CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Biscan v. Brown

The provided text is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., in a case regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault system. While agreeing with the majority on some points, Justice Drowota disagrees with the exclusion of Dana Biscan from fault apportionment, despite Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 precluding legal liability for furnishing alcohol. The opinion argues that disallowing fault to an "effectively immune" tortfeasor, like Dana Biscan, contradicts established Tennessee comparative fault jurisprudence, particularly McIntyre v. Balentine, Carroll v. Whitney, and Dotson v. Blake. Justice Drowota contends that the majority's approach undermines the principle of linking liability to fault, blinds the jury to relevant evidence, and imposes liability disproportionately, thereby injecting confusion into settled law.

Comparative FaultTort LawAlcohol LiabilityStatutory ImmunityProximate CauseApportionment of FaultJudicial DissentTennessee LawMcIntyre v. BalentineCarroll v. Whitney
References
8
Case No. M2001-02766-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2005

Jennifer L. Biscan v. Franklin H. Brown - Concurring and Dissenting

Chief Justice Drowota pens a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault case. He agrees with the majority on the exclusion of evidence of Jennifer Biscan's prior alcohol experiences and that Paul Worley owed a duty of care. However, he disagrees with the majority's analysis concerning the apportionment of fault to Dana Biscan, who is effectively immune from liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 (furnishing alcohol). Drowota argues that fault should still be assigned to immune or effectively immune tortfeasors, citing precedents like Carroll v. Whitney and Dotson v. Blake, to uphold the principle of linking liability to fault. He contends that the majority's decision contradicts prior comparative fault jurisprudence and introduces unnecessary confusion.

Comparative FaultApportionment of FaultImmunity from LiabilityStatutory ImmunityTennessee Code Annotated 57-10-101Proximate CauseLinking Liability to FaultJudicial DissentLegal CausationTennessee Supreme Court
References
9
Case No. W1998-00710-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2000

Dotson v. Blake

Chief Justice Anderson dissents from the majority's decision, which permits juries to allocate fault to tortfeasors who successfully assert a statute of repose defense, despite the plaintiff having no cause of action against them. This ruling follows Carroll v. Whitney and reverses established precedents like Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. The dissent argues that this approach deviates from McIntyre v. Balentine's balanced comparative fault principles, unfairly burdens plaintiffs with the entire risk of loss, and undermines judicial consistency and the doctrine of stare decisis. The Chief Justice criticizes the majority for prioritizing defendants' fairness without considering plaintiffs' interests or exploring alternative solutions like pure comparative fault or distributing fault among all parties. The dissent concludes that the change in policy lacks sufficient justification and threatens the reliability of the Supreme Court's decisions.

Comparative FaultStatute of ReposeTortfeasor LiabilityJudicial PrecedentStare DecisisAppellate ReviewImmunity DefensePlaintiff's Cause of ActionJury Allocation of FaultLegal Policy Change
References
6
Case No. W2005-00913-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2006

Jerry T. Troup, Jr. v. Fischer Steel Corporation

This personal injury case involves comparative fault. Plaintiff Jerry Troup, an employee of a roofing subcontractor, fell through an uncovered hole at a warehouse construction site and sustained serious injuries. He received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Jolly Roofing. Troup then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Fischer Steel Corporation, the steel subcontractor who cut the hole. Fischer Steel sought to assert comparative fault against the general contractor, Belz Enterprises, a non-party. The trial court denied this motion, and a jury found Fischer Steel 70% at fault, awarding Troup $546,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case, holding that Fischer Steel should have been permitted to assert fault against the general contractor, Belz, even though Belz was immune from suit under workers' compensation law, as this scenario did not involve an employer's subrogation lien that would defeat the employee's recovery.

Comparative faultSubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor immunityPersonal injuryNegligence actionThird-party tortfeasorMotion in limineJury instructionsAppellate procedureStatutory immunity
References
11
Case No. M2022-00420-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Cory Fulghum v. Stan Notestine

Cory Fulghum initiated a premises liability claim against Stan Notestine after suffering severe injuries from a fall off his own ladder at Notestine's residence. Fulghum argued that their relationship constituted employer-employee, thereby precluding Notestine from using a comparative fault defense due to the absence of workers' compensation insurance. The trial court granted summary judgment to Notestine, ruling he had no duty to warn of a self-created danger and that Fulghum was at least 50% at fault. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Notestine owed no duty to warn under the circumstances, thus rendering Fulghum's arguments regarding comparative fault irrelevant.

Premises liabilityComparative faultDuty to warnWorkers' compensation lawEmployer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNegligence claimTennessee tort law
References
32
Case No. W2008-01649-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

John C. Blair v. Robert Sullivan, Jr.

This appeal concerns a negligence claim stemming from a motor vehicle accident between plaintiff John C. Blair and defendant Robert Sullivan, Jr. Blair appealed the trial court's decision, arguing errors in the admission of his positive drug test, the propriety of jury instructions, and the evidentiary support for the jury's comparative fault verdict. The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the drug test for issues of fault and credibility. It further determined that the jury instructions were proper and that material evidence supported the jury's finding of 50/50 comparative fault between the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Negligence ClaimMotor Vehicle AccidentDrug Test AdmissibilityJury InstructionsComparative FaultAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionEvidence RelevanceProbative ValueTennessee Code Annotated
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1986

Soto v. City of New York

Wilfredo Soto, an epileptic, participated in the Public Works Program in conjunction with the New York City Department of Social Services, working for the Department of Transportation. In May 1979, he suffered a seizure on a work bus, fell out, and sustained a fractured spine, rendering him paraplegic. Soto appealed a judgment, claiming errors in jury instructions regarding comparative fault, where he was found 70% at fault and the City of New York 30%. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury instructions on comparative fault were proper and Soto's remaining contentions were without merit. The City of New York's cross-appeal for dismissal of Soto's cause of action was also denied.

Personal InjuryComparative FaultJury InstructionsParaplegiaEpilepsyPublic Works ProgramNegligenceAppellate ReviewKings CountyNew York City
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. G.E. Capital Modular Space

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee regarding the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 in workers' compensation cases. This statute allows for amending a complaint to add third-party tortfeasors if comparative fault is an issue, extending the statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Carolyn Curtis, sought to use this statute to add G.E. Capital Modular Space and Bennett Truck Transport, Inc. as defendants after her employer, TRW, Inc., named them in a workers' compensation claim. The Court held that section 20-1-119 is inapplicable to workers' compensation actions because such benefits are awarded without regard to fault, thus comparative fault is not an issue. Consequently, the statute does not extend the limitation period for adding third-party tortfeasors in these cases, rendering the second certified question moot.

Workers' CompensationComparative FaultStatute of LimitationsThird-Party TortfeasorAmended ComplaintTennessee LawCertified QuestionsEmployer ImmunitySubrogation LienNo-Fault Liability
References
15
Case No. M2017-00413-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2018

Edna Green v. St. George's Episcopal Church

This appeal concerns a personal injury action filed by Edna Green against St. George’s Episcopal Church. Ms. Green was injured during a church outing when a bus, owned by the church and driven by a parishioner, jolted over drainage berms at Green Door Gourmet. The church alleged the comparative fault of Green Door Gourmet, a nonparty, arguing potential immunity under Tennessee’s agritourism statute. The trial court permitted the jury to apportion fault to Green Door Gourmet despite arguments of immunity. The jury found St. George’s 15% at fault and Green Door Gourmet 85% at fault. Ms. Green appealed, contending the trial court erred in allowing fault allocation to an allegedly immune nonparty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the agritourism statute limits liability but does not preclude the allocation of fault to an agritourism professional in a negligence action, thereby upholding the jury's apportionment.

Personal InjuryComparative FaultAgritourism StatuteStatutory ImmunityNonparty Fault AllocationNegligence ActionJury Verdict ReviewAppellate DecisionTennessee AgritourismImmunity from Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. State

A prisoner, Clarence Eugene Lewis, working in a prison workshop, suffered a severe hand injury while operating a punch press without safety guards. He filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission, alleging negligence by his supervisors for inadequate training and unsafe equipment. The Claims Commissioner dismissed his claim, finding Mr. Lewis at least 50% responsible for his injuries due to comparative negligence, as he intentionally placed his hand under the press while his foot was on the pedal. This court affirms the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that while the supervisors were negligent in maintaining a safe workplace and providing training, Mr. Lewis's own actions constituted at least 50% of the fault, precluding recovery under Tennessee's comparative fault principles.

Prisoner injuryIndustrial accidentPunch pressNegligence claimComparative faultWorkplace safetyInadequate trainingSafety guardsTennessee Claims CommissionDepartment of Correction
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 947 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational