CHARLES EDWARD POOLE v. DEALERS WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, ET AL. - Articles

All Content

CHARLES EDWARD POOLE v. DEALERS WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Posted by: Stacey Shrader Joslin on Oct 29, 2018

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Henry S. Queener, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles Edward Poole.

Attorneys 2:

Charles G. Taylor, III, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Dealers Warehouse Corporation.

Norman D. McKellar and Devin S. DeVore, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Skyco Staffing Services, Inc.

Marshall T. Cook, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellee, People 2.0 Global, LLC.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andre´e S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; and, Hannah McCann, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): SWINEY

This appeal concerns punitive damages. Skyco Staffing Services, Inc. (“Skyco”) provided Derrick Gilbert (“Gilbert”) to Dealers Warehouse Corporation (“Dealers”) for temporary work. On February 14, 2014, Gilbert was driving a Dealers truck when he collided with a truck driven by Charles Edward Poole (“Poole”). Poole1 sued Gilbert, Dealers, and later Skyco for damages in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”).2 Dealers filed a third-party claim against one-time Skyco affiliate People 2.0 Global, LLC (“People 2.0”), as well. Skyco and People 2.0 filed motions for summary judgment, which were granted. The jury returned a verdict for Poole against Dealers and Gilbert for compensatory damages of $431,508.71. In a second phase, the Trial Court directed a verdict in favor of Dealers regarding punitive damages. Finally, the jury returned a verdict for Poole against Gilbert in the amount of $250,000 in punitive damages. Poole appeals, arguing he is entitled to joint and several judgment against Dealers for the punitive damages assessed against Gilbert. Dealers, for its part, argues both that the Trial Court was correct and that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether it exercised supervision of Gilbert. We hold, inter alia, that Dealers is not jointly and severally liable for punitive damages assessed separately against Gilbert. We hold further that Dealers’ exclusive supervisory responsibility for Gilbert was laid out in unambiguous contractual terms. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Attachments: