372 S.W.3d 112
Tenn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Indoccio, a tile subcontractor, fell on a staircase during home construction in Rutherford County, caused by a loose temporary tread installed by Meeks’ crew.
- Meeks and M&A Builders were sued for negligence over the unreasonably dangerous staircase condition, including the use of inappropriate materials, lack of warnings, and a dirty, poorly lit workplace.
- Pretrial, the court excluded evidence of marijuana use by Meeks and employees and Timothy Meeks’s misdemeanor convictions and probation violations.
- The August 2010 trial featured a jury verdict allocating fault: Indoccio 50%, Meeks 35%, M&A Builders 15%; judgment entered August 26, 2010, with a motion for new trial denied.
- On appeal, Indoccio challenged the marijuana evidence exclusion, the impeachment evidence exclusion, and jury instructions on notice, negligence, and foreseeability; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings and held the instructions proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of marijuana evidence | Indoccio contends marijuana evidence was probative of foreseeability and causation. | Meeks and M&A Builders argued the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; evidence properly excluded. |
| Exclusion of Timothy Meeks’ misdemeanor convictions and probation violations | Timothy Meeks’ past offenses impeachment evidence; probative of truthfulness. | Misdemeanor convictions not admissible under Rule 609 and probation violations not probative of truthfulness. | No abuse of discretion; evidence excluded. |
| Jury instructions on notice, negligence, and foreseeability | Instructions misstate law and overemphasize burden, harming Indoccio. | Instructions, taken as a whole, accurately state law. | No reversible error; instructions fair as a whole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; relevance and prejudice near-rule 403)
- Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2004) (evidence rules and abuse of discretion standard)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard; appellate deference to trial court)
- McCormick v. Waters, 594 S.W.2d 385 (Tenn. 1980) (open and obvious doctrine background in premises liability)
- Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998) (open and obvious danger does not automatically bar duty)
- Goff v. Elmo Greer & Sons Const. Co., Inc., 297 S.W.3d 175 (Tenn. 2009) (review of jury charges; charge must be considered as a whole)
- Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn. 1992) (principles on evaluating jury instructions)
- In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (case cited regarding whether errors in charge require reversal)
- Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., 939 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (juror instruction review standards)
- Hatchett v. State, 552 S.W.2d 414 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977) (impeachment of witness credibility; rule on drug-related conduct)