ÿWPCÌ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µwšÝ4w ‹ U:š 0§Ô 0D{ ¿ 0JÇ 0T 0^e U:à 0hý 0re 0|× 0†S 0Ù 1ui 0dÞ BBU>_U *B)ÇDCð AM3€ D3—ƒÊ M 0@Z<šv~ÖvÓT AO'Æv 0D< D/€ B¯˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¼•½ɾe¿+À/Á/Â/ÃHÄ[ÅSÆÇUÈEÉUÊËDÌEÍÎÏDÐ/ÑÒHÓÔÓ€:ƒØ"úÿÿú, ú3|xß,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(W(2èü$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X…XXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJuly€14,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó'ÿÿdxd yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€%ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€arguments€were€heard€in€this€case€on€April€8,€1997,€in€Union€City,ÏObion€County,€as€part€of€this€Court's€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(Supreme€Court€AdvancingÏLegal€Education€for€Students)€project.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€%ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Dr.€Young€stated€that€campylobacter€is€an€organism€present€in€the€gutÏof€animals.€€Food€substances€may€become€contaminated€with€campylobacterÏwhen€the€contents€of€the€gastrointestinal€tract€are€spilled€onto€the€animalððs€meatÏduring€slaughtering.€€The€capylobacter€can€remain€viable€when€the€meat€isÏimproperly€prepared.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€%ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€parties€do€not€dispute€that€KFC€owed€a€duty€to€the€McCarleys€toÏprovide€them€with€food€free€of€contamination.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€%ÔÑ7€…XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óMARVIN€McCARLEY€ANDà@ à)à àò òFiled:€œòò€€€€€July€14,€1997à€ àóóó ó›ÌœELLYSE›€McCARLEY,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à@ à)à àHARDEMAN€CIRCUITÌà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHon.€Jon€Kerry€BlackwoodÌà@ à)à àJudgeÌWEST€QUALITY€FOOD€SERVICEà@ à)Ìd/b/a€KENTUCKY€FRIED€CHICKEN,à@ à)à àNo.€02S01„9610„CV„00085Ìà@ à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLANTSóó:ÌÌClinton€V.€Butler,€Jr.à àà àà àà àT.€Verner€SmithÌDale€Conder,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àJacksonÌRainey,€Kizer,€Butler,Ìà àReviere€&€BellÌJacksonÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€%èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€%XÔÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSEDà€ àHOLDER,€J.ÌCASE€REMANDEDÇÓÓà àThe€plaintiffs,€Marvin€and€œEllyse›€McCarley,€appeal€the€summaryÏdismissal€of€their€complaint€alleging€that€Mr.€McCarley€received€food€poisoningÏafter€ingesting€food€improperly€prepared€by€the€defendant,€Kentucky€FriedÏChicken.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendant's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€and€held€that€the€plaintiffs'€proof€was€insufficientÏto€establish€the€element€of€causation.€€We€granted€appeal€to€address:€€(1)€€theÏCourt€of€Appeals'€analysis€in€summary€judgment€dispositions;€and€(2)€€theÏquantum€and€type€of€proof€plaintiffs€must€proffer€to€survive€summary€dismissal€inÏnegligent€food€poisoning€cases.€€Upon€review,€we€reverse€and€remand€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌò òÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€McCarleys€filed€a€complaint€against€West€Quality€Food€Service,€Inc.Ïd/b/a€Kentucky€Fried€Chicken€("KFC").€€The€complaint€alleged€that€Mr.€McCarleyÏhad€contracted€food€poisoning€after€consuming€fried€chicken€purchased€at€KFC.€ÏMrs.€McCarley€included€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium.ÌÌà àKFC€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€In€support€of€summaryÏjudgment,€KFC€alleged€that:€€(1)€€Mr.€McCarley€had€consumed€bacon€prior€to€hisÏconsumption€of€the€Kentucky€Fried€Chicken;€€(2)€€Mr.€McCarley's€food€poisoningÏwas€consistent€with€having€consumed€improperly€prepared€meat€or€poultry;€andÏ(3)€€neither€the€bacon€nor€the€chicken€had€been€tested€for€the€presence€of€theÏbacteria€precipitating€Mr.€McCarley's€maladies.€€KFC€argued€that€absent€a€testÏof€both€food€sources,€Mr.€McCarley€"cannot€carry€his€burden€of€proof€to€prove€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€chicken€caused€the€food€poisoning."ÌÌà àThe€record€consists€of€the€deposition€testimony€of€Mr.€McCarley,€Mrs.ÏMcCarley,€and€Dr.€Mark€Young.€€Dr.€Young€was€Mr.€McCarley's€treatingÏphysician.ÌÌà àMrs.€McCarley€purchased€a€family€pack€from€a€KFC€restaurant€located€inÏBoliver,€Tennessee,€on€August€3.€€The€family€pack€was€served€as€the€McCarleyÏfamily€dinner€that€evening.€€Mrs.€McCarley€stated€that€she€took€a€leg€from€theÏfamily€pack.€€She,€however,€felt€that€the€leg€ð ðdidnððt€look€too€hot.ðð€€She€then€optedÏfor€a€wing.€€As€she€consumed€the€wing,€she€noticed€that€the€chicken€ð ðsmelledÏkind€of€funnyðð€and€ð ðdidnððt€taste€right.ððÌÌà àMr.€McCarley€stated€that€on€the€morning€of€August€3,€his€breakfastÏconsisted€of€bacon,€eggs,€and€rice.€€He€did€not€have€lunch€that€day.€€For€dinner,Ïhe€consumed€approximately€three€pieces€of€chicken€from€the€KFC€family€pack.€ÏHe€stated€that€around€six€oððclock€the€following€morning€he€awoke€with€severeÏabdominal€pains.€€He€also€had€profuse€diarrhea.€€He€attempted€to€treat€hisÏdiarrhea€with€an€over„the„counter€medication€throughout€the€day€on€August€4.€ÏHis€symptoms€continued€and€he€was€subsequently€hospitalized€on€August€5.ÌÌà àDr.€Youngððs€testimony€indicated€that€the€appellant€presented€theÏfollowing€symptoms:€€abdominal€pain,€a€fever€of€103€degrees,€chills,Ïgeneralized€aches,€and€profuse€diarrhea.€€Dr.€€Young€performed€blood€culturesÏwhich€tested€positive€for€campylobacter.× ƒ, ××  ×€€He€then€stated€that€Mr.€McCarleyððsÏsymptoms€were€consistent€with€having€ingested€improperly€cooked€poultry€orÏother€meat€products€contaminated€by€campylobacter.€€Dr.€Young€further€statedÏthat€chicken€was€at€the€top€of€the€list.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€granted€KFC's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€Court€ofÏAppeals€affirmed€the€dismissal€and€held€that€the€McCarleys€could€not€establishÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€chicken€caused€Mr.€McCarleyððsÏillness.€€For€the€reasons€stated€below,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€McCarleys€assign€error€in€the€trial€court's€summary€dismissal€of€theirÏcomplaint.€€They€allege€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€existed€as€toÏwhether€the€chicken€caused€Mr.€McCarley's€food€poisoning.€€They€argue€thatÏthe€appellate€courtððs€decision€creates€an€insurmountable€burden€on€victims€ofÏfood€poisoning€and€that€victims€cannot€prevail€in€food€poisoning€cases€unlessÏthey€retain:€€(1)€€a€specimen€of€the€suspect€food;€and€(2)€€specimens€of€all€otherÏfoods€consumed€within€close€proximity€to€the€manifestation€of€symptoms.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€find€that€the€proper€standard€and€burden€shifting€analysisÏapplicable€to€summary€judgment€dispositions€has€not€been€applied.€€TheÏappellate€court€acknowledged€the€moving€party's€burden€of€demonstrating€theÏabsence€of€material€facts€creating€genuine€issues€for€trial.€€The€court,€however,Ïbypassed€the€moving€parties'€initial€burden€and€addressed€only€the€sufficiencyÍof€the€non„moving€parties'€opposing€evidence.€€We€find€that€the€court€erred€inÏfocusing€on€the€non„moving€parties'€burden€without€first€addressing€whetherÏthat€burden€was€actually€triggered.ÌÌà àA€party€seeking€summary€judgment€must€demonstrate€the€absence€ofÏany€genuine€and€material€factual€issues.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€209,€214Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€Mere€"conclusory€assertion[s]€that€the€non„moving€party€has€noÏevidence€is€clearly€insufficient."€€òòIdóó.€at€215.€€The€movant€must€either€affirmativelyÏnegate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„movant's€claim€or€conclusively€establishÏan€affirmative€defense.€€òòIdóó.€215€n.€5.€€If€the€movant€does€not€negate€a€claimedÏbasis€for€the€suit,€the€non„movant's€burden€to€produce€either€supportingÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€fails.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIf,€however,€the€movant€does€successfully€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€theÏsuit,€the€non„movant€may€no€longer€simply€rely€upon€the€pleadings.€€òòIdóó.€€TheÏnon„moving€party€must€then€establish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€ofÏthe€claim.€€òòIdóó.€€The€non„movant's€burden€may€be€met€by:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€pointing€to€evidence€establishing€material€factual€disputes€thatÏwere€over„looked€or€ignored€by€the€moving€party;Ìà8 à(2)€€rehabilitating€the€evidence€attacked€by€the€moving€party;Ìà8 à(3)€€producing€additional€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€aÏgenuine€issue€for€trial;€orÌà8 à(4)€€submitting€an€affidavit€explaining€the€necessity€for€furtherÏdiscovery€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€Rule€56.06.ÌòòÌIdóó.€at€215€n.€6.€€The€non„moving€party's€evidence€shall€be€taken€as€true.€€òòIdóó.€ÏMoreover,€summary€judgment€shall€be€denied€if€"any€doubt€whether€or€not€aÏgenuine€issue€exists."€€òòIdóó.€at€211.ÌÌà àThe€elements€of€a€cause€of€action€based€on€negligence€are€duty,€breachÏof€duty,€cause€in€fact,€loss€or€injury,€and€proximate€cause.€€òòHaynes€v.€Hamiltonóó,Ï883€S.W.2d€606,€611€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€disputed€issues€in€the€present€caseÏare:€€(1)€€whether€plaintiffs€have€established€that€KFC€breached€its€duty€to€serveÏuncontaminated€chicken;€and€(2)€€whether€the€chicken,€if€contaminated,€was€theÏproximate€cause€of€plaintiffsðð€alleged€injuries.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àKFC's€motion€for€summary€judgment€alleged€that€the€McCarleys€couldÏnot€establish€the€element€of€causation.€€KFC's€motion€was€supported€by€theÏfollowing€assertions:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€that€Mr.€McCarley€had€also€ingested€bacon€earlier€that€day;Ìà8 à(2)€€that€either€the€bacon€or€the€chicken€could€have€caused€Mr.ÏMcCarley's€illness;€andÌà8 à(3)€€that€neither€the€bacon€nor€the€chicken€had€been€tested€for€theÏpresence€of€campylobacter.ÌÌThese€assertions€may€cause€doubt€as€to€whether€the€chicken€or€the€bacon€wasÏthe€proximate€cause€of€Mr.€McCarley's€illness.€€This€evidence,€however,€doesÏnot€negate€the€chicken€from€the€list€of€possible€causes.€€Accordingly,€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€causation€which€should€be€resolved€by€the€trierÏof€fact.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€did€not€address€whether€KFC's€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€successfully€negated€a€basis€for€the€McCarleys'€claim.€€The€courtÏinstead€focused€only€on€the€non„moving€party's€burden€of€moving€forward€byÏexamining€the€McCarleysðð€evidence€in€opposition€to€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€œThe›€court€then€erroneously€found€that€the€treating€physician'sÍtestimony€should€not€have€been€admitted.€€The€court€reasoned€that€the€doctor'sÏinability€to€exclude€all€other€possible€sources€of€contamination€made€theÏtestimony€mere€œspeculation.›ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals'€opinion€implies€if€medical€experts€cannot€preciselyÏpin„point€the€element€of€causation€in€a€food€contamination/poisoning€case,€theÏexpert€testimony€shall€be€disregarded.€€The€court€relied€on€the€language€usedÏin€òòLindsey€v.€Miami€Development€Corpóó.,€689€S.W.2d€856,€862€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏòòLindseyóó,€however,€was€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€Medical€malpractice,€byÏstatute,€mandates€that€proximate€cause€be€established€solely€by€expertÏtestimony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€(1980€Repl.)ÌÌà àWe€find€no€legislative€requirement€that€proximate€cause€in€negligent€foodÏcontamination€cases€be€established€solely€by€expert€testimony.€€An€expert'sÏinability€to€exclude€all€other€possible€sources€of€contamination€affects€weightÏand€not€admissibility.€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€evidence€are€issues€for€theÏjury.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€public€policy€mandates€a€workable€and€rational€standard€inÏfood€poisoning€cases.€€Medical€testimony,€by€itself,€can€likely€never€pin„pointÏcausation€absent€a€testing€of€all€possible€food€sources.€€If€the€contaminated€foodÍhas€been€fully€consumed,€however,€there€is€simply€nothing€to€test.€€Moreover,€ifÏsymptoms€do€not€manifest€within€a€day€or€two,€it€is€highly€improbable€that€allÏpossible€sources€of€contamination€will€be€available€for€testing.€€Servers€ofÏcontaminated€foods€should€œnot›€be€able€to€circumvent€liability€œmerely›€becauseÏthe€contaminated€product€they€served€was€either€fully€consumed€or€its€remainsÏwere€disposed€of€at€the€end€of€the€meal.€€œWe,›€therefore,€hold€that€causation€mayÏbe€established€by€either€expert€testimony€or€through€a€combination€of€bothÏexpert€and€lay€œtestimony.›ÌÌà àWe€will€address€the€sufficiency€of€the€McCarleys'€proof€only€because€theÏlower€courts€held€that€their€proof€was€insufficient€to€establish€causation.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€expert€testimony€unequivocally€established€that€Mr.€McCarleyÏsuffered€an€illness€caused€by€the€presence€of€campylobacter.€€MedicalÏtestimony€also€established€that€campylobacter€remains€viable€in€foods€that€haveÏbeen€improperly€prepared.€€As€to€causation,€Dr.€Young€stated€that€the€chickenÏcould€have€been€the€source€of€the€camplyobacter.€€He€also€stated€that€chickenÏwas€at€the€top€of€the€list€of€possible€sources.€€Mrs.€McCarley€testified€that€theÏchicken€had€an€unusual€odor,€looked€strange,€and€"didn't€taste€right."€TheÏtestimony€of€both€Dr.€Young€and€Mrs.€McCarley,€when€combined,€certainlyÏsupports€an€inference€that€the€chicken€was€the€source€of€the€camplyobacterÍcausing€Mr.€McCarley's€illness.€€Resolution€of€these€issues,€however,€are€issuesÏfor€the€jury;€they€are€inappropriate€for€summary€dismissal.ÌÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àWe€find€that€summary€judgment€should€not€have€been€granted.€€BecauseÏKFC€failed€to€negate€a€basis€of€the€McCarleys'€claim,€the€McCarleys'€burden€ofÏproduction€was€never€triggered.€€We€further€hold€that€causation€in€negligentÏfood€contamination€cases€can€be€established€through€a€combination€of€bothÏexpert€and€lay€testimony.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€affirming€the€trial€court's€dismissal€isÏreversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€proceedings€consistentÏwith€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€œappellee,€West›€QualityÏFood€Service€d/b/a€Kentucky€Fried€Chicken,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌÌò òConcurring:€€œó óÌÌBirch,›€œC.J.ÌDrowota,›€œAnderson,€and›€Reid,€œJJ.›