James B. Thomas, Jr., ex rel., Karen G. Thomas v. Elizabeth Oldfield, M.D., et al.
The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the hospital is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an emergency room physician. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the hospital finding that it was not vicariously liable for the conduct of the emergency room physician because he was neither its actual or apparent agent. We find the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the hospital on the issue of actual agency because there are no material facts in dispute and the hospital is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of actual agency as a matter of law. We, however, find that material facts are in dispute concerning whether the hospital held itself out to the public as providing medical services; whether the plaintiff looked to the hospital rather than to the individual physician to perform those services; whether the patient accepted those services in the reasonable belief that the services were provided by the hospital or a hospital employee; and, if so, whether the hospital provided meaningful notice to the plaintiff at the time of admission that the emergency room physician was not its agent. Accordingly, we have determined the hospital was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of apparent agency. Therefore, we remand to the trial court the issue of apparent agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy Cagle Davis v. Robert F. Davis
After more than eighteen years of marriage, Stacy Cagle Davis (“Wife”) sued Robert F. Davis (“Husband”) for divorce. The case was tried and the Trial Court entered a Final Decree declaring the parties divorced, approving the parenting plan submitted with regard to the parties’ minor child, ordering Husband to pay child support, dividing the marital property and marital debts, and denying Husband’s request for alimony. Husband appeals the denial of his request for alimony to this Court. We reverse the denial of alimony to Husband, award Husband rehabilitative alimony of $800 per month for 36 months, award Husband attorneys’ fees at trial and on appeal, and remand to the Trial Court for a determination of the proper amount of attorneys’ fees. The remainder of the Trial Court’s Final Decree is affirmed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Phillips v. Tenneseee Board of Probation and Parole
This appeal involves the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The appellant prisoner was denied a hearing in front of the appellee board of probation and parole. The prisoner thereafter filed a petition with the chancery court, seeking review of the board’s decision. The chancery court entered an order stating that, in order to avoid dismissal of his petition, the prisoner was required to file, among other documents, a summons for each defendant, with a copy of the petition for each summons to be issued. The prisoner failed to file the summonses, and the chancery court dismissed the petition without prejudice. The prisoner appeals the dismissal, alleging numerous federal constitutional violations. We affirm, finding that the chancery court properly dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to file a summons. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Ann Harley v. Geary Falk
A former husband appeals issuance of a restraining order in a proceeding on a petition for a protective order arguing that the trial court awarded unrequested relief. The appellant failed to provide a record of the hearing before the trial court. Absent a record, since we must assume the record would support the trial court, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph P. Rusnak, et al. v. Gail Phebus
The daughter of a nursing home resident used a power of attorney granted by her mother to sell the mother a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in a condominium the daughter owned, with the intention of spending down the mother’s liquid assets so she could qualify for Medicaid. A conservator was subsequently appointed to protect the mother’s interests, and he filed suit for the partition and sale of the condominium property. The mother died shortly thereafter. The court granted the request for partition, but stayed the sale of the property pending this interlocutory appeal. The daughter argues on appeal that Tennessee should follow the general rule which provides that the death of a joint tenant with right of survivorship extinguishes a pending suit for partition. We agree, and we reverse the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Joey Conner v. Carmen Conner
This appeal arises from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the minor child’s mother, contending that there had been a material change in circumstances, sought a change of custody. After several days of hearings, the trial court transferred custody from the father to the mother. We find that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and also find that the final hearing below was prematurely terminated. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Sherrie Engler, et al. v. Karnes Legal Services
This appeal involves the Tennessee saving statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute when their attorney failed to appear at a hearing. Three months after the dismissal, the plaintiffs’ attorney filed a motion seeking relief from the order of dismissal, citing the saving statute, along with an amended complaint. The trial court considered the motion under Rule 60 but did not address the applicability of the saving statute. The court refused to set aside the order of dismissal upon finding that the attorney’s failure to attend the hearing did not constitute excusable neglect. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Brim Holding Company, Inc. v. Province Healthcare Company
The issue on appeal in this contract dispute is whether the defendant breached its indemnification obligations under the terms of a stock purchase agreement. The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed for payment of a claim specifically identified under the indemnification provisions of a stock purchase agreement. Significantly, the trial court found that the indemnity provisions in the stock purchase agreement anticipate the specific loss and assure that it will be paid by the defendant. The defendant contends that the plaintiff has already received reimbursement for that payment through the post-closing working capital adjustment and the plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to reimbursement under the indemnification provisions. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Settle v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
Appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, challenges the trial court's order dismissing his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The record reveals that the court reached its decision in a lawful manner. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Valley View Mobile Home Parks, LLC. v. Layman Lessons, Inc.
Tenant appeals the Circuit Court’s dismissal of its appeal of the Judgment and Order of the General Sessions Court granting Landlord possession of leased premises. The basis of the Circuit Court’s dismissal was Tenant’s failure to comply with the Court’s second Order requiring Tenant to post a bond. Finding error in the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130, we reverse the decision of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
City of Jackson, Tennessee, ex rel. v. State of Tennessee, ex rel.
The City of Jackson appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its action against the Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance seeking reimbursement for building demolition expenses under Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-102-122. Finding that sovereign immunity prohibits monetary claims against the state when brought seeking a declaratory order under either the Declaratory Judgment Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-101 et seq., or the Administrative Procedures Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §4-5-225, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Madison County, Tennessee v. Tennessee State Board Of Equalization
Several taxpayers appealed Madison County’s valuation of the taxpayers’ limited partnership property to the Tennessee State Board of Equalization. The administrative law judge scheduled a pre-hearing conference, with notice being sent to the taxpayers and Madison County. Some confusion arose, and no representative for Madison County attended the conference. The administrative law judge entered a default judgment against Madison County, and Madison County timely filed a petition to reconsider with the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge took no action on the petition, and after twenty days, the petition was deemed denied by operation of law. Madison County then failed to appeal the administrative law judge’s denial of the petition to reconsider within thirty days to the Assessment Appeals Commission. The Assessment Appeals Commission thereafter issued the Official Certificates of Assessment. Madison County filed a motion to reconsider the Official Certificates with both the administrative law judge and the Board of Equalization, seeking relief under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The administrative law judge denied the motion, but the Board of Equalization granted relief and remanded the matter to the administrative law judge. The taxpayer defendants then filed a petition with the Board of Equalization, challenging the Board’s order setting aside the default judgment. The taxpayers filed a petition for review in chancery court in Madison County. Thereafter, the Board held a hearing, reversed its prior order, and reinstated the default judgment against Madison County. Madison County filed a petition for review in chancery court in Madison County pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322, seeking review of the Board’s reinstatement of the default judgment. The chancery court granted the taxpayers’ motion for summary judgment. Madison County appeals, and we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Xerox Corporation v. Digital Express Graphic, LLC
This is an appeal from summary judgment granted in favor of the lessor in an action to collect the accelerated unpaid balance of $191,945.47 allegedly due under a lease agreement for digital printing equipment. After careful review of the record, we find that the lessee failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of a dispute of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cory O. Johnson v. Ross Bates, Warden, WTSP Disciplinary Board
This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate. Following the investigation of a homicide at the prison, disciplinary charges were filed against the petitioner. The prison disciplinary board held a hearing and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner was indicted by a grand jury and charged with second degree murder, but the case was later dismissed via nolle prosequi. The petitioner then filed his petition for writ of certiorari challenging the prison disciplinary board’s actions at the hearing, and the trial court dismissed it as untimely. The petitioner appeals. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. David Stone, et al.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” with respect to the claim of David Stone seeking damages arising out of the death of his wife, Rhonda Stone,1 who was killed by the alleged negligent driving of an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, the Stones had a personal liability “umbrella” insurance policy with State Farm, which provided $1 million in personal liability coverage above and beyond the Stones’ underlying insurance policies, including their automobile liability insurance policy. Their umbrella policy does not, by its language, include uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage. However, Mr. Stone argues that UM coverage should be read into their umbrella policy because the Stones did not reject such coverage in writing, which Mr. Stone says is required by the applicable statute. State Farm argues that the statute in question, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(a) (2000), applies only to automobile insurance policies and does not impose the rejection-in-writing requirement on umbrella policies. Based upon the parties’ “Agreed Stipulations,” the lower court, at a bench trial, agreed with Mr. Stone’s interpretation of the statute. We disagree with the interpretation placed upon the statute by Mr. Stone and the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
David Luke Harvey v. Dickson County, Tennessee, et al.
An inmate at the Dickson County Jail who was attacked by another inmate filed this action against co-defendants, Dickson County and the Sheriff of Dickson County to recover damages for his personal injuries. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint against both defendants without stating the legal grounds for its conclusion. The plaintiff contends the defendants breached their duty to prevent foreseeable harm because the defendants left a mop in the jail, which was not secured or locked away, and the defendants knew or should have known that a mop could be used by an inmate as a weapon. Penal institutions have a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to prevent foreseeable attacks on inmates by other inmates. For a penal institution to be liable for injuries resulting from inmate-on-inmate assaults, the general rule is that the institution must have had prior notice of an attack. The defendants supported their motion for summary judgment with affidavits stating that they had no notice and no reason to believe that the plaintiff was likely to be assaulted. This shifted the burden to the plaintiff to establish that a dispute of fact exists concerning whether the defendants knew of or had reason to anticipate such an attack. The evidence presented by the plaintiff fails to create a dispute of this material fact. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Holly Thrasher v. Riverbend Stables, LLC, et al.
Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her complaint arising out of the death of her Tennessee Walking Horse while the horse was being trained at Riverbend Stables, LLC. Plaintiff filed suit claiming the horse died as a result of the defendants’ negligence and gross negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon a finding that the claims of negligence were barred by the exculpatory provisions in the parties’ written agreement and Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie claim of gross negligence. Finding the exculpatory agreement enforceable and the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning the claims for gross negligence or recklessness, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Josh W. Newell v. Jeff Maitland, et al.
This appeal involves a negligence action filed after the plaintiff was charged with child rape. The plaintiff sued the sheriff’s deputy and Department of Children’s Services employee who interviewed the alleged victim; the sheriff; the county mayor; the county itself; a Department of Children’s Services supervisor; and the District Attorney General. The plaintiff contended that if a “child protective team” had interviewed the victim, he would not have been arrested and charged with child rape. The trial court dismissed the claims against the state employees for lack of jurisdiction, and it dismissed the claims against the county employees pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101, et seq. The sheriff’s deputy was also named as a defendant in his individual capacity, and the trial court granted his motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Rickie B. Clayton v. Rosie B. Clayton
This appeal arises out of divorce proceedings. The parties were married for fourteen years and had two children. The trial court declared the parties divorced based on stipulated grounds; divided the marital estate; designated the mother primary residential parent and the father alternate residential parent; and ordered the father to pay the mother $200 per month in alimony in futuro. The father appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
R. Linley Richter, Jr. v. Seymour S. Rosenberg
This appeal involves a dispute between two attorneys over a contingency fee generated from a client’s case. The younger attorney worked as an associate at the senior attorney’s law firm, and both parties worked on the client’s case. When the case concluded, the associate sued the senior attorney, claiming that the parties had agreed to equally share the fee. The senior attorney testified that the associate had volunteered to work on the case for free. He further testified that pursuant to the parties’ arrangement, if he chose to pay the associate, he could unilaterally decide how much the associate’s services were worth. The trial court found that the parties had agreed to equally share the attorney’s fee generated in the case, and it awarded the associate one-half of the fee. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Beverly J. Farmer v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.
This appeal involves concurrent findings of a special master and a trial court. The bank foreclosed on property and the owner filed suit, alleging wrongful foreclosure. The chancellor referred the matter to a special master for the determination of two factual issues. The special master found that the account in question was in arrears at the time of the foreclosure, and that no payments were made that were not properly credited to the account. The chancellor adopted the findings of the special master and granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. The owner appeals, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Smith Bowling, et al. vs. Todd Jones, et al.
Plaintiff homeowners sued defendant residential building contractors for breach of a home construction contract upon allegations of defective workmanship and abandonment of contract. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and awarded actual damages in an amount based upon the finding that the house was of no value. The trial court also awarded damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act upon a finding that the defendants violated the Act by willfully and knowingly misrepresenting that they were bonded. Upon appeal, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court, and accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in all respects. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
David Goff, et ux, et al. v. Elmo Greer & Sons Construction Co., Inc.
This appeal involves a jury’s award of punitive damages. The construction company entered into a contract with the State of Tennessee to widen a portion of a highway. The homeowners entered into a contract with the construction company allowing the construction company to place excess materials generated from the highway project on the homeowners’ property. In exchange, the |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Shearer Rebecca Agee v. David Steven Agee
This is an appeal from the trial court’s modification of a child’s custody due to a material change in circumstances. Mother/Appellant appeals the trial court’s change of custody of her minor child to Father/Appellee. Specifically, Mother/Appellant asserts that the evidence does not support the finding of a material change in circumstances and also raises issues concerning trial court’s reliance on certain evidence. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
William Cason v. George Little, et al.
Appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a pro se petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking review of the prison disciplinary board’s findings. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon Appellant’s alleged failure to execute his petition in compliance with the statutory requirements found at T.C.A §§ 27-8-104 and 27-8-106. Finding that Appellant had failed to have his petition notarized, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Appellant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Lake | Court of Appeals |
