Supreme Court of Tennessee Clarifies Adding a Known Tortfeasor After the Statute of Limitations Has Run — Becker v. Ford Motor Company

In personal injury cases involving car or motorcycle accidents, understanding legal rules like the statute of limitations, comparative fault, and relation back can be critical to winning a case. In Tennessee, a plaintiff can add a tortfeasor after the tolling of the statute of limitations if a defendant asserts another party carries some of the fault. Recently, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on whether knowledge of the tortfeasor at the time of the filing of a complaint precludes the plaintiff from adding the tortfeasor.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 (“§119”) provides for a situation where a plaintiff can add another tortfeasor to a personal injury case even though the statute of limitations has run. If the plaintiff brought the original complaint within the statute of limitations, and a defendant in the original complaint alleges that another tortfeasor carries some or all the fault, the plaintiff is allowed to amend the original complaint to add the tortfeasor within 90 days. If the plaintiff complies with §119, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the date the tortfeasor will be considered added will relate back to the date of the original complaint.

Facts of the Case In Becker v. Ford Motor Company, a Ford truck veered off a roadway and hit a light pole injuring the passenger in the vehicle. The passenger, Becker, brought a products liability claim against Ford motor company. Becker did not bring a personal injury claim against the driver of the truck, his son. After the tolling of the statute of limitations, Ford answered the claim, stating that Becker and the driver were at fault.

Even though the statute of limitations had expired, Becker, citing §119, requested to amend his complaint and join the driver to the complaint. However, Ford argued that §119 did not apply since Becker knew the identity of the driver when Becker filed the complaint.

Known Tortfeasor Under §119 The court resolved a dispute of Tennessee law that had been unsettled for some time. Courts deciding under Tennessee law had been split on whether knowledge of a tortfeasor required joining that defendant at the time of the original complaint.

Ford Motor Company relied on a 1998 federal court case ruling under Tennessee law titled Whittlesey v. Cole. The district court in Whittlesey stated that the purpose of §119 was to prevent a defendant from naming a previously “unknown” responsible party to a suit after the statute tolled. The Ford court held that the statute tolls when a plaintiff learns of the legal status.

The plaintiff relied on an state appellate court decisions in Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co.. In Townes v. Sunbeam Oster, the court noted that, according to the plain meaning, the statute made no reference to a known or unknown tortfeasor. Furthermore, the court noted that in 1992 the state of Tennessee moved from a joint and several liability to a modified comparative fault jurisdiction. In moving to a comparative fault jurisdiction, the legislature added §119 to preserve the plaintiff’s ability to determine the defendants in a case.

Modified Comparative Fault Under joint and several liability, a plaintiff can recover all damages from one defendant. The defendant has to prove and pursue the allocation of damages. This removes the burden from the plaintiff of proving the allocation of damages. Under a modified comparative fault rule, the plaintiff can only recover the allocation of fault that a judge or jury determined a specific defendant contributed to the injury. Furthermore, if a plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, the plaintiff will not be entitled to any damages.

Court’s Ruling The legislature created §119 to prevent exactly what Ford tried to do. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled the interpretation of Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co. was the law of Tennessee, and a tortfeasor can be added to a personal injury case even though the plaintiff knew of the tortfeasor at the time of filing the complaint.

Allowing a defendant to claim that another party was solely or partially at fault in order to remove the party from a case puts the control of who can be added in the hands of the defendant. This limits the amount of damages a plaintiff may be able to recover by removing tortfeasors.

If you have been injured in a car or motorcycle accident, you should be able to claim the compensation you deserve for the injuries you have sustained.

If you have been the victim of a personal injury, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: Becker v. Ford Motor Company, Mar. 7, 2014, Supreme Court of Tennessee

Rule 15.03: Relation Back of Amendments, 2014, Tennessee Courts System

More Blog Entries: Tennessee Service of Process and the Statute of Limitations in Personal Injury Cases — Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran, Dec 18, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

Mills v. Fulmarque Illustrates Time Limitations in Knoxville Injury Claims, Mar. 28, 2012, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog