ÿWPCO …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ 0hw 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã U,X 0d„ U,è U> B)R DC{ AM¾ U* 5U6Ov~… BvÓ  D3ó 0@& AOfƵ 0D{ 0D¿ D/ B2˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÎÙP /5v:» ^P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡˜€* T4ôh3|xÂ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òJanuary€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌGORDON€BURKS,ó óà à)à àShelby€Law€No.€45888€T.D.Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€ ";+'h|%Ñ` Å `€€LßVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9411„CV„00254Ìà à)Ìò òBELZ„WILSON€PROPERTIES,€(€aó óà à)Ìò òjoint€venture,€comprised€of€BELZó óà à)Ìò òINVESTMENT€COMPANY,€SPENCEó óà à)Ìò òL.€WILSON,€ROBERT€A.€WILSON,ó óà à)Ìò òKEMMONS€WILSON,€JR.,€CAROLEó óà à)Ìò òA.€WILSON„WEST€and€DOROTHYó óà à)Ìò òW.€E.€MOORE),€BELZ€INVESTMENTó óà à)Ìò òCOMPANY,€INC.,€a€corporationó óà à)Ìò òBELZ€INVESTMENT€COMPANYó ó,à à)Ìò òa€partnership€comprised€of€PHILLIPó óà à)Ìò òBELZ,€JACK€A.€BELZ€and€KEMMONSó óà à)Ìò òWILSON;€WIMBLETONó óà à)Ìò òGYMNASTICS,€INC.,€a€corporationó ó,à à)Ìò òand€PRIDE€CONSTRUCTIONó óà à)Ìò òCOMPANY,€INC.ó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€James€M.€Tharpe,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òMark€Ledbetteró ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òDan€T.€Bingó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òJoe€D.€Spiceró ó,Ìò òMarc€O.€Dedmanó ó,ÌSPICER,€FLYNN€&€RUDSTROM,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Pride€Construction€Company,€Inc.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓAppellant,€Gordon€Burks,€(Burks)€brought€this€negligence€action€against€Appellee,€PrideÏConstruction€Company,€Inc.,€(Pride)€and€various€other€defendants,€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€ShelbyÏCounty.€€Pride's€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€granted€and,€from€that€judgment,€BurksÏappeals.ÌÌà àOn€May€4,€1991,€Burks€was€seriously€injured€when€he€attempted€to€perform€aÏgymnastics€maneuver€from€a€pommel€horse€into€a€gymnastics€pit€at€the€Wimbleton€Sportsplex€inÏMemphis.€€Burks€filed€suit€against€(1)€Belz„Wilson€Properties,€owner€of€the€WimbletonÏSportsplex;€(2)€the€individual€members€of€Belz„Wilson€Properties;€(3)€Wimbleton€Gymnastics,ÏInc.,€the€lessee€of€the€premises;€and€(4)€Pride,€the€contractor€which€constructed€the€gymnastics€pit.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€complaint,€Burks€alleged€that€he€was€injured€due€to€the€defendants'Ïnegligence€in€failing€(1)€to€warn€users€of€dangers€incident€to€the€use€of€a€gymnastics€rail€and€pit€atÏthe€premises€(2)€to€properly€design,€construct€and€maintain€a€safe€premises;€and€(3)€to€provide€aÏgymnastics€pit€with€adequate€shock€absorption€or€depth€to€prevent€the€serious€injuries€sustained€byÏBurks.ÌÌà àPride€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€supported€by€the€affidavits€of€WilliamÏR.€Eades,€the€President€of€Archeon,€Inc.,€Robert€A.€Wilson,€an€owner€of€the€WimbletonÏSportsplex,€and€Ronald€Stage,€the€President€of€Pride.€€The€affidavits€filed€by€Pride€contained€theÏfollowing€undisputed€assertions:€€Robert€A.€Wilson,€a€representative€owner€of€the€WimbletonÏSportsplex,€retained€Archeon,€an€architectural€firm,€to€draw€plans€for€the€gymnastics€pit€at€theÏWimbleton€Sportsplex.€€The€dimensions€of€the€pit€were€provided€by€the€Wimbleton€Gymnastics,ÏInc.,€the€lessee€of€the€premises.€€Pride€did€not€design€or€participate€in€preparing€the€plans€that€wereÍdrawn.€€Pride's€work€was€in€strict€compliance€with€the€plans€and€specifications€provided€and€wasÏaccepted€by€the€owners€of€the€premises€after€completion.€€Pride€had€no€knowledge€of€the€owners'Ïactual€use€of€the€pit,€and€had€no€knowledge€that€foam€cubicles€would€later€be€placed€in€the€pit.ÌÌ€à àIn€response€to€Pride's€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Burks€filed€ò òòòinteróó€òòaliaó óóó€theÏaffidavit€of€Dr.€Gerald€S.€George,€Ph.D.€€In€his€affidavit,€Dr.€George,€an€author€of€several€articlesÏdealing€with€gymnastics€safety€and€the€design€and€construction€of€gymnastics€facilities,€stated€thatÏany€entity€constructing€the€gymnastics€pit€at€the€Wimbleton€Sportsplex€should€have€known€thatÏsaid€pit€was€creating€a€hazard€because€its€depth€was€insufficient€to€assure€a€user€safety€inÏgymnastics€maneuvers€where€substantial€height€would€be€involved.€€Dr.€George€further€allegedÏthat€the€dimensions€of€the€pit€deviated€from€the€1985€and€1990€standards€of€construction€found€inÏtheò ò€òòU.S.G.F.€Gymnastics€Safety€Manual€for€In„Ground€Pitsó óóó,€Ch.€5,€ðð€3,€p.56„57Ï(1985)€and€p.51€(1990).€ÌÌ€à àBecause€the€trial€court€issued€no€findings€of€fact,€we€are€unaware€of€its€reasoningÏfor€granting€summary€judgment.€€We€begin€our€own€analysis€of€the€instant€case€by€noting€that€aÏtrial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€the€movant€demonstrates€that€thereÏare€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matterÏof€law.€€T.R.C.P.€56.03;€òòò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.ÏHackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgmentÏbears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€exist.€€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€210.€€When€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€made,€the€court€must€consider€theÏmotion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiff'sÏproof;€that€is,€the€"court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÏnonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence."€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€(Citations€omitted.)€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€uponÏhis€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòò òspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€thereÏis€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòId.óóó ó€at€211€(emphasis€in€original).€€ÌÌà àOn€the€record€before€us,€it€is€undisputed€that€Pride€built€the€gymnastics€pit€in€strictÏcompliance€with€the€specifications€drawn€by€Archeon€and€initially€provided€by€WimbletonÏSportsplex.€€It€is€further€undisputed€that€the€completed€gymnastics€pit€deviated€from€theÏrecommendations€of€the€òòò òU.S.G.F.€Gymnastics€Safety€Manual€for€In„Ground€Pitsó óóó,€Ch.Ï5,€ðð€3,€p.56„57€(1985)€and€p.51€(1990).€€However,€it€is€also€undisputed€that€Pride€did€not€knowÏof€the€ultimate€use€of€the€gymnastics€pit€and€did€not€play€any€part€in€the€placement€of€foam€pads€inÏthe€pit.€€Ô€#ÔÌÌà àÔ€ÔConsidering€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€Burks,€we€are€left€toÏdetermine€whether€Pride€was€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€210„11.€€Under€the€law€in€this€state,€no€claim€for€negligence€can€succeed€in€the€absenceÏof€any€one€of€the€following€elements:€€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)Ïconduct€falling€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€amounting€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€anÏinjury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€in€fact;€and€(5)€proximate,€or€legal€cause.€€ò òòòHaynes€v.€HamiltonÏCountyóóó ó,€883€S.W.2d€606,€611€(Tenn.€1994);ò ò€òòPerez€v.€McConkeyóó,€ó ó872€S.W.2d€897,€905Ï(Tenn.€1994);ò ò€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóóó ó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993);ò ò€òòMcClenahan€v.ÏCooleyóóó ó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€774€(Tenn.€1991).ò ò€ó ó€ÌÔ€#Ôà àÔ€ÔAccordingly,€the€threshold€question€in€the€instant€case€is€whether,€on€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€before€us,€there€was€any€duty€owed€by€Pride€to€Burks€in€regard€to€theÏconstruction€of€the€gymnastics€pit.€€Whether€there€is€a€duty€owed€by€one€person€to€another€is€aÍquestion€of€law€to€be€decided€by€the€court.€€òòò òDooley€v.€Everettó óóó,€805€S.W.2d€380,€384€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1990);€òòò òKelley€v.€Johnsonó óóó,€796€S.W.2d€155,€157€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Since€our€inquiryÏinvolves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment.€€òòò òCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995);€òòò òCowden€v.€SovranÏBank/Central€Southó óóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àThe€existence€of€a€duty€is€for€the€court€to€decide€based€on€evidence€and€mixedÏconsiderations€of€logic,€common€sense€and€public€policy.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€òòò òAllen€v.€Baggettó óóó,€905€S.W.2dÏ190,€191€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€A€statement€of€the€underlying€principle€regarding€the€imposition€of€aÏduty€of€care€upon€a€party€can€be€found€in€òòò òLindsey€v.€Miami€Development€Corp.ó óóó,€689ÏS.W.2d€856€(Tenn.€1985):ÌÌà8 àÓÓ[U]pon€the€facts€in€evidence,€such€a€relation€exists€between€theÏparties€that€the€community€will€impose€a€legal€obligation€upon€oneÏfor€the€benefit€of€others„„or,€more€simply,€whether€the€interest€of€theÏplaintiff€which€has€suffered€invasion€was€entitled€to€legal€protectionÏat€the€hands€of€the€defendant.€€This€is€entirely€a€question€of€law,€toÏbe€determined€by€reference€to€the€body€of€statutes,€rules,€principlesÏand€precedents€which€make€up€the€law;€€and€it€must€be€determinedÏonly€by€the€court....ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òLindseyóóó ó,€689€S.W.2d€at€858„59€(quoting€òòò òW.€Page€Keeton,€et€al.,€Prosser€and€KeetonÏon€the€Law€of€Tortsó óóó,€ðð€37,€at€236€(5th€ed.€1984)).ÌÌà àòòò òJohnson€v.€Oman€Const.€Co.ó óóó,€519€S.W.2d€782€(Tenn.€1975)€is€instructive€inÏrespect€to€the€duty€owed€by€Pride€to€Burks.€€In€òòò òJohnsonó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏabandoned€the€"accepted€work"€doctrine€and€adopted€the€modern€view€that€a€contractor€has€a€dutyÏto€exercise€a€standard€of€reasonable€care€for€the€protection€of€third€parties€who€may€foreseeably€beÏendangered€by€its€negligence,€even€after€acceptance€of€the€work€by€the€contractee.€€òòò òJohnsonóóó ó,€519ÏS.W.2d€at€788.€Ô€#ÔÌòòò òÔ€ÔÌà àJohnsonó óóó€involved€a€wrongful€death€claim€by€parents€against€two€municipalitiesÏand€a€contractor€for€the€improper€placement€and€illumination€of€a€highway€guard€rail.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€784.€ÏAs€in€the€present€case,€the€contractor€satisfactorily€and€correctly€performed€its€work€according€toÏthe€contract€documents€and€specifications.€€òòò òIdóó.ó ó€at€787.€€ÌÌà àRelying€on€the€accepted€work€doctrine,€the€contractor€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€In€support€of€its€motion,€the€contractor€filed€an€affidavit,€stating€that€the€workÏperformed€was€done€pursuant€to€the€terms€of€its€contract€and€that€the€work€had€been€inspected€andÏaccepted€by€the€Tennessee€Highway€Department€and€the€Federal€Highway€Administration€uponÏcompletion.€€òòò òIdóó.ó ó€€The€trial€court€granted€the€contractor's€motion,€and€the€court€of€appeals€affirmed.€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€at€784.€€ÌÌà àUpon€review,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€explained€that€the€previous€law€inÏTennessee€had€been€that€"an€independent€contractor€is€not€liable€for€injuries€occurring€to€a€thirdÏperson€after€the€contractor€has€completed€the€work€and€it€has€been€accepted€by€the€owner€or€theÏemployer."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€788.€€€The€Court€recognized,€however,€that€a€growing€number€of€jurisdictionsÏhad€adopted€the€modern€view€that€a€contractor€should€be€held€to€the€standard€of€reasonable€care€forÏthe€protection€of€third€parties€who€may€foreseeably€be€endangered€by€his€negligence,€even€afterÏacceptance€of€the€work€by€the€contractee.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€788.€Consequently,€the€Court€held:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]f€an€independent€contractor€is€guilty€of€negligence€in€performingÏhis€work€in€such€a€way€that€it€could€reasonably€be€foreseen€that€theÏowner€or€third€parties€would€probably€sustain€personal€injury€orÏproperty€damage€as€a€result€of€the€negligent€condition,€then€theÏindependent€contractor€should€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€be€dischargedÏmerely€because€his€work€has€been€accepted€and€delivered€to€theÏowner.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdó óóó.€€Applying€this€principle€to€the€facts€before€it,€the€court€reversed€the€grant€of€summary€judgmentÏand€remanded€the€case€to€trial.€òòò òId.ó ó€óóat€789.Ô€#ÔÌÔ€ÔÌà àPursuant€to€òòò òJohnsonóóó ó,€we€hold€that€Pride€had€a€duty€to€use€reasonable€care€underÏthe€circumstances€not€to€engage€in€conduct€that€would€foreseeably€cause€injury€to€others.€€òòò òSeeÏPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óóó ó,€€890€S.W.2d€425,€428€(Tenn.€1994);€òòò òNichols€v.€Atnipóóó ó,€844ÏS.W.2d€655,€661€(Tenn.€App.)€(Tenn.€1992)€and€òòò òMcCall€v.€Wilderóóó ó,€____€S.W.2d€____Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€We€are€faced€then€with€the€question€of€whether€the€record€before€us€contains€factsÏsufficient€to€infer€a€breach€of€that€duty.€€Typically,€the€scope€of€a€party's€duty€and€the€breachÏthereof€are€questions€for€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòò òDooleyóóó ó,€805€S.W.2d€at€384.€€These€questions€becomeÏquestions€of€law€when€the€facts€and€inferences€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€reasonable€persons€toÏreach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòò òKellyóóó ó,€796€S.W.2d€at€157.€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€record€reveals€that€Pride€was€not€aware€of€the€ultimate€use€of€the€pit.€ÏThus,€we€believe€that€we€are€faced€with€a€different€situation€than€that€faced€by€the€òòò òJohnson€ó óóócourt.€ÏIn€òòò òJohnsonó óóó,€the€facts€showed€that€a€unmarked€guardrail€had€been€installed€to€barricade€a€streetÏthat€had€been€in€use€prior€to€the€construction€of€the€barricade.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€784.€€There€was€also€evidenceÏpresented€that€inferentially€showed€that€the€contractor€knew€that€the€guardrail€was€dangerous€toÏmotorists.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€787.€Consequently,€reasonable€minds€could€have€differed€as€to€whether€theÏhazard€created€could€have€been€reasonably€foreseeable€to€the€contractor€who€constructed€theÏbarricade.€€Therefore,€summary€judgment€was€not€proper.€ÌÌà àBeing€unaware€of€the€use€for€which€the€pit€was€constructed,€the€plaintiff's€injuryÏwas€not€reasonably€foreseeable€to€Pride.€€Moreover,€there€is€no€allegation€or€proof€that€theÏgymnastics€pit€was€in€the€same€condition€on€the€date€of€the€accident€as€it€was€when€completed.€ÏInstead,€the€affidavits€filed€by€Pride€contain€the€undisputed€allegations€that€Pride€did€not€know€ofÏthe€actual€use€of€the€pit€when€the€pit€was€delivered€nor€did€Pride€know€that€foam€padding€wouldÏlater€be€added€to€the€pit.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that,€under€these€circumstances,€Pride€did€not€breach€any€duty€owedÏto€Burks.€To€find€that€such€a€breach€existed€would€require€this€Court€to€draw€several€factualÏinferences€not€supported€by€the€record.€€Consequently,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Pride.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€AppellantÏfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)Ìà à€€Ì