545 S.W.3d 428
Tenn.2018Background
- Multi-vehicle crash (March 23, 2012) in which Sharon Myres (decedent) died; Charles Myres (husband) was later criminally charged for vehicular homicide.
- Brittany Noel Nelson (decedent’s daughter) filed a wrongful death suit naming Charles Myres and Justin Bennett (and later Myres’ employer Adenus); Charles Myres also filed a wrongful death suit naming Bennett only.
- Trial court consolidated actions and dismissed Nelson’s complaint, holding the surviving spouse (Myres) had statutory priority to file the wrongful death action.
- Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning Myres had an inherent conflict because his conduct contributed to the death and thus Nelson’s suit should proceed.
- Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and considered whether the wrongful death statutes create any exception to spousal priority when the spouse allegedly caused the death, and whether the spouse waived that priority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nelson) | Defendant's Argument (Myres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who has priority to institute wrongful death claims under Tenn. Code § 20-5-106 when a surviving spouse is accused of causing the death? | Spouse should be disqualified when accused of negligently causing death; allowing spouse to proceed would let a wrongdoer benefit and deprive decedent of full recovery. | Statute plainly gives surviving spouse priority; no statutory exception for negligent killing; spouse not disqualified absent statutory language. | The statute is plain: surviving spouse retains priority; no exception for negligent killing. |
| Whether equitable or common-law exceptions (e.g., slayer/doctrine preventing wrongdoer benefit) apply to deprive spouse of priority | Courts may use equitable power (as some out-of-state cases held) to prevent wrongdoer from controlling litigation. | Tennessee statutory scheme is unique; legislature provided limited exceptions (abandonment, intentional killing via slayer statute) and did not include negligent-killing exception. | No judicially-created exception applies; negligent killing does not bar spouse from instituting action. |
| Whether spouse waived priority by failing to sue certain parties or by conflict of interest | Myres’ failure to sue himself or employer and asserted conflicts show implied waiver or lack of diligence, so children should be allowed to proceed. | Filing suit and asserting priority is not waiver; choice of defendants is within spouse’s control and does not constitute waiver. | No waiver: Myres asserted priority and thereby controlled litigation; his choice of defendants does not waive right. |
| Whether the Slayer Statute or similar doctrines bar spouse when death results from spouse’s wrongdoing | (Nelson) Not argued for application; points to principle that wrongdoer shouldn’t benefit. | Slayer statute (as interpreted) applies only to intentional killings; negligent killing not covered. | Slayer Statute limited to intentional killings; negligent killing does not disqualify spouse under that statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2017) (recognizing surviving spouse has prior and superior right to file wrongful death action)
- Foster v. Jeffers, 813 S.W.2d 449 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (discussing spousal priority and waiver possibility)
- Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002) (Rule 12.02 motion-to-dismiss standard and treating complaint allegations as true)
- Moore v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 878 S.W.2d 946 (Tenn. 1994) (interpreting slayer statute to require intent for forfeiture)
- Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197 (Tenn. 2002) (surviving spouse’s priority and control of wrongful death litigation)
- Busby v. Massey, 686 S.W.2d 60 (Tenn. 1985) (addressing priority and representation issues in wrongful death contexts)