WPCr- cR?K\RG-`Jʾ-8g}d 2ՙ`<*_1rҩ)ѺSoS;@1E`:e#pӕEVs/_̓:I-D7&V˧;š8ٸ@,f+d2*}[3twD5KBU֎ tVo|*H#}-fNa D!A:qڐjJMof\WVƨ&]Z٤-lծۊJڍ˙p}O=D呄Fc  msήy>]H&H/Fd8&F/]+3bb8ޑ0`y5AϹŗơ;ttKj>ǢoZc6 &{" ~Q~\ 5"W^֡{~LF9e"%+i"3dLߔ# % 0 0 UNQ 0 0 z~ 0 0 0 0d* 0|N[ 0] 09E 0 0 0 0 0 0Z 0* 0 0 0 0! 0[" 03# 0$ 0$ 0% 0u&U*>' h'^ 'U%@'w'4'b''' m''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 0(((( B(( 0) D3) D-) 0K * * A\k** 0+ 0D1, Au,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u, D5 - BU-HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,02J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 525+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  %2A`ArialQuickMarkC}.) (hH  Z(Times New Roman ~&)8֠- -3|xU(|G2H!$ !.8Pudd8         0   d(|3ǂ$ !.8Pudd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`N<<C xdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǂ$ !.8Pudd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK)!dxdxP Pd !.8Pudd8     _  Pu8XXdd8  @ SPuINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#PuS #Ԉ &   ӀFebruary2000Session L XXPu #PuXX#ROBERTCHAD_BLAYLOCK_v.LLOYDNASH_dba_Ԁ J PEOPLESSTOCKYARDXXPu   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforPutnamCounty  ^ @@No.98J0165JohnA._Turnbull_,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199900568_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember14,_2000_   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisnegligenceactionarisesoutofacollisionbetweenacowandacardrivenbytheplaintiff.The  trialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttothedefendant,theallegedownerandoperatorofastockyard x fromwhichthecowsupposedlyescaped.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionfindingthatthe d plaintiffpresentednoevidencethatthedefendantbreachedhisdutyofcare.However,wedonot P findthattheplaintiffsappealofthetrialcourtsdecisionwasfrivolous. < #PuXX#XXPu2 Tenn.R.App.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  d   #PuX#XX.PuWilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBENH.CANTRELL,P.J.,M.S.,and < WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,joined. ( WilliamL.Draper,_Cookeville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RobertChad_Blaylock_.  JohnT.Rice,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,LloydNash,_dba_ԀPeoplesStockyard.  B OPINION #PuXXq#XXPu `!  #PuXX #  XXPu(Xr XXX  ?+ ` hp x X? #(  X(XrH ##Pu (g #XXPu(Xr XXX  #XX X(Xr= #+XXXXOnSaturdaynight,March7,1998,RobertBlaylockwasdrivinghisChevrolet_Camaro_Ԁ#+PuX+X #+XX+Puin 2#" _Cookeville_,Tennesseewhen,around9:00p.m.,hiscarcollidedwithacowthatwasinthemiddle $n# oftheroad.TheaccidentoccurredwhileMr.BlaylockwasonJeffersonAvenueinfrontofa  %Z $ stockyardbusinessknownasthePeoplesStockyardwhich,Mr.Blaylockalleged,isownedand %F!% operatedbyLloydNash.Mr._Blaylock_Ԁ( Plaintiff)broughtthisactionagainstMr.Nash,d/b/a &2"& PeoplesStockyard,( Defendant)chargingthatDefendantbreachedhisdutytokeepandmaintain '#' controloverthisparticularcowand,specifically,tokeepthecowoffthepublicroads. ( $(   DefendantfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentattachingaStatementofUndisputedFacts *%* byDefendantinwhichitisassertedthatneitherMr.NashnorPeoplesStockyardownedthewhite ~+&+ cowthatPlaintiffscarhit,thatneitherhadpriorknowledgeofthepropensityoftheanimal,that j,', Plaintiffwascompensatedbyhisinsurancecarrierforthepropertydamage,thatPlaintiffdidnot V-(- havehisvehiclerepaired,andthatPlaintiffsubsequentlytradedinhisvehicleonaneweroneand  receivedthesamevalueonatrade-inashehadreceivedfromtheinsurancecarrierfordamages.    Theevidenceintherecordconsistsofthedepositionsoftheparties,Mr.NashandMr. t _Blaylock_,aswellasthreeaffidavitspresentedbyPlaintiffinhismemorandumopposingsummary ` judgment.Inthefirstoftheseaffidavits,awitnesstotheaccident,JimShake,assertedthatatthe L  timeoftheaccident,hewasdrivingonJeffersonAvenueandhesawthecowcomingfromthe 8  directionofthestockbarn.Hesaidthatafterthecowwashit,amanwithaBob-Catmachinecame $ t fromthestockbarn,pickedupthecow,tookitbacktothestockbarnandputitinapenthere.  `   TheaffidavitsofBarbaraThomasandKennethClementwerealsoattachedtoPlaintiffs  8  memorandumopposingsummaryjudgment.AccordingtoMs.Thomas,anownerofanoilandlube $  businessacrossthestreetfromPeoplesStockyard,awhitecowhadcrossedJeffersonaround3:00   p.m.onthedayoftheaccident.Ms.Thomascalledthepolice,andOfficerKennethClementstated   inhisaffidavitthathesearchedtheareabutfoundnoevidenceofthecowaround3:00p.m.   However,atapproximately6:00p.m.,OfficerClementfirstspottedawhitecowbyitselfinfrontof   thesalebarn.Heandanotherofficerattemptedtodrivethecowintothesalebarn.OfficerClement p saidthat,atabout6:30p.m.,hecalledsomeonethathethoughtwasconnectedwiththestockyard \ andwastoldthatthecowwouldbetakencareof.Thenexttimehesawthecowwasonthatsame H nightafterPlaintiffhadhitit. 4   OfficerClementconfirmedthatamanbroughtafront-endloaderacrossJeffersonfromthe  \ salebarnandtookthecowthereandplaceditinapen.Plaintiffalsoconfirmedthisstory.Inhis H deposition,Plaintifftestifiedasfollowsregardingthedisposalofthecow: 4  X X?+ ` hp x X?...AllIknowistheywerehavingahardtime...untilsomebodygotanideatogo   overtothestockyard,andtheygotabulldozer,atractorovertherewithascoopon  theendofit.   ` AndtheybroughtitfromthestockyardovertotheClass-AOil&Lubeand  scoopedthecowupinthescoopandjusttookitoverthere,andasfarasIm l concerned!Iwastolditwasdumpedoverthereinastallanditwaslatershot. X  ThatswhatIwastold. D!  X XE+ ` hp x X E% ) %)*#+PuX+XF #+XX+Pu  Whileinhisanswer,Defendantassertedthat heisnottheonlyowner,northeonlyoperator #l! ofPeoplesStockyard,Defendantstated#+PuX+Xk#+XX+Puinhisdeposition#+PuX+Xc #+XX+PuԀthathehadnoownershipinthestockyard $X" butthathewasonlyamanagerofthesaleoflivestock.Helaterexplainedthathehadnoownership $D # inthelandbutthathediddrawacommissionfromthesaleofthecattle.Hesaidthatitwashisjob %0!$ tospecifythebottompriceforthecattle.Defendantstatedthat#+PuX+X #+XX+Puhehadbeeninthispositionforonly &"% twelveyears#+PuX+Xp"#+XX+PuԀ#+PuX+X"#+XX+Puthoughthestockyardhadbeenoperatingsince1947#+PuX+X;##+XX+Pu. '#& #+PuX+X##+XX+Pu  Defendantstatedthatinadditiontomanagingthestockyardsales,heisanagentforapacking )$( companyforwhomhebuysstockattheweeklystockyardsales.Defendanttestifiedthatthereisa |*%) buildingthirtyyardsfromthestockyardwhichheusestostorethecattlethathebuysatthestockyard h+&* salesforhisclientsbeforethoseclientscometoretrievethecattle.Thisbuildingcanhouseupto  300cattle.  #+PuX+X $#+XX+Pu  Defendanttestifiedthat,fortheweeklysale,thestockarebroughttothestockyardon t TuesdaymorningsandthentheyaresoldeveryTuesdayafternoon.Hestatedthatheleaveson ` Wednesdaymorningbywhichtimetherearenocattleleft.Defendantthenstatedthatifthereare L  anycattleatthestockyardpastWednesday,theyarehisandnotthestockyards. 8   X X?+ ` hp x X?A.If[animalswere]thereonFriday,theywouldnotbethestockyards.  ` Q.Whosewouldtheybe?  L  A.TheywouldbeLloydNashs,ifthey[were]thereonFriday.  8  Q.IftheywerethereanydaypastWednesday,theywouldbelongtoyou.Isthat $  whatyouresaying?   A.Unlesswehadafeedersale.    X XE+ ` hp x X EDefendantwentontosaythatthestockyardhadonlyfiveorsixfeedersalesperyearandthatthere   hadbeenonethefirstFridayinMarchbutthatthosefeedercattleshouldhavebeengonethe p followingSaturdaybynoon. \   Defendantsaidthat,#+PuX+X[&#+XX+Puontheafternoonbeforetheaccidentoccurred,#+PuX+X,#+XX+PuԀhehadgottenacallfrom 4 awomanwhoworkedattheoilandlubeshopnotifyinghimaboutaloosecow.Hecalledthenight  p watchmanatthestockyardwholaterinformedDefendantthatsomeonenotconnectedwiththe  \ stockyardhadloadedthecowonatruckandtakenitaway.#+PuX+X,#+XX+PuDefendantstatedthatifthecowhad H beenhis,hewouldhavegladlytakencareofitsincehehadinsurancetocoverthistypeofthing. 4 However,hehadnothingtodowiththecowgettingtotheroadorbeingpickedup.Neitherhenor   thenightwatchmanondutyhadanyideawhopickeduptheinjuredcow.Hestatedthattherewere   someCharolaisheifers,thetypeofcowthatwasidentifiedtohavecausedtheaccident,whichwere  fencedwithinonefourthofamilefromthestockbarn.#+PuX+X.#+XX+PuԀ    Regardingtheownershipofthecow,Defendantmadethefollowingstatementinhis l deposition: X   X X?+ ` hp x X?Ididnthaveanyanimalsout.AndIwouldnthavehad[any]animalslikethatina 0"  barn.Itssomebodyelsesbesidesmine.ThatswhatItoldthemallthetime.I #l! mean,youknow,therescattleallaroundthatstockbarn.Whatkeepsonefrom $X" crawlingoutofafence?It[isnt]LloydNashswhenitcrawlsoutofafence. $D # #+PuX+X0#+XX+Pu X XE+ ` hp x X EDefendantstatedthatallthestockyardanimalsaretaggedforidentificationpurposesandthatifany &"% cowwasmissing,hewouldhaverealizeditwhenitsbuyertriedtopickuphisload.Defendant '#& agreedthatthestockyardisresponsibleforthestockwhileitisintheprocessofbeingsold. (#' #+PuX+X3#+XX+Pu  Defendantremembereda1998incidentwhenabullescapedfromthestockyardsshipping |*%) barn.Hecalledthepolice,andthebullwasshotwithintenminutes.Otherthanthis,Defendant h+&* couldnotrecallanyotherincidentswhereanimalshadescaped.Defendanttestifiedthat,atthemost,  oneortwoanimalsescapedayear.    Inthiscase,thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantfindingthattherewas t nogenuineissueofmaterialfact.#+PuX+X5#+XX+PuԀSummaryjudgmentisappropriatewhentwoprerequisitesaremet: ` first,theremustbenogenuineissueastoanyfactnecessarytoresolvethesubstantiveclaimor L  defenseembodiedinthesummaryjudgmentmotion,Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn. 8  1993),andsecond,themovingpartymustbeentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Mansfield $ t v.ColonialFreight_Sys_.,862S.W.2d527,530(Tenn.Ct.App.1993);seeTennR.Civ.P.56.03.  `   Thelegalprincipleswhichguideanappellatecourtsreviewofatrialcourtsgrantofa  8  motionforsummaryjudgmentarewellsettled.Becausethetrialcourtsdecisioninvolvesonlya $  questionoflaw,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessattachedtothisdecision._Hembree_Ԁv.State,   925S.W.2d513,515(Tenn.1996).Theappellatecourtmustreviewtherecordanewtodetermine   whethertherequirementsofTennesseeCivilProcedureRule56havebeenmet._Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,   900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Insodoing,acourtviewstheevidenceinthelightmostfavorable   tothenonmovingparty,allowsallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardsall p countervailingevidence.Id.(citingByrd,847S.W.2dat210-11).Summaryjudgmentshouldbe \ grantedifthefactsandconclusionspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.McCall H v.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,152(Tenn.1995).Weturntotherelevantlawandfactsintheinstant 4 casetodetermineifonlyoneconclusioncanbereached.  p   ItiswellrecognizedinTennesseethattheownerofescapinganimalsisnotabsolutely H liablefordamagestoanotherspropertybutisonlyliablewhereheknowinglyornegligentlypermits 4 theirescapeorfailstorecapture.Wayv._Bohannon_,688S.W.2d89,91(Tenn.Ct.App.1985)   (citingTroutv._Branham_,660S.W.2d502,505(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)(citing_Overbey_Ԁv._Poteat_,206   Tenn.146,332S.W.2d197(1960))).SeeTenn.CodeAnn.448401(a)(1993)(providingthat   [_i]t_Ԁisunlawfulfortheownersofanylivestock,asthesamearecommonlyknownanddefined,to  willfullyallowthesametorunatlargeinthisstate).Inthiscase,Plaintiffdoesnotassertnoris  thereanyevidencethatDefendant,Mr.Nash,knowinglypermittedthiscowtoescape.Thus, l PlaintiffmustshowthatDefendantisnegligent. Tosucceedwithanegligenceclaim,theplaintiff X  mustestablish:(1)adutyowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff,(2)conductbythedefendantfalling D! belowtheapplicablestandardofcare,(3)aninjuryorlossresultingfromthedefendantsbreachof 0"  thatduty,(4)causationinfact,and(5)legalcause.Dillardv.VanderbiltUniv.,970S.W.2d958, #l! 960(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(citingHaynesv.HamiltonCounty,883S.W.2d606,611(Tenn.1994)). $X"   Initially,wemustaddressthequestionofwhetherPlaintiffhaspresentedsufficientevidence %0!$ togethisclaimpastthesummaryjudgmentstageontheelementofduty.Asthecourtnotedina &"% negligencesuitbroughtbyaplaintiffwhowasinjuredbyanescapedcow, theownerofadomestic '#& animalisboundtoexercisesuchreasonablecaretopreventitfrominjuringanotherasanordinarily (#' carefulandprudentpersonwouldexerciseunderthesamecircumstances._Groce_ԀProvisionCo.v. )$( _Dortch_,49Tenn.App.57,67,350S.W.2d409,413(1961).Inthiscase,Defendantsdutydepends |*%) on,first,hispositionatPeoplesStockyard,specificallywhetherhehadownershiporcontrolofits h+&* cowsand,second,theoriginoftheparticularcowwhichcausedthisaccident.Ifthiscowisneither  theDefendantsnorthestockyards,asDefendantmaintains,thenDefendantowednodutyto  Plaintifftokeepthiscowofftheroad.Furthermore,evenifthecowwasunderthecontrolofthe  stockyardbutDefendanthadnoownershipinthestockyard,thenDefendantisnottheonewhoowed t theduty.ViewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletoPlaintiff,allowingallreasonable ` inferencesinfavorofPlaintiff,anddiscardingallcountervailingevidence,wefindthattheproof L  showsthatmaterialfactsregardingDefendantsdutyareindispute. 8    WeanalyzefirsttheissueofDefendantspositionatthestockyard.InDefendants  ` deposition,heclaimedthathehadnoownershipinthestockyard.However,heinitiallystatedinhis  L  answerthathewasnotthe onlyownerofthestockyard.Healsolaterstatedindepositionthathe  8  hadnoownershipinthelandbutthathediddrawacommissionfromthesaleofthelivestock.It $  isunclearfromDefendantstestimonyhowthestockyardbusinesswasstructuredorwhatwas   Defendantsofficialresponsibilityatthestockyard.Furthermore,itiscertainfromDefendants   testimonythat,duetohisbusinessofbuyingcattleforapackingcompany,hewasresponsiblefor   abuildinglocatedthirtyyardsfromthestockyardwhichwaspotentiallyfullof300cows.Defendant   statedthatifanyanimalswerethereonFriday,theywouldbehisandnotthestockyards.Therefore, p wecannotconcludeatthissummarystagethatDefendantspositionwassuchthathedidnotowe \ adutyofreasonablecarewithregardtocowseitherfromthestockyardorfromthebarnlocated H thirtyyardsfromthestockyard. 4   Theothercomponentofdutyinthiscaseinvolvesthequestionofwhethertherewasproof  \ toshowthatthiscowcamefromthestockyardorfromthebuildingthatDefendantusedtoholdthe H cowshepurchasedinhispositionasanagentforapackingcompany.Thereisnoevidencethatthis 4 cowwastagged,andDefendantclaimedthatthecowwasnothisownnorwasitotherwise   connectedwiththestockyard.However,viewingthisevidenceinalightmostfavorabletoPlaintiff,   thereissomecircumstantialevidencethatthecowwasconnectedwiththestockyard.BothJim  ShakeandOfficerKennethClement,alongwithPlaintiff,assertedthat,aftertheaccident,someone  fromthestockyardretrievedthecowandplaceditinapenatthestockyard.Earlieronthedayof  theaccident,OfficerClementhadseenthecowinfrontofthesalebarnatthestockyard.Later, l OfficerClementtelephonedsomeonethathethoughtwasconnectedwiththestockyard,andhewas X  toldthatthecowwouldbetakencareof. D!   Theevidencedoesnotmandateaconclusionthatthecowwasnotownedorcontrolledby #l! Defendant.Reasonablemindscoulddifferandsummaryjudgmentisnotappropriate.Thus,weturn $X" toananalysisofthesecondelementofnegligence:breachofduty.WefindthatPlaintiffhasfailed $D # topresentanyevidenceofconductbyDefendantfallingbelowtheapplicablestandardofcareor, %0!$ inotherwords,conductwhichconstitutesabreachofDefendantsduty.Therefore,weare &"% compelledtoupholdthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantonthisbasis. '#&   InWayv._Bohannon_,asinthiscase,alawsuitarosefromacollisionbetweenacowandan )$( automobiledrivenbytheplaintiff.688S.W.2d89(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Theplaintiffarguedthat |*%) thedefendantfarmownerwasnegligentfornotproperlytendingtohislivestockbyallowingthem h+&* torunatlargeonthepublichighwayinviolationofbothTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection  44-8-401andthecommonlaw.Id.at90.Thecourtbeganbyreviewingthestandardfornegligence  inthesetypesofcasesassummarizedbyMoonv.Johnston,47_Tenn.App_.208,337S.W.2d464  (1959): t 8   ` ItseemstobetheruleinthisStatethatwheretheownerofanimals ` negligentlyallowsthemtorunatlarge,heisliablefortheirresultingdamages.But L  heisnotliableifwithouthisfaulttheanimalshaveescapedfromapastureenclosed 8  byalawfulfenceorbyanordinaryfencesuchasisgenerallyrequiredtorestrainthat $ t kindofstock. `    X X?+ ` hp x X?....  L   ` Moreover,negligenceisneverpresumedfromanaccidentalone,butmustbe  8  provedbyeitherdirectorcircumstantialevidence,orboth.Norisajurypermitted $  tospeculateorguessastotheproximatecauseofinjury,buttheremustbeevidence   ofamaterialandsubstantialnaturefromwhichnegligencecanbedetermined.   Furthermore,underthe scintillaruleasappliedinourpractice,acasedoesnothave   tobesubmittedtoajurywherethereisameresparkorglimmerofevidence.    ` Theruleisalsowellsettledthatwherethereisnoevidenceofactionable p negligence,orwherealltheelementsnecessarytomakeoutaprimafaciecaseof \ actionablenegligencearelacking,itbecomesaquestionoflawforthecourtandnot H anissueoffactforthejury. 4  X XE+ ` hp x X EWay,688S.W.2dat90(citingMoon,337S.W.2dat469(citationsomitted)).  \   ThecourtinWayconcludedthattherewas noevidenceintherecordin[that]casetoshow Z thatdefendantsfencewasnotlawful...or...ordinarysuchasisgenerallyrequiredtorestrain[that] F kindofstock.Furthermore,plaintiffdidnotevenmakesuchanassertion.Way,688S.W.2dat 2 90.Finally,thecourtassertedthattheplaintiffhad producednoproofthatdefendanteither n knowinglyornegligentlypermittedhiscattletoescapefromthepasture.Plaintifffailedtoproduce  Z evenasparkorglimmerofproof,muchlessthematerialandsubstantialevidencefromwhich F negligencecanbedetermined.Id.at91. 2   Likewise,inthecaseatbar,assumingthatPlaintiffmethisburdenofproofwithregardto !   Defendantsownershiporcontroloverthisparticularcow,Plaintiffpresentednoevidencethat "! Defendantsenclosureofthiscowwasnotlawfulorordinarilysuchasisgenerallyrequiredto #" restraincattle.Seeid.at90.Indeed,therecordsonlyreferencetothisenclosurewasfrom ~$# DefendantsdepositiontestimonywhereDefendantstatedthathehadabuildingwherehekeptcows j% $ thirtyyardsfromthestockyard.Therewasnoindicationintherecordthatanyenclosurewas V&!% inadequateinanyway.Toreiterate, negligenceisneverpresumedfromanaccidentalonebutmust B'"& beprovedbyeitherdirectorcircumstantialevidence,orboth.Moon,337S.W.2dat469;_Troutt_ .(~#' v._Branham_,660S.W.2d502,506(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Inthiscase,thereisneitherdirectnor )j$( circumstantialevidenceofabreachofdutyonthepartofDefendant,Mr.Nash.Ashasbeenstated *V%) inacaseinvolvingahighwaycollisionbetweenacarandahorse, [one]isnotliable,ifwithouthis *B&* fault,theanimalshaveescaped...[_T]he_Ԁdoctrineofresipsaloquiturdoesnotapplytoactionsof +.'+ thisnature.Rodgersv.Webb,335F.Supp.584,585(E.D.Tenn.1971).Thus,weholdthatthe  trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentmustbeaffirmedbecausePlaintiffhaspresentedno  evidencefromwhichareasonablejurycouldfindthatDefendantbreachedhisdutytoPlaintiff.    ?+ ` hp x X?Finally,DefendantassertsthatweshoulddeclarePlaintiffsappealfrivolousandaward ` DefendantdamagespursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection27-1-122(1980),whichprovides L  asfollows: 8   X X?+ ` hp x X?Whenitappearstoanyreviewingcourtthattheappealfromanycourtofrecordwas  ` frivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thecourtmay,eitheruponmotionofapartyorof  L  itsownmotion,awardjustdamagesagainsttheappellant,whichmayincludebut  8  neednotbelimitedto,costs,interestonthejudgment,andexpensesincurredbythe $  appelleeasaresultoftheappeal.    X XE+ ` hp x X E Afrivolousappealisonethatisdevoidofmerit,CombustionEngineering,Inc.v.Kennedy,562   S.W.2d202(Tenn.1978),oroneinwhichthereislittleprospectthatitcaneversucceed.Industrial   Dev.Bd.of_Tullahoma_Ԁv.Hancock,901S.W.2d382,385(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)(citingBlacksLaw p Dictionary601(5thed.1979)).Intheinstantcase,theargumentinthetrialcourtfocusedonthe \ existenceofadutyowedbyDefendanttoPlaintiff,specificallyarisingfromDefendantsownership H orcontrolofthecow.Aswehavediscussedabove,theabsenceofsuchdutywasnotsoevidentthat 4 wecansaythatanappealofthetrialjudgesfindingontheissuewasfrivolous.  p   WefindthatDefendantisentitledtosummaryjudgmentbecausethereisnogenuineissue H ofmaterialfactwithregardtoDefendantsbreachofduty.Plaintiffhaspresentednoevidencethat 4 Defendantsconductrespectingtheenclosureofthiscowfellbelowthestandardofcare.Whilewe   findthatthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentshouldbeupheldontheissueofbreachofduty,   wedonotfindthisappealtobewhollydevoidofmerit.Accordingly,wedeclinetoaward  Defendantdamagesforafrivolousappeal.CostsaretaxedtoPlaintiff/Appellant.#+PuX+X.8#+XX+Pu#XXX+X #     `     h   __________________________________________ D!    `     h   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE0 x