## Facts

- Ray B. Dehn, a skilled mechanic and traveling representative for a bus sales company, visited J. Ross Palmer in Knoxville, Tennessee, to check on a bus Palmer had purchased.
- While Dehn worked on or near the bus’s fan belt/fan mechanism, Palmer’s driver (who had charge of the bus) suddenly started the motor.
- Dehn’s hand was caught in the fan, causing the loss of two fingers.
- Immediately after the accident, Palmer assured Dehn he would compensate him for the injury and pay all expenses Dehn would incur.
- Dehn sued on two theories: (1) negligence based on the driver’s conduct; and (2) breach of Palmer’s post-accident promise to compensate and pay expenses.
- Palmer denied liability on the negligence claim and denied the existence of an enforceable contract.
- A jury returned a verdict for Dehn on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether Palmer’s post-accident promise to compensate Dehn and pay expenses was supported by sufficient consideration to support a breach-of-contract claim.
2. Whether Dehn was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to use an accessible safety switch before working near the fan, requiring a directed verdict for Palmer.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Dehn.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find consideration supporting Palmer’s promise, so denial of a directed verdict on the contract count was proper.
- The court held contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law; whether Dehn should have thrown an accessible switch was a question for the jury.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence where there was material evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration does not require a tangible exchange; any benefit to the promisor and detriment to the promisee can suffice.
- A jury may infer consideration from circumstances, including an implied forbearance of a legal claim by the promisee that benefits the promisor.
- A post-injury promise to compensate may be enforceable where the facts permit an inference that the injured party refrained from promptly asserting a tort claim in reliance on the promise.
- Contributory negligence is generally for the jury when reasonable minds could differ on the inferences from the evidence; it becomes a question of law only when the proof compels one conclusion.
- Appellate review in tort cases does not replace the jury’s role in determining liability when the verdict is supported by material evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict finding Palmer liable both in tort and for breach of a post-accident promise, ruling that consideration could be inferred from circumstances suggesting forbearance of a claim and that contributory negligence, including failure to use a safety switch, was properly left to the jury.


Palmer v. Dehn, 29 Tenn. App. 597, 198 S.W.2d 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1946)