WPC2 MgX!F!OB4!sJ?#*Gky3 :FJ\b+fCZK=$0-#/:ĉRko* fJy7Wʙa8fhD05A>Xх5┦KN/+BA(2h!`[ҕ0S-Are`[;!ޓDy61B.y;+ %Mֱ᎐qVav5i9V1X>cu ۡV';㰅_V jn֪Y{6rc OW>xË=2Rߌ`i.{bj.{M*Iלdg.6Fz?6ԪZDG)?AĿт4BOӤ#qbtGX/lPcf+SUho0._`17IjP؟\mԐ8\*~( ,ٸ; VKU>X 0  0% 08 0K 0^ 0q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0$ 0<z% 0<% 0% 0& 0:' 03H' 0 {() 0*U>+  +  +  +  , D+, A=,@ ,o,  u-  -  -  - V- V- M. 1ie. 7. B-. B /&/ 06/#/UN1 %1M1(1N2^ 2 1u2 722w2422 m2\  `&Times New Roman'  LA satisfied Microsoft Office User0AOC .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  6? 24Heading 1  XXX          <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref6// 4Body Text  XXX      0A .Footer  (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number8| 6Block Text  XXX X X   5+ ` hp x 5      8.` hp x (#8<00 :Body Text In X XXX     X   ')..      ?q#X?Xq#?q#  _!  (#X!#  X74Xq#(X74XXX74"$  (# X$  "  #'  (q#X(X74q#(q#(2$ =*!..      ?q#X?Xq#?q#  \  `&Times New Romana1a3a4a7'dxd-&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK0 WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8a9a10a11a_Appellant_s_Attorney_Name___Appellant_a_Appellee_s_Attorney_Name___Appellee_s_QuickMark 35=EKQW]c1(a)(i)i.1.a.i.1.a.8 i.)Hairline d  d#|x(r*$..      ?q#X?Xq#?q#HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular?Xp* 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ei)}*(q(fU =*!..      ?q#X?Xq#?q#  _       8q#dd8&  0p x (#X0Uq#Q @UINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Qgg$ATNASHVILLEU@Ԉ    H.` hp x (#X(#HApril4,2001Session > X74XUUXX74 % ) %)_TERESE_ԀOVERLANDv._SWIFTY_ԀOILCOMPANY,INC. 0 X74XU % * %*ԀADirectAppealfromthe% + CircuitCourt%+forWilliamsonCounty.  " No.% , ԀI98119%,LTheHonorableRuss_Heldman_,Judge.   -  q#XX74 ./k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  X74Xq# No.% 1 %1M200002192_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly31,_2001_ y       `    ________________________ _    X74XXX74       & S   % 2 %2OnOctober22,1997,anaccidentoccurredinvolvingtwominors,Ms._JoNee_ԀOBrienandMs. +{  KariAnnWhite.Asaresultoftheaccident,Ms.White,apassengerinMs.OBriens a  automobilesustainedfatalinjuries.OnFebruary24,1998,Ms._Terese_ԀOverland,individually G andasnaturalmotherandnextofkinofMs.White,filedawrongfuldeathactionagainstMs. - OBrienandhermother,Ms.JackieOBrien_Woodard_.OnOctober22,1998,thecomplaintwas  amendedtoadd_Swifty_ԀOilCo.,Inc.asanadditionalparty.Thecomplaintallegedthatthe  youngminorsobtainedintoxicatingliquorsfrom_Swifty_smanager,MarkErickson.OnApril  14,1999,thecomplaintwasamendedagainallegingnegligentsupervisiononbehalfof_Swifty_. u _Swifty_Ԁsubsequentlyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentpertainingtotheclaimsassertedby [ Ms.OverlandonMarch31,2000.ByMemorandumofLaw,thetrialcourtgrantedsummary A judgmentto_Swifty_ԀonallclaimsonMay12,2000.AnOrderdismissingallclaimsagainst 'w _Swifty_ԀwasenteredMay18,2000.OnJuly5,2000,anOrderofcompromiseandsettlementwas  ] enteredeffectivelydismissingalltheclaimsagainstthedefendantsexcluding_Swifty_.Noticeof C thisappealsoonfollowed.u  EԌ ) Ќ    X74XXX74    q#XX74 'S +i  X74Xq#      &    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe% 3 %3^ԀCircuitCourtAffirmed   Ԍ ~ Ќ    q#XX74    X74Xq#'~  DonR.Ash,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% 4 %4_C&:%XX74ANTRELL_X74X%&:,J.,and_S&:%XX74WINEY_X74X%&:,J J  joined. 0!  % 5 %5G.Thomas_Nebel_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Terese_ԀOverland. "L" StephenK.HeardandJenniferA.Lawrence,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,_Swifty_ԀOil, $ $ Co.Inc. % %   % 6 %6L  OPINION  z'"'   % 7 %7ԀI. F)$)  P E.` ` hp x (#X(#Eq#XX74 ,*|%* % XPX74Xq#    %t  Thiscasearisesfromanautomobileaccidentinvolvingtwominorsthatweredrinking *;&+ whiledriving.OnOctober22,1997minors_JoNee_ԀOBrien( Ms.OBrien)andKariAnn +!', White( Ms.White)visited_Swifty_ԀOilCo.Inc.( _Swifty_)wheretheypurchasedabottleofJim ,(- _Beamalcoholfromstoremanager,MarkErickson( Mr.Erickson).AlthoughSwiftysdoesnot  sellalcoholonthepremises,Mr.Ericksonpurchasedalcoholoffthepremisesandbroughtitto  Swiftysforresaletotheminors.Ms.OBrienandMs.WhitepurchasedthealcoholfromMr. | EricksonandsubsequentlyleftSwiftys.AstheywereenroutetoRichlandCountryClubto b borrowatruckfromafriend,theybeganconsumingtheJimBeamalcoholMr.Erickson H providedtothem.ThetwowereplanningontakingthetruckuptoRattlesnakeHill,aremote . ~ locationthatrequiredafourwheeldrivevehicle,whereMs.Whiteintendedtomeether  d boyfriend,TravisRobeson( Mr.Robeson).Thepurposeofthemeetingwastodiscussthe  J relationshipproblemsbetweenMs.WhiteandMr.Robeson.%t݌  0 Ќ  q#XX74 PX  % XPX74Xq#    %  %V݌    Ќ  q#XX74 PX  % XPX74Xq#    %  OnceMs.OBrienandMs.WhitereachedRattlesnakeHilltheycontinuedtodrink.    TheytriedtoconvinceMr.Robesontojointhem,buthedeclined.Ms.WhiteandMr.Robeson   subsequentlyhadaprivateconversationinhisvehicle.AftertheconversationMs.White x  becameupsetandstartedtobecomeemotional.Mr.RobesonleftMs.OBrienandMs.Whiteat ^  RattlesnakeHill.Ms.OBrienputMs.Whiteinthetruckanddroveaway.Asshetriedtocalm D  Ms.Whitethetruckwasgoingatarateof45milesperhour.Shortlythereafter,Ms.OBrien *z  ranofftheroadandstruckamailboxandthenaculvert.Ms.Whitediedatthescene.OBrien ` waschargedandpleadguiltytoDUIandvehicularhomicide.%;݌ F Ќ  q#XX74 PX  P  X74Xq#  OnFebruary24,1998,TereseOverland( Ms.Overland),motherofMs.Whitefileda  complaintagainstMs.OBrienandhermother,JackieOBrienWoodard.Later,Swiftywas  addedasanadditionaldefendanttotheaction.    Swiftysmaincourseofbusinessisthesaleofgasoline,oil,cigarettes,cigarettelighters, Z andsodasthroughoutthestatesofIndiana,Kentucky,OhioandTennessee.Swiftysdoesnot @ sellanysortofalcoholontheirpremises.Swiftysemployeehandbookstrictlyprohibits &v employeesfrompossessingorbringingalcoholonthepremises.Duringtheregularcourseof  \ theirbusiness,Swiftyconductsmonthlyannouncedandunannouncedauditsofapproximately B 170Swiftystores.TheauditsneverrevealedanyimproprietyonbehalfofMr.Erickson.Mr. ( Ericksonsworkhistoryexemplifiedthathewasagoodandresponsibleemployee.From  betweenthetimeMr.EricksonwasnamedmanageroftheFranklinSwiftystoreandthe  accident,SwiftywasunawareofanyallegationsregardingMr.Ericksonsellingalcoholto   minors. p!  !  X74XXX74    !&    !&Q'݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !'    ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofSwifty.Thethreeissuesforthis <#" courtsconsiderationiswhethergenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistspertainingtoMs. "$r# OverlandsclaimsofnegligentsupervisionandrespondeatsuperiorandwhetherSwiftyisliable %X $ undertheRestatement(Second)ofTorts317.!'-(݌ %>!% Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !V*  ݀!V**݌ &$"& Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !8+  򀀀 II.!8++݌ ' #' Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!%,  !%,,݌ (#( Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !-  Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthat )$) therearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentas l*%* amatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Ifthecourtfindstherearenogenuineissuesofmaterial R+&+  factandthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,thecourtmustaffirmthe 8,', trialcourt'sgrantingofthesummaryjudgmentmotion. SeeByrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,211  (Tenn.1993).!-f-݌       X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!]0  !]00݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!81  Inmakingitsdetermination,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewofthe b evidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty, H anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Lutherv.Compton ,5S.W.3d635,639(Tenn.1999). . ~ Whenreviewingsummaryjudgmentcases,thecourtmustdecide"ifthepleadings,depositions,  d answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwithaffidavits,ifany,showthat  J thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoa  0 judgmentasamatteroflaw."Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.!811݌    Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X! 5  ! 5l5݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!5  TheCourtin Byrd ,847S.W.2dat214,enunciatedthreeelementsthat"lieattheheartof   evaluatingasummaryjudgmentmotion."Tomakeadeterminationonsummaryjudgment,we x  mustdecide"(1)whetherafactualdisputeexists;(2)whetherthatfactismaterial;and(3) ^  whetherthatfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial." Id. 󀀀!5G6݌ D  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!j8  !j88݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!E9  Duringsummaryjudgmentcasesinstancesofburdenshiftingoccurs.Thepartyseeking ` summaryjudgmentcarriestheburdenofpersuadingthecourtthatnogenuineissuesofmaterial F factexist. Id. at215.Further,ifthisburdenissatisfied,theburdensubsequentlyshiftstothe , nonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfactstoshowthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfact  requiringsubmissiontothetrieroffact. Id. However,duringthisburdenshifting,"thenon  movingpartymaynotrelyonallegationsordenialsofhispleadingsincarryingouthisburden."   Id. 󀀀Thus,whenthereisalegitimatedisputeastoanymaterialfactoranydoubtastothe t conclusionstobedrawnfromtheundisputedfacts,theordergrantingsummaryjudgmentmust Z bedenied. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).!E99݌ @ Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !>  !>q>݌ &v Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!?  ݀III.!?`?݌  \ Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !?  !?H@݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!@  Ms.OverlandsfirstclaimisbasedonSwiftysallegednegligenceinfailingto ( adequatelysuperviseMr.Ericksonsactions.Underthetheoryofnegligentsupervisiona  plaintiffmaybeabletorecoverforharmcausedbytheintentionalactofthedefendant's  employeewhentheintentionalactiscommittedoutsidethescopeoftheemployee's   employment. Smithv.KeyportSelfStorage ,2000Tenn.App.LEXIS301(Ct.App.2000) p!  citing Haysv.PattonTullyTransp.Co .,844F.Supp.1221,1222(W.D.Tenn.1993).When V"! consideringtheharmcausedbytheemployee'sactionthecourtmustdeterminewhethertheact <#" wasforeseeabletotheemployer. Id. Adefendantisonlyunderadutytoacttopreventinjury "$r# fromaharmthatisforeseeable.!@#A݌ %X $ Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!TE  !TEE݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !/F  TheTennesseeSupremeCourtin Doev.LinderConstructionCo.,Inc. ,providedanexhaustive &$"& analysisofwhenariskmaybeconsideredforeseeable:!/FF݌ ' #' Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !G  !GH݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X XB+ ` hp x ` X(#B!H  [A]riskisforeseeableifareasonablepersoncouldforeseetheprobabilityofits )$) occurrenceorifthepersonwasonnoticethatthelikelihoodofdangertotheparty l*%* towhomadutyisowedisprobable.Foreseeabilityisthetestofnegligence.Ifthe R+&+ injurywhichoccurredcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseen,thedutyofcare 8,', doesnotarise,andeventhoughtheactofthedefendantinfactcausedtheinjury, -n(- thereisnonegligenceandnoliability.Foreseeabilitymustbedeterminedasof  thetimeoftheactsoromissionsclaimedtobenegligent.!H;I݌  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X X!qL  !qLL݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !ZM  845S.W.2d173,178(Tenn.1992).!ZMM݌ b Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !\N  !\NN݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!)O  ThepivotalissueregardingMs.Overlandsclaimofnegligentsupervisioniswhether . ~ therewasanyshowingfromwhichitcanbesaidthatSwiftyreasonablykneworshouldhave  d knownthatMr.Ericksonwassellingliquortominors.Swiftyarguesthattheycannotbeheld  J liablefornegligencebecausetherewasnoproofthatMr.Erickson'sactionwasareasonably  0 foreseeableevent,whichtheycouldhavetakenstepstoprevent.Ms.Overlandcontendsthat    knowledgeofSwiftysotheremployeeswassufficienttoputSwiftyonnoticeofMr.Ericksons    actions.!)OO݌   Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !R  !RS݌ x  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !S  Ms.OverlandreliesprimarilyontherecentTennesseeSupremeCourtcase Staplesv. ^  CBL&Associates,Inc. ,15S.W.3d83(Tenn.2000),regardingtheissueofforeseeabilityto D  justifyhernegligentsupervisionclaim.The Staples caseinvolvedtheabductionofadepartment *z  storecustomerfromtheshoppingmall.Theplaintiffinthecasehadbeentoseveraldifferent ` pointsofinterestswhenshenoticedasuspiciousmanfollowingher. Id. at86.However,atthat F pointshewasnotconcerned. Id. TheplaintiffsubsequentlywenttoProffitsdepartmentstoreto , browseinthedressdepartment. Id. 󀀀Duringherbrowsingshenoticedthesamemanwhomshe  hadearlierthoughtwasfollowingandwatchingherwasonlystandingsixfeetawayfromher.   Id. Atthatpointshebecameconcernedthatshewasbeingfollowed. Id. !SS݌  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !X  !XX݌ t Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !lY  Followingthisencounter,theplaintiffwentdirectlytoanotherdepartmentinProffits, Z wheresheknewtwooftheemployeesworking. Id. Whenoneoftheemployeesaskedwhatwas @ wrong,theplaintifftoldthetwowomenthatasuspiciousmanwasstalkingher. Id. Duringthis &v exchange,theplaintiffdescribedthesuspiciousmantotheemployeesanddiscussedwhetherto  \ callsecurityregardingthismatter. Id. TheplaintiffwaslaterabductedfromProffitsbythe B suspiciousmanandtakentoDalton,Georgia. Id. at87.!lYY݌ ( Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !\  !\&]݌  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !]  TheplaintiffinthecasebroughtsuitagainstProffitsallegingthatthestoreowedhera  dutyofcarebecausetheabductionwasforeseeable. Id. TheSupremeCourtfoundthatthe   exchangebetweenthetwoemployeesandtheplaintiffputthedepartmentstoreonnoticethatthe p!  plaintiffwasindangerofbeingabducted. Id. at9091TheCourtconcludedthattheharmshe V"! encounteredwasforeseeable. Id. 󀀀!]^݌ <#" Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!`  ݀!``݌ "$r# Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!a  Inthiscase,theevidencepresentedontheissueofforeseeabilitywassimplythattwo %X $ otheremployeeswereinthevicinityofSwiftypremiseswhenMr.Ericksonlefttobuyliquorfor %>!% resaletotheminors.Here,itisundisputedthatMr.Erickson,managerofSwiftys,leftthe &$"& premisesofSwiftytobuyliquorandsellittominors.Thisegregiousactsubsequentlyplayeda ' #' contributingfactorinthedeathofMs.JoNeeOBrien.Whiletherewassomeevidencethata (#( smallamountofminorsknewMr.Ericksonwasillegallysellingalcohol,therewasnoevidence )$) thatSwiftykneworshouldhaveknownoftheseillegalactsonbehalfofMr.Erickson.Swifty l*%* conductedannouncedandunannouncedmonthlyauditsthroughitssupervisors,howeverthe R+&+ auditsoftheSwiftystoreinquestionneveryieldedfindingsofimproprietybyMr.Erickson. 8,', Furthermore,basedonthefindingsofSwiftysperiodicaudits,Swiftyhadnoreasontobelieve -n(- thatillegalactivitiesweretakingplaceontheirpremisessincetheactivitieswereunrelatedto  theirregularcourseofbusiness.!aa݌  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !g  !gg݌ | Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !fh  Thecaseatbarcanbedistinguishedfromthe Staples case.In Staples ,thetwo b employeesthatcameintocontactwiththeplaintiffweregiven specificknowledge andplaced H onnoticethatanillegalactwasoccurringandsubsequentlyfailedtousereasonablecarein . ~ alleviatingthematter. Id. at86(emphasisadded).Sincethetwoemployeeswereinthevicinity  d whentheirexchangetookplacewiththeplaintifftheywereequippedwiththespecific  J knowledgethattheharmsheencounteredlaterfromthestalkerwasforeseeable. Id. at9091.It  0 isundisputedthattheSwiftyemployeesknewthattherewasoccasionaldrinkingofliquorgoing    onbyminorsontheirpremises.However,thereisnoproofintherecord,eitherbyaffidavitsor    depositionsthattheotherSwiftyemployeeswereonnoticethatMr.Ericksonwasleavingthe   premisestopurchasealcohol.Weareoftheopinionthatthiscasedoesnotrisetothelevel x  foreseeablitythatwaspresentin Staples .!fhh݌ ^  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    ! n  ! n[n݌ D  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !n  Therefore,afterreviewing"allthecircumstances"ofthiscasewefindthattherewasno *z  reasonablebasisonwhichSwiftycouldforeseeanypotentialdanger. Linder ,845S.W.2dat ` 17879(quoting Corbittv.RingleyCrockett,Inc. ,496S.W.2d914,918(Tenn.Ct.App. F 1973)).Basedontherecord,wemustconcludethattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupporta , findingthattheSwiftyemployeesorSwiftyOilCo.Inc.couldhavereasonablyforeseenthe  actionsofMr.Erickson.Inlieuoftheabovementionedfindingsandviewingtherecordinthe  lightmostfavorabletothenonmovant,Ms.Overland,wefindthatnogenuineissueofmaterial  factexists.Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentinregardtothe t claimofnegligentsupervisioninfavorofSwiftyisaffirmed.!n!% workinginthecapacityofmanageratthetimeofthisincident.However,thepivotalissue &$"& regardingthefactsofthiscaseiswhetherMr.Ericksonwasacting"withinthescopeof ' #' [Swiftys]businesspurpose."!{ |݌ (#( Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!~  !~b~݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!~  Generally,anemployermayalsobeliableforactsofhisemployeethatareoutsidethe l*%* scopeofemploymentifdoneatthedirectionoftheemployer. Kinnardv.RockCityConst. R+&+ Co. ,286S.W.2d352,354(Tenn.App.1955).ThelawinTennesseeisclearthat"whena 8,', servantdeviatesfromhislineofdutyandengagesinamissionofhisownorforsomethird -n(- person,themastercannotbeheldliableundertheruleofrespondeatsuperior." Craigv.  Gentry ,792S.W.2d77,79(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Furthermore,determiningwhetheran  employeeisactingwithinthescopeofhisemploymentisgenerallyoneoffactforthejury;but, | wheretheemployeesdeparturefromtheemployer'sbusinessisofsucha"markedanddecided b character"thatreasonablemindscouldreachbutoneconclusionundertheundisputedfacts, H summaryjudgmentisproper. Id. at80; TennesseeFarmers ,840S.W.2dat9367.!~=݌ . ~ Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !+  !+}݌  d Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !   Here,Ms.OverlandallegesthatinMr.Ericksonscapacityasmanagerheroutinely  J providedintoxicatingliquorstominorsduringthebroadscopeofpowersSwiftyvestedinhim.  0 Ms.OverlandfurthercontendsthatitwasforeseeabletoSwiftythatMr.Ericksonsoldand    providedliquortominorsatitsstorelocationinthecompanyofotherSwiftyemployees.Swifty    countersMs.OverlandstheoriesbyarguingthatMr.Ericksonwasactingoutsidethescopeof   hisemploymentwhenhepurchasedandillegallysoldalcoholtotheminor.Wearenot x  persuadedbytheargumentspresentedbyMs.Overland.Areasonablepersoncouldnotconclude ^  Mr.Ericksonwasactinginthecourseandscopeofhisemploymentwhenhepurchasedalcohol D  andsoldittoaminor.Mr.Ericksonclearlywentbeyondhisparametersasmanagerwhenhe *z  leftthepremisesofSwiftytobuyalcoholandprovideittotheminors.Wearenotconvincedit ` wasforeseeabletoSwiftythatoneofitsemployeeswouldcommitsuchanegregiousact. F Simplybecausethemanagerisinsupervisorypositiondoesnotnecessarilymeanthatheisfully , operatingwithinthescopeofhisemploymentwhenhisdeparturefromSwiftyis ofmarkedand  decidedcharacter.Ms.Overlandsargumentwithregardtothisissueismisplaced.Likethe  courtin TennesseeFarmers ,weareoftheopinionthatthequestionofwhetheranemployeeis  actingwithinthescopeofhisemploymentcanbereviewedasaquestionoflawwhenthe t employee'sactsareclearlybeyondthescopeofhisauthority.S.W.2dat937.Thetrialcourts Z grantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofSwiftyisaffirmedasfarasitrelatestoMs.Overlands @ respondeatsuperiorclaim.! ^݌ &v Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    X!  !z݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !  ݀V.!G݌ B Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !ۏ  ݀!ۏ-݌ ( Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !    ThefinalissueforconsiderationiswhetherMs.Overlandhasacauseofactionpursuant  toRestatement(Second)ofTorts317.317providesinfullasfollows:!݌  Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !h  !h݌̌    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74     X XB+ ` hp x X B!5    Amasterisunderadutytoexercisereasonablecaresotocontrolhisservant p!  whileactingoutsidethescopeofhisemploymentastopreventhimfrom V"! intentionallyharmingothersfromsoconductinghimselfastocreatean <#" unreasonableriskofbodilyharmtothem,if!5݌ "$r# Ќ    X74XXX74  !  X74XXX74    !Օ  !Օ'݌ %X $ Ќ    X74XXX74   8 (03Eq#XX74""   ,XE.` hp x (#X E   ,<%` ` hp x X(#<X74Xq#З2(  a  )3   `   theservantЗ ݌ %>!% Ќ  X$ X ` ` X $   q#XX74!  X74Xq#    B+ ` hp x X B!=  !=ߚ݌̌    q#XX74  ""   XXE.` hp x (#X E   X<% ` hp x X(#<X74Xq#2(  i  )3     isuponthepremisesinpossessionofthemasteroruponwhichthe ' #' servantisprivilegedtoenteronlyashisservant,or݌ (#( Ќ  X$ X  ` X $   q#XX74""   XXE.` hp x (#X E   X<% ` hp x X(#<X74Xq#2(  ii  )3     isusingachattelofthemaster,and՟݌ )$) Ќ  X$ X  ` X $   q#XX74!  X74Xq#    <% ` hp x X <!$  !$݌̌    q#XX74  ""   ,XE.` hp x (#` X E   ,<%` ` hp x X(#<X74Xq#2(  b  )3   `   themaster݌ R+&+    X$ ` X ` ` X $   q#XX74!  X74Xq#    <% ` hp x ` X <!̤  !̤Z݌ 8,', Ќ    q#XX74  ""   XXE.` hp x (#` X E   X9" hp x X(#9X74Xq#2(  i  )3     knowsorhasreasontoknowthathehastheabilitytocontrolhis   servant,and݌  Ќ  X$ ` X   X $   q#XX74""   XXE.` hp x (#` X E   X9" hp x X(#9X74Xq#d2(  ii  )3     knowsorshouldknowofthenecessityandopportunityfor | exercisingsuchcontrol.dr݌ b Ќ  X$ ` X   X $   q#XX74!  X74Xq#    XB+ ` hp x ` X B!    !݌̌    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    !|  Restatement(Second)ofTorts317(1965).!|ά݌ . ~ Ќ    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    !ݭ  !ݭ/݌̌    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    X$  (#X $!  ݀NocourtinTennesseehaseverexpresslyadoptedRestatement(Second)ofTorts317  J asaviablecauseofaction. Gleavesv.CheckerCabTransitCorp. ,1998WL639109at*11  0 (Tenn.Crim.App.1998).Furthermore,thecourtin Nicholsv.Atnip ,844S.W.2d655(Tenn.    App.1992)foundthat thecommonlawrulethatpersonshavenodutytoprotectothersfrom    harmtheydidnotcause,whileharsh,remainsthelaw.Inlieuofthestateoflawasitexists   today,wearenotwillingtoformallyadopt317asTennesseelawbasedonthefactsofthis x  particularcase.Therefore,thetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentregardingRestatement ^  (Second)ofTorts317infavorofSwiftyisherebyaffirmed.!.݌ D  Ќ    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    !  !ڳ݌̌    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    !  ݀VI.!݌ ` Ќ    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    !  !2݌̌    q#XX74  !  X74Xq#    !  ݀Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorof , Swiftyisaffirmed.ThecostsonappealaretaxedagainstTereseOverland.!݌  Ќ    q#XX74  E.` hp x (# (#EX74Xq# h_________________________________ t DONR.ASH,SPECIALJUDGE Z  hq#XX74