CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff, Nancy S. Perez, sued her employer, Jamie McConkey d/b/a J & V Sales, for injuries sustained due to alleged unsafe working conditions involving excessive heat and vapors at her workplace in Englewood, Tennessee. Perez claimed she fainted and fell, suffering heat exhaustion and a head injury, and that McConkey negligently failed to address her complaints about the conditions. The trial court initially granted a directed verdict for the defendant based on the implied assumption of risk. The Court of Appeals applied the principles of comparative fault, vacating the judgment and remanding the case. This court affirms the Court of Appeals' judgment, as modified, ruling that the doctrine of implied assumption of risk is no longer a complete bar to recovery in Tennessee and that such issues should be analyzed under common-law concepts of duty and comparative fault.
Perez v. McConkey is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The plaintiff, Nancy S. Perez, sued her employer, Jamie McConkey d/b/a J & V Sales, for injuries sustained due to alleged unsafe working conditions involving excessive heat and vapors at her workplace in Englewood, Tennessee. Perez claimed she fainted and fell, suffering heat exhaustion and a head injury, and that McConkey negligently failed to address her complaints about the conditions. The trial court initially granted a directed verdict for the defendant based on the implied assumption of risk. The Court of Appeals applied the principles of comparative fault, vacating the judgment and remanding the case. This court affirms the Court of Appeals' judgment, as modified, ruling that the doctrine of implied assumption of risk is no longer a complete bar to recovery in Tennessee and that such issues should be analyzed under common-law concepts of duty and comparative fault.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.