ÿWPC' …# VUNa %¯ 0GµUDü4@ T 1mc 0‹Ð 0D[ 0dŸ w@ C ÆK Æ Æ× Æ 0Jc 0T­ 0^ 0h_ 0rÇ 0|9 0†µ 0; BË 1uèU,] 0d‰ D3í 0@ U,`U>ŒB)ÊDCó AM6U*ƒ ­ ÍeíIRv~›vÓ 0ì 0Š{! 0 " 0´¥" 0ÇY# 0Û $ 0ïû$ AOê%Æ9& 0Dÿ& D/C' Br'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(½Ì$¡¡Ô€X¦\XXXÔ8ëu $ZŠ,Century-WP Regularíb¸ RSTUVW3|x‡  tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;(3¸2$¤¤Ý ƒ½Ì!ÝÔ€XÆxXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à h i j k l m Dn Ó€z Ó€† ‡ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 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 d !"# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd€-3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òJune€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òJune€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€Michelle€Lynn€Durham€was€the€party€who€fell€and€was€injured.€ÏRobert€à0 àWayne€Durhamððs€à àclaim€for€loss€of€consortium€is€derivative€ofÏhers.Ì ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔDefendant€W.€Paul€Arnold,€individually€and€d/b/a€ArnoldÏConstruction€à0 àCompany,€was€dismissed€from€the€case€with€prejudice.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÓ&€00X„d&ÓÑ#€00Xd#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÑ7€ÆxXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßL€463;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÓ  Ó_____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌMICHELLE€LYNN€DURHAM€andà àà àGibson€CircuitÏNo.€7089Ìhusband€ROBERT€WAYNE€DURHAM,€€€€€à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9502„CV„00033ÌÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà àà àHon.€Dick€Jerman,€Jr.,€JudgeÌœßJ€47;+'b|²ÿ~` Å `€@ÿJß›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌv.ÌÌLUTHER€WEBB€and€wife,€SUE€WEBB,€Ìindividually€and€d/b/a€WEBBððS€BRITISHÌPETROLEUM€STATION€and€W.€PAUL€ARNOLD,Ìindividually€and€d/b/a€ARNOLD€CONSTRUCTIONÌCOMPANY,ÌÌà àDefendants/Appellees.ÌÌTIMOTHY€L.€WARNOCK€and€JOHN€B.€ENKEMA,€Bass,€Berry€&€Sims,€Nashville,ÏAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌFLOYD€S.€FLIPPIN,€Adams,€Ryal€&€Flippin,€HumboldtÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€Luther€Webb€and€wife,€Sue€Webb,Ïindividually€and€d/b/a€Webbððs€British€Petroleum€œStation.›ÌÌòòò òAFFIRMED€ó óóóÌÌOpinion€Filed:Ì_____________________________________________________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àMichelle€Lynn€Durham€and€Robert€Wayne€Durham€(ð ðplaintiffsðð€or€byÍname)× ƒ8 ××  ×€€brought€this€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Gibson,€County€againstÏLuther€Webb€and€wife€Sue€Webb,€individually€and€d/b/a€Webbððs€BritishÏPetroleum€Station€(ð ðdefendantsðð),× ƒ9 ××  ×€seeking€damages€for€defendantððsÏalleged€negligence€that€caused€plaintiff€Michelle€Durham€to€fall€inÏdefendantððs€parking€lot,€causing€injuries.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏdefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€from€which€this€appeal€isÏtaken.€€The€sole€issue€presented€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€We€find€no€error€andÏaffirm.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€On€the€day€of€the€accident€in€question,€plaintiff€stopped€atÏdefendantððs€gas€station€in€Trenton€on€her€way€to€a€doctorððs€appointment.€ÏPrior€to€plaintiffððs€arrival€in€defendantððs€parking€lot,€it€had€been€rainingÏfor€a€short€while.€€There€was€€testimony€that€it€had€either€stoppedÏraining€or€was€raining€only€slightly€at€the€time€of€plaintiffððs€arrival.€ÏAfter€parking€in€front€of€the€door€to€defendantsðð€convenience€store,Íplaintiff€entered€for€the€purpose€of€buying€a€carton€of€milk.€€After€makingÏthe€purchase,€she€exited€the€store€and€walked€down€the€sidewalk€to€theÏpay€phone€to€call€her€husband.€€On€her€way€back€to€the€car,€she€stepped€offÏthe€sidewalk€onto€the€parking€lot€and€slipped€and€broke€her€leg€and€ankle.€ÏThis€suit€followed.€€ÌÌà àPlaintiffððs€complaint€charged€defendants€with€negligence€forÏfailure€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€maintaining€the€entrance€andÏparking€area€of€their€place€of€business.€€Specifically,€plaintiffs€contendÏthat€defendants€failed€to€properly€clean€the€parking€lot€of€oil€buildup,Ïalleging€that€the€oil€had€accumulated€in€areas€where€cars€normallyÏparked,€creating€a€dangerous,€slippery€condition.€€As€grounds€for€itsÏsummary€judgment,€defendants€contended€that€they€could€not€be€heldÏliable€inasmuch€as€they€had€no€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€aÏdangerous€or€defective€condition€in€the€parking€lot€prior€to€the€accident.€ÏDefendants€filed€œdepositions€of›€plaintiffs,€defendants,€and€threeÏemployees€of€defendants€in€connection€with€the€summary€judgmentÏmotion.€€Plaintiffs€filed€the€affidavit€of€Faye€King,€a€frequent€customerÏof€defendants,€in€response€to€defendantsðð€motion.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€hearing€on€the€summary€judgment€motion,€the€trialÏcourt€entered€an€order,€which€read€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àòòPlaintiffs€should€be€given€sixty€(60)€days€from€September€7,Ï1994,€to€file€an€Affidavit€from€an€expert€witness€to€theÏeffect€that€the€parking€lot€area€where€this€accident€occurredÏon€January€13,€1992€was€in€an€unreasonable€and€dangerousÏcondition€on€the€date€and€time€of€this€accident.óó€€If€said€expertÏAffidavit€is€filed€within€sixty€(60)€days€from€September€7,Ï1994,€the€Court€will€consider€the€Affidavit€and€make€itsÏdecision€on€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€If€theÏAffidavit€is€not€filed€on€or€before€sixty€(60)€days€fromÏSeptember€7,€1994,€then€said€Motion€for€Summary€JudgmentÏwill€be€granted.€€(emphasis€added)ÌÌÌÌÓÓFollowing€the€expiration€of€the€sixty€(60)€day€period€without€plaintiffsÏhaving€filed€an€affidavit€of€an€expert€addressing€the€alleged€unreasonableÏand€dangerous€condition€of€the€property€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€theÏtrial€court€entered€an€order€granting€defendantsðð€summary€judgmentÏmotion.ÌÌà àBefore€addressing€the€summary€judgment€issue€itself,€we€must€dealÏwith€a€secondary€issue€raised€by€plaintiffs,€who€contend€that€the€above„quoted€language€establishes€that€the€trial€court€required€them€to€produceÏan€expert€witness€to€testify€that€the€combination€of€oil€and€water€in€theÍparking€lot€created€a€dangerous€condition.€€Plaintiffs€further€contend€thatÏexpert€testimony€was€not€required€on€this€subject€in€this€state€becauseÏsuch€information€is€within€the€knowledge€of€ordinary€people.€€œPlaintiffs›Ïalso€contend€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€ruling€that€the€affidavitÏof€Faye€King,€which€plaintiffs€submitted€in€response€to€defendantsððÏmotion€for€summary€judgment,€was€not€an€expert€witness€on€the€subject.ÌÌà àDefendants€contend€that€plaintiffsðð€characterization€of€this€portionÏof€the€trial€œcourtððs›€order€is€in€error,€and€that€the€thrust€of€the€trialÏœcourtððs›€ruling€was€to€provide€plaintiffs€with€additional€time€(sixty€(60)Ïdays)€to€attempt€to€carry€their€burden€of€proof€as€to€the€existence€of€aÏdangerous€or€defective€condition€in€defendantsðð€parking€lot€on€the€day€ofÏthe€accident,€and€that€if€such€a€condition€existed,€to€establish€thatÏdefendantsðð€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€that€condition.€€It€isÏdefendantsðð€characterization€of€this€order€that€if€plaintiffs€did€not€availÏthemselves€of€this€additional€time€to€present€such€an€expert,€the€courtÏwould€grant€summary€judgment€to€defendants.€€We€agree€with€defendantsððÏcharacterization€of€this€order.€€Although€the€trial€court€used€the€termÏð ðexpert€witness,ðð€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€purpose€of€the€order€wasÏto€give€plaintiffs€an€additional€sixty€(60)€days€to€offer€proof€as€to€theÍexistence€of€a€dangerous€condition€on€defendantsðð€parking€lot€at€the€timeÏof€this€occurrence.€€Plaintiffsðð€€contention€is€without€merit,€which€leavesÏus€with€the€responsibility€of€considering€the€correctness€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€granting€of€summary€judgment€to€defendants.ÌÌà àNo€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€decisions€grantingÏsummary€judgments€because€they€involve€only€questions€of€law.€€Thus,€onÏappeal,€we€must€make€a€fresh€determination€concerning€whether€or€notÏrequirements€of€T.R.C.P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòCowden€v.€SovranÏBank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIt€is€appropriate€for€a€trial€court€to€grant€summary€judgment€whereÏ(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact,€and€(2)€the€movingÏparty€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2dÏ208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€bears€the€burden€ofÏdemonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€of€fact€exists.€€òòId.óó€atÏ210.€€In€òòByrdóó,€the€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€thenÏdemonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€thereÍis€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€thisÏregard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannotÏsimply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecificÏfactsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÏfor€trial.€€ððIf€he€does€not€so€respond,€summary€judgment€€.€.€.Ïshall€be€entered€against€him.ððÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€211€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àA€party€may€also€move€for€summary€judgment€demonstrating€thatÏthe€opposing€party€will€not€be€able€to€produce€sufficient€evidence€at€trialÏto€withstand€a€motion€for€directed€verdict.€€If,€after€a€sufficient€time€forÏdiscovery€has€elapsed,€the€nonmoving€party€is€unable€to€demonstrate€thatÏhe€or€she€can€indeed€do€so,€summary€judgment€is€appropriate.€€òòId.óó€at€213Ï(citing€òòCelotex€Corp.€v.€Catrettóó,€106€S.€Ct.€2548,€2552€(1986)).ÌÌà àIn€taking€our€fresh€look€at€the€record€to€determine€whether€theÏevidence€supports€the€action€of€the€trial€court,€we€must€view€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€alsoÏdraw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòByrdóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€210„11.€€ÌÌà àUnder€the€law€of€this€state,€the€owner€or€operator€of€a€place€ofÏbusiness€owes€customers€a€dutyÌÌÓÓà8 àto€exercise€reasonable€care€to€keep€the€premises€in€aÏreasonably€safe€and€suitable€condition,€including€the€duty€ofÏremoving€or€warning€against€a€dangerous€condition€traceableÏto€persons€for€whom€the€proprietor€is€not€responsible€.€.€.€.€ifÏthe€circumstances€of€time€and€place€are€such€that€by€theÏexercise€of€reasonable€care€the€proprietor€should€have€becomeÏaware€of€such€condition.ÌÌÌÌòòSimmons€v.€Sears€Roebuck€&€Co.óó,€713€S.W.2d€640,€641€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€a€proprietor€must€maintain€the€premises€of€his€store€in€aÏreasonable€and€safe€condition,€he€is€not€an€insurer€of€a€customerððs€safety.€ÏBefore€an€owner€or€operator€of€premises€can€be€held€liable€for€negligenceÏin€allowing€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€to€exist,€it€must€be€shownÏthat€the€condition€(1)€has€been€created€by€the€owner,€operator€or€hisÏagent€or,€(2)€if€the€condition€was€created€by€someone€other€than€theÏowner€or€operator€or€his€agent,€there€must€be€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice€on€the€part€of€the€owner€or€operator€that€the€condition€existedÏprior€to€the€accident.€€òòJones€v.€Zayre,€Inc.óó€600€S.W.2d€730,€732€(Tenn.€App.Ï1980).€€If€liability€is€to€be€predicated€on€constructive€knowledge€by€aÍdefendant,€the€proof€must€show€the€dangerous€or€defective€conditionÏexisted€for€such€a€length€of€time€that€the€defendant€knew,€or€in€theÏexercise€of€ordinary€care€should€have€known,€of€its€existence.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àÔ€ÔIn€reviewing€this€record,€we€find€that€plaintiffs€were€unable€toÏestablish€that€plaintiff€Michelle€Durham€actually€fell€on€an€oil€spot€in€theÏparking€lot.€€Plaintiff€testified€in€her€deposition€that€at€the€time€she€fell,Ïshe€never€saw€an€oil€spot.€€She€testified€that€she€and€her€husband€saw€oilÏin€the€parking€lot€when€they€came€back€to€inspect€the€lot€a€week€after€theÏaccident.€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€two€employees€of€defendants€both€testified€in€theirÏdepositions€that€they€were€unaware€of€an€oil€spill€in€the€parking€lot€atÏthe€time€of€the€accident.€€Dorothy€Slaughter,€who€was€responsible€forÏsweeping€the€parking€lot,€€stated€that€she€had€just€finished€sweeping€theÏparking€lot€prior€to€plaintiffððs€fall.€€Slaughter€testified€that€there€was€noÏoil€on€the€parking€lot€at€that€time.€€Slaughter€testified€that€when€sheÏdoes€find€oil€on€the€pavement,€she€applies€an€absorbent€material€on€theÏspot€to€clean€it€up.€€Melinda€Turner,€who€had€worked€as€a€cashier€forÏdefendant€for€six€years,€testified€that€she€had€never€noticed€a€build€up€ofÍoil€on€the€parking€lot.€ÌÌà àThe€only€evidence€plaintiffs€submitted€in€response€to€defendantsððÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€was€the€affidavit€of€Faye€King,€a€frequentÏcustomer€of€defendantsðð€store.€€King€stated€that€she€had€observed€oilÏspots€in€defendantsðð€parking€lot€on€undisclosed€prior€occasions.€€However,ÏKingððs€affidavit€fails€to€comply€with€T.R.C.P.€56.05,€which€requires€thatÏthe€affiant€state€that€her€testimony€is€based€on€personal€knowledge.€ÏT.R.C.P.€56.05.€€Moreover,€Kingððs€affidavit€does€not€create€a€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact€concerning€defendantsðð€actual€or€constructive€knowledgeÏof€the€oil€spot€at€the€location€where€plaintiff€fell€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident.Ì€€Ìà àFrom€reading€this€record€in€its€entirety,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€there€was€oil€onÏthe€pavement€on€the€date€and€time€of€the€accident,€and€in€the€locationÏwhere€plaintiff€fell.€€Even€if€plaintiffs€could€have€established€theÏexistence€of€an€oil€spot,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€creating€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€as€to€how€long€the€spot€might€have€been€there€soÏas€to€charge€defendants€with€constructive€notice€of€an€oil€spot€in€theÍlocation€of€plaintiffððs€fall.€€Plaintiffsðð€proof€does€not€measure€up€to€theÏstandards€applicable€to€her€as€a€nonmoving€party€based€on€the€factsÏdefendants€presented€in€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€affirmed.€€Costs€inÏthis€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€plaintiffs,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ô€ÔÌÌÓÓÏà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€LILLARD,€J.