 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis v. Nash9/20/2000
This appeal arises in the Knox County Circuit Court from a grant of a motion for summary judgment. Edward F. Curtis appeals the grant of summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Curtis and his surety.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded
Houston M. Goddard, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Herschel P. Franks and Charles D. Susano, Jr., JJ., joined.
OPINION
This appeal arises from a grant of summary judgment by the Knox County Circuit Court in favor of the Appellees . Edward Curtis, the Appellant, presents one issue on appeal, which we restate: whether the Trial Court erred in interpreting Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-10-101 through § 37-10-103, which is the Liability of Parent or Guardian for Acts of Juveniles statute, and thus, erred in granting summary judgment to the parents of the juveniles, the Appellees, on the basis of their affidavits that they did not know of their children's tendency to commit wrongful acts that can be expected to cause injury to persons or property.
The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with this opinion.
Apparently, the Appellees' juvenile sons entered property owned by Mr. Curtis at 5811 Sunset Drive in Knoxville, Tennessee. Mr. Curtis maintains that the juveniles entered the premises sometime between November 14, 1995 and November 17, 1995 and damaged the house and its contents. One juvenile was apprehended on the property on or about November 17, 1995 and he implicated the other Appellees' sons. Mr. Curtis claims that the damage to the house and its contents total more than $20,000. According to Mr. Curtis, the damage consisted of broken internal and external doors and windows; damage to interior walls and carpets; personal property broken and strewn about; paint splattered about; personal papers, including stock certificates, and clothing damaged or destroyed; and coins and money taken.
As a result of a Juvenile Court proceeding, the Appellees' sons were required to pay restitution totaling $2,000.
Mr. Curtis later filed the instant action under Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-10-101, which is the Liability of Parent or Guardian for Acts of Juveniles statute. Mr. Curtis explains that he does not know which juvenile entered the property on which day nor does he know what specific damage was done by each one on which occasion. However, he contends that each of the juveniles entered the property on one or more of those days in November and did do damage to the property and/or to the contents of the house. Mr. Curtis alleges that the Appellees "knew or should have known of their minor's tendency to commit wrongful acts which could be expected to cause injury to property, and each Defendant had an opportunity to control their minor but failed to exercise reasonable means to restrain the tortious conduct." He insists that some or all of the juveniles committed multiple offenses by entering the property and causing damage on several occasions during the period from November14, 1995 through November 17, 1995.
Mr. Curtis's argument is that the relevant statute in this case creates both a contract liability and a separate tort liability. He argues that Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-10-101 imposes a contractual duty on parents and guardians to pay for damages done by their children whether maliciously or willfully
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|