Stokes v. Smoky Mountain Aero, Inc.

E.D. Tennessee

Stokes v. Smoky Mountain Aero, Inc.

457 F. Supp. 677, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15841

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedAugust 28, 1978

DocketCiv. 3-78-199

StatusPublished

This text of 457 F. Supp. 677 (Stokes v. Smoky Mountain Aero, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stokes v. Smoky Mountain Aero, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 677, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15841 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

Defendant, Smoky Mountain Aero, Inc., has moved to dismiss so much of plaintiff’s complaint as charges defendant with vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of its employee, the pilot of the crashed airplane. The pilot was the húsband of the decedent in this case. Under Tennessee law, the plaintiff in a wrongful death action such as this acquires only those rights that the decedent would have had, had she survived. Jones v. Black, 539 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn.1976). Here the decedent would have been barred from any recovery from the pilot, had she survived, under Tennessee’s rule of interspousal immunity. Wooley v. Parker, 222 Tenn. 104, 432 S.W.2d 882 (1968). Therefore, this wrongful death plaintiff would also be barred from recovery against the pilot. Jones v. Black, supra. If no action can be maintained against an employee for the employee’s acts, Tennessee law also bars any actions against the employer based on vicarious liability or respondeat superior, Smith v. Henson, 214 Tenn. 541, 381 S.W.2d 892 (1964). Thus plaintiff cannot maintain a wrongful death action against Smoky Mountain Aero based on vicarious liability for the acts of its pilot.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint against Smoky Mountain Aero insofar as it is based on a theory of vicarious liability for its pilot’s acts be, and the same hereby is, sustained for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Order Accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

Defendant, Smoky Mountain Aero, Inc., has moved to dismiss so much of plaintiff’s complaint as charges defendant with vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of its employee, the pilot of the crashed airplane. The pilot was the húsband of the decedent in this case. Under Tennessee law, the plaintiff in a wrongful death action such as this acquires only those rights that the decedent would have had, had she survived. Jones v. Black, 539 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn.1976). Here the decedent would have been barred from any recovery from the pilot, had she survived, under Tennessee’s rule of interspousal immunity. Wooley v. Parker, 222 Tenn. 104, 432 S.W.2d 882 (1968). Therefore, this wrongful death plaintiff would also be barred from recovery against the pilot. Jones v. Black, supra. If no action can be maintained against an employee for the employee’s acts, Tennessee law also bars any actions against the employer based on vicarious liability or respondeat superior, Smith v. Henson, 214 Tenn. 541, 381 S.W.2d 892 (1964). Thus plaintiff cannot maintain a wrongful death action against Smoky Mountain Aero based on vicarious liability for the acts of its pilot.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint against Smoky Mountain Aero insofar as it is based on a theory of vicarious liability for its pilot’s acts be, and the same hereby is, sustained for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Order Accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F. Supp. 677, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-smoky-mountain-aero-inc-tned-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack