APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a negligence and products liability case. Appellant-
Husband was injured when the bus, on which he was a passenger, collided with a concrete
truck. Appellant-Husband and Appellant-Wife filed suit against Appellees- the bus
manufacturer, the bus owner, and the franchisor. Following trial, the jury found that the
Appellants had suffered $8,543,630.00 in damages, but found that none of the Appellees
were at fault and apportioned one hundred percent of the fault to a non-party. Appellants
appeal. We find that Appellants’ claims based on the use of tempered glass in the side
windows of the bus, and the lack of passenger seatbelts in the bus are preempted by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. §30101 et seq. Further, we find
that the Appellants failed to present evidence that the use of perimeter seating in the bus
caused the injuries. Consequently, we find that the trial court erred in not granting
Appellees’ motions for directed verdict on the Appellants’ claims based on the use of
perimeter seating. Reversed and remanded.

This is divorce case, ending a fifteen year marriage. Appellant-Husband appeals from the trial court’s classification and division of marital property. Appellee-Wife appeals from the trial court’s decision to impute income to her. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Frankie E. Casteel, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for three counts of first degree murder. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a medical malpractice case. Appellant filed suit against Appellee Hospital
after Appellant’s decedent suffered several falls and a broken hip while a patient at Appellee
Hospital. The trial court granted Appellee Hospital’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion,
thereby dismissing Appellant’s amended complaint. Specifically, the trial court held: (1) that
the amended complaint was ineffective to give notice to Appellee Hospital because it did not
reference the date(s) of decedent’s falls, (2) that the medical malpractice claim and hedonic
damages of the widow arising therefrom were dismissed by previous orders of the court, and
(3) that the proof did not support the averments made in the amended complaint. After
review, we conclude: (1) that the amended complaint is sufficiently specific to satisfy Tenn.
R. Civ. P. 8, and to state a claim for medical malpractice against the Appellee Hospital, (2)
that the previous orders of the trial court only dismissed the wrongful death claims and
widow’s loss of consortium claims arising therefrom, and not the medical malpractice claims,
and (3) that the trial court reviewed matters outside the pleadings so as to trigger summary
judgment analysis under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03, and (4) that there are disputes of material
fact in this case so as to necessitate a full evidentiary hearing on the medical malpractice
claim. Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the medical malpractice claim
against Appellee Hospital and on the widow’s loss of consortium claims arising from the
alleged medical malpractice.

The Defendant, Thomas Christopher Hayes, appeals as of right his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury conviction for sexual battery, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years as a Range II, multiple offender to be served in the Department of Correction. His sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a hearing loss as a result of exposure to noise during her work from 1944 to 1989 as a telephone operator for her employer, and awarded 50% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding on the issue of causation. Alternatively, it argues that the award is excessive. We reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint.

The Petitioner, Marco Butler, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and his concurrent sentences of life and twenty-five years, respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to communicate his release eligibility date. He also contends that his plea was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the Trial Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim for adverse possession of the property in dispute. I also concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the Trial Court’s ruling that Defendants may construct the fence where proposed as that fence is constructed entirely on Defendants’ property and does not, as found by the majority, interfere with Plaintiff’s use of the easement in any way.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation after her physician sent a letter she considered defamatory. After finding that plaintiff consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, George Cecil Resh, alleged that he sustained
hearing loss due to exposure to a harmful level of noise in his workplace. The employer, Building
Materials Corporation, denied that the employee’s hearing loss was work-related. The trial court
found in favor of the employee and awarded 50% permanent partial disability of the hearing of both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. Because we find that the expert medical evidence failed to establish that Mr. Resh’s hearing loss was work-related, we agree and reverse the judgment.1

The petitioner, Johnny Menifee, was convicted in 2004 of Class D felony evading arrest with risk of injury, misdemeanor theft, Class E felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and resisting arrest. He received an effective sentence of eighteen years as a persistent offender. After his convictions and sentences were affirmed by this court in 2006, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied the petition; and, after our review, we affirm that denial.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s order overruling a pro se petition for writ of mandamus by the appellant. In the petition, the appellant sought access to the grand jury for Bradley County to present evidence of purported wrongdoing by the investigating officer of his case. The trial court denied the petition. On a different basis, we affirm.

The defendant, Suzanne D. Burkhart, appeals certified questions of law from the Sevier County Circuit Court, where she pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and violation of the implied consent law. The reserved certified question challenges on constitutional grounds a Sevierville police officer’s basis for stopping her vehicle and also his authority for doing so outside the City of Sevierville. We affirm the action of the trial court.

The petitioner, Liberty Bonding Company, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of its request to return the $5000 paid as a final forfeiture on the bond for the defendant, Jose E. Bejar. The defendant violated his bond agreement in 1996, and the petitioner paid the final forfeiture in 1997. Some ten years later, the State dismissed the pending charges against the defendant. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial because: (1) there was no written final order of forfeiture entered; and (2) the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-133(c) (2006) prohibits the State from dismissing the underlying charges. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the result reached by Judge Farmer. However, because I reach the result by different reasoning, I write separately.

In 1995, a Hickman County jury convicted the Petitioner of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of false imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II multiple offender to a total effective sentence of eighty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, claiming the trial court did not have statutory authority to sentence him as a Range II multiple offender. The habeas court dismissed the petition without a hearing, finding that “[h]abeas corpus relief is not appropriate.” After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

I must respectfully dissent in this case. Unfortunately, I find that I disagree with both the majority opinion and the concurrence.

The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify custody of his three minor children, who are in the custody of their maternal grandparents. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Petitioner, Robert Lee Adams, was convicted by a Tipton County Jury of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. As a result, he was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to a fourteen-year sentence. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions on appeal. State v. Robert Lee Adams, Jr., No. W2007-00880-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2152497 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 22, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 8, 2008). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on various grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition.  Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.