Opinion ID: 2445170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: re-opening of plaintiff's proof

Text: Frontier first argues the Chancellor erred in re-opening the proof at trial, after the plaintiff rested, to allow proof that Frontier was covered for worker's compensation under the statute. The first paragraph of the plaintiff's complaint alleges: This is a matter by virtue of the worker's compensation statutes for the State of Tennessee and for all benefits thereunder. To this complaint, Frontier filed an answer which said: Paragraph 1 of the complaint is neither admitted nor denied, therefore, strict proof of the allegations contained therein is demanded. The plaintiff testified on direct examination that when she began working at Frontier there were four employees. Frontier did not cross-examine. At the end of plaintiff's proof, Frontier made a motion to dismiss based upon the plaintiff's failure to provide written notice of an injury, which was overruled. Frontier put on no proof, and it wasn't until argument began that Frontier argued there was no proof of coverage and that the pleadings had raised the issue. The Chancellor commented: I have some questions about that kind of answer ... a complaint is stating that this is a matter by virtue of the worker's compensation statutes for the State of Tennessee and benefits thereunder, and defendant who ought to know whether or not it is, has said we neither admit nor deny that that's correct and we just demand strict proof. The Chancellor then held that it was within his discretion to allow the proof to be re-opened, and he did so. The plaintiff testified there were eight employees working for Frontier at the time of the injury, and the Chancellor found Frontier was subject to the Worker's Compensation Act. Permitting additional proof, after a party has announced that proof is closed, is within the discretion of the trial court, and unless it appears that its action in that regard has permitted injustice, its exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Bell, 690 S.W.2d 879 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). It is within the discretion of the trial judge to decide whether to reopen the proof for further evidence, and the decision of the trial judge thereon will not be set aside unless there is a showing that an injustice has been done. Higgins v. Steide, 47 Tenn. App. 42, 335 S.W.2d 533 (1959)... . Id. at 882. In Bellisomi v. Kenny, 206 S.W.2d 787 (Tenn. 1947), this Court discussed the reason a trial judge has discretion to decide when a nonsuit motion should be allowed: This rule, in our opinion, was adopted to promote the discretion of the trial judge in directing the course of a trial. The ascertainment of the truth and a just determination of the respective rights of the parties insofar as this can be accomplished consistent with rules essential to the administration of justice, is the purpose of all judicial inquiry... . [T]he function of a judge of a law court is not limited to that of a mere referee or umpire between contestants in a game of skill. Upon the contrary, in many respects he has wide discretion to be exercised in the promotion of the purpose for which the trial is had... . Id. at 788. As we said in Barker v. Heekin Can Co., 804 S.W.2d 442 (Tenn. 1991): The Rules of Civil Procedure are not intended as a trap for the unwary, but as a means of secur[ing] the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. Rule 1, T.R.C.P. Id. at 444. We think the Chancellor's action promoted justice rather than injustice, particularly in view of the nature of Frontier's pleadings. Frontier neither admitted nor denied coverage under the Worker's Compensation Act when it must have known it had eight employees on the date of the injury and therefore had coverage. We hold therefore that the Chancellor did not abuse his discretion in re-opening the proof in this case in order to ascertain the truth and properly administer justice.