ÿWPCž …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í  w@ 0„X 0DÜ {q 0J‘ 0TÛ 0^/ 0h 0rõ 0|g 0†ã 0i 1uù 0dn BÒU6ïB)%DCN AM‘U*Þ-v~5 D3³vÓæ 0@¹ AOùÆH 0D D/R B˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Óf|œ$¡Ó 3|x™ …D†E‡Uˆ‰EŠ‹eŒŽÓ€(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(I¸Ü$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€)Õ)XXÔÓxêÓ2 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$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJune€25,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€YÇXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€&(%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓJAKE€O.€PURKEY€and€TEAM€€à à)à àHAMBLEN€CIRCUIT€€€ÌÓ ` °œXÓTECHNOLOGIES,€INC.,€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9707„CV„00317Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€œPlaintiffs„Appellees€›€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€KINDALL€T.€LAWSON€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌDENNIS€PURKEY,€d/b/a€WEST€END€)ÌSERVICE€CENTER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€œDefendant„Appellant€›€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌœ›ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌEDWARD€J.€WEBB,€JR.,€K.€JEFF€LUETHKE,€Hunter,€Smith€&€Davis,ÏJohnson€City,€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌC.€DWAINE€EVANS,€Evans€&€Beier,€Morristown,€for€Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€bailment€case,€œplaintiffs,€Jake›€Purkey€and€TeamÏTechnologies,€Inc.,€filed€suit€after€their€trucks€were€destroyedÏin€a€fire€at€œthe›€West€End€Service€œCenter's€(defendant)›€place€ofÏbusiness.€€A€jury€found€the€œdefendant›€liable€for€the€value€of€theÏœtrucks›€and€also€for€the€rental€expenses€incurred€by€Team€Technolo…gies€in€procuring€a€substitute€vehicle€after€its€truck€was€de…stroyed.€€The€œdefendant,›€Dennis€Purkey,€owner€of€the€West€EndÏService€Station€(West€End),€appeals,€arguing€there€is€no€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€jury's€verdict.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€Ìà àÌà àOn€or€about€January€2,€1996,€Jake€Purkey,€son€of€the€defen…dant,€left€his€truck€at€West€End€for€service€and€repairs.€€Mr.ÏDavid€Schumaker,€an€owner€of€Team€Technologies,€a€custom€contractÏmanufacturing€business,€left€his€company's€vehicle€at€West€End€forÏthe€same€purpose.€€On€the€early€morning€of€January€3,€1996,€a€fireÏoccurred€which€destroyed€West€End's€service€building€and€the€twoÏœvehicles›€therein.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€trial€took€place€on€May€29,€1997.€€At€the€trial,Ïboth€plaintiffs€admitted€that€they€had€no€direct€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€negligently€caused€or€contributed€to€the€fire.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€was€unaware€of€anything€he€did€orÏneglected€to€do€which€would€have€caused€or€contributed€to€theÏfire.€€He€stated€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€the€fire's€cause€orÏorigin.€€Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€stated€that€the€work€heÏwas€performing€on€Team€Technologies'€vehicle€required€disconnect…ing€the€fuel€lines.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€theÏfuel€lines€had€been€reconnected€before€he€left€the€shop€on€JanuaryÏ2.€€He€also€testified€that€if€not€reconnected€correctly,€the€fuelÏlines€could€leak€and€cause€gasoline€fumes€to€accumulate.€€TheÏdefendant€stated€that€he€"didn't€pay€any€attention€[to]€gas€œsmellsÏð"ð€gasoline›€smells"€and€since€he€worked€around€the€smell€of€gaso…line€so€often,€"I€guess€I'm€immune€to€it."€€There€were€no€openÏwindows€or€œvents€in€the€building,›€and€the€doors€were€locked€whenÏthe€defendant€left€for€the€day.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€presented€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Gary€Young,€aÏfire€causation€expert.€€Young€investigated€the€fire€sceneÏapproximately€eight€days€after€the€fire.€€He€testified€that€theÏfire€was€caused€by€a€low„order€explosion.€€Young€stated€that€theÏevidence€suggested€that€the€fire€began€high€in€the€building€andÏspread€downward.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€fire€had€beenÏintentionally€set,€or€that€it€had€been€caused€by€either€of€theÏplaintiffs'€vehicles.€€ÌÌà àYoung€testified€that€"it's€absolutely€my€opinion€that€aÏnatural€gas€explosion€occurred€and€blew€the€wall€out.€€I€justÏdon't€know€what€happened€to€cause€the€natural€gas€explosion."€€HeÏexplained€that€the€reason€he€was€certain€it€was€a€natural€gasÏexplosion€was€that€natural€gas€is€lighter€than€air,€causing€it€toÏrise,€and€the€burn€patterns€suggested€the€fire€started€in€theÏupper€portion€of€the€building.€€Although€Young€stated€he€wasÏcertain€of€a€natural€gas€explosion,€on€cross„examination€he€wasÏpresented€with€his€investigation€report,€which€stated€that€theÏevidence€"lends€some€credence€to€the€possibility€of€some€type€ofÏnatural€gas€leak,"€and€which€stated€as€its€conclusion,€"it€is€myÍprofessional€opinion€that€the€specific€cause€or€precipitator€forÏthis€fire€loss€can€simply€not€be€determined€based€on€the€evidenceÏœavailable€..."›€€His€report€also€noted€that€he€had€interviewed€theÏMorristown€City€Fire€Investigator,€who€ÌÓÓÌœà8 àrevealed›€that€at€the€conclusion€of€his€investigation,Ïhis€official€ruling€is€that€this€fire€is€undetermined€inÏorigin.€€He€notes,€however,€that€he€thinks€one€possibil…ity€as€a€possible€cause€œfor›€the€fire€might€be€due€to€œtheÏrear€block€wall€of€the€building€collapsing€due€to€some›Ïtype€of€previous€structural€œproblem€which›€in€turn€toreÏthe€gas€supply€lines.€.€.he€was€unable€to€prove€theÏabove€scenario€with€scientific€certainty€but€offered€itÏas€one€possible€explanation€for€the€fire.ÌÌÌÓÓà àYoung€testified€that€the€only€indicator€of€a€natural€gas€leakÏwould€be€a€distinctive€odor.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€didÏnot€notice€any€natural€gas€odor€before€he€left€West€End€thatÏevening.€€Young€stated€that€he€did€not€uncover€any€evidence€sug…gesting€that€the€defendant€did€anything€to€cause€or€contribute€toÏthe€fire.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€awarded€Jake€Purkey€$9,125,€the€amount€stipulated€asÏthe€fair€market€value€of€his€truck.€€The€jury€awarded€Team€Tech…nologies€$17,593.99,€the€value€of€its€vehicle€plus€its€expenses€inÍrenting€another€business€vehicle€until€a€suitable€replacementÏcould€be€found.ÌÌà àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€moved€for€summary€judgment,Ïwhich€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€The€defendant€argues€onÏappeal€that€the€denial€of€summary€judgment€was€erroneous.€€As€theÏcourt€noted€in€òòBradford€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóó,€885€S.W.2d€78,€80Ï(Tenn.App.€1994),€"[a]€trial€court's€denial€of€a€motion€for€summa…ry€judgment,€predicated€upon€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact,€is€not€reviewable€on€appeal€when€a€judgment€isÏsubsequently€rendered€after€a€trial€on€the€merits."€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€theÏjury's€verdict.€€Bailment€cases€such€as€this€one€are€governed€byÏT.C.A.€ðð€24„5„111,€which€provides:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àIn›€all€actions€by€a€bailor€against€a€bailee€for€loss€orÏdamage€to€personal€property,€proof€by€the€bailor€thatÏthe€property€was€delivered€to€the€bailee€in€good€condi…tion€and€that€it€was€not€returned€or€redelivered€accord…ing€to€the€contract,€or€that€it€was€returned€or€redeliv…ered€in€a€damaged€condition,€shall€constitute€primaÏfacie€evidence€that€the€bailee€was€negligent,€providedÏthe€loss€or€damage€was€not€due€to€the€inherent€nature€ofÏthe€property€bailed.ÌÌÌÓÓœà àIt›€is€undisputed€that€plaintiffs'€proof€was€sufficient€toÏmake€out€a€prima€facie€case€under€the€statute,€and€thus€the€burdenÏshifted€to€the€defendant€to€affirmatively€prove€he€was€not€negli…gent.€òòMorton€v.€Martin€Aviation€Corp.óó,€325€S.W.2d€524€(Tenn.Ï1959);€òòSteiner„Liff€Iron€&€Metal€Co.€v.€Woodmont€Country€Clubóó,€480ÏS.W.2d€533€(Tenn.€1972);€òòCrook€v.€Mid„South€Transfer€&€StorageÏCo.,€Inc.óó,€499€S.W.2d€255€(Tenn.App.€1973).€€ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€there€was€material€evidence,Ïincluding€the€presumption€afforded€by€the€statute,€supporting€theÏjury's€verdict€in€this€case.€€Defendant€makes€much€of€the€expertÏYoung's€testimony€that€he€found€no€evidence€that€defendant€causedÏor€contributed€to€the€fire,€but€it€is€an€elementary€principle€thatÏthe€jury€is€at€liberty€to€accept,€reject,€or€accord€whateverÏweight€it€will€to€an€expert's€testimony.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSpeight€v.ÏGibbsóó,€486€S.W.2d€922,€924€(Tenn.App.€1972).€€As€noted€by€theÏSupreme€Court€in€€òòMorton€v.€Martin€Aviation€Corp.óó,€325€S.W.2d€524,Ï528€(Tenn.€1959):ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà àThe›€presumption€created€by€this€statute€is€one€madeÏby€law€which€creates€an€inference€of€a€fact€which€isÏprima€facie€correct€and€will€œsustain›€the€burden€ofÏevidence€unless€and€until€conflicting€facts€on€the€pointÏare€shown.€€òòWhere€conflicting€facts€on€the€point€areÏshown€the€permissible€deduction€from€this€statutoryÏlegal€presumptionóó€which€is€before€the€Court€òòis€one€thatÏthe€jury€may€accept€or€reject€or€accord€such€probativeÏvalue€as€it€desiresóó,€and€such€inference€is€evidence€andÏremains€in€the€case€even€though€there€is€evidence€op…posed€thereto€with€respect€to€the€point€involved.€€InÏother€words€this€presumption€is€a€prima€facie€proof€ofÏthe€fact€presumed,€and€unless€the€fact€thus€established,Ïprima€facie,€by€legal€presumption€of€its€truth€is€dis…proved,€it€must€stand€as€proved.€ÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€[emphasis€œadded].›Ìà àÌà àIn€òòIrving€Pulp€&€Paper,€Ltd.€v.€Dunbar€Transfer€&€StorageÏCo.,€Inc.óó,€the€Sixth€Circuit,€applying€Tennessee€law,€stated€theÏfollowing:ÌÓÓÌÒ û ÒÒ ° Òœà8 àà àUpon›€such€a€[prima€facie]€showing,€the€baileeÏassumes€both€the€burden€of€producing€evidence€that€theÏdamage€was€not€caused€by€the€œbailee's€negligence›€òòandÏthe€risk€of€nonpersuasion€of€the€trier€of€factóó.ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒòòIrving€Pulp€&€Paperóó,€732€F.2d€511,€515€(6th€Cir.€1984)€[emphasisÏœadded].ÌÌÓÓÌ›€€The€jury's€response€to€the€question€on€a€special€verdict€form,Ïrequested€by€the€defendant,€which€queried,€"has€the€defendant,ÏDennis€Purkey,€presented€sufficient€evidence€to€prove€by€a€prepon…derance€of€the€evidence€that€he€committed€no€act,€error€or€omis…sion€that€resulted€in€the€fire€in€question?"€was€"no."€€Thus,€œtheÏdefendant›€did€not€œmeet›€his€burden€of€persuasion€of€the€trier€ofÏfact.€€Ìà à€Ìà àThe€trial€court's€judgment€œentered€on›€the€jury's€verdict€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€œappellant.Ì›€œÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à_______________________›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌ______________________________›ÌœHerschel›€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌœ______________________________›ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€œJudgeÇÑ  ÑÑ7€ÙXXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓJAKE€O.€PURKEY€and€TEAM€€à à)à àHAMBLEN€CIRCUIT€€€ÌÓ ` °œXÓTECHNOLOGIES,€INC.,€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9707„CV„00317Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellees€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€KINDALL€T.€LAWSON€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌDENNIS€PURKEY,€d/b/a€WEST€END€)ÌSERVICE€CENTER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ›œà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Hamblen€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€trial€court's€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏassessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ›œ›