ÿWPCƒ  àeµNÉÓUê£nÒ[+âma<›˘c…XK2œÅ5ëºæÎtƒä¸{ìvO]ïeZ%mHR§©±+b¬˜@<þùËÒ#øàER¨(Ö¸vzXzƒ'3 „+¡¦çùJ|Ö¼’ò{çL‚>­´J ýË…ºè¡˜Xy<Á"ʧ7«à£5ÐNí‚›¶'g~0¸h†ÔSÍg¿jñI¬’|I88ÇN{byuÄLÉÏBÎGCPæMŠcGžÃÛBôšÒ¡w‰A.à9ªï~[G¦x° ǧ¥8a#!NU:o %© 0(¯b ×wã4çû N ^   m" 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 AQP Æ¡ 0Dg 0D« 0Dï ï D33 Bf ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -{Z='3|xÍ!' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ XXÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X?ìX ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAYÔó óZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó````'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€?ìXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼†f»XXÔÓ  Óßv€Y_@0,j:`  `€€@ÿEô ` 8ttxP,ð  vßÔ_Ôà@ êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ŸŸ(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€X?ìX»¼†fԈР ÐÌÌÌÌGREI€S.€HINSEN,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð È À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ”Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð zr  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9811„CH„00583Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ F>  ÐMARK€E.€MEADORS,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€Chanceryà H! àà  # àÐ ,$  ÐIndividually€and€d/b/a€MEMà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€97„4080„IIà ð àÐ   ÐCONTRACTORS,€and€HAILEYà 8 àà  à)Ð øð  ÐBROWN,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ÞÖ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð ª¢ ÐÌÌà@U U êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@#êàAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@8 8 êàTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€L.€MCCOY,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌÌÌPHILLIP€BYRON€JONESÌ1810€First€Union€TowerÌ150€Fourth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌSTEPHEN€M.€MILLERÌ1103€B€17th€Avenue€SouthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37212Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Mark€E.€MeadorsÌÌW.€GARY€BLACKBURNÌ414€Union€Street,€Suite€2050ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Hailey€BrownÌÌÌÌà@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÓÓò òÔ€„¼„XX?ìÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€X?ìX„„¼ÔˆÐ š:’39 Їà Ø àà 0 àThis€is€an€action€by€a€homeowner€against€a€remodeling€contractor€andÏa€painter€for€the€failure€of€the€paint€inside€the€house.€€The€Chancery€Court€ofÐ ÔÌ ÐDavidson€County€dismissed€the€homeownerððs€claims.€€We€affirm.Ð   ˜ ÐÌÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ ü  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àGrei€S.€Hinsen,€an€interior€designer,€bought€a€1960's€ranch€home€inÐ ¨   ÐForest€Hills€in€the€fall€of€1995.€€He€had€plans€to€renovate€the€home€and€he€relayedÐ tl Ðthese€plans€to€Mark€E.€Meadors,€a€home€improvement€contractor.€€Mr.€Meadors€madeÐ @8 Ðan€estimate€for€the€changes,€and€Mr.€Hinsen€hired€him€to€supervise€the€work.€€Mr.Ð   ÐMeadors€secured€the€labor€and€materials€and€Mr.€Hinsen€paid€his€costs€plus€a€mark„Ð ØÐ Ðup€of€twenty€percent.€€Mr.€Meadors€agreed€that€all€work€done€under€his€control€andÐ ¤œ Ðsupervision€would€be€done€in€a€workmanlike€manner.Ð ph ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€interior€changes€required€the€removal€of€a€load„bearing€wall€and€theÐ " Ðinstallation€of€a€beam€to€help€support€the€roof.€€The€new€walls€had€to€be€taped,Ð Ô#Ì  Ðfinished,€sanded,€and€painted.€€Mr.€Meadors€hired€a€drywall€contractor.€€He€also€hiredÐ  %˜" Ða€painter.€€After€the€drywall€contractor€left€the€job€Mr.€Meadors€and€the€painter€noticedÐ l'd $ Ðsome€irregularities€in€the€work.€€Mr.€Meadors€himself€repaired€some€of€the€areasÐ 8)0"& Ðwhere€the€irregularities€appeared.€€On€other€areas€Mr.€Meadors€and€the€painter€choseÐ +ü#( Ðto€use€a€product€called€Sheetrock€Firstcoat€to€give€the€walls€an€even€appearance.Ð Ð,È%* ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€interior€work€took€place€in€the€winter.€€Mr.€Meadors€used€twoÐ h0`). Ðpropane€heaters€to€provide€heat€until€the€central€heating€unit€was€installed.€€DespiteÐ 42,+0 Ðthe€use€of€the€heaters,€the€evidence€is€in€conflict€as€to€whether€the€indoor€temperatureÐ 4ø,2 Ðever€reached€a€level€where€it€was€safe€to€apply€the€Firstcoat€or€the€paint.Ð Ì5Ä.4 Ðâ âÐ ˜706 Ðà Ø àà 0 àThere€were€three€parts€of€the€overall€work€that€the€owner€accomplishedÐ  Ðâ âon€his€own€without€Mr.€Meadorsðð€supervision.€€He€had€a€pool€installed€to€the€rear€ofÐ ÔÌ Ðthe€house;€he€had€the€exterior€landscaped€and€a€sprinkler€system€installed;€and€heÐ   ˜ Ðhad€a€metal€roof€placed€over€the€old€roof.€€When€the€weather€warmed€up,€it€becameÐ l d Ðobvious€that€the€air€conditioning€system€would€not€satisfactorily€cool€the€house€norÐ 80 Ðreduce€the€inside€humidity.€€In€installing€the€new€metal€roof€the€roofing€contractorÐ ü  Ðaltered€the€attic€ventilation€to€such€an€extent€that€the€attic€became€very€hot,€and€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðceiling€radiated€heat€into€the€interior€of€the€house.€€The€outside€sprinkler€system€alsoÐ œ”  Ðapparently€caused€water€to€run€into€the€crawl€space€under€the€house,€and€theÐ h` Ðlandscaing€work€covered€over€some€of€the€foundation€vents.Ð 4, ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€evidence€is€in€dispute€over€the€effect€of€the€new€roof€and€the€waterÐ ÌÄ Ðin€the€crawl€space€on€the€humidity€level€in€the€house€at€the€critical€time€after€the€paintÐ ˜ Ðwas€applied.€€It€is€undisputed,€however,€that€the€owner€had€Mr.€Meadors€install€anÐ d\ Ðexhaust€fan€and€eave€vents€in€the€attic€and€an€exhaust€fan€in€the€crawl€space.Ð 0 ( ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWithin€a€few€weeks€of€moving€into€the€home€the€owner€noticed€that€theÐ È#À  Ðpaint€had€cracked€above€some€of€the€light€switches.€€It€also€cracked€next€to€theÐ ”%Œ" Ðrecessed€light€fixtures€and€the€heating/air€conditioning€vents€in€the€ceiling.€€TheÐ `'X $ Ðproblem€became€progressively€worse.€€The€paint€peeled€in€some€places€and€crackedÐ ,)$"& Ðalong€the€baseboards€and€in€the€corners.€€In€other€places€ridges€formed€as€if€the€wallÐ ø*ð#( Ðhad€buckled€slightly.Ð Ä,¼%* ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€owner€sued€Mr.€Meadors€and€Mr.€Brown,€the€painter.€€TheÐ \0T). Ðcomplaint€contained€two€counts,€one€for€negligence€and€the€other€for€breach€ofÐ (2 +0 Ðcontract.€€At€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof€both€defendants€moved€for€dismissalÐ ô3ì,2 Ðpursuant€to€Rule€41.02,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€Proc.€€In€response€the€trial€judge€stated:Ð À5¸.4 ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðAs€I€have€reviewed€the€evidence€thus€far,€itÐ Œ7„06 Ðappears€that€the€plaintiff€has€at€least€presented€the€primaÐ r8j17 Ðfacia€[sic]€case€in€that€Mr.€Brown€was€employed,€andÐ X9P28 Ðprivity€is€not€essential€in€these€matters,€to€paint€the€house.€Ð >:639 ÐHe€had€the€duty€to€do€it€in€a€workman„like€fashion€and€toÐ  Ðuse€the€requisite€care€in€applying€the€paint.€€The€paint€didÐ îæ Ðnot€adhere.€€The€plaintiff€has€put€forth€several€theoriesÐ ÔÌ Ðand€presented€evidence€to€support€those€theories€that€heÐ º ² Ðsubmits€„„€demonstrates€there€has€been€a€breach€of€theÐ   ˜ Ðduty.€€Heððs€also€put€on€evidence€that€Mr.€Hinsen€hasÐ † ~ Ðincurred€expenses€to€repair€the€damage€by€virtue€of€thatÐ l d Ðbreach.ÐR J0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðThe€Court€makes€no€finding€at€the€time€„„€at€thisÐ   Ðtime€that€there€has€been€a€breach€or€that€the€damagesÐ ü  Ðare€attributable€to€the€work€done€by€Mr.€Brown,€but€merelyÐ êâ  Ðfinds€that€there€is€a€prima€facia€[sic]€case€that€has€beenÐ ÐÈ  Ðmade.ж® 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðWith€regards€to€Mr.€Meadors,€likewise€a€primaÐ ‚z  Ðfacia€[sic]€case€exists€on€the€tort€claim.€Ðh`0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à*à à à*à 8 à*Ð 4, ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðWhile€Mr.€Hinsen€has€alleged€a€claim€for€breachÐ ø Ðof€contract€cause€of€action,€has€as€a€factual€basisÐ æÞ Ðdamage€to€property,€that€is,€defective€or€poorÐ ÌÄ Ðworkmanship,€failure€to€abide€by€the€duty€to€perform€in€aÐ ²ª Ðworkman„like€fashion,€which€means€that€the€gravamen€ofÐ ˜ Ðthe€complaint€is€damaged€property€which€sounds€in€tortÐ ~v Ðas€opposed€to€contract.Ðd\0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à*à à à*à 8 à*Ð 0 ( ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðMy€Court€primarily€deals€with€breach€of€contracts,Ð ü!ô Ðand€what€I€have€been€presented€with€is€essentially€a€tortÐ â"Ú Ðclaim:€failure€to€perform€the€work€in€a€workman„likeÐ È#À  Ðfashion.€€Yet€it€constitutes€a€breach€of€a€contract,€but€it€isÐ ®$¦! Ða€tort€action€that€is€being€pursued.Д%Œ"0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à*à à à*à 8 à*Ð `'X $ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðI€respectfully€deny€the€motion€for€an€involuntaryÐ ,)$"& Ðdismissal.ððÐ* #'0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àAt€the€close€of€all€the€proof,€the€court€said:Ð ª-¢&+ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðI€cannot€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ v/n(- Ðwhat€caused€the€problem.€€And€in€that€regard,€I€mustÐ \0T). Ðdecline€to€find€liability€on€the€part€of€Mr.€Meadors€or€Mr.Ð B1:*/ ÐBrown€by€virtue€of€their€negligence.ððÐ(2 +00 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà@––-êàò òII.ó óˆÐ À5¸.4 Ðâ âÐ ˜706 Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€homeowner€argues€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€dismissing€the€claim,Ð  Ðâ âafter€finding€that€he€had€presented€a€prima€facie€case€of€liability.€€That€finding€cameÐ ÔÌ Ðat€the€end€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof€when€the€chancellor€responded€to€the€defendantsððÐ   ˜ ÐRule€41.02,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€Proc.€motion€to€dismiss.€€The€chancellor€also€stated€thatÐ l d Ðð ðthe€Court€makes€no€finding€at€the€time€„„€at€this€time€that€there€has€been€a€breach€orÐ 80 Ðthat€the€damages€are€attributable€to€the€work€done€by€Mr.€Brown,€but€merely€finds€thatÐ ü  Ðthere€is€a€prima€facia€[sic]€case€that€has€been€made.ðð€€At€the€end€of€all€the€proof,€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðchancellor€dismissed€the€claim.Ð œ”  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àTo€find€that€the€chancellor€erred€we€would€have€to€conclude€that€thereÐ 4, Ðwas€nothing€in€the€defendantsðð€proof€to€refute€the€plaintiffððs€case.€€Having€reviewed€theÐ ø Ðproof€we€cannot€come€to€that€conclusion.€€In€view€of€all€the€evidence,€we€concludeÐ ÌÄ Ðthat€the€defendantsðð€proof€introduced€enough€doubt€about€the€cause€of€the€paintÐ ˜ Ðfailure€that€the€chancellor€could€easily€have€been€moved€from€a€point€on€the€plaintiffððsÐ d\ Ðside€of€the€balance€to€a€point€of€doubt€about€the€cause€of€the€failure.Ð 0 ( ÐÌà@zz,êàò òIII.ˆÐ È#À  Ðà@GG'êàa.€€Negligenceó óˆÐ  %˜" ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€homeowner€argues€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€the€trial€canÐ D)<"& Ðrationally€support€only€one€conclusion:€that€the€actions€and€omissions€of€theÐ +$( Ðdefendants€caused€the€paint€to€fail.€€On€that€point€Mr.€Hinsen€called€an€expert,€aÐ Ü,Ô%* Ðforensic€paint€specialist,€who€conducted€some€tests€and€concluded€(1)€that€the€drywallÐ ¨. ', Ðð ðmudðð€had€not€cured€properly€before€the€paint€was€applied;€(2)€that€the€paint€wasÐ t0l). Ðapplied€over€a€film€of€drywall€dust;€and€(3)€the€primer€and€paint€were€applied€when€theÐ @28+0 Ðindoor€temperature€was€too€cold€for€the€material€to€cure€properly.€€He€also€testifiedÐ  4-2 Ðthat€some€of€the€failures€were€consistent€with€a€structural€movement€in€the€houseÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðitself.Ð ¤7œ06 ÐÐ p9h28 Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€painter€and€his€employees€testified€that€the€mud€was€dry€when€theyÐ  Ðapplied€the€primer€and€paint;€that€wet€mud€cannot€be€sanded€and€that€it€had€beenÐ ÔÌ Ðsanded€when€they€began€their€work;€and€that€the€mud€appeared€to€be€dry€by€sight€andÐ   ˜ Ðtouch.€€They€also€testified€that€they€had€wiped€the€surfaces€clean€before€they€paintedÐ l d Ðover€them.Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Meadors€testified€that€all€the€products€were€applied€according€toÐ ÐÈ  Ðspecifications;€that€the€propane€heaters€were€not€used€during€the€application€of€theÐ œ”  Ðprimer€or€the€paint,€and€that€the€heaters€therefore€did€not€add€to€the€humidity€in€theÐ h` Ðhouse.€€Mr.€Meadors€also€offered€a€heating€and€air€conditioning€expert€to€testify€thatÐ 4, Ðmoisture€in€the€crawl€space€would€migrate€upward,€through€the€floor€and€through€theÐ ø Ðwalls,€seeking€an€outlet€to€the€cooler,€dryer€air€inside€the€house.€€The€obvious€outletsÐ ÌÄ Ðwere€vents,€light€switches,€and€lights€„„€anywhere€the€walls€were€not€sealed.Ð ˜ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAt€the€close€of€all€the€proof€the€chancellor€said:€Ð 0 ( ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àð ðI€cannot€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ ü!ô Ðwhat€cause€the€problem.€.€.€.€€There€are€a€number€ofÐ â"Ú Ðreasons€why€moisture€might€be€preventing€the€paint€fromÐ È#À  Ðadhering.€€The€one€which€is€asserted€is€that€it€was€put€onÐ ®$¦! Ðwhen€the€mud€was€dry€and€the€drywall€was€wet€„„€excuseÐ ”%Œ" Ðme€„„€when€the€mud€was€wet€and€the€drywall€was€wet.€€IÐ z&r# Ðcanððt€find€that€on€a€factual€basis€by€the€evidence€putÐ `'X $ Ðbefore€me.ððÐF(>!%0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àWhile€the€chancellorððs€ruling€may€not€contain€a€finding€of€fact€(that€theÐ Þ+Ö$) Ðpaint€was€properly€applied)€to€which€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies,€see€RuleÐ ª-¢&+ Ð13(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€Proc.,€if€she€is€correct,€her€ruling€is€equally€as€fatal€to€theÐ v/n(- Ðhomeownerððs€claim.€€The€plaintiff€in€a€negligence€action€has€the€burden€of€proving€byÐ B1:*/ Ða€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendantððs€negligence€was€the€probableÐ 3,1 Ðcause€of€the€plaintiffððs€loss,€rather€than€some€other€equally€probable€cause.€Ð Ú4Ò-3 ÐòòHollingsworth€v.€Queen€Carpet,€Inc.,óó,€827€S.W.2d€306€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Where€theÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðâ âfacts€permit€two€equally€probably€inferences€to€be€drawn,€one€of€negligence€and€theÐ v8n17 Ðother€of€innocence,€the€plaintiff€has€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof.€€òòBenson€v.Ð  ÐH.G.€Hill€Stores,€Inc.óó,€699€S.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€App.€1985).Ð ØÐ Ðâ âÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€find€ourselves€in€the€same€dilemma€as€the€chancellor.€€We€cannotÐ t l Ðsay€that€it€was€more€probable€than€not€that€the€paint€failed€because€it€was€improperlyÐ @8 Ðapplied€or€was€applied€under€conditions€that€would€cause€it€to€fail.Ð    ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€only€evidence€of€those€facts€is€the€opinion€of€the€plaintiffððs€expert.€Ð ¤œ  ÐHe,€of€course,€had€no€first„hand€knowledge€of€the€facts€(except€that€he€found€drywallÐ ph Ðdust€on€one€paint€sample),€so€the€only€thing€he€could€do€was€give€an€opinion€that€whatÐ <4 Ðhe€saw€was€consistent€with€improper€application.€€Arrayed€against€this€opinion€isÐ  Ðtestimony€from€the€persons€involved€that€the€paint€was€applied€properly€and€under€theÐ ÔÌ Ðproper€conditions.€€In€addition,€the€uncontradicted€proof€showed€that€the€installationÐ  ˜ Ðof€the€metal€roof,€along€with€the€destruction€of€the€attic€ventilation€system,€had€a€majorÐ ld Ðeffect€on€the€ability€of€the€air€conditioning€system€to€remove€the€moisture€from€insideÐ 8 0 Ðthe€house.€€The€landscaping€also€covered€up€vents€in€the€crawl€space,€and€theÐ "ü Ðsprinkler€system€caused€water€to€run€under€the€house.€€Since€the€first€paint€failuresÐ Ð#È  Ðoccurred€around€switches,€vents,€and€recessed€lights,€this€fact€is€consistent€with€theÐ œ%”" Ðtestimony€that€moisture€from€under€the€house€would€most€likely€emerge€in€theseÐ h'` $ Ðareas.Ð 4),"& ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThere€is€also€the€probability€that€some€of€the€paint€failures€resulted€fromÐ Ì,Ä%* Ða€shift€in€the€house€structure.€€The€exhibits€show€that€in€some€places€the€paint€did€notÐ ˜.', Ðpeel€or€flake€off,€but€it€buckled€or€tore€along€a€seam€or€joint.€€This€fact€is€consistentÐ d0\). Ðwith€the€shearing€that€would€occur€if€the€house€moved.Ð 02(+0 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€cannot€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€an€inferenceÐ È5À.4 Ðthat€the€paint€was€improperly€applied.Ð ”7Œ06 ÐÐ `9X28 Ðà@ÔÔ#êàò òb.€€Breach€of€Contractó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€homeowner€argues€that€Mr.€Meadors€is€liable€for€a€breach€of€hisÐ ¬ ¤ Ðpromise€to€see€that€that€work€was€done€in€a€workmanlike€manner.€€Our€discussion€inÐ x p Ðthe€previous€section€bears€on€this€question.€€If€we€are€correct€in€that€analysis,€theÐ D< Ðcontractor€did€not€breach€his€contract€by€allowing€the€paint€to€be€applied€in€anÐ   Ðimproper€manner.Ð ÜÔ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àNevertheless€the€homeowner€argues€that€the€contractor€would€beÐ tl Ðresponsible€for€the€attic€ventilation€problem.€€The€proof€shows,€however,€that€the€onlyÐ @8 Ðpart€Mr.€Meadors€played€in€that€problem€was€to€do€the€remedial€work€of€installing€theÐ   Ðeave€vents€and€the€attic€fan.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€these€two€projects€were€notÐ ØÐ Ðaccomplished€in€a€workmanlike€manner.€€One€witness€was€critical€of€the€size€of€theÐ ¤œ Ðeave€vents,€but€the€remedial€measures€apparently€solved€the€problem€of€theÐ ph Ðexcessive€attic€heat.Ð < 4 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€same€can€be€said€about€the€moisture€in€the€crawl€space.€€The€workÐ Ô#Ì  Ðthat€caused€that€problem€was€not€done€under€Mr.€Meadorsðð€supervision.€€He€did€notÐ  %˜" Ðsupervise€the€landscaping€work€that€covered€the€crawl€space€vents€and€caused€theÐ l'd $ Ðsprinkler€system€to€spray€water€on€the€foundation.€€He€did€suggest€to€the€owner€thatÐ 8)0"& Ðhe€install€an€exhaust€fan€to€move€the€air€out€of€the€crawl€space.€€There€is€no€complaintÐ +ü#( Ðabout€the€workmanship€in€installing€the€fan.Ð Ð,È%* ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€problem€of€the€house€shifting€or€settling€falls€closer€to€Mr.€MeadorsððÐ h0`). Ðarea€of€responsibility.€€He€did€oversee€the€removal€of€the€load€bearing€walls€and€heÐ 42,+0 Ðinstalled€the€beam€that€allowed€that€wall€to€be€removed.€€However,€Mr.€Meadors€is€notÐ 4ø,2 Ðan€architect€nor€a€structural€engineer.€€He€supplied€the€data€concerning€the€span€andÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðthe€type€of€roof€to€a€vendor,€and€the€vendor€specified€a€laminated€beam€of€a€certainÐ ˜706 Ðsize€for€the€project.€€Perhaps€Mr.€Meadors€should€have€foreseen€the€problem€andÐ d9\28 Ðadvised€the€homeowner€against€it.€€But€there€is€simply€no€proof€whatsoever€on€thatÐ  Ðpoint.€€Nor€is€there€any€proof€of€the€severity€of€the€settling€or€shifting€that€would€beÐ ÔÌ Ðrequired€to€produce€some€of€the€paint€failures€shown€in€the€exhibits.€€Even€a€slightÐ   ˜ Ðmovement€within€the€acceptable€range€of€flexure€for€the€beam€may€have€caused€theÐ l d Ðproblem.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€installation€of€the€beam€fell€below€the€standardÐ 80 Ðof€good€workmanship.Ð ü  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.€€The€cause€is€remanded€toÐ œ”  Ðthe€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary.€€TaxÐ h` Ðthe€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.Ð 4, Ðà Ø àà 0 àÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ð ÌÄ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ð ²ª Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.Ð ˜ ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð JB ÐÌÌ_____________________________Ð ü!ô ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ â"Ú ÐÌÌ_____________________________Ð ”%Œ" ÐWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ z&r# ÐÔ_ÔÐ  `'X $ ÐÑ  ÑÔ€¼}‚»XX³Ôò òà@êê.êàó ó