McIntyre v. Balentine Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Tennessee Supreme Court abandoned the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, adopting a system of modified comparative fault. The Court also affirmed the admissibility of a statutory presumption of intoxication in civil cases.
Legal Significance: This landmark decision judicially adopted modified comparative fault (the “49 percent rule”) in Tennessee, fundamentally altering tort liability allocation and rendering contributory negligence, last clear chance, and joint and several liability obsolete.
McIntyre v. Balentine Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Harry Douglas McIntyre and Defendant Clifford Balentine were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Both parties had consumed alcohol; Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was .17 percent. Evidence suggested Defendant was speeding. Plaintiff McIntyre sued Defendant Balentine for negligence. Defendants asserted Plaintiff was contributorily negligent due to intoxication and entering the highway improperly. The trial jury found Plaintiff and Defendant equally at fault and, under the prevailing contributory negligence doctrine, ruled for the Defendant. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative negligence and by instructing that a blood alcohol level over .10 percent creates an inference of intoxication. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding comparative negligence was not Tennessee law and the intoxication presumption was admissible. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted appeal to decide whether to adopt comparative fault and to rule on the admissibility of the intoxication presumption.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Should the common law doctrine of contributory negligence be replaced with a system of comparative fault in Tennessee, and is the statutory presumption of intoxication (T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b)) admissible as evidence of negligence in a civil case?
Yes, the Court adopted a system of modified comparative fault (the “49 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim a
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Should the common law doctrine of contributory negligence be replaced with a system of comparative fault in Tennessee, and is the statutory presumption of intoxication (T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b)) admissible as evidence of negligence in a civil case?
Conclusion
McIntyre v. Balentine fundamentally reshaped Tennessee tort law by judicially adopting modified Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
Tennessee adopts a modified system of comparative fault, specifically the "49 percent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Legal Analysis
The Court, exercising its power to abolish obsolete common law doctrines, determined Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Tennessee judicially adopted modified comparative fault (49% rule), replacing contributory negligence.