Lipscomb v. Doe
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJanice M. Holder, J.
Lipscomb has failed to show, as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 56-7-1206(b), that the driver who struck her vehicle was unknown. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that Lipscomb is precluded from using the John Doe statute. I would, however, hold that Lipscomb is not required to show that the driver was “unknown” to invoke Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue and remand to the trial court.
The “Unknown” Requirement
The majority correctly states that “[b]e-fore a plaintiff may recover in a ‘John Doe’…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Owens v. Truckstops of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
- Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Department of RevenueTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
- Austin v. Memphis Publishing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1983
- Catherine Whittlesey, Deceased, and Stephen E. Whittlesey, Sr. v. Frederick L. ColeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Smith v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.