Knoxville Court Case Where Rear-End Accident Not Automatically The Fault Of The Rear Vehicle — Hicks v. Prahl

There is a common misperception that a driver who rear-ends another car is the one at fault. This is generally true but not always, as illustrated by a recent case heard by the court of appeals at Knoxville. There are many false and common presumptions about the law. If you have been involved in an accident in Maryville or Knoxville, an experienced car accident attorney will find aspects of your case to get you the compensation you deserve.

In order to hold a defendant accountable for damages caused by an auto accident, the defendant has to be proven negligent. Negligence can be proven when a driver fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. The plaintiff in Hicks v. Prahl failed to prove the driver who rear-ended her negligent.

Facts of the Case

In Hicks v. Prahl, the plaintiff and defendant had been merging onto Pellissippi Parkway from Hardin Valley Road. While in the merge lane, the plaintiff stopped her car, which the defendant, following the plaintiff, recognized and stopped as well. The plaintiff began to accelerate and the defendant followed. Assuming that the plaintiff was going to merge onto Pellissippi Parkway, the defendant turned her head over her shoulder to look for traffic. When she turned back around, she was surprised to find the plaintiff’s vehicle had stopped again, but the defendant failed to stop her vehicle before hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle. function init_map(){var myOptions = {zoom:14,center:new google.maps.LatLng(35.948240846121706,-84.15770347023931),mapTypeId: google.maps.MapTypeId.ROADMAP};map = new google.maps.Map(document.getElementById(“gmap_canvas”), myOptions);marker = new google.maps.Marker({map: map,position: new google.maps.LatLng(35.948240846121706, -84.15770347023931)}); infowindow = new google.maps.InfoWindow({content:”
Hardin Valley Rd and Pellissipi
” }); google.maps.event.addListener(marker, “click”, function(){infowindow.open(map,marker);}); infowindow.open(map,marker);}google.maps.event.addDomListener (window, “load”, init_map);

Both cars had minimal damage, which indicated that the vehicles were moving at a fairly slow speed. Both drivers refused medical attention at the scene, but the plaintiff, later that day, sought medical attention.

Comparative Fault

As we have discussed in other posts, Tennessee is a modified comparative fault state. In a comparative fault state, a defendant can claim that the plaintiff or another party shares negligence. A court will assign damages to the each party based upon their percentage of fault. A plaintiff’s compensation may be reduced if the plaintiff’s actions negligently contributed to the accident. In a modified comparative fault state, once the fault of the plaintiff exceeds a certain percentage (50% in Tennessee), the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages.

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendant negligently rear-ended her, and the defendant responded in an answer claiming, among other things, comparative negligence. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the comparative negligence claim because the defendant did not plead what acts constituted the plaintiff’s fault. In a weird twist, the defendant filed a motion to amend her answer stating that, according to cell phone records, the plaintiff had been on the phone with her daughter at the time of the accident, which the trial judge allowed.

In determining negligence, a jury would have to determine whether the plaintiff’s stopping at the merger onto Pellissippi was reasonable. At trial, the parties argued about whether the plaintiff stopped or merely slowed down. The plaintiff’s testimony at trial stated she slowed down. However, the complaint stated that she had stopped, and her statement in the emergency room stated she’d stopped. The plaintiff also stated that the cell phone call did not distract her since it was in a holder on speaker. By a unanimous decision, the jury did not find the defendant negligent. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that material evidence did not support the verdict and the comparative fault claim should have been dismissed.

Court’s Findings

1. Whether Material Evidence Supported A Verdict Of No NegligenceThe appellate court held that material evidence did support the verdict. Remember, negligence can be found when a driver fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercises under similar circumstances. The court held that a jury could find, on the facts, that it would be reasonable for a driver to look over their shoulder at oncoming traffic expecting the vehicle in front of you would not stop.

2. Whether Comparative Fault Should Have Been DismissedThe court noted that a plaintiff must prove a defendant’s negligence prior to determining a comparative fault analysis. Here, the court found the defendant to be free of any negligence; therefore, the court had no need to determine comparative fault.

While the common perception is that the driver who rear-ends another vehicle is at fault, the plaintiff still needs to prove that the defendant acted negligently. Furthermore, the front vehicle may have contributed to the accident evoking a comparative negligence claim. If you or a loved one has been involved in a car accident, you may have a claim or defense that you do not recognize. It is recommended that you speak with an experienced local car accident attorney who will work to get the compensation you deserve.

If you have been the victim of a vehicle accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011 or reach us by email.

Additional Resources: Is Fault Automatic in a Rear-End Car Accident Case?, 2014, NOLO

Negligence, 2014, The Free Dictionary .Com

More Blog Entries: Fatal Knoxville Crash Triggered by Earlier Wreck, Aug 21, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville Limits Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Case — Ike J. White, III v. David A. Beeks, M.D., Dec. 11, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog