Braden ex rel. Braden v. Hall

Rule of Law:

For the last clear chance doctrine to apply to an inattentive plaintiff who is contributorily negligent, the defendant must have had actual knowledge of the plaintiff's perilous situation and inattentiveness in time to avoid the harm. It is not sufficient to show that the defendant merely should have known of the plaintiff's peril.

Facts:

• John W. Braden, fifteen years old, was riding his bicycle with other teenagers in a church parking lot adjacent to Maple Street.
• Cathy Hall, sixteen years old, was driving her father's car on Maple Street, a straight and level two-lane road with a thirty mph speed limit.
• The accident occurred during daylight hours in clear, dry weather.
• As Hall turned onto Maple Street, she saw children playing in the church parking lot two blocks away.
• Hall was traveling at a speed of twenty-five to thirty miles per hour.
• Braden rode his bicycle out of the parking lot and directly into the path of Hall's oncoming vehicle.
• Hall did not see Braden until he entered her lane of traffic.
• Upon seeing Braden, Hall immediately applied her brakes, skidding thirty-six feet and eight inches before striking him in her lane of traffic.

Procedural Posture:

• John A. Braden and Wanda Braden (plaintiffs) sued Cathy Hall and her father, Billy J. Hall (defendants), in a Tennessee trial court for the wrongful death of their son.
• The trial judge found that the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law but instructed the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance.
• The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $127,920.
• Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial judge granted, but then, upon plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, reversed his decision and denied the new trial, instead suggesting a remittitur of $50,000.
• The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.