ÿWPCƒ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ4åù w 0J 0Th 0^¼ 0h 0r‚ 0|ô 0†p 0ö 1u† U,û 0d' U,‹ U>· B)õ DC AMaU*®%Ø Býv~vÓ˜ D3k 0@ž AOÞÆ- 0Dó D/7 Bf˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-nnG 3|x…Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌFebruary€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€æ^XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑLUCILLE€BESKE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€91C„1809ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9510„CV„00435ÌÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|›` ç `€€LßOPRYLAND€USA,€INC.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€SIXTH€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌTracy€ShawÌHOWELL€&€FISHERÌCourt€Square€BuildingÌ300€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201„1107ÌÌLarry€D.€AshworthÌASHWORTH€&€HIGHÌ1st€Floor,€227€Second€Ave.,€N.ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201„1636ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌDianna€Baker€ShewÌFARRIS,€WARFIELD€&€KANADAYÌNineteenth€FloorÌSunTrust€CenterÌ424€Church€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÇLUCILLE€BESKE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€91C„1809ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9510„CV„00435ÌOPRYLAND€USA,€INC.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Opryland€USA,€Inc.,€has€appealed€from€a€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff,€Lucille€Beske€in€the€amount€of€$125,000€for€personal€injuries€sustained€in€a€fall€onÏthe€premises€of€defendant.€€The€jury€awarded€plaintiff€$200,000,€but€the€Trial€Judge€suggestedÏa€remittitur€of€$75,000€which€was€accepted€by€the€plaintiff€without€protest.€€The€Trial€JudgeÏalso€awarded€plaintiff€judgment€for€$1,404.50€discretionary€costs.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€presented€four€issues€for€review,€of€which€the€first€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI.à àThe€Trial€Court€erred€in€denying€Opryland€USA,€Inc.'sÏmotion€for€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€its€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict€because€there€was€no€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€jury's€verdict.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€directed€verdict,€this€Court€is€required€to€review€theÏevidentiary€record€to€determine€whether€it€contains€evidence€of€facts€which€would€support€aÏverdict€by€a€jury.€€òòLazy€Seven€Coal€Sales,€Inc.€v.€Stone€&€Hines,€P.C.óó,€Tenn.€1991,€813ÏS.W.2d€400.€€If,€taking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€all€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÏopponent€of€the€motion€and€disregarding€all€contrary€evidence,€a€reasonable€mind€would€beÏrequired€to€conclude€the€issues€in€favor€of€the€movant,€the€motion€should€be€sustained.€ÍòòHolmes€v.€Wilson,€óóTenn.€1977,€551€S.W.2d€682;€òòFlynn€v.€Shoney's,€Inc.,€óóTenn.€App.€1992,Ï850€S.W.2d€458.ÌÌà àIn€a€premises€liability€case,€the€plaintiff€must€show€a€hazardous€condition€which€wasÏcreated€by€the€defendant,€or€of€which€the€defendant€had€actual€or€constructive€notice.€ÏConstructive€notice€may€be€shown€by€the€existence€of€the€hazard€for€such€time€or€under€suchÏcircumstances€that€reasonable€care€on€the€part€of€defendant€would€have€revealed€the€hazard€toÏdefendant.€€òòParadiso€v.€Kroger€Co.,€óóTenn.€App.€1973,€499€S.W.2d€78;€òòAllison€v.€BlountÏNational€Bank,€óó54€Tenn.€App.€359,€390€S.W.2d€716€(1965);€òòGargaro€v.€Kroger€Grocery€&ÏBaking€Co.,€óó22€Tenn.€App.€70,€118€S.W.2d€561€(1938).ÌÌà àAt€the€trial,€no€evidence€was€presented€to€show€that€defendant€created€or€had€actualÏnotice€of€the€hazard.€€The€evidence€to€show€constructive€notice€was€as€follows:Ìà àThe€plaintiff€fell€on€defendant's€premises€when€passing€through€one€of€two€turnstiles€atÏthe€entrance€of€a€train€station.€€Passengers€boarding€the€train€were€required€to€pass€through€oneÏof€the€turnstiles€which€counted€the€number€of€passengers.€€The€counters€were€read€hourly€byÏone€of€defendant's€employees.€€There€was€no€attendant€at€the€turnstile€where€plaintiff€fell.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€fall€there€was€a€rush€of€passengers€toward€the€train.€€Passengers€were€notÏpermitted€to€carry€liquid€refreshment€aboard€the€train,€hence€refreshments€were€discardedÏbefore€entering€the€train.€€Some€refreshments€were€not€placed€in€receptacles€but€were€simplyÏthrown€on€the€ground€or€walkway.€€Management€was€aware€that€spilled€beverages€were€aÏcommon€occurrence€at€the€entrance€to€the€turnstiles.€€The€surface€where€plaintiff€fell€was€ofÏpoured€concrete€which€could€be€slick€when€wet.€€Some€of€the€spilled€beverages€were€"cleanedÏup"€by€spreading€with€a€broom€to€accelerate€drying.€€If€nearby€employees€were€too€busy€theyÍdid€not€clean€up€the€spill.€€As€plaintiff€passed€through€the€turnstile,€it€was€crowded,€she€did€seeÏwater€on€the€pavement,€but€she€fell€at€that€point,€and€felt€ice€cold€water€on€the€pavement€as€sheÏlay€on€the€pavement€after€her€fall.ÌÌà àDefendant€cites€òòJones€v.€Zayre,€Inc.,€óóTenn.€App.€1980,€600€S.W.2d€730,€wherein,Ïafter€plaintiff€fell,€she€saw€a€plastic€clothes€clip€nearby€which€she€theorized€had€caused€her€fall.€ÏThis€Court€affirmed€a€directed€verdict€for€the€defendant€for€lack€of€proof€of€how€long€theÏclothes€clip€had€been€on€the€floor.€€In€the€present€case,€there€is€evidence€of€the€recurrentÏproblem€of€discarded€beverages€in€the€area€and€of€the€failure€of€defendant€to€reasonablyÏmonitor€this€recurrent€dangerous€condition.ÌÌà àIn€òòHale€v.€Blue€Boar€Cafeteria€Co.,€Inc.,€óóunpublished,€Tenn.€App.€WS€Feb.€21,€1980,Ïthis€Court€reversed€a€directed€verdict€for€the€defendant€where€plaintiff€slipped€and€fell€in€anÏarea€where€patrons€regularly€spilled€liquids€on€the€floor.ÌÌà àIn€òòBledsoe€v.€Delta€Refining€Co.,€óóunpublished,€Tenn.€App.€WS€Nov.€4,€1983,€aÏpatron€slipped€and€fell€on€the€pavement€of€a€self„service€petroleum€facility€where€patronsÏregularly€spilled€petroleum€on€the€pavement.€€This€Court€held€that€the€operator€of€such€a€facilityÏmust€exercise€due€care€to€protect€its€patrons€from€hazards€created€by€other€patrons€as€a€result€ofÏthe€self€service€manner€of€operation.€€The€cause€was€remanded€for€trial€upon€the€principlesÏstated€in€the€opinion.ÌÌà àIn€òòStroming€v.€Houston's€Restaurant,€Inc.,€óóunpublished,€Tenn.€App.€MS,€Nov.€23,Ï1994,€No.€01„A„01„9304„CV„00189,€LEXIS€670,€this€Court€affirmed€a€directed€verdict€whereÍthe€fall€occurred€in€the€vicinity€of€a€depression€in€a€parking€lot,€but€no€evidence€that€the€fall€wasÏcaused€by€the€depression.ÌÌà àIn€òòBarrett€v.€Red€Food€Stores,€óóunpublished,€Tenn.€App.€MS€Feb.€26,€1992,€No.€01„A„01„9108„CV„302,€LEXIS€196,€the€plaintiff€slipped€in€water€which€regularly€dripped€fromÏice€cream€while€being€placed€in€a€display€case.€€This€Court€affirmed€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiffÏon€the€"common€occurrence"€theory.€€In€the€present€case,€there€is€evidence€that€the€spillage€ofÏbeverages€in€the€area€was€a€common€occurrence€of€which€the€defendant€had€constructiveÏnotice.à à€Defendant€argues€that€plaintiff€did€not€prove€that€her€fall€was€caused€by€discardedÏbeverage.€€The€jury€heard€evidence€from€which€it€was€reasonable€for€them€to€infer€that€the€fallÏwas€caused€by€the€discarded€beverages€of€which€defendant€had€constructive€knowledge€and€asÏto€which€defendant€did€not€exercise€reasonable€precautions€for€the€safety€of€patrons.ÌÌà àNo€reversible€error€is€found€in€defendant's€first€issue.ÌÌà àDefendant's€second€issue€is€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àII.à àAs€an€alternative€to€a€directed€verdict,€Opryland€USA,ÏInc.€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€Trial€Judge€did€notÏapprove€the€jury's€verdict.à àÌÌÌÓÓThe€basis€of€this€issue€is€the€oral€comment€of€the€Trial€Judge€during€the€hearing€on€defendant'sÏmotion€for€a€new€trial€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMotion€for€a€new€trial,€I€have€independently€evaluated€all€of€theÏevidence,€and€òòI€do€not€find€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€jury's€verdict.óó€€It's€a€question€of€whether€or€not€there€was€„„Ïpart€of€this€case€has€been€dismissed€by€summary€judgment€onÏthe€limited€issue€and€going€to€the€„„€presented€to€the€jury.€€I€thinkÏit€was€accurately€„„€it€was€disputed€„„€it€was€just€disputed€factualÏevidence,€and€òòI€cannot€find€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÍit,€óóso€I€must€respectfully€deny€the€motion€for€new€trial.€Ï[Emphasis€supplied.]ÌÌÌÓÓDefendant€relies€upon€the€emphasized€portion€of€the€above€quotation€to€show€that€the€TrialÏJudge€failed€to€properly€exercise€his€function€as€thirteenth€juror.€€Ideally,€a€verbal€approval€of€aÏverdict€by€the€Trial€Judge€should€be€in€the€form€of,€"I€approve€the€verdict,"€or€"I€join€in€theÏverdict,"€or€"the€verdict€is€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€€However,€in€òòJamesÏE.€Strates€Shows€v.€Jakobik,€óóTenn.€1977,€554€S.W.2d€613,€the€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]t€is€the€duty€of€the€Trial€Judge€to€weight€the€evidence€andÏdetermine€whether€it€preponderates€against€the€verdict€.€.€.€€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€light€of€the€quoted€authority,€the€oral€statement€of€the€Trial€Judge€does€notÏevidence€any€reversible€failure€on€his€part.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€he€was€dissatisfied€withÏthe€verdict€as€mentioned€in€òòMiller€v.€Doe,€óóTenn.€App.€1993,€873€S.W.2d€346€or€òòSherlin€v.ÏRoberson,€óóTenn.€App.€1976,€551€S.W.2d€700.ÌÌà àDefendant's€third€issue€is€presented€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIII.à àThe€Trial€Court€erred€in€ordering€an€insufficientÏremittitur€which€resulted€in€an€award€of€damages€beyond€theÏrange€of€reasonableness.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€stated€above,€the€Trial€Judge€suggested€(not€ordered)€a€remittitur€of€$75,000€of€theÏ$200,000€verdict.€€The€plaintiff€insists€that€the€remittitur,€which€was€made€by€plaintiff€withoutÏprotest,€should€be€restored€by€this€Court.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€Section€20„10„102€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òRemittitur.€„ó ó€€(a)€€In€all€jury€trials€had€in€civil€actions,€after€theÏverdict€has€been€rendered,€and€on€motion€for€a€new€trial,€whenÍthe€trial€judge€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€verdict€in€favor€of€a€partyÏshould€be€reduced,€and€a€remittitur€is€òòsuggestedóó€by€the€trialÏjudge€on€that€account,€with€the€provision€that€in€case€the€party€inÏwhose€favor€the€verdict€has€been€rendered€refuses€to€make€theÏremittitur€a€new€trial€will€be€awarded,€the€party€in€whose€favorÏsuch€verdict€has€been€rendered€may€make€such€remittitur€òòunderÏprotest,óó€and€appeal€from€the€action€of€the€trial€judge€to€the€courtÏof€appeals.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€€The€court€of€appeals€shall€review€the€action€of€the€trial€courtÏòòsuggestingóó€a€remittitur€using€the€standard€of€review€provided€forÏin€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏapplicable€to€decisions€of€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury.€ÏIf,€in€the€opinion€of€the€court€of€appeals,€the€verdict€of€the€juryÏshould€not€have€been€reduced,€but€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€correct€in€other€respects,€the€case€shall€be€reversed€to€thatÏextent,€and€judgment€shall€be€rendered€in€the€court€of€appeals€forÏthe€full€amount€originally€awarded€by€the€jury€in€the€trial€court.€Ï[Emphasis€supplied.]ÌÌÌÓÓà àSince€the€plaintiff€did€not€make€the€suggested€remittitur€òòunder€protestóó€as€required€by€theÏstatute,€it€is€doubtful€that€the€plaintiff€has€standing€to€request€restoration€of€the€remitted€portionÏof€the€verdict.ÌÌà àThere€is€evidence€that€plaintiff's€medical€expenses€were€$12,300.59;€that€she€suffered€aÏcracked€tooth€and€a€complicated€fracture€of€the€patella€of€her€right€knee,€requiring€initialÏsurgery€and€nine€days€hospitalization,€a€second€surgery,€and€extensive€and€painful€physicalÏtherapy.€€There€is€also€evidence€that,€five€years€after€the€fall,€plaintiff€continues€to€suffer€painÏin€her€knee,€wear€a€brace,€require€assistance€on€stairs,€and€be€unable€to€continue€her€formerÏactivities€of€hiking,€travel€and€volunteer€hospital€work.€€A€doctor's€notes€refer€to€plaintiff€as€"aÏvery€pleasant€72€year€old€woman."€€€No€other€evidence€is€cited€or€found€as€to€the€age€or€lifeÏexpectancy€of€the€plaintiff.€€The€Trial€Judge€and€jury€had€an€opportunity€to€form€impressionsÏfrom€actual€observation€of€plaintiff.€€This€Court,€of€course,€does€not€have€such€an€opportunity.ÌÌà àIn€the€light€of€the€foregoing,€this€Court€concludes€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€suggested€remittitur€and€that€the€amount€of€the€verdict,€as€reduced€byÏremittitur,€is€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.ÌÌà àDefendant's€request€for€discretionary€costs€is€denied.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€adjudged€againstÏthe€defendant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€necessary€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àAffirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE