Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-311 (2026)
Prima facie evidence of ownership of automobile and use in owner's business - No vicarious liability by dealers for loaner vehicles
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In all actions for injury to persons and/or to property caused by the negligent operation or use of any automobile, auto truck, motorcycle, or other motor propelled vehicle within this state, proof of ownership of the vehicle shall be prima facie evidence that the vehicle at the time of the cause of action sued on was being operated and used with authority, consent and knowledge of the owner in the very transaction out of which the injury or cause of action arose, and the proof of ownership likewise shall be prima facie evidence that the vehicle was then and there being operated by the owner, or by the owner's servant, for the owner's use and benefit and within the course and scope of the servant's employment. The prima facie evidence rules of the preceding sentence shall also apply in cases of the negligent operation of a vehicle being test-driven by a prospective purchaser with the knowledge and consent of the seller or the seller's agent, whether or not the seller or the seller's agent is present in the vehicle at the time of the alleged negligent operation.
- (b) Any automobile dealer who provides a loaner vehicle to a customer without charge while the customer's vehicle is being serviced or repaired by the dealer shall not be vicariously liable under any vicarious liability theory, to any person injured as the result of an accident caused in whole or in part by a customer driving a loaner vehicle provided by the dealer where the dealer was provided with proof of insurance by the customer prior to the customer being provided with the loaner vehicle.
- (c) This section is in the nature of remedial legislation and it is the legislative intent that it be given a liberal construction.
Acts 1921, ch. 162, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 3079a198b1; mod. Code 1932, § 2701; Acts 1957, ch. 123, §§ 1, 2; 1974, ch. 750, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 59-1037; Acts 2012, ch. 884, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Godfrey v. Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. 2002).
Godfrey v. Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. 2002). “, this Court observed that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311 does not contain the word “presumption,” although pri- or versions of the statute did.”
Hunter v. Burke, 958 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 55-10-311, provides, in pertinent part, that [i]n all actions for injury to persons and/or to property caused by the negligent operation or use of any automobile, auto truck, motorcycle, or other motor propelled vehicle within this state, proof of ownership of such vehicle…”
Strine v. Walton, 323 S.W.3d 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 55-10-311 provides as follows: In all actions for injury to persons and/or to property caused by the negligent operation or use of any automobile, auto truck, motorcycle, or other motor propelled vehicle within this state, proof of ownership of the vehicle shall be pri-ma…”
Warren v. Est. of Kirk, 954 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1997). “Ill The plaintiff insists that summary judgment does not lie in this case for two reasons: in an action for injury to persons and/or property caused by the negligent operation or use of an automobile, proof of ownership of the vehicle pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-311…”
Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “However, sections 55-10-311 and 55-10-312 of the Tennessee Code provide that proof of ownership and registration of a motor vehicle constitutes prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being operated for the vehicle owner’s use and benefit and within the course and scope of…”
Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011). “Because the incident at issue occurred while the Defendant was operating a vehicle owned by Metro, this Court must also consider Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311(a) (2008), which provides as follows: In all actions for injury to persons .”
Diane DOWNS Ex Rel. Ryan Cody DOWNS v. Mark BUSH Et Al., 263 S.W.3d 812 (Tenn. 2008). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311(a) (2004) provides that, In all actions for injury to persons and/or to property caused by the negligent operation or use of any automobile .”
Hamrick v. Spring City Motor Co., 708 S.W.2d 383 (Tenn. 1986). “The three theories asserted against Spring City Motor Company were (1) permissive use, (2) negligent entrustment and (3) respondeat superior, including the provisions of T.C.A. § 55-10-311 creating a prima facie case upon proof of ownership.”
Ferguson v. Tomerlin, 656 S.W.2d 378 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “The determinative question here presented is whether the statutory presumption of agency embodied in T.C.A. § 55-10-311, infra, standing alone, is sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment after being effectively rebutted by then unre-futed facts adduced through…”
Gray v. Mitsky, 280 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Father was the registered owner of the vehicle and was liable to her pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 55-10-311 and -312. A bench trial occurred on May 16, 2007.”
Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. v. Moore, 958 S.W.2d 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-311 (1993). The statute provides further that proof of ownership is pri-ma facie evidence that the operation of an owner’s vehicle by a servant is “for tlie owner’s use and benefit and within the course and scope of the servant’s employment.”
Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “In actions for personal injuries caused by the negligent operation of an automobile, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 55-10-311, -312 (1988) provide that proof of the vehicle’s ownership and registration is prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being used with the authority and for the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-311(a) — 11 cases
Godfrey v. Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. 2002). “, this Court observed that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311 does not contain the word “presumption,” although pri- or versions of the statute did.”
Hunter v. Burke, 958 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 55-10-311, provides, in pertinent part, that [i]n all actions for injury to persons and/or to property caused by the negligent operation or use of any automobile, auto truck, motorcycle, or other motor propelled vehicle within this state, proof of ownership of such vehicle…”
Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011). “Because the incident at issue occurred while the Defendant was operating a vehicle owned by Metro, this Court must also consider Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311(a) (2008), which provides as follows: In all actions for injury to persons .”
Diane DOWNS Ex Rel. Ryan Cody DOWNS v. Mark BUSH Et Al., 263 S.W.3d 812 (Tenn. 2008). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311(a) (2004) provides that, In all actions for injury to persons and/or to property caused by the negligent operation or use of any automobile .”
Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “However, sections 55-10-311 and 55-10-312 of the Tennessee Code provide that proof of ownership and registration of a motor vehicle constitutes prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being operated for the vehicle owner’s use and benefit and within the course and scope of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.