Tennessee’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Introduction
Tennessee is one of a handful of states that has adopted the legal doctrine of Comparative Negligence. Comparative negligence is an important legal concept which determines the amount of fault, and thus, the degree of liability, that a particular party may have in a civil lawsuit. This article will provide a thorough explanation of Tennessee’s Comparative Negligence Rule and its implications for civil litigation involving multiple parties.

What Is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is the legal principle which states that in a civil lawsuit that involves multiple parties, each party can be held liable for a portion of the damages sustained by the plaintiff based upon their relative degree of negligence. This doctrine is based upon the concept of shared responsibility and seeks to assign fault in a fair and equitable manner. In other words, it acknowledges that it is possible for more than one party to be at fault in an injury or accident.

How Does Comparative Negligence Work in Tennessee?
In Tennessee, the doctrine of Comparative Negligence is codified under the Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 29-11-105. This law states that in any civil action, a defendant can be held liable if they acted negligently, and that the amount of their liability is based on the relative degree of fault each party holds. Specifically, it states that the “several liability of the parties shall be in proportion to the amount of fault assessed in the particular case to each of the parties.”

In Tennessee, a court will determine the relative degree of fault for each of the parties involved in a civil lawsuit. This process is known as “comparative fault allocation.” The court will consider a variety of factors, such as the degree of care used by each party and the extent to which each party breached their duty of care. After determining the relative degree of fault of the parties involved, the court will apply the principle of comparative negligence and assign a percentage of fault to each party.

The amount of fault assigned will be determined by the court based on the facts of the case, and will be used to determine the proportion of responsibility each party holds for any damages sustained by the plaintiff. For example, if the court determines that one party is 60% responsible for the damages, they will be held liable for that amount. The court’s determination of fault can be modified or amended if they determine that certain evidence was not taken into account or that the initial allocation of fault was incorrect.

Implications Of Comparative Negligence
The doctrine of comparative negligence is very important in civil litigation because it allows the court to assign responsibility and liability in a fair and equitable manner. This is important because it ensures that no one party will be held solely responsible for the damages caused. This also helps to ensure that the plaintiff is appropriately compensated for their losses.

Furthermore, the doctrine of comparative negligence serves to discourage parties from attempting to avoid liability by shifting the blame to another party. This is because any attempt to shift the blame to another party will only work if the court finds that the other party is more at fault than the one attempting to shift the blame.

Conclusion
Tennessee’s Comparative Negligence Rule is an important legal doctrine that has important implications for civil litigation in the state. By allowing the court to assign liability in proportion to each party’s relative degree of fault in a given case, the doctrine helps to ensure that no one party is left solely responsible for the damages caused, and that the plaintiff is appropriately compensated.