Opinion Flash
August 25, 2004
Volume 10 — Number 164
Following this index are summaries of each case, including its name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion.
This Issue (IN THIS ORDER):
| 03 |
New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court |
| 02 |
New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers' Compensation Panel |
| 00 |
New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court |
| 03 |
New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals |
| 00 |
New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
| 02 |
New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Attorney General (PDF format) |
| 00 |
New Judicial Ethics Opinion(s) |
| 00 |
New Formal Ethics Opinion(s) from the Board of Professional Responsibility |
TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below. All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi . If you are a TBA member, but do not have a username and password, you can receive one online at http://www.tba.org/signup.mgi. Here's how you can obtain full-text version.
Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original document.
Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink. This option will allow you to view and save a plain-text version of the opinion.
Browse the Opinion List area of TBALink. This option will allow you to download the original version of the opinion.
Howard H. Vogel
Knoxville, Tennessee
Editor-in-Chief, TBALink
JASMINE A. ALI v. ERIC N. FISHER, ET AL.
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
Jack M. Vaughn and Daniel D. Coughlin, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the
Appellant, Jasmine A. Ali.
Charles T. Herndon, IV, and Bradley E. Griffith, Johnson City,
Tennessee, for the Appellee, Thomas Scheve.
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
We granted this appeal to determine whether an owner who negligently
entrusted his car to another may be held vicariously liable for the
driver's negligence in the operation of the car. The trial court
submitted the case to the jury for allocation of fault on comparative
fault principles, and the jury found the owner twenty percent (20%) at
fault and the driver eighty percent (80%) at fault. The trial court
later amended the judgment by holding that the owner-entrustor was
vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver-entrustee and thus
liable for all of the compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of
Appeals held that the trial court erred in concluding that the
owner-entrustor was vicariously liable for the driver-entrustee's
actions and reinstated the initial judgment. After reviewing the
record and applicable authority, we conclude that an owner-entrustor's
liability for negligent entrustment does not result in vicarious
liability for the negligence of the driver-entrustee and that the
trial court erred in holding the owner-entrustor liable for all the
damages. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment and
remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/alija.wpd
PATRICIA CONLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF MARTHA STINSON, DECEASED v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore,
Solicitor General; and Martha A. Campbell, Senior Counsel, for the
Appellant, State of Tennessee.
Gene Hallworth, Columbia, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Patricia
Conley.
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
We granted review in this case to address three issues: (1) whether
the State is a "governmental entity" under Tennessee Code Annotated
section 20-1-119(g) (Supp. 2003); (2) whether the State may be liable
for medical malpractice under Tennessee Code Annotated section
9-8-307(a)(1)(D) (2003), when there was no "professional/ client"
relationship between the claimant and a state employee; and (3)
whether the State may be liable for the "negligent care, custody, or
control" of a person under Tennessee Code Annotated section
9-8-307(a)(1)(E) (2003) when it administers pre- admission screening
of a nursing home patient as required by federal statute. The Claims
Commission held that the claimant's action was barred by the one-year
statute of limitations because the State was not a governmental entity
and also that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The Court of Appeals reversed on the statute of
limitations issue and remanded for further proceedings on the actions
for medical malpractice and negligent care, custody, and control.
After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude: (1)
that the complaint was timely filed under Tennessee Code Annotated
section 20-1-119(g) because the State is a "governmental entity"; (2)
that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted for medical malpractice because there was no
"professional/client" relationship between a state employee and the
claimant; and (3) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted for the State's "negligent care, custody and
control" when it is based on the State administered pre-admission
screening of a nursing home patient as required by federal statute.
We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and reverse
in part.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/conleyp.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER A. DAVIS
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
Hershell D. Koger, Pulaski, Tennessee, and David Hornik, Nashville,
Tennessee, for the Appellant, Christopher A. Davis.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore,
Solicitor General; Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Attorney General; Victor
S. Johnson, District Attorney General; and Tom Thurman and Katrin
Miller, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State
of Tennessee.
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
The defendant, Christopher A. Davis, was convicted of two counts of
premeditated first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated
kidnapping, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. The jury
imposed death sentences for both counts of premeditated first degree
murder after finding that evidence of three aggravating circumstances,
i.e., (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more
felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the
person, (2) the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding,
interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest of the defendant, and
(3) the murders were knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or
aided by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in
committing or attempting to commit a robbery or kidnapping, outweighed
evidence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. In
addition, the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent
25-year sentences for the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions
to run consecutively to concurrent 25-year sentences for the
especially aggravated robbery convictions.
After the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the
sentences, the case was automatically docketed in this Court. We
entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, and we now
hold as follows: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the
jury's verdicts; (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to
disqualify the District Attorney General; (3) the trial court did not
err in refusing to allow defense counsel to withdraw; (4) the death
sentences were not invalid on the ground that the aggravating
circumstances were not set out in the indictment; (5) the trial court
did not err in allowing the prosecution to establish the "prior
violent felony" aggravating circumstance by relying on an offense
committed as a juvenile; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support
the jury's finding of three aggravating circumstances beyond a
reasonable doubt and its determination that the aggravating
circumstances outweighed the evidence of mitigating circumstances
beyond a reasonable doubt; and (7) the death sentences were not
arbitrary or disproportionate. We also agree with the Court of
Criminal Appeals' conclusions with respect to the remaining issues,
the relevant portions of which are included in the appendix to this
opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/davisca_opn.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER A. DAVIS
Court:TSC
BIRCH CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/davisca_dis.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER A. DAVIS
Court:TSC
APPENDIX
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/davisca_apx.wpd
VICTOR RIVERA v. JELD-WEN, INC.
Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel
Attorneys:
Richard C. Mangelsdorf, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Jeld-Wen, Inc.
Anthony C. Maxwell, Livingston, Tennessee, for the appellee Victor
Rivera.
Judge: COTTRELL
First Paragraph:
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special
Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.
S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In this case, the plaintiff whose arm was
amputated as a result of a work-related injury had entered into a
settlement agreement with his employer. The plaintiff claims this
agreement obligated his employer to pay for an expensive,
state-of-the-art myoelectric prosthesis. The trial court agreed and
expressly found that the provision of the myoelectric arm was within
the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the
agreement and compelled the employer to pay for it. The Panel has
concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/riverav.wpd
SAMUEL L. ROWE V. SVERDRUP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and TRAVELERS INSURANCE
COMPANY
Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel
Attorneys:
Robert Durham, Cookeville, Tennessee for appellant, Sverdrup
Technology, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Company.
Robert S. Peters, Winchester, Tennessee, for appellee, Samuel Rowe.
Judge: PAGE
First Paragraph:
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special
Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance
with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50- 6-225(e)(3) for hearing and
reporting to the Supreme Court of the findings of fact and conclusions
of law. In this appeal, the employer contends that the trial court
erred by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the
employee's hip replacement surgery and subsequent disability were due
to an injury that arose out of his employment. Specifically, the
issue is whether the employee's injury resulted from a pre-existing
cancerous condition of the right hip. We find no error and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/rowes.wpd
SUSAN CHARLES and JAMES CHARLES, v. RUTH LATHAM and RALPH LATHAM
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
H. Allen Bray, Maryville, Tennessee, for Appellants.
Craig L. Garrett, Maryville, Tennessee, for Appellees.
Judge: FRANKS
First Paragraph:
In a dispute over an easement, the Trial Court awarded damages to
plaintiffs for interference with use of easement, nuisance and
punitive damages. On appeal, we affirm the award of compensatory
damages, but vacate the award of punitive damages and remand to assess
punitive damages in accordance with Hodges v. Toof & Co., 833.S.W.2d
896 (Tenn. 1992).
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/charless1.wpd
ROCKY GARNER v. PHIL BREEDEN and ASSOCIATES, ET AL.
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
James D. R. Roberts and Janet L. Layman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Rocky Garner.
John E. Quinn and Douglas B. Janney, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for
the appellee, Phil Breeden and Associates, a sole proprietorship, and
Phil Breeden, an individual.
Judge: CAIN
First Paragraph:
Appellant sued Appellee for breach of contract or in the alternative
for quantum meruit value of services rendered. At the conclusion of
Plaintiff's proof the trial court sustained a motion for a directed
verdict on behalf of Defendant as to the quantum meruit claim and
further sustained that motion on a large portion of the contract
claim. As to remaining portions of the contract claim the motion for
a directed verdict was overruled, and Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
the remaining claims without prejudice. We hold that the trial court
erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict as to the contract
case but correctly granted a directed verdict as to quantum meruit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part
and remanded for trial on the contract issues.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/garner_opn.wpd
JAMIE EDWARD HINES v. TERRELL LYNN SIMMS
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
Clark Lee Shaw, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Terrell Lynn
Simms.
Thomas K. Bowers, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jamie Edward
Hines.
Judge: COTTRELL
First Paragraph:
This appeal involves a custody dispute triggered by a paternity
action. The trial court fashioned a permanent parenting plan which
named Father the primary residential parent during the school year and
Mother the primary residential parent during summer vacation. Mother
appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/hinesj.wpd
Volunteer Parent-Drivers Transporting Students to School Sporting
Events
Date: August 24, 2004
Opinion Number: 04-136
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/AG/2004/OP136.pdf
Extraterritorial "Spot Zoning" under Growth Plan
Date: August 24, 2004
Opinion Number: 04-137
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/AG/2004/OP137.pdf
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
Feel free to forward this Opinion Flash on to anyone you know of with an e-mail address.
GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
See the intrsuctions at the beginning of this edition of Opinion Flash.
JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION!
While Opinion Flash is a free service of the Tennessee Bar Association, you must be a member of the Tennessee Bar Association in order to access the full text of the opinions or enjoy the many other features of TBALink.
To join the TBA go to: http://www.tba.org/join_bar.mgi
SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
Would you like to receive the TBALink Opinion Flash free each day by e-mail? Anyone, whether a TBA member or not, is welcome to subscribe ... it's free! Sign up for text or HTML version.
Visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi
UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!
But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi
Home • Contact Us • PageFinder • What's New • Help
