Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

FILED
October 2, 1998
Appellate C ourt Clerk

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

JEREMY P. CRYE, a Minor, by ) his next friend and Mother, ) BEVERLY A. ROGERS, and ) BEVERLY A. ROGERS, Individually ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellants ) ) v. ) ) LLOYD C. NORTON and ) MARY B. NORTON, ) ) Defendants/Appellees )

KNOX CIRCUIT NO. 03A01-9804-CV-00142

HON. HAROLD WIMBERLY JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Herbert S. Moncier and David S. Wigler, Knoxville, for Appellants. Paul D. Hogan, Knoxville, for Apellee Mary P. Norton.

OPINION
INMAN, Senior Judge The plaintiff, Jeremy P. Crye, seeks to impose liability on Mary B. Morton for the act of her son, Lloyd C. Norton, in shooting him. The trial judge granted her motion for summary judgment without enlargement. The plaintiff appeals, and presents for review the issue of whether the proof relevant to the motion established a genuine dispute of a material fact, thus requiring a merit trial. The question on appeal is one of law, and the scope of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness accompanying the judge's conclusions of law. Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993).

I The complaint alleges that on August 21, 1993, Mary B. Norton owned certain property located in Straw Plains, Knox County, Tennessee, which was managed by her son, the co-defendant Lloyd Norton, who was alleged to have been her agent, servant and employee. The plaintiff was allegedly a guest of the tenants of the property when he was shot by Lloyd Norton. Mary B. Norton filed her answer denying that Lloyd Norton was her agent, servant or employee, and averring that she had no knowledge of the shooting incident. The plaintiff amended his complaint to allege that Lloyd Norton was the beneficial owner of the property because he transferred it to his mother in 1984 without consideration. Alternatively, the plaintiff alleged that Lloyd Norton owned the property as a joint venturer or partner with his mother.1 The complaint was again amended to allege that the defendants were landlords within the meaning of T.C.A.

Download crye.pdf

Tennessee Law