Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialverdictcorporationjury trial
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialverdictappellee

Related Cases

Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Investments, Ltd., 911 F.3d 1000, 102 Fed.R.Serv.3d 574
View Case »
Spurgeon v. Rhodes, 167 Ind. 1, 78 N.E. 228
View Case »
Felder v. Reeth, 34 F.2d 744, 97 A.L.R. 244, 5 Alaska Fed. 432
View Case »
Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848
View Case »
U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69, 62 A.F.T.R.2d 88-5054, 56 USLW 4672, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 463
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fye v. Kennedy, 991 S.W.2d 754

Facts

The case originated from an accident on April 30, 1991, involving a vehicle driven by Anne D. Kennedy, in which Barbara May Fye was a passenger, and another vehicle driven by Jeffrey W. Keller. As Keller attempted to turn left at an intersection, his vehicle was struck by Kennedy's vehicle, resulting in serious injuries to Fye, who later died from her injuries. The plaintiff, Edward Fye, filed a lawsuit for wrongful death and loss of services against the drivers and owners of the vehicles involved, as well as General Motors Corporation and Newton Chevrolet–GEO, Inc., alleging that Fye's injuries were exacerbated by a defectively designed seat belt.

This case finds its genesis in an April 30, 1991, accident involving a vehicle driven by the defendant Anne D. Kennedy… As a result of the collision, Fye was seriously injured.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting the Kennedys a directed verdict and improperly limit the percentage of fault that could be assessed to them in the second jury trial?

Did the trial court err in granting the Kennedys a directed verdict?

Rule

Negligence is ordinarily an issue to be decided by a jury, and can be withdrawn from the jury only in cases where the facts are established by evidence free from conflict and the inference from the facts is so certain that all reasonable minds must agree.

Negligence is ordinarily an issue to be decided by a jury, and can be withdrawn from the jury only in those cases where the facts are established by evidence free from conflict and the inference from the facts is so certain that all reasonable minds must agree.

Analysis

The court found that reasonable minds could differ on whether Kennedy was guilty of actionable negligence. Evidence suggested that Kennedy was traveling at an excessive speed and failed to stop at a yellow light, which could have contributed to the accident. The trial court's decision to direct a verdict for the Kennedys was deemed erroneous because the jury should have been allowed to assess the evidence and determine the allocation of fault.

We find that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to whether Kennedy was guilty of actionable negligence.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's directed verdict for the Kennedys and the limitation on their comparative fault, affirming the need for a new trial on these issues.

The judgment of the trial court directing a verdict for the appellees Anne D. Kennedy and James D. Kennedy, III, is hereby vacated.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Edward Fye, prevailed in the appeal as the court found that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants and limiting their fault.

The plaintiff, Edward Fye, prevailed in the appeal as the court found that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants and limiting their fault.

You must be