ÿWPCð …# VU:a %› 0¸¡bY 4a u 0ü„ 0D€ Ä w@Ì D3 0J? 0T‰ 0^Ý 0h; 0r£ 0| 0†‘ 0 1u§U, 0dHU,¬U*ØB)DC+ AMn›» BVGsv~º 0@8vÓx AOKÆš 0D` D/¤ BÓ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ- ù-©U!3|x@(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ,-D./0D12D34D5Ó€****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ9,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó d =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝNo€longer€in€the€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ p ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÁXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€Lß›WESTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌHERMAN€DAVIS€and€wife,€à àà à)ÌDARNELL€DAVIS,€à àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellantsà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Ï03A01„9601„CV„00016Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPAUL€A.€HATCHER,€SR.,ÏœM.D.,›à àœà à)›à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendant/Appellee›à àà à)ÌÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌLaurence€R.€Dry,€Oak€Ridge,€For€the€Appellants€ÌÌT.€Warren€Butler,€Knoxville,€For€the€Appellees€ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌòòò òÌÌóóÌÓÓÓ  Óó óà àThis€malpractice€action€was€dismissed€on€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.€€It€arose€from€a€routine€prostateÏresection€which€went€awry,€resulting€in€adverseÍconsequences€to€the€plaintiff.€€A€device€referred€to€as€a€resectoscope€manufacturedÏby€the€Circon€ACMI€Ohio€Manufacturing€Company,× ƒ+ ××  ×€malfunctioned€while€beingÏœused›€by€and€under€the€control€of€the€defendant,€Dr.€Paul€Hatcher€[hereafter,€theÏð ðdefendantðð].€€It€is€not€disputed€that€a€portion€of€the€penis€of€the€plaintiff,€HermanÏDavis€[hereafter,€ð ðplaintiffðð],€was€either€chemically,€thermally€or€electrically€burnedÏaway,€with€disastrous€results€unnecessary€here€to€be€recounted.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€allegedly€negligent€in€the€care€and€treatment€of€hisÏcontractual€patient,€the€plaintiff,€in€these€particulars:Ìà0 à1.€€Failing€to€test€and€inspect€the€resectoscope;ÌÑ  Ñà0 à2.€€Failing€to€properly€utilize€the€resectoscope;Ìà0 à3.€€Failing€to€discover€that€the€resectoscope€was€improperly€functioning;Ìà0 à4.€€Failing€to€discover€the€injury€timely.Ìà àThe€defendant€admitted€that€ð ðHerman€Davis€sustained€some€type€[of]€injuryÏat€or€about€the€time€of€the€procedure,€but€how€it€occurred€is€unknown€to€Dr.ÏHatcher.ðð€€He€denied€that€the€injury€was€the€proximate€result€of€any€negligent€act€orÏomission€on€his€part€and€specifically€denied€that€he€failed€to€test€or€inspect€theÏresectoscope€or€that€he€negligently€failed€to€discover€a€malfunction.Ìà àThe€defendant€demanded€ð ðstrict€proof€that€said€injuries€and€disabilities€didÏnot€preexist€the€procedure€complained€of.ððÌà àHe€averred€that€he€did€nothing€in€contravention€of€acceptable€professionalÏpractice€in€the€Knoxville€community€and€alternatively€ð ðrelies€on€the€comparativeÏnegligence€of€the€manufacturer€of€the€resectoscope€equipment.ððÌà àOn€December€9,€1993,€the€defendant€moved€for€summary€judgment,€whichÏhe€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€David€F.€Paulson,€a€professor€of€urology€at€DukeÏUniversity,€who€testified€that€a€ð ð[œc]areful›€review€of€the€operative€record€does€notÏgive€any€indication€that€the€procedure€was€conducted€outside€the€standards€ofÏpractice.ðð€€He€further€opined€that€ð ðthe€care€and€treatment€.€.€.€was€proper€and€wellÏwithin€the€standard€of€care€required.€€The€complications€that€occurred€were€notÏproximately€caused€by€any€negligent€act,€omission€or€departure€from€the€applicableÏstandards€of€care€on€the€part€of€Dr.€Hatcher€.€.€.€.€No€abnormality€in€the€conduct€ofÏthe€procedure€occurred€through€the€action€of€Dr.€Hatcher.ððÌà àSignificantly,€Dr.€Paulson€did€not€address€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury.€ÏHe€testified,€quite€briefly,ð ðthat€ð ða€transurethral€incision€of€the€prostate€wasÏconducted.€€Following€this€a€midline€portion€of€residual€prostatic€tissue€wasÏresected€with€the€electrocautery€loop.ððÌà àAlso€supportive€of€the€motion€was€the€affidavit€of€the€defendant,€who€testifiedÏthat€ð ð[œt]wo›€days€after€the€surgery,€the€plaintiff€was€found€to€have€an€unexpectedÏcondition€of€the€central€glans€and€meatus€which€appeared€as€a€redness€andÏinduration€.€.€.€.€[which]€gave€the€appearance€of€being€caused€by€a€burn€in€the€areaÏòòwhere€the€resectoscope€was€in€contact€with€the€penis€during€the€surgicalÍprocedureóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€He€testified€that€ð ðmore€likely€than€not€[the€burnÏwas]€caused€by€a€defective€condition€of€the€resectoscope€which€was€unknown€andÏunforeseeable€by€meðð€and€that€he€was€not€negligent€in€any€respect.Ìà àWhile€the€motion€was€pending,€the€defendant€amended€his€answer€byÏalleging€that€the€manufacturer€of€the€resectoscope€was€negligent€in€failing€to€warnÏhim€that€(1)€cutting€loops€and€knives€should€be€used€only€one€time;€(2)€causticÏchemicals€should€be€thoroughly€removed€from€the€resectoscope;€(3)€cutting€loopsÏand€knives€were€not€of€uniform€length,€which€could€result€in€ð ðelectrically€chargedÏuninsulated€parts€of€same€to€electrically€charge€parts€of€the€equipment€coming€inÏcontact€with€patients.ðð€€The€amended€answer€accused€the€manufacturer€ofÏnegligently€failing€to€warn€the€University€of€Tennessee€Memorial€Hospital€[whereÏthe€procedure€was€performed]€of€the€importance€of€uniform€lengths€of€cutting€loopsÏand€knives€and€the€necessity€for€proper€cleaning€of€the€resectoscope.€€TheÏdefendant€also€charged€the€hospital€with€negligence€in€(1)€failing€to€furnish€himÏproper€equipment,€properly€maintained;€(2)€failing€to€advise€him€of€theÏmanufacturerððs€warnings€re:€the€safe€use€and€care€of€the€resectoscope;€(3)Ïfurnishing€him€with€ð ða€cutting€knife€of€improper€length€which€resulted€in€electricallyÏcharging€portions€of€the€resectoscope€coming€in€contact€with€the€patient.ððÌà àThe€plaintiff€responded€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€byÏmemorandum€filed€March€7,€1995,€exhibiting€the€affidavits€of€Dr.€William€Campbell,ÍDr.€Dennis€Doblar€and€Dr.€Cecil€Morgan,€Jr.,€all€of€whom€had€previously€testified€byÏdeposition.Ìà àDr.€Campbell,€a€biomedical€engineer,€designs€biomedical€equipment€andÏteaches€the€use€of€powered€biomedical€equipment.€€He€testified€that€he€reviewedÏphotographs€of€the€burn€suffered€by€the€plaintiff,€all€medical€data,€variousÏdepositions,€including€that€of€the€defendant,€and€expressed€his€opinion€that€theÏburn€injury€to€the€plaintiff€was€œcaused€by€electrical›€power€from€the€resectoscopeÏwhich€ð ðwould€not€otherwise€have€occurred€had€the€instrument€been€used€inÏaccordance€with€recognized€biomedical€engineering€principles,€and€in€accordanceÏwith€manufacturerððs€recommendations.ððÌà àDr.€Doblar€is€a€professor€of€anesthesiology€and€biomedical€engineering€atÏthe€University€of€Alabama.€€He€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€photographs€of€theÏburn€suffered€by€the€plaintiff,€all€medical€data,€hospital€records€and€variousÏdepositions,€including€the€deposition€of€the€defendant.€€He€agreed€with€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Campbell€respecting€the€cause€of€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff€andÏopined€that€the€ð ðcurrent€escaped€the€instrument€through€a€reused€knife€or€loop€orÏthrough€operator€error€„€through€the€application€of€power€while€the€resectoscopeÏwas€on€its€way€out€of€or€into€the€patient€.€.€.€.€under€the€control€of€Dr.€Hatcher.ðð€€HeÏopined€that€the€injury€was€below€the€acceptable€professional€practice€in€KnoxvilleÏand€that€the€defendant€ð ðacted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€andÏreasonable€care€in€accordance€with€such€standard.ððÌà àDr.€Morgan,€a€urologist€practicing€in€Alabama,€testified€that€he€had€reviewedÏall€pertinent€data€appertaining€to€the€injury€suffered€by€the€plaintiff€and€that€he€wasÏfamiliar€with€the€appropriate€standard€of€care.€€He€further€testified,€€ð ðMore€likely€thanÏnot,€Dr.€Hatcher€caused€the€burn€injury€.€.€.€by€using€the€resectoscope€while€it€wasÏimproperly€or€defectively€configured,€in€which€case€he€should€have€been€aware€ofÏthat€fact;€or€Dr.€Hatcher€used€the€instrument€inappropriately.ððÌà àOn€the€same€œdate€that›€the€plaintiff€filed€his€response€to€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€[March€7,€1995],€the€defendant€filed€a€ð ðsupplementðð€to€hisÏmotion,€to€which€he€exhibited,€or€made€reference€to,€his€affidavit€and€excerptedÏportions€of€the€depositions€of€six€witnesses€to€ð ðillustrate€that€no€one€knows€how€thisÏinjury€occurred€.€.€.€.€that€it€could€have€been€caused€by€negligence€on€the€part€of€theÏ.€.€.€[œh]ospital›,€òònegligent€use€of€the€equipment€by€Dr.€Hatcheróó,€or€negligence€on€theÏpart€of€the€manufacturer€of€the€equipment.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€One€of€theseÏdepositions€was€that€of€Dr.€Campbell,€whose€affidavit€has€previously€beenÏreferenced;€he€testified,€on€discovery,€that€the€injury€was€a€thermal€burn€and€that€ð ðIÏdo€not€know€how€it€happened,ðð€and€that€he€did€not€know€the€standard€of€careÏprevailing€in€Knox€County.Ìà àParenthetically,€at€this€juncture,€we€note€that€the€defendantððs€argument€thatÏthe€affidavit€of€Dr.€Campbell€is€at€odds€with€his€depositional€testimony€and€thereforeÏcannot€be€rationally€considered€as€a€rebuttal€testimony.€€We€will€address€this€issueÏlater.Ìà àMuch€complaint€is€given€over€by€the€plaintiff€to€the€filing,€on€March€7,€1995,Ïby€the€defendant,€of€a€host€of€materials€exhibited€to€the€supplement€to€the€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€which€was€heard€on€March€8,€1995.€€Whether€such€late€filingÏis€permitted€by€Rule€56,€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P,.óó€is€a€question€we€pretermit€because€it€isÏunnecessary€to€a€resolution€of€the€issue€before€this€Court,€that€being€the€proprietyÏof€the€dismissal€of€this€case.Ìà àThe€affidavits€in€opposition€to€the€motion€squarely€posed€the€issue€of€theÏdefendantððs€negligence,€which€ordinarily€would€require€that€the€motion€should€beÏdenied€since€issues€of€material€fact€are€readily€apparent.€€€At€argument,€counselÏœagreed,›€but€insists€that€the€affidavit€testimony€is€in€ð ðabsolute€conflictðð€with€theÏdepositional€testimony€and€is€on€that€account€nonprobative€since€a€factual€issueÏcannot€be€created€by€filing€an€affidavit€contradicting€earlier€depositional€testimony,Ïciting€òòReid€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€and€Co.óó,€790€F.2d€œ453›€(6th€Cir.€1988).Ìà àWe€agree€that€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Campbell€is€not€probative€because€heÏdisavowed€knowledge€or€opinion€of€the€standard€of€care€practiced€in€Knoxville,€aÏprerequisite€to€the€consideration€of€his€testimony.€œ€T.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115(a)(1);€òòKeith€v.ÏWittóó,€919€S.W.2d€613,€614€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).›Ìà àWe€do€not€agree€that€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Doblar€is€in€fatal€conflict€with€hisÏdeposition.€€In€the€former,€he€testified€that€the€resectoscope€was€under€the€controlÏof€the€defendant,€that€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff€was€unacceptable€practice€inÏKnoxville€and€that€the€defendant€failed€to€act€with€ordinary€care.€€In€the€latter,€heÍtestified€that€ð ðI€do€not€knowðð€what€specifically€caused€the€burn.€€Dr.€Doblarððs€affidavitÏmay€rationally€be€considered€as€expository€to€his€deposition€rather€than€destructiveÏof€it.€€At€the€very€least,€a€reconciliation€of€his€testimony€requires€a€weighing€of€it,Ïwhich€is€impermissible€in€a€summary€judgment€procedure.€€òòTaylor€v.€NashvilleÏBanner€Publishing€Co.óó,€573€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).Ìà àNeither€do€we€œagree›€that€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Morgan€fatally€conflicts€with€hisÏprior€depositional€testimony.€€In€the€former,€he€testified€that€more€likely€than€not€theÏdefendant€caused€the€burn€injury€by€using€the€resectoscope€when€it€wasÏdefectively€configured,€in€which€case€he€should€have€been€aware€of€the€fact.€€In€theÏlatter,€he€testified€ð ð€.€.€.€and€just€as€now,€I€cannot€tell€you€what€exactly€happened.ðð€ÏWe€think€a€definitive€reading€of€his€entire€deposition€can€logically€lead€aÏdispassionate€enquirer€to€the€conclusion€that€Dr.€Morgan€was€careful€toÏdifferentiate€between€an€observed€truth€and€a€formulated€opinion.€€In€any€event,Ïany€reconciliation€of€his€testimony,€if€such€is€necessary,€requires€a€weighing€of€it,Ïwhich€is€impermissible.€€òòTaylor,€supraóó.Ìà àWhether€summary€judgment€was€properly€granted€is€a€question€of€law,€withÏno€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòGonzales€v.€Alman€Coal€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€42Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Our€evaluation€of€the€motion€requires€a€determination€ofÏwhether€a€material,€factual€issue€exists€and€whether€the€disputed€fact€creates€aÏgenuine€issue€for€trial.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àAgainst€these€standards,€we€conclude€the€motion€was€improvidently€grantedÏbecause€there€are€contested€issues€of€material€facts€which€cannot€be€resolved€onÏthe€basis€of€affidavits.€€Doubtless€a€contributing€factor€was€the€inordinate€delay€„„Ï15€months€„„€of€the€plaintiff€in€responding€to€the€motion;€superimposed€is€theÏœstressed€argument€›€that€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffsðð€injury€was€œð ðunknown,ð𛀜with€whichÏwe›€disagree.€€There€is€abundant€evidence€in€the€record€that€(1)€the€plaintiffððs€injuryÏwas€caused€by€the€device€operated€and€controlled€by€the€defendant;€(2)€the€injuryÏthus€inflicted€was€the€burning€of€tissue;€(3)€the€particular€device€functioned€properlyÏin€a€subsequent€procedure;€(4)€the€treatment€which€resulted€in€the€burn€injury€wasÏbelow€acceptable€standards.€€Whether€the€burn€was€of€thermal€or€chemical€orÏelectrical€origin€is,€in€our€judgment,€of€minimal€legal€significance,€notwithstandingÏthe€herculean€efforts€to€prove€the€nature€of€the€burn.Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€plaintiffððs€experts€inconsistently€testified,Ïthereby€negating€any€probative€value€of€their€testimony.€€To€an€extent,€thisÏargument€is€meritorious,€but€not€entirely€so.€€For€instance,€Dr.€Morgan€testified€byÏaffidavit€that,€more€likely€than€not,€ð ðDr.€Hatcher€òòcausedóó€the€burn€injury€to€HermanÏDavis€by€using€the€resectoscope€while€it€was€improperly€or€defectively€configured,Ïin€which€case€òòhe€should€have€been€aware€of€the€factóó€.€.€.€.€the€instrumentality€.€.€.€Ïwas€in€the€exclusive€control€of€Paul€Hatcher,€M.D.€.€.€.€€òòthe€injury€ordinarily€does€notÏoccur€in€the€absence€of€negligence.ððóó€€(Emphasis€added.)€€He€had€previouslyÏtestified€on€discovery€that€he€did€not€know€„„€had€no€way€of€knowing€„„€whether€theÍburn€was€of€thermal€or€radioactive€or€electrical€origin€and€when€asked€if€he€had€anyÏbasis€for€assuming€the€injury€was€caused€by€ð ðsome€human€error,ðð€he€replied€thatÏhe€did€not.€€This€question€and€response€implied€personal€knowledge,€because€theÏthrust€of€the€preceding€questions,€while€purporting€to€seek€an€opinion€only,€wasÏseemingly€directed€to€personal€knowledge€as€contrasted€to€the€elicitation€of€anÏopinion.ÌÓÓÌà0 àQ.à à€.€.€.€did€you€search€Dr.€Hatcherððs€records€to€try€to€find€something€thatÏmight€have€caused€it?Ìà0 àA.à àWell,€I€read€everything€to€try€to€understand€what€happened€and€just€asÏnow€òòI€cannot€tell€you€what€exactly€happenedóó.Ìà0 àQ.à àYou€assume€this€injury€was€caused€by€some€human€error€but€youÏdonððt€have€any€factual€basis€for€that€assumption€do€you?Ìà0 àA.à àThatððs€correct.Ìà à(Emphasis€added.)ÌÓÓÌà àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Morgan€contradicts€his€priorÏtestimony€to€the€extent€urged€by€the€defendant,€keeping€in€mind€that€in€summaryÏjudgment€proceedings€the€evidence€may€not€ordinarily€be€weighed€and€theÏsummary€judgment€proceedings€may€not€substitute€for€a€merit€trial.Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€29„26„115€œis›€relied€on€by€the€plaintiff.€€This€statute€provides:ÌÓÓÌà0 àIn€a€malpractice€action€.€.€.€there€shall€be€no€presumption€of€negligence€onÏthe€part€of€the€defendant.€€Provided,€however,€there€shall€be€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€that€the€defendant€was€negligent€where€it€is€shown€by€the€proofÏthat€the€instrumentality€causing€injury€was€in€the€defendantððs€exclusiveÏcontrol€and€that€the€accident€or€injury€was€one€which€ordinarily€does€notÏoccur€in€the€absence€of€negligence.ÌÓÓÌà àIt€was€held€in€òòWard€v.€United€Statesóó,€838€F.2d€182€(6th€Cir.€1988)€that€theÏpresumption€created€by€this€statute€is€the€doctrine€of€òòres€ipsa€loquituróó,€which€shouldÏnot€be€applied€where€the€plaintiff€offers€evidence€of€specific€acts€of€negligence.€€ButÏwe€see€no€reason€why€the€plaintiff€may€not,€consistently€with€Rule€8,€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.óó,€plead€the€application€of€the€statute€as€an€alternate€ground€for€relief.€€There€isÏevidence€in€the€record€that€the€instrumentality€causing€the€injury€was€under€theÏexclusive€control€of€the€defendant€and€that€the€injury€was€one€that€does€notÏordinarily€occur€in€the€absence€of€negligence,€thus€creating€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€of€negligence€for€resolution€upon€a€merit€trial€and€not€upon€a€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€reversed€at€the€cost€of€the€appellee€and€the€case€isÏremanded€for€trial.Ì€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌW.€Frank€œCrawford›,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€R.€Farmer,€JudgeÌÌÌ