### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Fe br ua ry 9, 200 7 S es sio n

TON YA L. MERRIC K v. M ETR OPO LITA N G OVE RN MEN T OF

NA SHV ILLE A ND DA VID SON CO UN TY

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-782 Walte r K urtz, Judge

No. M2006- 01169-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on Au gust 9, 2007

This appea l involves a motor vehicle a ccide nt betwee n a v ehicle driven by Appellant and a Me tr op oli tan N a sh vil le sc ho ol bu s. Th e c a se wa s tr ie d no n- jur y , a nd the tr ia l c ourt , ba se d p ri mari ly upon the testimony

of an a lleg ed ey e witness, dec ided t he case in favor of Defenda nt. Finding the evidenc e of the alleg ed ey e witness to be inher ently improbable, we re v er s e t h e action of the trial

c ourt a nd re mand the c a se fo r a

ne w tri a l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J
., M.S., joined. F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., filed a dissenting opinion.

Tony a L . Merr ick, Nashville, Te nnessee , pr o s e

.

K a r l D e a n , D i r e c t o r

o f L a w ; J a m e s E

. R o b i n s o n , L o r a B a r k e nb u s F o x , a n d

J o h n L

. K e n n e dy, N a s h v i l l e , T e nn e s s e e , f

o r t h e a p p e l l e e , M e t

r o p o l i t a n G o v e r

n m e n to f N a s h v i l l e a n d

D a v i d s o n C o u n t y.

OP IN ION

The auto mo b il e w r e c k

in is s u e o c c u r

r e d o n D e c e mb e r

1 3
, 2 0 0 2

. T o n y a

M e rrick (“A ppellant”) alleg es in her Complaint that s h e was operating he r motor vehicle northbound on Ho p ed al e R o adi n Da v i d s o n C o u n t y , T en n e s s e e

. P r i o r t o t h e a cc i d en t , Ap p el l an ts aw an o ra n ge school bus turn from F lora Maxwell S tree t to its rig ht to procee d southbound on Hopedale Road. Th e se ini tia l f

a c ts a re un dis pu te d; b ut, fr om t his po int on , e ve ry thi ngis d isp ute d. Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s that th e sc ho ol b us , in

makin g its ri g ht t

ur n, mov e d f

a r o ve r int o the no rt

hb ound lane of Ho pe da le Road, forc ing her to swerve to the right wher eupon she struck a utilit y vehicle parke d on the ea st side

o f H o p ed al e R o ad

. Ap p el l ee , h o we v er , as s er t s t h at t h e sc h o o l b u s wa s s t at i o n ar y wi t h i t s s t o p s i gn

e xten de d a

nd that App e lla

nt’s veh icle sl id o ff

the ro a d a s it

pa sse d th e bu s and

str uc k th e uti lity vehicle. T estimony

in the case was limited to that of J err y Moreland, a

para medic with the Metropolitan Fir e De partment; Appellant; and alleg ed ey e witness, Danny Fe rre ll. The testimony-2-

of Appe llant substantially confor med t o the alleg ations of her Complaint. S he testified that she was operating he r automobile at about 2:15 p.m. on Dece mber 13, 2002, on Ha y wood Road and turne d rig ht onto Hopedale Roa d trave ling then in a n o rt h er n d i re ct ion. She testified that the school bus
tur ne d fr om F lor a Ma xwe ll Roa d to g o so uth bo un d on Ho pe da le Roa d a nd that in m a kin g the ri g hthand turn, pulled into he r lane of trave l. She was trave ling 25 to 30 miles a n hour, and when she saw the sc ho ol b us in he r lane of tr a ve l, sh e sw e rv e d to the ri g ht a nd he r v e hic le str

uc k a uti lity ve hic le par k e d o n th e e a s t s id e o f H o p e d a le Ro a d

. H e r h e a d s tr u c k th e w in d s h ie ld
, a n d h e r chest hit the steeringwhee l. She remaine d in her ve hicle until Metropolitan Gover nment para

medical pe rsonnel

arr ived at the sc ene. She te stifies that a 16-y ear -old g irl riding the school bus scre amed, but the bus

c on tin ue d w ith ou t st op pin g . Sh e te sti fi e d that a man wh os e ide nti ty sh e did no t kn owc a me up to the ca r and he ld her ha

nd until the paramedics arrived. She w as then tra nsported to the eme rg ency

ro om at So uth e rn

Hi lls Ho sp ita l.

Be cause time is the crucia l fac tor involved in this case, a nd particula

rly as i t re l at es t o the usefulness of

the testimony of the alleg ed ey e witness Fe rre ll, it i s important to consider the e vidence of time as it relates to the acc ident, the arr ival on the scene of para medics, and Plaintiff’s admission to Southern Hills Hospit al contra sted to Fe rre ll’s depar ture fr om work, his arr ival at his home, and his after noon walk whe n he alleg edly witnessed the a ccide nt.

Parame dic Morela

nd testified, and business re cord exhibi ts to his t estimony established that the par amedics a

rrived at the s ce n e o f t he ac cident at 14:50 hours ( 2:50 p.m.). They depar ted the

sc e ne wi th A

pp ell ant in the a mbu lanc e a t 14 :54 ho ur s ( 2:5 4 p .m. ) a nd a rr ive d at So uth e rn

Hi lls Hospital at 14:58 hours (2:58 p.m.). The e x hibited medical re cords f rom Southern Hill Emerg ency Room also indicate that Appellant a rrived at the emer g ency

room at 14:58 hours (2:58 p.m.).

The only witness called to testify by Def endant was Fe rre ll. He testified that he lived in the

are a of the acc ident, and while wa lking his dog on the afte rnoon of Dec ember 13, 2002, he witnessed the a c c ide nt. He te sti fi e d th a t:

Q. Can y ou

de sc ri be wh e re the bu s w a s? A. The bus wa s sitti n g t h er e with a stop sig n. I t had just turned off F lora Maxwell a

nd turned on Hope dale. I t would be fa cing Hopeda le and c oming towa rd wh e re , y ou kn ow , I wa s wa lki ng

. I wa s wa lki ng so uth tow a rd Ho pe da le
, is wh a t I

was wa lking towa

rd; and like I

said, she st arte d sliding on this side of Hope dale a nd Hummer, a

nd slid past me and slid into m y neig hbor’s va

n. Q. So w he n y ou

saw p la int if

f’ s v e hic le , w a s th e bu s st a tio na ry a t th a t po int ? A. The bus wa s stopped with the stop sign out, and it was f acing this direction when I seen the bus. Itook the dog an d h u rried on up to see wa ht was g oing on be c a us e Ihe a rd the c ra sh . I

loo ke d u p, sh e ’s c ra sh e d. Th e bu s is sit tin g the re wi th the stop sign. Q

. C a n yo ud e s c r i b e t h e r o a d c o n d i t i o n s o n t h a td a y? A. I t was misting ra in so it was kind of wet, dewy out; but it wasn’t r aining hard. I t was like a misty

rain. I t was misting so much it looked like fog , that ty pe ra in.-3-

Q. Di d y ou

he a r a ny thi nga t th is m ome nt? A. Yes. L ike I

said, that’s what startled me is the sound of a squealing tire. You have to h a ve dr

y pave me nt i n o rd e r t o ma ke a tir e sq ue a l. It w a s w e t. MR. STOL TE: I ’m g oing to objec t to this l i n e o f t est imony . There ’s no foundation. THE COURT: Over

ruled. TH E WI TN ESS: Whe n s he loc ke d h er brak es down sh e c a us e d th e tir e s to squeal. That’s what startled me , and I said, oh, man, bec ause it’s we t o u t s i d e, and
y ou have to ha

ve dry paveme nt to make a tire s queal, a nd she had loc ked up her br a ke s. She ha d h e r b ra

ke s c omp le te ly

loc ke d d ow n at th a t po int

. BY MR. ROBI

NSON: Q. Ho w f

as twa s s h e t ra v el i n g? A. She was g oing ove r 30 miles an hour. MR. STOL TE: Objection. TH E CO UR T: Ithi nk

the c a se s a

re le g ion that a lay wi tne ss c a n e sti ma te speed, so ove rrule. G o ahea d. BY MR. ROBI

NSON: Q. Di d y ou

he a r a ny thi nge lse oth e r t

ha n th e sq ue a lin g tir e s? A. Her

slamming to the ba ck of that van.

When asked if the sc hool bus had done a ny thing wr ong , Mr. Fe rre ll answere d, “No.”

Th e c ro ss- e xami natio n o f F e rr e ll l a y s b a re tha t w hic h is de te rm inativ e of thi s c a se . F e rr e ll worke d at Mid-Tenn F ord Truc k Sales and testified:

Q. Wha t are y our h ours ? A. Fr om seven to four

. Q. What tim e we re y ou working t h e d ay

of the a ccide nt, Dece mber -- is it 12, 13? A. They

say four o’ clock, but it isn’t true. I left work that da

y at three forty -five. Q. Okay . I f the time re cords fr o m y o u r work indicate that y ou clocke d out at exactly a couple of hundre dths of a minute bef ore f our o’c lock, that would be i n co rr ec t ? I s t h at wh at y o u ’r e s ay i n g? A. I ’m saying those rig ht there are not corr ect, because Ido not think thos e ar e t h e r i g h tt i m e c a r d s f

o r t h a td a y. Q. Be that as it may , y ou say y ou left at thre e for

ty -five? A. Ye s. Q. So y ou left work at three f orty -five in the a fternoon? A. Uh-huh. Q. I s th a t a

y e s? A. Ye s, sir , th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. How fa

r is it from y our workpla ce to home?-4-

A. Ic a n b e a t my

ho us e in 1 2 mi nu te s, a nd that’ s not g oin g ov e r the sp e e d li mit

. I ’v e c he c ke d it

se ve ra l ti me s. Q. So what time did y ou arr ive home? A. A fe w minutes befor e four o’cloc k. Q. Ho w l on g did

it t a ke y ou

to g e t y our d ogou t? A. Don’t t ake me any time. I pull straig ht in. The leash is hang ing on the fenc e. Ibe lie ve Ista

rt e d o ut t he dr ive wa

y wi th him , wa s g oin g to g o ar ound my lit tle path that Ig o ever

y afte rnoon with him for 30 minutes and then be back at the house.

. . . Q. At t h i s point y ou understand the signific ance of the oath in this situation, don’t y ou? A. Yes, sir. Q. I f an a

mbulance dr iver, Mr. Mor eland, testified that he re moved Ms. Merr ick from the sc ene of

the ac cident appr ox imately an hour befor e y ou g ot -- bef ore you g ot of f o f w or k th a t da y , w ou ld h e be inc or

re c t? A. Idon’t know, sir. I don’t know if his rec ords ar e cor rec t or not. Iwasn’t ther e wi th h im. Q. I f the re cords of

Southern Hills Medical Cente r indicate d that Ms. Merric k
was tre ated at a quar

ter a fter thr ee, 20 minutes a fter thr ee f or this acc ident, which wa s 15 minutes before y ou g ot off of w ork, ar e they incorre ct on their time, too? A

. I d o n ’ tkn o w , s i r

. A l l I k n o w i s w h a tI s e e n t h a td a y. Q. And y ou saw this acc ident happen a fter f our o’c lock? A. Yes, sir. I t was af ter four o’cloc k.

The e ntire ca se for

Def endant r es t s u p on the testimony of F err ell, and the r ecor d indicates that the trial court strug g led valiantly with the time discrepa

ncy befor e ac cepting the testimony of F e rr e ll.

THE COURT: I n my experience there ’s also a fogfor a ccide nts and violent crimes. Sometimes y ou ju st can’t r econc ile the time people r emember . Are y ou

rea lly asking me to conclude that M r. Fe rr el l is just an outrig ht perjure r, that he’ s walked in he re, a

nd he’s made this thi ng up out of whole c loth? MR. STOL TE: Your Honor , that’s the only viable explanation. THE COURT: What will be his mot ive? MR. STO L TE : I

have no ide a , y our H on or . I c a n’ t di sc e rn

that. THE COURT: That’s kind of ha rd. MR. STOL TE: Iag ree , I ag ree , but the proof indicates that throug h his own
te sti mony he ind ic a te s th a t he did

n’ t le a ve wo rk

that da y until the tim e a ft e r M s. Merr ick was in the e merg ency room. So -- T H E C O U R T : O k a y. M R

. S T O L T E : I f h e s a th e r e a n d s a i d I g o to u to f

w o r k e a r l y t h a td a y,
so me thi ng , s ome thi ng , b ut n on e of the pr oo f i nd ic a te s th a t. T HE C OU R T : I t

d o es n ’t o cc u r t o y o u t h at t h e t i m e s h ee t s m i gh tb e w ro n g?-5- MR. STOL TE: Iasked him that, and the affidavit of the custodian of r ecor ds indicate they ’re acc urate rec ords. His signature is on his time card. I f they wer e wrong , he would have testified to that; and eve n if they were wr o n g, wh i ch we

conce ded a littl e bit
, he said the earliest he would have left would be thre e for ty -five that da y , a nd his de po sit ion
, wh ic h is on fi le wi th t he Court , in dic a te s th at he saw this

acc ident happen a

littl e bit afte r four

o’cloc k. Now, I have no e x planation for a ny motives or any rea sons f

or this. I mean, whether or not his wife -- THE COURT: Whatever happens in this case , I g ive y ou and A-plus for g ood detec tive work. MR. STOL TE: Thank y ou, thank y ou. But it seems to m e that his testimony jus t c a nn ot b e ri g ht. Hi s te sti mony a bo ut t his a c c ide nt is in c or

re c t, w he the r i t’ s in reg ard to his timing or howhe sawthis accide nt happen.

Fi n al l y , t h e t ri al co u rt an n o u n ce d i t s d ec i s i o n h o l d i n g:
THE COURT: Well, I think Mr. Ferre ll is confuse d, but do Ithink that Mr. Fe rre ll is j u s t an out-and- out perjure r? We’re not talking about somebody who would see something throug h a psy cholog ical scre en. We’re talking a bout somebody wh o w ou ld c ome in a

nd say he wi tne sse d an a c c ide nt, wh ic h he ne ve r s a w; a nd Ijus t don’t think so. Ime a n, Ire a lize the re ’s a c on fl ic t w iththe time sh eet s, but a g a in w ithmy ref ere nce a s to the fog of wa r and r eliance that that -- do I find him just an out-and out perjure r base d upon inconsistency with his time she et that took pla ce thr ee y ear s

a g o o r w a s r e c or de d th re e y e a rs a g o? I do n’ t th ink Ic a n f ind that. I f I consi d er M r. Ferr ell’s observations, do I know -- do I as a judg e have a fee ling or a sense that Iknow by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidence what happene d out there , what wa s a dy

namic that ca

used this acc ident, and the answer is no; and w hen I say that th e a n s w e r

is n o , th e n Ir e f

e r to th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f
, a n d if th e p la in tiff doesn’t ca

rry it, then the plaintiff has to lose. Do I fee l -- ther e’s no person who wouldn’t fee l compassion t o the plaintiff here who is obviously

injured in this accide nt, but am Iconvince d that the plaintiff has prove d this to be the fault of the bus driver by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, I must re g r e ta

b ly s a y th e a n s w e r

is n o

. T h e ju d g me n t h e r e is f o r th e M e tr o p olitan Go ve rn me nt. Th a t’ s it

. Judg me nt w a s e nte re d in

fa vo r o f A pp e lle e , a nd Ap pe lla nt f ile d a tim e ly a pp e a l.

The issue pre sented for

revie w as stated by

App el l an t i s, “Whether the tr ial court e rre d by

ru lin g a g a ins t App e lla

nt w ithfi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c re dib ili ty pe rt a ini ng to A pp e lle e ’s so le wi tne ss that are not supported by the evidence and/or whether this ruling pre ponderates ag ainst the weig ht of the e vidence prese nted at trial.”-6-

Fe rre ll sim ply

could not have w itnessed the ac cident in issue un d er t he undisputed proof disclosed by

this recor d. Wit h all of the defe renc e which must be ac corde d the trial cour t as to the

cre dibilit y

of witnesses, we are not dealing wi th disputed credibility questions but rather w ith an undisputed time frame that is established by Fe rre l l ’s own testimony . Even if one acc epts the premise that the time she et of F err ell’s employ er is less than conclusive as t o the t ime on Dec ember 13 , 2 00 2, tha

t F e rr e ll l eft hi s e mpl oy me nt, F e rr e ll s til l a ff

ir ma tiv e ly te sti fi e s th a t he le ft

his employ men t at 3 : 4 5 p.m. on that after noon. He a lso affirmatively testifies that it took him 12 minutes to reac h his home and depar t the ref rom with his dog for their af ternoon wa lk. He fur

ther

asser ts affirmatively

that the ac cident happe ned af ter 4:00 p.m. on Dec ember 13, 2002. All of the evidenc e in the rec ord establishes that the acc ident had alre ady occur red at 2:50 p.m. on Decembe r 13, 2002, when the pa

rame dics arr ived on the sce ne; that they had depar ted the scene with Appellant in t he a mbu lanc e a t 2: 54 p. m.; a nd a rr ive d at So uth e rn Hi lls Em e rg e nc y

Roo m a t 2: 58 p. m. T hu s, the evidenc e is undisputed that Appellant arrived at the emer g ency room following the ac cident 47 minutes before Fe rre ll clocked out of his plac e of e mploy ment. The only

dispute in the testimony is whether by Appellant’s evidence
, Fe rre ll clocke d out of his employ ment a fe w sec onds befor e 4:00 p. m., or by F e rr e ll’ s o wn te sti mony , he le ft wo rk a nd c loc ke d o ut at 3: 45 p. m. T he dis c re pa nc y is immaterial bec ause e ven taking Fe rre ll’s own sworn testimony as true, he could not have w itnessed the a c c ide nt.

As the tr ia l c ourt

ob se rv e d, thi s r e c or d d oe s n ot s up ply a mot ive fo r F e rr e ll t o te sti fy fa lse ly and if the time of his de parture from his e mploy ment was materia lly disputed, the question for the trier

- o f

- f a c t is ma d e in th e f

ir s t in s ta n c e

. H o w e v e r , w h e n it is th e w it n e s s ’ o w n te s timony

that establishes the impossibili ty , what else can be said?

Absent the testimony offe red by Fe rre ll, the sparse evidenc e as to the fac ts of t h e accident

are limit ed to the testimony of Appe llant. The cr edible testimony thus pr ep o n d er at es aga inst the fi nd ing s o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Also impli cate d under the se circ umstances is the rule iterate d in Mun. Paving &Constr. Co. v. Hunt , 1 23 S.W. 2d 84 3, 84 5 ( Te nn .Ct .App .1 93 8) , c on c e rn inge vid e nc e that is inh e re ntl y impossibl e and a

t varianc e with the phy sical fa cts. Under such rule, the proposed evidence is no evidenc e at all. Mun. Paving &Constr. Co. , 123 S.W .2d at 845. The Supre me Court delineate d the limit ed scope of this time-honored r ule in S. Ry. Co. v. Hutson , 91 S.W .2d 290 (Tenn.1936)

.

Con c e din g the so un dn e ss o f t he ru le a s a

pp lie d in this li ne of c a se s, thi s distinguishing e lement must be kept i n m i nd. The testimony under r eview is not de str oy e d by

c on fl ic tin g te sti mony , n e ve r m ind ho w f ull y su pp or te d, wh e n th e te st is tha t o f th e c r e d ib il it

y o f th e w it

n e s s e s

. T h a t im

p r o b a b il it y o f th e tr

u th o f the plaintiffs’ testimony

which justifies reje ction under this rule may not be rested upon either a mere numerica l pr eponder ance , howeve r g reat, or upon any theory involving

c on sid e ratio n o f t

he c omp a rativ e c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s. Th e pa lpa ble

un tr uth fu lne ss r e qu isi te mus t be (1 ) i nh e rent in t he re je c te d te sti mony , s o th a t it

c on tr a dic ts i tsel f, or

(2 ) i rr e c on c ila

ble wi th f a c ts o f w hic h, un de r r e c og nize d r ule s,-7-

the cour t takes judicial knowledge , or (3) obviously inconsistent with, contradicte d by , und isp ute d p hy sic a l f a c ts.

91 S.W .2d at 291.

The testimony

of F err ell contra dicts itself when he testifies to witnessing the a ccide nt at the same time he is testifying to a time frame that makes such w itness impossi ble.

I t may well be, a s observe d by

the trial cour

t, that Fer rell was “conf

used,” but there is nothing confusing about his positive testim ony that he clocke d out from work at 3:45 p.m. on Decembe r 13, 2002.

The judg ment of the trial c ourt is reve rsed a nd the ca use rema nded for a new trial. Costs of appea l are assessed to Appe llee.

___________________________________ WI L L I AM B. CAI

N, J UDGE