Johann Wolmarans v. Lifestyle Furnishings ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT KNOXVILLE
    April 2, 2003 Session
    JOHANN ROSHE WOLMARANS v. LIFESTYLE FURNISHINGS,
    a/k/a/UNIVERSAL FURNITURE LIMITED, INC.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamblen County
    No. 01-CV-147     John K. Wilson, Judge
    FILED JUNE 25, 2003
    No. E2002-01783-COA-R3-CV
    Johann Roshe Wolmarans sues Lifestyle Furnishings, a/k/a Universal Furniture Limited, Inc., for an
    injury he received on its premises. The complaint as amended seeks damages under the theory of
    premises liability and also under the Worker’s Compensation Statute. The Trial Court found that
    the Plaintiff was an independent contractor and dismissed his worker’s compensation claim.
    Thereafter, a jury trial was held as to the premises liability claims and the jury found that the injury
    received by the Plaintiff was due entirely to his own fault. The Plaintiff appeals, raising a host of
    issues which we find are without merit and affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed;
    Cause Remanded
    HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS and
    CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JJ., joined.
    Johann Roshe Wolmarans, Appellant, Pro Se
    Joseph J. Doherty, Morristown, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Lifestyle Furnishings, a/k/a Universal
    Furniture Limited, Inc.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Our affirmance is based on a number of factors. First, there is no transcript of the evidence
    and all factual issues in connection with either claim may not be considered, because under our case
    law we are required to conclusively presume evidence adduced at trial supports the Trial Court’s and
    jury’s determinations. J. C. Bradford & Co. v. Martin Construction Co., 
    576 S.W.2d 586
     (Tenn.
    1979); In re Rockwell, 
    673 S.W.2d 512
     (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). Second, no motion for a new trial
    was made as to the premises liability claim which under Rule 13 precludes many other issues being
    considered by this Court. Finally, at least one of the issues raised is frivolous.1
    For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded
    for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Johann Roshe Wolmarans.
    _________________________________________
    HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
    1
    W hether the appellate court erred in allowing defendant’s counsel to check out the appe llate court
    record?
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E2002-01783-COA-R3-CV

Judges: Judge Houston M. Goddard

Filed Date: 6/25/2003

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014