i s p u t e , t he e vi de nc e i s a l mos t una ni mous t ha t a t t he t i me M . s

W l l i a ms s t a r t e d p ul l i ng i nt o t he i nt e r s e c t i on, M . De s ki ns i r

v e h i c l e wa s not i n s i ght .

Apr opos of t he f i r s t i s s ue , t he De s ki ns e s c ont e nd t h e

Tr i a l Cour t wa s i n e r r or i n c ha r gi ng t he j ur y t ha t t he a r e a i n

q u e s t i o n wa s s ubj e c t t o a 45- mi l e s pe e d l i mi t a nd t ha t i f M . r

De s k i n s wa s t r a ve l i ng i n e xc e s s of 45 mi l e s pe r hour he wa s

g u i l t y of ne gl i ge nc e pe r s e . The y ba s e t he i r c ont e nt i on on t h e

p r o o f d e ve l ope d i n t he i r mot i on i n l i mi ne whi c h s howe d t ha t

i n s o f a r a s t he r e c or ds we r e a va i l a bl e no a c t i on wa s t a ke n by t h e

p r o p e r c ount y or s t a t e of f i c i a l s t o r e duc e t he ge ne r a l s t a t e - wi d e

s p e e d l i mi t whi c h, a t t he t i me of t he a c c i de nt , wa s 55 mi l e s p e r

hour .

4 Bot h p a r t i e s c i t e t he c a s e o f Thoma s v. Ha r pe r , 5 3

Te n n . Ap p. 549, 564, 385 S. W 2d 130, 138 ( 1964) , whi c h, a s .

p e r t i ne nt t o t hi s a ppe a l s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng:

T. C. A. § 59- 853 [ now 55- 8- 153] , a mong ot he r t hi ngs a u t hor i z e s t he l e gi s l a t i ve a ut hor i t y of t owns a nd c i t i e s t o p r e s c r i be s pe e d l i mi t s wi t hi n c e r t a i n a r e a s o r z one s or on de s i gna t e d hi ghwa ys , a ve nue s , s t r e e t s i n t he i r r e s pe c t i ve j ur i s di c t i ons , a nd t o e r e c t a p pr opr i a t e s i gns a nd t r a f f i c s i gna l s .

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

Related

Otis v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
850 S.W.2d 439 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Thomas v. Harper
385 S.W.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1964)
Smith v. Shelton
569 S.W.2d 421 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)
E. C. Palmer & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of El Paso
2 S.W.2d 939 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Horne v. Palmer
274 S.W.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Randall E. Deskins, et ux. v. Beulah M. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-e-deskins-et-ux-v-beulah-m-williams-tennctapp-1997.