ÿWPC …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í  w@ 0„X 0DÜ 0J 0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ 0dý BaU6~B)´DCÝ AM U*m/—èÆv~® D3,vÓ_ 0@2 AOrÆÁ 0D‡ D/Ë Bú˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÒ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Óf|œ$¡Ó 3|xã ÏÐÑÒÓUÔ{eÕÖDרӀ(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  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  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òAugust€20,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòDavid€Hopkins€is€not€a€party€to€this€lawsuit.€€For€purposes€of€thisÏappeal,€however,€we€will€assume€that€he,€as€president€of€the€corporation,€hasÏthe€authority€to€speak€for€the€defendant,€Hopkins€Surveying€Group,€Inc.,€andÏthat€his€admissions€relating€to€mistakes€may€be€considered€against€theÏdefendant.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€9çXXdÖXXdÖ7ќـ€ÙßR€%'$A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓREBA€PINSON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUIT€ÌÓ ` °œXÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9712„CV„00533Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGE€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌHOPKINS€SURVEYING€GROUP,€INC.,)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌCHARLES€P.€œDUPREE›,€Chattanooga,€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌR.€DEE€œHOBBS›,€Chattanooga,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòÌÌO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€genesis€of€this€action€is€a€property€boundary€line€dis…pute€between€the€plaintiff€and€others.€€Plaintiff,€Reba€Pinson,Ïfiled€suit€against€Hopkins€Surveying€Group,€Inc.,€alleging€thatÏshe€had€hired€the€defendant€to€survey€her€property€in€conjunctionÏwith€the€boundary€line€dispute.€€Here€she€alleges€that€the€defen…dant€negligently€and€erroneously€conducted€a€survey€of€the€disput…ed€property€line.€€Defendant€moved€for€summary€judgment€and€theÏtrial€court€granted€the€motion€and€dismissed€the€case.€€ThisÏappeal€resulted.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIt€appears€from€the€affidavits€in€the€record€that€sometime€inÏ1989,€Pinson€became€involved€in€a€boundary€line€dispute€with€herÏneighbors.€€Pinson's€attorney€at€that€time€contacted€DavidÏHopkins,€principal€of€the€defendant€corporation,€and€requestedÏthat€he€travel€to€the€property€site€and€walk€the€property€withÏPinson.€€Hopkins€contracted€to€survey€the€property€line,€verifyÏthe€corners€of€the€property€line,€and€locate€any€improvements€andÏencroachments.€€Hopkins€subsequently€prepared€a€survey€drawing€ofÏthe€property€line.ÌÌà àAfter€the€survey€was€completed,€Hopkins€received€correspon…dence€from€Pinson's€attorney,€advising€him€that€litigation€betweenÏPinson€and€her€neighbors€(Mr.€and€Mrs.€Snyder)€had€ensued,€andÏrequesting€that€he€appear€on€behalf€of€Pinson€in€that€case.€€AÏvoluntary€dismissal€of€this€lawsuit€was€entered€by€Pinson,€howev…er,€in€January€of€1991.€ÌÌà àSubsequently,€in€January€1992,€Pinson€employed€another€attor…ney€and€again€filed€suit€against€the€Snyders.€€A€settlement€agree…ment€as€to€the€location€of€the€property€line€was€eventuallyÏreached,€and€Hopkins€returned€to€the€property,€meeting€with€bothÏparties€and€their€counsel.€€On€April€7,€1993,€Pinson€and€theÏSnyders€announced€to€the€Hamilton€County€Chancery€Court€that€allÏmatters€in€controversy€had€been€settled.€€The€chancellor€approvedÏthe€settlement,€and€Pinson's€attorney€at€that€time€requestedÏHopkins€to€stake€the€property€line€in€accordance€with€the€settle…ment€agreement.€€ÌÌà àOn€July€13,€1994,€Pinson€filed€a€complaint€against€HopkinsÏSurveying€Group,€Inc.,€alleging€"a€breach€of€contract€and€anÍintentional€misrepresentation€of€the€ability€and€quality€of€theÏservices€to€be€rendered."€€Defendant€answered,€denying€the€com…plaint's€allegations,€and€Hopkins€filed€an€affidavit€alleging€thatÏthe€survey€was€accurate€and€performed€in€a€timely€and€professionalÏmanner,€"using€those€methods,€standards€and€practices€which€areÏreasonable€and€customary€in€the€trade."ÌÌà àDefendant€moved€for€summary€judgment.€€In€a€rather€unusualÏtwist,€all€four€judges€for€the€Circuit€Court€of€Hamilton€CountyÏrecused€themselves€in€succession.€€The€Honorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,ÏPresiding€Judge€of€the€Criminal€Court€of€Hamilton€County,€agreedÏto€hear€the€case.€€He€granted€defendant's€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€Ìà àOur€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€is€well„settled:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àTenn.R.Civ.P.€56.03€provides€that€summary€judgmentÏis€only€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issueÏwith€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claimÏor€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€partyÏis€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€theÏundisputed€facts.€€òòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,857ÏS.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€has€theÍburden€of€proving€that€its€motion€satisfies€these€re…quirements.€€òòœDownen›€v.€Allstate€œIns›.€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2dÏ523,€524€(Tenn.1991).ÌÌà8 àà àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidenceÏin€the€summary€judgment€context€are€also€well€estab…lished.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.ÏòòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€Courts€should€grant€aÏsummary€judgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€con…clusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonableÏperson€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòId.óóÌÌÌÓÓòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àPinson€filed€her€own€affidavit€in€response€to€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€In€it,€she€states€the€following€in€relevantÏpart:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àAs€the€survey€progressed,€it€appeared€to€me€thatÏthe€employees€doing€the€survey€were€more€interested€inÏobtaining€an€agreement€with€the€conclusions€and€findingsÏof€the€other€surveyors€than€in€the€independent€measure…ment€and€review€of€the€boundaries€of€my€property€itself.€ÏWhen€I€asked€about€this€procedure,€I€was€told€that€thisÏwas€the€proper€way€to€determine€a€disputed€boundary€andÏit€was€being€done€to€eliminate€mistakes.€€When€I€ques…tioned€the€employee„surveyor€further,€he€denied€thatÏthere€were€any€mistakes€in€the€survey.€€My€lawyer€wasÏlater€delivered€a€report€and€survey€by€Defendant,€whichÏwas€represented€to€be€accurate€by€Defendant€and€itsÏemployees.€ÌÌà8 àà àBased€on€the€representations€of€accuracy€by€Defen…dant€and€its€employees€and€the€placement€of€the€boundaryÏline€as€was€set€out€in€their€survey,€the€legal€disputeÏwas€settled€and€the€boundary€line€was€placed€as€set€out.€€ÌÌà8 àà àAfter€the€lawsuit€had€concluded,€I€had€to€pay€theÏDefendant's€bill€for€the€surveying.€€I€went€to€theÏoffice€to€pay€the€bill€and€while€I€was€there€I€discussedÏmy€survey€with€David€Hopkins.€€For€the€first€time,€I€wasÏtold€that€there€were€mistakes€in€the€final€survey€thatÏhad€been€done€and€that€he€(David€Hopkins)€had€knownÏabout€the€mistakes€prior€to€submitting€the€report€andÏsurvey€to€my€lawyer.ÌÌà8 àà àFrom€our€discussion,€it€appeared€to€me€that€theÏmistakes€were€material€and€had€affected€the€boundaryÏline€placement€to€my€detriment,€resulting€in€the€lineÏbeing€placed€where€I€received€less€usable€property.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant€denies€that€any€admission€of€mistakes€in€theÏsurvey€was€ever€made.€€Thus,€from€the€record€before€us,€we€findÏthere€is€an€issue€of€fact,€however,€it€is€necessary€to€examine€theÏmatter€further.€€Before€an€issue€of€fact€can€preclude€a€summaryÏjudgment,€it€must€be€a€genuine€issue€and€further,€it€must€be€aÏmaterial€issue.€€If€the€issue€fails€either€test,€it€does€notÏpreclude€a€summary€judgment.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€phrase€"genuine€issue"€contained€in€Rule€56.03Ïrefers€to€genuine€factual€issues€and€does€not€includeÍissues€involving€legal€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€theÏfacts.€òòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2d€924,€929Ï(Tenn.€App.€1984).€The€critical€focus€is€limited€toÏfacts€deemed€"material",€òòœEvco›€[Corp€v.€Rossóó,€528€S.W.2dÏ20€(Tenn.€1975)]€528€S.W.2d€at€24,€25,€which€is€to€sayÏthose€facts€that€must€be€decided€in€order€to€resolve€theÏsubstantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motion€isÏdirected.€òòKnoxville€Traction€Co.€v.€Brownóó,€115€Tenn.Ï323,€331,€89€S.W.€319,€321€(1905);€òòœRollins›€v.€œWinn›ÏDixieóó,€780€S.W.2d€765,€767€(Tenn.€App.€1989);€òòœSchwarzer›óó,Ï139€œF.R.D.›€Ô&  Ôat€476.ÌÌòòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌÓÓÌÔ'  Ôà àBefore€further€discussion,€we€should€note€that€the€affidavitÏfiled€by€the€plaintiff,€in€many€respects,€falls€short€of€theÏrequirements€set€out€in€Rule€56,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Proce…dure.€€Rule€56€expressly€provides:€"Supporting€and€opposing€affi…davits€shall€be€made€on€personal€knowledge,€shall€set€forth€suchÏfacts€as€would€be€òòadmissible€in€evidenceóó,€and€shall€show€affirma…tively€that€the€affiant€is€competent€to€testify€to€the€mattersÏstated€therein."€(Emphasis€added).€€òòSee€Fowler€v.€Happy€GoodmanÏFamilyóó,€575€S.W.2d€496€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€affidavit€filed€by€theÏpetitioner€does€not€meet€these€criteria.€It€is€replete€with€hear…say€and€conclusions€and€contains€little€by€way€of€facts.€€ViewingÏthe€competent€matters€asserted€in€the€affidavit€in€the€light€mostÍfavorable€to€the€plaintiff€and€giving€due€consideration€to€allÏinferences€that€may€be€properly€drawn€therefrom,€the€only€factÏwhich€we€are€able€to€extract€from€the€affidavit€is€that€the€defen…dant€admitted€that€there€were€mistakes€in€the€final€survey.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€defendant€filed€several€affidavitsÏincluding€the€affidavit€of€the€plaintiff's€former€attorney,€theÏœSnyders'›€former€attorney,€and€more€importantly,€the€affidavit€ofÏthe€president€of€the€defendant€corporation,€David€L.€Hopkins,€Jr.€ÏMr.€Hopkins€deposed,€inter€alia,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI€am€a€surveyor€licensed€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€ÏI€am€president€of€Hopkins€Surveying€Group,€Inc.,€andÏpersonally€dealt€with€Reba€Pinson€and€her€counsel€rela…tive€to€the€matters€in€dispute€in€this€lawsuit;ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà8 àà àThe€work€performed€by€my€firm€on€behalf€of€Ms.ÏPinson€was€accomplished€in€an€accurate€and€reliableÏmanner€using€those€methods,€standards,€and€practicesÍwhich€are€reasonable€and€customary€in€the€trade.€€TheÏresults€of€our€work€were€not€obtained€by€relying€on€theÏconclusions€of€others€but€rather€were€the€product€of€ourÏown€efforts.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€question€of€whether€a€summary€judgment€was€appropriateÏhinges€on€the€œquestion›€of€whether€an€admission€by€Hopkins€"thatÏthere€were€mistakes€in€the€final€survey€that€had€been€done€andÏthat€he€(David€Hopkins)€had€known€about€the€mistakes€prior€toÏsubmitting€the€report€and€survey€to€my€lawyer"€constitutes€aÏgenuine€issue€of€a€material€fact€as€contemplated€by€Rule€56,ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€itÏdoes€not.€€The€plaintiff's€affidavit,€for€example,€does€not€œcon…tain›€facts€demonstrating€that€the€"mistakes"€were€material€to€theÏplaintiff's€case€or€resulted€in€any€damages€to€her.€€The€affidavitÏdoes€not€reveal€who€made€the€"mistakes"€or€facts€from€which€it€canÏbe€determined€who€was€responsible€for€the€"mistakes."€€More€impor…tantly,€the€affidavit€contains€no€facts€whatsoever€to€support€theÏplaintiff's€conclusion€"that€the€mistakes€were€material€and€hadÏaffected€the€boundary€line€placement€to€my€detriment,€resulting€inÏthe€line€being€placed€where€I€received€less€usable€property."ÌÌà àIn€òòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€œElec›.€Co„op.óó,€868€S.W.2d€630Ï(Tenn.€App.€1993),€this€court€quoting€from€òòMetropolitan€Gas€RepairÏServ.,€Inc.€v.€œKulik›óó,€621€P.2d€313€(Colo.€1980),€we€find€theÏfollowing€statement€which€we€deem€apposite€to€the€circumstances€ofÏthis€case:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€services€of€experts€are€sought€because€of€theirÏspecial€skill.€They€have€a€duty€to€exercise€the€ordinaryÏskill€and€competence€of€members€of€their€profession,€andÏa€failure€to€discharge€that€duty€will€subject€them€toÏliability€for€negligence.€Those€who€hire€such€personsÏare€not€justified€in€expecting€infallibility,€but€canÏexpect€only€reasonable€care€and€competence.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€638.€€òòSee€Alsoóó€òòDooley€v.€Everettóó,€805€S.W.2d€380€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1990).ÌÌÓÓÌà àFurther,€in€òòDelmar€Vineyard,€et€al.€v.€B.€A.€œTimmons›,€C.P.A.,Ïet€alóó,€we€find€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àGenerally,€it€is€established€law€throughout€thisÏcountry€that€an€accountant€does€not€guarantee€correctÏjudgment,€or€even€the€best€professional€judgment,€butÏmerely€reasonable€care€and€competence.€òòœBloch›,€Inc.€v.ÏœKlein›óó,€45€Misc.2d€1054,€258€œN.Y.S.2d›€501;€òòœGammel›€v.ÏœErnst›€&€œErnst›óó,€245€Minn.€249,€72€œN.W.2d›€364,€54€œA.L.R.2d›Ï316;€òòMaryland€Casualty€Co.€v.€Cook,€D.C.óó,€35€F.Supp.Ï160;€54€œA.L.R.2d›€324.Ì€Ìà8 àà àThe€standard€of€care€applicable€to€the€conduct€ofÏaudits€by€public€accountants€is€the€same€as€that€appliedÏto€doctors,€lawyers,€architects,€engineers€and€othersÏfurnishing€skilled€services€for€compensation€and€thatÏstandard€requires€reasonable€care€and€competence€there…in.€...€1€œAm.Jur›.2d,€Accountants,€Sec.€15;€54€œA.L.R.2d›Ï328.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€page€920.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€and€hold€that€the€same€standard€of€careÏapplies€to€registered€land€surveyors,€i.e.,€they€have€a€duty€toÏexercise€the€ordinary€skill€and€competence€of€members€of€theirÏprofession,€and€a€failure€to€discharge€that€duty€will€subject€themÏto€liability€for€negligence.ÌÌà àThus,€applying€the€rule€enunciated€above€to€the€facts€of€thisÏcase,€we€have€the€undisputed,€unrefuted€testimony€of€Mr.€HopkinsÏthat€"the€work€performed€by€my€firm€on€behalf€of€Ms.€Pinson€wasÏaccomplished€in€an€accurate€and€reliable€manner€using€those€meth…ods,€standards,€and€practices€which€are€reasonable€and€customaryÏin€the€trade."€€There€is€no€evidence€that€"mistakes€in€the€finalÏsurvey,"€without€more,€demonstrates€a€deviation€from€the€duty€toÍexercise€the€ordinary€skill€and€competence€of€members€of€the€landÏsurveying€profession.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€a€disputed€fact€relating€to€whether€thereÏwere€mistakes€in€the€final€survey,€without€more,€does€not€consti…tute€a€genuine€issue€of€a€material€fact€as€required€by€Rule€56,ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€We€further€conclude€thatÏexpert€testimony€would€be€required€to€demonstrate€that€there€was€aÏdeviation€from€the€standards€of€professional€practice€prevailingÏin€the€land€surveying€profession.€€No€such€evidence€is€to€be€foundÏin€the€record.ÌÌà àAs€to€any€issue€of€misrepresentation,€the€law€is€well„set…tled.€€The€general€rule€is€set€out€in€òòœHolt›€v.€American€ProgressiveÏLife€Insurance€Companyóó,€731€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€App.€1987).ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOne€who,€in€the€course€of€his€business,€profession,Ïor€employment,€or€during€a€transaction€in€which€he€had€aÏpecuniary€interest,€supplies€false€information€for€theÏguidance€of€others€in€their€business€transactions,€isÏsubject€to€liability€for€pecuniary€loss€caused€to€themÏby€their€justifiable€reliance€upon€such€information,€ifÏhe€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€or€competence€inÍobtaining€or€communicating€the€information.€òòJasperÏAviation,€Inc.€v.€œMcCollum›€Aviation,€Inc.óó,€497€S.W.2dÏ240€(Tenn.€1972);€òòHunt€v.€Walkeróó,€483€S.W.2d€732€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1971).€This€standard€of€liability€substitutes€aÏreasonable€care€standard€for€the€common€law€scienterÏrequirement.€In€other€words,€in€business€transactions,€aÏdefendant€can€be€held€liable€for€negligent€misrepresen…tations.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€page€927ÌÌÌÓÓà àThere€is€no€issue€raised€concerning€the€communication€ofÏinformation€from€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff€or€her€attorney€inÏthe€boundary€line€dispute.€€The€affidavit€of€Mr.€Hopkins€likewiseÏdisposes€of€the€issue€of€negligent€misrepresentation€by€standingÏunrefuted€as€it€relates€to€the€methods,€standards€and€practicesÏwhich€are€reasonable€and€customary€in€the€trade.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€this€case€was€an€appropriate€case€for€disposi…tion€by€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€appellee€asks€that€we€find€this€appeal€to€be€frivolousÏand€award€damages€accordingly.€€We€do€not€find€this€appeal€to€beÏfrivolous.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€allÍrespects.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ___________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€™HXXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓREBA€PINSON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUIT€ÌÓ ` °œXÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9712„CV„00533Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGE€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌHOPKINS€SURVEYING€GROUP,€INC.,)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓ` ܸ ™XÓÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Hamilton€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinion€that€thereÏwas€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€are€assessed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ