Knapp v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
682 S.W.2d 936, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3430 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A summary judgment is inappropriate in a negligence action when the outcome depends heavily on the credibility of witnesses, especially when their bias, prejudice, or interest is adequately challenged, or when sufficient circumstantial evidence exists to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
Facts:
- Norman D. Lane spent the afternoon of December 3, 1982, drinking at his law office, consuming more alcohol there than later at a cocktail lounge.
- Lane arrived at 'Chuggers' lounge, owned by Holiday Inns, Inc., prior to 6:30 p.m., intending to wait for traffic congestion to ease.
- A waitress at Chuggers, who was a former client and friend of Mr. Lane, stated in an affidavit that she served him two drinks before she left work at 7:00 p.m. and that he did not appear intoxicated.
- Mr. Lane later recalled ordering another drink from a second waitress, but this waitress had no independent recollection of serving him that evening.
- Mr. Lane left Chuggers at 8:00 p.m., felt concerned about being arrested for driving while intoxicated, and drove onto I-65.
- Approximately ten minutes after leaving Chuggers, Mr. Lane mistook the gas pedal for the brake, accelerated into the rear of another car, crossed the median, and struck the automobile driven by David L. Knapp head-on.
- David L. Knapp was killed in the accident, and Mr. Lane's blood sample, taken within an hour, showed a blood alcohol concentration of .23%.
- Mr. Lane admitted in his pleadings that his negligence caused David Knapp's death and that he was driving while intoxicated.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis L. Knapp, as administrator of his son’s estate, brought a wrongful death action in the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County against Holiday Inns, Inc., alleging negligent service of alcohol.
- Holiday Inns, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the complaint failed to state a claim, it committed no negligent act proximately causing death, and that David Knapp's death resulted from independent and superseding causes.
- Holiday Inns, Inc. submitted depositions and affidavits from Norman D. Lane, his law clerk, a cocktail waitress (a former client/friend of Lane), and other hotel staff in support of its motion.
- Mr. Knapp responded to the motion by filing affidavits from a Professor of Toxicology and the Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Laboratory, and challenged the credibility of Holiday Inns, Inc.'s witnesses due to bias and interest.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion for summary judgment.
- On January 9, 1984, the trial court entered an order granting Holiday Inns, Inc. a summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine dispute of material fact exist, precluding summary judgment, when the credibility of key witnesses whose testimony favors the moving party is challenged due to potential bias and interest, and when circumstantial evidence creates a reasonable inference contrary to the direct testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch
Yes, a genuine factual dispute exists regarding whether employees of Chuggers served alcoholic beverages to Norman Lane when he was visibly intoxicated, thereby precluding summary judgment. The court reversed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that summary judgments should be granted only hesitantly in negligence cases where determinative issues should be decided by a trier of fact after assessing witness demeanor and credibility. The only direct witness (the waitress) was an employee of Holiday Inns, Inc., a personal friend, and a former client of Mr. Lane, which sufficiently raises a question of her credibility. The use of affidavits, particularly from interested witnesses, is the least satisfactory form of evidentiary material for summary judgment because it deprives the fact-finder of the opportunity to judge credibility through cross-examination. Furthermore, the proof submitted by Holiday Inns, Inc. was insufficient, as it did not account for Mr. Lane’s demeanor during the entire period he was at the lounge, specifically the final hour. The high blood alcohol concentration of .23% within an hour of leaving Chuggers, combined with properly admitted expert testimony, serves as circumstantial evidence relevant to determining Mr. Lane’s visible intoxication and creates a material factual dispute.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for granting summary judgment in Tennessee, particularly in negligence actions where witness credibility is central. It reinforces that courts should be hesitant to grant summary judgment when the outcome depends on assessing the veracity of witnesses, especially those with a potential bias or interest. The decision allows circumstantial evidence, like blood alcohol content, to create a material factual dispute, preventing summary judgment even when direct testimony favors the movant. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants in dram shop cases to obtain summary judgment by relying solely on affidavits from their employees or other interested parties, thus preserving the role of the jury in evaluating credibility and drawing inferences from evidence.
