WPC zEn/\|JxuDjw)IB0-eF1 e60BmO|NWRs} -D2l?7+B;F2g8ѰJ Hv+B,=?לQ2ywDLouH599sx<qGg5^^E/XҶЇѧqwdn@:eeTH `%>~{>`b2hAz&T(ߨMQVnœφ_ާ:h>Io稽NR$ly>˙N=bNGiԈ,DfFW};Ha >ip[",`}`@?bs"qaZ><=ւ$-HyiL_8uLQ;{s_Y,q2ꥫ4m۩.s>G4PfxAbb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   _ %  UNNEb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K ASb 0{ 0D Ac3+L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(opn3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2&E$ !.8ddd8         0  , d(|3$ !.8ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _  d8#XXdd8  @ dINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#d #Ԉ ,   November21,2000Session X X#Xd #dXX##THOMASLEESMITH,IndividuallyandasAdministratoroftheEstatesof  ` MARGARETTEWILKERSONSMITH,etal.v.ARTHURJOHNSON,et ( x al.X#Xd  @  @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforTiptonCounty H  @@No.4792JoeH.Walker,III,Judge 8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A X  @@TTNo.W200000063_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust27,_2001_ W  AV) ` dE<` A 7      Thisisawrongfuldeathcase.Acarcrossedthecenterlineandcollidedwithadumptruck, 6 causingthedumptrucktostrikeandkillthreepedestrians,includingtheplaintiffswifeandson. & Theplaintiffsuedthedriverofthecar,thedriverofthedumptruck,andthecompanyforwhichthe  dumptruckdriverwashaulingasphalt.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthe  company,findingthatthetruckdriverwasanindependentcontractor.Attrial,thejuryfoundthat  thedriverofthecarwas100%atfaultfortheaccident,andthatthetruckdriverborenofaultinthe  accident.Theplaintiffsdidnotmoveforanewtrial.Theplaintifffiledanoticeofappeal.We  affirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttothecompany,findingthattheliabilityofthe v companywouldbederivedfromthefaultofthetruckdriverintheoperationormaintenanceofhis f dumptruck,andthatthecompanycouldnotbeheldliablewherethejuryfoundthatthetruckdriver V borenofaultintheaccident. F 0 Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  & v   #dX##X#X.dHollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.and "V  HewittP.Tomlin,Jr.Sp.J.,joined. "F! ClydeW.Keenan,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellants,ThomasLeeSmithandCourtney $& # DanielleSmith. %!$ LauriceE.Smith,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappelleeArthurJohnson. '"& JohnI.Houseal,Jr.andC.WesleyFowler,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappelleeLehmanRoberts )$( Company. v*%)    JohnBarryBurgess,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappelleeJeffHenning. V,'+  F-(,    OPINION #dXX# #X#Xd   #dXX# #  X#Xd   Thisisawrongfuldeathcaseresultingfromatragicaccident.OnApril2,1997,Jeff  Henning( Henning)wasdrivingadumptruckthatheownedandoperated,headednorthboundon  Highway14._Henning_ԀwashaulingasphaltforLehmanRobertsCompany( LehmanRoberts).As p _Henning_ԀapproachedtheintersectionofHighway14andHighway206,henoticedatruck,being `  drivensouthboundbyArthurJohnson( Johnson),waitingtoturnleftontoHighway206. P  Johnsonsrearrightbrakelightwasworkingproperly,buthisrearleftbrakelightwasnot.EricMay @  ( May)wasdrivinghiscarsouthboundonHighway14when,apparentlytoavoidacollisionwith 0  Johnson,Maylostcontrolofhiscar,veeredintonorthboundtrafficandcollidedwith_Henning_s  p  dumptruck.Asaresultofthecollision,Henninglostcontrolofhisdumptruckandstruckandkilled `  threepedestrians:_Margarette_Ԁ_Wilkerson_ԀSmithandsevenmonthold,JeremyTylerSmith,thewife P  andsonofplaintiffThomasLeeSmith( Smith),aswellasachildofSmithsneighbor.  @    SmithfiledalawsuitforwrongfuldeathagainstHenning,LehmanRoberts,May,and   Johnsononbehalfofhimselfandhisminordaughter.SmithandMaysettledpriortotrial.Thetrial  courtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoLehmanRobertsonthebasisthatHenningwasanindependent  contractor.Subsequently,ajurytrialwasheld,withHenningandJohnsonastheonlyremaining  defendants.Attheconclusionoftheproof,thejuryfoundthatHenningandJohnsonwerenotat  fault,andthatMaywas100%atfault._Smithdidnotfileamotionforanewtrial,_butinsteadfiled_  anoticeof_appeal__.  p   Onappeal,SmitharguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttoLehman P Roberts.HecontendsthatHenningshouldbedeemedanemployeeofLehmanRoberts,notan @ independentcontractor,becauseofthedegreeofcontrolthatthecompanyexercisedoverHennings 0 employmentactivities.Consequently,SmitharguesthatLehmanRobertsshouldbeheldliablefor  p Henningsactionspursuanttothedoctrineofrespondeatsuperior.Inthealternative,Smithargues ` thattheissueofwhetherHenningwasanemployeeoranindependentcontractorshouldhavebeen P afactquestionforthejury.AlsopertainingtothepotentialliabilityofLehmanRoberts,Smith @ arguesthat,evenifHenningwasanindependentcontractor,LehmanRobertshadadutytoinspect 0 hisdumptruckandmaintainitunderthe publicservicelaws,andthatthetrialcourterredinnot   admittingcertainevidenceofpertinentfederalandstatesafetystatutesandregulationsand ! instructingthejuryregardingthosestatutesandregulations. "     Where,ashere,atrialjudgehasapprovedajurysverdict,ourstandardofreviewiswhether $" thereisanymaterialevidencetosupportthejurysverdict.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Absenta % # reversibleerroroflaw,wewillsetasideajudgmentonajuryverdictonlywheretherecordcontains p&!$ nomaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict. Fosterv.Blue ,749S.W.2d736741(Tenn.1988).  `'"%   X#XXX# Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthe_movant_Ԁdemonstratesthatthere @)$' arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter 0*%( oflaw.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthe  +p&) legalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion.See_Carvell_Ԁv. ,`'* Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisno  presumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment.Seeid.Therefore,  ourreviewofthetrialcourts grantofsummaryjudgmentisdenovoontherecordbeforethisCourt.  Seeid. #X#XXX##       Inthiscase,anyliabilityofLehmanRobertswouldstemfromHenningsfaultinthe `  accident.ThejuryconcludedthatHenningwasnotatfaultineithertheoperationofhistruckorin P  itsmaintenance,andthatconsequently,Henninghadnofaultintheaccident.Thejuryfoundthat @  Maywas100%atfault.Thus,evenifHenningwereanemployeeofLehmanRobertsatthetime 0  oftheaccident,LehmanRobertswouldstillhavenoliability.Onappeal,Smithdoesnotarguethat  p  therewasnomaterialevidencetosupporthejurysfactualfindingthatMaybore100%ofthefault `  fortheaccident.Instead,Smitharguesthatthejurymighthaveviewedtheevidencedifferentlyhad P  LehmanRobertsalsobeenadefendant,ratherthansimplyanindividualtruckdriversuchas @  Henning.Wewillnotreversethetrialcourtsholdingbecausetheplaintiffbelievesthatthejurys 0  sympathiesmighthavebeendifferenthadtherebeenacorporatedefendantinthepicture.   Consequently,wemustaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoLehmanRoberts.     Smithnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinnotadmittingevidenceorinstructingthejury  oncertainfederalandstatepublicsafetystatutes.Thisissueislikelypretermittedbyourholding  thatanyliabilityofLehmanRobertsmuststemfrom_Henning_sfault,andthejuryfound_Henning_  hadzerofaultintheoperationormaintenanceofhistruck.However,totheextentthatthe p instructionsmayhaveimpactedthejurysfinding,Rule3(e)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellate ` Procedurestatesthatinanappealofajurycase,issuesregardingatrialcourtserrorintheadmission P orexclusionofevidenceoringrantingorrefusingjuryinstructionsarewaivediftheappellantfails @ tofirstfileamotionforanewtrial: 0   8  Provided,however,thatinallcasestriedbyajury,noissuepresentedforreview ` shallbepredicateduponerrorintheadmissionorexclusionofevidence,jury P instructionsgrantedorrefused,misconductofjurors,partiesorcounsel,orother @ actioncommittedoroccurringduringthetrialofthecase,orothergroundupon 0 whichanewtrialissought,unlessthesamewasspecificallystatedinamotionfor   anewtrial;otherwisesuchissueswillbetreatedaswaived.!   ЀConsequently,Smithsissuesastothetrialcourtserrorinnotadmittingevidenceorcharging #! thejuryastothestatutesarewaived.Allotherissuesarepretermittedbythisdecision.  $"   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtotheappellant,ThomasLee p&!$ Smith,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   `'"%     `     h     ___________________________________ @)$'    `     h     HOLLYK.LILLARD,JUDGE 0*%(