Cooper v. Tabb
347 S.W.3d 207
Tenn. Ct. App.2010Background
- Cooper sued Dr. Tabb and others for medical negligence after Phillipsen’s death in childbirth; trial involved a jury verdict in Dr. Tabb’s favor and a later motion for a new trial.
- Trial court granted Cooper’s motion for a new trial; approximately three years later it reconsidered and reinstated the jury verdict.
- Judge Childers transferred the case for a new trial and later reconsidered the order; Dr. Tabb sought interlocutory appeal but was denied.
- Dr. Tabb moved to reconsider the August 2006 order; Judge Childers held a hearing in September 2009 and granted reconsideration.
- Cooper appealed the order granting reconsideration; the issue centered on whether the trial court properly acted as thirteenth juror and whether it had jurisdiction to reconsider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider its order granting a new trial | Cooper: no jurisdiction to revisit after three years | Tabb: order granting new trial was interlocutory; court could modify before final | Trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider the order |
| Whether the motion to reconsider was timely | Cooper: Rule 59/60 time limits apply to final judgments only | Tabb: order was interlocutory; no time-bar | Rule 59/60 not applicable; reconsideration timely while interlocutory |
| Whether the trial court properly acted as thirteenth juror on reconsideration | Cooper: 2006 dissatisfaction showed jury error; must grant new trial | Tabb: 2009 ruling shows no dissatisfaction with verdict | Reversal of reconsideration; based on combined 2006/2009 reasoning, remand for new trial |
| Whether other evidentiary rulings and attorney conduct issues were properly handled | Cooper: preserved issues; merits unresolved | Tabb: not necessary to address now | Declined to address remaining issues; remand for new trial on core issue |
Key Cases Cited
- George v. Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996) (relevance to thirteenth juror evidentiary ruling and comparative fault discussion)
- Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Smithwick, 112 Tenn. 463, 79 S.W.803 (1904) (early standard for dissatisfaction with verdict; thirteenth juror concept)
- James E. Strates Shows, Inc. v. Jakobik, 554 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn. 1977) (limits on reconsideration where initial dissatisfaction shown but later reliance on evidence)
- Holden v. Rannick, 682 S.W.2d 903 (Tenn. 1984) (necessity of independent satisfaction with verdict by trial court)
- Davidson v. Lindsey, 104 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. 2003) (purpose and scope of thirteenth juror review; determine satisfaction with verdict)
- Washington v. 822 Corp., 43 S.W.3d 491 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (approach to post-trial weight-of-evidence review by trial court)