The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed a trial court ruling denying Bridgestone entities’ request to dismiss a case because of lost evidence and a request for summary judgment in the case in which a woman’s car was totaled in an accident after it appeared that a tire may have failed.
The plaintiff, Lea Ann Tatham, was driving her car on the interstate near Jackson when she lost control of the car, hit a guardrail, and flipped over. A woman who was a passenger in a car behind Ms. Tatum said that, prior to Ms. Tatham losing control, she saw something flapping under the car, then saw what appeared to be a piece of tire come out from under the car.
The plaintiff’s insurance company totaled the car and advised the plaintiff to transfer the title to the wrecker service, which then destroyed the car. Ms. Tatham later filed suit against the Bridgestone entities, alleging that the tire, which had been purchased new less than 90 days before the accident, was defective and/or unreasonably dangerous.
The defendants moved to dismiss the case, asking that the case be determined in their favor without a trial because the plaintiff failed to preserve the tire as evidence. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that, among other things, the plaintiff did not intentionally destroy the tire. The trial court also denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants based on other arguments.
The Court of Appeals declined to review the trial court ruling, and the defendants applied for permission from the Supreme Court to appeal the ruling on these issues. The Supreme Court determined that, although intentional misconduct is not required for a court to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, it is one of four factors courts should consider in deciding this issue. The Court determined in this case that the trial court properly considered these factors in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court also reviewed the defendants’ additional reasons for requesting summary judgment, conducting the analysis under the Court’s opinion in Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, released just Monday. The Court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact in the plaintiff’s case, and the trial court was correct to deny summary judgment in all instances. The case will now return to the trial court. for a decision on the merits.
Justice Gary R. Wade wrote a concurring opinion, in which he disagreed with the new summary judgment standard, but reached the same conclusion under a different analysis.
Read the Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding opinion, authored by Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins, and the concurring opinion by Justice Wade.