ÿWPC? …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµ 0Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , †; 0DÁ z  m 0J˜ 0Tâ 0^6 0h” 0rü 0|n 0†ê 0p 1uU,u 0d¡ B D3" 0@UU,•U1>ÁB)ÿDC( AMkU*¸Bâ$T³U„\à§m"*%R>'¼(0L*b|-€Þ/È^2v~&6vÓ¤7 AOw=ÆÆ= 0DŒ> D/Ð> Bÿ>˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (í€"  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2^>$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X„‘X¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ()*+,-.•/•0Ó€:DÒ -” æ3|x:Burgess v. Putnam County - OPINION Ì - ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóSovranCarvellAxlineKutnerCatesPittmanUpjohnconclusoryLewterArmesHulettHawkinsCrawfordHeltonSwaffordMadisonvilleGloverHardemanGoodermoteFretwellChaffinKirbyDyersburgWhitsonPutnamBreuerCowden1980s CtrPooreMagnavoxBellamyMcDowell SavHardawayGambill EvidLenoirKoehlerHaechlerN.W.2dLidsterS.E.2dPermaSartorKnappÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 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 d(((('ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd€-3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌJuly€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPutnam€County€and€the€Putnam€County€Highway€Department€will€be€collectivelyÏreferred€to€as€ð ðPutnam€Countyðð€or€as€simply€ð ðthe€county.ððÌ JÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Burgess€filed€a€personal€injury€action€against€Mr.€Harley€alone€on€March€2,€1993.€ÏThe€lawyer€representing€Mr.€Burgess€in€the€present€case€questioned€the€authority€of€the€lawyerÏwho€filed€the€prior€suit€to€represent€Mr.€Burgess.€€Putnam€County€did€not€press€the€issue,€andÏthe€trial€court€did€not€treat€it€as€controlling€or€¢dispositive£.Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòBurgess€v.€Harley,óó€App.€No.€01„A„01„9312„CV„00519€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€13,Ï1993).Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòHelton€v.€Knox€Countyóó,€App.€No.€03„S„01„9502„CV„00015,€slip€op.€at€11€(Tenn.ÏMay€13,€1996)€(designated€ð ðFor€Publicationðð).Ì ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Burgess€has€specifically€and€repeatedly€disclaimed€that€he€is€predicating€PutnamÏCountyððs€liability€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205€(1980)€which€waives€governmentalÏimmunity€for€injuries€caused€by€the€negligent€acts€or€omissions€of€local€governmentalÏemployees.€€Liability€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)€is€independent€from€liabilityÏunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205.€€òòHelton€v.€Knox€County,óó€òòsupraóó€note€4,€slip€op.€at€16„17;€òòKirby€v.€Macon€County,óó€892€S.W.2d€403,€406€(Tenn.€1994).€€Thus,€Putnam€CountyððsÏarguments€based€on€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205€are€of€little€relevance€inÏthis€case.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòHelton€v.€Knox€County,óó€òòsupraóó€note€4,€slip€op.€at€17€(decision€to€retain€wooden€paddleÏboards€and€stone€curbs€on€a€bridge€rather€than€installing€metal€guardrails);€òòKirby€v.€MaconÏCounty,óó€892€S.W.2d€at€408€(decision€to€install€wooden€wheel€guards€instead€of€standard€metalÏguardrails);€òòButler€v.€City€of€Dyersburg,€óó798€S.W.2d€776,€782€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)Ï(decision€to€install€traffic€control€devices).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€residentððs€affidavit€may€not€be€relevant€since€the€county€modified€the€intersectionÏafter€she€moved€away.€€We€cannot€make€a€relevancy€determination€at€this€stage€of€theÏproceeding€because€we€lack€proof€concerning€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€changes€in€theÏintersection€between€1978€and€1992.Ì HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€lawyer€who€wrote€this€letter€is€now€one€of€the€lawyers€representing€Mr.€Burgess.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€affidavit€of€the€resident€who€lived€next€to€the€intersection€from€1968€to€1978€andÏthe€notice€provided€by€the€1980€lawsuits€appear€to€have€predated€the€modifications€to€theÏintersection.Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Harley,€in€his€own€words,€stated:ÌÌà8 àI€was€coming€down€Hawkins„Crawford€Road,€going€to€make€a€right€onÏ[Highway]€70.€€I€had€approximately€50€to€75€yards€about€where€that€oak€tree€isÏfrom€the€road€I€went€to€apply€my€brakes€and€they€went€all€the€way€to€the€floor.€ÏI€went€to€apply€them€again,€they€still€went€to€the€floor€.€.€.€I€knew€I€¢wasnððt£Ïgoing€to€be€able€to€stop€all€I€could€think€of€was€trying€to€gear€down€„„€put€myÏtruck€in€neutral;€I€went€to€put€it€in€second;€wouldnððt€go;€transmission€locked€upÏor€clutch€just€messed€up€or€something.Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Harley€claimed€that€the€trooper€told€him€ð ðlater€that€he€went€to€my€vehicle€andÏworked€on€the€brakes,€applied€the€brakes,€and€that€they€went€about€two„thirds€of€the€way€to€theÏfloor.ðð€€Mr.€Harleyððs€testimony€is€inadmissible€hearsay€and€cannot€be€considered€for€theÏpurpose€of€this€summary€judgment€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05.Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPrior€inconsistent€statements€may€only€be€used€to€impeach€a€witnessððs€trialÏtestimony.€€They€may€not€be€used€to€impeach€statements€in€depositions€or€affidavits€that€are€notÏrepeated€at€trial.€€òò¢Doochin£€v.€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.,óó€854€¢S.W.2d£€109,€114€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1993);€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€613.2,€at€407„08€(3d€ed.Ï1995).Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€are,€of€course,€practical€limits€to€the€admissibility€of€inconsistent€statements.€ÏFactual€disputes€must€be€ð ðgenuineðð€in€order€to€prevent€a€summary€judgment.€€Accordingly,Ïcourts€have€refused€to€permit€a€party€to€create€an€issue€of€fact€merely€by€preparing€an€affidavitÏcontradicting€the€partyððs€prior€sworn€testimony.€€òò¢Perma£€Research€&€Dev.€Co.€v.€Singer€Co.,óóÏ410€F.2d€572,€578€(2d€Cir.€1969);€òòBaker€v.€A.H.€Robins€Co.,óó€613€F.€Supp.€994,€996€n.3Ï(¢D.D.C.£€1985).€€The€Eastern€Section€reached€the€same€result€by€finding€that€two€inconsistentÏstatements€canceled€each€other€out€and,€therefore,€had€no€probative€value.€€òòPrice€v.€Becker,óóÏ812€¢S.W.2d£€597,€598€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÓ&€00X„d&ÓÑ#€00Xd#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€.¯¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Ñ\R AØ'\Ñœ›à@ àÔ€1„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€463;+'h|¤:` ç `€€Lß›ÌÔ€1¼ÔÌó óRAY€DEAN€BURGESS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌANTHONY€S.€HARLEY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àPutnam€Circuità àÌà àDefendant,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€J„4736Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌPUTNAM€COUNTY€HIGHWAYà à)à àœ01„A„01„9502„CV„00045›ÌDEPARTMENT€and€PUTNAMà à)ÌCOUNTY,€A€BODY€POLITIC,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€PUTNAM€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€COOKEVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€VERNON€NEAL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó:ÌÌErnest€C.€Onks,€Sr.à àà àà àà àDaniel€H.€Rader,€IIIÌCookeville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMoore,€Rader,€Clift€&€FitzpatrickÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TennesseeÌRonald€ThurmanÌCookeville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€1„Ôò òVACATED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€1¼ÔÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÑ ° ÑÑ „ ÑÓ€ÓÔ€1„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€1¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€arises€from€a€collision€in€which€a€motorist€was€injuredÏwhen€his€vehicle€was€struck€by€a€pickup€truck€that€had€entered€an€intersectionÏwithout€stopping€at€a€stop€sign.€€The€injured€motorist€filed€suit€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Putnam€County€against€the€truck€driver€for€failing€to€stop€andÏagainst€Putnam€County€for€creating€and€maintaining€a€dangerous€intersection.€ÏThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€for€the€county,€and€the€injuredÏmotorist€appealed.€€We€have€determined€that€Putnam€County€did€notÏdemonstrate€that€it€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€and,€therefore,Ïwe€vacate€the€summary€judgment€and€remand€the€case.€ÌÌò òà@ àI.ó óÌÌà àRay€Burgess€was€¢traveling£€westward€on€Highway€70€in€¢Putnam£€CountyÏon€the€morning€of€March€7,€1992.€€As€he€was€passing€through€the€intersectionÏof€Highway€70€and€Hawkins„Crawford€Road,€the€rear€portion€of€hisÏautomobile€was€struck€by€a€pickup€truck€being€driven€by€Anthony€Harley.€€ÏMr.€Harley€was€driving€north€along€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€and€failed€toÏheed€the€stop€sign€where€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€intersected€with€HighwayÏ70.€€The€force€of€the€collision€flipped€Mr.€Burgessððs€automobile€over,€and€Mr.ÏBurgess€was€seriously€and€permanently€injured.€€ÌÌà àHawkins„Crawford€Road€changes€to€a€slight€downhill€grade€as€itÏapproaches€the€Highway€70€intersection,€thereby€obscuring€the€surface€ofÏHighway€70€from€motorists€approaching€from€the€south.€€A€stop€sign€at€theÏintersection€was€visible€approximately€150€feet€before€the€intersection€despiteÏsome€large€trees€on€private€property€on€the€right€shoulder€of€Hawkins„Crawford€Road.€€In€addition€to€a€stop€sign€at€the€intersection,€the€county€hadÏerected€a€yellow€ð ðstop€aheadðð€warning€sign€on€Hawkins„Crawford€RoadÏapproximately€440€feet€before€the€intersection.ÌÌà àShortly€after€the€collision,€Mr.€Harley€told€the€investigating€officer€thatÏhis€brakes€failed€ð ðapproximately€50€to€75€yardsðð€before€the€intersection.€€HeÏalso€told€another€acquaintance€who€had€witnessed€the€collision€that€he€hadÏforgotten€about€the€stop€sign€and€that€his€brakes€had€failed.€€Later,€afterÏmeeting€with€Mr.€Burgessððs€lawyers,€Mr.€Harley€stated€in€an€affidavit€andÏ¢deposition£€that€he€did€not€recall€seeing€either€the€ð ðstop€aheadðð€sign€or€the€stopÏsign€and€that€it€was€too€late€to€stop€when€he€realized€he€was€approaching€theÏintersection.ÌÌà àMr.€Burgess€filed€a€personal€injury€action€on€March€5,€1993€againstÏMr.€Harley,€the€Putnam€County€Highway€Department,€and€Putnam€County.× ƒ7 ××  ×€ÏOn€April€8,€1993,€Putnam€County€moved€for€a€summary€judgment€assertingÏthat€Mr.€Harleyððs€failure€to€obey€the€stop€sign€was€the€sole€proximate€cause€ofÏMr.€Burgessððs€injuries.€€At€the€hearing€on€its€motion,€Putnam€County€alsoÏasserted€that€it€was€entitled€to€summary€judgment€because€of€governmentalÏimmunity€and€because€another€suit€Mr.€Burgess€had€filed€against€Mr.€HarleyÏwas€still€pending.¢× ƒ8 ××  ×£€€The€trial€court€granted€Putnam€Countyððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€on€July€9,€1993.€€ÌÌà àThis€court€dismissed€the€first€appeal€from€the€July€9,€1993€order€forÏlack€of€a€final€judgment€because€the€trial€court€had€not€disposed€of€Mr.ÏBurgessððs€claim€against€Mr.€Harley.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€On€November€4,€1994,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€severing€Mr.€Burgessððs€claims€against€Putnam€County€fromÏhis€claims€against€Mr.€Harley€and€directing€that€its€order€constitute€a€finalÏjudgment€with€regard€to€Mr.€Burgessððs€claims€against€Putnam€County.€€ThisÏappeal€followed.ÌœÌÓ  Óò ò›II.ó óÓ  ÓÌà àThe€basic€standards€governing€appellate€review€of€summary€judgmentsÏare€now€settled.€€Our€task€is€confined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determineÏwhether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€òòPayne€v.Ï¢Breuer£óó,€891€¢S.W.2d£€200,€201€(Tenn.€1994);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/CentralÏSouthóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€A€summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€only€when€there€is€no€genuine€dispute€of€material€fact€with€regardÏto€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€the€motion,€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ï210€(Tenn.€1993),€and€when€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€in€itsÏfavor€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2dÏ555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àNo€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€aÏsummary€judgment€case.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottoms,óó€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€We€must€consider€the€evidence€using€the€standard€commonlyÏassociated€with€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€theÏplaintiffððs€proof.€€òòGray€v.€Amosóó,€869€S.W.2d€925,€926€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);ÏòòAxline€v.€Kutneróó,€863€S.W.2d€421,€423€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Accordingly,Íwe€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„movingÏparty,€òòHaynes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€883€S.W.2d€606,€613€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòSpeaker€v.€Cates€Co.,óó€879€S.W.2d€811,€813€(Tenn.€1994),€and€we€must€alsoÏdraw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€non„moving€partyððs€favor.òò€€Pittman€v.ÏUpjohn€Co.óó,€890€S.W.2d€425,€428€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€should€not€affirm€aÏsummary€judgment€if€any€doubt€or€uncertainty€exists€with€regard€to€the€factsÏor€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottoms,óó€900ÏS.W.2d€at€26;€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€211.€ÌÌà àThe€moving€party€has€the€initial€burden€of€producing€evidence€toÏsupport€its€summary€judgment€motion.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€213;ÏòòByrd€v.€Bradleyóó,€913€S.W.2d€181,€183€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€A€party€mayÏmove€for€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€that€the€opposing€party€will€beÏunable€to€produce€sufficient€evidence€at€trial€to€withstand€a€motion€forÏdirected€verdict.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€213.€€However,€the€motion€mustÏbe€supported€by€more€than€a€mere€conclusory€assertion€that€the€plaintiffÏcannot€prove€its€case.€€òòLewter€v.€OððConnor€Management,€Inc.óó,€886€S.W.2dÏ253,€255€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€In€order€to€satisfy€its€burden,€the€movingÏparty€must€produce€or€point€out€evidence€in€the€record€which,€ifÏuncontradicted,€entitles€the€movant€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòArmesÏv.€Hulettóó,€843€S.W.2d€427,€429€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€ÌœÌ›Ìà@ àò òIII.ÌÌó óà àWe€turn€first€to€Putnam€Countyððs€assertion€that€it€is€immune€from€suitÏunder€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€because€the€stop€sign€at€theÏintersection€of€Highway€70€and€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€was€on€the€StateððsÍright€of€way.€€While€it€is€undisputed€that€the€stop€sign€itself€is€owned€andÏmaintained€by€the€State,€Mr.€Burgessððs€negligence€action€covers€far€more€thanÏthe€erection€or€maintenance€of€the€stop€sign.€€It€asserts€that€the€intersectionÏitself€and€the€portion€of€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€south€of€the€intersectionÏwere€defective,€unsafe,€and€dangerous.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àLocal€governments€are€not€insurers€against€all€accidents€on€their€roadsÏand€streets.€€òòHelton€v.€Knox€County,óó€___€S.W.2d€___,€___€(Tenn.€1996);× ƒ: ××  ×ÏòòSwain€v.€City€of€Nashville,€óó170€Tenn.€99,€103„04,€92€S.W.2d€405,€406€(1936).€ÏThey€are,€however,€required€to€use€ordinary€care€to€keep€their€roads€andÏstreets€in€reasonably€safe€condition€for€the€traveling€public.€€òòBlackburn€v.ÏDillon,óó€189€Tenn.€240,€243,€225€S.W.2d€46,€47€(1949);€òòBryant€v.€JeffersonÏCity,óó€701€S.W.2d€626,€626„27€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);òò€Baker€v.€Seal,óó€694ÏS.W.2d€948,€950€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Accordingly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„20„203(a)€(Supp.€1995)€removes€a€local€governmentððs€immunity€from€suitÏð ðfor€any€injury€caused€by€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€of€anyÏstreet,€alley,€sidewalk€or€highway,€owned€and€controlled€by€suchÏgovernmental€entity.ðð× ƒ; ××  ×€ÌÌà àSuits€brought€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)€have€threeÏessential€ingredients.€€First,€the€local€government€must€own€and€control€theÏlocation€or€instrumentality€alleged€to€have€caused€the€injury.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€€ðð€29„20„203(a);€òòHarris€v.€Williamson€County,óó€835€S.W.2d€588,€590Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(county€immune€from€suit€because€it€did€not€own€orÏcontrol€the€allegedly€defective€traffic€sign).€€Second,€the€location€orÏinstrumentality€must€be€ð ðdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„20„203(a).€€Third,€the€local€government€must€have€ð ðconstructive€and/orÏactual€noticeðð€of€the€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€29„20„203(b).€€ÌÌà àLiability€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)€may€be€predicated€onÏstreet€signs€or€traffic€control€devices€that€cause€or€contribute€to€a€defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous€condition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a);òò€Fretwell€v.ÏChaffin,óó€652€S.W.2d€755,€757€(Tenn.€1983);€òòSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanooga,óóÏ743€S.W.2d€174,€177€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€A€local€governmentððs€decisionÏwhether€to€erect€traffic€control€or€safety€devices€may€be€immune€from€suitÏunder€the€discretionary€function€exception€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205(1).× ƒ< ××  ×€€However,€the€failure€to€maintain€or€to€complete€the€installation€ofÏtraffic€control€devices€may€result€in€liability€when€a€defective,€unsafe,€orÏdangerous€condition€is€thereby€created.€€òòKirby€v.€Macon€County,óó€892€S.W.2dÏat€409;€òòFretwell€v.€Chaffin,óó€652€S.W.2d€at€757€(allowing€vegetation€to€obscureÏa€traffic€control€sign);€òòSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanooga,óó€743€S.W.2d€at€177Ï(failure€to€finish€painting€lane€markings).̛̜à@ àòòò òB.Ìà@ àOwnership€and€Control€of€the€Intersectionó óóóÌÌà àPutnam€Countyððs€principal€governmental€immunity€argument€is€that€it€isÏimmune€from€suit€because€it€did€not€own€or€control€the€stop€sign€at€theÏintersection€of€Highway€70€and€Hawkins„Crawford€Road.€€This€undoubtedlyÏtrue€fact€is€not€outcome€determinative,€however,€because€Mr.€Burgessððs€claimsÏagainst€Putnam€County€are€not€limited€to€the€placement,€erection,€orÏmaintenance€of€the€stop€sign€itself.€€His€claims€involve€the€entire€intersectionÏand€the€southerly€approach€to€the€intersection.ÌÌà àPutnam€County€has€not€disputed€that€it€owns€and€controls€all€theÏportions€of€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€other€than€the€Stateððs€right€of€wayÏaround€Highway€70.€€Its€employees€conceded€in€their€affidavits€andÏdepositions€that€the€county€had€control€over€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€fromÏð ðditch€to€ditchðð€and€that€the€Stateððs€right€of€way€only€extended€thirty„three€feetÏfrom€the€center€of€Highway€70.€€The€employees€also€stated€that€they€mowedÏthe€shoulders€of€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€twice€a€year,€that€they€placed€a€ð ðstopÏaheadðð€sign€on€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€in€the€early€1980s,€and€that€they€hadÏmodified€the€intersection€at€approximately€the€same€time.€€At€this€stage€of€theÏproceedings,€these€admissions€provide€sufficient€factual€basis€to€conclude€thatÏthe€county€owns€and€controls€the€location€where€the€allegedly€dangerousÏcondition€exists.ÌÌà@ àòòò òC.Ìà@ àThe€Defective,€Unsafe,€or€Dangerous€Conditionó óóóÌÌà àThe€second€ingredient€to€a€cause€of€action€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)€is€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition.€€DeterminingÏwhether€the€condition€of€a€road€or€street€is€dangerous€or€hazardous€is€a€factualÏinquiry.€€òòHelton€v.€Knox€County,óó€òòsupraóó€note€4,€slip€op.€at€9;€òòGoodermote€v.ÏState,óó€856€S.W.2d€715,€723€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€The€inquiry€shouldÏinclude€consideration€of€(1)€the€physical€aspects€of€the€roadway,€(2)€theÏfrequency€of€accidents€at€the€particular€location,€and€(3)€the€testimony€ofÏexpert€witnesses.€€òòSweeney€v.€State,óó€768€S.W.2d€253,€255€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àMr.€Burgess€offered€two€types€of€proof€with€regard€to€the€condition€ofÏthe€intersection€and€Hawkins„Crawford€Road.€€First,€he€presented€theÏaffidavits€of€three€persons€who€are€living€or€who€had€lived€adjacent€to€theÏintersection.€€Second,€he€presented€the€affidavit€of€a€traffic€engineerÏcontaining€the€engineerððs€opinion€concerning€the€dangerousness€of€theÏintersection.€€Putnam€County€insists€that€these€affidavits€should€not€beÏconsidered€because€they€contain€testimony€that€would€not€be€admissible€atÏtrial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àOne€of€Mr.€Burgessððs€affidavits€was€prepared€by€Dr.€James€E.€Clark,€aÏprofessor€of€civil€engineering€at€Clemson€University.€€According€to€theÏresume€attached€to€his€affidavit,€Dr.€Clark€specializes€in€transportation€andÏtraffic€engineering€and€has€taught€graduate€level€courses€in€highway€safetyÏengineering.€€Dr.€Clark€has€published€articles€on€traffic€control€systems€and€isÏa€member€of€the€Institute€of€Traffic€Engineers€and€the€TransportationÏResearch€Board.€€The€affidavit€states€that€Dr.€Clark€has€first„hand€knowledgeÏof€the€intersection€because€he€has€inspected€it€personally.€€These€facts€areÏsufficient€to€establish€that€Dr.€Clark€is€competent€to€give€an€expert€opinion€inÏthis€case.ÌÌà àRather€than€paraphrasing€Dr.€Clarkððs€affidavit,€we€note€the€followingÏexcerpt:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€viewed€by€a€driver€traveling€in€a€northwardÏdirection,€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€drops€with€aÏdownward€grade€as€it€intersects€with€U.S.€HighwayÏ70.€€On€the€other€side€of€U.S.€Highway€70,€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€rises€on€an€upward€grade€andÏcontinues€northward€as€Plunk€Whitson€Road.€€TheseÏelevation€changes€on€Hawkins„Crawford€RoadÏconceals€òò[sic]óó€the€intersection€with€U.S.€Highway€70Ïand€creates€òò[sic]óó€the€illusion€to€the€driver€thatÏHawkins„Crawford€Road€continues€northward.€ÏBecause€of€this€illusion,€it€is€important€to€warn€theÏdriver€about€this€intersection€and€alert€the€driver€toÏstop.€€A€series€of€large€trees€on€the€right€shoulder€ofÏHawkins„Crawford€Road€as€it€approaches€U.S.ÏHighway€70€prevents€the€approaching€driver€fromÏseeing€the€stop€sign€until€the€driver€is€approximatelyÏ150„160€feet€from€the€intersection.€€This€does€notÏprovide€adequate€stopping€sight€distance€for€a€speedÏlimit€of€45€M.P.H.€€Approaching€the€intersection€ofÏU.S.€Highway€70€by€traveling€in€a€northwardÏdirection,€a€driver€must€be€warned€of€thisÏapproaching€intersection€in€time€to€safely€stop€hisÏvehicle.€€The€existing€stop€sign€and€stop€aheadÏwarning€sign€do€not€adequately€warn€the€driver.ÌÌÌÓ€Óà àIn€addition€to€Dr.€Clarkððs€affidavit,€Mr.€Burgess€provided€the€trialÏcourt€with€the€affidavits€of€two€persons€currently€living€adjacent€to€theÏintersection€and€one€person€who€lived€adjacent€to€the€intersection€from€1968Ïto€1978.× ƒ= ××  ×€€Each€of€these€persons€described€the€difficulty€that€approachingÏmotorists€had€in€seeing€the€intersection€and€the€stop€sign.€€They€also€recountedÍfrequent€incidents€of€vehicles€skidding€on€gravel€and€ð ðscreechingðð€their€brakesÏwhen€attempting€to€stop€at€the€intersection.€€They€also€stated€that€there€hadÏbeen€frequent€personal€injury€and€property€damage€accidents€at€theÏintersection,€and€many€occasions€when€vehicles€attempting€to€stop€had€drivenÏinto€their€ditches€and€through€their€fences.€€ÌÌà àThe€residentsðð€testimony€is€based€on€their€personal€knowledge€and€isÏrelevant€and€material€to€the€question€of€whether€the€intersection€is€dangerousÏor€unsafe.€€At€this€stage€of€the€proceedings,€we€must€view€this€evidence€in€aÏlight€most€favorable€to€Mr.€Burgess,€and€we€must€draw€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€Mr.€Burgessððs€favor.€€When€viewed€in€this€light,€the€affidavitsÏoffered€by€Mr.€Burgess€establish€a€genuine€factual€dispute€concerning€whetherÏthe€intersection€of€Highway€70€and€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€is€unsafe€orÏdangerous.ÌÌà@ àòòò òD.Ìà@ àNotice€to€Putnam€Countyó óóóÌÌà àA€local€government€cannot€be€found€liable€for€a€dangerous€condition€onÏa€road€or€street€unless€it€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€condition.€ÏThe€evidence€before€the€trial€court€when€it€considered€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€raises€several€genuine€issues€concerning€whether€PutnamÏCounty€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€that€the€intersection€of€Highway€70Ïand€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€is€hazardous€or€dangerous.ÌÌà àThe€record€contains€no€proof€concerning€when€the€intersection€was€firstÏconstructed€or€who€designed€it.€€There€is€likewise€no€proof€concerningÏwhether€Hawkins„Crawford€Road€existed€before€Highway€70€or€vice€versa.€ÍThe€record€contains€evidence€that€the€intersection€was€modified€in€the€earlyÏ1980s,€but€the€nature€and€extent€of€these€modifications€is€in€dispute.€€TheÏcounty€asserts€that€the€intersection€was€modified€substantially,€while€a€residentÏwho€lives€adjacent€to€the€intersection€states€that€it€has€remained€ð ðessentiallyÏunchanged€since€1967.ððÌÌà àThe€record€contains€evidence€that€the€county€had€actual€notice€of€theÏintersectionððs€condition.€€George€Shanks,€who€lives€adjacent€to€theÏintersection,€stated€in€an€affidavit€that€he€had€discussed€the€condition€of€theÏintersection€with€the€former€county€highway€superintendent€and€had€evenÏoffered€to€give€the€county€an€easement€over€his€property€to€correct€theÏproblem.€€Sheila€Shanks€provided€an€affidavit€stating€that€she€and€seventy„fiveÏto€eighty€other€county€residents€signed€a€petition€requesting€the€county€toÏcorrect€the€problems€with€the€intersection.€Frances€Wilson,€who€lived€adjacentÏto€the€intersection€for€ten€years,€stated€in€her€affidavit€that€she€had€contactedÏthe€highway€road€superintendent€repeatedly€about€the€dangerous€condition€ofÏthe€intersection.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€these€citizen€complaints,€Putnam€County€was€also€namedÏas€a€defendant€in€two€suits€as€a€result€of€another€collision€at€the€intersection€inÏMay€1980.€€These€suits€alleged€that€the€intersection€was€dangerous€and€that€theÏcounty€had€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition.€€Along€with€these€complaints,Ïthe€lawyer€representing€one€of€the€plaintiffs€sent€a€letter€to€the€countyÏexecutive€stating€that€there€was€a€ð ðdangerous€illusionðð€at€the€intersection€andÏthat€ð ðthere€.€.€.€[was]€no€advance€warning€sign,€advising€motorists€of€thisÏdangerous€intersection.ðð€€The€letter€also€alluded€to€the€county€highwayÍdepartmentððs€awareness€of€the€problem€ð ðbecause€of€many,€many€complaints€byÏcitizens.ðð× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€incumbent€county€road€officials€disclaimed€any€knowledge€ofÏproblems€at€the€intersection€and€asserted€that€they€did€not€maintain€records€ofÏcitizen€complaints.€€Responses€based€on€sloppy€record€keeping€and€shortÏmemories€do€not€effectively€rebut€allegations€of€actual€notice€under€theÏgovernmental€tort€liability€act.€€If€anything,€they€create€a€genuine€factualÏdispute€concerning€whether€the€county€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€theÏcondition€of€the€intersection€which€would€prevent€granting€the€county€aÏsummary€judgment€on€the€ground€that€it€did€not€have€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice.ÌÌà àPutnam€County€also€insists€that€the€complaints€the€former€countyÏofficials€might€have€received€concerned€the€condition€of€the€intersectionÏbefore€the€modifications€in€the€early€1980s€and€were,€accordingly,€irrelevantÏto€the€current€condition€of€the€intersection.€€This€argument€would€be€well„taken€if€the€modifications€made€in€the€early€1980s€substantially€altered€theÏintersection€and€if€the€citizensðð€complaints€predated€the€modifications.ÌÌà àWe€have€already€noted€that€there€is€a€genuine€factual€dispute€concerningÏthe€nature€and€extent€of€the€modifications€to€the€intersection.€€In€addition,€atÏleast€two€of€the€affidavits€submitted€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Burgess€recountÏcomplaints€that€appear€to€have€been€made€after€the€modifications€wereÍcompleted.× ƒ? ××  ×€€We€cannot€conclude€at€this€juncture€that€all€Mr.€BurgessððsÏevidence€concerning€the€complaints€to€the€county€highway€officials€about€theÏcondition€of€the€intersection€is€irrelevant.€€Accordingly,€we€must€conclude€thatÏthere€exists€a€material€factual€dispute€concerning€the€countyððs€notice€of€theÏcondition€of€the€intersection.ÌÌà àWhen€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€Mr.€Burgess,€the€recordÏcontains€genuine€factual€disputes€concerning€whether€had€or€should€have€hadÏactual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€the€dangerous€condition€at€theÏintersection.€€These€disputes,€taken€together€with€the€factual€disputeÏconcerning€whether€the€intersection€was€dangerous€and€unsafe,€lead€to€theÏconclusion€that€Putnam€County€is€not€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€lawÏwith€regard€to€its€defense€to€Mr.€Burgessððs€action€based€on€the€GovernmentalÏTort€Liability€Act.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àPutnam€County€also€asserts€that€it€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÏof€law€because€the€condition€of€the€intersection€could€not€have€been€theÏproximate€cause€of€Mr.€Burgessððs€injuries.€€It€portrays€Mr.€Harleyððs€brakeÏfailure€as€either€the€sole€proximate€cause€or€as€the€superseding,€interveningÏcause€of€the€collision.€€Thus,€the€failure€of€Mr.€Harleyððs€brakes€is€pivotal€toÏthe€countyððs€motion.€€We€have€determined€that€there€is€a€genuinely€disputedÏfactual€issue€with€regard€to€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€brake€failure€on€Mr.ÏHarleyððs€truck€and,€therefore,€that€the€county€was€not€entitled€to€a€summaryÏjudgment€on€the€question€of€causation.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àDespite€their€utility€and€value,€summary€judgments€can€never€be€used€toÏreplace€a€trial€when€material€facts€are€genuinely€disputed.€€òòBlocker€v.ÏRegional€Medical€Ctr.,óó€722€¢S.W.2d£€660,€663€(Tenn.€1987);€òò¢Poore£€v.ÏMagnavox€Co.,óó€666€¢S.W.2d£€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984).€€Summary€judgments€shouldÏnot€be€used€to€find€facts,€to€resolve€factual€disputes,€or€to€choose€amongÏvarious€permissible€factual€inferences.òò€€Byrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€at€216.€ÏThus,€courts€should€not€weigh€the€evidence€in€summary€judgmentÏproceedings,€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€at€211;€òò¢Bellamy£€v.€Federal€ExpressÏCorp.,óó€749€¢S.W.2d£€31,€33€(Tenn.€1988),€and€likewise,€they€should€not€makeÏcredibility€determinations.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€at€212€(òòquotingóóÏòòAnderson€v.€Liberty€Lobby,€Inc.,óó€477€U.S.€242,€255,€106€S.€Ct.€2505,€2513Ï(1986));òò€¢McDowell£€v.€Moore,óó€863€¢S.W.2d£€418,€421€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);ÏòòCitizens€Sav.€Bank€&€Trust€Co.€v.€¢Hardaway£,óó€724€¢S.W.2d£€352,€355€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1986).€€The€courts€must€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€if€anyÏdoubt€exists€with€regard€to€the€facts€or€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€theÏfacts.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€at€211;€òò¢Gambill£€v.€Middle€Tenn.€MedicalÏCtr.,€Inc.óó,€751€¢S.W.2d£€145,€147€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àMr.€Harley€has€given€two€essentially€different€accounts€of€the€conditionÏof€his€brakes€and€his€ability€to€stop€at€the€intersection.€€Immediately€after€theÏaccident,€he€told€the€investigating€officer€and€an€eyewitness€that€his€brakes€hadÏtotally€failed.€€In€fact,€he€told€the€officer€that€his€brakes€failed€not€once,€butÍtwice,€and€that€his€transmission€or€clutch€ð ðlocked€upðð€or€ð ðmessed€up.ðð¢× ƒ@ ××  ×£€ÏFaced€with€these€mechanical€failures,€he€stated€that€ð ðthe€only€thing€I€couldÏthink€to€do€was€to€try€to€cut€right€or€go€straight.€€I€tried€to€make€a€little€effortÏto€cut€the€wheel€and€it€started€to€jump€and€I€just€went€ahead€and€let€it€[theÏtruck]€go€and€it€went€straight€across.ððÌÌà àMr.€Harleyððs€description€of€the€condition€of€his€brakes€changed€duringÏthe€course€of€the€next€year.€€In€April€1993,€Mr.€Burgessððs€lawyers€asked€himÏto€sign€an€affidavit€to€oppose€the€countyððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€OnÏthis€occasion,€Mr.€Harley€stopped€short€of€admitting€that€he€had€total€brakeÏfailure€and€stated€for€the€first€time€that€he€was€too€close€to€the€intersection€toÏstop€by€the€time€he€saw€the€stop€sign.€€On€this€occasion,€he€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à4.à àI€was€proceeding€northward€between€the€railroad€andÏU.S.€Highway€[70]€at€or€around€the€speed€of€45€miles€an€hourÏwhen€suddenly€I€saw€a€Stop€Sign€and€U.S.€Highway€70€andÏapplied€my€brakes.€€The€brakes€went€way€down€and€the€pickupÏslowed€up€but€not€enough€to€stop€me€as€I€was€too€close€to€theÏhighway€by€the€time€I€could€see€the€Stop€Sign.ÌÌà8 àà à5.à àThe€Hawkins€Crawford€Road€looked€like€it€continuedÏstraight€on€without€ever€seeing€U.S.€Highway€70€which€is€anÏoptical€illusion.ÌÌÌÓ€Óà àMr.€Harley€was€deposed€six€weeks€after€preparing€his€affidavit€and€wasÏasked€to€explain€the€discrepancies€between€his€affidavit€and€his€statements€atÏthe€scene€of€the€collision.€€In€a€classic€effort€to€be€a€witness€for€all€seasons,ÏMr.€Harley€explained€that€he€had€told€the€trooper€and€the€eyewitness€that€hisÏbrakes€had€failed€but€that€his€statements€at€the€scene€might€not€have€beenÏð ðexactly€correctðð€and€that€he€ð ðwas€claiming€fault€because€[he]€.€.€.€felt€so€badÏover€what€had€happened.ðð€€He€continued€to€insist€that€he€did€not€have€enoughÏtime€to€stop€by€the€time€he€saw€the€stop€sign€and€the€intersection.€€However,Ïhe€could€not€remember€if€he€saw€the€stop€sign€or€the€stop€ahead€sign€and€couldÏnot€explain€why€he€did€not€see€them€other€than€to€say€that€he€wasÏconcentrating€on€the€road.€€He€also€attempted€to€further€distance€himself€fromÏhis€original€brake€failure€explanation€using€inadmissible€hearsay€statementsÏattributed€to€the€investigating€trooper.× ƒA ××  ×ÌÌà àMr.€Harleyððs€credibility€has€been€seriously€undermined.€€We€would€notÏsecond„guess€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€give€his€testimony€no€weight€if€thisÏwere€an€appeal€from€a€bench€trial.€€This€is,€however,€an€appeal€from€aÏsummary€judgment.€€Notwithstanding€Mr.€Harleyððs€practically€insurmountableÏcredibility€problems,€his€different€accounts€of€the€events€immediately€beforeÏthe€collision€give€rise€to€a€genuine€factual€dispute€concerning€the€condition€ofÏhis€brakes€and€their€effect€on€his€ability€to€avoid€the€accident.€€Resolving€theseÏissues€now€would€require€us€to€weigh€the€evidence€and€to€judge€Mr.€HarleyððsÏcredibility€„€two€things€we€cannot€do€in€a€summary€judgment€proceeding.ÌÌà àThe€fact€that€Mr.€Harley€faces€almost€certain€impeachment€with€hisÏprior€inconsistent€statements€is€of€little€practical€significance.€€Mr.€Harley€hasÏnot€yet€testified,€and€in€light€of€the€inconsistencies€in€the€statements€he€hasÏalready€made,€we€cannot€reliably€predict€what€his€testimony€at€trial€will€be.€ÏThus,€we€have€no€way€to€determine€which€of€Mr.€Harleyððs€prior€statementsÏmight€be€used€to€impeach€him€at€trial.¢£¢× ƒB ××  ×£€€If€he€testifies€that€his€brakes,Ïtransmission,€and€clutch€failed,€Mr.€Burgessððs€lawyers€will€attempt€to€impeachÏhim€using€the€statements€in€his€affidavit€and€deposition.€€If,€on€the€other€hand,Ïhe€testifies€that€his€brakes€only€partially€failed€and€that€he€did€not€see€theÏintersection€and€stop€sign€in€time€to€stop,€Putnam€Countyððs€lawyers€willÏimpeach€him€with€his€statements€to€the€investigating€officer€and€theÏeyewitness.€ÌÌà àThe€chief€purpose€of€using€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€at€trial€is€toÏundermine€the€witnessððs€credibility.€€Cohen€et€al.,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€613.1,€at€406.€ÏPrior€inconsistent€statements€need€not€be€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€inÏorder€to€be€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€impeachment.€€These€statementsÏmay,€however,€also€be€considered€as€substantive€evidence€if€they€qualify€forÏadmission€under€one€of€the€rules€of€evidence.€€òòJones€v.€¢Lenoir£€City€CarÏWorks,óó€216€Tenn.€351,€356,€392€¢S.W.2d£€671,€673€(1965)€(the€priorÏinconsistent€statement€of€a€party€is€admissible€as€an€admission€against€interest);ÏTenn.€R.€¢Evid£.€8.03(1.2)€(admission€by€a€party„opponent);€Cohen€et€al.,€òòsupraóó,Ïðð€613.1,€at€406.ÌÌà àEvidence€used€to€support€or€to€oppose€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏmust€consist€of€ð ðsuch€facts€as€would€be€admissible€in€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€56.05.€€This€rule€does€not€require€that€the€facts€be€admissible€as€substantiveÏevidence,€and€thus€an€affidavit€or€deposition€containing€statements€admissibleÏfor€the€purpose€of€impeachment€may€be€considered€in€a€summary€judgmentÏproceeding.€€òò¢Koehler£€v.€¢Haechler£,óó€133€¢N.W.2d£€730,€733€(Wis.€1965);€òò¢Lidster£Ïv.€Jones,óó€336€¢S.E.2d£€287,€288€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1985).¢× ƒC ××  ×£€€Rather€than€being€usedÏto€create€material€factual€disputes,€these€€statements€are€being€used€toÏdemonstrate€that€the€credibility€of€a€pivotal€witness€is€in€question€and€thus€thatÏthe€determination€of€the€issue€should€be€left€to€the€jury.€€Summary€judgments,Ïafter€all,€should€only€be€granted€based€on€evidence€that€the€fact„finder€wouldÏnot€be€at€liberty€to€disbelieve.€€òòSartor€v.€Arkansas€¢Natural£€Gas€Corp.,óó€321ÏU.S.€620,€624,€64€S.€Ct.€724,€727€(1944);€òòKnapp€v.€Holiday€Inns,€Inc.,óó€682Ï¢S.W.2d£€936,€942€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€ÌÌà àMr.€Harleyððs€statements€concerning€the€condition€of€his€brakes€areÏadmissible€both€for€the€purpose€of€impeachment€and€as€substantive€evidenceÏbecause€they€are€admissions€by€a€party„opponent€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï803(1.2).€€His€varying€accounts€of€the€nature€and€extent€of€his€brake€failureÏwill€require€the€fact„finder€to€determine€his€credibility€and€to€determineÏwhether€a€causal€connection€exists€between€the€collision€and€the€condition€ofÏhis€brakes.€€ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àIn€order€to€be€a€proximate€cause€of€an€injury,€a€negligent€act€orÏomission€must€have€been€a€substantial€factor€in€bringing€about€the€injury.€ÏòòBoling€v.€Tennessee€State€Bank,óó€890€S.W.2d€32,€36€(Tenn.€1994);€òòMcClenahanÏv.€Cooley,óó€806€S.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€1991).€€An€injury€may€be€proximatelyÏcaused€by€more€than€one€negligent€act€or€omission.€€òòKelley€v.€Johnson,€óó796ÏS.W.2d€155,€159€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòStokes€v.€Leung,óó€651€S.W.2d€704,Ï708€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€Thus,€a€negligent€act€or€omission€need€not€be€theÏsole€cause€of€an€injury€to€be€a€proximate€cause.€€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooley,óó€806ÏS.W.2d€at€775;€òòLancaster€v.€Montesi,óó€216€Tenn.€50,€57,€390€S.W.2d€217,€221Ï(1965).€€Each€person€whose€negligence€is€a€proximate€cause€of€an€injury€mayÏbe€independently€liable€for€the€injury.òò€€McClenahan€v.€Cooley,óó€806€S.W.2d€atÏ775.ÌÌœ›à àForeseeability€is€an€important€consideration€in€determining€whether€anÏact€or€omission€is€a€legal€cause€of€an€injury.€€An€act€or€omission€will€not€beÏconsidered€a€proximate€cause€of€an€injury€if€a€reasonable€person€could€notÏhave€foreseen€or€anticipated€the€injury.€€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooley,óó€806€S.W.2d€atÏ775.€€By€the€same€token,€a€later€negligent€act€will€not€be€considered€aÏsuperseding,€intervening€cause€€of€an€injury€if€it€a€was€reasonably€foreseeableÏconsequence€of€an€earlier€negligent€act.€€òòSpeaker€v.€Cates€Co.óó,€879€S.W.2dÏ811,€815€(Tenn.€1994);€òòDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.óó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178Ï(Tenn.€1992);€òòEvridge€v.€American€Honda€Motor€Co.,óó€685€S.W.2d€632,€635Ï(Tenn.€1985);òò€Goodermote€v.€State,óó€856€S.W.2d€at€722.ÌÌà àCausation€questions€are€fact„sensitive€and€require€that€the€evidence€beÏreviewed€in€light€of€logic,€common€sense,€policy,€and€precedent.€€òòWyatt€v.ÍWinnebago€Indus.,€Inc.,óó€566€S.W.2d€276,€280€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977).€€TheseÏquestions€are€normally€left€to€the€fact„finder€unless€the€undisputed€facts€andÏthe€inferences€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€draw€butÏone€conclusion.€€òòHaynes€v.€Hamilton€County,óó€883€S.W.2d€606,€612€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooley,óó€806€S.W.2d€at€775;òò€Evridge€v.€AmericanÏHonda€Motor€Co.,€óó685€S.W.2d€at€635.ÌÌà àThe€present€record€contains€material€factual€disputes€concerningÏwhether€the€intersection€was€dangerous,€whether€the€county€had€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€of€the€intersectionððs€condition,€and€whether€the€conditionÏof€Mr.€Harleyððs€brakes€caused€the€accident.€€In€light€of€these€factual€disputes,Ïwe€cannot€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€Mr.€Harleyððs€brakesÏwere€either€the€sole€proximate€cause€or€the€superseding,€intervening€cause€ofÏthe€collision€as€a€matter€of€law.€€These€causal€questions€should€be€decided€byÏthe€fact„finder.ÌÌœ›à@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àWe€vacate€the€summary€judgment€for€Putnam€County€and€remand€theÏcase€for€further€proceedings.€€We€also€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€PutnamÏCounty.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌÌœCONCURS:›ÌÌÌœ________________________________›ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€œÌÌÌCONCURS€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION:ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.€