Opinion ID: 2396081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: inferences on inferences

Text: An inference is generally regarded as a permissible deduction from evidence which a jury may accept or reject or accord such probative value as it desires. Bell Cab & U-Drive-It Company, Inc. v. Sloan, 193 Tenn. (29 Beeler) 352, 357, 246 S.W.2d 41, 44 (1952). Although a jury can permissibly draw an inference from the evidence before it, whether direct or circumstantial, it is well settled in Tennessee that an inference cannot be properly drawn from another inference. Edenton v. McKelvey, 186 Tenn. (22 Beeler) 655, 660, 212 S.W.2d 616, 618 (1948); Pusser v. Gordon, 684 S.W.2d 639, 649 (Tenn. App. 1984). What is meant by this rule is that [a]n inference can be drawn only from the facts in evidence, and cannot be based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess; it must be reasonably drawn from, and supported by, the facts on which it purports to rest, and must be made in accordance with correct and common modes of reasoning. Patton v. L.O. Brayton & Co., 184 Tenn. (20 Beeler) 592, 598, 201 S.W.2d 981, 984 (1947) (quoting 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 1044, 1942). It should be noted that the rule has been roundly criticized by legal scholars and, as a result, some states have abandoned the rule, while in others qualifications and exceptions have developed. One criticism has been that the rule is unworkable because all reasoning must proceed upon a series of inferences, and in everyday life all men frequently act as the result of the repeated piling of inferences upon inferences. New York Life Ins. Co. v. McNeely, 52 Ariz. 181, 79 P.2d 948 (1938). Another criticism is that the rule has been used carelessly and inaccurately by the courts as a convenient way of disposing of evidence which it regarded as too remote or uncertain to prove the ultimate facts at issue. Annotation, Modern Status of the Rules Against Basing an Inference Upon an Inference or a Presumption Upon a Presumption, 5 A.L.R.3d 100, 120-31 (1966); Wigmore on Evidence, § 41 (3d ed. 1940). Despite the condemnation, a majority of jurisdictions [1] continue to follow the rule against basing an inference on an inference; however, several jurisdictions [2] in response to the critics have abandoned it. However, the jurisdictions that have abandoned the rule have rejected its form, rather than its application. Accordingly, those jurisdictions continue to apply the rule; they have just changed the label on the can to a rule against drawing remote inferences. Annotation, supra, 5 A.L.R.3d at 120-31 (1966); Wigmore on Evidence, § 41 (3d ed. 1940). Tennessee has qualified the general rule by adopting a rule that a fact may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and from the fact thus inferred, another fact may be inferred without contravening the rule that an inference cannot be based upon an inference. Stinson v. Daniel, 220 Tenn. (24 McCanless) 70, 80, 414 S.W.2d 7, 11 (1967); Tennessee Valley Electric Co-op v. Harmon, 39 Tenn. App. 580, 590, 286 S.W.2d 593, 597 (1956). What is meant by this rule is that a `fact,' although arrived at by indirect or circumstantial evidence, may serve as a basis for an inference; that is the evidence supporting the first inference may be of such a character and so strong that it justifies a conclusion or a finding of fact which becomes a proper basis for another inference. Annotation, supra, 95 A.L.R. 162 (citing Nashville Gas & Heating Co. v. Phillips, 17 Tenn. App. 648, 69 S.W.2d 914 (1934), and Adamant Stone & Roofing Co. v. Vaughn, 7 Tenn. App. 170 (1928)). In this case, the plaintiff's proof fits within the latter, rather than the former, of these two Tennessee rules. As already established, Benton produced circumstantial evidence from which the jury could permissibly find as a fact that Dr. Snyder performed a sterilization procedure on Benton. From this inferred fact that Dr. Snyder performed the sterilization, together with (1) Snyder's statement that had he performed it he would have had to have known he did it, (2) the absence of documentation of the sterilization procedure by Snyder in Benton's medical records, and (3) Snyder's silence thereafter, the jury could permissibly draw an inference and find as a fact that Dr. Snyder fraudulently concealed the procedure from Benton. Because the circumstantial evidence supporting the first inference is sufficiently strong, we conclude that the inferred fact (that Snyder performed the sterilization) can be the basis of the second inference of fraudulent concealment. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence of fraudulent concealment is legally sufficient and does not violate the rule that an inference may not be based on another inference. It follows that, after taking the strongest legitimate view of plaintiff's evidence, discarding all countervailing evidence and allowing all reasonable inferences to the plaintiff, more than one conclusion could be drawn from the evidence. A verdict may be directed only where a reasonable mind could draw but one conclusion. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' decision sustaining the trial court's directed verdict and remand the cause for a new trial. Because of this remand, and in the interest of judicial economy, we are required to address two issues left undecided by the Court of Appeals opinion. The first question is whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for an order to review the medical records of all the patients who underwent sterilizations performed by Dr. Snyder. It is well settled that decisions with regard to pretrial discovery matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. The decision of the trial court in discovery matters will not be reversed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Paine v. Ramsey, 591 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tenn. 1979). We find no abuse of discretion, and the trial court's decision is affirmed. The second issue is whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Dr. Pleas R. Copas regarding the means by which Benton was sterilized. The plaintiff objected to Dr. Copas's testimony on the basis that it was speculative and inadmissible. On this record, we find Dr. Copas's testimony to be admissible and affirm the trial court's decision. It results that the Court of Appeals' decision is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. The costs of this appeal are taxed to the defendant. REID, C.J., and DROWOTA, O'BRIEN, and DAUGHTREY, JJ., concur.