The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in four cases in Knoxville Thursday:
· Ewin B. Jenkins et al. v. Big City Remodeling et al. – This case is a civil matter concerning a house under construction in Sevierville that was destroyed by fire as it was nearing completion. The owners of the house filed suit against various entities involved in the construction of the home, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to the home builder and its subcontractors, meaning that the court determined before going to trial that the homeowners could not prevail. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court concerning a flooring subcontractor, and the parties sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court will consider whether the Court of Appeals reversal was proper, whether the homeowners have provided any evidence or suggestion from the evidence as to what caused the fire, and whether the lower courts properly concluded that the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the homeowners could not rely on a legal theory called res ipsa loquitur.” Res ipsa loquitur allows a legal conclusion that negligence occurred merely by the fact that a certain event happens – in this case the fire – without direct evidence that any of the defendants acted negligently.
· William Thomas McFarland v. Michael S. Pemberton et al.– The second case involves a challenge by a circuit judge candidate to the qualifications of the winning candidate. In 2014, an eligible voter in the Ninth Judicial District, who is not a party to this suit, filed a complaint with the election commission challenging Mike Pemberton’s eligibility to run for circuit judge, alleging he did not meet the residency requirement. The commission held a public hearing and determined that Pemberton was eligible, his name was placed on the ballot, and he won the election. William Thomas McFarland, who lost the election to Pemberton and had knowledge of the complaint and actions by the local election commission, filed this election challenge, seeking to void the election results on the ground that Pemberton failed to satisfy the residency requirement. The trial court dismissed McFarland’s claim, ruling it was made too late. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and McFarland then sought review by the Supreme Court, which will consider whether the county election commission had the authority to determine candidate eligibility; which state laws apply for purposes of challenging the election; and whether McFarland has the right to seek review of the election commission’s decision.
· Sandra L. Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church et al. – This is a wrongful death case in which Sandra L. Wallis filed suit against Brainerd Baptist Church in Chattanooga and ExtendLife, Inc., the company that sold an automated external defibrillator (AED) to the church’s fitness center. Mrs. Wallis’s husband participated in an exercise class at the center, then collapsed and died. None of the AEDs on site at the fitness center were used on Mr. Wallis, but the suit maintains that ExtendLife was obliged to offer training to employees beyond the training offered at the time of the initial sale four years earlier. ExtendLife sought to be dismissed from the case, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals declined to review the trial court decision, but the Supreme Court agreed to consider several of the issues presented by ExtendLife at this point in the case. The Court will consider, among other issues, whether the seller of an AED has a duty to someone allegedly injured by failure of the owner to implement the AED and whether they have a continuing duty to provide the AED owner’s employees with proper training to recognize and respond to situations in which an AED may be used. The Court also will consider the standard Tennessee uses in cases such as this.
· State of Tennessee v. Nicole Flowers – This criminal case from Maury County involves defendant Nicole Flowers, who was convicted of one count of stalking after she referred to the father of her daughter as a “deadbeat dad” in calls, texts, and signs posted at his home and place of employment. She also, along with her sister, followed the man in his car as he left work. Flowers maintains that the evidence did not support her conviction. She appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld her conviction and sentence. The Tennessee Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was indeed sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for stalking. The Court also will consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals was correct in holding that the message depicted in the defendant’s signs was not constitutionally protected speech.
Supreme Court oral arguments are open to the public. They will be held on Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 9:30 EDT for the first two cases and will continue in an afternoon session starting at 1 p.m. EDT. The cases will be heard in the Knoxville Supreme Court Building, 505 Main Street, Knoxville.