ÿWPC§4 b#Ál %-^ 3 0 ˆ?UNÇw4 z-Ò§y ˆ mŠ Æ¡ Æg Æ- Æó 0D¹ Ný Eÿ 0J 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hý 0re 0|× 0†SÙ 0á 1uq 0dæU*J¶t:*U>d1¢ÐÓb£!T«!žÿ"v~(vÓ* 0ëî/ BÙ0 0Xö0 D5N1 D-ƒ1 0K°1 ASû1ÆN2 0¤3 0D¸3 A«ü3˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»æ{D+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+†ÿÿ—†˜† kª ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 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  Ô 2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô " ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Times ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ_ÔAfter€summary€judgment€was€granted€and€permission€to€appeal€denied€by€the€trial€court,€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_ÔÏvoluntarily€dismissed€the€cause€of€action€against€Mr.€Corpus.Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ_ÔThe€complaint€did€not€allege€any€specific€theory€of€liability€but€merely€asserted€liability€against€Mr.€andÏMrs.€Ruiz€on€the€basis€that€the€vehicle€was€owned€by€them€and€being€operated€with€their€permission.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏRuiz€first€€asserted€that€permissive€use€alone€does€not€establish€a€basis€for€imposition€of€liability€upon€the€owner€ofÏthe€vehicle€for€the€actions€of€the€user,€citing€òòÔ_ÔHamrickÔ_Ô€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óó,€708€S.W.2d€383,€385€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€In€any€event,€a€cause€of€action€based€on€permissive€use€requires€a€showing€of€use€by€permission,€and€theyÏasserted€there€was€no€evidence€they€ever€gave€Mr.€Corpus€permission€to€drive€the€van€for€any€purpose.€Second,€theyÏargued€that€a€cause€of€action€based€on€negligent€entrustment€requires€that€defendants€entrusted€the€vehicle€to€the€driverÏwith€knowledge€the€driver€was€incompetent€to€use€it.€€òòNichols€v.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ôóó,€844€S.W.2d€655,€659€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1992).€€Again,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€testified€they€did€not€give€Mr.€Corpus€permission€to€use€the€van.€€Similarly,€theÏfamily€purpose€doctrine,€in€order€for€liability€to€attach€to€the€owner,€requires€that€the€head€of€the€household€maintainÏthe€vehicle€for€the€purpose€of€providing€pleasure€or€comfort€to€his€or€her€family€and€that€the€driver€must€have€beenÏusing€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€injury€in€furtherance€of€that€purpose€with€the€express€or€implied€permission€ofÏthe€owner.€òòCamper€v.€Minoróó,€915€S.W.2d€437,€447€(Tenn.€€1996).€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€asserted€that€the€van€wasÏmaintained€for€business€purposes,€not€for€family€use,€and€there€was€no€proof€which€could€be€produced€that€Mr.ÏCorpus€was€using€the€van€in€furtherance€of€any€family€purpose.€€Again,€they€relied€on€their€testimony€that€they€hadÏnever€given€Mr.€Corpus€permission€to€use€the€van€for€any€purpose.Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311€also€applies€ð ðin€cases€of€the€negligent€operation€of€a€vehicle€being€test„driven€by€a€prospective€purchaser€with€the€knowledge€and€consent€of€the€seller€or€his€agent€whether€or€not€the€sellerÏor€his€agent€is€present€in€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€negligent€operation.ððÌ ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ_ÔFor€example,€if€a€defendant€presented€evidence€demonstrating€that€her€car€had€been€stolen,€through€her€ownÏaffidavit€and€evidence€from€other,€disinterested€sources,€the€absolute€position€taken€by€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_Ô€would€precludeÏsummary€judgment.€€In€addition,€ownership€of€a€vehicle€alone€does€not€create€liability€for€negligent€acts€of€anotherÏoperating€the€vehicle.€€In€fact,€permissive€use€alone€does€not€create€such€liability.€As€the€Supreme€Court€stated€inÏòòÔ_ÔHamrickÔ_Ôóó:€ð ðPermissive€use,€standing€alone,€establishes€only€a€bailment.€€In€and€of€itself€it€is€not€a€basis€for€theÏimposition€of€personal€liability€upon€the€owner€of€a€vehicle.ðð€€708€S.W.2d€at€385.Ì- ù- JÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ_ÔThe€depositions€were€conducted€by€the€attorney€for€the€Godfreysðð€uninsured€motorist€carrier.Ì ”Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ_ÔWe€note,€however,€that€the€plaintiffs€do€not€argue€or€rely€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„312€anywhere€inÏtheir€brief€other€than€this€one€conclusory€sentence.€€Consequently,€€we€will€only€address€the€issues€arising€under€€ððÏ55„10„311.€€In€any€event,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„312€states€that€proof€of€registration€of€a€motor„propelled€vehicleÏis€prima€facie€evidence€of€ownership€of€the€vehicle€and€is€also€prima€facie€evidence€that€the€vehicle€was€beingÏoperated€by€the€owner€or€by€the€ownerððs€servant€in€the€course€and€scope€of€the€servantððs€employment.€€Thus,€we€doÏnot€interpret€this€statute€as€adding€a€different€or€additional€basis€for€liability.€€òòFerguson€v.€Tomlinóó,€656€S.W.2d€atÏ379€n.3€(ð ðfor€purposes€of€this€appeal€we€need€only€consider€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€55„10„311€since€the€presumption€raised€byÏboth€statutes€is€identical.ðð)€Additionally,€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_Ô€do€not€argue€in€their€brief€the€applicability€of€the€theories€ofÏpermissive€use,€negligent€entrustment€or€family€purpose€doctrine,€and€instead€focus€solely€on€imputed€negligenceÏarising€through€agency€established€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311.€€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(›(2‚å$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J•»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ôö}ò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰^$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J•»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÑ#€((¼d#ÑÑ#€((¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ8€‰XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ àÔ€+îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€+¼ÔÌà@ àJuly€7,€2000€SessionÌÔ€+XÔÌÓ  Óò òÔ€+¼ÔSUSAN€R.€GODFREY,€òòet€al.óó€v.€JESUS€RUIZ,€òòet€al.óóÔ€+XÔó óÌÓ  ÓÌà@ àò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÌà@ àNo.€97C„503€€€€€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌà@ àNo.€M2000„00101„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€4,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aßó óÌThis€case€arises€from€an€automobile€accident€resulting€in€personal€injuries€to€plaintiffs.€€TheÏdefendants,€Mr.€&€Mrs.€Ruiz,€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€grounds€that€theirÏcousin,€Mr.€Corpus,€was€driving€their€vehicle€without€their€permission€or€knowledge€at€the€time€ofÏthe€accident.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€and€plaintiffs€appeal.€€Plaintiffs€assert€that€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311,€defendants€are€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€based€solely€onÏtheir€own€self„serving€affidavits€and€depositions.€€We€affirm€the€summary€judgment.ÌÌÓ  Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÌAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÌÓ  ÓÌòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÏjoined.€€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó,€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.ÌÌJoseph€M.€Dalton,€Jr.,€Catherine€S.€Hughes,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Susan€R.ÏGodfrey€and€Ô_ÔRickeyÔ_Ô€E.€Godfrey.ÌÌClifton€B.€Sobel,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Jesus€Ruiz€and€wife,€Shawanda€Ruiz.ÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÔ€+¼ÔÌÌÔ€+XÔà àThis€case€arises€from€an€automobile€accident€which€occurred€on€August€4,€1996.€€RicardoÏCorpus€was€operating€a€1984€Chevrolet€van€owned€by€Jesus€Ruiz€and€his€wife€Shawanda€RuizÏwhen€it€collided€with€the€vehicle€in€which€Rickey€Godfrey€and€his€wife€Susan€Godfrey€were€riding.€ÏMr.€Corpus€is€the€cousin€of€Mr.€Ruiz€and€had€been€living€with€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€forÏapproximately€a€month€and€a€half€prior€to€this€accident.€€Both€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€testified€that€theyÏhave€not€seen€Mr.€Corpus€since€the€accident.ÌÌà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€both€testified€that€they€were€away€from€home€attending€to€personalÏfamily€business€at€the€time€of€the€accident€and€had€no€knowledge€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€driving€theirÏvan.€€They€testified€that€the€keys€to€the€van€were€kept€in€a€drawer€in€their€bedroom€and€that€Mr.ÏCorpus€€did€not€have€their€permission€to€drive€the€vehicle.€€The€Ruizes€testified€that€Mr.€Corpus€hadÏnever€been€given€permission€to€drive€the€vehicle.€€In€fact,€they€asserted,€they€learned€that€Mr.ÏCorpus€was€driving€the€vehicle€for€the€first€time€after€the€accident€that€afternoon.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Ruiz€is€an€independent€contractor€who€hangs€drywall€for€a€living.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€RuizÏtestified€that€the€van€Mr.€Corpus€was€driving€was€maintained€for€Mr.€Ruizððs€work€in€theÏconstruction€business.€€Mr.€Ruiz€did€not€maintain€his€own€business,€but€instead€was€employed€byÏQuality€Drywall€in€Dickson,€Tennessee€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Mr.€Ruiz€testified€that€Mr.ÏCorpus€was€not€employed€by€Mr.€Ruiz.€€However,€Mr.€Ruiz€had€helped€Mr.€Corpus€obtainÍemployment€in€the€construction€business,€and€Mr.€Corpus€was€working€with€him€in€the€days€beforeÏthe€accident.€€Mr.€Ruiz€admits€that€he€paid€Mr.€Corpus€for€the€work€he€did€on€the€job.€€However,ÏMr.€Ruiz€testified€that€they€were€both€employed€by€and€answered€to€the€same€boss,€Don€Cards,€ofÏQuality€Drywall.ÌÌà àThe€Godfreys€sued€the€driver€of€the€van,€Mr.€Corpus,€and€the€owners,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz,Ïfor€the€injuries€they€sustained€as€a€result€of€the€accident.€€The€record€in€this€case€consists€of€theÏpleadings,€the€Godfreysðð€depositions€under€oath,€the€Ruizesðð€depositions€under€oath,€and€theirÏaffidavits€in€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€court€granted€summaryÏjudgment€to€defendants,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz,€finding€there€was€no€material€fact€in€controversy€andÏthat€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€were€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÌà0 àà àà@ àI.ÌÌà àA€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€presents€a€question€of€law€that€weÏreview€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòGoodloe€v.€Stateóó,€36€S.W.3d€62,€65€(Tenn.Ï2001);€òòMooney€v.€Sneedóó,€30€S.W.3d€304,€306€(Tenn.€2000);€òòFinister€v.€Humbolt€Gen.€Hosp.,€Inc.óó,Ï970€S.W.2d€435,€437€(Tenn.€1998).€€Accordingly,€the€appellate€court€must€make€a€freshÏdetermination€concerning€whether€the€movant€has€met€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€ÏòòHunter€v.€Brownóó,€955€S.W.2d€49,€50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMason€v.€Seatonóó,€942€S.W.2d€470,€472Ï(Tenn.€1997).€€When€faced€with€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€ð ðparties€may€neither€ignore€itÏnor€treat€it€lightly.ðð€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€if€the€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatoriesÏand€admissions€on€file,€together€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€anyÏmaterial€facts€and€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï56.04;€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26Ï(Tenn.€1995);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€214.€€€€A€disputed€fact€is€material€for€summaryÏjudgment€purposes€if€it€must€be€decided€in€order€to€resolve€a€substantive€claim€or€defenseÏunderlying€the€summary€judgment€motion.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€reviewing€a€grant€of€summary€judgment,€we€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€Godfreys€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€their€favor.€òò€Robinson€v.ÏOmeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMike€v.€Po€Group,€Inc.óó,€937€S.W.2d€790,€792€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€Thus,€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€the€undisputed€facts€reasonablyÏsupport€one€conclusion,€namely,€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€are€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26.€ÌÌà@ àII.ÌÌà àIn€their€complaint,€the€Godfreys€alleged€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€operating€the€van€owned€byÏMr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€with€their€permission€and,€consequently,€his€negligence€was€imputed€to€them.€ÏMr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€the€basis€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€driving€theirÏvehicle€at€the€time€of€the€accident€without€their€permission€or€knowledge.€€They€argued€that€in€theÍface€of€their€testimony€that€they€never€gave€Mr.€Corpus€permission€to€drive€their€van,€no€evidenceÏexisted€to€establish€a€basis€for€their€liability€under€any€theory€of€imputed€liability.× ƒ* ××  ×€ÌÌà àAs€to€the€issue€relevant€in€this€appeal,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€argued€that€their€undisputedÏtestimony€established€that€there€was€no€agency€relationship€between€them€and€Mr.€Corpus,€therebyÏovercoming€the€presumption,€or€òòprima€facieóó€evidence,€of€an€agency€relationship€created€by€theÏstatute€relied€upon€by€the€Godfreys,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311.€€The€Godfreys€used€that€statuteÏto€establish€proof€that€the€van€was€being€operated€with€the€knowledge€and€consent€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏRuiz€and€by€their€agent.€€That€statute€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 àIn€all€actions€for€injury€to€persons€and/or€to€property€caused€by€the€negligentÏoperation€or€use€of€any€automobile,€auto€truck,€motorcycle,€or€other€motor€propelledÏvehicle€within€this€state,€proof€of€ownership€of€such€vehicle€shall€be€prima€facieÏevidence€that€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€cause€of€action€sued€on€was€beingÏoperated€and€used€with€authority,€consent€and€knowledge€of€the€owner€in€the€veryÏtransaction€out€of€which€the€injury€or€cause€of€action€arose,€and€such€proof€ofÏownership€likewise€shall€be€prima€facie€evidence€that€the€vehicle€was€then€and€thereÏbeing€operated€by€the€owner,€or€by€the€ownerððs€servant,€for€the€ownerððs€use€andÏbenefit€and€within€the€course€and€scope€of€the€servantððs€employment.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311(a)€Ô_Ô(1998Ô_Ô€&€Supp.€2000).ÌÌà àThe€Godfreys€assert€that€the€statute€meets€their€burden€of€proof€and€that€summary€judgmentÏfor€defendants€was€improper.€€The€prima€facie€case€of€agency€created€by€the€statute€can€be€rebuttedÏby€ð ðcredible€proof€that€the€driver€was€in€fact€operating€a€vehicle€without€authority€of€the€owner.ðð€ÏòòHunter€v.€Burkeóó,€958€S.W.2d€751,€755€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(quoting€òòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóó,€656ÏS.W.2d€378,€381„82€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)).€€The€burden€of€overcoming€the€statutory€prima€facieÏcase€rests€upon€the€owner,€once€proof€of€ownership€is€established.€€òòIdóó.€€That€burden€can€be€met€byÏpresenting€credible€evidence€that€the€driver€took€the€car€without€the€ownerððs€knowledge€or€consent.€ÏòòId.€óó€Consequently,€ð ð[i]f€it€can€be€said€as€a€matter€of€law€that€there€was€no€agency,€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€on€that€issue€should€be€sustained.ðð€€òòYearby€v.€Shannonóó,€No.€03A01„9509„CV„00345,€1996€WL€87446,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€29,€1996)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÏfiled)€(citing€òòHaggard€v.€Jim€Clayton€Motors,€Inc.óó,€393€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€1965)(ð ðbefore€a€trialÍjudge€may€take€the€question€from€the€jury,€the€evidence€must€be€such€that€it€can€be€said,€as€a€matterÏof€law,€that€there€was€no€agencyðð)).€€Uncontradicted€evidence€that€there€was€no€agency€displacesÏthe€statutorily€created€prima€facie€case€of€such€agency€ð ðwhere€such€evidence€is€uncontradicted€andÏcomes€from€witnesses€whose€credibility€is€not€in€issue.ðð€òò€Id.óó€(citing€òòMcConnell€v.€Jonesóó,€33€Tenn.ÏApp.€14,€228€S.W.2d€117€(1949);€òòÔ_ÔMcParlandÔ_Ô€v.€Pruittóó,€39€Tenn.€App.€399,€284€S.W.2d€299Ï(1955);€òòÔ_ÔSadlerÔ_Ô€v.€Draperóó,€46€Tenn.€App.€1,€326€S.W.2d€148€(1959)).ÌÌà àThe€question€of€whether€the€statuteððs€prima€facie€case€of€agency€precludes€summaryÏjudgment€was€answered€by€this€court€in€òòFerguson€v.€Ô_ÔTomerlinÔ_Ôóó,€656€S.W.2d€378,€381€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1983),€wherein€this€court€set€aside€a€jury€verdict€against€the€owner€of€a€car€on€the€basis€thatÏthe€trial€court€should€have€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€owner€prior€to€trial.€€At€the€time€of€theÏdefendant€ownerððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€record€consisted€of€the€pleadings€andÏinterrogatories€with€the€ownerððs€answers€thereto.€€The€owner€answered€he€had€furnished€the€car€toÏhis€daughter€for€her€use€only€and€with€specific€instructions€not€to€allow€anyone€else€to€drive€it.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€380.€€The€daughter€had€loaned€the€car€to€a€friend,€contrary€to€her€fatherððs€instructions,€and€theÏfriend€was€driving€when€the€accident€occurred.€€In€analyzing€the€situation€at€the€time€the€motion€wasÏmade,€this€court€stated:ÌÌà8 àMore€specifically,€Mr.€Tomerlin€contends€that€at€the€summary€judgment€stageÏplaintiff€was€relying€solely€on€the€statutory€presumption€of€agency;€that€the€recordÏthen€contained€undisputed,€uncontradicted€and€unimpeached€evidence€that€no€agencyÏrelationship€existed€between€Mr.€Tomerlin€and€Mr.€Luna;€that€therefore€the€statutoryÏpresumption€of€agency€disappeared;€that€plaintiff€was€then€obligated€but€failed€toÏoffer€independent€proof€of€agency;€and€that,€consequently,€defendant€was€entitled€toÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€We€agree.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€381.ÌÌà àThis€court€relied€on€well„settled€authority€that€uncontradicted€and€unimpeached€evidenceÏshowing€a€lack€of€agency€causes€the€statutory€presumption,€or€prima€facie€case,€to€disappear.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ381.€€Such€evidence,€to€justify€removing€the€question€from€the€jury,€must€be€uncontradicted€andÏunimpeached.ÌÌà à€As€the€Godfreys€point€out,€after€òòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€Ïquestioned€whether€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€in€cases€involving€the€statutorily„created€Ïprima€facie€evidence€of€agency€in€òòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.,€óó708€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€In€that€opinion,€the€Supreme€Court€specifically€stated,€ð ðBecause€the€statute€itself€createsÏinitially€a€sufficient€case€of€master„servant€status€upon€proof€of€ownership,€a€serious€question€isÏpresented€as€to€whether€or€not€this€prima€facie€case€can€be€overcome€pre„trial€by€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€387.€€The€òòHamrickóó€court€stated€that€ordinarily€the€òòprima€facieóó€evidenceÏestablished€by€proof€of€ownership€is€sufficient€to€overcome€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€as€well€asÏa€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòIdóó.€at€388.€€However,€the€Court€also€stated,€ð ðWe€do€not€find€itÏnecessary€expressly€to€overrule€òòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóó,€656€S.W.2d€378€(Tenn.€App.€1983),Ïbecause€there€are€so€many€types€of€cases€that€arise€under€the€statute€involved€here.€€There€may€beÏsome€instances€where€summary€disposition€could€be€warranted.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€389.ÌÌà àThe€factual€dispute€in€òòHamrickóó€involved€that€portion€of€the€statute€relating€to€test€drives€byÏprospective€purchasers,× ƒ, ××  ×€a€distinction€from€òòFergusonóó€recognized€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€òòIdóó.€at€388.€ÏIn€òòHamrickóó,€the€driverððs€lengthy€deposition€left€it€possible€to€draw€different€conclusions€as€toÏð ðwhether€Mr.€Champion€was€still€ððtest„drivingðð€the€automobile€.€.€.€or€whether€he€had€so€farÏfinalized€the€purchase€that€he€should€be€deemed€the€owner€and€no€longer€within€the€purview€of€theÏstatute.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€388.€€There€were€also€inconsistences€in€testimony€regarding€aspects€of€theÏtransaction.€€The€court€held€that,€at€the€point€of€considering€summary€judgment,€the€plaintiffs€wereÏentitled€to€the€most€favorable€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€reliance€on€the€statute€for€establishmentÏof€the€master„servant€relationship.€òò€Id.óó€at€389.€€Based€upon€the€record€at€that€time,€the€court€foundÏthat€it€was€ð ðprematureðð€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àLater,€in€òòWarren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€724€(Tenn.€1997),€our€Supreme€CourtÏacknowledged€that€the€òòHamrickóó€decision€stopped€short€of€holding€that€proof€of€ownership€willÏdefeat€a€summary€judgment€motion€and€recognized€that€there€are€some€instances€when€it€would€beÏappropriate.€€In€òòWarren,€óóthe€Court€found€that€summary€judgment€was€not€appropriate€in€that€case,Ïhowever,€not€because€summary€judgment€was€never€appropriate,€but€because€there€was€a€genuineÏissue€of€fact€because€the€record€ÌÌà8 àdoes€not€show€the€purpose€of€the€trip€on€which€the€ownerððs€employee€was€drivingÏthe€ownerððs€vehicle.€€Kirk€had€Duncanððs€express€permission€to€operate€the€vehicleÏduring€€work,€traveling€to€and€from€work,€and€transporting€other€employees€to€andÏfrom€work.€€The€prohibitions€on€the€use€of€the€vehicle€stated€by€Duncan€in€hisÏdeposition€and€affidavit€do€not€necessarily€proscribe€Kirkððs€operation€of€the€truck€atÏthe€time€of€the€accident€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment.€.€.€.€In€summary,Ïhe€[Kirk]€was€responsible€for€all€the€duties€incident€to€his€job€as€foreman€for€anÏabsentee€owner.€€As€to€those€duties,€Kirk€had€at€least€implicit€permission€to€use€theÏpickup€truck.€.€.€.€The€evidence€presented€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÏnot€conclusive€proof€that€Kirk€was€not€acting€within€the€course€and€scope€of€hisÏemployment€at€the€time€of€the€accident.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€725.ÌÌà àThe€Godfreys€rely€on€òòHamick€óóandòò€Estate€of€Kirkóó€for€the€proposition€that€summaryÏjudgment€is€not€appropriate€for€defendant€owners€in€the€face€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311.€€WeÏthink€that€reliance€is€misplaced.€€As€those€cases€make€clear,€summary€judgment€may€be€warrantedÏin€some€situations.€€In€those€two€cases,€the€facts€were€in€dispute€or€insufficient€to€constituteÏuncontradicted€evidence€that€no€permission€and€no€agency€existed.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€in€a€case€involving€liability€imputed€to€an€owner€of€a€vehicle€drivenÏby€another€on€the€basis€of€permissive€use€through€a€master„servant€or€agency€relationship€is€to€beÏanalyzed€just€as€such€a€motion€in€any€other€case.€€Where€a€plaintiff€meets€her€initial€burden€ofÏestablishing€such€a€relationship€by€reliance€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311,€the€question€becomesÏwhether€the€defendant€presents€credible€evidence€which,€if€uncontradicted,€is€sufficient€to€rebut€theÏprima€facie€case€established€by€the€statute.€€One€way€to€do€that€is€to€present€proof€that€the€driverÏwas€operating€the€vehicle€without€the€knowledge€or€permission€of€the€owner.€€òòHunter€v.€Burkeóó,€958ÏS.W.2d€at€755.ÌÌà àOnce€the€Ô_ÔRuizesÔ_Ô€provided€testimony€that€Mr.€Corpus€did€not€have€permission€from€them€toÏever€drive€their€van€and€that€he€did€so€without€their€knowledge,€the€burden€shifted€to€the€Godfreys€Ïð ðto€produce€evidence€which€would€establish€a€genuine€factual€dispute.ðð€€òòBrown€v.€J.€C.€PenneyÏLife€Ins.€Co.óó,€861€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà8 àWhen€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properly€supported€motion,€theÏburden€then€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts,€not€legalÏconclusions,€by€using€affidavits€or€the€discovery€materials€listed€in€Rule€56.03,Ïestablishing€that€there€are€indeed€disputed,€material€facts€creating€a€genuine€issueÏthat€needs€to€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact€and€that€a€trial€is€therefore€necessary.€ÏThe€nonmoving€party€may€not€rely€upon€the€allegations€or€denials€of€his€pleadingsÏin€carrying€out€this€burden€as€mandated€by€Rule€56.05.ÌÌòòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.€€The€Godfreys€came€forward€with€no€such€facts.€€They€continuedÏto€rely€only€on€the€evidence€of€agency€presumed€from€ownership€by€virtue€of€the€statute.€€We€areÏaware€of€the€significance€of€the€legislative€action€changing€ð ðpresumptionðð€to€ð ðprima€facie€case,ððÏas€explained€in€Ô_ÔHamrickÔ_Ô,€but€we€do€not€believe€that€change€allows€the€plaintiffs€to€rest€only€on€theÏstatute€in€opposition€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€with€supporting€evidence€disproving€anÏagency€or€master„servant€relationship.€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_Ô€did€not€attend€or€takeÏpart€in€the€depositions€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz.€€Thus,€they€did€not€ask€them€any€questions€designedÏto€lead€to€other€proof€relevant€to€the€issues€of€permission,€employment,€or€scope€of€employment.€ÏThe€record€does€not€include€any€other€discovery€efforts€on€the€part€of€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_Ô,€and€they€doÏnot€assert€that€they€made€any.€€Their€position€is€that€they€could€rely€on€the€statute€regardless€of€anyÏevidence€presented€by€defendants€in€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€We€do€notÏagree€that€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€ineffective€in€this€situation€to€require€plaintiffs€toÏcome€forward€with€evidence€contradicting€that€supplied€by€defendants€or€risk€a€judgment€ofÏdismissal.€€€ÌÌà àThus,€contrary€to€the€arguments€presented€by€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_Ô,€we€conclude€that€summaryÏjudgment€is€available€to€an€owner€who€presents€uncontradicted€evidence€disproving€agency€orÏpermission.€€To€hold€otherwise€is€to€suggest€that€proof€of€ownership€is€always€sufficient€toÏovercome€summary€judgment,€regardless€of€the€facts€presented€by€the€defendant€owners.× ƒ- ××  ×€€WeÏsimply€do€not€believe€that€every€case€where€a€plaintiff€can€show€ownership€is€required€to€proceed€toÏtrial.€Ìà àÌà àIn€fact,€summary€judgment€has€been€granted€where€evidence€disproving€agency€wasÏprovided€by€the€owner€and€remained€uncontradicted€by€plaintiffs.€€òòÔ_ÔYearbyÔ_Ô€v.€Shannonóó,€1996€WLÏ87446,€at€*4„6;€€òòDillard€v.€Rubinóó,€No.€01A01„9102„CV„00052,€1991€WL€119059,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€Jul.€5,€1991)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed);€òòVise€v.€Swiftóó,€no€docket€no.,€1989€WLÏ89752,€at€*2„3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€8,€1989)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed);€òòMonroe€v.ÏÔ_ÔCraddockÔ_Ôóó,€No.€88„102„II,€1988€WL€74618,€at€*1„2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jul.€20,€1988)€(no€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€11€application€filed);€òòÔ_ÔReddÔ_Ô€v.€Air„Conditioning€Serv.,€Inc.óó,€No.€88„149„II,€1988€WL€97227,Ïat€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€23,€1988)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ÌÌà àIn€òòVise€v.€Swiftóó,€the€defendant€owners€of€the€vehicle€involved€in€the€accident,€Ô_ÔRickyÔ_Ô€andÏRhonda€Ford,€submitted€affidavits€establishing€that€neither€the€driver€nor€their€friend€who€hadÏborrowed€the€car€ð ðwas€on€their€business€or€acting€on€their€behalf€at€the€time€of€the€accident.ðð€Ï1989€WL€89752,€at€*2.€€Their€affidavits€were€supported€by€the€depositions€of€the€driver€and€theÏfriend€to€the€effect€that€the€driver€did€not€have€the€ownersðð€permission€to€drive€their€car€and€thatÏneither€of€them€had€used€the€car€in€performing€any€business€or€service€for€the€owners.€€SummaryÏjudgment€was€sustained€because€the€plaintiffs€failed€to€produce€any€proof€on€the€issue€of€agencyÏand€the€affidavits€and€depositions€established€that€there€was€no€agency€upon€which€to€imposeÏliability.€€òòIdóó.€at€*2„3.€€€This€court€found€that€the€evidence€submitted€by€the€defendants€stoodÏÔ_ÔunimpeachedÔ_Ô€and€uncontradicted,€effectively€rebutting€the€prima€facie€evidence€created€by€statuteÏand€relied€upon€exclusively€by€plaintiffs.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€in€€òòÔ_ÔReddÔ_Ô€v.€Air„Conditioning€Serv.,€Inc.óó€the€defendant€driver€of€the€vehicle€was€anÏemployee€of€the€defendant€owner.€€1988€WL€97227,€at€*1.€€The€testimony€supporting€the€summaryÏjudgment€motion€stated€that€the€driver€was€assigned€the€truck€to€perform€his€duties€during€workingÏhours.€€On€the€day€of€the€accident,€the€driver€learned€that€his€personal€car€was€missing€and€went€toÏlook€for€it€in€the€company€vehicle.€€He€drank€five€beers€while€looking€for€his€car.€€There€was€aÏwritten€policy€that€the€vehicles€were€not€to€be€used€for€personal€use,€including€taking€them€home,Ïalthough,€supervisors€did€not€seem€to€object€when€employees€did€take€the€vehicles€home.€€After€aÏlong€analysis€of€cases€on€point,€summary€judgment€was€sustained€because€ÌÌà8 àthis€case€presents€an€instance€where€summary€judgment€is€the€proper€procedure.€ÏNo€question€of€credibility€of€witnesses€is€involved.€€The€evidence€here€is€clear€andÏÔ_ÔunrebuttedÔ_Ô€that€Brian€Allen€Smith€was€not€in€the€business€of€his€employer.€€He€wasÏnot€ð ðin€the€course€and€scope€of€employment€at€the€time€of€the€accident.ððÌÌòòIdóó.€at€*2„3.€€We€further€stated,€ð ðIf€the€plaintiffs€had€other€evidence,€they€were€bound€to€comeÏforward€€with€it€or€face€having€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€sustained.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*3.ÌÌà àThus,€summary€judgment€is€not€precluded€in€favor€of€a€defendant€owner€of€a€vehicle€whenÏplaintiff€relies€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311(a)€to€establish€an€agency€or€master„servantÏrelationship€in€order€to€impute€a€driverððs€negligence€to€the€owner.€€Summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€when€the€owner€presents€uncontradicted,€Ô_ÔunimpeachedÔ_Ô€evidence€that€the€driver€wasÏoperating€the€vehicle€without€the€permission,€knowledge,€or€authority€of€the€owner.€€ÌÌà àWe€turn€now€to€the€question€of€whether€the€evidence€presented€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€wasÏsufficient€to€support€the€grant€of€summary€judgment.Ì€à àÌÓ  ÓIII.€ÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€this€case,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€submitted€similar€affidavits€in€support€of€their€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€stating€the€following:ÌÌà8 à1.€Ricardo€Corpus€is€not€and€has€never€been€my€[husbandððs]€employee.Ìà8 à2.€The€automobile€which€is€the€subject€of€this€cause€of€action€was€purchased€by€meÏ[my€husband]€for€the€purposes€of€conducting€my€[his]€business€as€a€drywallÏhanger.Ìà8 à3.€The€keys€to€the€1984€Chevrolet€van€were€kept€in€my€bedroom€and€they€were€notÏavailable€for€anyone€to€use€but€me€[my€husband].Ìà8 à4.€At€no€time€while€Mr.€Corpus€was€visiting€in€my€home€did€he€have€permission€toÏuse€or€otherwise€operate€the€van€involved€in€the€accident€which€is€the€subject€of€thisÏaction.Ìà8 à5.€On€the€date€of€this€accident,€my€wife,€Ô_ÔShawandaÔ_Ô€Ruiz,€[my€husband,€Jesus€Ruiz]Ïand€I€had€been€out€of€the€home€conducting€personal€business,€and€the€last€time€IÏsaw€the€van€in€question,€it€was€parked€in€my€driveway.ÌÌà àAfter€the€affidavits€were€signed€and€submitted€in€support€of€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€were€deposed€under€oath.€€The€attorney€for€the€Ô_ÔGodfreysÔ_Ô€was€notÏpresent€at€the€depositions€and€did€not€cross€examine€Mr.€or€Mrs.€Ruiz€as€to€any€statementsÏcontained€in€the€affidavits€despite€knowledge€of€the€pending€motion€for€summary€judgment.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€TheÏdeposition€testimony€of€both€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€was€consistent€with€their€affidavits.€€Essentially,Ïthey€reaffirmed€that€they€had€never€given€Mr.€Corpus€permission€to€drive€the€van€and€that€he€wasÏdoing€so€on€the€day€of€the€accident€without€their€knowledge€or€permission.ÌÌà àHowever,€at€his€deposition,€Mr.€Ruiz€testified€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àQ:€Can€you€read€English?Ìà8 àA:€No.Ìà8 àQ:€Okay.€€All€right.€I€have€an€affidavit€here€from€you.€€Is€that€your€signature?Ìà8 àA:€Yes.Ìà8 àQ:€Did€somebody€read€the€affidavit€to€you?Ìà8 àA:€No.Ìà8 àQ:€Okay.€€All€right.€€How€did€you€get€the€information?€€How€do€you€know€what€itÏsays€then?Ìà8 àA:€I€just€signed€it.ÌÌà àThe€Godfreys€argue€that€the€affidavits€submitted€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€are€self„serving€and€Ïthat€their€credibility€was€impeached€during€the€deposition€of€Mr.€Ruiz€when€he€admitted€to€havingÏnot€read€the€affidavit€before€signing€it.€€They€assert€€that€ð ðsimply€denying€that€Corpus€hadÏpermission€to€use€the€subject€vehicle,€while€admitting€to€signing€an€affidavit€and€having€no€idea€ofÏits€contents€leaves€open€questions€involving€credibility€and€bias.€.€.€.€In€sum,€the€subject€vehicle€isÏregistered€to€both€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€and€their€self„serving,€unread€affidavits,€should€be€insufficientÏproof€to€overcome€the€òòprima€facieóó€case€established€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„10„311€and€55„10„312.ðð× ƒ4 ××  ×€€€In€other€words,€the€Godfreys€assert€that€the€testimony€submitted€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€RuizÏcannot€overcome€the€statutory€evidence€of€agency€because€the€testimony€is€self„serving€and€theÏcredibility€of€the€defendants€has€been€impeached.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  Óà àWe€first€note€that€the€summary€judgment€was€not€based€solely€on€the€affidavit€testimony;Ïdeposition€testimony€was€submitted.€€The€Godfreys€offered€no€testimony€to€contradict€theÏdefendantsðð€sworn€statements€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€operating€their€vehicle€without€their€knowledgeÏor€permission.à àTheir€uncontradicted€evidence€that€there€was€no€agency€is€a€sufficient€basis€forÏsummary€judgment€in€their€favor€€ð ðwhere€such€evidence€is€uncontradicted€and€comes€fromÏwitnesses€whose€credibility€is€not€in€issue.ðð€òò€Yearby€v.€Shannonóó,€1996€WL€87446,€at€*5€(citingÏòòMcConnell€v.€Jonesóó,€33€Tenn.€App.€14,€228€S.W.2d€117€(1949);€òòÔ_ÔMcParlandÔ_Ô€v.€Pruittóó,€39€Tenn.ÏApp.€399,€284€S.W.2d€299€(1955);€òòÔ_ÔSadlerÔ_Ô€v.€Draperóó,€46€Tenn.€App.€1,€326€S.W.2d€148€(1959)).ÌÌà8 àTestimony€may€not€be€disregarded€arbitrarily€or€capriciously;€and€the€testimony€of€aÏwitness€who€is€not€discredited€in€any€of€the€modes€recognized€by€law,€must€beÏaccepted€as€true.ÌÌòòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€382€(quoting€òòHaggard€v.€Jim€Clayton€Motors,€Incóó.,€216ÏTenn.€at€631,€393€S.W.2d€at€295)€(quoting€òòPhillips„Buttorff€Mfg.€Co.€v.€McAlexanderóó,€15€Tenn.ÏApp.€618,€627€(1932)).€€Conversely,€ÌÌà8 à[Ô_Ôo]rdinarilyÔ_Ô€the€testimony€of€a€witness€who€is€not€contradicted,€impeached,€orÏdiscredited€must€be€accepted€as€true,€but€that€if€the€witness€relied€upon€to€establish€aÏgiven€fact€be€impeached€(by€evidence€directed€against€his€general€character€forÏveracity)€or€discredited€in€any€of€the€modes€recognized€by€law,€that€fact€may€not€beÏtreated€as€established€as€a€matter€of€law€or€for€purposes€of€a€motion€for€peremptoryÏinstructions.ÌÌòòFord€v.€Reeder€Chevrolet€Co.óó,€663€S.W.2d€803,€804€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)€(quoting€òòWelch€v.ÏYoungóó,€11€Tenn.€App.€431,€439€(1930)).ÌÌà àThe€issue€of€whether€ð ðself„servingðð€testimony,€or€testimony€of€an€interested€party,€canÏsupport€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€€where€the€only€contradictory€evidence€is€that€presented€byÏthe€statute€has€been€settled€adversely€to€the€Godfreysðð€position€in€that€summary€judgment€hasÏroutinely€been€granted€based€upon€the€self„serving€affidavits€and€deposition€testimony€of€theÏdefendant€owner.€€For€example,€in€òòFerguson€v.€Ô_ÔTomerlinÔ_Ôóó,€summary€judgment€was€determined€to€beÏappropriate€on€the€basis€of€the€defendant€ownerððs€testimony€that€he€had€let€his€daughter€use€theÏvehicle€with€specific€instructions€not€to€let€anyone€else€drive€it.€€Inòò€Monroe€v.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ôóó,€the€onlyÏevidence€of€ownership€of€the€vehicle€was€the€title€stating€that€Clyde€Craddock€owned€the€vehicleÏinvolved€in€the€accident.€€1988€WL€74618,€at€*2.€€However,€in€the€only€deposition€in€the€record,ÏClyde€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€testified,€without€contradiction,€that€he€had€given€the€vehicle€to€his€son€severalÏmonths€prior.€€The€plaintiff€asserted€that€this€contradiction€or€question€of€ownership€shouldÏpreclude€summary€judgment.€€The€court€disagreed,€holding:ÌÌà8 àeven€if€Clyde€Craddock€were€the€owner€of€the€van,€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€under€this€theory€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„311]€must€be€sustained.€ÏClyde€Craddock€testified€unequivocally€that€Phillip€Craddock€was€using€the€van€forÏhis€(Phillipððs)€benefit.€€He€was€not€the€agent€of,€or€on€the€business€of,€ClydeÏCraddock.€€Plaintiff€offered€no€proof€to€support€her€claim€that€Phillip€Craddock€wasÏacting€on€any€business€or€purpose€for€Clyde€Craddock.ÌÌòòIdóó.ÌÌà àAlso€in€òòÔ_ÔYearbyÔ_Ô€v.€Shannonóó,€summary€judgment€was€affirmed€based€on€the€self€servingÏaffidavits€of€the€defendant€owners,€obviously€interested€parties.€€1996€WL€87446,€at€*4.€€In€òòÔ_ÔYearbyÔ_Ôóó,Ïthe€defendant€owner€submitted€an€affidavit€stating€that€the€defendant€driver€was€not€his€employeeÏand€was€not€on€any€business€of€his€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€òò€Idóó.€€This€court€held€that€the€ownerÏwas€not€impeached,€nor€his€credibility€attacked,€in€any€mode€recognized€by€law€and€that€there€wasÏno€evidence€to€contradict€the€statements€made€by€the€owner.€€Therefore,€there€was€no€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact€on€the€issue€of€agency€and€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€in€concluding€thatÏthere€was€no€agency€relationship.€€òòIdóó.€at€*5.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€in€other€contexts€self„serving€testimony,€or€testimony€from€a€party€interestedÏin€the€outcome€of€the€case,€has€been€found€sufficient€to€support€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏwhen€it€remains€uncontradicted.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Gonzales€v.€Ô_ÔAlmanÔ_Ô€Construction€Co.,€óó857€S.W.2d€42,Ï48„49€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);òò€Ô_ÔArmesÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHulettÔ_Ô,€óó843€S.W.2d€427,€431„32€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)òò.€ÏSee€also€Dillard€v.€Rubinóó,€No.€01„A01„9102„CV„00052,€1991€WL€119059,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.ÏJuly€5,€1991)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(citing€òòSmith€v.€Gravesóó,€672€S.W.2d€787Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)).€ÌÌà àThe€fact€that€the€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€did€not€read€their€affidavits€prior€to€signing€may€leaveÏopen€to€question€whether€the€affidavits€are€valid€or€in€compliance€with€the€rules€of€civil€procedure.ÏWe€do€not€condone€the€execution€or€filing€of€an€affidavit€which€has€not€been€read€by€the€affiant.€ÏMr.€Ruizððs€statement€that€he€had€not€read€the€affidavit€before€signing€it€might€serve€to€make€itÏinadmissible€for€purposes€of€summary€judgment.òò€€Seeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.06.€However,€both€Mr.Ïand€Mrs.€Ruiz€confirmed€the€facts€contained€in€the€affidavit€at€their€deposition€under€oath,€andÏabsolutely€no€contradiction€of€the€information€contained€therein€was€brought€out€at€the€depositionÏor€otherwise.€€Thus,€in€view€of€the€circumstances€of€this€situation,€including€Mr.€Ruizððs€testimonyÏthat€he€cannot€read€English€and€the€total€consistency€between€the€affidavit€and€his€later€testimony,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€credibility€of€Mr.€Ruizððs€deposition€testimony€has€been€raisedÏsufficiently€to€preclude€summary€judgment€based€thereon.€€ÌÌà àSummary€judgment€should€not€be€undermined€by€credibility€concerns€ð ðunless€they€rise€toÏa€level€higher€than€the€normal€credibility€questions€that€arise€whenever€a€witness€takes€the€stand.ððÏòòJennings€v.€Caseóó,€10€S.W.3d€625,€638€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(dissent)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔHeppÔ_Ô€v.€Joe€Bððs,ÏInc.óó,€No.€01A01„9604„CV„00183,€1997€WL€266839,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€21,€1997)€(noÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)).€€Moreover,€we€find€that€the€credibility€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€RuizÏhas€not€been€impeached€ð ðby€any€of€the€modes€€recognized€by€law.ðð€€òòSee€Yearby€v.€Shannonóó,€1996ÏWL€87446,€at€*5€(citing€òòHaggard€v.€Jim€Clayton€Motors,€Inc.óó,€216€Tenn.€625,€393€S.W.2d€292;ÏòòBuck€v.€Westóó,€434€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòFord€v.€Reeder€Chevroletóó,€663€S.W.2d€at€804€(quoting€òòYellowÏCab,€Inc.€of€Morristown€v.€Yorkóó,€58€Tenn.€App.€177,€€427€S.W.2d€854€(1967));€òòWelch€v.€Youngóó,Ï11€Tenn.€App.€at€440.ÌÌÓ  ÓV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àParties€are€not€to€take€summary€judgment€lightly,€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210,€and€when€Mr.Ïand€Mrs.€Ruiz€rebutted€the€òòprima€facieóó€evidence,€the€burden€then€shifted€back€to€the€Godfreys€toÏpresent€evidence€to€impeach,€contradict,€or€otherwise€establish€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€material€to€theÏelements€of€agency.€€ð ðIf€the€plaintiffs€had€other€evidence,€they€were€bound€to€come€forward€with€itÏor€face€having€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€sustained.ðð€€òòRedd€v.€Air„Conditioning€Serv.,€Inc.óó,Ï1988€WL€97227,€at€*3€(citing€òòMoman€v.€Waldenóó,€719€S.W.2d€531,€533€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986)).€ÏAs€this€court€stated€in€òòFerguson€v.€Ô_ÔTomerlinÔ_Ôóó:ÌÌà8 àPlaintiff€stood€on€the€presumption€only€to€have€it€be€effectively€rebutted€by€theÏuncontradicted,€unimpeached€and€unrefuted€proof€of€lack€of€agency€contained€in€theÏinterrogatory€answers€of€Mr.€Tomerlin,€a€witness€whose€credibility€was€not€put€inÏissue€by€the€plaintiff€at€the€summary€judgment€stage.€€Under€these€circumstances€weÏthink€it€clear€that€the€presumption€was€displaced€and,€agency€not€being€otherwiseÏshown,€defendant€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€ÌÌ656€S.W.2d€at€382.ÌÌà àThe€situation€before€us€is€the€same.€€There€is€absolutely€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€refuteÏthe€assertions€made€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€not€an€employee€of€Mr.€Ruiz,€wasÏnot€on€any€business€of€Mr.€or€Mrs.€Ruiz€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€and€was€driving€the€vehicleÏwithout€their€permission.€€Therefore,€we€must€affirm€the€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThis€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€action€not€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.€ÏThe€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellants,€Susan€R.€Godfrey€and€Ô_ÔRickeyÔ_Ô€E.€Godfrey,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌ