McIntyre v. Balentine
833 S.W.2d 52 · Tennessee Supreme Court · 1992
Facts
Plaintiff McIntyre and Defendant Balentine were involved in a motor vehicle accident where both had consumed alcohol. The jury found both parties equally at fault, leading to a verdict for the defendant under the existing contributory negligence rule. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the application of contributory negligence and the admissibility of a criminal intoxication presumption.
Issue
Should Tennessee replace the common law defense of contributory negligence with a system of comparative fault, and is the criminal presumption of intoxication admissible evidence in a civil case?
Holding
The court replaced contributory negligence with a modified comparative fault system, allowing recovery if the plaintiff's negligence is less than the defendant's. It also held that the criminal presumption of intoxication is admissible evidence in a civil case. The case was remanded for a new trial.
Rule
Tennessee adopts a modified comparative fault rule where a plaintiff can recover if their negligence is less than the defendant's, with damages reduced proportionally. The criminal presumption of intoxication (T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b)) is admissible evidence in civil cases, constituting negligence per se if it proximately caused injury.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.