Kobie Turner v. City of Memphis
W2015-02510-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- On Dec. 30, 2012, Kobie Turner (plaintiff) and Memphis police Officer Tony Brown (driving a City vehicle) collided head‑on on Third Street; Turner alleged Brown crossed into oncoming traffic and struck him.
- Turner sued the City of Memphis under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claiming negligence and sought $300,000; medical bills at trial were stipulated reasonable and necessary ($24,426.18).
- Disputed fact: Brown claimed he swerved to avoid a person/dog in the roadway (sudden emergency); Turner denied seeing any animal or person.
- Bench trial (no jury) resulted in the trial court finding Brown (and thus the City) solely negligent, rejecting the sudden‑emergency defense and not apportioning fault to any unknown nonparty.
- Trial court awarded Turner $90,000 in damages (including non‑economic damages), and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Officer Brown the legal/proximate cause of Turner’s injuries? | Turner: Brown negligently crossed into oncoming traffic and caused the collision. | City: Brown encountered a sudden emergency (person/dog) which justified swerving; Brown not the legal cause. | Court affirmed trial court: City failed to prove sudden emergency; credibility findings favored Turner, so Brown was the legal cause. |
| Should fault have been apportioned to an unknown nonparty (dog/person) or to Turner? | Turner: No evidence of his own negligence; fault lies with City. | City: Any fault should be attributed to the dog/person (unknown tortfeasor) or Turner. | Court: Trial court discredited existence of the dog/person; fault need not be and may not be allocated to a phantom nonparty; Turner found not at fault. |
| Was the damages award excessive? | Turner: Award appropriate based on trauma workup, loss of consciousness, ongoing pain and suffering. | City: Award excessive given limited medical bills entered, withdrawn chiropractic claim, and inconsistencies in testimony. | Court: $90,000 award (including ~$65,574 non‑economic damages) not excessive; supported by testimony and medical evidence, and within reasonable precedent. |
| Did the trial court err in applying comparative fault / sudden emergency doctrine? | Turner: Doctrine inapplicable because no credible emergency was proven. | City: Sudden emergency should reduce or eliminate Brown’s liability. | Court: Sudden emergency subsumed into comparative fault; City bore burden to prove it and failed—trial court’s credibility determination upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (explains that the sudden emergency doctrine is folded into Tennessee’s comparative‑fault analysis).
- Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013) (defines "clear and convincing" standard for overturning credibility‑based factual findings).
- Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (explains meaning of clear and convincing evidence).
- Brown v. Wal‑Mart Discount Cities, 12 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000) (holds fault cannot be apportioned to an unknown/insufficiently identified tortfeasor).
- Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013) (discusses proof and assessment of economic and non‑economic damages).
- Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (non‑economic damages need not be proved with mathematical precision).