ÿWPC#  …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµ 0Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , †; Á 0DÉ 0J 0TW 0^« 0h  0rq 0|ã 0†_ 0å 1uu 0dêN mP BgU>„B)ÂDCë AM. D3{U*®,Ø 0@&DÃjv~-vÓ« AO~ÆÍ 0D“ D/× B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2fÞ$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X5tX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ()D*+D,-D.+/0Ó€:DÒ 3|x:Hepp v. Joe B's - opinion Í6 ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€&¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌMay€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€&¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€&XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòBowman€v.€¢Henard£,óó€547€¢S.W.2d£€527,€530€(Tenn.€1977).Ì ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€&¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€&XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€court€now€discourages€the€use€of€summary€judgments€in€only€workersððÏcompensation€cases.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€at€210€n.1;€òòBerry€v.€Consolidated€¢Sys£.,€Inc.,óóÏ804€¢S.W.2d£€445,€446€(Tenn.€1991).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÔ€&¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ß¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àÔ€&„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€),(A1-j|aÿ4` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÔ€&¼ÔÌÌÌó óDAWNE€HEPP,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMontgomery€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€C10„324ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9604„CV„00183ÌJOE€BððS,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee,à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€CLARKSVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€E.€WALTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌFrank€J.€Runyonà àà àà àà àà àà àPatrick€J.€McHaleÌClarksville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àBrentwood,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€&„Ôò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€&¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÓ€ÓÔ€&„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€&¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€a€customer€of€a€sports€bar€who€was€injured€œas€aÏresult€of€a€fight€between›€other€customers.€€The€customer€filed€suit€in€theÏCircuit€Court€œfor›€Montgomery€County€against€the€sports€bar€and€the€customerÏwho€provoked€the€œfight.›€€The€trial€court€granted€a€summary€judgmentÏdismissing€the€claims€against€the€sports€bar,€and€the€customer€appealed€to€thisÏcourt.€€We€have€determined€that€the€summary€judgment€was€proper€and,Ïtherefore,€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€customerððs€claims€against€the€sports€bar.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà à¢Dawne£€¢Hepp£€worked€as€œa€barber›€at€Fort€Campbell.€€On€November€4,Ï1993,€she€joined€two€of€her€customers€for€a€night€of€socializing€in€Clarksville.€ÏAs€the€evening€wore€on,€they€decided€to€go€to€Joe€Bððs,€a€sports€bar€and€nightÏclub,€to€play€pool.€€Ms.€¢Hepp£€had€patronized€Joe€Bððs€enough€to€enable€theÏowner€to€recognize€her.€€There€were€approximately€two€hundred€otherÏcustomers€in€the€establishment€when€Ms.€¢Hepp£€and€her€companions€arrived€atÏapproximately€11:30€p.m.€ÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€took€a€seat€at€a€table€in€the€bar€area€when€she€first€arrived.ÏShe€was€alone€because€one€of€her€companions€had€gone€to€the€bar,€while€theÏother€had€gone€to€the€restroom.€€She€had€been€seated€only€a€short€time€whenÏshe€heard€someone€behind€her€yell€ð ðJust€let€it€go.ðð€€As€Ms.€¢Hepp£€turned€to€seeÏwhat€was€happening,€she€noticed€another€customer€trying€to€tell€her€somethingÏbut€could€not€hear€what€the€customer€was€saying€because€of€the€loud€musicÍplaying€in€the€bar.€€At€that€moment,€she€heard€the€sound€of€a€smack,€and€sheÏwas€struck€from€behind.€€Ms.€¢Hepp£€fell€from€her€stool€and€was€pinned€on€theÏfloor€underneath€œtwo›€fighting€patrons.€€When€someone€pulled€her€away€fromÏthe€fight,€she€realized€that€her€ankle€had€been€severely€lacerated.€€ÌÌà àJoe€Bððs€management€broke€up€the€fight€and€called€for€the€police€andÏmedical€assistance.€€Other€customers€who€were€infantry€medics€carried€Ms.Ï¢Hepp£€to€a€room€near€the€kitchen€where€they€applied€a€tourniquet€to€stop€theÏbleeding€and€performed€other€first€aid.€€Ms.€¢Hepp£€and€one€other€customerÏwere€transported€by€ambulance€to€the€hospital.ÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€later€moved€to€Tampa,€Florida€to€work€as€a€barber€at€¢McDill£ÏAir€Force€Base.€€In€October€1994,€she€filed€a€negligence€action€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Montgomery€County€against€Joe€Bððs€and€Dennis€Schultz,€theÏcustomer€who€had€allegedly€provoked€the€fight€that€caused€her€injury.€€SheÏalleged€that€Joe€Bððs€ð ðhad€a€duty€to€provide€sufficient€protection€to€the€patrons€.Ï.€.€so€that€they€would€not€be€harmedðð€and€that€Joe€Bððs€œð ðknew›€or€should€haveÏknown€that€things€were€getting€out€of€hand€because€the€manager€.€.€.€knew€thatÏthere€had€been€fights€and€disturbances€at€the€place€related€to€excessiveÏdrinking.ðð€€ÌÌà àAfter€Ms.€¢Hepp£€and€Joseph€Michael€¢Balthrop£,€the€owner€of€Joe€Bððs,Ïwere€deposed,€Joe€Bððs€moved€for€a€summary€judgment€relying€on€the€holdingÏin€òò¢Cornpropst£€v.€Sloan,óó€528€¢S.W.2d£€188,€198€(Tenn.€1975)€that€propertyÏowners€were€generally€not€liable€for€the€criminal€acts€of€third€parties.€€Joe€BððsÏalso€asserted€that€the€undisputed€evidence€demonstrated€that€it€had€takenÍadequate€precautions€to€protect€its€customers€from€reasonably€anticipatedÏharm.€€The€trial€court€filed€its€opinion€on€January€16,€1996,€granting€theÏsummary€judgment€because€ð ð[¢t]here£€is€no€evidence€to€suggest€that€theÏDefendantððs€employees€knew€or€should€have€known€that€the€Plaintiff€wasÏlikely€to€be€injured.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€JanuaryÏ26,€1996,€dismissing€Ms.€¢Hepp£ððs€claims€against€Joe€Bððs€and€certifying€theÏorder€as€a€final€judgment€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€€Ms.Ï¢Hepp£€then€perfected€this€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àAt€the€outset,€we€will€address€two€issues€concerning€the€use€of€summaryÏjudgment€in€this€case.€€Ms.€¢Hepp£€asserts€first€that€summary€judgments€are€notÏappropriate€in€negligence€cases,€especially€in€cases€requiring€an€inquiry€intoÏthe€defendantððs€state€of€mind.€€Second,€she€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏconstrue€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€her.€€We€find€that€Ms.Ï¢Hepp£ððs€view€of€the€utility€of€summary€judgments€is€unduly€narrow€and€thatÏher€opinion€of€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€considered€the€evidenceÏsupporting€and€opposing€the€summary€judgment€is€incorrect.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€asserts€that€summary€judgments€should€not€be€used€inÏnegligence€cases€and,€more€specifically,€that€they€should€not€be€used€when€theÏdefendantððs€state€of€mind€may€be€a€pivotal€issue.€€Her€general€objectionsÏreflect€an€earlier€reluctance€to€use€summary€judgments€to€dispose€ofÍnegligence€cases× ƒ. ××  ×€that€has€now€given€way€to€a€clear€judicial€policy€endorsingÏthe€use€of€summary€judgments€in€virtually€any€civil€case€that€can€be€resolvedÏon€legal€issues€alone.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).¢× ƒ/ ××  ×£€ÏAccordingly,€the€mere€fact€that€Ms.€œ¢Hepp€has€asserted€negligence€claimsÏagainst€Joe€Bððs€is€not€grounds€for€ruling€out€the€use€of€a€summary€judgment€ifÏall€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.ÌÌ€€à àIn€addition€to€her€general€objection,€Ms.€¢Hepp£€also€insists€that€summaryÏjudgments€should€not€be€used€in€cases€that€require€an€inquiry€into€theÏdefendantððs€state€of€mind.€€Citing€a€well„known€treatise,€she€argues€thatÏsummary€judgments€should€not€be€used€to€resolve€issues€requiring€an€inquiryÏinto€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€and€that€determining€whether€a€defendantÏknew€or€should€have€known€that€its€property€presented€some€danger€is€aÏð ðstate„of„mindðð€issue.€€Charles€A.€Wright,€et€al.€òòFederal€Practice€andÏProcedureóó€ðð€2729,€at€228„232€(2d€ed.€1983).€€The€reluctance€about€summaryÏjudgments€in€this€circumstance€stems€from€a€recognition€that€the€witnessesððÏcredibility€is€often€a€controlling€factor€in€cases€where€state€of€mind€isÏinvolved,€Charles€A.€Wright,€et.€al.,€òòFederal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€2730,Ïat€237€(2d€ed.€1983),€and€that€summary€judgments€should€not€be€used€to€makeÏcredibility€determinations.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€¢S.W.2d£€at€212;€òò¢McDowell£€v.ÏMoore,óó€863€¢S.W.2d£€418,€421€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àThe€facts€surrounding€Joe€Bððs€security€precautions€and€the€incidentÏcausing€Ms.€¢Hepp£ððs€injury€were€explored€fully€during€the€depositions€of€Mr.Ï¢Balthrop£€and€Ms.€¢Hepp£.€€Mr.€¢Balthrop£€stated€that€he€had€been€operating€JoeÏBððs€for€eight€years€and€that€there€had€been€six€or€seven€incidents€requiringÏpolice€intervention€during€that€time.€€He€testified€that€thirteen€to€fifteenÏemployees€were€on€duty€at€any€one€time€and€that€the€four€full„timeÏmanagement€employees€were€responsible€for€security.€€He€also€testified€thatÏthe€management€employees€met€regularly€to€discuss€security€issues€and€thatÏthey€had€a€standard€procedure€for€managing€disturbances€among€customers.€ÏIn€addition,€Mr.€¢Balthrop£€stated€in€an€affidavit€that€his€employees€did€notÏserve€customers€who€appeared€to€be€intoxicated€and€that€they€asked€customersÏwho€got€into€fights€to€leave.€€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€concerning€the€events€on€the€evening€of€November€4,Ï1993,€was€likewise€straightforward.€€Mr.€¢Balthrop£€stated€that€he€and€hisÏemployees€had€no€reason€to€suspect€that€Mr.€Schultz€would€provoke€anÏaltercation€and€that€they€stopped€the€fight€as€quickly€as€they€could.€Ms.€¢Hepp£Ïoffered€no€evidence€to€contradict€Mr.€¢Balthrop£€and€provided€little€otherÏspecific€information.€€She€did€not€know€how€the€altercation€started€or€howÏlong€it€lasted.€€She€did€not€know€how€long€Mr.€Schultz€had€been€at€Joe€Bððs€orÏwhether€he€had€been€drinking.€€She€could€not€describe€how€or€when€theÏemployees€broke€up€the€fight.€€She€stated€only€that€a€customer€pulled€her€awayÏfrom€the€fight€and€that€two€other€customers€administered€first€aid€before€theÏambulance€arrived.€€€Mr.€¢Balthrop£€explained€that€he€permitted€the€customersÏto€administer€first€aid€to€Ms.€¢Hepp£€because€they€were€better€trained€than€hisÏemployees.ÌÌà àThe€credibility€concerns€that€warrant€denying€a€summary€judgmentÏmust€raise€to€a€level€higher€than€normal€credibility€questions€that€ariseÏwhenever€a€witness€testifies.€€Any€other€rule€would€essentially€prevent€theÏcourts€from€granting€a€summary€judgment€in€any€case.€€Thus,€this€court€hasÏfound€that€credibility€concerns€preclude€granting€a€summary€judgment€inÏcases€where€a€witnessððs€credibility€has€been€specifically€challenged,€òòKnapp€v.ÏHoliday€Inns,€Inc.,óó€682€¢S.W.2d£€936,€943€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€or€where€theÏrecord€contained€clear€evidence€of€a€witnessððs€lack€of€credibility.€€òòBurgess€v.ÏHarley,óó€934€¢S.W.2d£€58,€68€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(witness€giving€inconsistentÏstatements).€ÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€did€not€challenge€Mr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€credibility€in€the€trial€court.€ÏMr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€deposition€and€affidavit€are€consistent,€and€we€find€nothingÏelse€in€the€record€to€provoke€heightened€concerns€about€his€credibility.€€Thus,Ïfor€the€purpose€of€this€proceeding,€Mr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€description€of€Joe€BððsÏsecurity€arrangements€stands€undisputed€as€does€his€statement€that€neither€heÏnor€his€employees€had€any€reason€to€suspect€that€Mr.€Schultz€would€cause€anÏaltercation€on€the€evening€of€November€4,€1993.€€Deciding€whether€Joe€BððsÏsecurity€arrangements€are€objectively€adequate€does€not€require€an€inquiryÏinto€Mr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€credibility.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€ó óÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€consider€theÏevidence€offered€to€support€and€to€oppose€the€summary€judgment.€€SummaryÍjudgments€are€not€substitutes€for€trials€of€disputed€factual€issues.€òòBlocker€v.ÏRegional€Medical€Ctr.,óó€722€¢S.W.2d£€660,€660„61€(Tenn.€1987).€€WhenÏconsidering€a€summary€judgment,€the€courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€factualÏinferences€in€the€non„moving€partyððs€favor.€€òòMike€v.€Po€Group,€Inc.,óó€937Ï¢S.W.2d£€790,€792€(Tenn.€1996);€òò¢Pittman£€v.€Upjohn€Co.,óó€890€¢S.W.2d£€425,€428Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€The€courts€should€grant€a€summary€judgment€when€theÏundisputed€facts€reasonably€support€only€one€conclusion.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilder,óóÏ913€¢S.W.2d£€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995);€òò¢Carvell£€v.€Bottoms,óó€900€¢S.W.2d£€23,€26Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àThe€fact€that€the€outcome€of€a€summary€judgment€proceeding€is€not€to€aÏpartyððs€liking€does€not€necessarily€mean€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properlyÏconsider€the€evidence.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€viewed€theÏevidence€and€drew€all€the€reasonable€inferences€in€Ms.€¢Hepp£ððs€favor.€€The€trialÏcourt€even€stated€in€its€opinion€that€it€was€taking€Ms.€¢Hepp£ððs€depositionÏtestimony€as€true.€€€Many€of€the€inferences€Ms.€¢Hepp£€argues€that€the€courtÏshould€have€made€are€either€not€reasonable€or€are€not€supported€by€competentÏevidence.€Accordingly,€we€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€support€the€claim€thatÏthe€trial€court€employed€an€incorrect€standard€of€review.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£ððs€principal€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€misapprehended€theÏduty€Joe€Bððs€owed€to€its€customers€and€accordingly€erred€by€determining€thatÏJoe€Bððs€was€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€She€asserts€that€Joe€BððsÍshould€be€considered€an€insurer€of€its€customersðð€safety€because€of€its€loudÏmusic€and€its€ð ðhistory€of€alcohol€related€violence.ðð€€Notwithstanding€theÏheightened€liability€for€criminal€acts€of€third€parties€that€businesses€now€have,Ïwe€have€determined€the€trial€courtððs€analysis€was€essentially€correct.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àWhen€Ms.€¢Hepp£€filed€suit€against€Joe€Bððs,€businesses€did€not€have€a€dutyÏto€protect€their€customers€from€the€criminal€acts€of€third€parties€unless€theyÏknew€or€should€have€known€that€the€acts€were€occurring€or€were€imminent.€Ïòò¢Cornpropst£€v.€Sloan,óó€528€¢S.W.2d£€at€198.€€Accordingly,€one€of€the€grounds€ofÏJoe€Bððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€that€it€did€not€have€a€duty€toÏprotect€Ms.€¢Hepp£€because€it€was€undisputed€that€no€one€employed€by€Joe€BððsÏknew€or€had€reason€to€know€that€Mr.€Schultz€would€precipitate€a€fight.€€Ms.Ï¢Hepp£€responded€to€this€defense€by€attempting€to€distinguish€the€òò¢Cornpropst£€v.ÏSloanóó€decision€and€by€insisting€that€Joe€Bððs€owed€its€customers€a€higher€dutyÏof€care.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€decision€was€not€premised€on€the€duty€Joe€Bððs€owed€toÏMs.€¢Hepp£€but€rather€on€the€question€of€notice.€€The€trial€court€reasoned€thatÏJoe€Bððs€could€be€liable€for€the€ð ðsudden€criminal€acts€of€third€personsðð€if€itÏð ðwas€on€notice€in€some€manner€of€the€imminent€probability€of€harm€to€theÏPlaintiff.ðð€€It€also€reasoned€that€notice€could€be€provided€in€several€ways,Ïincluding€a€ð ðpast€history€of€such€activities€to€the€extent€that€the€owner€wouldÏbe€on€notice€that€history€was€Ñ d ÑÑ t Ñlikely€to€repeat€itselfðð€or€ð ða€heated€argumentÏover€sufficient€time€for€the€owner€to€intervene.ðð€€Employing€these€standardsÏand€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Ms.€¢Hepp£,€the€trialÍcourt€concluded€that€ð ð[¢t]here£€is€no€evidence€to€suggest€that€the€DefendantððsÏemployees€knew€or€should€have€known€that€the€Plaintiff€was€likely€to€beÏinjured.ðð€€ÌÌà àAfter€this€case€was€appealed,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€departedÏfrom€its€holding€in€òò¢Cornpropst£€v.€Sloanóó€and€expanded€the€liability€of€businessÏestablishments€to€their€customers€for€the€criminal€acts€of€third€personsÏcommitted€on€the€business€premises.€€Embracing€the€rule€in€RestatementÏ(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€344€(1965),€the€court€ð ðimpose[d]€a€duty€upon€businesses€toÏtake€reasonable€measures€to€protect€their€customers€from€foreseeable€criminalÏattacks.ðð€€òò¢McClung£€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnershipóó,€937€¢S.W.2d£€891,€899Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€In€the€courtððs€view,€an€attack€is€foreseeable€if€similar€acts€haveÏoccurred,€within€a€proximate€time€frame,€ð ðon€or€in€the€immediate€vicinity€ofððÏthe€business€premises.€€òò¢McClung£€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnership,óó€937€¢S.W.2d£Ïat€902.€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€the€court€redefined€a€businessððs€duty€to€protect€its€customersÏfrom€the€criminal€acts€of€third€parties€using€what€it€called€a€ð ðbalancingÏapproach.ðð€€The€court€explained:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€business€ordinarily€has€no€duty€to€protectÏcustomers€from€the€criminal€acts€of€third€partiesÏwhich€occur€on€its€premises.€€The€business€is€not€toÏbe€regarded€as€the€insurer€of€the€safety€of€itsÏcustomers,€and€it€has€no€absolute€duty€to€implementÏsecurity€measures€for€the€protection€of€its€customers.€ÏHowever,€a€duty€to€take€reasonable€steps€to€protectÏcustomers€arises€if€the€business€knows,€or€has€reasonÏto€know,€either€from€what€has€been€or€should€haveÏbeen€observed€or€from€past€experience,€that€criminalÏacts€against€its€customers€on€its€premises€areÍreasonably€foreseeable,€either€generally€or€at€someÏparticular€time.ÌÌÓ€Óòò¢McClung£€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnership,óó€937€¢S.W.2d£€at€902.€€ConsistentÏwith€the€trend€of€its€more€recent€decisions,€the€court€also€held€that€the€scopeÏof€the€businessððs€duty€was€directly€related€to€the€magnitude€of€the€foreseeableÏharm€to€its€customers.€€òò¢McClung£€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnership,óó€937Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€902.€€Ñ Ü ÑÑ ° ÑThese€new€principles€must€guide€our€decision€in€this€case€evenÏthough€òò¢McClung£óó€had€not€been€decided€when€the€trial€court€granted€Joe€BððsÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€€Ìà@ àò òB.ó ó€€ÌÌà àWhile€businesses€in€Tennessee€are€not€insurers€of€their€customersððÏsafety,€they€have€the€duty€to€protect€their€customers€from€known€orÏreasonably€anticipated€dangers€on€their€premises.€€òòMcCormick€v.€Waters,óó€594Ï¢S.W.2d£€385,€387€(Tenn.€1980);€òòDawson€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€&€Co.,óó€217€Tenn.Ï72,€78,€394€¢S.W.2d£€877,€880€(1965).€€Until€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtððsÏòò¢McClung£óó€decision,€a€business€had€a€duty€to€protect€its€customers€only€fromÏspecific€criminal€acts€that€the€business€knew€or€should€have€known€wereÏoccurring€or€were€about€to€occur.€€òò¢Cornpropst£€v.€Sloan,óó€528€¢S.W.2d£€at€198.€ÏThe€òò¢McClung£óó€decision€broadened€a€businessððs€duty€to€include€protecting€itsÏcustomers€from€criminal€acts€that€could,€with€reasonable€¢foreseeability£,€occurÏon€its€premises.€€òò¢McClung£€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnership,óó€937€¢S.W.2d£€atÏ902.€ÌÌà àWhile€we€have€never€been€called€upon€to€articulate€the€duty€ofÏbusinesses€similar€to€Joe€Bððs,€courts€in€other€jurisdictions€have€imposed€theÍsame€general€duty€on€these€businesses€that€they€impose€on€businesses€inÏgeneral.€€Accordingly,€businesses€that€serve€alcoholic€beverages€are€notÏinsurers€of€their€customersðð€safety.€€òòHoliday€Inns,€Inc.€v.€Shelburne,óó€576€So.2dÏ322,€325€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòDavis€v.€¢Allhands£,óó€643€¢N.E.2d£€856,€862Ï(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòGunter€v.€Village€Pub,óó€606€¢N.E.2d£€1310,€1312€(Ind.€Ct.ÏApp.€1993);€òò¢Zueger£€v.€Carlson,óó€542€¢N.W.2d£€92,€96€(N.D.€1996).€€They€have€aÏduty,€however,€to€exercise€reasonable€care€to€protect€their€patrons€fromÏinjury€at€the€hands€of€other€customers.€€òò¢Saatzer£€v.€Smith,€óó176€Cal.€¢Rptr£.€68,Ï71€(Ct.€App.€1981);€òò¢Kimple£€v.€Foster,óó€469€P.2d€281,€284€(¢Kan£.€1970);Ïòò¢Mettling£€v.€Mulligan,óó€225€¢N.W.2d£€825,€827„28€(Minn.€1975);€òòSilver€v.ÏSheraton„¢Smithtown£€Inn,óó€504€¢N.Y.S.2d£€56,€57€(App.€Div.€1986).€€Thus,Ïliability€can€arise€when€the€business€(1)€allows€a€person€on€the€premises€with€aÏknown€propensity€for€fighting,€(2)€allows€a€person€to€remain€on€the€premisesÏwhose€conduct€has€become€obstreperous€and€aggressive€enough€to€be€a€dangerÏto€other€customer,€(3)€fails€to€take€suitable€precautionary€measures€after€beingÏwarned€of€danger€from€an€obstreperous€person,€(4)€fails€to€stop€a€fight€asÏsoon€as€possible€after€it€starts,€(5)€fails€to€provide€a€staff€adequate€to€police€theÏpremises,€or€(6)€tolerates€disorderly€conditions.€€òò¢Saatzer£€v.€Smith,óó€176€Cal.Ï¢Rptr£.€at€71„72;€òòSchneider€v.€Nectarine€Ballroom,€Inc.,€óó514€¢N.W.2d£€486,€487Ï(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òò¢Nevin£€v.€¢Carlasco£óó,€365€P.2d€637,€638€(Mont.€1961).ÌÌà àThese€principles€relating€to€the€duty€businesses€that€serve€alcoholicÏbeverages€have€to€their€customers€are€consistent€with€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourtððs€expanded€view€of€a€businessððs€liability€for€criminal€acts€occurring€onÏits€premises.€€They€take€into€consideration€both€the€specific€acts€of€particularÏcustomers€and€the€reasonably€foreseeable€disorderly€conduct€by€third€personsÍin€general€that€might€endanger€other€customers.€€Accordingly,€we€will€applyÏthese€principles€to€determine€whether€Joe€Bððs€is€entitled€to€a€judgmentÏdismissing€Ms.€¢Hepp£ððs€claims€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€has€not€claimed€that€Mr.€Schultz€had€a€known€propensity€forÏfighting€or€that€Joe€Bððs€negligently€allowed€Mr.€Schultz€to€patronize€the€bar.€ÏHer€complaint€asserts€three€negligence€claims€against€Joe€Bððs:€€first,€that€JoeÏBððs€employees€failed€to€stop€the€fight€as€quickly€as€possible;€second,€that€JoeÏBððs€tolerated€disorderly€premises€by€playing€loud€music;€and€third,€that€JoeÏBððs€failed€to€provide€adequate€staff€to€maintain€order.€€Ms.€¢Hepp£€has€notÏdemonstrated€that€she€will€be€able€to€present€competent,€admissible€proof€toÏsubstantiate€any€of€these€claims€at€trial.€ÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£€has€offered€no€evidence€concerning€the€fight€that€caused€herÏinjury.€€The€only€evidence€on€this€matter€is€Mr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€testimony€that€heÏand€his€employees€stopped€the€fight€as€quickly€as€they€could.€€In€the€absence€ofÏevidence€to€the€contrary,€the€only€conclusion€that€a€reasonable€person€couldÏdraw€is€that€the€employees€of€Joe€Bððs€stopped€the€fight€as€quickly€as€they€couldÏand,€therefore,€that€they€were€not€negligent.ÌÌà àWe€need€not€tarry€long€with€Ms.€¢Hepp£ððs€claim€that€Joe€Bððs€somehowÏbreached€its€duty€to€its€customers€by€playing€loud€music.€€Persons€patronizeÏsports€bars€and€night€clubs€for€their€ambiance€which€includes€crowds,€loudÏmusic,€and€the€¢availability£€of€alcoholic€beverages.€€Based€on€the€present€stateÍof€the€evidence,€a€jury€would€be€required€to€speculate€that€the€music€somehowÏprecipitated€the€fight€or€interfered€with€the€employeeððs€ability€to€stop€theÏfight.€€Verdicts€cannot€be€based€on€speculation€and€conjecture.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€only€conclusion€that€a€reasonable€person€could€draw€from€the€presentÏevidence€is€that€Joe€Bððs€was€not€negligent€by€playing€loud€music.ÌÌà àMs.€¢Hepp£ððs€final€theory€is€that€Joe€Bððs€was€negligent€because€it€failed€toÏprovide€adequate€staff€to€maintain€order.€€While€Joe€Bððs€is€not€an€insurer€of€itsÏcustomersðð€safety,€it€has€a€duty€to€take€reasonable€precautions€to€protect€themÏfrom€injury€arising€from€reasonably€anticipated€causes.€€The€nature€and€extentÏof€these€precautions€depends€on€its€past€experience€and€the€magnitude€of€theÏreasonably€foreseeable€harm.€€Thus,€the€pivotal€issue€is€whether€Joe€Bððs€tookÏadequate€precautions€to€protect€its€customers€in€light€of€its€prior€experienceÏwith€disorderly€conduct€on€its€premises.ÌÌà àThe€only€competent€evidence€concerning€Joe€Bððs€prior€experience€withÏdisorderly€patrons€and€with€its€security€measures€is€Mr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€depositionÏand€affidavit.€€Ms.€¢Hepp£€offered€a€two„sentence€affidavit€from€Tony€Macias,Ïanother€Joe€Bððs€customer£.€€The€trial€court€properly€disregarded€Mr.€¢Macias£ððsÏaffidavit€because€it€does€not€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05.€€It€isÏirrelevant€because€it€describes€an€event€that€occurred€sixteen€months€after€Ms.Ï¢Hepp£ððs€injury€and€because€the€event€is€entirely€dissimilar€to€the€event€involvedÏin€this€case.€€In€addition,€the€affidavit€provides€no€basis€for€concluding€thatÏMr.€¢Macias£€is€competent€to€testify€concerning€the€adequacy€of€Joe€Bððs€securityÏprecautions.€€ÌÌ›à àMr.€¢Balthrop£€stated€that€Joe€Bððs€employees€did€not€serve€alcoholicÏbeverages€to€customers€who€were€visibly€intoxicated€and€that€they€did€notÏœpermit›€customers€who€engaged€in€fights€to€remain€on€the€premises.€€He€alsoÏexplained€that€Joe€Bððs€had€a€security€plan,€that€four€management€personnelÏwere€responsible€for€security€on€each€shift,€and€that€these€personnel€receivedÏtraining€and€conducted€meetings€to€discuss€the€security€arrangements.€€TheÏonly€reasonable€conclusion€to€be€drawn€from€Mr.€¢Balthrop£ððs€uncontradictedÏtestimony€concerning€the€incidents€of€disorderly€conduct€at€Joe€Bððs€is€that€JoeÏBððs€had€œtaken›€adequate€precautions€to€protect€its€customers€from€theÏdisorderly€conduct€of€other€customers.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€summary€judgment€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€tax€the€œcosts›€of€thisÏappeal€to€¢Dawne£€¢Hepp£€and€her€surety€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€mayÏissue.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌœSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€›ÌÌÌœ________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE›