Volodymyr Helyukh v. Buddy Head Livestock & Trucking, Inc.
W2015-01354-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- On Nov. 16, 2011, Volodymyr Helyukh collided with an overturned tractor-trailer owned by Buddy Head Livestock & Trucking, driven by employee Michael Heller; Helyukh had no personal knowledge how the truck overturned.
- Plaintiffs sued Buddy Head Livestock (and others originally) alleging Heller’s negligence proximately caused Helyukh’s injuries; Heller was later dismissed as a defendant but remained a relevant witness.
- Buddy Head moved for summary judgment, submitting Heller’s affidavit (saying he was forced off the road by an unidentified third commercial vehicle, was not speeding, and lost control re-entering the road) and an accident-reconstruction affidavit supporting Heller’s account.
- Plaintiffs opposed, arguing Heller’s affidavit and the reconstruction lacked sufficient detail to negate breach, pointed to inconsistencies (e.g., police report, earlier pleadings), and sought additional discovery/deposition of Heller; the trial court denied a continuance and sanctions and granted summary judgment for Buddy Head.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether Buddy Head met its burden to affirmatively negate breach of duty and concluded genuine factual disputes existed about whether Heller exercised reasonable care; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buddy Head met its burden to affirmatively negate breach of duty on summary judgment | Helyukh: Heller’s affidavit and reconstruction are insufficient; credibility issues and inconsistencies create triable issues | Buddy Head: Heller’s affidavit and expert show he was not negligent (not speeding, forced off road by third vehicle), so no breach | Court: Reversed — Buddy Head did not affirmatively negate breach; reasonable jurors could differ whether Heller acted reasonably |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993) (movant bears burden to persuade court no genuine material facts exist on summary judgment)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (movant may negate an element or show nonmovant’s evidence is insufficient)
- McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (elements of negligence and sudden-emergency discussion)
- McCarley v. W. Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585 (Tenn. 1998) (court must first determine if movant met its burden before shifting burden to nonmoving party)
- Blair v. W. Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)