Clark v. Cain

479 S.W.3d 830 (Tenn. 2015) · Tennessee Supreme Court · October 16, 2015

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a constitutional challenge to Tennessee's statutory cap on noneconomic damages was not ripe because the cap would become relevant only if the plaintiffs obtained a verdict exceeding it. The court granted review, vacated the trial court's judgment declaring the cap unconstitutional, and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Tennessee Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Tennessee
Decision date
October 16, 2015
Procedural posture
Defendants and the State sought permission to appeal an interlocutory trial-court order that denied partial summary judgment and declared Tennessee's statutory cap on non-economic damages unconstitutional.
Standard of review
The court reviewed whether the constitutional challenge was ripe for judicial determination and whether the trial court acted prematurely in reaching it.
Precedential value
Published Tennessee Supreme Court per curiam order; precedential value not otherwise specified in the source.
Parties
Aimee L. Cain, AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility, LLC, AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, State of Tennessee v. Plaintiffs
Disposition
vacated

Topics

ripenesssummary judgmentappellate procedureconstitutional lawnegligence

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawpersonal injurynegligence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the statutory cap on non-economic damages was ripe for adjudication before Plaintiffs obtained a verdict exceeding the cap.
  2. Whether the trial court prematurely ruled on Defendants' partial-summary-judgment motion and the constitutional challenge.

Holdings

  1. The constitutional challenge was not ripe because the statutory cap would become relevant only if Plaintiffs obtained a verdict in excess of the cap.
  2. The trial court acted prematurely by considering the partial-summary-judgment motion and constitutional challenge before the statutory cap became applicable.

Key quotations

the province of a court is to decide, not advise, and to settle rights, not to give abstract opinions. (831)
Ripeness ... requires a court to answer the question of whether the dispute has matured to the point that it warrants a judicial decision. (831-32)

Factual background

Plaintiffs brought negligence claims for personal injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle collision. They sought non-economic damages exceeding the statutory cap in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102 and asked the trial court to declare the cap unconstitutional. Because no verdict had yet been entered, it remained uncertain whether the cap would ever apply to Plaintiffs' claims.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs filed a negligence action arising from a motor-vehicle collision and challenged the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102. The trial court denied Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment and held the statutory cap unconstitutional, then granted an interlocutory appeal and stayed the proceedings. The Court of Appeals denied permission to appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Defendants' and the State's Rule 11 applications, vacated the trial-court judgment, and remanded.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the Order. Consideration of the statutory-cap issue should await a verdict in Plaintiffs' favor exceeding the cap, should that occur.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Tennessee Tennessee Supreme Court