Mcintyre v. Balentine Sup Ct Of Tn.,

833 S.W.2d 52 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D were involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in severe injuries to P. Shortly after P entered the highway, his pickup truck was struck by D's Peterbilt tractor. At trial, the parties disputed the exact chronology of events immediately preceding the accident. Both men had consumed alcohol the evening of the accident. After the accident, Ps blood alcohol level was measured at .17 percent by weight. Testimony suggested that D was traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. P brought a negligence action against Ds. D answered that P was contributorily negligent, in part due to operating his vehicle while intoxicated. After trial, the jury returned a verdict stating: 'We, the jury, find the plaintiff and the defendant equally at fault in this accident; therefore, we rule in favor of the defendant.' P brought an appeal alleging the trial court erred by (1) refusing to instruct the jury regarding the doctrine of comparative negligence, and (2) instructing the jury that a blood alcohol level greater than .10 percent creates an inference of intoxication. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that (1) comparative negligence is not the law in Tennessee, and (2) the presumption of intoxication provided by T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b) (1988) is admissible evidence in a civil case.