Danny E. Iloube, Sr. v. Don M. Cain
397 S.W.3d 597
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tennessee Court of Appeals, Jackson, Aug. 15, 2012, address an automobile collision case between Iloube and Cain.
- Iloube re-filed a negligence action in Shelby County Circuit Court in Jan 2008 after a voluntary nonsuit in Jan 2007.
- Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries including medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and property damages.
- Trial proceedings in Nov 2010 ended in mistrial; a second trial in July 2011 again proceeded to jury.
- At the close of proof in 2011, the court directed verdicts on liability and Cain’s comparative fault defense, and also directed a verdict on Iloube’s medical expenses claim, while allowing others (pain, suffering, loss of earning capacity) to go to the jury; the jury returned a verdict for Cain finding no damages.
- Iloube timely appealed, challenging the directed verdict on medical expenses and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict on medical expenses proper? | Iloube argues 24-5-113 creates a presumption of reasonableness/necessity for medical bills. | Cain contends best evidence rule requires the actual bills and preserved objections; no waiver. | Directed verdict reversed; remanded for new trial limited to damages. |
| Effect of 24-5-113 presumption and necessity proof | Iloube asserts the statute creates prima facie evidence of reasonableness/necessity. | Cain argues no waiver and that best evidence rule controls absent bills. | Presumption applicable; evidence issues unresolved; remand to determine damages. |
| Whether trial court erred by denying new trial on weight of evidence | Iloube contends verdicts on damages were against weight of evidence. | Cain defends trial court rulings; issue is subsumed by remand. | Remaining issues pretermitted as unnecessary; remand limited to medical-damages issue. |
| In limine ruling excluding evidence of $1,400 property damage payment | Iloube sought to introduce the amount of vehicle repair costs, not the settlement. | Court limited references to actual repair costs and barred admission of insurer’s payment/admission. | No reversible error identified; issue deemed merits of evidentiary ruling resolved. |
| Denial of special verdict form | Iloube sought a special verdict on damages; trial court denied. | Not detailed in opinion as central to remand. | Not necessary to decide; issues narrowed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 205 S.W.3d 365 (Tenn. 2006) (directed verdict standard; disputable evidence requires denial of verdict)
- Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (de novo review of directed verdict; strongest view for non-moving party)
- Simpson v. Frontier Cmty. Credit Union, 810 S.W.2d 147 (Tenn. 1991) (judge discretion to reopen proof after directed verdict; promote justice)
- Bellisomi v. Kenny, 206 S.W.2d 787 (Tenn. 1947) (flexibility in allowing reopening of case; courts favor complainants)
- Acuff v. Vinsant, 443 S.W.2d 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969) (principle that trial courts have discretion to promote justice in trial proceedings)