Richard Conroy v. City of Dickson
2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110, 2001 WL 177186, 49 S.W.3d 868 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee's comparative fault system, a defendant's alleged gross negligence is not a distinct category of conduct that bars comparison with a plaintiff's ordinary negligence; instead, it is subsumed into the overall analysis of apportioning relative degrees of fault.
Facts:
- On the night of November 30, 1992, Richard Conroy stopped his vehicle on Highway 46, intending to make a left turn across the southbound lane onto Gum Branch Road.
- Conroy testified that after waiting for traffic, he saw only a 'glow of lights' over the crest of a hill about 175-200 feet to his north and began his turn.
- A police cruiser driven by Officer John Baynham came over the hill at a speed well in excess of the 45 mph limit.
- Officer Baynham was responding to a non-emergency domestic disturbance call and was not using his cruiser's siren or emergency lights.
- Officer Baynham's cruiser collided with the passenger side of Conroy's car, causing Conroy to suffer serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Conroy filed a complaint for negligence against the City of Dickson, its police department, and Officer Baynham in the Dickson County Circuit Court (trial court).
- The City of Dickson filed an Answer and a Counter-Claim, alleging Conroy was negligent.
- Officer Baynham was dismissed as a defendant pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act after the City admitted he was acting within the scope of his employment.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Conroy and the City of Dickson to be equally at fault (50% each).
- Based on Tennessee's modified comparative fault rule, the court dismissed Conroy's claim and the City's counterclaim because a plaintiff found 50% or more at fault cannot recover.
- Conroy (Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
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 Tennessee's comparative fault doctrine permit the comparison of a defendant's alleged gross negligence with a plaintiff's ordinary negligence, or does gross negligence remain a separate category that bars such a comparison?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantrell, P.J., M.S.
Yes, Tennessee's comparative fault doctrine permits the comparison of a defendant's gross negligence with a plaintiff's ordinary negligence. The adoption of comparative fault rendered the separate doctrine of gross negligence obsolete, incorporating its underlying principles into the general assessment of relative fault. The court reasoned that gross negligence was a concept developed to mitigate the harshness of the old, all-or-nothing contributory negligence system. With the adoption of comparative fault in McIntyre v. Balentine, the need for such legalistic distinctions and 'vituperative epithets' vanished. The goal of the modern system is simplification and a fair apportionment of damages based on a comparison of all negligent conduct. Therefore, acts that might previously have been labeled 'gross' are now simply factors to be considered by the trier of fact when allocating percentages of fault under the framework established in Eaton v. McLain.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the obsolescence of gross negligence as a distinct legal doctrine in Tennessee's comparative fault jurisprudence. By holding that even a high degree of negligence is comparable to ordinary negligence, the court prevents the re-introduction of categorical, all-or-nothing outcomes that the comparative fault system was designed to eliminate. This reinforces the principle that all forms of fault short of intentional conduct exist on a single continuum and must be weighed by the fact-finder. The ruling simplifies tort litigation by focusing the inquiry on the specific facts and relative blameworthiness of each party's conduct, rather than on labeling that conduct with pre-defined legal terms.
Unlock the full brief for Richard Conroy v. City of Dickson