Perez v. McConkey
1994 Tenn. LEXIS 50, 872 S.W.2d 897 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common-law doctrine of implied assumption of risk is abolished as a complete bar to recovery and is merged into the principles of comparative fault. The reasonableness of a party's conduct in confronting a known risk is to be analyzed under the principles of duty and comparative fault, not as an absolute defense.
Facts:
- Jamie McConkey employed Nancy S. Perez to operate screen printing machinery in a small, enclosed back room.
- The machinery included a dryer that heated up to 310 degrees Fahrenheit, and the printing process produced smoke and vapors.
- Perez experienced flu-like symptoms, which she attributed to the excessive heat and inadequate ventilation in the workspace.
- Perez complained to McConkey on several occasions about the oppressive heat and lack of ventilation, but McConkey did not remedy the situation.
- On July 10, 1989, while operating the machinery, Perez fainted from the heat and vapors, fell, and sustained a head injury and heat exhaustion that required hospitalization.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy S. Perez filed a common-law negligence action against her employer, Jamie McConkey, in the trial court.
- At trial, after Perez presented her case, McConkey moved for a directed verdict, arguing Perez had impliedly assumed the risk of her injuries.
- The trial court granted McConkey's motion for a directed verdict, finding as a matter of law that Perez had assumed the risk.
- Perez, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded, holding that secondary implied assumption of risk should be considered under comparative fault principles.
- McConkey, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal 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 the common-law doctrine of implied assumption of risk survive as a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery following the judicial adoption of a modified comparative fault system?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Justice
No. The doctrine of implied assumption of risk no longer operates as a complete bar to recovery and is abolished as a separate defense in Tennessee. The principles of comparative fault, recently adopted in McIntyre v. Balentine, require that a plaintiff's conduct in encountering a known risk be analyzed in terms of relative fault, not as an all-or-nothing defense. The court reasoned that continuing to apply implied assumption of risk as a complete bar would be inconsistent with the abolition of contributory negligence and the adoption of a system designed to apportion fault. The historical justifications for the doctrine, primarily to insulate emerging industries from liability, are no longer valid social policy. The court found that issues formerly analyzed under 'primary implied assumption of risk' are better addressed by determining whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, a fundamental element of a negligence claim. Issues previously treated as 'secondary implied assumption of risk' should be evaluated by comparing the plaintiff's and defendant's respective degrees of fault. However, the doctrine of express assumption of risk, which is contractual in nature, remains a valid and complete defense.
Analysis:
This decision officially eliminates the confusing and often harsh common-law doctrine of implied assumption of risk in Tennessee, merging it into the state's comparative fault framework. It simplifies tort analysis by focusing on two core concepts: the defendant's duty and the comparative reasonableness of both parties' conduct. By abolishing the distinction between primary and secondary implied assumption of risk, the ruling prevents defendants from using an absolute defense that would contradict the logic of a comparative fault system. This case solidifies Tennessee's shift to a modern tort system where liability is apportioned based on fault rather than being completely barred by a plaintiff's awareness of a risk.
