Editorial
Front Page - Friday, December 11, 2009
Case Digests - Tennessee court of appeals syllabus
Donna Bellomy vs. Autozone, Inc.
Hamilton County - This discrimination lawsuit was filed by Donna Bellomy (“Plaintiff”) against her former employer, AutoZone, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff claimed Defendant failed to promote her because she was a female and that Defendant otherwise created a hostile environment for female employees. Plaintiff also brought various tort claims, including claims based on negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the various tort claims brought by Plaintiff. However, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to Plaintiff’s Tennessee Human Rights Act claims. We vacate the grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Tennessee Human Rights Act claims and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
George M. McMillan, Jr., et al vs. Town of Signal Mountain Planning Commission, et al
Hamilton County - George M. McMillan, Jr., et al. (“Plaintiffs”) sued the Town of Signal Mountain Planning Commission, et al. (“Planning Commission”) and the Town of Signal Mountain, et al. (“Town of Signal Mountain”), contesting the proposed annexation of areas known as the Fox Run subdivision and the Windtree subdivision. The complaint sought both quo warranto relief against the Town of Signal Mountain and declaratory judgment relief against the Planning Commission. The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). After a hearing the Trial Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim against the Planning Commission and certified the order as final pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their declaratory judgment claim against the Planning Commission. We affirm.
Elizabeth Burks v. The Kroger Company, et al
Montgomery County - This is a negligence action resulting from a slip and fall by a customer at a Kroger grocery store. The plaintiff slipped on a pool of water created by one of several leaks in the roof of the grocery store. The plaintiff filed suit against three defendants, The Kroger Company, Roof Management, Inc., a roofing consultant responsible for facilitating necessary repairs to the roof of the grocery store, and Village Roofing Company, Inc., the roofing contractor which made repairs to the roof when called upon to do so. Village Roofing and Roof Management each filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Village Roofing and Roof Management, finding they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and if they did owe a duty that their acts and omissions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. We have determined there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude a determination of whether Village Roofing or Roof Management owed a duty of care to the plaintiff or whether their actions were or were not the legal cause of Ms. Burks’ injuries. Therefore, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Village Roofing and Roof Management and remand for further proceedings.
Elliott Kershaw v. Polly Spann Kershaw
Davidson County - Father, the primary residential parent, seeks to suspend Mother’s parenting time for failure to adhere to the terms of the parenting plan. The trial court suspended Mother’s time with the children, fired Mother’s treatment counselor, and awarded Father attorney’s fees. Mother appealed. We reverse the trial court’s suspension of Mother’s parental time. We also find that Mother waived her right to challenge the trial judge’s impartiality and that the issue of the firing of the counselor is moot. Neither party is entitled to attorney’s fees.
Cookeville Regional Medical Center Authority v. Cardiac Anesthesia Services, PLLC, et al
Putnam County - At the summary judgment phase, the trial court found that a hospital wrongfully terminated its contract with a physician group. A jury determined the physician group was entitled to recover damages arising from the Hospital’s breach. Among the issues raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the contract did not contain
a fee splitting arrangement in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-225. Finding that the contract contained an agreement to split physician’s fees prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-225, we find the contract to be unenforceable. Accordingly, we reverse.
Martin William Huffman v. Angela Shayne Huffman
Davidson County - In this post-divorce dispute, father challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition to be made the primary residential parent as well as the court’s modification of the parenting schedule and its child support award. We have determined that the trial court erred in failing to make the required findings to justify an upward deviation in child support. Otherwise, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
|
|