Gleaves v. Checker Cab, 97-00183

CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation15 S.W.3d 799
Decision Date22 February 2000
Docket Number97-00183
PartiesMICHAEL C. GLEAVES, Appellant, v. CHECKER CAB TRANSIT CORPORATION, INC., Appellee. NO. M1997-00183-IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED:

MICHAEL C. GLEAVES, Appellant,
v.
CHECKER CAB TRANSIT CORPORATION, INC., Appellee.

NO. M1997-00183-SC-R11-CV

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

FILED: February 22, 2000

DAVIDSON COUNTY

HON. HAMILTON V. GAYDEN, JR.,JUDGE

For Appellant:
WILLIAM D. LEADER, JR., JULIE C. MURPHY, Nashville, TN

For Appellee:
STEVEN D. PARMAN, MATTHEW A. BOYD, Nashville, TN

FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT REINSTATED.

BIRCH, J.

OPINION

I

We granted this appeal in order to determine whether 6.72.210 of the Code of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County(FN1)B. These agreements shall place the vehicles operated under their franchise in the taxicab company's complete possession and control, and the taxicab company shall assume complete liability for each and every vehicle for which it enters into this agreement. (Metro. Code) and the required Taxicab Liability Insurance Agreement(FN2)3. That the above-named taxicab company, partnership or sole proprietorship shall assume complete liability for each vehicle being operated under its name, color, emblem, design and insignia and shall be liable for any personal injuries or property damage to third parties as the result of the negligent use of these vehicles. (Agreement) impose liability upon Checker Cab Transit Corporation, Inc. (Checker) for injuries to a third party caused by the negligence of one of Checker's contract drivers who was "off-duty" at the time of the incident. Because we find that the ordinance and the Agreement impose liability on the taxicab company regardless of the status (on-duty/off-duty) of the driver, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment entered by the trial court is reinstated.

II

On the day in question, the record shows that Robert J. Mosley (a driver for Checker) began work at about 5:30 a.m. and reported "off-duty" by radio at approximately 9:20 p.m. Shortly after reporting "off-duty," and while en route home, Mosley's high speed attracted the attention of City of Lakewood police officers. A high speed chase ensued. The chase ended at about 10:05 p.m. when Mosley collided with a vehicle operated by Michael C. Gleaves. Gleaves sustained serious injuries.

Gleaves filed a lawsuit against Checker, Mosley, the City of Lakewood, and a City of Lakewood police officer. He sought damages under the theories of negligent hiring and supervision, respondeat superior, 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and under 6.72.210 of the Metro. Code. Checker moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Checker on the common law claims but denied summary judgment to Checker on the issue of liability under the ordinance. Instead, the court granted, sua sponte, summary judgment in favor of Gleaves, ruling that 6.72.210 imposed liability on Checker for Mosley's negligence. The question of Mosley's negligence was submitted to a jury, and it determined that Mosley was 70 percent at fault and the City of Lakewood was 30 percent at fault. Applying 6.72.210, the trial court held Checker liable in accordance with the jury's apportionment of fault.

Checker appealed the trial court's ruling on the issue of liability under 6.72.210, and Gleaves appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant on his common law claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment against Checker and dismissed Gleaves's complaint but affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other aspects. The sole issue on appeal is whether 6.72.210 imposes liability upon Checker for Mosley's negligence while "off-duty."(FN3)

The Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County (Metropolitan Council) closely regulates the taxicab business. In order to operate a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
211 practice notes
  • Silliman v. City of Memphis, No. W2013-02858-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • July 2, 2014
    ...what it says there." Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 214 (Tenn. 2012) ((quoting Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. 2000)). Accordingly, by choosing to delay the effective date of this amendment, the General Assembly expressed clear intent tha......
  • In re Adoption of AMH, No. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT (TN 11/23/2005), No. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • November 23, 2005
    ...to the ordinary dictionary definition of the term at issue. See Freeman, 27 S.W.3d at 912; Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. 2000). "Removal" is defined as "[t]he transfer or moving of a person or thing from one location, position, or resid......
  • Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Baker, No. M2005-00802-COA-R3-CV (TN 2/24/2006), No. M2005-00802-COA-R3-CV.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 24, 2006
    ...of construction to give the statute another meaning, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d at 83; Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. Statutes, however, are not always free from ambiguity. When we encounter ambiguous statutory language — language that can reaso......
  • Frazier v. State, No. M2014–02374–SC–R11–ECN
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • July 7, 2016
    ...(Tenn.2010) ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 277 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn.2009) ; Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn.2000). It is not the role of this Court to substitute its own policy judgments for those of the legislature. Gleaves, 15 S.W.3d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
211 cases
  • Silliman v. City of Memphis, No. W2013-02858-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • July 2, 2014
    ...what it says there." Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 214 (Tenn. 2012) ((quoting Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. 2000)). Accordingly, by choosing to delay the effective date of this amendment, the General Assembly expressed clear intent tha......
  • In re Adoption of AMH, No. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT (TN 11/23/2005), No. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • November 23, 2005
    ...to the ordinary dictionary definition of the term at issue. See Freeman, 27 S.W.3d at 912; Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. 2000). "Removal" is defined as "[t]he transfer or moving of a person or thing from one location, position, or resid......
  • Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Baker, No. M2005-00802-COA-R3-CV (TN 2/24/2006), No. M2005-00802-COA-R3-CV.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 24, 2006
    ...of construction to give the statute another meaning, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d at 83; Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. Statutes, however, are not always free from ambiguity. When we encounter ambiguous statutory language — language that can reaso......
  • Frazier v. State, No. M2014–02374–SC–R11–ECN
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • July 7, 2016
    ...(Tenn.2010) ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 277 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn.2009) ; Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn.2000). It is not the role of this Court to substitute its own policy judgments for those of the legislature. Gleaves, 15 S.W.3d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT