ÿWPCG ^‚'Ç'ÞkM•c±âÐÕk\•ùcZ¥!&*‘iH]îf‹¥¤NE0évCäë- O/ª ¶û£=º Žã€“¬HvzU÷I×. LžJQbàY¨É­:¬/ìJ²zPA!œ%øŠ %ìXr\ÈÄ Æk|ì8Øa»ÇXE53ùµ]•5”c·qWå¬ßÔÞzŠÃÃM£ž´eõë9î`°lê‘äI­…‹?ažá7 %|¡ø'U× ìxýql~Ê}n<úìBÏ-Sm—F$'m‡ÂOé7÷Gº±gÓEõÙ]”œ¿CÑ!>%‹»+>@òª0 ³þñ@33\†c#ý áºY^ëh•VÃãix&´U޹G(Ò¡§L#“ľݪˆš º{MÒ{² ß4‹Cƒd´<ÆÙ ²ÏWuâ«§†sê{ËS¢ÏYAüX¥~þ±Ð%L:ÿŸ¼È‰×UìA5&2ÊWzzùb²xW{lSMÎÕgê?Sg>J›ôb—“*k ¦o©Aäi£JÎbg°ù®¢ àQ\ˆz_a‰{˜aºs ÂRwÝ[¿žäϲ FW²)à+m…†¨¯ïtõÍ~‰ðË@ªgË™ŸîS`—£õ‚}.Æu‰ˆN`cÖŠe %†^ Œ 0ˆ˜UN wn4r† z•Ò á mã #Éú ;à Æþ ÆÄÆŠÆP 0DNZp\HÌEB 0UX 0ã­ 0Å 0¿U 0¹ 0³Í 0­€ 0§- 0¡Ô 0Åu 0Ñ: 0³  0­¾ 0§k 0¡! 0›³! 0•N" 0ã" 0Âp# 0Î2$ 0°% 0ª°%bZ& 0¤b& 0ž' 0˜¤' 0’<( 0ŠÎ( 0²X) 0¾ * 0¾È* 0>†+ 0øÄ+ 0â¼, 0âž- 0â€. 0âb/ 0âD0 0º&1 0Òà1 02²2 0üä2 0:à3 0Y4 0_s4 0 Ò4 0‚Ü5 0^7 B*d9 D/Ž9 0½9 D/Ã; 0Îò; 06À< 0ö< 0:þ= 0^8> 0<–> 0ëÒ> 1e½?U6"@U>X@ B–@U*³@ 0¤Ý@ D5A D-¶A 0KãA 0c.B AS‘BÆäB 0¤ªC 0DND A«’D 1u=E 72²E4äE»„˜ó0Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.b014c13|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 1Ý ƒR†z$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Plaintiffs€also€sued€Exxon€Mobile€Corporation€and€F.H.€Shoemaker€Distributors,€Inc.,€but€later€voluntarilyÐ ° Ðdismissed€these€two€defendants€without€prejudice.€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó fÝ ƒR†z$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€òòLettóó€Court€noted€that€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€315€has€been€adopted€in€Tennessee.€€òòLettóó,€60Ð ° ÐS.W.3d€at€99€(citing€òòNewton€v.€Tinsleyóó,€970€S.W.2d€490,€492€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)). >Ý ƒR†z$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAn€application€for€permission€to€appeal€was€denied€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòLettóó,€and€the€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€recommended€publication€of€this€Courtððs€opinion.€€ WimberlyInmanMichellWoodfinDupler F.H.CandiceDrinnonAnrani W]e CBLCowdenSovran S.W. OmerCarvellAssocsSwiney LettCollisTinsleyLeppkeSeguraBrockett RptrNicholsAtnipHarkleroadKeetonentrustor t]heConcklin COABroadwaterDep't cmtBerettaTamezRivergateBalentineProsserNevillTullahomaTarverHodgson*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó- ù-(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡W%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d dH)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€K(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡W%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓH)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(|G2†z$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþÕò»»Ô!"#$%&'( ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman d%ä2¼A`‹Arial(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)bi) *Ý ƒR†z$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€òòConcklinóó€Court€also€concluded€that€the€negligent€entrustment€claim€must€fail€because€the€case€involvedÐ ° Ðreal€property€rather€than€a€chattel.€€Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼C¥»»»ÔÑ8€aXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îF¼î»¼C¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼C¥»îîF¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€14,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XaX»¼C¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼C¥»XXañ#ÔGARY€L.€WEST,€òòet€al.óó€v.€EAST€TENNESSEE€PIONEER€OIL€CO.,Ð úJ Ðd/b/a€EXXON€CONVENIENCE€STOREó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ€XaX»¼C¥ÔAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ 4 „ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2„390„01€€€€€€Harold€Wimberly,€JudgeÐ  p ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ã` AßÐ ä4  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„03039„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€JULY€19,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ß/  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` Aßó óÐ · ÐÓ  ÓÌGary€L.€West€and€Michell€B.€Richardson€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€sued€East€Tennessee€Pioneer€Oil€Co.,€d/b/aÐ ² ÐExxon€Convenience€Store€(ð ðDefendantðð)€asserting€claims€based€on€negligence,€negligentÐ žî Ðentrustment,€and€negligence€òòper€seóó.€€Plaintiffs€allege€that€Brian€Lee€Tarver€(ð ðTarverðð)€was€visiblyÐ ŠÚ Ðintoxicated€when€he€stopped€at€Defendantððs€store€to€purchase€beer€and€gasoline.€€Pursuant€toÐ vÆ Ðcompany€policy,€Defendantððs€employees€refused€to€sell€Tarver€beer€because€he€was€intoxicated,€butÐ b² Ðdid€sell€him€$3.00€of€gasoline.€€One€or€more€of€Defendantððs€employee€then€assisted€Tarver€withÐ Nž Ðoperating€the€gasoline€pump.€€Shortly€after€leaving€Defendantððs€store,€Tarver€was€involved€in€anÐ :Š Ðautomobile€accident€resulting€in€serious€personal€injuries€to€Plaintiffs.€€Plaintiffs€offered€expert€proofÐ &v Ðthat€had€Tarver€not€obtained€the€$3.00€worth€of€additional€gasoline,€he€would€have€run€out€of€gasÐ b Ðbefore€reaching€the€accident€site.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€Defendantððs€motion€for€summaryÐ þN Ðjudgment€on€all€three€of€Plaintiffsðð€claims.€€We€affirm€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€PlaintiffsððÐ ê: Ðclaims€for€negligent€entrustment€and€negligence€òòper€seóó.€€We€reverse€the€grant€of€summary€judgmentÐ Ö& Ðon€Plaintiffsðð€negligence€claim.Ð Â ÐÌÌò òà@k k ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€CircuitˆÐ †!Ö  Ðà@  ìàCourt€Affirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€Remandedó óˆÐ r"Â! ÐÌòòÌD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,óóÐ 6%† $ Ðand€òòWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.€J.,€óójoined.Ð "&r!% ÐÌÌGregory€F.€Coleman€and€Michael€A.€Myers,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants€Gary€L.€WestÐ æ(6$( Ðand€Michell€B.€Richardson.Ð Ò)"%) ÐÌÌClint€J.€Woodfin€and€Gary€T.€Dupler,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€East€TennesseeÐ –,æ', ÐPioneer€Oil€Co.,€d/b/a€Exxon€Convenience€Store.Ð  ‚-Ò(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€sued€Defendant€for€personal€injuries€arising€from€an€automobile€accidentÐ `° Ðwhich€occurred€on€July€22,€2000,€in€Knox€County.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€Complaint,€Plaintiffs€allege€that€TarverÐ L œ Ðwas€about€to€run€out€of€gasoline€when€he€arrived€at€Defendantððs€Exxon€Convenience€Store.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐPlaintiffs€claim€that€when€Tarver€arrived€at€the€store,€he€was€visibly€intoxicated€and€had€difficultyÐ $ t Ðwalking.€€Tarver€attempted€to€purchase€beer,€but€Defendantððs€employees€refused€to€sell€him€any€beerÐ  ` Ðin€accordance€with€Defendantððs€policy€prohibiting€the€sale€of€beer€to€intoxicated€customers.€Ð ü L  ÐAccording€to€Plaintiffs,€Tarver€then€purchased€$3.00€of€gasoline€and€proceeded€to€the€gasolineÐ è 8  Ðpumps.€€Tarver€allegedly€was€so€intoxicated€that€one€of€Defendantððs€employees€had€to€assist€him€inÐ Ô$  Ðgetting€to€the€pumps.€€Plaintiffs€then€claim€that€ð ðin€his€intoxicated€state,€Tarver€was€unable€toÐ À  Ðoperate€the€gasoline€pump€on€his€own.€€The€Defendantððs€employee€intervened€and€proceeded€toÐ ¬ü  Ðassist€Tarver€in€pumping€the€gasoline€into€his€vehicle.ðð€€After€assisting€Tarver,€this€employeeÐ ˜è  Ðallegedly€watched€as€Tarver€drove€away,€heading€the€wrong€way€on€Highway€11€with€his€headlightsÐ „Ô  Ðoff.€€Plaintiffs€claim€that€none€of€Defendantððs€employees€attempted€to€contact€law€enforcementÐ pÀ Ðpersonnel€to€apprise€them€that€Tarver€was€driving€while€intoxicated.€€A€few€minutes€after€Tarver€leftÐ \¬ ÐDefendantððs€premises,€he€ð ðcrashed€head„on€into€Plaintiffsðð€automobileðð€causing€serious€personalÐ H˜ Ðinjuries€to€both€Plaintiffs.€€Based€on€Requests€to€Admit€filed€by€Plaintiffs€with€regard€to€medicalÐ 4„ Ðexpenses€they€claim€were€causally€related€to€the€automobile€accident,€by€September€of€2002,€MichellÐ  p ÐRichardson€had€incurred€medical€expenses€totaling€$16,286.41,€and€Gary€West€had€incurred€medicalÐ  \ Ðexpenses€totaling€$190,905.83.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€their€Complaint,€Plaintiffs€claimed€that€the€actions€of€Defendantððs€employees€inÐ Ð  Ðselling€Tarver€the€gasoline€and€in€actively€assisting€an€obviously€intoxicated€driver,€Tarver,€inÐ ¼  Ðobtaining€gasoline€constituted€negligence€and€that€it€was€reasonably€foreseeable€that€these€actionsÐ ¨ø Ðwould€result€in€a€motor€vehicle€accident.€€Plaintiffs€also€claimed€that€these€actions€constitutedÐ ”ä Ðnegligent€entrustment.€€Plaintiffs€further€alleged€that€Defendant€was€negligent€by€not€properlyÐ €Ð Ðtraining€its€employees€and€establishing€safety€procedures€with€regard€to€selling€gasoline€toÐ l¼ Ðintoxicated€drivers.€€Finally,€Plaintiffs€claimed€Defendant€was€guilty€of€negligence€òòper€seóó€byÐ X ¨ Ðviolating€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„10„201€and€202.€€Plaintiff€Michell€Richardson€soughtÐ D!” Ðcompensatory€damages€of€$1,000,000,€and€Plaintiff€Gary€West€sought€compensatory€damages€ofÐ 0"€  Ð$2,000,000.€€Plaintiffs€demanded€a€jury.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€filed€an€Answer€to€the€Complaint,€essentially€denying€the€pertinentÐ ô$D # Ðallegations€contained€therein.€€Defendant€denied€any€liability€to€Plaintiffs€and€further€claimed€thatÐ à%0!$ ÐTarverððs€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€Plaintiffsðð€injuries.Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àDefendant€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€and€attached€deposition€testimonyÐ ° Ðâ âfrom€several€of€its€employees.€€Relying€on€this€deposition€testimony€in€its€Statement€of€UndisputedÐ œì ÐFacts€accompanying€the€motion,€Defendant€claimed€its€employee,€Dorothy€Thomas€(ð ðThomasðð),Ð ˆØ Ðrefused€to€sell€Tarver€any€beer,€but€that€she€did€sell€him€$3.00€of€gasoline.€€Defendant€furtherÐ tÄ Ðclaimed€that€Tarver€òòmayóó€have€been€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€Defendant€also€claimed€it€wasÐ `° Ðundisputed€that€off„duty€employees€Candice€Drinnon€(ð ðDrinnonðð)€and€Roy€Anrani€(ð ðAnraniðð)Ð L œ Ðassisted€Tarver€in€operating€the€gas€pump€ð ðby€pushing€a€button€on€the€pump.ðð€€While€DrinnonÐ 8 ˆ Ðsmelled€alcohol€on€Tarverððs€breath,€she€was€not€aware€he€possibly€was€intoxicated€until€after€sheÐ $ t Ðassisted€him€with€the€gas€pump.€€Defendant€further€claimed€that€due€to€the€number€of€customerððs€inÐ  ` ÐDefendantððs€store€at€the€relevant€time,€Thomas€did€not€see€Tarver€pumping€gas€or€the€assistanceÐ ü L  Ðprovided€by€Drinnon€and€Anrani.€€Finally,€Defendant€claimed€Thomas€was€unaware€that€Tarver€wasÐ è 8  Ðdriving€and€thought€he€was€accompanied€by€at€least€one€other€person.€€Based€on€these€allegedlyÐ Ô$  Ðundisputed€facts,€Defendant€claimed€it€owed€no€duty€to€Plaintiffs€and€was€entitled€to€summaryÐ À  Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€Plaintiffsðð€claims€of€negligence,€negligent€entrustment,€andÐ ¬ü  Ðnegligence€òòper€seóó.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€responded€to€Defendantððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€and€StatementÐ pÀ Ðof€Undisputed€Facts.€€Plaintiffs€took€issue€with€Defendantððs€characterization€of€Tarverððs€physicalÐ \¬ Ðcondition.€€Plaintiffs€attached€testimony€from€Thomas€who€described€Tarver€as€ð ðdrunk,ððÐ H˜ Ðð ðstaggering,ðð€and€ð ðwasted.ðð€€Plaintiffs€also€claimed€that€Drinnon€was€aware€of€Tarverððs€intoxicatedÐ 4„ Ðcondition€prior€to€assisting€him€at€the€gas€pump.€€With€regard€to€Defendantððs€claim€that€ThomasÐ  p Ðthought€Tarver€had€someone€else€with€him€to€drive,€Plaintiff€attached€deposition€testimony€fromÐ  \ ÐThomas€as€well€as€portions€of€a€recorded€statement€wherein€she€stated:€€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðI€was€just€ringing€people€up€so€fast€I€was€lucky€to€have€time€to€lookÐ Ð  Ðup€to€see€who€I€was€waiting€on.ððм ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð[W]e€donððt€know€how€he€drove€through€there€and€didnððt€hit€any€[ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€cars€in€the€parking€lot].€€But,€he€obviously€in€the€back€of€his€mindÐ €Ð Ðknew€he€needed€gas€because€he€pulled€up€to€the€pump.ððÐl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðI€looked€to€see€if€somebody€was€driving€the€car.€€Because€I€donððtÐ D!” Ðknow€how€he€got€through€that€maze€of€cars€and€pulled€right€up€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðpump.ðð€Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€set€forth€additional€facts€which€they€claimed€were€undisputed.€€Specifically,Ð ô$D # ÐPlaintiffs€claimed€that€Thomas€asked€Drinnon€to€assist€Tarver€in€operating€the€gas€pump.€€PlaintiffsÐ à%0!$ Ðalso€attached€the€expert€affidavit€of€Dr.€Jeffrey€H.€Hodgson€(ð ðHodgsonðð),€a€Professor€Emeritus€ofÐ Ì&"% ÐMechanical€Engineering€at€the€University€of€Tennessee.€€Hodgson€stated€that€when€Tarver€arrivedÐ ¸'#& Ðat€Defendantððs€store,€Tarver€had€enough€gasoline€in€his€vehicle€to€travel€approximately€only€1.82Ð ¤(ô#' Ðmiles,€and€the€automobile€accident€occurred€2.8€miles€from€Defendantððs€store.€€Thus,€based€onÐ )à$( Ðâ âHodgsonððs€affidavit,€Plaintiffs€claimed€that€ð ðhad€Tarver€not€stopped€at€the€Exxon€station€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðpurchased€fuel,€his€car€would€have€ððrun€outðð€of€gasoline€approximately€one€(1)€mile€before€reachingÐ ° Ðthe€accident€scene.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€granted€Defendantððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ tÄ Ðconcluded€that€due€to€the€peculiar€facts€of€this€case,€Plaintiffsðð€various€claims€for€relief€were€notÐ `° Ðrecognized€under€Tennessee€law€ð ðas€it€stands€right€now.ðð€€Plaintiffs€appeal€the€grant€of€summaryÐ L œ Ðjudgment€to€Defendant,€claiming€that€all€three€of€their€claims,€i.e.,€negligence,€negligent€entrustment,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€negligence€òòper€seóó,€are€cognizable€under€Tennessee€law€when€considering€the€relevant€facts,€andÐ $ t Ðthe€Trial€Court,€therefore,€erred€in€granting€Defendantððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.Ð  ` ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòBlair€v.€West€Town€Mallóó,€our€Supreme€Court€recently€reiterated€the€standardsÐ À  Ðapplicable€when€appellate€courts€are€reviewing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.òò€€Blair€v.€West€TownÐ ¬ü  ÐMallóó,€130€S.W.3d€761€(Tenn.€2004).€€In€òòBlairóó,€the€Court€stated:€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€aÐ pÀ Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiryÐ \¬ Ðinvolves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ H˜ Ðattaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€is€confined€toÐ 4„ Ðreviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€ofÐ  p ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Staples€v.Ð  \ ÐCBL€&€Assoc.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3€83,€88€(Tenn.€2000);€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,Ð øH Ð955€S.W.2d€49,€50-51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/CentralÐ ä4 ÐSouthóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ Ð  ÐProcedure€56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriateÐ ¼  Ðwhere:€1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€factsÐ ¨ø Ðrelevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€and€2)€theÐ ”ä Ðmoving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€theÐ €Ð Ðundisputed€facts.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à*€*€*€Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàWhen€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properlyÐ #l! Ðsupported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€partyÐ $X" Ðto€set€forth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existence€ofÐ ô$D # Ðdisputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðfact.€€ÐÌ&"%¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàà  àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€mustÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeither€affirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€theÐ )à$( Ðnon-moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establish€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðaffirmative€defense.€€If€the€moving€party€fails€to€negate€aÐ h+¸&* Ðclaimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non-moving€partyððs€burden€toÐ ° Ðproduce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issueÐ œì Ðfor€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðmust€fail.€€If€the€moving€party€successfully€negates€a€claimedÐ tÄ Ðbasis€for€the€action,€the€non-moving€party€may€not€simply€restÐ `° Ðupon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€theÐ L œ Ðexistence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.€€Ð8 ˆ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòBlairóó,€130€S.W.3d€at€763„64,€767€(quoting,€in€part,€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88-89)€(citations€omitted)).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€Supreme€Court€also€has€provided€instruction€regarding€assessing€the€evidenceÐ è 8  Ðwhen€dealing€with€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€stating:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsummary€judgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€mustÐ ˜è  Ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€partyÐ „Ô  Ðand€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmovingÐ pÀ Ðpartyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.Ð \¬ ÐHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210-11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summaryÐ H˜ Ðjudgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ 4„ Ðfrom€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€oneÐ  p Ðconclusion.€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ð  \ Ð1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÐøH` x` x ÐÌòòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assocs.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€facts€in€the€present€case,€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Plaintiffs,Ð ¨ø Ðare€as€follows:€€(1)€Tarver€was€visibly€intoxicated€when€he€arrived€at€Defendantððs€store;€(2)€TarverÐ ”ä Ðwas€so€intoxicated€that€Thomas,€in€accordance€with€Defendantððs€policy,€refused€to€sell€him€beer;€(3)Ð €Ð ÐTarver€nevertheless€was€sold€$3.00€of€gasoline;€(4)€Tarver€was€too€intoxicated€to€pump€the€gasolineÐ l¼ Ðwithout€assistance;€(5)€Defendantððs€employees€affirmatively€assisted€Tarver€with€pumping€theÐ X ¨ Ðgasoline;€and€(6)€had€Tarver€not€obtained€the€additional€$3.00€of€gasoline,€he€would€have€run€outÐ D!” Ðof€gas€approximately€one€mile€before€reaching€the€accident€site€where€he€hit€Plaintiffsðð€vehicle€head„Ð 0"€  Ðon.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àBefore€we€discuss€whether€any€of€Plaintiffsðð€three€claims€are€cognizable€underÐ ô$D # ÐTennessee€law,€we€first€emphasize€what€the€issues€before€us€òòdo€notóó€involve.€€Specifically,€and€givenÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€record€before€us€at€this€summary€judgment€stage,€this€case€does€not€involve€the€issue€of€whetherÐ Ì&"% Ða€store€can€be€held€liable€to€third€parties€for€negligence€solely€because€it€sold€gasoline€to€a€visiblyÐ ¸'#& Ðintoxicated€driver€who€later€was€involved€in€an€automobile€accident,€and€we€express€no€opinion€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€particular€issue.€€Instead,€as€relevant€to€Plaintiffsðð€negligence€claim,€this€case€involves€potentialÐ )à$( Ðliability€of€a€store€owner€for€selling€gasoline€to€an€obviously€intoxicated€driver€coupled€with€twoÐ |*Ì%) Ðother€important€facts:€(1)€store€employees€affirmatively€assisting€the€intoxicated€driver€with€pumpingÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€gasoline€òòandóó€(2)€evidence€that€had€this€additional€gasoline€not€been€obtained,€the€intoxicatedÐ ° Ðdriver€would€have€run€out€of€gas€before€reaching€the€site€of€the€accident.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€will€address€Plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€dismissing€theirÐ tÄ Ðnegligence€claim.€€In€Tennessee,€in€order€to€prevail€on€a€negligence€claim,€a€plaintiff€must€establishÐ `° Ðthe€following€elements:€ð ð(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€defendant€to€plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€below€theÐ L œ Ðapplicable€standard€of€care€that€amounts€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€cause€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðfact;€and€(5)€proximate,€or€legal,€cause.ðð€€òòLett€v.€Collis€Foods,€Inc.óó,€60€S.W.3d€95,€99€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð $ t ÐApp.€2001)(quoting€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995)).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendantððs€primary€argument€on€appeal€is€that€it€owed€no€duty€to€Plaintiffs,€or€anyÐ è 8  Ðother€third€party€for€that€matter.€€The€issue€of€whether€one€person€owes€a€duty€to€another€is€aÐ Ô$  Ðquestion€of€law€to€be€decided€by€the€court.€€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€99.€€The€òòLettóó€Court€discussed€the€dutyÐ À  Ðof€care€in€a€negligence€case€as€follows:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTo€establish€duty,€a€plaintiff€must€show€that€there€exists€aÐ „Ô  Ð"legal€obligation€owed€by€defendant€to€plaintiff€to€conform€to€aÐ pÀ Ðreasonable€person€standard€of€care€for€the€protection€againstÐ \¬ Ðunreasonable€risks€of€harm."€[òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153].€Ð H˜ ÐA€risk€of€harm€is€unreasonable€"if€the€foreseeable€probability€andÐ 4„ Ðgravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendant's€conduct€outweigh€the€burdenÐ  p Ðupon€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€haveÐ  \ Ðprevented€the€harm."€òò€Idóó.€€In€making€this€determination,€severalÐ øH Ðfactors€are€important:€(1)€the€foreseeable€probability€of€the€harm€orÐ ä4 Ðinjury€occurring;€(2)€the€possible€magnitude€of€the€potential€harm€orÐ Ð  Ðinjury;€(3)€the€importance€or€social€value€of€the€activity€engaged€in€byÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendant;€(4)€the€usefulness€of€the€conduct€to€the€defendant;€andÐ ¨ø Ð(5)€the€feasibility,€relative€usefulness,€relative€safety,€and€relativeÐ ”ä Ðcosts€and€burdens,€of€an€alternative,€safer€course€of€conduct.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌòòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€99.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РX ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€facts€in€òòLettóó€involved€a€Waffle€House€employee,€Lynda€Mills,€who€reported€toÐ 0"€  Ðwork€intoxicated€and€thereafter€clocked€in.€€The€employer€attempted€without€success€to€sober€MillsÐ #l! Ðup€so€she€could€work.€€The€manager€then€instructed€the€assistant€manager€to€clock€Mills€out.€€AfterÐ $X" ÐMills€refused€an€offer€of€a€ride€home€and€drove€herself,€she€was€involved€in€an€automobile€accidentÐ ô$D # Ðresulting€in€serious€personal€injuries€to€the€plaintiff.€€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€97.€€The€plaintiff€sued€MillsððÐ à%0!$ Ðemployer€claiming€it€had€a€duty€to€plaintiff€to€prevent€Mills€from€leaving€work€and€driving€homeÐ Ì&"% Ðintoxicated.€€The€trial€court€disagreed€and€granted€the€employerððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð ¸'#& ÐòòIdóó.Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€this€Court€rejected€the€plaintiffððs€assertion€that€the€employer€had€a€dutyÐ ° Ðto€prevent€Mills€from€driving€while€intoxicated.€€In€so€doing,€we€noted€that,€as€a€general€rule,€aÐ œì Ðperson€does€not€have€a€duty€to€control€the€conduct€of€another€so€as€to€prevent€that€person€fromÐ ˆØ Ðinjuring€a€third€party.€€òòIdóó.€at€99.€€A€notable€exception€to€this€rule€is€when€the€defendant€stands€in€aÐ tÄ Ðspecial€relationship€either€to€the€individual€whose€conduct€threatens€to€cause€harm,€or€to€theÐ `° Ðindividual€exposed€to€that€harm.€€òòIdóó.€€The€òòLettóó€Court€observed€that€pursuant€to€the€RestatementÐ L œ Ð(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€315(a),€there€is€no€duty€to€control€the€conduct€of€a€third€person€so€as€to€preventÐ 8 ˆ Ðhim€from€doing€harm€to€another€unless€ð ða€special€relation€exists€between€the€actor€and€the€thirdÐ $ t Ðperson€which€imposes€a€duty€upon€the€actor€to€control€the€third€personððs€conduct.ðð€€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3dÐ  ` Ðat€99,€100€(quoting€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€315€(1965)).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tennessee€Courts€have€not€foundÐ ü L  Ða€ð ðspecial€relationðð€as€that€term€is€used€in€ðð€315(a)€unless€the€defendant€had€the€means€and€abilityÐ è 8  Ðto€control€the€conduct€of€the€third€party.€€òòIdóó.€at€100.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinding€no€Tennessee€authority€addressing€whether€an€employer„employeeÐ ¬ü  Ðrelationship€constituted€a€ð ðspecial€relationðð€for€purposes€of€ðð315(a)€of€the€Restatement,€the€CourtÐ ˜è  Ðin€òòLettóó€discussed€relevant€authority€from€other€jurisdictions€addressing€this€issue,€in€particular€òòOtisÐ „Ô  ÐEngineering€Corp.€v.€Clarkóó,€668€S.W.2d€307€(Tex.€1983).€€In€òòOtisóó,€an€employee€consumed€alcoholicÐ pÀ Ðbeverages€in€his€car€while€on€a€dinner€break€and,€upon€his€returning€to€work,€it€was€suggested€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€employee€go€home.€€The€employee€was€escorted€to€his€car€by€his€supervisor€at€which€time€theÐ H˜ Ðsupervisor€inquired€whether€the€employee€could€make€it€home.€€The€employee€responded€that€heÐ 4„ Ðcould.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€employee€was€involved€in€an€automobile€accident,€killing€theÐ  p Ðplaintiffððs€decedent.€€òòOtisóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€308.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àA€sharply€divided€Texas€Supreme€Court€reversed€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€employer.€€In€so€doing,€the€òòOtisóó€Court€discussed€several€cases€where€a€defendantððs€affirmativeÐ Ð  Ðacts€ultimately€prevented€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€or€dismissal€of€the€lawsuit.€€ForÐ ¼  Ðexample,€in€òòLeppke€v.€Seguraóó,€632€P.2d€1057€(Colo.€Ct.€App.€1981),€the€Colorado€Court€of€AppealsÐ ¨ø Ðreversed€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant€tavern€owner,€stating€that€ð ðby€jump„startingÐ ”ä Ðan€automobile€for€an€obviously€drunken€driver,€thus€giving€him€mobility€which€otherwise€he€wouldÐ €Ð Ðnot€have€had,€one€or€both€of€the€defendants€set€into€motion€a€force€involving€an€unreasonable€riskÐ l¼ Ðof€harm€to€others.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1059.€€The€òòLeppkeóó€Court€distinguished€the€facts€then€before€it€fromÐ X ¨ Ðsituations€involving€liability€predicated€solely€upon€a€failure€to€stop€an€individual€who€was€alreadyÐ D!” Ðengaged€in€dangerous€behavior.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€also€Brockett€v.€Kitchen€Boyd€Motor€Co.óó,€70€Cal.€Rptr.€136,Ð 0"€  Ð139€(1968)€(the€special€relationship€of€employer€and€employee€coupled€with€the€affirmative€acts€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€employer€which€involved€guiding€the€intoxicated€employee€to€his€vehicle,€placing€the€employeeÐ $X" Ðinto€his€vehicle,€and€directing€him€to€drive€home€were€sufficient€to€impose€a€duty€of€reasonable€careÐ ô$D # Ðon€the€employer.).€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àA€five€member€majority€of€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€relied€on€òòLeppkeóó,€òòBrockettóó€andÐ ¸'#& Ðsimilar€cases€involving€affirmative€acts€of€an€employer€when€holding€that€ð ðwhen,€because€of€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðemployeeððs€incapacity,€an€employer€exercises€control€over€the€employee,€the€employer€has€a€dutyÐ ° Ðto€take€such€action€as€a€reasonably€prudent€employer€under€the€same€or€similar€circumstances€wouldÐ œì Ðtake€to€prevent€the€employee€from€causing€an€unreasonable€risk€of€harm€to€others.ðð€€òòOtisóó,€668Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€at€311.€€The€majority€in€òòOtisóó€then€reversed€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€and€remandedÐ tÄ Ðthe€case€for€a€trial€on€whether€the€employer€acted€in€a€reasonable€and€prudent€manner.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àFour€Justices€dissented€from€the€majority€opinion€in€òòOtisóó.€€The€dissent€concluded€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€employer€had€not€taken€any€affirmative€steps€and€its€only€act€was€a€failure€to€take€charge€of€itsÐ $ t Ðemployee€and€prevent€him€from€driving€home.€€The€dissent€further€concluded€that€there€must€be€aÐ  ` Ðcustodial€relationship€in€which€the€person€charged€with€controlling€the€conduct€of€anotherÐ ü L  Ðvoluntarily€assumes€responsibility€for€that€person.€€òòId.óó€at€313€(McGee,€dissenting).€€The€dissentÐ è 8  Ðconcluded€that€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€employer€should€be€affirmed€because,€as€aÐ Ô$  Ðmatter€of€law,€the€employer€did€not€voluntarily€take€the€employee€into€its€custody€or€assumeÐ À  Ðresponsibility€for€his€conduct.€€òòIdóó.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€discussing€the€differing€views€of€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€in€òòOtisóó,€this€CourtÐ „Ô  Ðin€òòLettóó€concluded€as€follows:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWe€are€persuaded€by€the€minority€opinion€in€òòOtisóó.€€We€findÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€facts€of€the€instant€case€likewise€do€not€present€affirmativeÐ 4„ Ðacts€sufficient€to€impose€a€duty€upon€Collis€Foods€to€control€theÐ  p Ðconduct€of€Mills,€who€was€off-premises€and€off-duty€as€well.€€SheÐ  \ Ðarrived€at€work€intoxicated,€and€Collis€Foods€did€not€contribute€to,Ð øH Ðcondone,€or€seek€to€accommodate,€her€intoxication.€€It€did€not€requireÐ ä4 Ðher€to€drive€home;€in€fact,€it€attempted€to€find€her€safe€passage€home,Ð Ð  Ðbut€she€refused.€€In€sum,€the€employer€did€not€provide€her€mobilityÐ ¼  Ðshe€otherwise€did€not€have;€it€did€not€encourage€her€to€drive€home;Ð ¨ø Ðand€it€did€not€contribute€to€the€condition€that€made€it€unsafe€for€herÐ ”ä Ðto€drive.€€In€effect,€the€employer€"did€no€more€than€acquiesce€in€[her]Ð €Ð Ðdetermination€to€drive€[her]€own€car."€€òòCecilóó,€575€S.W.2d€at€272.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌòòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€103€(footnote€omitted).€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€admittedly€there€is€no€employer„employee€relationship€betweenÐ #l! ÐTarver€and€Defendant.€€While€it€may€be€easier€to€establish€a€ð ðspecial€relationðð€in€cases€involving€anÐ $X" Ðemployer€and€employee,€Restatement€ðð€315(a)€is€not€limited€to€that€particular€situation.€€In€ourÐ ô$D # Ðopinion,€the€affirmative€acts€of€Defendantððs€employees€in€selling€gasoline€to€and€in€assisting€anÐ à%0!$ Ðobviously€intoxicated€Tarver€with€re„fueling€his€vehicle€is€similar€to€the€defendantððs€act€in€òòLeppkeóóÐ Ì&"% Ðwhen€it€jump„started€an€automobile€for€an€intoxicated€driver.€€In€both€situations,€these€affirmativeÐ ¸'#& Ðacts€ð ðset€into€motion€a€force€involving€an€unreasonable€risk€of€harm€to€others.ðð€€òòSee€Leppkeóó,€632Ð ¤(ô#' ÐP.2d.€at€1059.€€This€is€even€more€apparent€when€considering€that,€without€Defendantððs€employeesððÐ )à$( Ðaffirmative€assistance€which€enabled€Tarver€to€obtain€more€gasoline,€he€would€have€run€out€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðgasoline€prior€to€arriving€at€the€accident€site.€€In€other€words,€the€acts€of€Defendantððs€employeesÐ h+¸&* Ðprovided€Tarver€with€mobility€to€travel€2.8€miles€to€the€accident€site,€mobility€he€otherwise€wouldÐ ° Ðnot€have€had.€€Plaintiffsðð€negligence€claim€is€not€predicated€on€any€alleged€failure€by€Defendant€toÐ œì Ðcontrol€Tarver,€but€instead€is€based€on€these€affirmative€acts€by€Defendantððs€employees.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€assessing€whether€a€duty€is€owed,€courts€must€utilize€a€balancing€approach€basedÐ `° Ðupon€principles€of€fairness€and€identify€whether€the€risk€to€the€plaintiff€was€unreasonable.€€òòStaplesÐ L œ Ðv.€CBL€&€Associates,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).€€A€ð ðrisk€is€unreasonable€and€gives€riseÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeable€probability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendantððsÐ $ t Ðconduct€outweigh€the€burden€upon€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€haveÐ  ` Ðprevented€the€harm.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€(quoting€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995)).€€We€doÐ ü L  Ðnot€hold€that€convenience€store€employees€have€a€duty€to€physically€restrain€or€otherwise€preventÐ è 8  Ðan€intoxicated€customer€from€driving€away.€€Neither€do€we€hold€that€solely€the€sale€of€gasoline€toÐ Ô$  Ða€visibly€intoxicated€driver€does€or€does€not€create€a€duty€owed€by€the€seller.€€What€we€do€hold€isÐ À  Ðthat€the€affirmative€acts€of€Defendantððs€employees€gave€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€whenÐ ¬ü  Ðconsidering€the€serious€risk€created€by€those€acts.€€Specifically,€we€believe€the€affirmative€acts€ofÐ ˜è  ÐDefendantððs€employees€in€both€selling€the€gasoline€to€and€in€helping€a€visibly€intoxicated€TarverÐ „Ô  Ðpump€the€gasoline€into€his€vehicle€created€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care.€€We€hold€that,€under€theÐ pÀ Ðspecific€facts€of€this€case,€Plaintiffs€have€at€this€summary€judgment€stage€set€forth€a€cause€of€actionÐ \¬ Ðagainst€Defendant€for€negligence,€and€there€are€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€regarding€whetherÐ H˜ ÐDefendant€breached€a€duty€to€Plaintiffs.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€Trial€Courtððs€grant€of€summaryÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€negligence€claim.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€Plaintiffsðð€claim€based€on€negligent€entrustment,€the€four€elements€of€that€claimÐ øH Ðare:€€(1)€an€entrustment€of€a€chattel,€(2)€to€a€person€incompetent€to€use€it,€(3)€with€knowledge€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€person€is€incompetent,€and€(4)€that€is€the€proximate€cause€of€injury€or€damage€to€another.€Ð Ð  ÐòòNichols€v.€Atnipóó,€844€S.W.2d€655,€659€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€argues€the€tort€of€negligent€entrustment€is€inapplicable€in€the€present€caseÐ ”ä Ðbecause€there€was€a€sale€of€gasoline,€not€an€entrustment.€€Defendant€relies€heavily€on€òòBrown€v.Ð €Ð ÐHarkleroadóó,€287€S.W.2d€92€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1955).€€In€òòHarkleroadóó,€a€father€purchased€a€vehicle€forÐ l¼ Ðhis€son,€whom€the€plaintiff€claimed€was€a€known€drunk€and€reckless€driver.€€Less€than€four€monthsÐ X ¨ Ðlater,€the€son€was€involved€in€an€accident€with€the€plaintiff€and€the€son€later€was€found€guilty€ofÐ D!” Ðreckless€and€drunk€driving.€€òòHarkleroadóó,€287€S.W.2d€at€94.€€The€òòHarkleroadóó€Court€concluded€theÐ 0"€  Ðfather€could€not€be€held€liable€for€negligent€entrustment€because€he€gave€the€car€to€his€son,€asÐ #l! Ðopposed€to€loaning€it€to€him.€€A€policy€concern€given€by€the€òòHarkleroadóó€Court€for€limiting€aÐ $X" Ðnegligent€entrustment€claim€to€a€bailment€situation€was€the€following:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIf€a€father€incurs€liability€by€giving€an€automobile€to€his€son,Ð Ì&"% Ðknowing€him€to€be€drunken€or€incompetent€driver,€when€would€itÐ ¸'#& Ðend?€€Would€it€last€for€the€life€of€the€automobile?€€Would€it€apply€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€new€automobile€in€the€event€of€a€trade-in?€€Or€would€liability€attachÐ )à$( Ðâ âto€a€dealer€who€sold€an€automobile€to€a€known€incompetent€orÐ |*Ì%) Ðdrunken€driver?€€Or€to€a€filling€station€operator€who€sold€such€aÐ ° Ðperson€gas,€knowing€of€his€propensity?€€Ðœì` x` x Ðâ âÌòòHarkleroadóó,€287€S.W.2d€at€96.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThirty„seven€years€after€òòHarkleroadóó€was€decided,€this€Court€in€òòNichols€v.€Atnipóó,€844Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d€655€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€declined€to€address€the€continuing€validity€of€òòHarkleroadóó,€butÐ 8 ˆ Ðdid€note€that€òòHarkleroadóó€was€contrary€to€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€390€ð ðand€has€beenÐ $ t Ðcriticized€by€many€courts€and€legal€scholars.ðð€€òòNicholsóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€660.€€Likewise,€in€òòBrown€v.Ð  ` ÐWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€976€F.€Supp.€729,€734€n.2€(W.D.€Tenn.€1997),€the€United€States€DistrictÐ ü L  ÐCourt€for€the€Western€District€of€Tennessee€stated€that€òòHarkleroadóó€has€been€ð ðfiercely€criticizedðð€andÐ è 8  Ðset€forth€some€of€the€authority€which€disagreed€with€that€opinion.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àBy€definition,€one€would€think€that€in€order€to€establish€a€claim€of€ð ðnegligentÐ ¬ü  Ðentrustment,ðð€the€entrustor€must€retain€some€form€of€ownership€or€control€over€the€chattelÐ ˜è  Ðimproperly€entrusted.€€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€1058€(7òòthóó€ed.€1999)€defines€ð ðnegligent€entrustmentððÐ „Ô  Ðas€ð ð[t]he€act€of€leaving€a€dangerous€article€(such€as€a€gun€or€car)€with€a€person€who€the€òòlenderóóÐ pÀ Ðknows,€or€should€know,€is€likely€to€use€it€in€an€unreasonably€risky€manner.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€ItÐ \¬ Ðis€not,€unfortunately,€that€simple.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€July€31,€2003,€the€Middle€Section€of€this€Court€issued€its€decision€in€òòRains€v.Ð  p ÐBend€of€the€Riveróó,€124€S.W.3d€580€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€deniedÐ  \ Ða€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appeal€in€òòRains€óóon€Nov.€24,€2003.€€òòRainsóó€involved,€òòinter€aliaóó,Ð øH Ða€negligent€entrustment€claim€against€the€defendant€who€sold€the€plaintiffsðð€minor€son€ammunition.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€plaintiffsðð€son€later€committed€suicide.€€The€òòRainsóó€Court€ultimately€concluded€that€the€parentsÐ Ð  Ðfailed€to€state€a€claim€for€negligent€entrustment€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðshould€have€suspected€the€decedent€was€not€competent€when€he€purchased€the€ammunition,€and€noÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€that€his€suicide€was€reasonably€foreseeable.€€òòIdóó.€at€597.€€However,€as€pertinent€to€thisÐ ”ä Ðappeal,€the€òòRainsóó€Court€concluded€that€a€claim€for€negligent€entrustment€can€arise€from€the€sale€ofÐ €Ð Ða€chattel,€stating:€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWhile€negligent€entrustment€claims€usually€arise€in€theÐ D!” Ðcontext€of€a€bailment,€it€is€now€widely€agreed€that€the€merchants€mayÐ 0"€  Ðbe€considered€to€be€suppliers€of€chattels.€€òòIreland€v.€Jefferson€CountyÐ #l! ÐSheriff's€Dep'tóó,€193€F.€Supp.2d€1201,€1229€(D.€Colo.€2002);€òòBrownÐ $X" Ðv.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€976€F.€Supp.€729,€734€(W.D.€Tenn.€1997);Ð ô$D # ÐòòHerndon€v.€Hughesóó,€No.€02A01-9706-CV-00128,€1998€WL€90745,Ð à%0!$ Ðat€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€4,€1998)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ð Ì&"% Ðapplication€filed);€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€390,€cmt.€a.Ð ¸'#& ÐAccordingly,€state€and€federal€courts€have€not€hesitated€to€recognizeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€negligent€entrustment€claims€may€be€asserted€against€personsÐ )à$( Ðwho€sell€firearms€and€ammunition.€€òòMorin€v.€Mooreóó,€309€F.3d€316Ð |*Ì%) Ð324€(5th€Cir.€2002)€(assault€rifle);€òòIreland€v.€Jefferson€CountyÐ h+¸&* ÐSheriff's€Dep'tóó,€193€F.€Supp.2d€at€1227-28€(shotgun);€òòBrown€v.Ð ° ÐWal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€976€F.€Supp.€at€734€(ammunition);€òòKnight€v.Ð œì ÐWal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€889€F.€Supp.€at€1539€(firearms€andÐ ˆØ Ðammunition);€òòHamilton€v.€Beretta€U.S.A.€Corp.óó,€96€N.Y.2d€222,€727Ð tÄ ÐN.Y.S.2d€7,€750€N.E.2d€1055,€1064€(2001)€(firearms);€òòWal-MartÐ `° ÐStores,€Inc.€v.€Tamezóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€130€(ammunition).€ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌòòRainsóó,€124€S.W.3d€at€597.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àApproximately€five€months€after€òòRainsóó€was€decided,€the€Western€Section€of€thisÐ ü L  ÐCourt€issued€its€decision€in€òòConcklin€v.€Hollandóó,€No.€W2003„00334„COA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.Ð è 8  ÐLEXIS€934€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€29,€2003),€òòappl.€perm.€appeal€denied€June€1,€2004óó.€€One€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðissues€in€òòConcklinóó€was€whether€a€co„owner€of€a€house€could€negligently€entrust€that€house€to€anotherÐ À  Ðco„owner.€€In€resolving€this€issue,€the€òòConcklinóó€Court€stated:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Second€Restatement€of€Torts€offers€a€similar€definition€byÐ „Ô  Ðstating:ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàà  àIt€is€negligence€to€permit€a€third€person€to€use€a€thingÐ H˜ Ðor€to€engage€in€an€activity€which€is€under€the€control€of€theÐ 4„ Ðactor,€if€the€actor€knows€or€should€know€that€such€personÐ  p Ðintends€or€is€likely€to€use€the€thing€or€to€conduct€himself€inÐ  \ Ðthe€activity€in€such€a€manner€as€to€create€an€unreasonable€riskÐ øH Ðof€harm€to€others.Ðä4¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€308€(1965).€Comment€(a)€furtherÐ ¼  Ðexplains:Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàThe€words€"under€the€control€of€the€actor"€are€used€to€indicateÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€third€person€is€entitled€to€possess€or€use€the€thing€orÐ l¼ Ðengage€in€the€activity€only€by€the€consent€of€the€actor,€andÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€actor€has€reason€to€believe€that€by€withholdingÐ D!” Ðconsent€he€can€prevent€the€third€person€from€using€the€thingÐ 0"€  Ðor€engaging€in€the€activity.Ð#l!¸ x¸ x ЀÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€308€cmt.€a.€(1965).€€Implicit€in€theseÐ ô$D # Ðdefinitions€of€negligent€entrustment€is€the€owner's€act€of€òòlending€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðpossession€to€a€third€personóó.€€òòSeeóó€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ððÐ Ì&"% Ð308€&€cmt.€a.€(1965).€€Such€an€act€cannot€be€accomplished€when€theÐ ¸'#& Ðthing€or€activity€at€issue€is€being€lent€to€a€co-owner€rather€than€a€thirdÐ ¤(ô#' Ðparty.€Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐòòConcklinóó,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€934,€at€**€14,€15€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€the€defendant€did€notÐ ° Ðâ âhave€to€give€consent€to€a€co„owner€to€occupy€the€house€and€could€not€be€deemed€to€have€entrustedÐ œì Ðthe€house€to€a€co„owner.׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€also€Broadwater€v.€Dorseyóó,€688€A.2d€436,€441€(Md.€1996)(ð ð[W]eÐ ˆØ Ðhold€that€the€doctrine€of€negligent€entrustment€is€generally€limited€to€those€situations€in€which€theÐ tÄ Ðchattel€is€under€the€control€of€the€supplier€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Ordinarily,€without€the€rightÐ `° Ðto€permit€or€prohibit€use€of€the€chattel€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€an€individual€cannot€be€liable€forÐ L œ Ðnegligent€entrustment.ðð).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòConcklin€óócertainly€seems€to€support€the€conclusion€reached€forty„eight€years€earlierÐ  ` Ðin€òòHarkleroadóó€that€a€negligent€entrustment€claim€requires€some€sort€of€a€bailment,€which€is€not€theÐ ü L  Ðsituation€when€a€chattel€is€sold€and€all€control€over€that€chattel€is€transferred€to€the€buyer.€€WeÐ è 8  Ðacknowledge€that€there€is€authority€from€this€Court€holding€to€the€contrary.€€After€reviewing€theÐ Ô$  Ðconflicting€authorities€from€this€Court€as€well€as€other€jurisdictions,€we€respectfully€conclude€thatÐ À  Ða€bailment€relationship€rather€than€a€sale€of€chattel€is€a€prerequisite€to€establishing€the€tort€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðnegligent€entrustment.€€We€hold€that€the€ð ðsaleðð€of€a€chattel€simply€is€not€an€ð ðentrustmentðð€of€aÐ ˜è  Ðchattel.€€This€is€not€to€say€that€a€claim€for€negligence€never€can€be€made€against€a€seller€when€it€sellsÐ „Ô  Ða€chattel€to€someone€whom€the€seller€knows€or€reasonably€should€know€is€likely€to€use€the€chattelÐ pÀ Ðor€conduct€himself€in€such€a€manner€as€to€create€an€unreasonable€risk€of€harm€to€others.€€Negligence,Ð \¬ Ðwith€all€its€necessary€elements€and€allocation€of€comparative€fault,€rather€than€negligent€entrustmentÐ H˜ Ðwould€be€the€basis€for€any€such€claimed€liability.€€As€already€discussed€in€this€Opinion,€that€is€anÐ 4„ Ðissue€for€another€day€given€the€posture€of€the€case€now€before€us.€€We€simply€hold€that€a€claim€forÐ  p Ðnegligent€entrustment€cannot€be€based€on€an€outright€sale€of€the€chattel.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,Ð  \ Ðwe€affirm€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€Defendant€on€Plaintiffsðð€negligent€entrustment€claim.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€final€issue€involves€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€granting€Defendant€summaryÐ Ð  Ðjudgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim.€€In€òòCook€v.€Spinnakerððs€of€Rivergate,€Inc.óó,€878Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€934,€937€(Tenn.€1994),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standard€of€conduct€expected€of€a€reasonable€person€mayÐ €Ð Ðbe€prescribed€in€a€statute€and,€consequently,€a€violation€of€the€statuteÐ l¼ Ðmay€be€deemed€to€be€negligence€per€se.€€òòSee€McIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,Ð X ¨ Ð833€S.W.2d€52,€59€(Tenn.€1992).€€"When€a€statute€provides€that€underÐ D!” Ðcertain€circumstances€particular€acts€shall€or€shall€not€be€done,€it€mayÐ 0"€  Ðbe€interpreted€as€fixing€a€standard€of€care€.€.€.€from€which€it€isÐ #l! Ðnegligence€to€deviate."€€òòProsser€and€Keeton€on€Tortsóó€ðð€36,€p.€220€(5thÐ $X" Ðed.€1984).€€In€order€to€establish€negligence€per€se,€it€must€be€shownÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€statute€violated€was€designed€to€impose€a€duty€or€prohibit€anÐ à%0!$ Ðact€for€the€benefit€of€a€person€or€the€public.€€òòSmith€v.€Owenóó,€841Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âS.W.2d€828,€831€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(citing€òòNevill€v.€City€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐTullahomaóó,€756€S.W.2d€226€(Tenn.€1988)).€€It€must€also€beÐ ° ÐÔ& œ Ôâ âestablished€that€the€injured€party€was€within€the€class€of€persons€thatÐ œì Ðthe€statute€was€meant€to€protect.€€òòSmithóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€831.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌòòSpinnakerððsóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€937.€€Ð `° ÐÔ'œœ·ÔÌà  àà ` àIn€general€terms,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401€prohibits€a€person€from€driving€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðautomobile€while€intoxicated.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„202€makes€it€unlawful€for€persons€owningÐ $ t Ðor€controlling€vehicles€from€requiring€or€knowingly€permitting€a€driver€to€operate€such€vehicle€inÐ  ` Ða€manner€contrary€to€law.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„201€provides€as€follows:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àò ò55-10-201.€€Parties€to€a€crime.€ð!ð€ó ó€Every€person€whoÐ Ô$  Ðcommits,€attempts€to€commit,€conspires€to€commit,€or€aids€or€abetsÐ Ä  Ðin€the€commission€of€any€act€declared€in€chapter€8€or€parts€1-5€of€thisÐ °  Ðchapter€to€be€a€crime,€whether€individually€or€in€connection€with€oneÐ œì  Ð(1)€or€more€other€persons,€or€as€a€principal,€agent€or€accessory,€isÐ ˆØ  Ðguilty€of€such€offense,€and€every€person€who€falsely,€fraudulently,Ð tÄ Ðforcibly€or€willfully€induces,€causes,€coerces,€requires,€permits€orÐ `° Ðdirects€another€to€violate€any€provision€of€chapter€8€or€parts€1-5€ofÐ Lœ Ðthis€chapter€is€likewise€guilty€of€such€offense.Ð8ˆ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€not€entirely€clear,€the€gist€of€Plaintiffsðð€argument€appears€to€be€thatÐ ` ÐDefendantððs€employees€aided€and€abetted€Tarver€with€driving€while€intoxicated,€a€violation€byÐ üL ÐTarver€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„202€speaks€to€owners€of€vehiclesÐ è8 Ðor€any€other€person€who€employs€or€otherwise€has€the€authority€to€direct€the€actions€of€a€driver.€Ð Ô$ ÐClearly,€neither€Defendant€nor€any€of€its€employees€had€such€authority€over€Tarver.€€Ð À ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€Legislature€has€not€hesitated€in€establishing€guidelines€for€the€sale€of€alcohol€andÐ ˜è Ðexpressly€prohibits€the€sale€of€alcohol€to€intoxicated€persons.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„4„Ð „Ô Ð203(c)(1).€€Since€the€Legislature€has€clearly€regulated€the€sale€of€alcohol€to€intoxicated€persons,€weÐ pÀ Ðtrust€it€will€regulate€the€sale€of€gasoline€to€intoxicated€drivers€when,€and€if,€it€feels€the€need€to€doÐ \ ¬ Ðso.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€sale€of€gasoline€to€an€intoxicated€driver€is€negligence€òòper€seóó€underÐ H!˜ Ðthe€statutes€relied€on€by€Plaintiffs€because€they€do€not€clearly€define€the€claimed€prohibited€conduct.€Ð 4"„  ÐIn€fact,€the€sale€of€gasoline€is€not€even€mentioned.€€In€the€absence€of€a€statute€clearly€defining€whatÐ  #p! Ðis€prohibited,€we€must€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€claim€basedÐ  $\" Ðon€negligence€òòper€seóó.Ð ø$H # Ðâ âÐ ä%4!$ ÐÔ&  Ôâ âà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.€€This€causeÐ ˆØ Ðis€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appealÐ tÄ Ðare€assessed€one„half€against€the€Appellants€Gary€L.€West€and€Michell€B.€Richardson€and€theirÐ `° Ðsurety,€and€one„half€against€the€Appellee€East€Tennessee€Pioneer€Oil€Co.,€d/b/a€Exxon€ConvenienceÐ L œ ÐStore.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÔ' °âÃÔ