With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Estate of Kirk, this Court’s most recent case construing Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311(a), we reiterated that “[s]ummary judgment is not ordinarily the proper procedure for determining whether a prima facie case has or has not been overcome by countervailing evidence.” 954 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Tenn.1997) (quoting Hamrick, 708 S.W.2d at 388). In both Hamrick and Warren, we reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. In this case, too, summary judgment is unwarranted. Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311 is clearly intended to eliminate the difficulty encountered by injured parties who are trying to prove that the driver was operating with the owner’s permission at the time of the accident. See Racy Cream Co. v. Walden, 1 Tenn.App. 653, 668 (1925) (<HOLDING>). We decline to permit parties to overcome the

A: holding that an earlier version of the statute enacted by chapter 162 of the public acts of 1921 was intended to ease the difficulty of proving an agency relationship between a vehicles driver and its owner
B: recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact
C: holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner
D: holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school
A.