Skip to main content

Volodymyr Helyukh v. Buddy Head Livestock & Trucking, Inc.

Tenn. Ct. App.August 28, 2020No. M2019-02301-COA-R9-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
trial verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The dispositive issue in this personal injury action is whether the claims against the defendant trucking company for the tortious acts of its employee/truck driver are time-barred under Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals, 325 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. 2010) or saved by the commencement of a new action under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105, Tennessee's "savings statute." After the plaintiffs commenced the new action, the company filed a motion to summarily dismiss the complaint, asserting the plaintiffs' claims against the employee were procedurally barred before the new action was commenced. The trial court denied the motion because the first action was instituted before the plaintiffs' right of action against the employee became extinguished by operation of law, and the second complaint was timely filed pursuant to the savings statute. For the same reason, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker's Personal Injury Case Gets Second Chance in Court** This case involved a worker named Volodymyr Helyukh who was injured by a truck driver employed by Buddy Head Livestock & Trucking, Inc. Helyukh sued the trucking company, claiming they were responsible for their employee's actions that caused his injury. However, there was a dispute about whether he filed his lawsuit too late under Tennessee's time limits for personal injury cases. The trucking company asked the court to throw out the case entirely, arguing that too much time had passed since the injury occurred. They pointed to a Tennessee law that sets strict deadlines for filing these types of lawsuits. Helyukh's lawyers countered that Tennessee's "savings statute" allowed them to start a new lawsuit even after the original deadline had passed. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to decide this timing issue properly, rather than dismissing it outright. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling shows that workers may have additional legal protections when filing injury lawsuits against employers, even if they miss initial deadlines. Tennessee's savings statute can potentially give injured workers a second opportunity to seek compensation, though the specific rules are complex and vary by situation.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.