ÿWPCÓ! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ 0Bð 2 0J: 0T„ 0^Ø 0h6 0rž 0| 0†Œ 0 1u¢ U, 0dCU,§U>ÓB)DC: AM}U*Ê D3ô B'þD 0@B5‚ì·±£GTv~›vÓ 0Bì AO. Æ} 0DC! D/‡! B¶!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÅPÆgÇÈÉDÊËDÌ ÍPÎÓ€à~| ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ%ÿÿ3|xÙ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó4 ÿÿ$Diamondððà0 à2 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`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial++++'ÿÿdxd d ôÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òApril€4,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSuit€was€also€filed€against€Randall€Walker,€whom€a€default€judgment€was€subsequentlyÏtaken.€€There€was€no€appeal€from€that€judgment.Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€do€not€pursue€this€theory€of€recovery€on€appeal.Ì §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€states€that€its€decision€was€based€upon€a€review€of€theÏð ðpleadings€and€affidavits€filed€with€this€Court€.€.€.€.ðð€€Thus,€we€treat€the€motion€granted€as€one€forÏsummary€judgment€for€purposes€of€review.€€Rule€12.02€T.R.C.P.Ì =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Phipps€filed€a€supplemental€affidavit€and€attached€thereto€certain€portions€of€a€ð ðpre„sentence€reportðð€of€Randall€Walker.€€Neither€the€affidavit€nor€the€report€comply€with€Rule€56.05ÏT.R.C.P.€and,€thus,€will€not€be€considered€by€this€Court.€€However,€even€if€these€materials€wereÏproper€for€our€consideration,€they€fail€to€establish€knowledge€on€behalf€of€the€Appellee€of€hisÏsonððs€propensity€to€commit€the€felonious€act€of€burglarizing€houses.€€The€pre„sentence€report€onlyÏestablishes€that€Randall€Walkerððs€ð ðcriminal€tendenciesðð€included€misdemeanor€charges€of€theft,Ïvarious€traffic€violations,€possession€of€illegal€drugs€and€forgery.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò4@c$`Diamondð`ðà0 à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Æ XXdìdÈ7ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÙ€€ÙßL€(,';+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌJOHN€PHIPPS€andó óà à)à àBlount€CountyÏCircuit€CourtÌò òSANDRA€PHIPPSó ó,à à)à àNo.€L„9566Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€03A01„9508„CV„00294Ìà à)Ìò òROBERT€WAYNE€WALKER,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appelleeà à)Ìà à)Ìò òANDó óà à)Ìà à)Ìò òRANDALL€WAYNE€WALKERó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant.à à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Blount€County€at€Maryville.Ìò òHonorable€W.€Dale€Young,€Judge€€ó óÌÌÌÌò òKevin€W.€Shepherdó ó,€Maryville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òBeecher€A.€Bartlett,€Jr.ó ó,Ìò òAdrienne€L.€Andersonó ó,ÌKRAMER,€RAYSON,€LEAKE,€RODGERS€&€MORGAN,€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Robert€Wayne€Walker.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€DISMISSEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òÌHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)à àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€Æ XXdìXXdì7ÑÓ ` Ü` È“X ÓÓÓà àThis€action€for€negligent€hiring€results€from€the€alleged€burglary€of€the€home€ofÏAppellants,€John€and€Sandra€Phipps,€by€Randall€Wayne€Walker,€son€and€employee€of€theÏappellee,€Robert€Wayne€Walker.× ƒ. ××  ×›€€Appellee€is€the€owner€of€Walker€Electric€which,€in€1994,€sub„contracted€with€Shore€Builders,€Inc.€to€perform€the€electrical€work€on€the€Appellantsðð€home,€thenÏunder€construction.€€Randall€Walker€was€an€employee€of€Walker€Electric€at€this€time.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€specifically€alleges€the€following:ÌÓÓœ›à8 àRobert€Wayne€Walker,€due€to€his€relationship€to€Randall€Walker€asÏboth€father€and€employer,€had€direct€and€personal€knowledge€of€anÏextensive€history€of€substance€abuse€and€criminal€activity€by€RandallÏWalker.€€Despite€this€personal€knowledge,€Robert€Walker€employedÏhis€son€which€allowed€Randall€Walker€to€have€access€to€the€homesÏwhich€Mr.€Robert€Walker€worked€upon.ÌÓÓÌÓ ` Ü` ‚° ’X ÓÓÓà8 àœà àShortly›€after€the€completion€of€the€Phippsðð€residence,Ïthe€Phipps€moved€into€this€home.€€During€a€brief€absence€from€theirÏhome,€on€or€about€October€15€or€16,€1994,€their€home€wasÏburglarized€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThrough€investigation€by€the€Blount€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department,€Randall€Walker€was€arrested,€and€chargedÏwith€the€offense€of€aggravated€burglary€on€this€home.€€Mr.€RandallÏWalker€has€subsequently€entered€a€guilty€plea€to€this€offense.ÌÌà8 àà àPlaintiffs€would€assert€that€Robert€Walker€had€aÏspecial€duty€to€them€based€upon€his€employment€relationship€toÏemploy€only€individuals€who€would€not€pose€any€damage€of€threatÏor€harm€to€the€customers.€€Mr.€Robert€Walker€breached€this€duty€byÏemploying€his€son€and€allowing€his€son€to€have€access€to€the€PhippsÏresidence.€€œAs›€a€result€of€this€breach€of€duty,€the€Phipps€home€wasÍburglarized€resulting€in€both€damage€to€property€and€loss€ofÏproperty€to€the€Phipps.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àThe€Plaintiffs€would€further€assert€that€DefendantÏRobert€Walker€is€vicariously€responsible€and€liable€for€the€conductÏof€his€son€and€employee€Randall€Walker,€even€though€the€conductÏof€Randall€Walker€was€done€outside€the€scope€of€Defendant[ðð]sÏemployment.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€œÌÌÓÓÌÌà àAfter€denying€any€liability,€Appellee€filed€a€ð ðMotion€to€Dismiss€and/or€Motion€forÏSummary€Judgment,ðð€asserting€that€the€appellants€could€not€establish€all€necessary€elements€ofÏtheir€causes€of€action€in€light€of€their€admission€that€Randall€Walkerððs€actions€were€outside€theÏscope€of€his€employment.€€Opposing€affidavits€were€filed.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion,Ïdismissing€the€complaint€with€prejudice.€€The€Phipps€now€appeal,€stating€the€issue€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWhether€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€to€theÏdefendant€was€proper€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àA€motion€for€summary€judgment× ƒ0 ××  ×€is€to€be€granted€only€when€it€is€shown€that€thereÏis€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€Rule€56.03€T.R.C.P;€òòò òCaledonia€Leasing€and€Equip.€Co.€v.€Armstrong,ÏAllen,€Braden,€Goodman,€McBride€and€Prewittóóó ó,€865€S.W.2d€10,€13€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€ÏIn€ruling€thereon,€we€are€to€consider€the€matter€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€a€directedÏverdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof,€i.e.,€all€evidence€must€be€viewed€in€a€light€mostÍfavorable€to€the€motionððs€opponent€and€all€legitimate€conclusions€must€be€drawn€in€their€favor.€Ïòòò òWhite€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€Southóóó ó,€844€S.W.2d€642,€645€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€When€aÏsummary€judgment€motion€is€used€defensively,€the€plaintiff€must€present€evidence€sufficient€toÏestablish€the€essential€elements€of€his€claim€on€which€he€will€bear€the€burden€of€proof€at€trial.€Ïòòò òWhiteóóó ó,€844€S.W.2d€at€645.€€Thus,€in€order€for€the€appellantsðð€claim€of€negligence€to€proceed€to€aÏjury,€they€must€offer€some€material€evidence€showing€the€existence€of€a€duty€and€injuryÏproximately€caused€by€its€breach.€€òòò òSee€Doe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.,›€ó óóó845€S.W.2d€173,€183Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àThe€tort€of€negligent€hiring€stems€from€the€principle€that€a€person€conducting€anÏactivity€through€employees€is€liable€for€harm€resulting€from€the€negligent€conduct€in€theÏemployment€of€improper€persons€or€instrumentalities€in€the€work€involving€risk€of€harm€to€others.€Ïòòò òGates€v.€McQuiddy€Office€Productsóóó ó,€No.€02A01„9410„CV„00240€(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€2,Ïœ1995),€òòò òperm.€app.€pendingó óóó.›€€The€ð ðrisk,ðð€as€herein€referred,€is€that€which€is€foreseeable.€€òòò òDoeóóó ó,Ï845€S.W.2d€at€178.€€As€stated€by€the€court€in€òòò òDoeóóó ó:ÌÌÓÓà8 àForeseeability€is€the€test€of€negligence.€€If€the€injury€which€occurredÏcould€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen,€the€duty€of€care€does€notÏarise,€and€even€though€the€act€of€the€defendant€in€fact€caused€theÏinjury,€there€is€no€negligence€and€no€liability.€€òòò òSee€Spivey€v.€St.ÏThomas€Hospitalóóó ó,€31€Tenn.€App.€12,€211€S.W.2d€450,€456Ï(1948).€€ð ð[T]he€plaintiff€must€show€that€the€injury€was€a€reasonablyÏforeseeable€probability,€not€just€a€remote€possibility,€and€that€someÏaction€within€the€[defendantððs]€power€more€probably€than€not€wouldÏhave€prevented€the€injury.ðð€€òòò òTedderóóó ó,€728€S.W.2d€at€348.€ÏForeseeability€must€be€determined€as€of€the€time€of€the€acts€orÏomissions€claimed€to€be€negligent.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€of€the€appellee€was€filed€in€support€of€the€motion€for€summaryÍjudgment,€which€states,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI€am€the€owner€and€sole€proprietor€of€WalkerÏElectric.€€I€am€also€the€father€of€.€.€.€Randall€Wayne€Walker.€.€.€.€€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àWalker€Electric,€through€the€summer€and€fall€ofÏ1994,€employed€two€electricians€and€two€assistants.€€The€twoÏelectricians€were€Curtis€Shuler€and€Randall€Wayne€Walker.€€BothÏelectricians€were€allowed€to€perform€work€outside€of€theirÏemployment€with€Walker€Electric€on€an€independent€contractingÏbasis.€€When€these€electricians€worked€as€independent€contractorsÏfor€a€third€party,€Walker€Electric€had€no€control€or€responsibility€forÏtheir€actions€or€work.ÌÌà8 àà àRandall€Wayne€Walker€has€worked€as€an€electricianÏfor€Walker€Electric€for€approximately€11€years.€€At€the€time€that€IÏhired€Randall€Walker,€I€had€no€knowledge€or€notice€that€RandallÏWalker€was€using€or€abusing€illicit€or€illegal€substances.€ÏAdditionally,€I€had€no€knowledge€or€notice€at€the€time€that€I€hiredÏRandall€Walker€or€during€the€period€of€time€that€Walker€ElectricÏworked€on€the€[Appellantsðð]€house€that€Randall€Walker€had€everÏbroken€into€and€stolen€property€from€other€peopleððs€homes.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àCurtis€Shuler€was€the€sole€electrician€assigned€byÏWalker€Electric€to€install€the€electrical€wiring€and€fixtures€inÏPlaintiffsðð€house.€€Randall€Walker€was€not€used€by€Walker€ElectricÏto€install€any€of€the€electrical€wiring€or€fixtures€in€this€house.€.€.€.€ÏRandall€Walkerððs€only€access€to€Plaintiffððs€[sic]€home€occurredÏwhen€Randall€Walker€was€working€for€Shore€Builders€as€a€sub„contractor.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€€Walker€electric€has€not€performed€anyÏadditional€electric€work€on€Plaintiffsðð€house€since€August€1994.ÌÌà8 àà àAt€some€point€in€late€summer€or€early€fall€in€1994,Ïbut€prior€to€Plaintiffsðð€fully€moving€into€their€house,€Randall€WalkerÏwas€requested€by€Plaintiff€John€Phipps€to€accompany€him€and€repairÏa€light€in€the€Plaintiffsðð€kitchen.€€At€the€time€of€Plaintiffððs€request,ÏRandall€Walker€was€not€working€as€an€employee€of€Walker€ElectricÏbut€was€working€in€another€house€located€in€Allen€BrookÏSubdivision€as€a€sub„contractor€for€Shore€Builders,€Inc.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àDuring€the€weekend€of€Saturday,€October€15,€1994,Ïand€Sunday,€October€16,€1994,€Randall€Walker€was€not€performingÏany€€work€for€Walker€Electric.€.€.€.€€ÌÌà8 àà àAt€the€time€of€the€alleged€break„in,€I€was€not€awareÏof€any€substance€use€or€abuse€by€Randall€Walker.€€Although€I€amÏaware€of€Randallððs€difficulty€with€substance€abuse,€I€believe€that€atÏthe€time€of€the€incident,€Randall€Walker€had€been€successfullyÏrehabilitated.ÌÌà8 àà àRandall€Walker€is€30€years€old,€independent€fromÏmy€support,€and€resides€outside€of€my€home.€€œÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€opposition,€Mr.€Phipps€filed€his€affidavit,€stating:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI€am€the€homeowner,€along€with€my€wife,€who€hasÏfiled€the€Complaint€in€this€action.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€€Just€after€we€moved€into€our€house,€I€walkedÏup€to€Robert€Walker€(who€was€working€just€up€the€street€from€ourÏhome)€and€advised€him€of€a€problem€with€our€kitchen€light.€€He€sentÏhis€son,€Randall€Walker,€to€go›€to€my€home,€to€address€the€problem.ÌÌà8 àà àRandall€Walker€come€to€our€home€I€led€him€into€theÏkitchen€where€I€showed€him€the€problem€with€an€overhead€light.€ÏHe€identified€a€ð ðground€problemðð€with€the€on/off€switch.€€HeÏrepaired€the€problem€in€our€presence.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àAt€an€earlier€time,€I€observed€Randall€WalkerÏinstalling€light€switches€in€our€œsunroom›€and€also€working€on€anÏoutside€security€light.€€After€the€burglary,€I€discovered€that€thisÏlight,€as€well€as€all€other€security€lights,€had€been€maladjusted€soÏthat€they€would€not€cover€the€perimeter€of€the€house€againstÏintruders.ÌÌà8 àà àWe€moved€into€this€residence€on€September€23,Ï1995.€€It€was€on€October€12,€1995,€that€Randall€Walker€came€to€ourÏhouse€to€correct€the€wiring€problem.€€The€burglary€occurred€on€orÏabout€October€15,€1995.ÌÌà8 àà àRandall€Walker€has€since€pled€guilty€to€this€burglary.Ï.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€€it€is€our€belief€that€Robert€Walker€employedÏhis€son€knowing€of€his€sonððs€criminal€tendencies,€and€failed€to€warnÏus€of€his€sonððs€behavior.€€œÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellants€maintain€that€material€factual€disputes€exist€regarding€whether€RandallÍWalker€was€afforded€access€to€and€allowed€to€work€on€the€appellantsðð€residence,€via€his€employ€byÏAppellee,›€and€whether€Appellee€was€aware€of€his€sonððs€substance€abuse€and€prior€criminal€activityÏat€this€time.€€It€is€argued€that€due€to€the€ð ðspecial€relationshipðð€existing€between€Randall€Walker€andÏAppellee€in€this€case€(i.e.€father€and€son),€that€a€reasonable€inference€may€be€drawn€by€a€jury€thatÏAppellee€was€aware€of€his€sonððs€ð ðcriminal€tendenciesðð€and,€thus,€could€reasonably€foresee€that€hisÏemployment€of€Randall€in€this€particular€capacity,€created€a€foreseeable€risk€of€harm€to€theÏappellants.ÌÌà àœThis›€œCourt›€in€òòò òGates€óóó óheld€that€a€claim€for€negligent€hiring€ð ðrequires€somethingÏmore€than€a€showing€of€past€criminal€conduct.ðð€€òòò òGatesóóó ó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€òòò òGatesóóó ó€identified€threeÏelements€necessary€for€recovery€under€a€negligent€hiring€theory:€ð ð(1)€evidence€of€unfitness€for€theÏparticular€job,€(2)€evidence€that€the€applicant€for€employment,€if€hired,€would€pose€anÏunreasonable€risk€to€others,€[and]€(3)€evidence€that€the€prospective€[employer]€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€that€the€historical€criminality€of€the€applicant€would€likely€be€repetitive.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€òòò òGatesóóó óÏconcluded€that€negligent€hiring€arises€only€when€a€particular€unfitness€of€a€job€applicant€creates€aÏdanger€of€harm€to€others€which€the€employer€should€have€known.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€5.ÌÌà àAlthough€Appelleeððs€affidavit€admits€to€knowledge€of€his€sonððs€prior€substanceÏabuse,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€dispute€his€statement€that€he€was€unaware€of€any€illegalÏdrug€use€by€his€son€at€the€time€of€his€employ.€€Moreover,€there€is€nothing€in€Mr.€Phippsðð€affidavit,Ïother€than€mere€conclusion,€to€refute€Appelleeððs€statement€that€he€was€unaware€that€his€son€hadÏever€burglarized€houses€at€the€time€that€Walker€Electric€worked€on€Appellantsðð€home.€€Nor€is€thereÏany€evidence€in€the€record€that€suggests€Randall€Walkerððs€prior€commission€of€this€crime.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›ÌÌà àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€Appellants,€we€find€that€no€dutyÏwas€owed€them€by€the€appellee€under€the€facts€presented.€€Moreover,€we€find€that€Appellants€haveÏfailed€to€establish€the€element€of€proximate€cause.€€Ordinarily,€the€proximate€cause€of€an€injury€isÏfor€the€jury,€but€where€there€are€uncontroverted€facts,€the€question€of€proximate€or€interveningÏcause€is€for€the€trial€court.€€òòò òSee€e.g.,€Doe€v.€Linder€Constr.óóó ó,€845€S.W.2d€at€183.€ÏAppellants€concede€that€the€alleged€criminal€acts€of€Randall€were€committed€outside€the€scope€ofÏhis€employment.€€òòò òCorder€v.€Metropolitan€œGovernmentóóó ó,›€852€S.W.2d€910€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992),€holds€that€an€employer€is€not€liable€for€the€wrongful€acts€of€an€employee€committed€outsideÏthe€scope€of€his€employment,€even€if€the€hiring€of€the€employee€was€negligent.€€òòò òCorderóóó ó,€852ÏS.W.2d€at€915.€€òòò òCorderóóó ó€reasons€that€the€hiring€of€the€employee€is€not€the€proximate€cause€of€hisÏacts€committed€outside€the€scope€of€his€employment.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€It€is,€therefore,€immaterial€whetherÏRandall€was€afforded€access€to€or€allowed€to€work€on€Appellantsðð€home€by€Appellee.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed€and€this€cause€dismissed.€€CostsÏare€assessed€against€John€and€Sandra€Phipps,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓ›à àœ__________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)›