Denise Elliott v. State of Tennessee, M2016-00392-COA-R3-CV

On Oct. 12, 2012 Denise Elliott (Claimant) lost control on Exit 3 of SR-386 (a curved ramp) where pavement transitions from concrete to asphalt and her vehicle rolled down an embankment.
Claimant alleged the asphalt at expansion joints had deteriorated and been repeatedly patched, creating irregular pavement that, when wet, caused loss of traction and was the proximate cause of the crash.
Claimant sued the State under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) (negligence in design, construction, maintenance of state highways); the Claims Commission heard testimony and expert opinions at trial.
Claimant’s expert, a transportation engineer, testified the irregular pavement was a defect and a major cause of the accident; he conceded patching with asphalt is one repair method but a uniform overlay was preferable.
State experts (TDOT engineers) testified the ramp met design standards (advisory speed appropriate; adequate clear zone) and that patching with bituminous asphalt was acceptable; the Claims Commissioner found no State negligence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence did not preponderate against the Commissioner’s findings that the State did not breach its duty of reasonable care.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State was negligent in design, construction, or maintenance of the exit ramp under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I)	Elliott: irregular/uneven pavement at expansion joints (repeated asphalt patching) created a dangerous defect that caused the accident	State: ramp was designed/constructed per standards; maintenance (asphalt patching) was an acceptable repair; no proof maintenance was unreasonable	Held for State — Claimant failed to prove breach; evidence did not preponderate against Commissioner’s finding of no negligence
Whether the Claims Commission’s factual findings should be overturned on appeal	Elliott: record of other wet-weather single-car accidents and expert opinion show defect and causation	State: expert testimony and construction records support reasonableness; no causal link to negligent design/maintenance	Held: appellate review de novo with presumption of correctness for Commissioner’s factual findings; presumption stands and findings affirmed

Goodermote v. State, 856 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (negligence principles govern state highway liability under § 9-8-307)
McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767 (Tenn. 1991) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
Helton v. Knox County, Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996) (government standard of care in road maintenance is reasonableness, not absolute safety)
Usher v. Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., 339 S.W.3d 45 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (appellate standard reviewing factual findings of Claims Commissioner)
Ray Bell Const. Co. v. Tenn. Dep’t of Transp., 356 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate review of legal conclusions de novo)