ÿWPCÀ )™€!:ÜÖ²^KwÝ‹×öß8ÅÂØÿ܆ •B—§‹LÀå9X3îË®It ÿ’Oºš–I—?¬Ýt çÅë{Ã=r¿ñoO€TóÐþŒ¹ov?ø-¾Œ’/áRŠ:jX˜z'g¨ïØM7í}Â%À–Ò«8¶°Ä®…&ccñ€&J‘ø³º…}—9 o8ksïIÄ}zV ì©Åwž%ãפÌwý¶n·¾H; ÿùÆì J±ôµR:r:ÃûÜeè 1é' XzÖW;ŒÑŠ;ˆÑÅœþ¨>ÿåÏL0“p}e ŽÛ ¢ôR„”Ï”_PRl°k&½»vR¿àûûù{˜Êµ8ÜǪ¸ÑÜÝéž?Û°IЉEe­¬ëþ9Šˆ‘ƒz"¬Rï}à_ªZqY-5aê:RaR”tpŽ<ǃ(<\µK;J®a|øã´öœµÁRÒù;&na6/¿¹u!ZB”Qs`ã/ô¿‡0æP¨-õ¯*Vd‰Ôî”*äµÚi jK q¬^«5‡±sÈæÿ|÷ÉÍp%rŠþ¦<‘ ÷a •zyŠì䂾ÓÇ“ñ¹æÐ¶Okb”¿}#%v.›Ëmd ]ôG{µé¨Ž]/r3~æb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ë{D+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+¡ ¡ø¡ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Ü‚$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà-ò»»Ô d(|3‰K$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰K$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼F»»»ÔÑ8€‰XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îCFÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼F»îîC #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€7,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X‰X»¼FÔÌò òÔ#†¼F»XX‰ñ#ÔSUSAN€R.€GODFREY,€òòet€al.óó€v.€JESUS€RUIZ,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X‰X»¼FÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97C„503€€€€€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00101„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€4,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌò òó óÔ#†¼F»XX‰q#ÔòòóóÓ  ÓÔ€X‰X»¼FÔWòòILLIAMóó€B.€CòòAINóó,€J.,€dissenting.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àI€respectfully€dissent.Ð P  ÐÌà  àI€do€not€believe€that€the€òòprima€facieóó€evidence€created€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ (x Ð55„10„311€can€be€overcome€as€a€matter€of€law€solely€by€the€affidavits€and€testimony€of€owners€ofÐ d Ða€vehicle€who€have€a€vital€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€case.Ð P ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„311(a)€(1998)€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð Ø( ÐÌà8  àIn€all€actions€for€injury€to€persons€and/or€to€property€caused€by€the€negligentÐ ° Ðoperation€or€use€of€any€automobile,€auto€truck,€motorcycle,€or€other€motor€propelledÐ œì Ðvehicle€within€this€state,€proof€of€ownership€of€such€vehicle€shall€be€prima€facieÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€that€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€cause€of€action€sued€on€was€beingÐ tÄ Ðoperated€and€used€with€authority,€consent€and€knowledge€of€the€owner€in€the€veryÐ `° Ðtransaction€out€of€which€the€injury€or€cause€of€action€arose,€and€such€proof€ofÐ L œ Ðownership€likewise€shall€be€prima€facie€evidence€that€the€vehicle€was€then€and€thereÐ 8!ˆ  Ðbeing€operated€by€the€owner,€or€by€the€ownerððs€servant,€for€the€ownerððs€use€andÐ $"t! Ðbenefit€and€within€the€course€and€scope€of€the€servantððs€employment.Ð#`"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€Godfrey€rely€upon€section€55„10„311,€and€such€reliance€establishes€prima€facieÐ è$8 $ Ðevidence€of€an€agency€relationship.€€The€only€evidence€offered€by€Defendants€Ruiz,€who€were€theÐ Ô%$!% Ðowners€of€the€vehicle€in€issue,€are€the€depositions€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€under€oath€and€theirÐ À&"& Ðaffidavits€in€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Their€evidence€asserts€not€only€that€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðdriver,€Mr.€Corpus,€had€no€permission€from€them€to€drive€their€van€but,€further,€that€he€took€the€keyÐ ˜(è#( Ðfrom€a€drawer€in€their€home€and€drove€it€at€the€time€of€the€accident€without€their€knowledge.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àHeavy€reliance€by€the€majority€on€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòFerguson€v.€Ô_ÔTomerlinÔ_Ôóó,€656€S.W.2dÐ \+¬&+ Ð378€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)€is€misplaced.€€The€Court€therein€failed€to€make€the€vital€distinctionÐ H,˜', Ðbetween€the€unrebutted€and€unimpeached€testimony€of€a€disinterested€witness€and€the€unrebutted€andÐ 4-„(-ý Ðunimpeached€testimony€of€a€witness€having€an€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€In€òòFergusonóó,€thisÐ ° ÐCourt€reversed€a€judgment€for€the€plaintiff€where€the€testimony€of€the€owner€of€the€vehicle,€RobertÐ œì ÐD.€Tomerlin,€was€unrebutted€and€unimpeached.€€He€testified€that€he€provided€the€automobile€for€hisÐ ˆØ Ðdaughter€and€specifically€forbade€her€to€allow€anyone€else€to€drive€it.€€She€then€allowed€Mr.€LunaÐ tÄ Ðto€drive€the€vehicle,€and€an€ensuing€accident€injured€Mr.€Ferguson.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€òòFerguson€óócourt€relied€heavily€on€òòPhillips„Buttorff€Manufacturing€Co.€v.€McAlexanderóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð15€Tenn.€App.€618€(1932),€wherein€that€court€held:€ð ðà8 @2 àTestimony€may€not€be€disregarded€arbitrarilyÐ $ t Ðor€capriciously;€and€the€testimony€of€a€witness€who€is€not€discredited€in€any€of€the€modes€recognizedÐ  ` Ðby€law,€must€be€accepted€as€true.ðð€€òòPhillips„Ô_ÔButtorffÔ_Ôóó,€15€Tenn.€App.€at€627.Ð ü L  ÐReference,€however,€to€òòPhillips„Ô_ÔButtorffÔ_Ô€óódiscloses€that€this€statement€was€made€in€an€appeal€from€Ð è 8  Ðthe€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€in€a€jury€trial€involving€an€agreement€madeÐ Ô$  Ðbetween€the€corporation€and€the€driver€at€the€time€the€vehicle€was€purchased.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIt€must€be€conceded€that€òòFerguson€óódid€not€recognize€the€distinction€between€the€testimonyÐ ˜è  Ðof€interested€witnesses€as€opposed€to€the€testimony€of€disinterested€witnesses€since€the€court€held:€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àWe€believe€that€is€precisely€what€occurred€here.€€Plaintiff€stood€on€the€presumptionÐ \¬ Ðonly€to€have€it€be€effectively€rebutted€by€the€uncontradicted,€unimpeached€andÐ H˜ ÐÔ_ÔunrefutedÔ_Ô€proof€of€lack€of€agency€contained€in€the€interrogatory€answers€of€Mr.Ð 4„ ÐTomerlin,€a€witness€whose€credibility€was€not€put€in€issue€by€the€plaintiff€at€theÐ  p Ðsummary€judgment€stage.€€Under€these€circumstances€we€think€it€clear€that€theÐ  \ Ðpresumption€was€displaced€and,€agency€not€being€otherwise€shown,€defendant€wasÐ øH Ðentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.C.P.€56.€€Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌòòFergusonóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€382.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€distinction€is€made€clear€in€the€scholarly€discussion€by€Judge€Sam€Felts€appearing€inÐ ”ä ÐòòPoole€v.€First€National€Bank€of€Smyrnaóó,€196€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1946).€€Said€the€court:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€credibility€of€witnesses€is€peculiarly€a€question€for€the€jury,€and€inÐ X ¨ Ðdetermining€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€the€judge€has€no€right€to€determine€theÐ D!” Ðquestion€of€the€credibility€of€any€witness.€€òòNashville,€etc.,€Railway€Co.€v.€Normanóó,Ð 0"€  Ð108€Tenn.€324,€67€S.W.€479;€òòKinney€v.€Yazoo€&€M.€V.€Railroad€Co.óó,€116€Tenn.€450,Ð #l! Ð92€S.W.€1116;€òòAnderson€v.€Striblingóó,€15€Tenn.€App.€267,€279;€òòÔ_ÔPatilloÔ_Ô€v.€Gambill€etÐ $X" Ðux.óó,€22€Tenn.€App.€485,€493,€124€S.W.2d€272.€€The€Constitution€(Art.€6,€sec.€9)Ð ô$D # Ðforbids€judges€to€charge€juries€ð ðwith€respect€to€matters€of€fact,ðð€which€include,Ð à%0!$ Ðamong€other€things,€the€question€of€the€credibility€of€a€witness.€€òòBrenizer€v.€NashvilleÐ Ì&"% ÐC.€&€St.€L.€Ry.,€supra;€Haskins€v.€Howard,óó€159€Tenn.€86,€97,€16€S.W.2d€20.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBy€way€of€exception€to€this€general€rule,€it€is€declared€in€a€number€of€casesÐ )à$( Ðthat€a€jury€will€not€be€permitted€to€disregard€testimony€arbitrarily€or€capriciously,€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðordinarily€the€testimony€of€a€witness€who€is€not€contradicted,€impeached,€orÐ h+¸&* Ðdiscredited€must€be€accepted€as€true,€and€that€the€judge€may€take€such€testimony€asÐ ° Ðtrue€in€determining€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€òòFrank€v.€Wrightóó,€140€Tenn.€535,€Ð œì Ð205€S.W.€434;€òòGouldener€v.€Brittainóó,€173€Tenn.€32,€114€S.W.2d€783;€òòBryan€v.€AetnaÐ ˆØ ÐLife€Ins.€Co.óó,€25€Tenn.€App.€496,€505,€160€S.W.2d€423,€429,€and€cases€there€cited.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€principle€upon€which€such€cases€must€rest€is€that€it€is€the€office€of€theÐ L œ Ðjudge€to€keep€the€trial€both€of€law€and€fact€a€rational€process,€to€see€that€the€juryððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðverdict€shall€be€not€only€ð ðconformable€to€legal€rulesðð€but€also€ð ðdefensible€in€point€ofÐ $ t Ðsense,€not€absurd€or€whimsical.ðð€€But€this€is€a€far€different€thing€from€imposing€onÐ  ` Ðthe€jury€the€judgeððs€own€private€standard€of€what€is€reasonable.€€The€standard€ofÐ ü L  Ðreasonableness€must€be€not€that€of€any€individual€but€that€of€all€reasonable€men,€i.e.,Ð è 8  Ðthe€ideal€reasonable€man.€€òòThayerððs€Preliminary€Treatise€on€Evidenceóó,€pp.€183„207,Ð Ô$  Ð208,€209„262.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€think€none€of€this€line€of€cases€is€authority€for€directing€a€verdict€forÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiff€upon€the€testimony€of€himself€or€other€witnesses€interested€in€the€result,€orÐ „Ô  Ðfor€holding€that€the€jury€is€bound€as€a€matter€of€law€to€believe€the€testimony€of€suchÐ pÀ Ðan€interested€witness,€merely€because€he€is€not€contradicted,€impeached,€orÐ \¬ Ðdiscredited.€€Would€all€reasonable€men€agree€that€such€testimony€must€be€believedÐ H˜ Ðand€taken€to€be€true€as€a€matter€of€law?€€We€think€not.€€It€has€not€been€so€long€sinceÐ 4„ Ðthe€common€law€disqualified€all€parties€and€all€other€interested€persons€from€beingÐ  p Ðwitnesses.€€The€reason€was€that€they€were€conclusively€presumed€to€be€unworthy€ofÐ  \ Ðbelief€ð!ð€ð ðcan€never€induce€any€rational€belief.ðð€€òòGilbert€on€Evidence€óó(Loffts€Ed.)€223.€Ð øH Ðð ðThe€law€will€not€receive€the€evidence€of€any€person,€even€under€the€sanction€of€anÐ ä4 Ðoath,€who€has€an€interest€in€giving€the€proposed€evidence,€and€consequently€whoseÐ Ð  Ðinterest€conflicts€with€his€duty.€€This€rule€of€exclusion,€considered€in€its€principle,Ð ¼  Ðrequires€little€explanation.€€It€is€founded€on€the€known€infirmities€of€human€nature,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€is€too€weak€to€be€generally€restrained€by€religious€or€moral€obligations,€whenÐ ”ä Ðtempted€and€solicited€in€a€contrary€direction€by€temporal€interest.ðð€€òòStarkie€onÐ €Ð ÐEvidenceóó,€83,€6€Am.Ed.€(1837)€18.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€principal€argument€for€abolishing€this€disqualification€was€that€oneððsÐ D!” Ðinterest€should€go€merely€to€his€credit€but€not€to€his€absolute€exclusion€as€a€witness;Ð 0"€  Ði.€e.,€the€matter€should€be€taken€out€of€the€hands€of€the€judge€to€be€dealt€with€as€lawÐ #l! Ðand€committed€to€the€jury€to€be€dealt€with€as€fact.€€It€was€upon€such€considerationsÐ $X" Ðthat€statutes€were€passed€in€England€and€in€all€of€the€United€States€abolishing€theÐ ô$D # Ðdisqualification,€our€statute,€Code,€ðð€9777,€being€passed€in€1867.€€It€abolished€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdisqualification€of€parties€and€interested€persons€as€witnesses,€with€certain€exceptionsÐ Ì&"% Ðincluding€the€one€which€was€continued€in€force€by€section€9780,€one€of€the€purposesÐ ¸'#& Ðof€which€was€to€protect€estates€of€decedents€by€preventing€the€living€from€testifyingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðagainst€the€dead.€€òòKurn€v.€Weaveróó,€25€Tenn.€App.€556,€580,€161€S.W.2d€1005,€1020,Ð )à$( Ðand€cases€there€cited.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` àAnd€since€the€general€abolishment€of€interest€disqualification€of€witnesses,Ð ° Ðit€has€generally€been€held€that€interest€alone€is€enough€to€make€a€witnessððs€credibilityÐ œì Ða€question€for€the€jury,€and€that€a€verdict€may€not€be€directed€upon€the€testimony€ofÐ ˆØ Ðan€interested€witness,€even€though€he€is€not€contradicted,€impeached,€or€discredited.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌòòPooleóó,€196€S.W.2d€at€568„69€(citations€updated).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àTwo€valid€reasons€exist€for€denying€summary€judgment€in€this€case.€€First€is€the€continuedÐ $ t Ðviability€of€the€distinctions€made€by€Judge€Felts€in€òòPoole.€€óóSecond€is€the€subsequent€limitationsÐ  ` Ðplaced€upon€òòFerguson€óóby€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€in€òòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óó,€708Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€1986)€and€òòWarren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkóó,€954€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1997).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòPrice€v.€Allstate€Ô_ÔInsuanceÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€the€issue€involved€was€real€estate€value€in€a€fire€insuranceÐ À  Ðloss.€€Said€this€Court:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà ` àNeither€the€court€nor€jury€is€bound€to€accept€opinion€testimony€as€a€matter€ofÐ „Ô  Ðlaw€as€the€market€value€of€real€estate€and€the€issue€of€value€is€for€the€trier€of€fact.€Ð pÀ ÐòòPoole€v.€First€Nat.€Bank€of€Smyrnaóó,€29€Tenn.€App.€327,€196€S.W.2d€563€(1946).€Ð \¬ ÐInterest€alone€is€enough€to€make€a€witnessððs€credibility€a€question€for€the€jury€and€aÐ H˜ Ðverdict€may€not€be€directed€upon€the€testimony€of€an€interested€witness€even€thoughÐ 4„ Ðhe€is€not€contradicted,€impeached€or€discredited.€€òòId.óó,€at€339,€196€S.W.2d€563.€Ð  p ÐAlthough€the€ownerððs€testimony€was€the€only€opinion€of€value€offered€in€evidence,Ð  \ Ðit€did€not€establish€conclusively€the€value€of€the€house€as€a€matter€of€law€and€the€trialÐ øH Ðjudge€improperly€directed€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€on€this€issue.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌòòPrice€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€614€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981);€òòsee€also€Cole€v.€Cliftonóó,€833Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€75,€77€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòJennings€v.€Caseóó,€10€S.W.3d€625,€633€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€continued€viability€of€òòFerguson€óóas€a€vehicle€for€summary€judgment€was€seriouslyÐ €Ð Ðundermined,€if€not€practically€overruled,€in€òòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óó€€There,€the€SupremeÐ l¼ ÐCourt,€in€pertinent€part€and€speaking€through€Justice€Ô_ÔHarbisonÔ_Ô,€observed:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àAs€stated€previously,€the€word€ð ðpresumptionðð€has€been€dropped€from€the€presentÐ 0"€  Ðversion€of€the€statute,€and€we€think€properly€so.€€Established€is€a€prima€facie€case€asÐ #l! Ðto€a€master„servant€relationship,€and€essentially€the€statute€has€the€effect€of€placingÐ $X" Ðthe€burden€of€proof€upon€the€owner€òòóóto€overcome€that€case€by€evidence.€€If€it€isÐ ô$D # Ðovercome€by€proof€so€strong€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ,€a€directed€verdictÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€the€owner€may€be€proper;€otherwise€the€issue€is€to€be€resolved€by€the€jury.€€òòSeeÐ Ì&"% ÐSadler€v.€Draperóó,€46€Tenn.€App.€1,€20,€326€S.W.2d€148€(1959).и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBecause€the€statute€itself€creates€initially€a€sufficient€case€of€master„servantÐ )à$( Ðstatus€upon€proof€of€ownership,€a€serious€question€is€presented€as€to€whether€or€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðthis€prima€facie€case€can€be€overcome€pre„trial€by€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð h+¸&* ÐWe€are€aware€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€held€that€it€may€be€so€overcome€in€theÐ ° Ðrecent€case€of€òòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóó,€656€S.W.2d€378€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€There€theÐ œì ÐCourt€of€Appeals€found€that€there€was€no€evidence€at€the€summary€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðproceeding€to€impeach€the€credibility€of€any€of€the€witnesses€and€that€the€proofÐ tÄ Ðestablished€beyond€dispute€that€no€master„servant€relationship€existed€at€the€time€ofÐ `° Ðthe€accident.€€The€Court€said:ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðIn€the€final€analysis,€in€order€to€hold€it€proper€to€allow€this€matter€toÐ $ t Ðproceed€to€trial,€given€the€state€of€the€record€when€disposal€was€hadÐ  ` Ðof€the€summary€judgment€motion,€we€would€be€constrained€to€ruleÐ ü L  Ðthat€summary€judgment€would€never€be€appropriate€in€a€caseÐ è 8  Ðinvolving€this€statutory€presumption.€€Finding€neither€logic€norÐ Ô$  Ðauthority€for€this€proposition,€we€are€unwilling€to€do€so.ðð€€656Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€at€383.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà ` àThat€case€did€not€involve€a€prospective€purchaser€but€only€a€private€bailment.€Ð „Ô  ÐAlthough€this€Court€denied€review€in€that€case,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€ordinarilyÐ pÀ Ðthe€prima€facie€case€established€from€proof€of€ownership€is€sufficient€to€overcomeÐ \¬ Ða€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€well€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€at€trial€at€theÐ H˜ Ðend€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof.€€The€statute€and€the€rules€developed€thereunder€actuallyÐ 4„ Ðpertain€to€a€trial,€not€to€a€pre„trial€disposition€of€a€case.€There€is€ample€authority€thatÐ  p Ðthe€trial€court€may€direct€a€verdict€at€the€end€of€all€of€the€evidence€where€theÐ  \ Ðrebutting€proof€is€so€clear€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€and€there€is€noÐ øH Ðquestion€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€òòSee€e.g.€Ford€v.€Reeder€Chevrolet€CompanyÐ ä4 Ðóó663€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€€€€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€do€not€find€it€necessary€expressly€to€overrule€òòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóó,€656Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€378€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€because€there€are€many€types€of€cases€that€ariseÐ l¼ Ðunder€the€statutes€involved€here.€€There€may€be€some€instances€where€summaryÐ X ¨ Ðdisposition€could€be€warranted.€€However,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€summaryÐ D!” Ðjudgment€is€not€ordinarily€the€proper€procedure€for€determining€whether€a€primaÐ 0"€  Ðfacie€case€has€or€has€not€been€overcome€by€countervailing€evidence.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôóó,€708€S.W.2d€at€387„88,€389.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€to€note€that€in€òòFord€v.€Reeder€Chevrolet€Companyóó,€663€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ì&"% Ð1983),€the€evidence€countervailing€the€òòprima€facieóó€case€made€by€the€statute,€and€upon€which€thisÐ ¸'#& ÐCourt€affirmed€a€directed€verdict€for€the€defendant€owner,€came€from€third€parties€having€no€interestÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€outcome€of€the€case.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€òòSartor€v.€Arkansas€Natural€Gas€Corp.óó,€321€U.S.€620€(1944),€the€United€States€SupremeÐ ° Ðâ âCourt,€in€reversing€a€summary€judgment,€held:€ð ð[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€mere€fact€that€the€witness€is€interested€in€theÐ œì Ðresult€of€the€suit€is€deemed€sufficient€to€require€the€credibility€of€his€testimony€to€be€submitted€toÐ ˆØ Ðthe€jury€as€a€question€of€fact.ðð€€òòSartoróó,€321€U.S.€at€628€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔSonnentheilÔ_Ô€v.€Christian€Ô_ÔMoerleinÔ_ÔÐ tÄ ÐBrewing€Co.óó,€172€U.S.€401,€408€(1899).Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€62€A.L.R.2d,€in€an€annotation€entitled€ð ðCredibility€of€Witness€Giving€UncontradictedÐ 8 ˆ ÐTestimony€as€Matter€for€Court€or€Juryðð€citing€both€òòSonnentheilóó€and€òòPoole,€óóalong€with€cases€fromÐ $ t Ðseveral€other€states,€the€annotator€observes:€ð ðAside€from€the€question€whether€a€fact€issue€ofÐ  ` Ðcredibility€is€presented€where€an€uncontradicted€and€in€no€way€discredited€witness€gives€testimonyÐ ü L  Ðwhich,€if€accepted,€controls€the€case,€it€has€been€held€in€a€large€number€of€cases€that€if€the€witnessÐ è 8  Ðhas€a€personal€interest€in€the€result,€his€credibility€must€always€be€regarded€as€involving€an€issue€ofÐ Ô$  Ðfact€which€must€go€the€jury.ðð€€Ô_ÔW.E.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€Annotation,òò€Credibility€of€witness€givingÐ À  Ðuncontradicted€testimony€as€a€matter€for€court€or€juryóó,€62€A.L.R.2d,€1191,€1198€(1956).€Ð ¬ü  ЀÌà  àIn€reversing€a€directed€verdict,€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Eighth€Circuit€inÐ „Ô  ÐòòDace€v.€A.C.F.€Industries,€Inc.óó,€722€F.2d€374€(1983),€observed:€ð ðOccasionally€verdicts€may€beÐ pÀ Ðreturned€with€which€judges€strongly€disagree.€€This€is€a€price,€we€think,€worth€paying€for€the€juryÐ \¬ Ðsystem,€which€is€enshrined€in€the€Bill€of€Rights€and€sanctified€by€centuries€of€history.€€WhenÐ H˜ Ðquestions€of€fact€are€involved,€common€sense€is€usually€more€important€than€technical€knowledge,€Ð 4„ Ðand€twelve€heads€are€better€than€one.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€376„77.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€òòDaceóó€court€further,€in€footnote,€observed:€€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€have€stated€in€text€what€we€believe€to€be€the€general€rule€drawn€from€ourÐ Ð  Ðcases€and€the€Supreme€Courtððs.€€There€may€be€particular€situations€in€which€the€ruleÐ ¼  Ðshould€not€be€rigidly€applied.€€If,€for€example,€the€moving€partyððs€evidence€isÐ ¨ø Ðcompletely€disinterested,€uncontradicted,€and€unimpeached,€or€if€the€evidence€of€theÐ ”ä Ðnonmovant€is€contrary€to€established€scientific€fact,€some€modification€of€the€generalÐ €Ð Ðrule€may€be€called€for.€€The€matter€is€well€canvassed€in€Professor€CooperððsÐ l¼ Ðilluminating€article,€òòsupraóó€note€3,€55€Minn.L.Rev.€at€930„53.€€We€leave€considerationÐ X ¨ Ðof€possible€refinements€of€the€general€rule€for€another€day.€€Here,€virtually€all€of€theÐ D!” Ðmoving€partyððs€evidence€came€from€employees€of€the€defendant,€and€much€of€it,€asÐ 0"€  Ðwe€shall€explain€below,€was€contradicted,€either€by€the€plaintiffððs€proof€or€by€otherÐ #l! Ðevidence€offered€by€the€defendant€itself.€€ð ð€ðð[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€mere€fact€that€the€witness€isÐ $X" Ðinterested€in€the€result€of€the€suit€is€deemed€sufficient€to€require€the€credibility€of€hisÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony€to€be€submitted€to€the€jury€as€a€question€of€fact.ðð€ðð€òòSartor€v.€ArkansasÐ à%0!$ ÐNatural€Gas€Corp.óó,€321€U.S.€620,€628,€64€S.Ct.€724,€729,€88€L.Ed.€967€(1944),Ð Ì&"% Ðquoting€òòSonnentheil€v.€Christian€Moerlein€Brewing€Co.óó,€172€U.S.€401,€408,€19€S.Ct.Ð ¸'#& Ð233,€235,€43€L.Ed.€492€(1899).Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌòòDaceóó,€722€F.2d€at€377€n.6.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThis€ð ðinterested€witness€ruleðð€is€not€holy€writ€and€has€been€relaxed€to€a€considerable€degreeÐ ° Ðin€many€instances€involving€directed€verdicts.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔLundeenÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCordnerÔ_Ôóó,€356€F.2d€169€(8th€Cir.Ð œì Ð1966);€òòDewey€v.€Clarkóó,€180€F.2d€766€(D.C.€Cir.€1950)€and€òòÔ_ÔWalpertÔ_Ô€v.€Bartóó,€280€Ô_ÔF.SuppÔ_Ô.€1006€(D.Ð ˆØ ÐMd.€1967),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ôóó€390€F.2d€877€(4th€Cir.€1968).€€We€are€in€this€case,€however,€dealing€with€summaryÐ tÄ Ðjudgment,€the€denial€of€which€does€not€foreclose€a€directed€verdict€in€an€actual€trial€of€the€case.€Ð `° ÐòòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óó,€708€S.W.2d€383,€388€(Tenn.€1986).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àA€number€of€intermediate€appellate€decisions€post„dating€òòHamrick€óóhave€sustained€summaryÐ $ t Ðjudgment€motions€where€section€55„10„311€of€the€Code€was€involved.€€òòMonroe€v.€Craddockóó,€1988Ð  ` ÐWL€74618€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€20,€1988),€involved€the€death€of€two€persons€by€carbon€monoxideÐ ü L  Ðpoisoning€from€either€a€motor€vehicle€engine€or€a€heater€in€an€enclosed€building.€€òòÔ_ÔReddÔ_Ô€v.€Air„Ð è 8  ÐConditioning€Service,€Inc.óó,€1988€WL€97227€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€23,€1988)€and€òòD.T.€Vise€v.€Swift,Ð Ô$  Ðet€al.óó,€1989€WL€89752€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€8,€1989)€involved€cases€in€which€the€offending€driver,Ð À  Ðin€addition€to€the€owners€of€the€vehicles,€denied€agency.€€The€driver€in€the€case€at€bar,€RicardoÐ ¬ü  ÐCorpus,€apparently€disappeared.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àòòMonroe,€Reddóó€and€òòViseóó€all€pre„date€the€opinion€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€inÐ pÀ ÐòòWarren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkóó,€954€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€that€case,€the€Supreme€Court€reaffirmedÐ \¬ Ðits€holding€in€òòHamrickóó€and€reaffirmed€its€recognition€of€the€difference€between€the€ð ðpresumptionððÐ H˜ Ðof€owner€consent€and€use€within€the€scope€of€employment€in€the€pre„1957€version€of€TennesseeÐ 4„ ÐCode€Annotated€section€55„10„311€and€the€ð ðprima€facie€evidenceðð€of€such€provided€by€the€1957Ð  p Ðamendment€to€the€statute.€€Said€the€court:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€plaintiff€insists€that€summary€judgment€does€not€lie€in€this€case€for€twoÐ ä4 Ðreasons:€in€an€action€for€injury€to€persons€and/or€property€caused€by€the€negligentÐ Ð  Ðoperation€or€use€of€an€automobile,€proof€of€ownership€of€the€vehicle€pursuant€toÐ ¼  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311€(1993)€constitutes€evidence€of€a€masterservantÐ ¨ø Ðrelationship€sufficient€to€withstand€a€motion€for€summary€judgment;€and,€in€theÐ ”ä Ðalternative,€the€evidence€considered€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€creates€aÐ €Ð Ðgenuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€relationship€between€Kirk€and€Duncan€at€the€timeÐ l¼ Ðof€the€accident.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDuncan€responds€that€the€ð ðpresumptionðð€which€arises€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ 0"€  ÐAnn.€ðð€55„10„311€upon€proof€of€ownership€was€rebutted€by€evidence€that€Kirk€wasÐ #l! Ðnot€operating€Duncanððs€vehicle€within€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€statute€provides€that€proof€of€ownership€is€òòprima€facie€evidenceóó€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðvehicle€was€being€operated€with€the€consent€of€the€owner€by€the€ownerððs€servantÐ Ì&"% Ðwithin€the€course€and€scope€of€the€servantððs€employment.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€òòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óó,€708€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€1986),€theÐ )à$( ÐCourt€noted€that€since€proof€of€ownership€under€the€1957€amendment€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ |*Ì%) ÐAnn.€ðð€55„10„311€is€evidence€of€the€master„servant€relationship,€rather€than€merelyÐ h+¸&* Ða€presumption,€ð ða€serious€question€is€presented€as€to€whether€or€not€this€òòprima€facieóóÐ ° Ðcase€can€be€overcome€pre„trial€by€motion€for€summary€judgment.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€387.€€In€thatÐ œì Ðcase,€the€Court€stated:ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[S]ummary€judgment€proceedings€do€not€involve€findings€of€fact€orÐ `° Ðweighing€of€evidence.€€They€were€not€designed€to€match€statutoryÐ L œ Ðð ðòòprima€facieóóðð€cases€against€rebutting€proof€or€to€determine€whetherÐ 8 ˆ Ða€party€has€carried€the€requisite€burden€of€proof.€€They€are€merely€toÐ $ t Ðdispose€of€legal€questions€upon€undisputed€facts.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà  àòòId.óó€at€388.€€And€further:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[S]ummary€judgment€is€not€ordinarily€the€proper€procedure€forÐ À  Ðdetermining€whether€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€has€or€has€not€been€overcomeÐ ¬ü  Ðby€countervailing€evidence.Иè ` x` x Ðà8  àòòId.óó€at€389.€€The€Court€discussed€in€that€case€the€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„Ð „Ô  Ð10„311€to€motions€for€directed€verdicts€as€well€as€motions€for€summary€judgmentÐ pÀ Ðand€observed€that€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€does€not€mean€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€case€must€be€submitted€to€the€jury.€ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€overruling€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€does€notÐ  p Ðnecessarily€mean€that€the€case€will€go€to€a€jury€at€a€trial,€because€theÐ  \ Ðevidence€adduced€at€trial€may€be€significantly€different€from€thatÐ øH Ðcontained€in€affidavits€or€depositions€heard€pre„trial€on€summaryÐ ä4 Ðjudgment€proceedings.€€All€that€the€overruling€of€a€motion€forÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment€indicates€is€that€the€case€should€proceed€further.€Ð ¼  ÐWhether€it€will€ever€go€to€a€jury€or€whether€it€will€be€disposed€of€onÐ ¨ø Ðdirected€verdict€pursuant€to€Rule€50,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€depends€uponÐ ”ä Ðthe€record€developed€at€trial.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà  àòòId.óó€at€388€(citations€omitted).Ð X ¨ ÐÌòòWarrenóó,€954€S.W.2d€at€723„24.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€earlier€version€of€the€statute€was€enacted€by€Chapter€162€of€the€Public€ActsÐ $X" Ðof€1921,€this€Court€commented€on€the€legislative€intent€behind€the€statute€in€a€case€involving€aÐ ô$D # Ðdisappearing€driver.€€Said€the€Court:€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhile€the€circumstances€in€and€of€themselves€do€not€necessarily€show€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€driver€was€the€agent,€employee€or€servant€of€the€owner€at€the€time€of€the€accident,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðand€if€so€that€he€was€engaged€in€the€masterððs€business€when€the€injury€was€effected,Ð )à$( Ðyet€good€reasons€are€shown€justifying€the€purposes€of€the€Legislature,€if€suchÐ |*Ì%) Ðjustification€was€necessary,€as€to€why€these€two€essential€facts€should€be€presumed.€Ð h+¸&* ÐThe€driver€fled€immediately€after€the€accident,€so€that€his€name€or€identity€was€notÐ ° Ðknown,€and€the€difficulty€of€proving€the€same€is€therefore€manifest,€together€with€theÐ œì Ðnecessity€of€indulging€some€such€presumption,€or€else€justice€will€be€defeated€in€anÐ ˆØ Ðever€increasing€number€of€similar€incidents.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€in€any€case€theÐ tÄ Ðpresumption€should€be€ill€founded,€it€would€be€an€easy€matter€to€furnish€facts€toÐ `° Ðcontrovert€it,€which€are,€or€would€be,€more€easily€within€the€knowledge€of€theÐ L œ Ðdefendants,€or€at€least€much€less€difficult€for€them€to€establish,€and€thus€the€ends€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðjustice€be€subserved.€€Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌòòRacy€Cream€Co.€v.€Waldenóó,€1€Tenn.€App.€653,€668€(1925).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€depositions€of€Defendants€Ruiz€and€the€affidavit€of€Mr.€Ruiz€disclose€that€the€driver€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€van€involved€in€the€accident,€Ricardo€Corpus,€was€a€cousin€of€Mr.€Ruiz€who€worked€with€himÐ À  Ðfor€the€same€employer€and,€from€time€to€time,€traveled€in€the€van€as€a€passenger€with€Mr.€Ruiz€toÐ ¬ü  Ðand€from€work.€€Following€the€accident€in€issue,€Mr.€Corpus€disappeared.€€He€is€known€byÐ ˜è  ÐDefendants€Ruiz€to€reside€in€Dallas,€Texas€solely€by€information€provided€by€a€telephone€call€fromÐ „Ô  Ða€relative€of€Mr.€Ruiz.€€The€testimony€of€Defendants€Ruiz€contradicting€the€òòprima€facieóó€evidenceÐ pÀ Ðprovided€by€the€statute€as€to€the€use€of€the€van€by€Corpus€with€permission€and€within€the€scope€ofÐ \¬ Ðemployment€is€unrebutted€and€unimpeached.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€other€evidence€in€the€record€rebutting€the€statutory€òòprima€facieóó€case.Ð  p ÐÌà  àCases€failing€to€recognize€the€significance€of€the€1957€amendment,€thereby€equating€òòprimaóóÐ øH Ðòòfacieóó€evidence€with€a€mere€presumption,€have€not€survived€òòHamrickóó€and€òòWarrenóó.€€It€is€not€necessaryÐ ä4 Ðat€this€time,€under€òòHamrickóó€and€òòWarren,óó€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€ð ðinterested€witnessðð€ruleÐ Ð  Ðin€òòPooleóó€and€òòPriceóó€will€be€sufficient€within€itself,€or€coupled€with€other€evidence,€to€survive€aÐ ¼  Ðmotion€for€a€directed€verdict€in€the€trial€of€the€case.€€It€suffices€to€say€that€summary€judgment€isÐ ¨ø Ðimproper,€and€the€case€should€be€reversed€and€remanded€for€trial€on€the€merits.Ð ”ä ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE