WPC ,^xZVUxKVVD.5e8}>bIN=t?tƶ/T5U+VfgZ[yf}C#mt=T~\q5=D$1a:ȱŒssIRso!#B +$Uqqw,.e߅Ѭ dwiͪE=f\ S؋6[rd,dNddCWҀ İ]S&]N]?N UCn0?|\OP˥^nIƘcF=f(+)ID|ln=eWdnsK9hlg̯O۞'(SnĖżT2d{#7=FՕV$pQ-U_-W$lXgZpMVwɤmiA+lar~d9}K 6IעD}do OqU!m4'f;m_YN^b#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z+  w  m  e +NEb 0 B 0 D3o D- 0K ASm 03 0D A\\IB01S04\CLERKKNOX,,,,0؜. (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2V$ !.8_ydd8         0   d(|3$ !.8_ydd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8_ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8_ydd8     _  _y8UXXdd8  @ U_yINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#_yU #Ԉ &   February12,2003Session L XUX_y #_yXXU#JOHNS.DOEv.RANDALLE._PEDIGO_,etal.XUX_y  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.238095  6 FILEDJUNE30,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201311_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }       #_yXU#XUX._yCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart. P   WhileIagreewiththebulkofthemajorityopinion,Iwriteseparatelytoexpressmy d disagreementwiththemajoritysjudgmentthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhether P Dr._Pedigo_, atthetimeof[the]occurrence[athiscondominium]was actingbyvirtueoforunder < coloroftheoffice[ofdeputysheriff].Tenn.CodeAnn.88302(2002). (   TheonlymaterialfactindisputepertainingtotheTenn.CodeAnn.88302analysisis  whetherDr._Pedigo_Ԁwasadeputysheriffatthetimeoftheoccurrenceathiscondominium.Forthe  purposeofthefollowingdiscussion,Iwillassumethathewas.Obviously,thisassumptionis  beneficialtotheplaintiffstheoryofthecase.However,evenassumingthebestpossiblescenario t fortheplaintiffonthisissue,Iconcludethattheundisputedfactsandthisassumptioncanleadto ` onlyonereasonableconclusion,i.e.,whathappenedatDr._Pedigo_scondominiumwaspurely L  personalinnatureandtotallyunrelatedtohisofficialduties. 8!    WhenDr._Pedigo_Ԁandtheplaintiffwenttothedoctorscondominium,theywerenotgoing #`" thereonanyofficialbusinessrelatedtoDr._Pedigo_sassumedstatusasadeputysheriff.Theywere #L# goingthereto passthetimeastheyawaitedapossiblecalltorespondtoacrimescene.Whilethey $8 $ werethere,Dr._Pedigo_ԀsuggestedthatheinjecttheplaintiffwithaHepatitisBvaccineandthe %$!% plaintiffagreed.Itisobviousbeyondanydoubtthattheplaintiffagreedtotheinjectionnotbecause &"& Dr._Pedigo_Ԁwasadeputysheriffbutratherbecausehewasamedicaldoctor.Again,Ifindnonexus '"' betweenwhathappenedatthecondominiumandDr._Pedigo_sassumedpositionasadeputysheriff. (#(   Inmyjudgment,theopinionofthisCourtinthecaseof _J.W._Ԁexrel.Wattsv.MauryCounty , p*%* No.M200102768_COA_ԄR3CV,2003WL1018138(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filedMarch11,2003), \+&+ perm.app.filedMay12,2003,andtheinstantcasecanbedistinguishedonthefactsofthetwo H,', cases.In _J.W._ ,itisarguablethatthechildwenttothedefendantshomesothedefendantcould 4-(- _counselatroubledyouthatthathouseasapartofthedefendantsdutiesasaschoolresourceofficer.  Intheinstantcase,theplaintiffwenttoDr.Pedigoscondominiumtorelaxwhilethetwoofthem  awaitedapossiblecalltodutyforDr._Pedigo_.Theformersituationinvolvedthedefendantsofficial  duties;thelatterdoesnot. t   Withrespecttothelanguageintheopinionin _J.W._ ! ortakesadvantageofsuchactualor L  purportedcapacity!uponwhichthemajorityrelies,thislanguagemustbereadinthecontextof 8  thefactsofthatcase. _Natl_ԀLife&AccidentIns.Co.v._Eddings_ ,188Tenn.512,523,221S.W.2d $ t 695,699(1949).  `   Iwouldaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentinitsentirety.  8  #DXX#  XXD   `     h     _______________________________  Z     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE#DXX#