Catherine Edmundson filed a lawsuit against Defendants Jimmy C. Grisham, Germantown Termite and Pest Control, Inc., and Christopher D. Alexander, seeking damages for injuries from a September 1993 automobile accident. The accident involved Alexander's truck striking the rear of Lester M. Vanderford's vehicle, which then collided with Edmundson's car. Although Vanderford was initially named as a defendant, he was voluntarily dismissed before trial.
During discovery, Edmundson posed an interrogatory to Alexander requesting the names of individuals with relevant knowledge of the case. Alexander identified only the parties involved and one individual, PST V.D. VanBuren, as having relevant information. At trial, the Defendants argued that some of Edmundson's injuries arose from a subsequent accident in April 1995, which she denied. To counter her testimony, they sought to introduce the testimony of paramedic David Tucker, who stated that Edmundson complained of pain following the April accident. However, Tucker could not confirm any actual injuries, explaining that his protocol was to treat patients as if they were severely injured.
Edmundson objected to Tucker's testimony, arguing that he was not disclosed as a witness in response to the interrogatory. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Edmundson, awarding her $50,000.
The trial court excluded Tucker’s testimony during the trial, leading to a jury verdict favoring Edmundson for $50,000. Following the verdict, the Defendants filed a motion for a new trial under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.02, which did not specify any grounds for the request. The trial court denied this motion, prompting the Defendants to appeal, asserting that the exclusion of Tucker’s testimony was improper. The appellate court determined that the Defendants waived this issue because they failed to include it in their motion for a new trial. The court emphasized that a motion for new trial is crucial for addressing alleged trial errors and that issues not specifically stated in such a motion are considered waived per Tennessee Appellate Procedure Rule 3(e). The Defendants argued they raised the issue in a supporting memorandum and at the hearing on the motion, but no record of these was provided, leading the court to presume the trial court's decision was correct. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, charging the Defendants with the costs of the appeal.
