WPC  JMektt~;?T.\:FXb~Dɑ{'#9G3vB8\#?{ pv'bS-P#.aG^橬vQ6 N'X(YqP} C_<, FJrm6G_7Ns5'(.DI@i][gUaVsş%W\<2T@t_uĀ^~ Aה8q6{&߿id.v);Ip&wi_1!\'6NQBPu,%>HA3n|k4#_9fY(5@)=NV)OVR*Ie 6/3;e!OS.3>bY/2+ rB1hn*# LUNW % 0(w@4'-6UNc-U: AQ q 0D7 0D{ 0D D/ B2 BO D3l HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDDvEd E!Ӏy&3|x* ##8Xd#(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular ##Xd# ""   X7XXX HX X7   Ad FILED X7X H  June18,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  ݛTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tcќ  X gXXX2!!!r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  rߛ!@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE    @$ATNASHVILLE     `  򀀀  GRAHAMSCHINDELandASPEN  ) L  SCHINDEL,minors,bynextfriend  )   p  8  andnaturalguardians,GEARY h   ) $ t SCHINDELandSUSANSCHINDEL  )  ` andGEARYSCHINDELandSUSAN  )  L  SCHINDEL,individually,   h   )  8      `     h   )  $    Plaintiffs/Appellants,    h   )   DavidsonCircuitNo.97C915   Ѐ   `     h   )    p     v.   `     h   )        `     h   )  AppealNo.01A019711CV00655    RICHARDH.BASSandCOMDATA  ) | NETWORK,INC.,    h   )   h    `     h   )  Defendants/Appellees. h   )  @  ̀@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY 0 @ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@  THEHONORABLEBARBARAN.HAYNES,JUDGEForthePlaintiffs/Appellants:   h   FortheDefendants/Appellees:#XlXX X g# X gXXXl T! ThomasF.Bloom h E.ToddPresnell ,#|! Nashville,Tennessee   h   DanaD.Ballinger $h"    `     h   Nashville,Tennessee    `     h   REVERSEDANDREMANDED   `     h   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. d,'+   CONCURS:ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 1<-1 DAVIDR.FARMER,J.#XlXX X g # 3/3   404 c7lXXdXXd7  ќ   7XXdXXd7ћ      @55' OPINION       Thisisapersonalinjurycasearisingfromanautomobilecollision.GearySchindelandSusanSchindel,ontheirbehalfandonbehalfoftheirtwominorchildren,GrahamandAspenSchindel,( Plaintiffs)filedsuitagainstRichardBassandhisemployerComdataNetwork,Inc.( Defendants)forpersonalinjuriessustainedinanautomobileaccident.ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheDefendants,andthePlaintiffsappeal.Wereverse.  OnDecember20,1993,atapproximately6:00p.m.,SusanSchindel( Schindel)wasdrivinghercarsouthboundonFranklinPiketowardtheintersectionofFranklinPikeandHardingPlaceinNashville,Tennessee.Schindelstwochildren,GrahamandAspen,werepassengersinthecar.Itwasadarkandrainynight.Attheintersection,thetrafficlightindicatedagreenlight.Schindelyieldedtooncomingtrafficandallowedseveralcarstopassthroughtheintersectionbeforeturningleft.Schindelsawnomorecarsandbegantomaketheleftturn.HervehiclewasstruckbyavandrivenbyRichardBass( Bass),whowastravelingnorthboundonFranklinPike.SchindelacknowledgesthatshedidnotseeBassbutallegesthatitwasbecauseBasswasdrivingwithoutheadlights.  ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofRichardBassonthegroundsthatPlaintiffshadfailedtoestablishtheessentialelementsoftheirnegligenceclaimthroughcompetentevidence.Plaintiffsappeal.   X gXXXlAmotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthatthere `'"% arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622 ,8(+ (Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.In Byrdv.Hall ,847 p2-1 S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),ourSupremeCourtstated:  8  Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05      : 6: ЛҀprovidesthatthenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmust setforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial.  8 `  ` x` x PӜ WId. at211(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal). t   Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn. $ t 1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthe $  trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.Estate   ofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).   #XXX X=#  Onappeal,Schindelcontendsthatshesubmittedsufficientevidencetoestablishagenuine \ issueofmaterialfactconcerningwhetherBasswasdrivingwithoutheadlightsatthetimeoftheaccident.SchindelarguesthatareasonableinferenceoffactmaybedrawnfromhertestimonythatshefailedtoobserveBass,andthatherfailuretoseeBassmusthavebeenbecauseBasswasdrivingwithoutheadlightsatthetimeoftheaccident.  Insupportofherargument,Schindelcites Rogersv.Bouchard ,449S.W.2d431(Tenn.App.   1969).In Rogers ,theplaintiffs,husband(driver)andwife(passenger)leftarestaurantlocatedon  U.S.Highway41A. Rogers ,449S.W.2dat434.Highway41Awasafourlanehighwaywithtwo |! lanesrunningnorthandsouth. Id. Theplaintiffsintendedtocrossthetwosouthboundlanesof \#! trafficandproceednorth. Id. Theplaintiffstestimonyincluded: <% # [T]hat[plaintiffhusband]stoppedjustafewfeetbeforeenteringthehighway,wherehecouldseebothtohisleft(whichwouldbenorthwardly)andtohisright(whichwouldbesouthwardly)forapproximately300yardsineachdirectionandlookedforapproachingtrafficfrombothdirections;thathedidnotseeanytrafficorlightsapproachingfromeitherdirectionandwhenheaskedplaintiff[wife]ifshesawany,sherepliedinthenegative,whereuponheproceededtodriveacrossthesouthboundlanesandwastherestruckbytheautomobileofdefendant...justashewasabouttoenterthecrossoveropeninginthemedianstrip....""!" Id. at434.ӀInadditiontothetestimonyoftheplaintiffsin Rogers ,athirdwitnesstestifiedthathe /*. lookedatthesouthboundlanesofthehighwayandobservednotrafficorheadlightsofoncomingcars. Id. at435.Thedefendanttestifiedthathislightswereonatthetimeoftheaccident. Id. at L3.2 436.Attrial,thejuryreturnedaverdictinfavorofthedefendantandagainsttheplaintiffhusbandbutfoundinfavoroftheplaintiffwifeinheractionagainstthedefendant. Id. at432.Thedefendant  7\26 appealedthedecisiononthegroundsthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtograntthedefendants 8<48 motionfordirectedverdictandmotionforanewtrial. Id. at43233.ThisCourtsustainedthejurys  verdictonthegroundsthatthejurycouldhavereasonablyfoundasfactthatthedefendantwasdrivingwithoutheadlights,baseduponthetestimonyofthethreewitnesses. Id. at437. p   Inthepresentcase,theevidencesubmittedregardingtheissueofwhetherBassoperatedthevehiclewithoutheadlightsconsistedofSchindelsdepositionandaffidavit.Inherdeposition,Schindelstated:Q:Hadyou,infact,yieldedtosomeoncomingtraffic?A:Yes,Ihad.***Q:WeretherecarsinthelaneintheturnlaneofthenorthboundA:Yes.Q:trafficlane?A:Yes.Q:YouspecificallyrecallcarsA:Uhhuh.Q:beinginthatlane?A:Two.Q:Twocars?A:Uhhuh.Q:Weretheirheadlightson?A:Yes,andtheirblinkers.***Q:WhendidyoufirstseeMr.Bassvehicle?A:IdidntseeMr.Bassvehicleuntilafterhehitus.Q:Whydidyounotseehisvehicle?A:IdontknowwhyIdidntseehisvehicle.Ididntseeit.ItwasntbecauseIwasntlooking.c*U*q*Schindeltestifiedlaterinherdeposition:Q:Doyouknowwhetherornotthedriverofthevanhadhislightsonatthetimeofimpact?A:Ididntseethevehicle.IcanonlyassumethatifthelightswereonIwouldhaveseenthevehicle.Ididntseethevehicle.Q:Soyoucantreallysay?A:Thatsright.Icertainlysawothervehiclesintheintersectionthathadtheirlightson.-v-Subsequently,Schindelfiledanaffidavitstatinginpart: IdidnotseetheautomobiledrivenbyRichardH.Bassbecausehedidnothavehislightson.IamcertainthathedidnothavehislightsonasIsawothervehiclespriortomakingmyturn.Bassassertsthathehadhisheadlightsonatthetimeoftheaccident. 7LXXdXXd7    Additionalconflictingcircumstantialevidencewaspresentedontheissue.Bass,inadeposition,testifiedthattheheadlightswereonatthetimeoftheaccident.Aftertheaccident, 7LXXdXXd7  accordingtoBass,heturnedtheheadlightsoffbecausethelightswereshiningintooncomingtraffic. 0948   7XXdXXd7   Awitness,JohnButterfield,hadaconversationwithBassaftertheaccidentinwhich 7|XXdXXd7  Bassallegedlystated, Ishouldhaveleftmylightson.Basscontendsthathestated, Ishouldhavelefttheheadlightsonaftertheaccidenthadoccurred.  Wehaverecognizedthat [t]herangeofreasonableinferencestobedrawnfromtheevidencedependsupontheuniquefactsofeachcase.Aninferenceisreasonableandlegitimateonlywhentheevidencemakestheexistenceofthefacttobeinferredmoreprobablethanthenonexistenceofthefact. Underwoodv.HCAHealthServices,Inc. ,892S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.App.1994) @  (citing Hollingsworthv.QueenCarpet,Inc., 827S.W.2d306,309(Tenn.App.1991); Bensonv.   H.G.HillStores,Inc. ,699S.W.2d560,563(Tenn.App.1985); Franklinv.CollinsChapel  ConnectionalHosp. ,696S.W.2d16,19(Tenn.App.1985)).    Thiscasepresentsaveryclosequestion.Bassdistinguishes Rogers bynotingthat,in p  Rogers ,threewitnessestestifiedthattheylookedinthedirectionofthedefendantsvehicleandsaw P nocarscoming;whereas,inthiscase,thereisnoevidencetocorroborateSchindelstestimony.Bassalsoarguesthat,in Rogers ,allthreewitnessestestifiedthattheylookedspecificallyinthedirection ` ofthedefendantsvehicleandsawnocarsapproaching,whileSchindelstatesonlythatshehadseenandletbytwocarsfromtheturnlanefromwhichBassvehicleapproached,andthatshedidnotseeBassvehicle.  ThefactthatSchindelstestimonyisnotcorroboratedbythetestimonyofotherwitnessesisnotfataltohercase,providedSchindelstestimonyissufficienttosupportafindingthatBassdidnothavehisheadlightson. SeeRupev.Sims ,No.223,1990WL198902(Tenn.App.Dec.12, P(#& 1990).In Rogers ,thewitnessestestifiedspecificallythattheylookedinthedirectionofthe 0*%( defendantsvehicleandsawnocarscoming.Inthiscase,SchindeltestifiedthatshehadbeenlookinginthedirectionofBassvehicle,sawtwoothercarswiththeirlightson,letthemturnandproceededforward,notseeingBassvehicle.Thesefactsaresimplytoosimilartofindthat Rogers  / +. isdistinguishable.WefindthattheevidencepresentedbytheplaintiffisbarelysufficienttosupportafactualfindingthatBasswasoperatinghisvehiclewithouttheheadlightson.Consequently,wemustconcludethatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants.  P726   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecauseisremandedforfurtherproceedings consistentwiththisOpinion.CostsareassessedagainsttheAppellees,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  X=XXX   `     h 򀀀 0     `     h HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.  l     CONCUR:򀀀   ALANE.HIGHERS,J.    򀀀 h  DAVIDR.FARMER,J. #XXX X=?#