Deas v. State, No. W2003-02891-COA-R3-CV (TN 11/19/2004)
| Decision Date | 19 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. W2003-02891-COA-R3-CV.,W2003-02891-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | BRIAN DEAS, ADMINISTRATOR v. STATE OF TENNESSEE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Everett B. Gibson, Memphis, TN; Patrick J. Smith, Columbus, OH, for Appellant.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Rebecca Lyford, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Appellee.
Alan E. Highers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. Frank Crawford, P.J., W.S., and David R. Farmer, J., joined.
This case involves a wrongful death action filed against the State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) and (J). Appellant is the administrator of the estate of the deceased driver of an automobile involved in a collision with another vehicle on a state highway. Following a hearing, the Commissioner ruled that the state was negligent under section 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) in inspecting and maintaining the section of highway at issue, the shoulder of the highway did not constitute a dangerous condition under section 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), the Appellant failed to prove that the condition of the highway was the proximate cause of the decedent's untimely death, and the Appellant was not entitled to recover because decedent's negligence in causing the accident was at least fifty percent (50%). The Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court, arguing that the Commissioner's findings constitute error. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.
On September 28, 1999, Leslie Yovan ("Decedent"), a young attorney from Ohio, was traveling westbound on Highway 57 in McNairy County, Tennessee, on her way to the Memphis airport to catch a return flight to Ohio. Mr. James Chaney ("Mr. Chaney") was driving his employer's truck eastbound on Highway 57 on his way to a factory. Shortly after rounding a curve on Highway 57, Decedent's right tires entered onto the shoulder of the highway. While attempting to steer back onto the paved surface, Decedent lost control of her vehicle and drove into the path of Mr. Chaney's truck. Mr. Chaney was unable to stop in time and collided with the passenger side of Decedent's car, resulting in her death.
Highway 57 is a state highway constructed and maintained by the Tennessee Department of Transportation ("TDOT"), a department of the State of Tennessee. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation ("AASHTO") creates standards governing, among other things, the shoulders of roadways. The AASHTO standards require that the shoulder of the roadway remain level with the paved surface traversed by motor vehicles. These standards have been adopted by TDOT and applied to Tennessee's state highway system. At the time of this accident, the shoulder on Highway 57 where this accident occurred was gravel.1 Over time, the gravel along the highway would dissipate due to normal wear and settlement. Throughout any given year, TDOT would readjust the gravel shoulder along Highway 57 in order to make it flush with the paved surface. In addition to the gravel shoulders, this particular stretch of highway did not have any signs posted warning motorists of a drop-off along the shoulder.
On September 12, 2000, Brian Deas ("Administrator"), the duly appointed administrator of Decedent's estate, filed a wrongful death action against TDOT with the Tennessee Claims Commission.2 Administrator alleged that TDOT's negligence in constructing and maintaining Highway 57, as well as its failure to warn motorists of a drop-off, combined to cause the death of Decedent. Specifically, Administrator alleged that the depth of the drop-off on this particular stretch of highway caused Decedent to lose control of her car and enter into the path of Mr. Chaney's truck. The state filed an answer alleging as an affirmative defense that Decedent's negligence in operating her vehicle barred recovery under Tennessee's comparative fault system.3
Commissioner Nancy Miller-Herron held a hearing on Administrator's claim on June 10, 2003, and she issued her ruling on October 23, 2003. The greatest area of contention between the parties during the proceedings below concerned the exact depth of the drop-off on this particular stretch of highway and whether the drop-off or driver error caused the Decedent to lose control of her vehicle. After hearing all the testimony and reviewing the exhibits offered by the parties, the Commissioner noted in her judgment that the testimony and exhibits reflected a wide divergence of possible depths, ranging from less than one inch up to nine inches. The Commissioner's judgment contained the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) the shoulder drop-off on Highway 57 had a depth of between two and three inches; (2) this two to three inch drop-off did not constitute a "dangerous condition" under section 9-8-307(a)(1)(J); (3) the drop-off was not the proximate cause of Decedent's death; and (4) Decedent was at least fifty percent (50%) at fault in causing the accident, thereby barring recovery under Tennessee's comparative fault system.
Administrator filed an appeal to this Court and presents the following issues for our review:
I. Whether the state's negligence in maintaining the shoulder of the highway under section 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) of the Tennessee Code, including the failure to warn motorists of a low shoulder, is the proximate cause of Decedent's death;
II. Whether the condition of the highway shoulder under the facts presented in this case constitutes a "dangerous condition" under section 9-8-307(a)(1)(J) of the Tennessee Code;
III. Whether a presumption of due care applies to Decedent's act of driving onto the shoulder of the highway;
IV. Whether the "sudden emergency doctrine" should apply when the operator of a motor vehicle allows her vehicle to cross over the fog line and onto the shoulder of the highway, and there is no competent proof that she was negligent in doing so; and
V. Whether the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's finding of negligence of at least fifty percent (50%) on the part of Decedent.
The legislature provided that the decisions of the Tennessee Claims Commission are appealable to this Court as follows:
The decisions of the individual commissioners or, when rendered, decisions of the entire commission regarding claims on the regular docket may be appealed to the Tennessee court of appeals pursuant to the same rules of appellate procedure which govern interlocutory appeals and appeals from final judgments in trial court civil actions . . . .
Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-403(a)(1) (2003). Accordingly, we are bound by the following standard of review:
Since this is a nonjury case, we review the case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact by the Commission. Unless the evidence preponderates against the findings we must affirm, absent error of law.
Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting Learue v. State, 757 S.W.2d 3, 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) (2003). "Because the [Commissioner] is in a better position to weigh and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses who testify orally, we give great weight to the [Commissioner's] findings on issues involving credibility of witnesses." Randolph v. Randolph, 937 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Gillock v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 656 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1983)). "[W]hen we review factual findings under Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), we will not reverse findings that hinge on the witnesses' credibility unless the record contains clear, concrete, and convincing evidence necessarily negating witness credibility." Pool v. State, 987 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
On appeal, Administrator argues that the Commissioner erred in failing to find that the negligent maintenance of the highway shoulder by the state was the proximate cause of Decedent's death. At trial, both sides conceded that Decedent overcorrected as she drove her vehicle back onto the roadway. The parties disagree, however, on what caused Decedent to overcorrect.
In order for Administrator to prove a cause of action based on the state's negligence, he must prove the following elements:
(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) conduct falling below the applicable standard of care amounting to a breach of that duty; (3) an injury or loss; (4) causation in fact; and (5) proximate, or legal, cause.4
McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 774 (Tenn. 1991) (citations omitted). "[I]t is not enough to prove the existence of a dangerous condition on the highway, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), or to prove that the State negligently approved, constructed, and maintained the highway, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I)." Belcher v. State, No. E2003-00642-COA-R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827, at *15-16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2003). The plaintiff must also prove that those conditions were the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the accident. Id. at *16. Our supreme court has formulated the following three-prong test for determining whether a defendant's negligence constitutes a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury:
(1) the tortfeasor's conduct must have been a "substantial factor" in bringing about the harm complained of; and (2) there is no rule or policy that should relieve the wrongdoer from liability because of the manner in which the negligence has resulted in the harm; and (3) the harm giving rise to the action could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated by a person of ordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial