Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog
Every case brought in Tennessee has procedural steps to follow, and knowing these procedures and their timelines can be crucial to winning a case. Furthermore, failing to file important actions in a timely manner or missing important deadlines can get your law suit dismissed.
Even failing to file actions properly can get a claim dismissed. Last month, the Tennessee courts dismissed the third case in a handful of months for failing to properly follow the statute of limitations. If you or a loved one has been injured by the negligent acts of another, you are encouraged to speak with a Knoxville or Maryville car accident attorney who will be able to guide you and your case through the complicated legal process.
Gates v. Perry
In March, the Court of Appeals at Knoxville ruled on a statute of limitations dispute involving a car accident case. In Gates v. Perry, the plaintiff suffered injuries in an automobile accident and filed a complaint against the defendant. The case involved three statutory deadlines for the filing of a complaint and the service of process.
T.C.A. § 28-3-104
First, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104 (“§ 104”) provides that a plaintiff has one year from the cause of action, the date the car accident happened, to file a complaint. The lawsuit commences when the plaintiff files the complaint.
T.C.A. § 16-15-902
Furthermore, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-902 (“§ 902”), once the complaint has been filed, and the court has issued the plaintiff a summons, the plaintiff has sixty days to serve process on the defendants in the case.
T.C.A. § 16-15-710
Finally, Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-710 (“§ 710”), provides an exception to these time limits:
If the process is returned unserved…plaintiff…must either prosecute and continue the action by applying for and obtaining new process from time to time, each new process to be obtained within nine (9) months from return unserved of the previous process.
The Facts of the Case
In Gates v. Perry, the car accident happened in July of 2005, and the plaintiff filed the original complaint on April 2006, satisfying the § 104 statute of limitations. Between April 2006 and January 2008, the plaintiff sent service of process to the defendant multiple times and process was never returned. The January 2008 process went unreturned. The plaintiff applied for a new process in July 2009, a full year and half after January 2008, exceeding the nine month limit in § 710. In March 2011, the defendant requested a motion to dismiss the case because of the 18 month gap between January 2008 and July 2009, which the trial court granted.
Circuit Court Denies Defendant’s Dismissal
The circuit court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The plaintiff argued that the case should not be dismissed because the January 2008 service went unreturned. The circuit court agreed, finding that the January 2008 unreturned process should not be a triggering event commencing the § 710 nine month deadline. The court noted that the plaintiff “did not sit idly by” and continued to refile for process when they went unreturned.
One can see the plaintiff’s frustration and the circuit court’s reasoning. For almost two years, the plaintiff diligently requested process around half a dozen times. For whatever reason, the defendant never returned process. Since the plaintiff never refiled the unreturned January 2008 process, the court ruled that a § 710 triggering event never happened. The circuit court dismissed the defendant’s motion and allowed the case to move forward. The defendant appealed.
Court Of Appeals At Knoxville Overturns The Circuit Court
However, the Court of Appeals at Knoxville disagreed. The appeals court reasoned that the Tennessee General Assembly would not have written § 710 in a way that gives a plaintiff, who never filed for new process, an indefinite period to obtain new process while requiring a plaintiff who did file with the court a nine month deadline to obtain new process. In determining the time and triggering event, the court ruled that the plaintiff has sixty days under § 902 to serve process, added to the six months under § 710 to file for new process when the preceding process goes unreturned. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed.
It can be very disappointing when a plaintiff has a strong case dismissed for a procedural error. In this case, a difficult defendant that remained unresponsive had the case dismissed because the plaintiff failed one time to refile for process. There is always the possibility that parties to a case will be unresponsive and difficult; nevertheless, the courts have specific deadlines to keep cases moving and to protect the integrity of the courts. Not knowing the rules can get your case dismissed.
What You Should Do If You Have Been In An Accident
If you have been involved in a car accident, it is recommended that you speak with an experienced and diligent local attorney who will get you the compensation you deserve.
If you have been the victim of a car accident in Tennessee, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 524-5657.
Additional Resources:
Gates v. Perry, Mar. 26, 2014, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville
Service of Process, The Online Legal Dictionary
More Blog Entries:
Supreme Court of Tennessee Clarifies Adding a Known Tortfeasor After the Statute of Limitations Has Run — Becker v. Ford Motor Company, Mar 18, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog
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