Michael S. Becker v. Ford Motor Company
2014 WL 901510, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 191, 431 S.W.3d 588 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119, a plaintiff may utilize the statute's 90-day savings provision to add a non-party tortfeasor as a defendant after the statute of limitations has run, regardless of whether the plaintiff had prior knowledge of that tortfeasor's identity or potential fault.
Facts:
- On July 28, 2012, Michael S. Becker was a passenger in a Ford F150 truck driven by his son, Phillip Becker.
- While Phillip Becker was driving, the truck left the road and struck a light pole.
- Michael Becker sustained severe injuries, including a mid-thoracic spinal cord injury, while Phillip Becker was uninjured.
- At all times, Michael Becker and his wife, Lorraine Becker, knew that their son, Phillip Becker, was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Lorraine Becker sued Ford Motor Company in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, a state trial court.
- Ford removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Ford filed an answer alleging that Phillip Becker, among others, was comparatively at fault for the accident.
- The Beckers filed a motion to amend their complaint to add Phillip Becker as a defendant, relying on Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119.
- Ford opposed the motion, arguing the statute did not apply to known tortfeasors and the claim against Phillip Becker was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The U.S. District Court certified the question of law concerning the interpretation of the statute to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 permit a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a tortfeasor, whose identity was known to the plaintiff before the statute of limitations expired, after an original defendant alleges that tortfeasor is comparatively at fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, J.
Yes. A plaintiff may rely on the ninety-day savings provision in Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 to add a previously known, but unsued, non-party tortfeasor after a defendant alleges that non-party is comparatively at fault, even if the statute of limitations has expired. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute does not contain any requirement that the non-party tortfeasor be unknown to the plaintiff. The statute was enacted as a remedial measure following the adoption of comparative fault in McIntyre v. Balentine to provide plaintiffs a fair opportunity to bring all responsible parties before the court. The court explicitly adopted the reasoning of the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., which held that a plaintiff's prior knowledge of a potential tortfeasor is irrelevant to the application of the statute. To hold otherwise would require the court to read a limitation into the statute that the legislature did not include, which would undermine the fairness and efficiency principles of the comparative fault system.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant conflict between Tennessee state courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit regarding the interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119. By establishing that a plaintiff's prior knowledge of a tortfeasor is irrelevant, the court solidifies a broad, plaintiff-friendly application of the statute. This provides certainty for litigants in federal diversity cases, ensuring that the outcome on this issue will be the same regardless of whether the case is heard in state or federal court. The ruling reinforces the judicial principle of adhering to the plain text of a statute and refusing to add conditions not intended by the legislature, thereby strengthening the procedural tools available to plaintiffs in comparative fault cases.
