 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan v. Lloyd8/18/2005
the record as untimely under Davidson County Local Rule 26.04(d).
Following a March 19, 2004, hearing of the matter, the trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendants on March 29, 2004. Ms. Duncan filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
Issue Presented
The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment based upon Ms. Duncan's failure to respond to Defendants' statement of undisputed facts in accordance with Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party can demonstrate that there are no disputed issues of material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04; Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993). The party moving for summary judgment must affirmatively negate an essential element of the non-moving party's claim, or conclusively establish an affirmative defense. McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998).
When a party makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish the existence of disputed material facts. Id. A mere assertion that the non-moving party has no evidence does not suffice to entitle the moving party to summary judgment. Id. Further, the non-moving party cannot merely rely on the pleadings, but must demonstrate that essential elements of a claim exist by: 1) pointing to evidence that creates a factual dispute; 2) re-enforcing evidence challenged by the moving party; 3) offering additional evidence which establishes a material dispute; 4) submitting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06 affidavit explaining the need for additional time for discovery. McCarley, 960 S.W.2d at 588.
When determining whether to award summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Staples v. CBL & Assocs., 15 S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000). The court should award summary judgment only when a reasonable person could reach only one conclusion based on the facts and the inferences drawn from those facts. Id. Summary judgment is not appropriate if there is any doubt about whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. McCarley, 960 S.W.2d at 588. We review an award of summary judgment de novo, with no presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court. Guy v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tenn. 2002).
Analysis
In its order awarding summary judgment to Defendants, the trial court stated:
This Court specifically finds that the Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03. In light of the Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion in Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), this Court finds that the Defendants Statement of Undisputed Facts are deemed admitted and undisputed. The Court further notes that in granting the Defendants Motions it is not relying solely on the Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Defendants request for admissions in accordance with Rule 36.01, but is instead deeming the Statement of Undisputed Facts admitted for the Plaintiff's failure to respond to same. Where each of the Statement of Undisputed Facts are admitted, this Court finds that all reasonable juries would find the Plaintiff's fault was fifty percent or more and, consequently, grants Defendants Motions.
Further, where the only basis of liability against the Defendant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|