Hill v. City of Chattanooga
| Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee |
| Writing for the Court | PARROTT |
| Citation | 533 S.W.2d 311 |
| Parties | Ira Joyce HILL et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee, et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1975 |
Page 311
v.
The CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee, et al., Appellees.
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Feb. 9, 1976.
Weill, Ellis, Weems & Copeland and William T. Roper, Chattanooga, for appellants.
Randall L. Nelson, Chattanooga, for City of Chattanooga.
Duggan & McDonald, Chattanooga, for Alan W. Derthick and Carroll J. Henley.
Milligan, Hooper, Harris & Foster, Chattanooga, for H. E. Collins Contracting Co., Inc.
Morgan, Garner & Wood, Chattanooga, for Alma C. Bryson.
Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie, Chattanooga, for Seaboard Surety Co. of New York.
Page 312
OPINION
PARROTT, Presiding Judge.
This suit arises out of injuries sustained by thirteen-year-old Ira Joyce Hill when a shower room wall collapsed at the Alton Park Junior High School in Chattanooga. This appeal challenges the action of the circuit judge in sustaining motions for summary judgment made by the defendant contractor and architects; further, it granted a motion to dismiss made by the defendant city and its school board.
In appeals from grants of summary judgment we are called upon to decide whether the court below correctly applied the provisions of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. In doing so we make an entirely fresh determination because only questions of law are presented. No presumption of correctness, T.C.A. 27--303, accompanies the decision of the trial court. Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03 sets forth that
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
We must of course concede that there is here a threshold consideration involving a question of fact, namely, whether there is a 'genuine' issue as to any material fact; it is not, however, of sufficient magnitude to raise any presumption as to the correctness of the decision below. Green v. Lanier, 61 Tenn.App. 487, 456 S.W.2d 345; McFadden v. Blair, 42 Tenn.App. 434, 304 S.W.2d 93.
Construction of the Alton Park school was completed in 1962 and the building was accepted by the city in that year. During the school year of 1964--65 the wall in question was completely rebuilt by workmen employed in the school system. Thus it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Elvis Presley Intern. Memorial Foundation v. Crowell, No. 86-99-II
...without merit. Our task is simply to determine whether the requirements of Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56 have been met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). In doing so, we must view the pleadings and the other competent factual proof in a light most favorable to the oppo......
-
D.T. McCall & Sons v. Seagraves, No. 89-316-II
...can be granted. Our role on appeal is to determine whether Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56's requirements have been met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). Summary judgments are inappropriate when genuine disputes concerning material facts exist. Poore v. Magnavox Co., 66......
-
Price v. Mercury Supply Co., Inc., 83-39-III
...role is to determine whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.App.1975). In making this determination, this Court views the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, a......
-
Macon County Livestock Market, Inc. v. Kentucky State Bank, Inc., No. 85-125-II
...review, we must review the record to determine whether the requirements of Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56 have been met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). While summary judgments should not be used as substitutes for the trial of disputed factual issues, Jones v. Home I......
-
State ex rel. Elvis Presley Intern. Memorial Foundation v. Crowell, No. 86-99-II
...without merit. Our task is simply to determine whether the requirements of Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56 have been met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). In doing so, we must view the pleadings and the other competent factual proof in a light most favorable to the oppo......
-
D.T. McCall & Sons v. Seagraves, No. 89-316-II
...can be granted. Our role on appeal is to determine whether Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56's requirements have been met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). Summary judgments are inappropriate when genuine disputes concerning material facts exist. Poore v. Magnavox Co., 66......
-
Price v. Mercury Supply Co., Inc., 83-39-III
...role is to determine whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.App.1975). In making this determination, this Court views the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, a......
-
Macon County Livestock Market, Inc. v. Kentucky State Bank, Inc., No. 85-125-II
...review, we must review the record to determine whether the requirements of Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56 have been met. Hill v. City of Chattanooga, 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn.Ct.App.1975). While summary judgments should not be used as substitutes for the trial of disputed factual issues, Jones v. Home I......