Day on Torts

August 13, 2025

Morristown street sweeper driver found 51 percent at fault for collision.

Where an 87-year-old driver ran into a street sweeper, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that the street sweeper driver was 51 percent at fault.

In Hurst v. City of Morristown, No. E2024-00779-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2025), the plaintiff brought this suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) on behalf of his father. The father, who was 87 years old at the time of the incident, was driving down a city street when he ran into a street sweeper. After the accident, the father stated that he “never saw a thing.” The father passed away from his injuries.

At trial, the evidence showed that the street sweeper driver stated immediately after the accident that he was kicking up a lot of dust. Further, although the street sweeper was equipped with sprayers to reduce dust, the employee had not turned the sprayers on. Much testimony focused on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”), which requires high intensity lighting or a separate vehicle following behind the sweeper. Although the sweeper in question had many lights, they were not high intensity, and there was no vehicle following the sweeper on the day of the accident.

August 4, 2025

Dismissal of claim against state affirmed based on failure to file appeal within 90 days.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

After receiving a denial of claim for his claim against the State from the Division of Claims and Risk Management, the plaintiff had ninety days to file his notice of appeal, not mail his notice of appeal.

In Ferguson v. State of Tennessee, No. W2024-00831-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 20225), the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident that he alleged was caused by a police officer for a university. The plaintiff filed a claim with the Tennessee Division of Claims and Risk Management (“DCRM”), and the DCRM denied the claim on November 2, 2023. The plaintiff then mailed a notice of appeal to the Claims Commission on January 31, 2024. The notice was filed with the claims commission on February 5, 2024, which was more than ninety days after the November 2 denial.

The State moved to dismiss the claim, asserting that it “had not been filed within the required 90-day period set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402(c).” The Claims Commission agreed and dismissed the claim, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

July 29, 2025

Mailman’s notation on certified mail was not sufficient for service of process.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

A mailman’s notation on a certified letter sent by the Secretary of State did not constitute proper service of process in a car accident case.

In Lowe v. Harvey, No. E2024-01588-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2025), the plaintiff and defendant were in a car accident, and the defendant lived in Indiana. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant under the Tennessee statutes addressing service of an out-of-state motorist, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-2-203 through -207. Pursuant to the statute, the plaintiff had a summons issued to the Tennessee Secretary of State, who then sent a summons to the defendant by registered mail. At the time of service in 2021, however, the postal service had “suspended its signature requirement for certified mail and registered return receipt mail because of Covid-19.” The letter to the defendant was returned with a marking made by the mail carrier in the signature space.

After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendant moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. The trial court agreed that the defendant had not been served and dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

July 23, 2025

Tennessee Products Liability Act did not apply to foreign plaintiffs’ claim.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Products Liability Act (“TPLA”) does not apply extraterritorially, and therefore dismissal of a case where the plaintiffs’ injuries occurred in the Dominican Republic was affirmed.

In Renel v. Drexel Chemical Company, No. W2023-01693-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2025), the plaintiffs worked in the sugar cane industry. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant chemical company, claiming they were injured by chemicals produced and sold by the defendant, which was a Tennessee company located in Tennessee.

The trial court granted the defendant company’s motion to dismiss, ruling that “the TPLA does not have extraterritorial application,” and that “even if a case were to proceed in Tennessee, the applicable law would be the law of the Dominican Republic.” The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal.

July 18, 2025

Golf considered recreational activity under TRUS.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The defendant city was immune from suit under the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute for the plaintiff’s personal injuries incurred while he was playing golf on a city golf course.

In Bates v. City of Chattanooga, No. E2024-00857-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the plaintiff fell down steps while playing golf on a city golf course. He filed this personal injury suit, and the defendant city filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (“TRUS”). The trial court granted the motion, ruling that golf was comparable to the activities listed in the TRUS and that no exception applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

“The TRUS provides an affirmative defense to a landowner when a person is injured while engaging in a recreational activity on the landowner’s property.” (internal citation omitted). Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102(a) includes a list of activities which qualify for immunity under the TRUS, specifically mentioning “hunting, fishing, …water sports, …hiking, sightseeing,…skeet and trap shooting, sporting clay, shooting sports, and target shooting, …off-road vehicle riding” and others. Based on the language of the statute, the Supreme Court has “stated that the list of activities under Section 102 is neither exclusive nor exhaustive,” and activities that are “comparable to those listed” are also included. (internal citation omitted). Various cases have found attending a concert in a park, swimming and diving in a pool, and playing on a playground to fall within the TRUS.

July 16, 2025

Sanctions against the plaintiffs affirmed in TPPA dismissal.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the trial court granted a TPPA motion to dismiss on two grounds, but the plaintiffs addressed only one of the grounds in their appeal, dismissal was affirmed.

In Black v. Baldwin, No. M2024-00151-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2025), the defendant’s daughter moved in with the plaintiffs, causing issues between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant made social media posts claiming that the plaintiffs had kidnapped her daughter, that one plaintiff was a pedophile, that the plaintiffs were grooming the daughter, and that the plaintiffs were in a cult. The defendant also reported the plaintiffs to the Department of Children’s Services.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, intrusion upon section, and other claims. The defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”). The trial court granted the TPPA dismissal, finding that the complaint was filed in response to the defendants “exercise of (1) the right to free speech and (2) the right to petition.” In addition to dismissing the case, the trial court awarded the defendant her attorneys’ fees and additional sanctions under the TPPA totaling $40,000. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal.

July 15, 2025

HCLA expert failed to satisfy locality rule.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

An expert witness in an HCLA case who admittedly did not know any information about the hospital that administered treatment, including what services it offered or its size, and had never spoken to anyone who worked there or been there in person, did not satisfy the locality rule.

In Bowen v. Nelson, No. W2024-00749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2025), the plaintiff filed an HCLA action based on her treatment and the transfer process at Jackson-Madison County General Hospital. The plaintiff identified Dr. Jim as her standard of care and causation expert. In his deposition, Dr. Jim stated that he had spent many years working at a hospital in St. Lous, Missouri. When questioned about his familiarity with the hospital where the plaintiff was treated, he admitted to knowing very little. He did not know the population of the city, did not know how many beds were in the hospital (and guessed very inaccurately), and did not know what services the hospital offered. He stated that he had never spoken to anyone who worked at the hospital or visited the hospital.

Based on this testimony, the defendants filed a motion to exclude Dr. Jim pursuant to the locality rule, as well as a motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s inability to prove the necessary elements of her HCLA claim by expert proof. The trial court granted both motions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

July 14, 2025

No nuisance liability where plaintiff cannot prove a nuisance existed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Summary judgment for a nuisance claim was affirmed where the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence beyond their own affirmations that a nuisance existed.

In Heatley v. Estate of Gaither, No. M2024-01097-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2025), the plaintiffs and the defendants lived on two plots of land that were joined as one property until around 1990. While the land was owned by one party, a septic tank was installed on the plaintiffs’ side that serviced the property the defendants eventually owned.

In 2013, the plaintiffs discovered the septic tank, and the defendants had the septic line “permanently severed and sealed under the supervision of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation” in 2014. In early 2014, the plaintiffs filed their first lawsuit related to the septic tank, alleging claims for negligence and trespass. The defendants were granted summary judgment on the nuisance claims in that matter, and the remaining claim was eventually nonsuited in 2022.

July 11, 2025

Causation ruling on auto accident injury reversed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a trial court’s ruling that a plaintiff’s rotator cuff injury was not caused by a car accident was not supported by the evidence, the ruling was reversed.

In Payne v. Shelby County, Tennessee, No. W2024-00641-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2025), the plaintiff was riding in the front of a small bus while helping to transport a patient as part of her job as a certified nursing assistant. She was buckled with a lap belt. While stopped at a red light, a deputy sheriff stopped in a car behind the bus began moving and struck the back of the bus. The airbags in the rear car did not deploy, but the car was inoperable and had to be towed.

The plaintiff declined ambulance transport but took herself to a medical center to be examined that day. She complained of neck and low back pain, and she was seen at an emergency room later than evening. The next morning, she went to the recommended follow up visit and complained of back, neck and shoulder pain. Over the next few weeks, the plaintiff was seen for follow up visits, and she eventually saw an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon clinically diagnosed her with a rotator cuff tear and recommended an MRI. Based on the MRI and clinical findings, the plaintiff had surgery on her rotator cuff three months after the automobile accident.

July 9, 2025

Dismissal of HCLA case based on unsigned HIPAA authorizations filed with complaint overturned.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where an HCLA plaintiff filed unsigned HIPAA authorizations with her complaint, but at least one defendant admitted that the HIPAA authorization it received was actually signed, dismissal was reversed.

In Buckner v. Complete Wellness Chiropractic Center, No. E2024-00698-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2025), the plaintiff suffered long-term complications after several practitioners failed to diagnose the cause of her back pain properly. She filed this healthcare liability suit against twenty defendants and asserted in her complaint that she had sent proper pre-suit notice under the HCLA. The notices attached to her complaint, however, included HIPAA authorizations that were not signed.

Based on these unsigned authorizations, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff did not provide additional proof, but she insisted that she complied with the statute. The defendants argued that the error here was substantive because the plaintiff could not prove compliance, and dismissal was therefore appropriate. During oral arguments, counsel for one of the defendants was asked by the trial court whether the HIPAA authorization his client received was signed, to which he admitted that it was. The trial court nonetheless granted the motion to dismiss, but that ruling was reversed on appeal.