Swiney v. Malone Freight Lines
545 S.W.2d 112, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 257 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when a wheel detaches from a moving vehicle, creating an inference of negligence. To rebut this inference and obtain a directed verdict, the defendant must produce evidence that destroys any reasonable inference of negligence, not merely offer an explanation of the mechanical cause of the accident.
Facts:
- On December 21, 1973, Davis M. Swiney was driving his Chevrolet automobile in a northerly direction on U.S. Highway 11-W.
- Charles Wayne Wilson was operating a tractor-trailer, owned in partnership and leased to Malone Freight Lines, in the opposite direction.
- The tractor was equipped with dual tandem wheels in the rear.
- As the two vehicles approached each other, one of the tractor's outside left-rear forward wheels detached.
- Swiney avoided a collision with the first detached wheel.
- Shortly thereafter, a second wheel from the same position also detached from the tractor-trailer.
- This second wheel rolled down the highway and struck Swiney’s vehicle in the center of the grill, causing injuries to Swiney and damage to his car.
- The defendants determined that the cause of the detachment was that the lug bolts holding the wheels had sheared off.
Procedural Posture:
- Davis M. Swiney and his wife sued Charles Wayne Wilson, his business partner, and Malone Freight Lines in a Tennessee trial court for negligence.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion, ruling the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and the case could proceed to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, where the Swineys were the appellees.
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 doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply when a wheel detaches from a moving vehicle, and is a defendant's explanation that the accident was caused by sheared lug bolts, without more, sufficient to rebut the resulting inference of negligence as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Unnamed Judge (Per Curiam)
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, and the defendant's explanation that lug bolts sheared is not sufficient, by itself, to rebut the inference of negligence as a matter of law. The detachment of a wheel from a moving vehicle is an event that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, thus creating an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur. While the defendants explained the immediate mechanical cause of the accident—sheared lug bolts—this explanation does not negate negligence. To obtain a directed verdict, a defendant's evidence must destroy any reasonable inference of negligence. Here, the defendants failed to exclude other possible negligent causes, such as improper tightening of lug nuts, failure to discover fissures during inspection, or weakening of the bolts from prior overloading. Merely offering evidence of one's own precautions is insufficient to take the case away from the jury, which is entitled to weigh the inference of negligence against the defendant’s explanation.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
Yes. The defendants' explanation was sufficient to rebut the inference of negligence, and the trial court should have directed a verdict in their favor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies only to unexplained accidents. Once the defendants went forward with proof and explained that the wheel came off because the lug bolts sheared, the accident was no longer unexplained, and the inference of negligence disappeared. The burden should have then returned to the plaintiff to prove a specific act of negligence by the defendants, such as that they knew or should have known the bolts were defective. The majority's holding improperly creates a second inference of negligence from the fact of the mechanical failure itself, effectively shifting the ultimate burden of proof to the defendants to disprove all possibilities of their own negligence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that under Tennessee law, a defendant facing a res ipsa loquitur claim cannot defeat it simply by identifying the specific mechanical failure that caused the injury. The decision establishes that the defendant's explanation must go further and be sufficient to negate the inference of their own negligence as the root cause of that failure. This ruling strengthens the position of plaintiffs in negligence cases involving unexplained mechanical breakdowns, making it more difficult for defendants to secure a directed verdict and increasing the likelihood that the question of negligence will be decided by a jury.
