Thomas Eugene Tyson’s car-carrying trailer struck the front of a tractor-trailer driven on behalf of Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. by Kelvin Gates. Tyson and his wife brought a tort action against Old Dominion and Gates, but a jury returned a defense verdict. Tyson contends the trial court committed five errors. Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence shows that Tyson was driving a dual-rear-wheel pickup truck, pulling a 48-foot long, 6,000-pound, car-carrier trailer. In slow traffic he attempted to merge into a lane occupied by Gates, who was driving a tractor-trailer, when the left rear of Tyson’s trailer scraped the right-front bumper of Gates’s tractor. After some conversation between the two men, DeKalb Police Officer Redder arrived. Both men told Redder that they were not hurt, neither man complained to the officer that the other had assaulted him, and the officer characterized the incident as a “minor fender bender.”
Following the incident, the Old Dominion Accident Review Committee undertook an internal review of the incident to determine if it was “preventable” for the purpose of employee discipline. According to Old Dominion’s internal review policy, responsibility for “accidents” is not based on who was legally at fault but rather on whether its drivers could have prevented the collision: Responsibility for accidents is based on whether or not the accident was preventable and not on who was primarily responsible or at fault. Responsibility to prevent accidents goes beyond careful observance of traffic rules and regulations. Drivers must drive in a manner to prevent accidents, regardless of the other fellow’s faulty driving or failure to observe traffic regulations. This standard has been set for internal purposes only and shall not be considered to impose a greater burden of blame than that required by law in the event of an accident whose cause is disputed or where litigation arises. Prior to trial, the court denied Tyson’s motion to compel production of any reports or statements by the defendants that described the incident.1 After the defense verdict, Tyson moved for a new trial. In response, and prior to the court’s ruling on the motion for new trial, the defendants finally produced, under seal, what they contend is the internal review file, in connection with a motion to have the court undertake an in-camera review of the documents in an apparent attempt to show that any possible error in prohibiting discovery of the file was harmless. Although the court granted the motion for an in-camera review, it did so only for the “sole purpose of making the documents a part of the record in the event of an appeal,” and the court did not take them into consideration for the purposes of the motion for new trial.
