A driver is driving his car on Interstate 24 in the state of Tennessee. The rain is heavy, and the driver 's attorney alleges that he is doing about the speed limit of 55 mph, the highway speed limit at the time the accident occurred. The driver had one passenger, who testified that the driver was driving the speed limit or less when a large 18 wheel truck came by them splashing a great deal amount of water on the automobile. The passenger, the only eyewitness to the accident, also testified there were large amounts of water running across the road at the time the 18 wheel truck passed them. After the truck splash water over the car, The driver then hydroplaned due to the water crossing all lanes of travel, the median, going into the opposite lanes of travel colliding with a pickup truck, causing the pickup truck to leave the highway and spin into the median. The driver of the automobile is killed, his passenger escapes unhurt. The driver of the pickup truck claims he hurt his wrists and back, and files lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Marion County Tennessee.

During the case, the defendant, attorney on behalf of the deceased driver, obtains the affidavit of a highway patrolman, and files a highway patrolman's affidavit and accident report alleging that the sole proximate cause of the accident weather related.

The trooper testified by affidavit. The trooper stated that the accident occurred during heavy rain. He testified that the rain was heavy enough that both disability and driving conditions were severely impaired. The trooper concluded that a driver's normal visibility would be significantly decreased and that the highway was extremely slippery due to heavy rains and subsequent flooding of portions of the road. The trooper stated that the poor driving conditions caused by the extremely heavy rain were the cause of multiple unrelated motor vehicle accidents in the same area. He concluded and gave his opinion that "given the heavy rain and poor visibility, the only reasonable conclusion is that the accident was caused by weather conditions present at the time of the accident."

The deposition is taken of the plaintiff who basically states that he does not know how the accident occurred. During the case a motion for summary judgment is filed, and the court rules that summary judgment is not appropriate but the court grants and a an interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Briefs are filed by the parties. The Motion for Summary Judgment alleged that the plaintiff could not prove an essential element of the claim.  The defendant maintained the plaintiff had no evidence on how the accident happened, and that the only explanation for the accident is weather.  The Court of Appeals ultimately refuses to hear the appeal and the case of sent back for trial in Marion County Tennessee.

The case is tried before a jury and the jury finds that the accident is weather related, in large part it is believed because plaintiff testifies during the trial "that he does not have a clue" how the accident happened. The plaintiff files a motion for new trial, and the defendant responds to the motion alleging that the jury verdict is appropriate. The Motion for New Trial is granted by the trial court and which is also taken up on interlocutory appeal, the issue raised by the defendant is that the trial court granted the motion in error, and that the trial court did not appropriately weigh the evidence which is evidenced by the Court  making statements to the effect that the court should have granted summary judgment for the defendant. The appeal is refused, and the case is set for second trial. The parties make the decision to settle the case for $50,000 to avoid the expense of a second trial.

For your convenience you can read what happened at trial by reading Volume I and Volume II of the trial transcript.