FILED

June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ANTHONY W. NANCE, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00037

a nd BRANDON NANCE, )

) CAMPBELL CI RCUI T

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s , )

) HON. CONRAD E. TROUTMAN, J R. ,

v. ) J UDGE

)

CHRI STOPHER H. STRUNK, ) AFFI RMED I N PART,

) REVERSED I N PART,

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee. ) AND REMANDED

VI C PRYOR, BASI STA, PRYOR & BALLOFF, J a c ks bor o, f or

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s .

DANI EL M. GASS, O’ NEI L, PARKER & WI LLI AMSON, Knoxvi l l e , f or

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee.

DENNI S L. BABB a nd VONDA M. LAUGHLI N, BUTLER, VI NES & BABB,

Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e , Gua r a nt y Na t i ona l I ns ur a nc e

Compa ny.

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s a c t i on a r i s i ng f r om a mot or ve hi c l e

a c c i de nt , t he de f e nda nt s we r e gr a nt e d s umma r y j udgme nt a nd

pl a i nt i f f s ha ve appeal e d.

An acci de nt occur r e d be t ween a mot or ve hi c l e dr i ve n

by pl a i nt i f f Na nc e a nd a t r uc k dr i ve n by de f e nda nt St r unk.

Ta ki ng t he e vi de nc e mos t f a vor a bl e t o pl a i nt i f f s , bot h
2

ve hi c l e s we r e t r a ve l i ng nor t h on I nt e r s t a t e 75, t hr ough t he

J e llic o Mount a i ns . Pl a i ntif f wa s dr i vi ng hi s e mpt y f l a t be d

t r act or t r a i l e r i n t he l e f t l a ne at a r a t e of appr oxi ma t e l y 60

mph, whe n a gr e y s t a t i on wa gon s udde nl y s we r ve d i n f r ont of

hi m, c a us i ng hi m t o move i nt o t he r i ght l a ne t o a voi d t ha t

ve hi c l e . De f e nda nt St r unk’ s t r uc k wa s t r a ve l i ng i n t he r i ght

l a ne a t a ppr oxi ma t e l y 10 t o 15 mi l e s pe r hour , a nd pl a i nt i f f ’ s

ve hi c l e c ol l i de d wi t h t he r e a r of St r unk’ s t r uc k. 

St r unk s t a t e s t ha t he wa s t r a ve l i ng 40 t o 45 mi l e s

pe r hour a nd ne ve r s a w t he gr e y s t a t i on wa gon i n t he vi c i ni t y,

a nd t ha t pl a i nt i f f ’ s ve hi c l e s i mpl y c a me ba r r e l i ng up t he

r i ght l a ne a nd r e a r - e nde d hi m. The dr i ve r of t he gr e y ve hi c l e

ha s ne ve r be e n i de nt i f i e d or f ound.

I n pl a i ntif f ’ s s uit a ga i ns t De f e nda nt, pl a i ntif f

a l l e ge d t ha t de f e nda nt wa s t r a ve l i ng a t s uc h a n unr e a s ona bl y

l ow r a t e of s pe e d s o a s t o i mpe de t r a f f i c on t he hi ghwa y i n

vi ol a t i on of T. C. A. §55- 8- 154 a nd hi s ne gl i ge nc e wa s a

pr oxi ma t e c a us e of t he a c c i de nt . Re s pondi ng t o de f e nda nt ’ s

mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt , t he Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d s umma r y

j udgme nt on t he ba s i s t ha t t he pr oxi ma t e c a us e of t he a c c i de nt

wa s t he ne gl i ge nt ope r a t i on of t he gr e y mot or ve hi c l e .

Summa r y j udgme nt i s r e vi e we d wi t hout a t t a c hi ng a ny

pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s t o t he j udgme nt . McCall v . Wilde r ,

913 S. W. 2d 150, 153 ( Te nn. 1995) . Summa r y j udgme nt i s

a ppr opr i a t e whe n, vi e wi ng a l l e vi de nc e a nd i nf e r e nc e s i n t he

l i ght mos t f a vor a bl e t o t he non- movi ng pa r t y, t he r e a r e no

di s put e d i s s ue s of ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd t he movi ng pa r t y i s

e nt i t l e d to judgme nt a s a ma t t e r of law. By r d v. Hal l , 847

S. W. 2d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) .
1

 S e e Ca r r v. Oz bur n - He s s e y St o r age Co . , 1996 WL 383295 ( Te nn. App.

1996) . I n Ca r r , p l a i n t i f f r ear - e n d e d d e f e n d a n t , wh o h a d j u s t t u r n e d

ont o t h e hi ghwa y f r o m an i n t e r s e c t i on. Th e r e a s ona b l e n e s s of t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s s p eed , wh i c h was no t d i spu t e d - 2 0 mp h - was no t d i r ect l y

a d d r ess e d b y t h e Co u r t . Al t h o u g h t h e Co u r t ma y h a v e ma d e an i mp l i c i t

j u d g me n t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was no t d r i v i n g i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e st a t u t e ,

t h e b asi s up o n wh i c h t h e summa r y j u d g me n t was up h e l d was t h a t an

e x a mi n a t i o n o f t h e ci r c u ms t a n ces s u r r o u n d i n g t h e acci d e n t sup p o r t e d

f i ndi ng pl a i n t i f f mo r e t h a n 50% at f a u l t i n t h e ac c i d e n t . 

Th e o t h e r case i s Wa tts v . Wilk e r s o n , 1994 WL 85951 ( Te nn. App. 1994) .

3

The s t a t ut e pl e d i n t hi s cas e r eads i n pe r t i ne nt

pa r t: 

Mi ni mum s pe e d r e gul at i on - Tur nout s - Pas s i ng bays -

Pe nal t i e s . - ( a ) No pe r s on s ha l l dr i ve a mot or

ve hi c l e a t s uc h a s l ow s pe e d a s t o i mpe de t he nor ma l

a nd r eas ona bl e move me nt of t r a f f i c , except whe n

r e duced s peed i s necess a r y f or s a f e ope r a t i on or i n

c ompl i a nc e wi t h the law. . . .

T. C. A. § 55- 8- 154( a ) . 

Thi s s t a t ut e i s ci t e d i n onl y t wo Te nne s s ee cases ,

ne i t he r of whi c h ma de a ny e xpl i c i t de t e r mi na t i on of wha t

c ons titut e s a vi ol a tion of the s t a t ut e .

1

. Watts v . Wilk e r s on

uphe l d a j ur y ve r di c t f i ndi ng t he s l ow dr i ve r 40% a t f a ul t f or

a n a c c i de nt. Thi s f i ndi ng of lia bility is c ons i s t e nt with

c a s e s invol vi ng s i mila r s t a t ut e s in ot he r s t a t e s , whi c h ha ve

he l d a que s t i on of whe t he r s uc h a s t a t ut e ha s be e n vi ol a t e d

a nd whe t he r s uc h vi ol a t i on c ons t i t ut e s t he ne gl i ge nt pr oxi ma t e

c a us i ng or c ont r i but i ng t o a n a c c i de nt i s f or t he j ur y. 66

A. L. R. 2d 1194; e . g. , Gr iffin v . Illi noi s Be ll Te l e phone Co. ,

180 N. E. 2d 228, 230 ( I l l . Ct . App. 1962) ; Fonv ille v . Di x on,

193 S. E. 2d 406 ( N. C. Ct . App. 1972) ; Le o v . Adams , 208 N. W. 2d

706 ( S. D. 1973) ; Mi na v . Boi s e Cas c ade Cor p. , 681 P. 2d 880,

884 ( Wa s h. Ct . App. 1984) . The s e c a s e s a c knowl e dge t ha t

?da wdl e r s , as we l l as s peede r s , can become a me nace t o t he

s a f e t y of the i r f e llow mot or i s t s . ? Cheek v. We i s s , 615 S. W. 2d
4

453, 458 ( Mo. Ct . App. 1981) , quoting Laffe r t y v . Wattle , 349

S. W. 2d 519, 528 ( Mo. Ct . App. 1961) .

The s pe e d of t he de f e nda nt ’ s ve hi c l e i s a n i s s ue of

di s put e d ma t e r i a l f act , as i t bear s on whe t he r t he s t a t ut e wa s

vi ol a t e d a nd whe t he r s uc h vi ol a t i on, i f a ny, c ont r i but e d t o

t he pr oxi ma t e caus e of t he acci de nt . Pr oxi ma t e caus a t i on i s

t o be de t e r mi ne d by t he t r i e r of f a c t , unl e s s a l l r e a s ona bl e

pe r s ons woul d a gr e e on t he pr ope r out c ome . Se e McCl e nahan v .

Cool e y , 806 S. W. 2d 767 ( Te nn. 1991) . Ac c or di ngl y, we va c a t e

s umma r y j udgme nt on be ha l f of t he s e de f e nda nt s a nd r e ma nd f or

f ur t he r pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

Pl a i ntif f a l s o f ile d thi s a c tion a ga i ns t hi s ins ur e r

unde r t he uni ns ur e d a nd unde r i ns ur e d mot or ve hi c l e c ove r a ge

s t a t ut e . Whe n t he owne r or ope r a t or of a ve hi c l e whi c h c a us e s

bodi l y i nj ur y or pr ope r t y da ma ge i s unknown, t he i ns ur e d c a n

onl y r e c ove r i f : 

( A) Ac t ua l phys i cal cont act s ha l l ha ve occur r e d

be t we e n t he mot or ve hi c l e owne d or ope r a t e d by s uc h

unknown pe r s on a nd t he pe r s on or pr ope r t y of t he

i ns ur e d; or ( B) The e xi s t e nc e of s uc h unknown

mot or i s t i s e s t a bl i s he d by c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng

e vi de nc e , ot he r t ha n a ny e vi de nc e pr ovi de d by

oc c upa nt s i n t he i ns ur e d ve hi c l e .

T. C. A. §56- 7- 1201( e ) ( 1) . The onl y e vi de nc e i n t he r e c or d a s

t o t he e xi s t e nc e of t he gr e y ve hi c l e c ome s f r om t he t wo

oc c upa nt s of pl a i nt i f f s ’ ve hi c l e . The c ondi t i ons r e qui r e d by

t he s t a t ut e ha ve not be e n e s t a bl i s he d i n t hi s c a s e a nd s umma r y

j udgme nt wa s a ppr opr i a t e on t he i s s ue of uni ns ur e d mot or i s t

c ove r a ge . Car di n v . Campbe l l , 920 S. W. 2d 222 ( Te nn. App.

1995) . Howe ve r , t he cl a i m aga i ns t t he i ns ur a nce car r i e r

r e l a t i ng t o t he unde r i ns ur e d pr ovi s i on of pl a i nt i f f s ’ pol i c y

wi l l be r e i ns t a t e d becaus e t he act i on ha s been r e i ns t a t e d as
5

t o t he r e ma i ni ng de f e nda nt s . 

The cos t of t he appeal i s as s e s s e d t o de f e nda nt and

t he caus e r e ma nde d.

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .
FILED

June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ANTHONY W. NANCE, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00037

a nd BRANDON NANCE, )

) CAMPBELL CI RCUI T

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s , )

)

v. )

)

CHRI STOPHER H. STRUNK, )

)

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee. )

O R D E R

Thi s c a us e wa s r e gul a r l y he a r d a nd c ons i de r e d by t he

c our t . I T I S NOW ORDERED t ha t t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t

i s af f i r me d i n pa r t , r e ve r s e d i n pa r t , and t he caus e r e ma nde d.

The c os t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d t o de f e nda nt , f or whi c h

e xecut i on ma y i s s ue i f necess a r y.

PER CURI UM