ARLENE R. STARR v. PAUL B. HILL, SR., and PAUL B. HILL, JR. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 18, 2010)
After Plaintiff was injured in a car accident, she filed suit against the minor who was driving the other vehicle and against the minor's father, alleging that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his son pursuant to the family purpose doctrine. Father moved for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed facts showed that the family purpose doctrine was inapplicable as a matter of law. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, claiming that the family purpose doctrine was applicable as a matter of law. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Father. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Plaintiff's motion, as we find the family purpose doctrine applicable to this case.
Full opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/starra_021810.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
No comments:
Post a Comment