Court Opinion

ID: 9522689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:30:55.203626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:38.430207
License: Public Domain

HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, P.J.,
dissenting.
Assuming arguendo that the State’s parked vehicle was a contributing proximate cause of the accident, the Commissioner’s and the majority’s approach by focusing almost exclusively on the defendant’s parked vehicle and its location, led them in my view to the wrong conclusion. The majority is unable to point to any specific regulatory or statutory violations by the defendant. In contrast, the deceased violated numerous statutes, as well as common law violations. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-8-101 et seq., Operation of Vehicles-Rules of the Road.
Clearly, in my opinion, the deceased by leaving the main traveled portion of the road violated several rales of the road. By driving onto the shoulder and striking a stationery vehicle, he was more than 50% at fault for this accident.
I would reverse the Judgment of the Claims Commission.