WPC#  # VUNa % 0h 0 b  w@ 4   N  m 0D 0J\ 0T 0^ 0hX 0r 0|2 0 04 1u 0d9U >B)DC AMGU* D32# 0@v~v Ba AO~ 0D D/ B HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(@$     ((2F$ !       XX `   0  - -daniels v. davis - opinion (# ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    DDDUӀD tT3|xU(#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(ArialWWWW'dxd ( !  #d#%%   ))   YYY FILED)XSeptember17,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#%%   $    %X       _Thestandardsforadjudicatingmotionsforsummaryjudgmenthavefrequentlybeenanalogizedtothestandardsforadjudicatingmotionsfordirectedverdictormotionsforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdict.Mikev.POGroup,Inc.,937S.W.2d790,792(Tenn.1996);Speakerv._Cates,Co._,879S.W.2d811,815(Tenn.1994);Jonesv.ExxonCorp.,940S.W.2d69,71(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  d-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %%   ,   _        \RA'\  \RA'\7Sd d7    ћ @ % INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜R(+'A1-j|p`  `@Rߛ% EDNADANIELS,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  )      ) DavidsonCircuit      ) No.92C215VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019702CV00068DAVIDWAYNEDAVIS,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEWALTERC.KURTZ,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellant:   FortheDefendant/Appellee:KeithJordan     ThomasF.Mink,IINashville,Tennessee    KeithW.Blair       Nashville,Tennessee̛̜@ % VACATEDANDREMANDED %       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  %@ OPINION % Thisappealinvolvesawomanwhofelldownaflightofbasementstairsinhersonshome.ThewomanfiledsuitagainsthersonintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyallegingthatherinjurieswerecausedbytheremovalofahandrailandtheobstructionoftheilluminationonthestairs.Thetrialcourt,relyingonEatonv._McClain_,891S.W.2d587(Tenn.1994),grantedthesonsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Thewomanassertsonthisappealthattheexistenceofgenuinefactualdisputesshouldhavepreventedgrantingasummaryjudgment.Whilethefactsinthiscaseareessentiallyundisputed,wehavedeterminedthattheconclusionstobedrawnfromthefactsarenot.Accordingly,wevacatethesummaryjudgment.@ I.  In1987DavidWayneDavispurchaseda25yearoldhomeonAmericanRoadinNashville.Helivedtherewithhismother,EdnaDaniels,oneofhistwobrothers,andhissisterandhertwochildren.Thehomehadanimprovedbasementwithanoutsideexitthatwasconnectedtothefirstfloorofthehousebyasteepsetofstairs.Thesestairswereusedfrequentlytoenterandleavethehouse.Mr.Davisinstalledahandrailontheupperportionofthestairswhenhemovedintothehousebecausehewasconcernedaboutthesafetyofhissisterschildren. Inmid1991Ms.DanielsacceptedajobasacaretakerforanelderlystrokevictimandmovedoutofMr.Davisshouse.ShetookthejobbecauseMr.Davisneededadditionalfundstocompletetherenovationsonhishouse.Ms.DanielsstillconsideredMr.Davisshouseherpermanentresidenceandvisitedtherefrequentlyontheweekends. Mr.Davisundertookanumberofhomeimprovementprojectswiththehelpofhisbrotherandotherfamilymembersandfriends.Oneoftheseprojectsinvolvedrebuildingthebasementstairsbecauseseveralofthetreadswereweakandbecausehisbrothertoldhimthatthepitchofthestairswastoosteep.Theprojectincludedchangingthepitchofthestairsandaddingfouradditionalsteps, 8  8 installingpanelingandtriminthestairwell,replacingthecarpetonthestairs,andbuildingabookcaseatthetopofthestairs.Ms.Danielswasawarethathersonwasrebuildingthestairs,andshehadevenusedthestairsduringconstruction. Ms.DanielsarrivedatMr.DavisshomeforaweekendvisitonNovember2,1991.Earlythenextmorning,shedecidedtodosomegroceryshoppingforthefamilysThanksgivingdinner.Ms.Danielslostherfootingasshedescendedthestairs.Shereachedinstinctivelyforthehandrailthathadbeeninstalledontheleftofthestairs,butunbeknownsttoher,Mr.Davishadremovedthehandrailinordertofacilitatetherenovations.Withoutthehandrailtosteadyher,Ms.Danielsfellagainstthewallandthenfelltherestofthewaydownthestairs,injuringherrightankleandfoot.NootherfamilymembersobservedMs.Danielsfall.  Ms.DanielssuedMr.DavisintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyinMarch1992,allegingthattheabsenceofthehandrailandthereducedilluminationonthestairwayresultingfromtheconstructionofthebookcasehadcausedherinjuriesandthatMr.Davishadnegligentlyfailedeithertoremoveortowarnherofthedangerouscondition.Mr.Davismovedforsummaryjudgment,andonNovember20,1996,thetrialcourt,relyingonEatonv._McClain_,891S.W.2d587(Tenn.1994),grantedthemotionbecause theplaintiffproceededdownthestairs,whichshewasfamiliarwithandknewwereunderconstructionandpoorlylightedandcanoffernoexplanationastowhysheslipped.Ms.Danielsperfectedthisappeal.@ II.  Decisionstograntasummaryjudgmentdonotenjoythepresumptionofcorrectnessonappeal._Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).OurtaskonappealsfromsummaryjudgmentsistodetermineindependentlywhetherthemovingpartyhassatisfiedthetwinrequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56._Hembree_Ԁv.State,925S.W.2d513,515(Tenn.1996);Paynev.ϜBreuer,891S.W.2d200,201(Tenn.1994).Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03requiresapartyseekingasummaryjudgmenttodemonstratethattherearenogenuinedisputesconcerningthematerialfactsand   thattheyareentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw._Bain_Ԁv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997);Wyattv.ABestCo.,910S.W.2d851,854(Tenn.1995). Summaryjudgmentsarenotsubstitutesfortrialsofdisputedfactualissues,Blockerv.RegionalMedicalCtr.,722S.W.2d660,66061(Tenn.1987),andshouldnotbeusedtofindfactsortochoosebetweenvariousfactualinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthefacts.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,216(Tenn.1993).Thecourtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,Haynesv.HamiltonCounty,883S.W.2d606,613(Tenn.1994),andmustdrawallreasonableinferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor._Pittman_Ԁv.UpjohnCo.,890S.W.2d425,428(Tenn.1994).Accordingly,courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhenthefactsandtheconclusionsreasonablydrawnfromthefactssupporttheconclusionthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);_Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900S.W.2dat26.Theyshouldrefrainfromgrantingasummaryjudgmentifanyuncertaintyordoubtexistswithregardtothefactsortheconclusionstobedrawnfromthefacts.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat211;_Poore_Ԁv.MagnavoxCo.,666S.W.2d48,49(Tenn.1984). Thenatureandscopeofapersonsdutyinparticularcircumstancesisaquestionoflaw._McClung_Ԁv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996);Blairv.Campbell,924S.W.2d75,78(Tenn.1996).Accordingly,amotionforsummaryjudgmentisanappropriatevehiclefordeterminingtheexistenceandscopeofdutywhenthefactualcircumstancesarenotindispute.See_Nichols_Ԁv._Atnip_,844S.W.2d655,658(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Incaseswheretheundisputedfactsdemonstratethatboththeplaintiffanddefendanthavebeennegligent,amotionforsummaryjudgmentmayalsoprovidethecourtwithavehiclefordeterminingwhetherthefaultattributabletotheplaintiffwasequaltoorgreaterthanthefaultattributabletothedefendant.SeeEatonv._McClain_,891S.W.2dat590(dictumrecognizingatrialcourtsprerogativesinresponsetoamotionfordirectedverdictoramotionforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdict)._Ԝ ,   כ_   ќ̛@ III.  Homeownersoweadutytotheirsocialgueststouseduecareunderallthecircumstances.Hudsonv._Gaitan_,675S.W.2d699,703(Tenn.1984).Theyhaveadutytomaintaintheirpremisesinareasonablysafecondition,andthisdutyincludeseitherremovingorwarningagainstlatentdangerousconditionsonthepremisesthattheykneworshouldhaveknownabout.Eatonv._McClain_,891S.W.2dat59394;seealsoSmithv._Inman_ԀRealtyCo.,846S.W.2d819,823(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Ownersandoccupiersofpropertydonothaveadutytoprotect_invitees_Ԁfrominjuriesthatarenotreasonablyforeseeable.SeeDoev._Linder_ԀConstr.Co.,845S.W.2d173,178(Tenn.1992).Sinceitisnotreasonablyforeseeablethat_invitees_ԛwillpermitthemselvestobeinjuredbyopenandobviousdangers,homeownersdonothaveadutytowarn_invitees_Ԁofobviousdangerousconditions.Eatonv._McClain_,891S.W.2dat595. TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasusedtheseprinciplestoabsolveahomeownerfromliabilityforinjuriestoaguestwhofelldownbasementstairsinthemiddleofthenightaftermistakingthebasementdoorforthebathroomdoor.Thecourtreasonedthatitwasnotreasonablyforeseeablethataguestinsearchofabathroominthemiddleofthenightwouldnotturnonalightandwouldwalkthroughapitchblackdoorwayintoanunfamiliararea.Eatonv._McClain_,891S.W.2dat59596. TheundisputedfactsrelatingtoMs.DanielssfalldepictcircumstancesfardifferentfromthoseexistinginEatonv.McClain.Thestairsinthiscasewereusedfrequentlytoenterandleavethehouse,evenwhiletheywerebeingreconstructed.Accordingly,Mr.Davisshouldhaveforeseenthatthepersonsusingthestairsmightusethehandrailtosteadythemselves.SinceMr.Davishadadutytomaintainthesestairsinareasonablysafecondition,hehadadutyeithertoprovideasuitablesubstituteforthehandrailortowarnpersonsusingthestairsthatthehandrailhadbeenremoved.ThereisnoevidenceinthiscasethatMr.Davisprovidedeither. TheundisputedfactsgleanedfromthedepositionsofMs.DanielsandMr.DaviscouldpermitareasonablefactfindertoconcludethatbothMr.DavisandMs.Danielswerenegligent.Mr.Davisnegligentlyfailedtomaintainthestairsinareasonablysafeconditionwhilehewasrebuildingthem;whileMs.Danielsnegligentlyfailedtowatchwhereshewasgoingasshedescendedthestairs.WhileMs.Danielsscaseisrazorthin,wecannotconcludethattheonlyreasonableconclusiontobedrawnfromtheundisputedfactsisthatMs.DanielssnegligencewasgreaterthanMr.Davissnegligence.SincewecannotconcludeasamatteroflawthatthenegligenceattributabletoMs.DanielsoutweighsthenegligenceattributabletoMr.Davis,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredbygrantingthesummaryjudgmentinthiscase.Underthefactsofthiscase,comparingthefaultofMr.DavisandMs.Danielsshouldbelefttothejury.@ IV.  Wevacatethesummaryjudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WealsotaxthecostsofthisappealtoDavidWayneDavisforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.̜       ______________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̜CONCUR:̜________________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE̜________________________________BENH._CANTRELL_,JUDGE