Charles S. Pesce v. East Tennessee Construction Ser-vices, Inc.
McMinn County – Charles Pesce (“the Owner”) is a practicing dentist. He contracted with East Tennessee Construction Services, Inc. (“the Builder”) to build him a new office for his practice on a lot owned by him. The Builder constructed the building, but with numerous undisputed defects. The Owner filed this action which culminated in a bench trial that lasted several days. Based upon diminution in value, the trial court awarded the Owner $282,000 in damages. The trial court expressly found that the cost to repair the structure was an unacceptable measure of damages because it “is disproportionate . . . to the difference in the value of the structure actually constructed and the one contracted for.” The court awarded the Owner discretionary costs of over $10,000. The Owner appeals challenging the measure of damages as well as the amount awarded under the diminution in value measure. The Owner also challenges the trial court’s failure to order the Builder to reimburse him for fees charged by one of the Owner’s experts in connection with his discovery deposition taken by the Builder. The Builder challenges the award of discretionary costs and argues that the damages awarded are excessive. We reverse in part and affirm the remaining judgment as modified.
Nancy Gates v. Katie Williams, et al.
Cocke County – As this action was pleaded and tried, it was (1) a claim by Nancy Gates (“the plaintiff”) seeking to be declared the owner of a life estate in a tract of property; and, as a consequence of her estate, seeking the removal of Katie Williams (“the defendant”), the widow of the plaintiff’s son, Tony, from the property; and (2) a counterclaim by the defendant alleging that she had become the owner of an interest in the property by adverse possession due to her having lived on the property since the late 1960s or early 1970s. The trial court held that, as to these claims, neither party was entitled to relief against the other. The court found, however, that the plaintiff did, in fact, have a life estate in the subject property, and that the defendant had not proven adverse possession because her entry onto the property was with the plaintiff’s permission. The court then held, sua sponte, that the defendant had a license in the property coupled with an interest therein that had been acquired by building numerous structures on the property with the plaintiff’s knowledge and that it would not be equitable to require the defendant to move. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in part and reverse in part and remand for a hearing on the issue of what it would take to do equity given the facts of this case.
Avie Aleane Harding, et al. v. Donovan Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Captain Video & Tanning
Sumner County – A patron of a tanning salon and her husband filed this action seeking to recover damages for injuries the patron sustained when the lid of a tanning bed fell on her head as she was attempting to exit the tanning bed. The plaintiffs allege that the owner and operator of the tanning salon acted negligently by failing to properly maintain or inspect the tanning bed she used, which caused the lid of the tanning bed to become too heavy for the patron to lift and safely exit, and by failing to have a way for a patron to call for help from within the tanning room in the event of an emergency. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding, inter alia, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate essential elements of a prima facie case, specifically that a defective condition existed or that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of any alleged defective or dangerous condition of the premises. We affirm.
Jamie Randolph, on behalf of her deceased mother, Carolyn Randolph v. Gianfranco Meduri, M.D., et al.
Shelby County – This appeal arises out of an action to hold UT Medical Group, Inc. vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its employees. In 1997, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaint for medical malpractice and wrongful death which specifically named two doctors as employees of the defendant who negligently caused the death of a patient. As trial approached, a substitute plaintiff attempted to add new allegations concerning the negligence of a third doctor. The trial court denied the motion to amend and later granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning the alleged negligence of the third doctor as beyond the scope of the 1997 amended complaint. The plaintiff consequently was unable to offer expert testimony at trial to prove an employee of the defendant negligently caused the patient’s death, and the trial court granted judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.