ÿWPC– ~}¼šNÿ¹b;Ñd’5ÇîcPF£.®>;,»ÌÊ:‹ÖÐÙQk^–ˆaêFh¶ziuÝ !Ø¢ ©G»Ñ¢É?£½ ’ú(Ý}ø™\Hòå™sö +aMÐÍ[³öæ©1nØâQ†:Ï&eÒ“Ì禃ªlV(ÇgÞ(Ð#ì@γ©í˜6½ cÅ{^tôršŽÙÜY^¹6HË#n+{ï=m¾aÆ,U»Ã0nÀ,†äÊVˆÿÌ*ö ÎYy–ú†G²K:YÞ¬ «¿ñfhñÆÁ¨œÎÉô_J0.¸{3~ÛÂÓ’Ú”×'²BMH·Ò»ýPŒäŠnŠÓg¿ÞìÞ¿÷ùÀª$AªHÔj͸ûÌjþN.z½õý™.'K{Wrj$ã$—õi[QìÙÔèWé›HêIª×©@Ûù"ŒžZÂg2³s AÜ>‰1Ž>“c5W~ÈÐæqÈϸ„™•32˜P{d‹í/—­f0\ÁtÚ'|+NUÅÉDOè 2 ça-f·^mƒµ*°Ïí·âÞ C¨PÐßj(ŸEíÞ^Íà}‚9 µ^ØÛDÊÆ¡¼¦[¸‘–©Žö£íøÙÁ`²´YoGDŽ}‹;¡½]³6¨Œ ñžÍb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë 0D±Nõ 1‡÷ 0c~Eá 1‡ãUNj)¸¯ávÞ 1uä 72YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYb‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹ 0ë““““ B~~ 0¤› D3? D-r 0KŸŸ ASêÆ= 0¤ 0D§ A«ë˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»6’+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+bk1ôç ˜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|xÿU‹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(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒR¿c$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€eight€people€who€made€the€trip€to€Texas€were€James€Harper,€Janet€Harper,€Damon€Harvey,€Keith€Churn,Ð À ÐRodney€Beard,€Charlene€Beard,€Allison€Walker,€and€Tolena€Starks.€€Mr.€Beard€was€the€pastor€of€the€church.€€The€others,Ð „Ä Ðexcept€for€Mr.€Harvey,€were€leaders€in€the€church.€€Mr.€Harvey,€Janet€Harperððs€son,€traveled€to€Houston€for€personalÐ Hˆ Ðmatters.€€€€€€ ¥Ý ƒR¿c$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRule€401€defines€relevant€evidence€as€ð ðevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€thatÐ À Ðis€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€theÐ „Ä Ðevidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€ lÝ ƒR¿c$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€Harpers€failed€to€introduce€any€additional€evidence,€such€as€the€rental€agreement,€testimonyÐ À Ðby€Mr.€Beard,€or€testimony€by€Mr.€Churn€that€would€provide€proof€of€who€rented€or€controlled€the€Suburban.€€ ÔÝ ƒR¿c$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðA€final€judgment€from€which€relief€is€available€and€otherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,Ð À Ðconsidering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€or€wouldÐ „Ä Ðresult€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- ù-(|G2¿c$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç-ò»»Ô d(|3Gq$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gq$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑÀ°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼B»»»ÔÑ8€ùXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îA´î»¼BÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ À Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼B»îîA´#ԈРæ& ÐÓ  ÓNovember€5,€2001€SessionÐ  L ÐÔ‡XùX»¼BÔÌò òÔ#†¼B»XXù#ÔJANET€HARPER,€òòet€al.óó€v.€KEITH€D.€CHURN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XùX»¼BÔó óÐ  J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98C„3354€€€€€€Hamilton€V.€Gayden,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ ö 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Í ` AßÐ Î   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02353„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ É  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE< ` AßÐ ¡á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XùXXXùÔThis€is€a€personal€injury€case€arising€from€a€vehicular€collision.€€The€plaintiffs,€the€Harpers,€and€theÐ œÜ  Ðdefendants,€Mr.€Churn€and€Mr.€Beard,€along€with€several€others,€were€traveling€together€in€a€rentedÐ ˆÈ  Ðvehicle€at€the€time€of€the€collision.€€Mr.€Churn€was€the€driver€of€the€vehicle;€Mr.€Beard€was€theÐ t´ Ðpastor€of€the€partiesðð€church.€€At€trial,€the€Harpers€asserted€that€Mr.€Churn€was€negligent€in€hisÐ `  Ðoperation€of€the€vehicle.€€Additionally,€the€Harpers€claimed€that€Mr.€Beard€was€vicariously€liableÐ LŒ Ðfor€their€injuries,€or€in€the€alternative,€that€Mr.€Beard€was€liable€under€the€theory€of€negligentÐ 8x Ðentrustment.€€The€trial€court€granted€Mr.€Beardððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict,€and€the€jury€foundÐ $d Ðin€favor€of€Mr.€Churn.€€The€Harpers€appeal€both€decisions.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ P Ðcourt.€€€€€€Ð ü< ÐÌòòò òóóÔ#†XùXXXùß#ÔÔ#†¼B»XXùƒ#ÔÔ‡XùX»¼BÔÓÓÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ Ô ÐRemandedó óÐ À ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼B»àXù1 #ÔÔ‡XùX.¼BÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ ˜Ø Ðand€òòHolly€K.€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð „Ä ÐÌTerry€R.€Clayton,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Janet€Harper€and€James€Harper.Ð \œ ÐÌAlan€M.€Ô_ÔSowellÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Keith€Churn.Ð 4!t! ÐÌNancy€W.€Phillips,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Rodney€Beard.Ð  #L# ÐÓë ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼B»XXù #ÔÔ‡XùX»¼BÔÐ ä$$!% ÐÔ#†¼B»XXù| #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XùX»¼BÔÔ‡XùXXXùÔÌà  àIn€the€summer€of€1998,€a€group€primarily€composed€of€church€leaders€from€the€Living€WordÐ ¼&ü"' Ðâ âCommunity€Church€in€Davidson€County,€Tennessee€traveled€to€Houston,€Texas.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€group€wentÐ ¨'è#(ý Ðto€Houston€to€meet€with€leaders€of€successful€churches€located€in€the€area.€€The€party€hoped€toÐ À Ðcollect€ideas€from€the€Houston€churches€that€they€could€employ€in€the€Davidson€County€church.€€Ð ¬ì Ðâ âÌà  àWhen€the€group€arrived€in€Houston,€they€rented€a€Chevrolet€Suburban€to€use€asÐ „Ä Ðtransportation.€€As€the€group€searched€for€their€hotel,€the€Suburban€entered€an€intersection€andÐ p° Ðcollided€with€a€tractor€trailer.€€Keith€Churn€was€driving€the€Suburban€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€TheÐ \œ Ðcollision€caused€the€Suburban€to€turn€over€several€times,€and€Janet€Harper€suffered€several€injuries.€Ð H ˆ ÐÌà  àMs.€Harper€and€her€husband,€James€Harper,€sued€Mr.€Churn€and€Rodney€Beard€to€recoverÐ  ` Ðfor€her€injuries.€€The€Harpers€asserted€that€Mr.€Churn€was€negligent€in€his€operation€of€the€Suburban.€Ð  L  ÐThe€Harpers€sued€Mr.€Beard€under€the€theories€of€negligent€entrustment€and€vicarious€liability.€€Mr.Ð ø 8  ÐHarper€sought€compensation€for€his€loss€of€consortium.€€Ð ä $  ÐÌà  àThe€parties€tried€the€case€before€a€jury€on€June€26,€27,€and€28,€2000.€€The€Harpers€assertedÐ ¼ü  Ðthat€Mr.€Churn€was€negligent€in€his€operation€of€the€Suburban.€€Additionally,€the€Harpers€contendedÐ ¨è  Ðthat€Mr.€Beard€was€vicariously€liable€for€Mr.€Churnððs€acts,€or€in€the€alternative,€was€liable€under€theÐ ”Ô  Ðtheory€of€negligent€entrustment.€€At€the€close€of€the€Harpersðð€case€in€chief,€the€trial€court€granted€Mr.Ð €À ÐBeardððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€After€the€presentation€of€all€the€evidence,€the€jury€found€inÐ l¬ Ðfavor€of€Mr.€Churn.€€The€trial€court€entered€the€corresponding€judgment,€and€the€Harpers€filed€aÐ X˜ Ðmotion€seeking€a€new€trial.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Harpersðð€motion€and€this€appeal€followed.€€Ð D„ ÐÌà  àThe€Harpers€raise€three€issues€for€our€review.€€These€issues,€as€stated€by€the€Harpers,€are€asÐ \ Ðfollows:Ð H ÐÓ€ (5h83ÓÌà8  àI.à0` Ð Ð à[Whether]€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€a€directed€verdict€to€Appellee,Ð à  ÐRodney€Beard.ÐÌ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àII.à0` Ð Ð à[Whether]€the€juryððs€verdict€was€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence.Фä` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àIII.à0` Ð Ð à[Whether]€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€counsel€for€Appellee,€KeithÐ |¼ ÐChurn,€to€cross€examine€Damon€Harvey€regarding€an€incident€thatÐ h¨ ÐÔ_Ôhappen[edÔ_Ô]€at€the€parties[ðð]€church€two€(2)€months€before€the€collision,€as€theÐ T ” Ðtestimony€was€irrelevant€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€Rule€401.€Ð @!€  ÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà  àWe€will€discuss€the€issues€in€reverse€order.€€The€Harpers€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ #X" Ðpermitting€Mr.€Churn€to€question€Damon€Harvey€about€an€incident€at€the€Living€Word€CommunityÐ $D # ÐChurch.€€Over€the€Harpersðð€objection,€Mr.€Harvey€admitted€that€he€ð ðÔ_Ôcreate[dÔ_Ô]€an€incident€in€churchÐ ð$0!$ Ðone€day,€Ô_Ôkick[edÔ_Ô]€a€lady€in€the€mouth,€[and]€had€to€be€tackledðð€by€the€elders€of€the€church.€€Further,Ð Ü%"% ÐMr.€Harvey€admitted€that€Mr.€Churn,€an€elder€of€the€church,€was€one€of€the€people€who€took€Mr.Ð È&#& ÐHarvey€to€the€hospital€after€this€incident.€€Following€this€exchange,€Mr.€Harvey€stated€that€heÐ ´'ô#' Ðregarded€Mr.€Churn€as€an€untruthful€person.€€Ð  (à$( ÐÌà  àOn€direct€examination,€Mr.€Harvey€testified€that€Mr.€Churn€was€not€paying€attention€to€hisÐ x*¸&* Ðsurroundings€at€the€time€of€the€collision.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Harvey€testified€that€the€traffic€lightÐ d+¤'+ Ðchanged€from€yellow€to€red€immediately€prior€to€the€collision.€€Thus,€Mr.€Harvey€provided€testimonyÐ À Ðthat€Mr.€Churn€ran€through€a€red€light€when€Mr.€Churn€collided€with€the€tractor€trailer.€€Ð ¬ì ÐÌà  àThe€Harpers€assert€that€questions€regarding€the€incident€at€church€involving€Mr.€Harvey€wereÐ „Ä Ðnot€relevant€under€Rule€401€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Additionally,€the€Harpers€argueÐ p° Ðthat€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€ð ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÐ \œ Ðprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403.€€Finally,€theÐ H ˆ ÐHarpers€assert€that€the€testimony€was€not€admissible€because€it€was€a€collateral€issue€that€was€usedÐ 4 t Ðsolely€to€contradict€the€witness.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€Harpersðð€argument.€€The€trial€court€properly€allowed€Mr.€Churn€toÐ ø 8  Ðquestion€Mr.€Harvey€about€the€incident€that€took€place€two€months€prior€to€the€accident€in€Houston.€Ð ä $  ÐRule€616€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€states€that€ð ð[a]€party€may€offer€evidence€by€cross„Ð Ð  Ðexamination,€extrinsic€evidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudiced€againstÐ ¼ü  Ða€party€or€another€witness.ðð€€Thus,€this€rule€establishes€that€evidence€of€a€witnessððs€possible€biasÐ ¨è  Ðagainst€a€party€is€relevant€for€impeachment€purposes.€€Further,€this€form€of€impeachment€is€notÐ ”Ô  Ðconsidered€a€collateral€matter,€as€the€rule€specifically€permits€the€introduction€of€extrinsic€evidence.€Ð €À ÐTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€€401;€ò òòòState€v.€Williamsóóó ó,€827€S.W.2d€804,€809€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1991);€Neil€P.Ð l¬ ÐCohen€et€al.,€ò òòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóóó ó€ðð€6.16[3][c]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€€€€€€€Ð X˜ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€establishes€that€Mr.€Harvey€could€have€maintained€a€biased€opinionÐ 0p Ðof€Mr.€Churn.€€The€evidence€illustrates€that€Mr.€Harvey€and€Mr.€Churn€have€had€a€previousÐ \ Ðencounter€that€might€influence€the€course€of€Mr.€Harveyððs€testimony.€€As€the€encounter€might€haveÐ H Ðled€Mr.€Harvey€to€be€prejudiced€against€Mr.€Churn,€it€was€proper€for€the€jury€to€hear€this€testimony.€Ð ô4 ÐTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€permitting€Mr.€Churnððs€cross„examinationÐ à  Ðof€Mr.€Harvey€regarding€the€incident€at€the€Living€Word€Community€Church.€€Ð Ì  ÐÌà  àIn€the€Harpersðð€second€issue,€they€assert€that€the€jury€verdict€was€contrary€to€the€weight€ofÐ ¤ä Ðthe€evidence.€€Because€this€appeal€results€from€a€jury€trial,€our€review€is€limited€to€a€determinationÐ Ð Ðof€whether€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d);Ð |¼ Ðò òòòReynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óóó ó,€887€S.W.2d€822,€823€(Tenn.€1994).€€If€material€evidenceÐ h¨ Ðexists€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€corresponding€judgment€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€Ð T ” Ðòòò òReynoldsó óóó,€887€S.W.2d€at€823.€€€Further,€on€an€appeal€from€a€jury€verdict,€we€do€not€determine€theÐ @!€  Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€or€weigh€the€evidence.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€Ð ,"l! ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€parties€offered€conflicting€testimony€regarding€the€color€of€the€traffic€light€as€Mr.Ð $D # ÐChurn€approached€the€intersection.€€Witnesses€for€Mr.€Churn€stated€that€the€light€was€green,€whileÐ ð$0!$ Ðthe€Harpers€introduced€evidence€that€the€traffic€light€was€red.€€Additionally,€witnesses€for€bothÐ Ü%"% Ðparties€offered€varying€accounts€of€whether€Mr.€Churn€was€driving€in€a€safe€manner€just€prior€to€theÐ È&#& Ðaccident.€€Finally,€by€eliciting€damaging€testimony€and€utilizing€prior€inconsistent€statements,€€Mr.Ð ´'ô#' ÐChurn€effectively€attacked€the€credibility€of€several€of€the€Harpersðð€witnesses€on€cross„examination.€Ð À ÐWhen€considering€the€above€evidence€in€addition€to€the€entire€record€in€this€cause,€we€conclude€thatÐ ¬ì Ðmaterial€evidence€exists€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€€Therefore,€pursuant€to€our€standard€of€review,Ð ˜Ø Ðwe€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€entering€the€jury€verdict€in€favor€of€Mr.€Churn.€€€Ð „Ä ÐÌà  àIn€their€remaining€issue,€the€Harpers€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€directing€a€verdict€inÐ \œ Ðfavor€of€Mr.€Beard.€€Our€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€is€well„settled.€Ð H ˆ ÐIt€is€appropriate€for€a€trial€court€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€when€the€evidence€is€susceptible€to€onlyÐ 4 t Ðone€conclusion.€€òòò òAlexander€v.€Ô_ÔArmentroutÔ_Ôó óóó,€24€S.W.3d€267,€271€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€ò òòòEaton€v.Ð  ` ÐÔ_ÔMclainÔ_Ôóóó ó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€ò òòòLong€v.€Ô_ÔMattinglyÔ_Ô,€óóó ó797€S.W.2d€889,€892€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  L  ÐApp.€1990)).€€If€reasonable€persons€could€draw€conflicting€conclusions,€the€case€should€go€to€theÐ ø 8  Ðjury.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔSpannÔ_Ô€v.€Abrahamóóó ó,€36€S.W.3d€452,€462€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(citing€òòò òGulf,€M.€&€Ô_ÔO.R.R.Ô_Ô€v.Ð ä $  ÐUnderwoodó óóó,€187€S.W.2d€777,€779€(Tenn.€1945);€ò òòòÔ_ÔPettusÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHurstÔ_Ôóóó ó,€882€S.W.2d€783,€788€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1993)).€€These€conclusions,€however,€cannot€be€based€on€speculation,€conjecture,€orÐ ¼ü  Ðguesswork.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€(citing€ò òòòDaniels€v.€White€Consol.€Indus.€Inc.óóó ó,€692€S.W.2d€422,€425€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¨è  Ð1985).€€€When€deciding€whether€a€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€directed€verdict,€we€must€takeÐ ”Ô  Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€the€motion.€€òòò òAlexanderóóó ó,€24Ð €À ÐS.W.3d€at€271.€€Further,€we€must€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€theÐ l¬ Ðmotion€and€disregard€all€evidence€contrary€to€the€opponentððs€position.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óÐ X˜ ÐÌà  àThe€Harpers€offered€two€theories€as€to€Mr.€Beardððs€liability:€€negligent€entrustment€andÐ 0p Ðvicarious€liability.€€We€will€first€address€the€negligent€entrustment€claim.€€Tennessee€courtsÐ \ Ðrecognize€a€cause€of€action€for€the€negligent€entrustment€of€an€automobile€to€one€who€is€incompetentÐ H Ðto€use€it.€€òòò òWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Co.ó óóó,€916€S.W.2d€896,€907€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_ÔÐ ô4 Ðv.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ôóóó ó,€844€S.W.2d€655,€661€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€ò òòòÔ_ÔRimerÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔCollegedaleÔ_Ô,€Tenn.óóó ó,€835Ð à  ÐS.W.2d€23,€24€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€24).€€In€òòò òÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôó óóó,€this€Court€listed€the€four€elements€of€a€negligentÐ Ì  Ðentrustment€claim.€€The€elements€are€ð ð(1)€an€entrustment€of€a€chattel,€(2)€to€a€person€incompetentÐ ¸ø Ðto€use€it,€(3)€with€knowledge€that€the€person€is€incompetent,€and€(4)€that€is€the€proximate€cause€ofÐ ¤ä Ðinjury€or€damage€to€another.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôóóó ó,€844€S.W.2d€at€659€(quoting€òòò òÔ_ÔChinicheÔ_Ô€v.€Smithóóó ó,€374€So.2dÐ Ð Ð872,€876€(Ala.€1979)).€€It€is€important€to€note€that€the€person€entrusting€the€vehicle€must€have€theÐ |¼ Ðright€to€control€the€vehicle€at€the€time€the€vehicle€is€entrusted.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔRimerÔ_Ôóóó ó,€835€S.W.2d€at€24.€€Further,Ð h¨ Ðwe€stated€in€òòò òÔ_ÔRimerÔ_Ôó óóó€thatÐ T ” ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òthe€liability€of€an€owner€.€.€.€is€generally€imposed€only€where€the€owner€entrusts€theÐ ,"l! Ðvehicle€to€one€whose€appearance€or€conduct€is€such€as€to€indicate€his€incompetencyÐ #X" Ðor€inability€to€operate€the€vehicle€with€care,€and€that€to€impose€liability€in€other€cases,Ð $D # Ðwhere€the€incompetency€of€the€Ô_ÔentrusteeÔ_Ô€is€not€apparent€to€the€Ô_ÔentrusterÔ_Ô€of€the€vehicleÐ ð$0!$ Ðat€the€time€of€the€entrustment,€it€must€be€affirmatively€shown€that€the€Ô_ÔentrusterÔ_Ô€hadÐ Ü%"% Ðat€that€time€knowledge€of€such€facts€and€circumstances€relating€to€the€incompetencyÐ È&#& Ðof€the€Ô_ÔentrusteeÔ_Ô€to€operate€the€motor€vehicle€as€would€charge€the€Ô_ÔentrusterÔ_Ô€withÐ ´'ô#' Ðknowledge€of€such€incompetency.€Ð  (à$( Ѐòòò òÐ Œ)Ì%) ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒId.ó óóó€€(quoting€60A€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô€ò òòòMotor€Vehiclesóóó ó€ðð€431(1)€(1969)).Ð x*¸&* ÐÐ d+¤'+ Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€Harpers€did€not€establish€the€first€element€necessary€to€maintain€aÐ À Ðcause€of€action€under€the€theory€of€negligent€entrustment.€€The€Harpers€failed€to€offer€evidence€thatÐ ¬ì Ðwould€permit€a€reasonable€inference€that€Mr.€Beard€had€the€right€to€control€the€vehicle€or€that€Mr.Ð ˜Ø ÐBeard€entrusted€the€vehicle€to€Mr.€Churn.€€The€Harpers€argue€that€Mr.€Beardððs€position€as€pastor€ofÐ „Ä Ðthe€church,€coupled€with€the€Harpersðð€testimony€at€trial,€establish€the€first€element€in€a€claim€forÐ p° Ðnegligent€entrustment.€€The€testimony€by€Ms.€Harper€was€as€follows:Ð \œ ÐÌÓ€ (š½88ÓØ! !ØÒ°ÒÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÝ‚3£,HÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚQÚ  Ú:Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWho€made€the€decision€to€rent€the€vehicle€you€all€were€riding€in,€theÐ 4 t ÐSuburban?݃3£,HgH݌Р`` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌA:€€€€€€€à0 ` àAs€far€as€I€know€it€was€the€pastorððs€decision.Ðø 8 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌQ:€à0 ` àHow€did€Mr.€Churn€become€the€driver€of€the€vehicle?ÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌA:€€à0 ` àWhen€we€arrived€at€the€airport€in€Houston€I€can€recall€my€husband€and€I€andÐ ¨è  Ða€couple€of€€the€other€people€were€like€away€just€waiting€because€the€pastorÐ ”Ô  Ðand€Keith€Churn€went€up€to€make€arrangements€for€the€vehicle.€Ð€À` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒAdditionally,€Mr.€Harper€stated€the€following:Ð X˜ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒQ:€à0 ` àWho€made€the€decision€for€Mr.€Churn€to€drive€on€the€date€of€the€accident?Ð0p` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌA:€€à0 ` àI€suppose€I€couldnððt€definitely€say,€but€he€and€Pastor€Beard€was€at€the€counterÐ H Ðwhere€the€vehicle€was€being€required€so€I€assume€that€Pastor€Beard€made€theÐ ô4 Ðsuggestion€that€he€be€the€driver.€€Ðà ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àDespite€taking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€above€testimony,€we€cannot€agree€that€thisÐ ¸ø Ðevidence€establishes€that€Mr.€Beard€had€the€right€to€control€the€vehicle€or€that€Mr.€Beard€entrustedÐ ¤ä Ðthe€vehicle€to€Mr.€Churn.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ms.€Harperððs€testimony€regarding€the€decision€to€rent€the€Suburban€doesÐ Ð Ðnot€permit€a€reasonable€inference€that€Mr.€Beard€rented€the€vehicle€or€that€Mr.€Beard€was€in€controlÐ |¼ Ðof€the€vehicle.€€Further,€testimony€that€Mr.€Beard€and€Mr.€Churn€were€at€the€counter€together€whenÐ h¨ Ðthe€vehicle€was€rented€fails€to€provide€a€reasonable€inference€that€Mr.€Beard€entrusted€Mr.€ChurnÐ T ” Ðwith€the€vehicle.€€The€Harpersðð€testimony€merely€provides€a€route€for€jury€speculation€andÐ @!€  Ðguesswork.€€Accordingly,€the€Harpers€failed€to€satisfy€the€first€element€of€negligent€entrustment.€Ð ,"l! ÐMoreover,€we€note€that€the€Harpers€failed€to€provide€sufficient€evidence€to€establish€the€second€andÐ #X" Ðthird€elements€of€negligent€entrustment.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€establish€that€Mr.Ð $D # ÐChurn€was€incompetent€to€drive€the€Suburban.€Further,€the€record€fails€to€indicate€that€Mr.€BeardÐ ð$0!$ Ðhad€knowledge€of€any€incompetency€at€the€time€of€the€purported€entrustment€of€the€vehicle.€Ð Ü%"% ÐTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€Mr.€Beardððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdictÐ È&#& Ðon€the€negligent€entrustment€issue.Ð ´'ô#' ÐÐ  (à$( Ðà  àThe€Harpers€also€argue€that€Mr.€Beard€is€subject€to€vicarious€liability€because€of€the€acts€ofÐ À ÐMr.€Churn.€€Vicarious€liability€is€the€Ð ¬ì ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òimposition€of€liability€on€one€person€for€the€actionable€conduct€of€another,€basedÐ „Ä Ðsolely€on€a€relationship€between€the€two€persons.€€Indirect€or€imputed€legalÐ p° Ðresponsibility€for€acts€of€another;€for€example,€the€liability€of€an€employer€for€the€actsÐ \œ Ðof€an€employee,€or€a€principal€for€torts€and€contracts€of€an€agent.Ð H ˆ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òò òòòÔ_ÔBrowderÔ_Ô€v.€Morrisóóó ó,€975€S.W.2d€308,€311€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€ò òòòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóóó ó€1566€(6òòthóóÐ  ` Ðed.€1990)).€€Ð  L  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€establish€Mr.€Beardððs€liability,€the€Harpers€again€rely€on€Mr.€Beardððs€status€as€theÐ ä $  Ðchurch€pastor€and€the€above€testimony€by€the€Harpers.€€This€evidence€fails€to€permit€a€reasonableÐ Ð  Ðinference€that€would€establish€the€vicarious€liability€of€Mr.€Beard.€€The€evidence€does€not€indicateÐ ¼ü  Ðthat€Mr.€Beard€and€Mr.€Churn€had€an€agency€or€employment€relationship€that€would€impose€liabilityÐ ¨è  Ðon€Mr.€Beard€for€Mr.€Churnððs€acts.€€As€we€stated€in€our€discussion€of€the€negligent€entrustmentÐ ”Ô  Ðclaim,€the€Harpers€cannot€rely€on€speculation€and€guesswork€to€make€their€case.€€We€find€this€issueÐ €À Ðwithout€merit;€therefore,€the€trial€court€properly€granted€Mr.€Beardððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.Ð l¬ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€jury€found€that€Mr.€Churn€was€not€at€fault€in€the€collision.€€€Mr.€Beard€couldÐ D„ Ðonly€be€liable,€under€either€of€the€Harpersðð€theories,€if€Mr.€Churn€were€found€to€be€negligent€in€hisÐ 0p Ðoperation€of€the€Suburban.€€Therefore,€assuming€ò òòòÔ_ÔarguendoÔ_Ôóóó ó€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€Mr.Ð \ ÐBeardððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict,€such€error€would€be€harmless€pursuant€to€Rule€36(b)€of€theÐ H ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×à À àÐ ô4 ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÐ Ì  Ðthe€appellants,€Ms.€Janet€Harper€and€Mr.€James€Harper,€and€their€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÐ ¸ø Ðissue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€Ô#†XùXXXùþ #ÔÐ ¤ä ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð T ” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE