833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992)
McIntyre v. Balentine is the landmark Tennessee Supreme Court decision that abolished the harsh common-law doctrine of contributory negligence and adopted a modern comparative fault regime.
Should Tennessee abandon the contributory negligence doctrine in favor of comparative fault, and if so, what form should the comparative system take and how should it apply to this case tried under the old rule?
Tennessee adopts modified comparative fault: a plaintiff's recovery is diminished in proportion to the plaintiff's percentage of negligence, and recovery is permitted so long as the plaintiff's negligence is less than the defendant's negligence (the 49% bar rule). If the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than the defendant's (50% or more), recovery is barred. The court further holds that traditional accident doctrines inconsistent with or subsumed by comparative fault—such as last clear chance, remote contributory negligence, and implied assumption of risk—no longer operate as independent, complete defenses but are to be considered within the comparative fault analysis. The new rule applies to the case at bar and, prospectively, to trials commenced after the date of the opinion.
Yes. Tennessee replaces contributory negligence with a modified comparative fault system (49% bar). Because the case was tried under the former contributory negligence regime, the judgment for the defendant is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial under comparative fault principles.
McIntyre is the seminal Tennessee case on comparative fault. It overrules contributory negligence and installs modified comparative fault with a 49% bar, subsuming last clear chance and implied assumption of risk into the apportionment analysis. For law students, it illustrates how courts reform entrenched common-law rules, balance policy considerations when selecting among competing models (pure vs. modified), and manage transitional concerns. It also serves as a springboard for understanding later Tennessee comparative fault jurisprudence, including allocation of fault among multiple parties, contribution, and jury instruction reforms.