469 S.W.3d 564
Tenn. Ct. App.2015Background
- June 25, 2012 car collision: Sharon Smith (driver) and passenger Jennifer Mortimer injured; Read Hauck was the other driver. Plaintiffs sued Hauck on June 7, 2013 (within one-year limitations).
- Plaintiffs served interrogatories on Hauck (Aug. 30, 2013); Hauck responded late (Dec. 4, 2013) stating he was employed by St. Jude Medical and was driving to a hospital for work.
- Plaintiffs moved to amend and added St. Jude Medical as a defendant on Dec. 4, 2013; amended complaint alleging respondeat superior filed Dec. 20, 2013 (second amended complaint filed Apr. 23, 2014).
- St. Jude Medical moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) as barred by the one-year limitations statute; trial court dismissed and made judgment final under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court had considered extrinsic discovery materials (so the dismissal functioned as summary judgment), held that the discovery rule can apply to vicarious-liability claims, and reversed because reasonable inferences could support tolling under the discovery rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of discovery rule to respondeat superior claims | Discovery rule tolls limitations until plaintiff learns identity of vicariously liable employer | Discovery rule inapplicable or not satisfied here | Court: discovery rule can apply to vicarious-liability claims |
| Whether limitations tolled here by discovery rule | Plaintiffs had no notice employer was potentially liable until Hauck's Dec. 4, 2013 interrogatory answers; they acted promptly after learning | St. Jude: plaintiffs should have discovered employer earlier through reasonable diligence; Hauck’s answers merely show employment, not course-and-scope | Court: factual dispute exists whether plaintiffs had inquiry notice before Dec. 4, 2013; summary judgment improper and judgment reversed |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling | Plaintiffs argued Hauck sought to conceal employment status | St. Jude: issue not raised below or unsupported | Court: claim not raised in trial court and is waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pero’s Steak and Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2002) (articulates discovery rule tolling statute of limitations)
- Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974) (first application of discovery rule in medical malpractice)
- McCroskey v. Bryant Air Conditioning Co., 524 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. 1975) (extension of discovery rule beyond medical malpractice)
- Foster v. Harris, 633 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. 1982) (statute begins when plaintiff discovers negligent source of injury)
- McCullough v. Johnson City Emergency Physicians, 106 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (discussion of vicarious-liability claims and limitations)
- Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. 2010) (inquiry notice standard and accrual when facts would prompt reasonable investigation)
- Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (burden to articulate colorable basis to avoid statute where undisputed facts favor limitations)
- Strine v. Walton, 323 S.W.3d 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (plaintiff must diligently investigate; failure to amend after receiving notice defeats tolling)