WPCe # VUNa % 0(U<w@ 4Y m | U: {; 0J 0TC 0^ 0h 0r] 0| 0K 0 1uaU, 0dU,fU>B)DC B< AMYU*,v~ D3zv 0@ AO 0D D/ BHHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman $E%U&'()D*+Ӏ78b e $3|x8,  AZ"Arial Regular(K$  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT XNlXXX7^XXdXXd7 T]VTXXNlS2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G<  9p`(Arial " !  #d#"  ''   YYY FILED'X June13,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@%%%%'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &!!Xd&#!!Xd#"  78XXdd7     \RA'\    @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON  ________________________________________________ MARVINMCCARLEYandL&($;+'h|`  `LELLISEMCCARLEY,  PlaintiffsAppellants,       HardemanCircuitNo.8541Vs.       C.A.No.02A019505CV00107 WESTQUALITYFOODSERVICE,  DefendantAppellee.___________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHEHARDEMANCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT@ THEHONORABLEJONKERRYBLACKWOOD,JUDGE@ T.VernerSmithofJackson@ ForAppellants@ ClintonV.Butler,Jr.,andDaleConder,Jr.,ofRainey,Kizer,@ Butler,Reviere&BellofJackson@ ForAppellee@ AFFIRMED @ Opinionfiled:        W.FRANKCRAWFORD,        PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGEHEWITTP.TOMLIN,JR.,SENIORJUDGE ӛ Plaintiffs,ElliseandMarvinMcCarley,appealfromtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendant,WestQualityFoodService,doingbusinessasKentuckyFriedChickeninϜBolivar,Tennessee. OnAugust3,1993,ElliseMcCarleypurchasedfriedchickenfromtheKentuckyFriedChickenstoreinBolivar,Tennessee,andimmediatelytookthechickenhome.ThateveningElliseandMarvinMcCarley,aswellastheMcCarleysdaughterandtwograndchildren,atethefriedchickenfordinner.Mrs.McCarleyateonepieceofchickenbutdidnothaveanymorebecauseshefeltthatthemeatdidnotsmellorlook justright.ShedidnottellMr.McCarleyortheotherfamilymembersnottoeatanymoreofthechicken. OnthemorningofAugust4,1993,Mr.McCarleyawokewithclassicsymptomsoffoodpoisoning.Althoughtheotherfamilymemberswhoatethechickenfeltnauseous,noonewasasadverselyaffectedasMr.McCarley.Hestatedinhisdepositionthathe layaroundthehousethatday,takingoverthecountermedicationinthehopeoffeelingbetter.OnAugust5,1993,Mr.McCarleywenttoSt.FrancisHospital inMemphiswherehewastreatedbyDr.MarkYoung,M.D.,aninternist.WhenMr.McCarleyarrivedatSaintFrancis,hissymptomsincludedabdominalpain,afeverof103degrees,chills,generalizedaches,andprofusediarrhea.Afterperformingbloodcultures,Dr.YoungdeterminedthatMr.McCarleywassufferingfromfoodpoisoningcausedbytheingestionoffoodcontaminatedwithcampylobacters,anorganismfoundinthegutofcattle,pigs,andchickenandtransmittedwhenthosefoodsarenotproperlycooked. Inhisdeposition,Mr.McCarleytestifiedthattheonlyfoodheateonAugust3,1993,priortoeatingfriedchickenthatevening,washisdailybreakfastmealconsistingofbacon,rice,andeggs.Dr.YoungtestifiedthatMr.McCarleysfoodpoisoningcouldhavebeencausedbycampylobactersineitherbaconorchicken.Hestatedthatchickenis attheheadofthelist,buttheonlywaytohaveadefiniteansweristotestasampleofboththechickenandthepork,whichwasnotdone. Thesoleissueonappealiswhetherthetrialcourtproperlygrantedthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Atrialcourtshouldgrantamotionforsummaryjudgementwhenthemovantdemonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtandtheappellatecourtmustconsiderthematterinthesamemannerasamotionfordirectedverdictmadeatthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof;thatis,thetrialcourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatpartyanddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. at21011.Thephrase genuineissueasstatedinTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03referstogenuine,factualissuesanddoesnotincludeissuesinvolvinglegalconclusionstobedrawnfromthefacts. Id .at211.In Byrd ,thecourtstated:8 8 Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial. Fowlerv.HappyGoodmanFamily ,575S.W.2d496,498(Tenn.1978); Merrittv.WilsonCty.Bd.ofZoningAppeals ,656S.W.2d846,859(Tenn.App.1983).Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatanonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustsetforth specificfacts showingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial. Ifhedoesnotsorespond,summaryjudgment...shallbeenteredagainsthim.Rule56.05(Emphasisinoriginal). Toestablishaprimafaciecaseofnegligence,theplaintiffhastheburdenofprovingthatthedefendantowedtheplaintiffaduty,thathebreachedthatduty,andthattheplaintiffwasinjuredasaresultofthedefendantsbreach. Keenev.CrackerBarrelOldCountryStore ,853S.W.2d501,503(Tenn.App.1992).Generally,summaryjudgmentisnotappropriateinanegligencecase. Brookinsv.TheRoundTable,Inc. ,624S.W.2d547,550(Tenn.1981).Issuessuchasproximatecause arepeculiarlyissuesforthetrieroffact;however,theymayberesolvedbythecourtwhere inferencesfromuncontrovertedfactsaresocertainthatallreasonablemen...mustagreeuponthem. Id . Wheretheplaintiffreliesuponexperttestimonytoestablishproximatecause,suchtestimonyisnotadmissibleifitamountstomerespeculation.In Lindseyv.MiamiDevelopmentCorp. ,689S.W.2d856,862(Tenn.1985),thecourtstated:8 8 Adoctorstestimonythatacertainthingispossibleisnoevidenceatall.Hisopinionastowhatispossibleisnomorevalidthatthejurysownspeculationastowhatisorisnotpossible.Almostanythingispossible,anditisthusimpropertoallowajurytoconsiderandbaseaverdictuponapossiblecauseofdeath. Id. Similarly,itwouldbeimproperforajurytobaseaverdictinfavorofplaintiffsonthepossibilitythatMr.McCarleyreceivedfoodpoisoningfromKentuckyFriedChickenproducts. Inthecaseatbar,thefactsestablishthattheplaintiffsatefriedchickenfromKentuckyFriedChicken,andthatMr.McCarleywaslaterdiagnosedwithfoodpoisoning.ThepartiesdonotdisputethatKentuckyFriedChickenhadadutytoprovideitspatrons,theplaintiffs,withuncontaminatedfoodproduct.ThecauseofMr.McCarleysfoodpoisoning,however,islessclear.PlaintiffsrelyonthetestimonyofDr.Young,whostatedthateitherporkorchickencouldhavecausedMr.McCarleysfoodpoisoning.Dr.YoungsaidthatifchickenhadbeentheonlymeatproductMr.McCarleyateonAugust3,1993,itwould,morelikelythannot,havecausedthefoodpoisoning.However,Dr.YoungalsostatedthatifMr.McCarleyatebaconthatday,thebaconwasapossiblesourceofthedamagingbacteria.Dr.Youngdid not statethateitherthefriedchickenorthebaconwasthemorelikelycauseofMr.McCarleysillness.  Proximatecauseisanessentialelementofaplaintiffsclaiminanegligencecase. Keene ,853S.W.2dat503.In Lindsey thecourtstated:8 8  Theplaintiffmustintroduceevidencewhichaffordsareasonablebasisfortheconclusionthatitismorelikelythannotthattheconductofthedefendantwasacauseinfactoftheresult.Amerepossibilityofsuchcausationisnotenough;andwhenthematterremainsoneofpurespeculationorconjectureortheprobabilitiesareatbestevenlybalanced,itbecomesthedutyofthecourttodirectaverdictforthedefendant  ... Id .,689S.W.2dat861(citingProsserandKeeton,Torts,41,p.269(5thed.,1984)).Intheinstantcase,plaintiffshavenotintroducedevidencefromwhichajurycouldconcludethatMr.McCarleymorelikelythannotreceivedfoodpoisoningfromcontaminatedfriedchicken,asopposedtocontaminatedbacon. Thetrialcourtsordergrantingplaintiffssummaryjudgmentisaffirmed.Costsofappealareassessedtotheplaintiffsappellants.Ӏ       _________________________________       W.FRANKCRAWFORD,       PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. _________________________________DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE _________________________________ HEWITTP.TOMLIN,JR.SENIORJUDGE