Charles F. Moon, et ux vs. Dennis G. Fox

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON FILED CHARLES F. BARBARA L. i ndi vi dua l l f r i e n d s of M OON a nd M OON, b ot h y a nd a s ne xt CHANEE M OON, a mi nor Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s v. DENNI S G. FOX a nd NATI ONAL TI TLE I NSURANCE AGENCY, I NC. De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) January 31, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk HAM LTON COUNTY I 03A01- 9507- CV- 00213 OPI NI ON CONCURRI NG I N PART AND DI SSENTI NG I N PART Godda r d, P. J . I c onc ur wi t h t he ma j or i t y opi ni on' s r e s ol ut i on of i s s u e t wo r e l a t i ve t o whe t he r t he r e i s ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e t o s u p p o r t t he j ur y' s ve r di c t . I do, howe ve r , f i nd unde r t he r e c o r d p r e s e n t e d t ha t t he Tr i a l J udge di d not e xe r c i s e hi s r e s p o n s i bi l i t y a s t hi r t e e nt h j ur or by i nde pe nde nt l y we i ghi ng t h e e v i d e n c e , whi c h e nc ompa s s e s hi s a s s e s s me nt of t he c r e di bi l i t y o f t he wi t ne s s e s . I n a ddi t i on t o t he quot a t i on of Ri di ngs v. Nor f ol k So u t h e r n Ra i l wa y Co. , i n t he ma j or i t y opi ni on, whi c h a c c ur a t e l y d e a l s wi t h t he t hi r t e e nt h j ur or que s t i on, J udge M Ami s , f or me r c Pr e s i d i ng J udge of t hi s Co ur t , i n She r l i n v. Robe r s on , 551 S. W 2 d . 7 0 0 , 7 0 1 ( Te nn. App. 1976) , poi nt e dl y a r t i c ul a t e s t he s i gni f i c a n t r u l e t r i a l j udge s pl a y i n j ur y c a s e s : The . . . r e ma r ks of t he j udge ma ke i t a ppe a r he d i s a s s oc i a t e d h i ms e l f f r om t he de l i be r a t i ve pr oc e s s wh i c h i s t he pe c ul i a r a nd e xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e of t he j u r y of whi c h t he pr e s i di ng j udge i s a s muc h a me mbe r a s j ur or s s i t t i ng i n t he j ur y box. I nde e d, i t mus t be s a i d t ha t , by r e a s on of hi s t r a i ni ng a s a l a wye r a nd h i s e xpe r i e nc e i n we i ghi ng t e s t i mony, he i s t he mos t i mpor t a nt me mbe r of t he j ur y. To s a y, a s t he t r i a l j udge di d i n t hi s c a s e , t h a t b e f or e t he t r i a l j udge , a c t i ng a s t he t hi r t e e nt h j ur or , s h oul d s e t a s i de a ve r di c t i t woul d ha ve t o be a v e r di c t t ha t he c oul d not l i ve wi t h woul d be t o a dopt a s t a nda r d r e l i e vi ng t he j udge of t he dut y t o t a ke a n u n bi a s e d a nd di s pa s s i ona t e vi e w of t he e vi de nc e , we i gh i t a nd de t e r mi ne whe t he r t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s i n f a vor of t he pl a i nt i f f or de f e nda nt or i s e qua l l y b a l a nc e d. I f t he t r i a l j ud ge a bdi c a t e s t hi s i mpor t a nt dut y j u s t i c e c oul d of t e n mi s c a r r y. On a ppe a l t he e vi de nc e c a nnot be we i ghe d a s i n t he t r i a l c our t . As ha s be e n s a i d s o of t e n, a ve r d i c t i n a c i vi l c a s e a ppr ove d by t h e t r i a l j udge c a nnot be ove r t ur ne d i f t he r e i s a ny c r e di bl e ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e t o s uppor t i t . I n vi e w of t h e f i na l i t y of hi s de t e r mi na t i on of t he we i ght of t he e v i de nc e a s t he t hi r t e e nt h j ur or , i t wi l l not do t o we a ke n t he r ul e by i mpl yi ng a ppr ova l by t he t r i a l j udge f r om c ount e r va i l i ng a nd i r r e c onc i l a bl e r e ma r ks . To do s o woul d be t o s t r i ke a t t he ve r y f ounda t i on of our j udi c i a l s ys t e m a s i t pe r t a i ns t o j ur y t r i a l s . The que s t i on i s not , a s s ugge s t e d by t he Tr i a l Cour t , wh e t h e r t he j ur y ha d s uf f i c i e nt e vi de nc e t o r e t ur n t he ve r di c t i t d i d , b u t whe t he r t he Tr i a l J udge , upon hi s i nde pe nde nt l y 2 e v a l u a t i ng t he e vi de nc e , a ppr ove d t he ve r di c t . M r e a di ng of h i s y r e ma r k s c onvi nc e s me t ha t he di d not pe r f or m hi s dut y a s t h i r t e e nt h j ur or by ma ki ng a n i nde pe nde nt e va l ua t i on of t he e vi d e nc e . For t he f or e goi n g r e a s on I woul d r e ve r s e a s t o i s s ue o n e a nd r e ma nd t he c a s e f or a ne w t r i a l . _______________________________ Hous t on M Godda r d, P. J . . 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.