Michael S. Becker v. Ford Motor Company
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 191
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Becker and Lorraine Becker filed a products liability and warranty suit against Ford in Tennessee state court for injuries to Michael Becker from a Ford F-150 accident involving Phillip Becker; Ford removed to federal court and asserted fault against a known non-party (Phillip) and others; the Beckers sought to amend to add Phillip under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 within 90 days of Ford’s answer; the District Court certified a legal question to Tennessee Supreme Court under Rule 23; the Beckers amended to name Phillip as a defendant; the Tennessee Supreme Court held that § 20-1-119 applies to known parties and allows amendment within 90 days after an answer asserting fault against the non-party; the decision resolves whether a plaintiff may use the 90-day saving provision when the non-party was known before the original filing and was not originally sued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 20-1-119 permits amending to add a known tortfeasor after an answer asserts fault against that tortfeasor. | Becker: known tortfeasor may be added within 90 days under § 20-1-119. | Ford: § 20-1-119 only applies to unknown tortfeasors or those not named in original suit. | Yes; plaintiff may add a previously known tortfeasor within 90 days of first answer asserting fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (replaced contributory negligence with comparative fault; linking liability to fault; four guiding principles)
- Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 214 (Tenn. 2010) (illustrates the four comparative fault principles; joint/several liability effects)
- Mann v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 380 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2012) (advocates fairness and efficiency in § 20-1-119 context)
- Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., 50 S.W.3d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (controlling authority on § 20-1-119 interpretation before Tennessee Supreme Court adoption)
- Lipscomb v. Doe, 32 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. 2000) (concerning whether the added party need be unknown at filing; broader reading supported by concurring opinion)