Kim L. Higgs v. John C. Green
M2016-01369-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- On January 11, 2012, Higgs and Green collided when Green made a left turn into a gas station and Higgs’ car struck the passenger-side rear quadrant of Green’s vehicle.
- Higgs sued alleging Green failed to yield, turned without confirming safety, and violated several statutory "rules of the road" (Tenn. Code §§ cited), asserting negligence per se.
- At trial Officer Curtis Rich (investigator) testified he arrived after vehicles were moved, had no independent recollection beyond his report, and his report did not state Green crossed a double-yellow line; he did testify (based on area familiarity) there was a double-yellow line.
- The trial court limited Officer Rich to testimony contained in his report and statements made by the drivers at the scene and precluded testimony about a double-yellow crossing; a directed verdict was granted on that specific double-yellow allegation.
- The jury found Higgs 75% at fault and Green 25%; judgment for Green followed. Higgs moved for a new trial on (1) exclusion of double-yellow evidence and (2) juror misconduct (affidavits alleging jurors discussed testimony and doubted Higgs’s injuries). The trial court denied the motion and Higgs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding exclusion of double-yellow evidence was not an abuse of discretion and juror misconduct, while occurring, did not more probably than not affect the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence that Green crossed a double-yellow line when turning | Higgs: Evidence of crossing the double-yellow line was relevant to fault/negligence per se and should have been admissible | Green: Officer lacked firsthand observation, no citation, not an expert, and Plaintiff never pleaded a double-yellow violation | Court: Excluding double-yellow evidence was not an abuse of discretion—crossing was not a statutory violation implicated here and was not a fact of consequence to charged statutory violations |
| Whether Tenn. Code § 55-8-115(a) (crossing center line) made the double-yellow crossing dispositive | Higgs: Crossing center line (double-yellow) is unlawful and probative | Green: Even if crossed, defendant was turning into a business and exiting roadway, so §55-8-115(a) inapplicable | Court: §55-8-115(a) inapplicable because defendant was leaving the roadway to enter the gas station; statute did not make the crossing dispositive |
| Qualification and scope of Officer Rich’s testimony | Higgs: Officer’s familiarity and report supported testimony about roadway markings | Green: Officer lacked independent recollection and expertise; his report did not show double-yellow crossing | Court: Trial court properly limited officer to matters in his report and statements made at the scene; exclusion appropriate given lack of recollection, citation, or expert status |
| Juror misconduct based on pre-deliberation juror discussions and comments about Higgs’s testimony/injuries | Higgs: Jurors discussed the case before close of proof and expressed views undermining impartiality, warranting a new trial | Green: Alleged misconduct did not demonstrably affect verdict; comments were harmless | Court: Jury disobeyed instructions, but Higgs failed to show by preponderance that misconduct more probably than not affected the verdict; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Danny L. Davis Contractors, Inc. v. Hobbs, 157 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn.) (admissibility and discretionary review principles)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn.) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained and limits on appellate reversal)
- State v. Davis, 484 S.W.3d 138 (Tenn.) (construction of Tenn. Code § 55-8-115 and crossing center line as offense)
- Allen v. Albea, 476 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (jury verdict must be grounded in evidence; burden to prove juror misconduct)