ÿWPC¦ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ý B w@a 4¡ µ Ä bÌ 0JÐ 0T 0^n 0hÌ 0r4 0|¦ 0†" 0¨ 1u8 0d­ U>U*OB)y B¢DC¿ AMîOv~= D3»vÓî 0@Á AOÆP 0D D/Z B‰˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT éUëìEíïEðñUòUóÓ€ÿz!Î3|xÿ ù2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ äÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÑ€ ÑÑ7€}×XXdædÈ7Ñ›à àó óà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌHAZEL€MAXINE€COLN€and€€à àà à)Ìhusband€CARL€F.€COLN,à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àò ò)€€Hardin€Circuit€No.€2081ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'(&;+'h|Π` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9507„CV„00152Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€SAVANNAH,€TENNESSEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€HARDIN€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SAVANNAH,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JULIAN€œP.€›GUINN,€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌò òJAMES€A.€HOPPERÌó óSavannah,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òEDWARD€L.€MARTINDALE,€œJR.ÌDREW€&€MARTINDALE,€P.C.›Ìó óœJackson,›€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleesÌÌœÌÌ›ÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€ÌœÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÓÓó óœà àÌÑ7€}×XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àThis›€appeal€involves€a€suit€filed€by€plaintiffs,€Hazel€Maxine€Coln€and€Carl€F.ÏColn,€against€the€City€of€Savannah,€œTennessee€(ð ðthe€cityðð),›€for€personal€injuriesÏsustained€when€Mrs.€Coln€tripped€and€fell€œon€a€city›€œsidewalk.›€€The€trial€œcourt€ruled€inÏfavor€of€plaintiffs€and€apportioned€negligence€at€€70%€to€the€city€and€30%€to€Mrs.€Coln.€ÏThe€city€has€appealed€and€has€presented›€the€following€issues€for€our€consideration:Ï(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€sidewalk€was€in€a€defective€œorÏdangerous›€condition,€thereby€causing€governmental€immunity€to€be€removed;€and€(2)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€Mrs.€Coln€was€more€than€50%Ïœnegligent.€€We€find€the€cityððs€contentions€to€be€well„taken;€therefore,€we€reverse€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà àDuring€the€summer€of€1992,€the€city€œcontracted›€with€a€landscaping€service€toÏœinstall€decorative€brick€pavers€in€front€of€City€Hall€in€Savannah,€Tennessee.›€œThe›€workÏconsisted€of€removing€œshrubbery›€and€flowers,€filling€the€area€with€sand,€and€placingÏbrick€pavers€on€top€of€the€sand.€œAfter›€the€brick€pavers€were€installed,€there€existed€aÍslight€deviation€between€the€brick€pavers€and€the€sidewalk.€œÌÌà àOn€November€2,€1992,€Mrs.€Coln,€age€68,€tripped€over€this€raised€portion€of€theÏsidewalk€and€fell.€€As€a€result,€she€fractured€her€left€wrist.€€›ÌÌà àWilliam€Gilchrist,€the€landscape€designer€that€installed€the€brick€pavers,€testifiedÏœthat€at€the€time€of€installation,›€there€œwas€a€deviation€that€measured›€approximatelyÏœthree„eighths›€œof€an€inch€between›€the€pavers€and€the€œsidewalk.€€He›€œattributed€thisÏdeviation€to€the€settling€of€the€sand€beneath€the€pavers€and€the€existence€of€a€hump€inÏthe€concrete€sidewalk.›€œAccording›€to€Gilchrist,€some€deviation€between€the€pavers€andÏthe€adjacent€material€was€common.€œGilchrist›€told€Bill€Fox,€assistant€manager€for€theÏcity,€about€the€existence€of€the€deviation,€but€Mr.€Fox€did€not€request€that€it€beÏœcorrected.€Mr.›€Fox€admitted€that€he€was€aware€of€an€approximate€one„fourth€inchÏdeviation€between€the€sidewalk€and€the€pavers,€but€he€felt€that€the€slight€deviation€wasÏacceptable.€€€ÌÌà àPaul€Lebovitz€,€a€landscape€architect,€testified€that€brick€pavers€are€accepted€inÏthe€industry€as€safe€pedestrian€sidewalk€material.€€œHe›€testified€that€when€pavers€areÏinstalled€adjacent€to€sidewalk€concrete,€it€is€reasonable€to€expect€some€deviationÏbetween€the€two€surfaces.€ÌÌà àFollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€condition€of€the€sidewalk€wasÏdefective,€unsafe,€and€dangerous,€and,€therefore,€governmental€immunity€wasÍremoved.€€The€trial€judge€further€stated:ÌÓÓœ›à8 àà8 àThey€[the€city]€surprisingly€knew€of€it€[the€deviation]€in€itsÏinception,€but€accepted€it€and€made€no€attempt€to€correctÏit....They€created€and€maintained€the€defective,€unsafe€andÏdangerous€condition€and€that€this€condition€was€theÏproximate€cause€of€the€injuries€suffered€or€experience€byÏthe€Plaintiff€œwife.ÌÌÌ›ÌÓÓœ›à àThe€trial€judge€apportioned€negligence€at€30%€to€the€plaintiff€and€70%€to€theÏcity.€€When€plaintiffððs€attorney€asked€the€judge€about€the€basis€for€his€finding€of€30%Ïnegligence€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiff,€the€judge€responded,€ð ðI€think€the€lady€shouldÏhave€looked.€€I€think€she€should€have€seen€what€was€there€to€have€been€seen.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€city€argues€on€appeal€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€the€sidewalk€was€in€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerousÏcondition.€€Furthermore,€the€city€contends,€the€trial€court€should€have€found€the€plaintiffÏto€have€been€more€than€50%€negligent€because€the€condition€of€the€sidewalk€wasÏopen€and€obvious.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€facts€is€governed€by€T.R.A.P.€13(d),Ïwhich€directs€us€to€review€the€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ÌÌà àWe€will€first€address€plaintiffððs€contention€regarding€the€apportionment€of€fault,Ïas€we€find€such€issue€to€be€dispositive€of€this€appeal.€€Thus,€the€question€that€we€mustÍresolve€is€whether€the€fault€attributable€to€plaintiff€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€faultÏattributable€to€the€defendant.€€òòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994).€€If€so,Ïthen€the€plaintiff€is€precluded€from€recovery.€€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52Ï(1992).€€In€òòEatonóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€592,€our€Supreme€Court€set€forth€the€followingÏnonexhaustive€list€of€pertinent€factors€to€evaluate€in€assigning€percentages€of€fault€toÏeach€party:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€relative€closeness€of€the€causal€relationshipÏbetween€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€the€injury€to€theÏplaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€conduct€inÏconfronting€a€risk,€such€as€whether€the€party€knew€of€theÏrisk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€the€extent€to€which€theÏdefendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existingÏopportunity€to€avoid€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€theÏexistence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€a€hastyÏdecision;€(5)€the€significance€of€what€the€party€wasÏattempting€to€accomplish€by€the€conduct,€such€as€anÏattempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)€the€partyððs€particularÏcapacities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education,€andÏso€forth.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€592.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€attempting€to€determine€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€apportionment€of€fault,€we€find€the€recent€decision€of€òòBroyles€v.€City€ofÏKnoxvilleóó,€No.€03A01„9505„CV„00166,€1995€WL€511904€(Tenn.€App.€August€30,Ï1995),€to€be€particularly€instructive€in€this€case,€as€it€contains€facts€virtually€identical€toÏthe€case€òòsub€judiceóó.ÌÌà àIn€òòBroylesóó,€the€plaintiff€tripped€and€fell€over€a€short€section€of€the€sidewalk€thatÏwas€ð ðsubstantially€and€very€visiblyðð€raised€up€above€the€rest€of€the€sidewalk.€€òòId.óó€at€*2.€ÍThe€condition€of€the€sidewalk€was€obvious,€and€there€was€nothing€obstructing€theÏplaintiffððs€vision.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€relied€on€òòCooperwood€v.€Kroger€Food€Stores,€Inc.óó,€No.Ï02A01„9308„CV„00182,€1994€WL€725217€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€30,€1994),€and€its€analysisÏof€the€open€and€obvious€rule,€in€holding€that€ð ðthe€conclusion€is€inescapable€thatÏplaintiff€was€fifty€percent€(50%)€or€more€at€fault.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*5.ÌÌà àIn€òòCooperwoodóó,€No.€02A01„9308„CV„00182,€1994€WL€725217€(Tenn.€App.ÏDec.€30,€1994),€this€court€stated€the€open€and€obvious€rule€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€open€and€obvious€rule€is€one€whereby€an€invitee€canÏbe€œ€barred›€from€recovery€for€injuries€resulting€from€a€dangerÏas€œÌÌÌÌà8 àà8 àreadily€apparent€to€the€invitee€as€to€the€owner€or€operator,Ïas€the€latter€would€have€no€knowledge€of€the€dangerÏsuperior€to€that€of€the€invitee.›ÌÌòòId.óó€at€*3.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€court€in€òòCooperwoodóó€recognized€that€prior€to€Tennesseeððs€adoption€ofÏcomparative€fault,€the€open€and€obvious€rule€operated€to€alleviate€any€duty€owed€to€aÏplaintiff€who€suffers€injury€as€a€result€of€conditions€that€are€open€and€obvious.€ÏHowever,€the€court€held€that€since€òòMcIntyreóó€and€its€adoption€of€comparative€faultÏprinciples,€the€open€and€obvious€rule€is€no€longer€the€law€in€Tennessee.€€òòId.óó€at€*3.€ÏInstead,€the€court€held:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[W]hen€an€invitee€is€injured€because€of€dangers€that€areÏobvious,€reasonably€apparent,€or€as€well€known€to€theÏinjured€party€as€to€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€premises,Íliability,€if€any,€should€be€determined€in€accordance€with€theÏprinciples€of€comparative€fault....̛̜€òòId.óóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€eastern€section€of€this€court€in€òòBroylesóó€agreed€with€òòCooperwoodóóððsÏconclusion€that€the€open€and€obvious€rule€as€it€previously€existed€was€abrogated€byÏthe€adoption€of€comparative€fault.€€òòId.óó€at€*4.€€The€òòBroylesóó€court€noted,€however,€that€theÏunderlying€principles€of€the€open€and€obvious€rule€remain€viable.€€The€court€stated€itsÏperception€of€the€current€status€of€the€doctrine€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€adhere€to€the€concept€that€there€is€no€liability€on€theÏperson€or€entity€in€control€of€premises€if€a€person€lawfullyÏthereon€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€for€his€or€her€ownÏsafety€or€for€dangers€that€are€obvious,€reasonably€apparent,Ïor€as€well€known€to€the€injured€party€as€to€the€owner,Ïoperator€or€person€in€control€of€the€premises,€so€long€as€theÏplaintiffððs€negligence€is€equal€to€or€greater€than€theÏdefendantððs€negligence....Otherwise€stated,€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€the€duty€of€the€plaintiff€has€not€been€changedÏbut€plaintiffððs€failure€to€meet€her€duty€must€be€compared€toÏthe€negligence€of€the€tortfeasor€or€tortfeasors.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€*4.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àBecause€the€raised€portion€of€the€sidewalk€was€obvious€and€because€there€wasÏnothing€preventing€the€plaintiff€from€recognizing€the€danger€it€presented,€the€court€inÏòòBroylesóó€affirmed€the€trial€court€in€holding€that€plaintiff€was€at€least€50%€negligent,Ïthereby€barring€her€from€recovery.€€òòId.óó€at€*5.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Mrs.€Coln€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Now,€letððs€talk€for€a€minute€if€we€could,€Mrs.€Coln,€aboutÏthe€accident€that€occurred€in€November€of€ðð92.€€Do€youÏremember€that?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Right.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€And€what€type€of€day€was€it?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€It€was€a€beautiful€day,€sunny.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Had€it€been€raining€at€all€that€day?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€No.Ìà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€What€type€of€shoes€were€you€wearing€that€day?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Rough€sole€shoes.€€Just€a€flat€shoe.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Were€you€carrying€anything€in€your€hands?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€No.€€I€had€my€purse€on€my€shoulder.Ìà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Do€you€wear€glasses?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€I€wear€contacts.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Did€you€have€your€contacts€in€that€day?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€I€did.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Did€you€have€any€problem€at€all€between€the€time€youÏparked€your€car€and€the€time€that€you€tripped€and€fell?€€DidÏyou€have€any€problem€at€all€with€your€walk?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€No,€I€didnððt.Ìà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Well,€you€knew€it€[the€brick€pavers]€was€a€differentÏmaterial,€didnððt€you,€than€a€sidewalk?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€And€you€had€your€head€down€and€you€were€lookingÏwhere€you€were€going?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Right.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€You€had€on€flat€shoes?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Right.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€The€weather€was€clear?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Right.Ìà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€And€is€there€any€reason€if€you€were€looking€down€as€youÏsay€and€the€weather€was€clear€and€the€thing€in€your€handÏwasnððt€bothering€you€you€could€not€see€the€differenceÏbetween€the€brick...going€to€the€concrete?Ìà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€No.€ÌÌà@ àÌÌÓÓà àIn€light€of€the€foregoing€evidence€and€the€courtððs€decision€in€òòBroylesóó,€weÍconclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€a€finding€that€Mrs.€Coln€was€atÏleast€50%€negligent.€€As€in€òòBroylesóó,€the€record€in€the€case€at€bar€reveals€that€theÏcondition€of€the€sidewalk€was€obvious€to€the€extent€that€a€reasonably€prudent€personÏshould€have€recognized€the€potential€hazard€that€it€presented.€€We€agree€with€theÏobservation€of€counsel€for€the€city€that€œð ðthere›€is€a€certain€amount€of€care€that€the€GoodÏLord€intended€for€all€of€us€to€take€in€regard€to€where€we€plant€our€feet,€for€the€world€isÏnot€flat.ððÌà àÌà àOur€resolution€of€the€foregoing€issue€pretermits€all€other€issues€raised€by€theÏparties€on€appeal.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€reversed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏadjudged€against€plaintiffs,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›ÌÌÌÌ