ÿWPCÐ … %V 0(\<„w@À4# 0l+ 0D—UFÛ 0J! 0Tk 0^¿ 0h 0r… 0|÷ 0†s 0ù 1u‰ U,þ 0d* U,Ž U 6º B)ð DC AM\U*©7Ó@  BJ D3gv~švÓ 0@ë AO+Æz 0D@ D/„ B³ ò($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\brief.wpt D‘D’“”D•–—Ó€¡DÒ 3|x¡((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<Ú5 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÔ€"ôÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌJuly€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÔ€"ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€For€the€purposes€of€this€appeal,€Mr.€Guffy€concedes€that€he€wasÏtraveling€between€twenty€and€twenty„five€miles€per€hour.Ì d))))'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££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€"ÔÔ€"ôÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€H¾Xòd°dÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"XÔ›Cheryl€Annette€œCarr,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„CV„00527Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌOzburn„Hessey€Storage€Co.€andà à)à àCircuit€Court€No.ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%'$;+'h|žl` ç `€€LßConrad€Anthony€Guffy,à àà à)à à93C„3629Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à à)à àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€"¼Ôà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€FIFTH€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WALTER€C.€KURTZ,€JUDGEÌÔ€"XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌJOSEPH€M.€DALTON,€JR.Ì222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSuite€350MÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€J.€PFLAUMÌWatkins,€McGugin,€McNeilly€&€Rowan,€P.L.L.C.Ì214€2nd€Ave.€North,€Suite€300ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1638Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€"¼Ôà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌà@ àòòÔ€" ÔOPINIONóóÔ€"XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiff/appellant,€Cheryl€AnnetteÏCarr,€from€a€decision€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgmentÏin€favor€of€defendants/appellees,€Ozburn„Hessey€Storage€Co.€andÏConrad€Anthony€Guffy.ÌÌà àThis€case€involves€a€car€accident€which€occurred€at€3:30€a.m.Ïon€10€December€1992€approximately€one„quarter€mile€west€of€the€OldÏHickory€Boulevard€(ð ðOHBðð)€and€Bridgeway€Avenue€intersection.€ÏThere€is€a€yield€sign€at€the€intersection€for€the€benefit€ofÏdrivers€turning€west€onto€OHB.€€On€the€east€side€of€theÏintersection€OHB€is€flat,€but€the€west€side€slopes€uphill.€€TheÏposted€speed€limit€on€this€portion€of€OHB€is€45€miles€per€hour.€ÌÌà àMs.€Carr€was€driving€a€1992€Ford€pick„up€and€was€heading€westÏin€the€right€lane€of€OHB.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€Mr.€GuffyÏwas€an€intercity€truck€driver€for€defendant,€Ozburn„Hessey€StorageÍCo.€(ð ðOzburnðð).€€He€was€driving€a€closed€rig€with€a€standard,Ïeight„gear€cab.€€The€rig€contained€twelve€large€rolls€of€clothÏweighing€between€18,000€and€30,000€pounds.€€When€he€reached€theÏintersection,€he€did€not€see€any€lights.€€He€rolled€onto€OHB€andÏheaded€west€in€the€right€lane.€€He€proceeded€through€the€turnÏslowly€to€avoid€flipping€the€truck€and€then€began€to€accelerate.€ÏAfter€Ms.€Carr€rounded€the€curve,€located€before€the€intersection,Ïshe€proceeded€west.€€She€saw€the€tail€lights€of€Mr.€Guffyððs€truckÏwithin€fifty€feet€of€her€truck.€€She€braked€and€tried€to€pass€theÏtruck,€however,€the€passenger€side€of€her€truck€hit€the€trailer€ofÏMr.€Guffyððs€truck.€€Ms.€Carr€claimed€to€be€doing€the€speed€limit.€ÏMr.€Guffy€estimated€his€speed€at€approximately€thirty€to€thirty„five€miles€per€hour,€but€Ms.€Carr€claimed€Mr.€Guffy€was€travelingÏbetween€twenty€and€twenty„five€miles€per€hour.× ƒ( ××  ×€€Both€partiesÏstated€that€they€were€familiar€with€this€stretch€of€road.ÌÌà àOn€1€December€1993,€Ms.€Carr€filed€a€complaint€alleging€thatÏMr.€Guffy€was€negligent€per€se€and€that€he€negligently€operatedÏthe€truck.€€Specifically,€she€alleged€that€Mr.€Guffy€failed€to€useÏflashing€lights€or€some€other€type€of€warning€device€to€alert€herÏof€his€slow€speed€and€that€he€violated€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€55„8„154(a)€which€provides€as€follows:€ð ðNo€person€shallÏdrive€a€motor€vehicle€at€such€a€slow€speed€as€to€impede€the€normalÏand€reasonable€movement€of€traffic,€except€when€reduced€speed€isÍnecessary€for€safe€operation€or€in€compliance€with€law.ððòò€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.óó€ðð€55„8„154(a)€(1993).ÌÌà àDefendants€responded€by€denying€liability€and€by€allegingÏcomparative€fault.€€They€claimed€that€it€was€necessary€for€Mr.ÏGuffy€to€proceed€slowly€to€avoid€flipping€his€truck€and€that€theÏtruck€was€sufficiently€lit.€€They€also€alleged€that€Ms.€Carr€wasÏnegligent€because€she€failed€to€maintain€a€proper€lookout€andÏbecause€she€followed€too€closely€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€55„8„124.ÌÌà àThereafter,€on€28€July€1993,€defendants€filed€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€The€court€entered€its€final€order€grantingÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€defendants€on€29€September€1995.€€TheÏcourt€specifically€found€that€Ms.€Carr€was€ð ðnegligent€and€that€herÏnegligence€contributed€more€than€fifty€percent€(50%)€to€theÏaccident€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Ms.€Carr€filed€her€notice€of€appealÏon€5€October€1995.€€Her€only€issue€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà àWhether€the€Trial€Judge€erred€in€granting€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€defendants€in€this€case,€thereby€makingÏa€determination€of€comparative€fault,€when€the€CourtÏmade€no€findings€of€fact€to€conclude,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€that€the€plaintiff's€comparative€fault€was€at€leastÏfifty€(50%)€percent€in€causing€a€motor€vehicle€accidentÏwith€the€driver,€Mr.€[Guffy].ÌÌÓÓThe€defendants€also€presented€certain€issues€for€this€court'sÏreview;€however,€our€resolution€of€Ms.€Carr's€issue€pretermits›Ïdefendants'€issues.ÌÌà àWe€review€the€record€of€a€case€decided€on€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€ð ðwithout€attaching€any€presumption€of€correctnessÏto€the€trial€court's€judgment.€.€.€.ðð€€òòò òMcCall€v.€Wilderóóó ó,€913ÏS.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€€As€with€any€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€there€are€two€question€which€the€trial€court€must€answerÏbefore€it€can€grant€the€motion.€€First,€the€court€must€determineÏthat€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact.€€Second,€theÏcourt€must€determine,€based€on€the€undisputed€material€facts,€thatÏthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ïòòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðA€disputed€factÏis€material€if€it€must€be€decided€in€order€to€resolve€theÏsubstantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motion€is€directed.ðð€€òòò òIdó óóóÏat€215.€€A€genuine€issue€exists€when€ð ða€reasonable€jury€couldÏlegitimately€resolve€that€fact€in€favor€of€one€side€or€the€other.ðð€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€€Summary€judgment€is€appropriate€when€there€are€no€genuineÏissues.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€When€making€any€determination€in€regard€to€a€summaryÏjudgment€motion,€the€court€ð ðis€to€view€the€evidence€in€a€lightÏfavorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€his€favor.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌÌà àThe€issue€in€this€case€involves€the€apportionment€of€fault.ÏPrior€to€the€adoption€of€comparative€fault,€Tennessee's€courtsÏapplied€contributory€negligence.€€Pursuant€to€this€doctrine,€aÏtrial€court€could€grant€a€defendant's€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏif€the€court€found€that€all€reasonable€jurors€would€agree€that€theÏplaintiff€was€guilty€of€negligence.€€In€other€words,€if€the€courtÍfound€that€there€was€no€genuine€issue€as€to€whether€the€plaintiffÏwas€contributorily€negligent,€it€could€render€a€judgment€in€favorÏof€the€defendant.€€After€the€supreme€court€adopted€the€doctrine€ofÏcomparative€fault€in€1992,€the€court€addressed€the€general€issueÏof€when€ð ða€trial€or€appellate€court€may€hold,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïthat€the€plaintiff's€degree€of€fault€is€equal€to€or€greater€thanÏthe€defendant's.ððòòò ò€€Eaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.Ï1994).€Under€the€new€doctrine,€the€trial€court€must€decide€whetherÏall€reasonable€jurors€would€agree,€assuming€that€both€plaintiffÏand€defendant€œwere›€guilty€of€negligent€conduct€that€proximatelyÏcaused€the€injuries,€that€the€fault€attributable€to€the€plaintiffÏequaled€or€was€greater€than€the€defendant's€degree€of€fault.€òòò ò€SeeÏid.óóó ó€€If€the€court€determines€that€all€reasonable€jurors€would€findÏthe€plaintiff's€fault€was€fifty€percent€or€more,€it€must€grantÏsummary€judgment€because€when€the€plaintiff's€fault€is€fiftyÏpercent€or€more€he€or€she€can€not€recover€and€there€is€nothing€forÏthe€jury€to€decide.€€œòòò òSee€McIntyre›€v.€Balentineóóó ó,€833€S.W.2d€52,Ï57€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€undisputed€facts€are€as€follows.€€The€accident€occurredÏone„quarter€mile€past€the€intersection.€€This€stretch€of€road€isÏstraight€and€slopes€uphill.€€The€weather€was€clear€although€it€wasÏ3:30€a.m.€€Mr.€Guffy€approached€the€intersection€and€looked€forÏoncoming€traffic.€€There€were€no€lights€so€he€proceeded€to€turnÏinto€œthe€right›€lane.€€He€accelerated€slowly€to€avoid€flipping€hisÏtruck.€€At€the€time,€he€had€on€the€truck's€headlights,€taillights,Íand€running€lights.€€Ms.€Carr€was€traveling€in€the€right€lane.€ÏAfter€negotiating€the€curve€and€passing€the€intersection,€Ms.€CarrÏsaw€the€œtruck's›€lights€approximately€fifty€feet€in€front€of€her.€ÏShe€braked€and€attempted€to€pass€the€truck.€€She€was€unable€toÏavoid€the€truck€and€struck€the€rear€of€it.€€There€was€no€evidenceÏthat€either€driver€was€speeding.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€undisputed€œfactsÏestablish›€œthat€Ms.›€Carr's€negligence€was€œgreater€than›€that€of€Mr.ÏGuffy.€€No€reasonable€jury€could€find€that€Mr.€Guffy,€œwho€drove€a›Ïheavily€loaded€truck€approximately€twenty€to€twenty„five€miles€perÏhour€on€an€uphill€slope€from€an€almost€complete€stop,€was€moreÏnegligent€than€Ms.€œCarr,›€who€failed€to€notice€a€fully€lit€tractor„trailer€on€a€familiar,€unobstructed€stretch€of€highway€in€clearÏœweather›€until€it€was€too€late€to€avoid€crashing€into€it.€€TheÏevidence€that€Ms.€Carr's€negligence€was€equal€to€or€greater€thanÏthat€of€Mr.€Guffy€is€overwhelming.€€Reasonable€minds€could€notÏdiffer€as€to€the€legal€conclusions€that€must€be€drawn.€€Therefore,Ïthe€issue€of€apportionment€of€fault€was€properly€withdrawn€fromÏthe€jury€and€determined€by€the€court€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€anyÏfurther€proceedings.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€œplaintiffÏ/appellant,›€Cheryl€Annette€Carr.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌœWIILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.›