Tony E. Hancock v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01501-COA-R3-CV

Background

On Feb. 25, 2012, Trooper Bobby Barker (State) struck Tony Hancock’s pickup, which was parked perpendicular and blocking the westbound lane with its rear wheels in a ditch; Hancock suffered catastrophic injuries and large medical bills.
Hancock filed a Tennessee Claims Commission claim alleging negligence by the Trooper; criminal DUI charges arising from the same incident led to suppression of Hancock’s blood test in the criminal case for spoliation, but the Claims Commissioner denied suppression in the civil case.
At the civil bench trial, the Trooper testified he did not see the truck in time to avoid collision; dashboard video and witness testimony (including odor of alcohol) were admitted; competing expert testimony addressed whether high beams or a better lookout would have allowed avoidance.
The Claims Commissioner admitted Hancock’s toxicology report over Hancock’s chain-of-custody and reliability objections but stated the report did not affect the judgment.
The Commissioner found the Trooper negligent only for not using high beams, assigned the Trooper at most 25% fault, and concluded the Trooper’s conduct was not the proximate cause of Hancock’s injuries; the claim was dismissed.
Hancock appealed, arguing erroneous admission of the toxicology report, errors in proximate-cause and comparative-fault findings; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of toxicology report	Report unreliable: no proper foundation, chain of custody, identification, or accuracy given blood loss; criminal court suppressed it for spoliation	Report was admissible in civil case; Claims Commissioner previously ruled suppression inapplicable; report admitted as self‑authenticating	Admission error, if any, harmless; Commissioner said report had no bearing and judgment stands without it
Whether Trooper was more than 50% at fault (comparative fault)	Trooper failed to use high beams; expert said high beams would have allowed sight ~500 ft to avoid collision, so Trooper should bear majority fault	Trooper kept proper speed/lookout; State’s expert said truck became visible too late for avoidance even accounting for lights	Commissioner credited State’s expert; assigned Trooper ≤25% fault; findings of fact upheld (no preponderance against them)
Proximate cause (was Trooper’s negligence a substantial factor?)	Failure to engage high beams was the last clear chance and a substantial factor causing the accident	Even if high beams weren’t used, that failure was not a substantial factor; truck blocking the roadway was the predominant cause	Three‑part proximate cause test applied; Commissioner found failure to use high beams not a substantial factor or foreseeable cause; upheld
Rebuttal of amnesia presumption of due care	Hancock had amnesia but presumption of due care can be rebutted by circumstantial evidence showing he controlled vehicle that blocked road	State: evidence (vehicle position, running engine, odor of alcohol, clear weather, no road obstruction) rebuts presumption	Commissioner found presumption rebutted; Hancock was at least partially responsible; factual finding affirmed

Key Cases Cited

McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (adoption of modified comparative‑fault system subsuming last clear chance)
King v. Anderson Cnty., 419 S.W.3d 232 (Tenn. 2013) (three‑pronged test for proximate cause: substantial factor, policy, foreseeability)
Ingram v. Phillips, 684 S.W.2d 954 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (inadmissible evidence in bench trials is harmless if ample evidence supports judgment without it)
Jeffreys v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 560 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977) (amnesiac afforded presumption of due care, rebuttable by evidence to the contrary)
Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of negligence requiring duty, breach, injury, cause in fact, and proximate cause)
Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005) (proximate cause/foreseeability principles)