## Facts

- Harry Douglas McIntyre drove a pickup truck from a truck stop onto Highway 69 southbound near Savannah, Tennessee, in the early morning of November 2, 1986.
- As McIntyre entered the highway, his truck was struck by a southbound Peterbilt tractor driven by Clifford Balentine for East-West Motor Freight, Inc., causing severe injuries to McIntyre.
- Evidence indicated both drivers had been drinking; McIntyre’s blood alcohol concentration measured 0.17%.
- Testimony suggested Balentine may have been traveling above the posted speed limit.
- McIntyre sued Balentine and East-West Motor Freight for negligence; defendants asserted contributory negligence, including intoxicated driving.
- The jury found plaintiff and defendant “equally at fault” and returned a verdict for defendants; under then-prevailing contributory negligence doctrine, McIntyre recovered nothing.
- The trial court entered judgment for defendants, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee should retain common-law contributory negligence or replace it with a system of comparative fault.
2. Whether the statutory criminal presumption of intoxication under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) is admissible evidence in a civil negligence action.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court abolished contributory negligence and adopted modified comparative fault.
- A plaintiff may recover damages reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, so long as the plaintiff’s fault does not equal or exceed the defendant’s fault.
- The court held the statutory criminal presumption of intoxication is admissible in a civil case.
- The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for a new trial under comparative fault, and affirmed in part as to the intoxication-evidence ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery was replaced by a modified comparative fault framework allocating damages according to relative fault.
- Under Tennessee’s modified comparative fault rule, a plaintiff is barred only when the plaintiff’s fault is equal to or greater than the defendant’s fault.
- Because contributory negligence was a common-law doctrine, the judiciary had authority to modify or abolish it.
- Evidence supporting the statutory presumption of intoxication under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) is admissible in civil negligence litigation as relevant to breach of duty and fault allocation.
- Violation of a penal safety statute, including DUI-related prohibitions, may constitute negligence per se and inform comparative fault apportionment.

## Conclusion

The court replaced Tennessee’s all-or-nothing contributory negligence bar with modified comparative fault and ordered a new trial so the jury could apportion fault and damages accordingly, while also allowing the DUI statutory intoxication presumption to be considered as civil evidence when assessing negligence and allocating fault.


McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992)