ÿWPC| þV^ëUl¥L¨JÈÞ ³gòMøÊ8w×fB…é¬:¬iF¹O!;ñWÁá9›«³Œ‘V„%ˆžsø€µ“œfœwÔ•óÃ"±Ù¯Š(­ú3ëÌË =¦O³þîËe¥!B"v—y¬†×ã’.`¼ÅËpµ¬-%ø4®§ºl¥AŒÏq¢hÚ0wý­¡3ÏÐÀÛ!”ð µéZó˜y #K!muH¥úÆO Ê?†Úü8ÓÒ¶*mUaáÆ¢ÁÈþ¢n}À5ø,?RéŽ0£²e‹åKˆ­™cx­Æ¡9”•;c½E§@Õºš²">=›LUVÔÓ„hq¿cYù7xz³ÉLײY£ÊÑšïå›/¡imã2УC'в1D\1°î\(ú Ì…#ŠîJ@ñ‚1㙤õá–ÆÁJÐ\¯Þx`Êhg†»M@ixß3.F¿Ð×Ëh 3LatuôÝÿ‘Q‘ùxo½ógs«®×ŠræÛúc*t]S.Ï¿Ùíɨ(JOúˆ?‘-®í|R¥ÿ÷×G¡P€vû¨ÃaYA<)ÍÈ̳]vzã~8ÎŒ€xRnàd¤8b+Ù õÙ©ÄíE qÌ…Jr}YÊé÷&Üyx¦· ·§b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ  Æf Æ,ÆòòN¸¸¸Eºººî¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼bªªªªªªª 0Y²²²²²²²²²²² 06      0NAAAA 0D‘‘‘‘‘‘ 0ëÕ 0¤ÀÀÀ Bdd 0¤ D3% D-X 0K…… ASÐÆ# 0¤é 0D A«Ñ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»n…-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-­È— ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒR=Û$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMrs.€Ruiz€testified€in€her€deposition€that€she€had€heard€from€a€relative€that€Mr.€Corpus€had€been€living€inÐ ° ÐDallas.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 DrowotaAdolphoRickeySobelShawandaGodfreysDicksonCarvellDownenHamrick uncontroverted- ù-6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔhttp://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=713&SerialNum=1993044519&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=215&AP=(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G2=Û$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý½ò»»Ô(|3Ž$©©Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý d(|3Ž$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ž$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑܰÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼MÕ»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î[”MÕÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼MÕ»îî[”#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€2,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼MÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼MÕ»XX ÿ#ÔSUSAN€R.€GODFREY,€òòet€al.óó€v.€JESUS€RUIZ,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X X»¼MÕÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCircuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97C„503€€€€€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00101„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€December€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼MÕ»XX #ÔÔ€X X»¼MÕÔThis€case€arises€out€of€an€action€by€the€plaintiffs€to€recover€damages€for€personal€injuries€sustainedÐ d´ Ðin€an€automobile€accident.€€The€plaintiffs€claim€their€injuries€were€caused€by€the€negligent€operationÐ P  Ðof€a€van€owned€by€the€defendants€and€driven€by€a€cousin€of€one€of€the€defendants.€€In€support€of€theirÐ <Œ Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment,€the€defendants€offered€affidavits€and€deposition€testimony€statingÐ (x Ðthat€the€driver€was€operating€the€van€without€their€permission€and€that€the€driver€was€not€theirÐ d Ðemployee.€€Despite€the€prima€facie€evidence€of€an€owner„driver€agency€relationship€created€byÐ P ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a)€(1998),€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€forÐ ì< Ðsummary€judgment.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€We€hold€that€an€ownerððsÐ Ø( Ðoffer€of€testimony€negating€the€issue€of€agency,€standing€alone,€cannot€overcome€the€prima€facieÐ Ä Ðevidence€created€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a).Ð ° ÐÓÔÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€Reversed;Ð ˆØ ÐCase€Remandedó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJanice€M.€Holder,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.J.,óóÐ L œ Ðand€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€Adolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€óóandòò€William€M.€Barker,€JJóó,€joined.€Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌCatherine€S.€Hughes€and€Joseph€M.€Dalton,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Susan€R.Ð #`" ÐGodfrey€and€Rickey€E.€Godfrey.Ð ü#L# ÐÌClifton€B.€Sobel,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Jesus€Ruiz€and€Shawanda€Ruiz.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓO ÓÌÔ  Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌI.€à @ àFactual€and€Procedural€BackgroundÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThis€case€arises€from€an€automobile€accident€that€occurred€on€August€4,€1996.€€The€plaintiffs,Ð \+¬&+ ÐRickey€and€Susan€Godfrey,€allege€that€a€Chevrolet€van€owned€by€the€defendants,€Jesus€andÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_ÔShawanda€Ruiz,€and€driven€by€Ricardo€Corpus,€a€cousin€of€Mr.€Ruiz,€ran€a€red€light€and€collidedÐ ° Ðwith€the€Godfreysðð€vehicle.€€The€Godfreys€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€DavidsonÐ œì ÐCounty€seeking€damages€for€the€personal€injuries€they€sustained€in€the€collision.€€The€Godfreysðð€suitÐ ˆØ Ðwas€filed€against€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€as€well€as€Mr.€Corpus.€€The€Godfreys€alleged€that€the€negligenceÐ tÄ Ðof€Mr.€Corpus€should€be€imputed€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€under€the€owner„driver€agency€relationshipÐ `° Ðcreated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a).€€Service€was€obtained€on€Mr.€and€Mrs.Ð L œ ÐRuiz.€€Mr.€Corpus,€however,€could€not€be€located.€€Although€Mr.€Corpus€had€been€living€with€Mr.Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€Mrs.€Ruiz€for€approximately€one€and€one„half€months€prior€to€the€accident,€he€disappearedÐ $ t Ðimmediately€after€the€accident.׃ ×Ý ƒL#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€maintain€that€they€have€neither€seen€nor€heardÐ  ` Ðfrom€Mr.€Corpus€since€the€accident.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€moved€for€summary€judgment.€€According€to€their€testimony,€Mr.€CorpusÐ Ô$  Ðdid€not€have€permission€to€drive€their€van€at€the€time€of€the€accident€or€at€any€other€time.€€Mr.€andÐ À  ÐMrs.€Ruiz€assert€that€they€were€shopping€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Until€they€learned€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðaccident,€they€had€no€knowledge€that€Mr.€Corpus€had€taken€the€keys€to€the€van,€which€were€kept€inÐ ˜è  Ða€drawer€in€their€bedroom.€€Mr.€Ruiz€also€testified€that€he€is€an€independent€contractor€who€hangsÐ „Ô  Ðdrywall€for€a€living.€€The€van€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€driving€was€used€in€connection€with€Mr.€RuizððsÐ pÀ Ðconstruction€work.€€Mr.€Ruiz€admitted€that€Mr.€Corpus€worked€with€him€in€the€days€before€theÐ \¬ Ðaccident€and€that€he€paid€Mr.€Corpus€for€that€work.€€He€denied,€however,€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€hisÐ H˜ Ðemployee.€€Instead,€Mr.€Ruiz€testified€that€both€he€and€Mr.€Corpus€were€employees€of€QualityÐ 4„ ÐDrywall€in€Dickson,€Tennessee.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ruiz€and€denied€anÐ øH Ðinterlocutory€appeal.€€The€Godfreys€later€voluntarily€dismissed€the€cause€of€action€against€Mr.Ð ä4 ÐCorpus.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€hold€that€an€ownerððs€offer€of€testimony€negating€the€issue€of€agency,€standing€alone,Ð ¨ø Ðcannot€overcome€the€prima€facie€evidence€of€an€owner„driver€agency€relationship€created€byÐ ”ä ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a).€€Thus,€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€this€caseÐ €Ð Ðwas€improper.Ð l¼ ÐÌÔ  ÔÓ  ÓII.€Standard€of€ReviewÐ D!” ÐÌÓõÓà  àThe€standard€of€review€for€a€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€de€novo€with€noÐ #l! Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòGuy€v.€Mut.€of€Omaha€Ins.€Co.óó,€79€S.W.3d€528,€534€(Tenn.€2002);Ð $X" ÐòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€Summary€judgment€is€appropriate€where€ð ðtheÐ ô$D # Ðpleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€theÐ à%0!$ Ðaffidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€partyÐ Ì&"% Ðis€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ð ¸'#& Ð211€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€party€seeking€summary€judgment€has€the€burden€of€persuading€the€court€thatÐ ° Ðits€motion€satisfies€these€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211;€òòDownen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,Ð œì Ð811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).€€When€considering€a€summary€judgment€motion,€courts€mustÐ ˆØ Ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€draw€all€reasonableÐ tÄ Ðinferences€in€that€partyððs€favor.€€òòSeeóó€òòGuyóó,€79€S.W.3d€at€534;€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.Ô4‚IÝ ÈÔÔ5  ÔÝ‚5ÿÝòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ6wÔÝ‚EÍOÿÿÿÿƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý È‹Ô€€SummaryÐ `° Ðjudgment€should€therefore€be€granted€only€when€the€facts€and€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€factsÐ L œ Ðpermit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€but€one€conclusion.€€òòSeeóó€òòGuyóó,€79€S.W.3d€at€534;€òòCarvellóó,€900Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€26.€Ð $ t ÐÌÔ  ÔÓ  ÓIII.€AnalysisÐ ü L  ÐÓs!ÓÌà  àThis€case€turns€on€the€application€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a)€(1998),Ð Ô$  Ðwhich€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€all€actions€for€injury€to€persons€and/or€to€property€caused€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðnegligent€operation€or€use€of€any€automobile€...€within€this€state,Ð „Ô  Ðproof€of€ownership€of€such€vehicle€shall€be€òòprima€facie€evidenceóó€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€cause€of€action€sued€on€was€beingÐ \¬ Ðoperated€and€used€with€authority,€consent€and€knowledge€of€theÐ H˜ Ðowner€in€the€very€transaction€out€of€which€the€injury€or€cause€ofÐ 4„ Ðaction€arose,€and€such€proof€of€ownership€likewise€shall€be€òòprimaÐ  p Ðfacie€evidenceóó€that€the€vehicle€was€then€and€there€being€operated€byÐ  \ Ðthe€owner,€or€by€the€ownerððs€servant,€for€the€ownerððs€use€and€benefitÐ øH Ðand€within€the€course€and€scope€of€the€servantððs€employment.€Ðä4` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€The€plaintiffs€rely€exclusively€on€this€statute€to€establish€that€the€van€that€struckÐ ¼  Ðtheir€vehicle€was€operated€with€the€defendantsðð€knowledge€and€consent€and€that€it€was€operated€forÐ ¨ø Ðthe€defendantsðð€use€and€benefit€and€within€the€course€and€scope€of€the€driverððs€employment.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðdefendants€argue€that€their€undisputed€testimony€establishes€that€there€was€no€agency€relationship.€Ð €Ð ÐThat€testimony,€they€assert,€is€sufficient€to€overcome€the€prima€facie€evidence€of€agency€that€theÐ l¼ Ðstatute€creates.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€òòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óó,€this€Court€observed€that€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ 0"€  Ðsection€55-10-311€does€not€contain€the€word€ð ðpresumption,ðð€although€prior€versions€of€the€statuteÐ #l! Ðdid.€€708€S.W.2d€383,€387€(Tenn.€1986).€€We€concluded€that€as€a€consequence€of€this€legislativeÐ $X" Ðchange€ð ða€serious€question€is€presented€as€to€whether€or€not€[a]€prima€facie€case€can€be€overcomeÐ ô$D # Ðpre„trial€by€motion€for€summary€judgment.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€òòWarren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkóó,€this€Courtððs€mostÐ à%0!$ Ðrecent€case€construing€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a),€we€reiterated€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðð ð[s]ummary€judgment€is€not€ordinarily€the€proper€procedure€for€determining€whether€a€prima€facieÐ ¸'#& Ðcase€has€or€has€not€been€overcome€by€countervailing€evidence.ðð€€954€S.W.2d€722,€724€(Tenn.€1997)Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(quoting€òòHamrickóó,€708€S.W.2d€at€388).€€In€both€òòHamrickóó€and€òòWarrenóó,€we€reversed€the€grant€ofÐ )à$( Ðsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€In€this€case,€too,€summary€judgment€is€unwarranted.Ð |*Ì%) Їà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311€is€clearly€intended€to€eliminate€the€difficultyÐ ° Ðencountered€by€injured€parties€who€are€trying€to€prove€that€the€driver€was€operating€with€the€ownerððsÐ œì Ðpermission€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€òòSeeóó€òòRacy€Cream€Co.€v.€Waldenóó,€1€Tenn.€App.€653,€668Ð ˆØ Ð(1925)€(holding€that€an€earlier€version€of€the€statute,€enacted€by€Chapter€162€of€the€Public€Acts€ofÐ tÄ Ð1921,€was€intended€to€ease€the€difficulty€of€proving€an€agency€relationship€between€a€vehicleððs€driverÐ `° Ðand€its€owner).€€We€decline€to€permit€parties€to€overcome€the€statutorily€created€prima€facie€evidenceÐ L œ Ðof€an€owner„driver€agency€relationship€by€simply€asserting€that€no€consent€was€ever€given.€€Such€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðconstruction€would€defeat€the€legislative€intent€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311Ð $ t Ðbe€liberally€construed.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€in€this€case€are€entitled€to€rely€solely€on€the€owner„driver€agency€relationshipÐ è 8  Ðcreated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a)€to€overcome€the€defendantsðð€motion€forÐ Ô$  Ðsummary€judgment.€€Although€the€defendants€offer€uncontroverted€testimony€in€support€of€theirÐ À  Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment,€their€status€as€interested€witnesses€places€their€credibility€in€question.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€defendantsðð€uncorroborated€testimony€that€Mr.€Corpus€was€not€a€permissive€user€simply€failsÐ ˜è  Ðto€rebut€the€prima€facie€evidence€established€by€statute.€€Therefore,€their€motion€for€summaryÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment€was€improperly€granted.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThere€may€be€rare€cases€involving€the€application€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ H˜ Ð55-10-311€in€which€summary€judgment€is€appropriate.€€As€we€noted€in€òòHamrickóó,€ð ð[t]here€may€beÐ 4„ Ðsome€instances€where€summary€disposition€could€be€warranted.ðð€€708€S.W.2d€at€389.€€Thus,€we€doÐ  p Ðnot€hold€that€proof€of€ownership€is€always€sufficient€to€overcome€summary€judgment,€regardless€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€facts€presented€by€the€defendants.€€Moreover,€as€we€explained€in€òòWarrenóó,€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[t]he€overruling€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€does€notÐ Ð  Ðnecessarily€mean€that€the€case€will€go€to€a€jury€at€a€trial,€because€theÐ ¼  Ðevidence€adduced€at€trial€may€be€significantly€different€from€thatÐ ¨ø Ðcontained€in€affidavits€or€depositions€heard€pre„trial€on€summaryÐ ”ä Ðjudgment€proceedings.€€All€that€the€overruling€of€a€motion€forÐ €Ð Ðsummary€judgment€indicates€is€that€the€case€should€proceed€further.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌ954€S.W.2d€at€724.€€We€preserve€the€possibility€that€courts€may€grant€summary€judgment€or€aÐ D!” Ðdirected€verdict€on€behalf€of€a€vehicleððs€owner€in€a€negligence€case€if€the€owner€has€providedÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€other€than€his€own€testimony€that€the€driver€was€not€acting€as€the€ownerððs€agent€when€theÐ #l! Ðaccident€occurred.€Ð $X" ÐÌÔ  ÔÓ  ÓIV.€ConclusionÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÓc:Óà  àWe€hold€that€an€ownerððs€testimony€negating€the€issue€of€agency,€standing€alone,€cannotÐ ¸'#& Ðovercome€the€statutorily€created€prima€facie€evidence€of€an€owner„driver€agency€relationship€createdÐ ¤(ô#' Ðby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55-10-311(a).€€Therefore,€the€lower€courts€erred€in€grantingÐ )à$( Ðthe€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€Court€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐAppeals€are€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€Costs€ofÐ ° Ðthis€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants,€Jesus€Ruiz€and€Shawanda€Ruiz,€for€which€execution€mayÐ œì Ðissue€if€necessary.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICE