ISLAND PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES v. THE REAVES FIRM, INC., d/b/aREAVES, SWEENEY, AND MARCUM, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 6, 2013)
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant
surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part.
The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim
of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a
subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the
error.
We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the
statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals.
Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/islandproperties_030613.pdf
Showing posts with label Surveyor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Surveyor. Show all posts
March 10, 2013
March 08, 2013
Court reviews two claims of surveyor negligence
ISLAND PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES v. THE REAVES FIRM, INC., d/b/a REAVES, SWEENEY, AND MARCUM, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 6, 2013)
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part. The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the error.
We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals.
Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/islandproperties_030613.pdf
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part. The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the error.
We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals.
Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/islandproperties_030613.pdf
May 15, 2012
Court reviews whether a land surveyor can be held liable for damages incurred by sinkholes
BRIAN DALE, single; BRIAN LAWHORN and wife, PAMELA LAWHORN; and WILLIAM JENKINS and wife, ELAINE JENKINS v. B & J ENTERPRISES, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2012)
Homeowners filed this lawsuit against various individuals and entities shortly after purchasing their homes, when they discovered that their properties are affected by numerous sink holes. Original defendants identified a surveyor as a comparative tortfeasor, and the homeowners amended their complaint to add the surveyor as a defendant.
The surveyor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the homeowners’ claims were barred by Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-114, which provides that all actions to recover damages against any person engaged in the practice of surveying for any deficiency, defect, omission, error or miscalculation shall be brought within four years from the date the survey is recorded on the plat, or else be forever barred. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted permission by the trial court and this Court to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Finding that section 28-3-114 governs the homeowners’ claims, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/daleb_051012.pdf
Homeowners filed this lawsuit against various individuals and entities shortly after purchasing their homes, when they discovered that their properties are affected by numerous sink holes. Original defendants identified a surveyor as a comparative tortfeasor, and the homeowners amended their complaint to add the surveyor as a defendant.
The surveyor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the homeowners’ claims were barred by Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-114, which provides that all actions to recover damages against any person engaged in the practice of surveying for any deficiency, defect, omission, error or miscalculation shall be brought within four years from the date the survey is recorded on the plat, or else be forever barred. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted permission by the trial court and this Court to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Finding that section 28-3-114 governs the homeowners’ claims, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/daleb_051012.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)