McIntyre v. Balentine

Supreme Court of Tennessee · 1992 · Torts

833 S.W.2d 52 (1992)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsComparative faultContributory negligenceNegligence per seIntoxication evidence49 percent ruleplaintiff negligencefault apportionment

Facts

In the early morning of November 2, 1986, plaintiff Harry Douglas McIntyre entered Highway 69 from Smith's Truck Stop parking lot and was struck shortly thereafter by defendant Clifford Balentine's tractor. The parties disputed the sequence of events immediately preceding the collision. Both men had consumed alcohol that evening, plaintiff's blood alcohol level after the accident measured .17 percent by weight, and testimony suggested defendant was traveling above the posted speed limit. Defendants asserted plaintiff was contributorily negligent, in part because he was operating his vehicle while intoxicated.

Issue

Should Tennessee replace the common law doctrine of contributory negligence with a system of comparative fault, and if so what form should that system take? Also, is the statutory criminal presumption that a blood alcohol level of .10 percent or more indicates intoxication admissible evidence in a civil case?

Rule

Tennessee adopts modified comparative fault: a plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is less than the defendant's negligence, and any damages are reduced in proportion to the percentage of total negligence attributable to the plaintiff. In multiple-tortfeasor cases, a plaintiff may recover so long as the plaintiff's fault is less than the combined fault of all tortfeasors. The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete under this system, joint and several liability is obsolete, defendants may plead nonparty fault as an affirmative defense, and the presumption of intoxication in T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b) is admissible in civil cases as evidence of negligence per se, provided proximate cause is shown before liability may rest on the statutory violation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Knoxville, Dana Mercer sued Leo Pritchard for negligence after a collision at an intersection. The jury found Dana's total damages were $120,000 and apportioned fault 50% to Dana and 50% to Leo, with both parties' negligence being proximate causes of the injury.

Under the governing rule, what is the proper result?

Explanation. The majority adopted a modified comparative fault system using the 49 percent rule, not a 50 percent rule. A plaintiff may recover only when the plaintiff's negligence is less than the defendant's negligence. Because Dana and Leo were equally at fault, Dana is barred from recovery.