How Comparative Fault Works in a Tennessee Personal Injury Case

Like many states, Tennessee follows a “modified comparative fault” rule in personal injury cases. Also called comparative negligence, this is what is known as an affirmative defense. Basically, if you sue a defendant for causing an accident that injured you, the defense can respond by arguing that someone else (either you or a third party) actually caused or contributed to the accident. If the case goes to trial, a jury must then apportion fault among all of the parties, which in turn determines how much compensation the defendant owes the plaintiff.

Federal Judge Issues Important Ruling for Little Girl Paralyzed Due to Unidentified Diver

If a defendant alleges a third party was partially or completely responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant must identify that third party when raising a comparative fault defense. That may sound obvious. But a federal judge in Tennessee recently addressed a case where a defendant could not make such an identification. Consequently, the judge barred the defense from arguing comparative negligence at trial.

This tragic case, Faulkner v. MX Sports, Inc., involves a young girl who sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury in 2022 while swimming in a Tennessee creek. She was attending an amateur motocross event with her family. While swimming, another person attending the event decided to blindly jump off a cliff adjacent to the creek. The person landed on top of the girl, paralyzing her.

The child’s parents sued the organizer of the motocross event for negligence. The organizer raised an affirmative defense of comparative fault, identifying the unknown diver as a responsible third party. Yet even after extensive pretrial discovery, the defense conceded that it “cannot identify, by name or with particularity, the individual who jumped from the rock bluffs into the creek and landed on [the child] on August 6, 2022.” At best, all the defense could say was that an “unidentified female individual” caused the victim’s catastrophic injury.

United States District Judge Aleta A. Trauger said that at this point in the litigation, that was not an acceptable answer. She therefore granted the parents’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of comparative fault. In simple terms, the defendant is not allowed to argue comparative fault because absent any identification of the diver, there is no way for the plaintiffs to serve this unknown person and add them to their lawsuit. More importantly, a jury cannot allocate fault to an unidentified person.

Contact a Madisonville Spinal Cord Injury Lawyer Today

Spinal cord injuries are especially devastating when they affect young children who may spend the rest of their lives unable to walk or function normally. Compensation in these cases is often substantial as it must account for not only a lifetime of medical care but also the victim’s expected pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life. And while no amount of money can undo the damage that has been done, holding the responsible parties accountable can bring such victims and their families a sense of justice.

If you need to speak with a qualified Madisonville spinal cord injury lawyer about your own case, contact Whitfield Crosby & Flynn today to schedule a free consultation. We have offices in Madisonville, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8973911132013002177