Cindy R. Lourcey, et al. v. Estate of Charles Scarlett, Deceased
We granted review to determine (1) whether the complaint states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress when it alleges that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous because he shot his wife and then himself in plaintiff Cindy Lourcey’s presence; and (2) whether the complaint states a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when it does not allege that Cindy Lourcey was related to the defendant or his wife. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment after concluding that the complaint states claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we hold that the plaintiffs state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because Cindy Lourcey witnessed an “outrageous” act, i.e., the defendant’s shooting of his wife and himself, and that the plaintiffs state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress even though Cindy Lourcey is not related to the defendant or his wife. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed; Case Remanded to Circuit Court |
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
Cindy R. Lourcey v. Estate of Charles Scarlett, Deceased - Concurring
JANICE M. HOLDER, J., concurring. |
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
David Hickman v. Continental Baking Company
The present workers’ compensation case requires us to consider the trial court’s assessment of vocational disability and, with respect to the employer’s alleged subrogation interest, 1) the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-112(c)(1); 2) the extent of the employer’s credit against future liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-112(c)(2); 3) the appropriate disposition of medical expenses incurred prior to the time of trial in the employee’s workers’ compensation suit but not paid by the employer; and 4) the propriety of requiring the employer to pay a proportionate share of the employee’s attorney’s fee from a third-party tort action. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-225(e)(3); Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part, Case Remanded |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Sharon Taylor v. Douglas Butler and City Auto Sales
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether a claim for fraudulent inducement to a contract must be submitted to arbitration when the contract’s arbitration clause covers “all claims, demands, disputes or controversies” and states that it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). We hold that parties may agree to arbitrate claims of fraudulent inducement despite prohibition of arbitration of such claims under Tennessee law, and because the parties in this case specifically agreed that the FAA governs the arbitration clause, they agreed to arbitrate the claim for fraudulent inducement of the contract. However, we also find that the arbitration clause in this case is unconscionable and therefore void because it reserves the right to a judicial forum for the defendants while requiring the plaintiff to submit all claims to arbitration. For these reasons, the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint is overruled, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Sharon Taylor v. Douglas Butler and City Auto Sales - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Christopher A. Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc.et al.
We granted review in this case to consider whether an employee is barred from seeking workers’ compensation benefits in Tennessee because the employee made a binding election of remedies by pursuing benefits for the same injury in another state. We hold that the employee’s filing of a claim in South Carolina, his request for a hearing there, and the taking of depositions in that matter constitute affirmative acts to obtain benefits in another state sufficient to constitute a binding election of remedies that bars the employee’s Tennessee claim. Therefore, we reject the conclusion of the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel on this issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Edward Slavin, Jr.
We have this case on direct appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, from an order of the Chancery Court suspending Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq., from the practice of law for three years. Slavin appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether Chancellor Richard E. Ladd erred in refusing to recuse himself; (2) whether Slavin's in-court speech is protected by the First Amendment; and (3) whether the sanctions imposed by the Chancellor are excessive. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that Chancellor Ladd did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself and that the speech at issue does not fall within the protective ambit of the First Amendment. After a thorough examination of the sanctions, we impose a two-year suspension. Slavin may, however, apply for reinstatement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 19.3, at the expiration of one year from date of this opinion. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. H. Owen Maddux
A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that H. Owen Maddux had wilfully and deliberately converted funds from his law firm. In addition to other sanctions, the hearing panel suspended Maddux from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. The Chancery Court for Hamilton County affirmed the judgment of the hearing panel but imposed additional sanctions. Disciplinary Counsel appealed to this Court, contesting only the sufficiency of the thirty-day suspension. We hold that the thirty-day suspension is appropriate. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
In the Matter of: D.A.H., DOB 12/11/00, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age, et al.
We granted permission to appeal to determine whether the amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9)(A), effective June 2, 2003, applies retroactively to this parental termination case. Prior to the 2003 amendment, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) (2001) provided as follows: |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Anne. B. Pope v. United States Fire Insurance Company, et al.
We granted permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether the liability of a surety company that issues bonds to self-insured employers under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-405(b) is limited to the penal amount listed on the face of each bond. Because section 50-6-405(b) requires that bonds be of a single, continuous term, we conclude that a surety company’s liability is limited to the penal amount on the face of the bonds. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Davis
The defendant, Christopher A. Davis, was convicted of two counts of premeditated first degree murder,1 two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. The jury imposed death sentences for both counts of premeditated first degree murder after finding that evidence of three aggravating circumstances, i.e., (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person, (2) the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest of the defendant, and (3) the murders were knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit a robbery or kidnapping, outweighed evidence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent 25-year sentences for the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions to run consecutively to concurrent 25-year sentences for the especially aggravated robbery convictions. After the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the sentences, the case was automatically docketed in this Court. We entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument, and we now hold as follows: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts; (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to disqualify the District Attorney General; (3) the trial court did not err in refusing to allow defense counsel to withdraw; (4) the death sentences were not invalid on the ground that the aggravating circumstances were not set out in the indictment; (5) the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to establish the “prior violent felony” aggravating circumstance by relying on an offense committed as a juvenile; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and its determination that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the evidence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; and (7) the death sentences were not arbitrary or disproportionate. We also agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusions with respect to the remaining issues, the relevant portions of which are included in the appendix to this opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Davis - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Patricia Conley, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Stinson, Deceased v. State of Tennessee
We granted review in this case to address three issues: (1) whether the State is a “governmental |
Supreme Court | ||
Jasmine Ali v. Eric Fisher, et al
We granted this appeal to determine whether an owner who negligently entrusted his car to another may be held vicariously liable for the driver's negligence in the operation of the car. The trial court submitted the case to the jury for allocation of fault on comparative fault principles, and the jury found the owner twenty percent (20%) at fault and the driver eighty percent (80%) at fault. The trial court later amended the judgment by holding that the owner-entrustor was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver-entrustee and thus liable for all of the compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in concluding that the owner-entrustor was vicariously liable for the driver-entrustee's actions and reinstated the initial judgment. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that an owner-entrustor's liability for negligent entrustment does not result in vicarious liability for the negligence of the driver-entrustee and that the trial court erred in holding the owner-entrustor liable for all the damages. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sullivan | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Gdongalay P. Berry - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Gdongalay P. Berry
A jury convicted the defendant, Gdongalay P. Berry, of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery, for the murders, kidnappings and robberies of DeAngelo Lee and Gregory Ewing.1 Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury found three aggravating circumstances in each murder: (1) that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies other than the present charge, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person;2 (2) that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another; and (3) that the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit robbery or kidnapping. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (6), (7) (1996). The jury also found that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the jury imposed sentences of death for each of the murder convictions. As to the remaining felony convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender, and imposed an effective fifty-year sentence, to run consecutively to the death penalty.3 The defendant appealed, challenging both his convictions and the sentences of death. After fully considering the issues raised by the defendant, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the sentences. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Eva Mae Jefferies v. McKee Foods
In this workers' compensation case, the employer, McKee Foods Corporation, has appealed the trial court's award of 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole to the employee, Eva Mae Jefferies. The trial court's award of benefits was based on a medical impairment rating calculated under the Fifth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment ("AMA Guidelines"), which was in effect at the time of trial. The employer's appeal was transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to a decision by the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel. The employer contends in this Court that the trial court should have applied a medical impairment rating calculated under the Fourth Edition of the AMA Guidelines because the Fourth Edition was the edition in effect when the employee reached maximum medical improvement. Thus, the sole question for this Court is whether the trial court erred in awarding benefits using a medical impairment rating calculated under the Fifth Edition of the AMA Guidelines. After carefully examining the record and the relevant authorities, we find that in determining the extent of the employee's vocational disability, the trial court should have used a medical impairment rating calculated under the Fourth Edition of the AMA Guidelines. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Tom Albert et al. v Pat Frye, et al.
The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s notice of appeal was timely filed. The Court of Appeals held that it was not. We disagree. Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04, the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal was tolled until the trial court issued its decision on the defendant’s post-trial motion to alter or amend. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the merits of the defendant’s appeal. |
Robertson | Supreme Court | |
Michelle Sullivan, by and through Her Conservator, Brenda Hightower v. Edwards Oil Company
We granted this appeal to define "nursing services" as used in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1) and to determine whether the caretaking services that an injured employee's mother provides are nursing services for which the Workers' Compensation Law mandates the employer compensate her. The trial court found that the mother had failed to carry her burden of proof on the issue of whether she was entitled to compensation. The trial court concluded that the plain meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204 contemplates only professional nursing services ordered by the attending physician, and that the mother is not a professional nurse providing professional nursing services. The employee appealed, arguing that the statute provides compensation for a broader range of caretaking services. The appeal was argued before the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3), but the appeal was transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to the Panel issuing its decision, and oral argument was heard by the full Court. We hold that in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1), "nursing services" refers to the services of a professional nurse. Because the mother providing caretaking services here is not a professional nurse, the Workers' Compensation Law does not require the employer to compensate the mother for her services. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's denial of compensation for her services. The question of whether the Workers' Compensation Law should provide compensation when a family member provides care for an injured worker is an issue that must be addressed by the Legislature. |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Pierce
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the trial court erred in considering the results of the defendant sex offender's polygraph examination when denying the defendant's request for probation. The polygraph examination was administered as part of the risk assessment report that is mandated by statute for all sex offenders seeking probation. Because polygraph examinations are inherently unreliable, we hold that trial courts may not consider polygraph examination results or any portion of a risk assessment report that relies upon polygraph examination results when imposing sentences. However, even excluding the polygraph examination results, the record in this case supports the denial of probation. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed in part and modified in part. |
Sullivan | Supreme Court | |
Pete Honsa v. Tombigbee Transport Corp. et al. AND Eddie Gene Brown v. Tombigbee Transport Corp. AND William B. Stevenson v. Transway, Inc., et al.
The issue raised in these three workers’ compensation cases, consolidated for appeal, is whether the defendant is the employer of the plaintiffs and thus responsible for providing workers’ compensation insurance coverage for them. In each case, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We hold that under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-106(1)(A), the defendant is not, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ employer so as to subject the defendant to liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardin | Supreme Court | |
James Walter Young v. Nashville Electric Service
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel (“Appeals Panel”) affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding that the employee failed to carry his burden of proof as to causation. The employee has filed a motion for review pursuant to Section 50- 6-225(e)(5)(B), Tennessee Code Annotated (Supp. 2003). That statute requires that a motion for review be filed within fifteen days of the issuance of the Appeals Panel’s decision. We hold that the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for review is jurisdictional and that the Court therefore is without jurisdiction to consider a motion that is not timely filed. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Larry Benton v. The Vanderbilt University
We granted this appeal to determine whether a third-party beneficiary who seeks to enforce a contract between a hospital and an insurance carrier may be bound by an arbitration provision in the contract. The trial court denied the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the thirdparty beneficiary was not a party to the contract between the hospital and the insurance carrier. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the arbitration provision could be enforced against the third- party beneficiary in this case. After reviewing the record and authority, we conclude that an arbitration provision in a contract is enforceable against a third-party beneficiary who has filed a cause of action seeking to enforce the contract. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Larry Benton v. The Vanderbilt University - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
James Galloway v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
We granted review in this workers’ compensation appeal to determine whether an employee who was less than age 60 on the date of injury, but who reached maximum medical improvement and permanent total disability status after age 60, is entitled to a minimum of 260 weeks of benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2003). The Chancellor determined that because the employee was less than 60 years of age when the injury occurred, he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits for only 232 weeks until he was eligible for full benefits under the Social Security Act. The employee’s appeal was transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel hearing argument and issuing its decision. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the Chancellor properly construed the statute in awarding the employee 232 weeks of permanent total disability benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i). We therefore affirm the Chancellor’s judgment. |
Dyer | Supreme Court |
