WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1u 0dv UB % B" U6? B)u DC AM U*.Xfov~ D3v; 0@ AON 0Dc D/ Bڃ"3|x($ DDDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#!  %%   YYY FILED%X July25,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.%AppellateCourtClerk  \ !#d#!  $       !Inaparkingareareservedforrodeoparticipants,plaintiffputhis0 armaroundBozemanandsaidBozemanhadbeentoocriticalofhisdaughterwhowasarodeoparticipant.  !#d#!  $       !TheAndersoncourtsaidtoholdthemasterresponsiblethetortmustbe0 committedinthecourseofemploymentasanincidentthereof,and donewithaviewtothefurtheranceofthatbusinessandthemastersinterest.Id.772.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h 'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !        7jXXdd7\RA'\R$&#A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION WADEWILSON,    )C/ANO.03A019610CV00317      ) PlaintiffAppellee,  )KNOXCIRCUIT      )v.      )HON.DALEWORKMAN,      )JUDGEROBERTB.BOZEMAN,   )      ) DefendantAppellant, )      )and      )      )BEANSTATIONVOLUNTEERRESCUE )SQUAD,INC.,andRUTLEDGE )VOLUNTEERRESCUESQUAD,INC., )      )AFFIRMED Defendants/Cross  )AND Appellees.   )REMANDEDMICHAELP.McGOVERN,Knoxville,forPlaintiffAppellee.BRENDAL.LINDSAY,Knoxville,forDefendantAppellant.RICHARDL.HOLLOW,Knoxville,forDefendants/CrossAppellees.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  InthisactiontheoriginalappellantRobertB.Bozemandismissedhisappeal,andplaintiffascrossappellant,hasappealedtheTrialCourtsdirectingverdictsfortheremainingdefendants.  Theissuebeforeusiswhethertheevidence,whentakeninthemostfavorablelighttoplaintiff,createsafactualdisputeastowhetherthesedefendantsarevicariouslyliabletoplaintiffunderthedoctrineofrespondeatsuperior.Ϝ  TheevidenceestablishedthatthesedefendantscosponsoredarodeowithSpurNSRodeoCompany,arodeostockcompany,andsharedtheprofitsfromtherodeo.DefendantBozemanwasemployedbySpurNS,andhewasgivenresponsibilityforgettingthehorsesreadyandorganizingtheriderswhobroughttheflagsandcolorsintothearena,andheservedaswellasa pickupriderinthearena.ItisplaintiffsϜcontentionsthatthesedefendantsandSpurNSwerepartners,ϜBozemanwasanemployeeofthepartnership,theassaultwaswithinthecourseandscopeofhisemployment;therefore,thesedefendantsarejointlyandseverallyliableunderthedoctrineofrespondeatsuperior.  Assuming,withoutdeciding,thatthestatusofBozemansemploymentwasajuryissue,wecannotagreethatreasonablemindswoulddifferontheliabilityofthedefendantsunderthedoctrineofrespondeatsuperior.AsthisCourtnotedinTennesseeFarmersv.AmericanMutual,840S.W.2d933(Tenn.App.1992),whetheranemployeeisactingwithinthecourseandscopeofhisemploymentisgenerallyaquestionoffact.But,Ϝwesaid:0 0 However,itbecomesaquestionoflawwhenthefactsareundisputedandcannotsupportconflictingconclusions.Id.at937.0 0 Thus,whetheranemployeeisactingwithinthescopeofhisemploymentcanbereviewedasaquestionoflawwheretheemployeesactsareclearlybeyondthescopeofhisauthority.Id.at937.  TheapplicablegeneralruleoftencitedissetforthϜinAndersonv.Covert,245S.W.2d770(Tenn.1952):0 0 Thatfortheactsoftheservant,withinthegeneralscopeofhisemployment,whileengagedinhismastersbusiness,anddonewithaviewtothefurtheranceofthatbusinessandthemastersinterest,themasterwillberesponsible,whethertheactbedonenegligently,wantonly,orevenwilfully.pp.7712.  Theundisputedevidenceinthiscaseshowsthatplaintiffhadbeendrinkingbeforecomingtotherodeo,andwasacquaintedwithBozeman.PlaintiffcharacterizedBozemanas agoodfriendofmine .Bozemanphysicallyassaultedplaintiffandwasconvictedofthecrime.Thedisputesurroundingtheincidentisthatplaintiffcontendstherewasnoprovocationfortheassault, '   כandhewasassaultedbeforeherealizedhewasbeingattacked.Bozemantestifiedthathethoughtplaintiffwasabouttostrikehim,andsincehewaswearingacolostomy,hefearedforhissafetyandstrucktheplaintiff,renderinghimunconscious.  ThereisnoevidencethatBozemanwasattemptingtoevicttheplaintifffromtherodeo,orsubduehimfordisorderlyconduct.PlaintiffsevidenceistheattackwasunprovokedandBozemansevidenceisthatBozemanfearedforhisownsafety,andhethoughttheplaintiffwasabouttostrikehim.Theassaultwasnotwithinthesocalled zoneofriskassociatedwiththerodeo. (   ׀Onthisevidence,theassaultwasnotwithinthescopeofthevicariousliabilityrule.Theassaulthadnorealconnectionwiththeemployersbusiness,butarosefromapersonalaltercation.Onthiswebelieve,reasonablepersonswouldagree.  WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremandatplaintiffscost.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________̜CharlesD.Susano,Jr.