Cameron Watson secures victory for client on motion for summary judgment in a four-car accident with disputed questions of fact

Spicer Rudstrom attorney, Cameron M. Watson, recently secured dismissal for his client after filing a Motion for Summary Judgment on her behalf.  Plaintiff filed suit against Cameron’s client after being involved in a four-car motor vehicle accident.  In answering the lawsuit, Cameron, on behalf of his client, alleged the fault of a third driver: a red jeep.  Plaintiff, despite this claim, did not pursue any lawsuit against this third driver.

The underlying motor vehicle accident occurred at an intersection where the traffic lights had failed.  Prior to the accident, Plaintiff was traveling south towards the intersection and Cameron’s client was traveling north towards the intersection.  Meanwhile, the red jeep was traveling east towards the intersection.  A fourth vehicle was traveling north beside Cameron’s client.

While approaching the intersection, each driver noticed that the traffic light was out, and came to a complete stop.  However, the third vehicle’s driver testified that he did not notice that the light was out, and proceeded into the intersection at approximately 40 mph.  Despite this testimony, Plaintiff continued to allege fault solely against Cameron’s client claiming that all facts should be resolved by a jury.

Once in the intersection, Plaintiff was then impacted once by a car that he did not see.  All Plaintiff knew was that the vehicle that he impacted with came from the west going east.  At the time of filing his Complaint, Plaintiff believed that Cameron’s client was traveling eastbound and was the vehicle that he impacted with based on her vehicle’s proximity post-accident.  As a result of the accident, Plaintiff claimed significant property damage to his Corvette and medical expenses relating to later treatment.

Based on the parallel nature of Plaintiff’s vehicle with Cameron’s client’s vehicle, Cameron requested that the trial court dismiss the case as a matter of law because there were not “genuine” disputes of material fact regarding the cause of the accident.  It was clear by the testimony of the third driver, that he completely disregarded the traffic lights.  Although Plaintiff initially filed suit against Cameron’s client, the evidence clearly established the fault the third driver is the sole tortfeasor for Plaintiff’s damages.

In an effort to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that the jury decides all questions of fact.  Ultimately, the trial court agreed with Cameron that there were no genuine disputes of material fact for the jury’s consideration.  The Plaintiff carries the ultimate burden and is required to produce facts of fault.  As found by the trial court, there was no evidence of breach to any duty owed.  As such, the trial court found in favor of Cameron’s client and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

Cameron Watson focuses on Business and Corporate, Government Liability Defense, Employment, Products Liability, Insurance, Litigation and General Liability, Premises Liability, and Trademark and Intellectual Property law in the Memphis office.