ÿWPC   ”jyÏ–DNOÜÖÚÐÁŠXMÕùûøN.™o¿Ðx:ÅñóÛ:]0[HÓi”óømoï0BÍ‹?wŠYdîW‘g•¯h¢˜ùŽ«ö5}ÝJN=éD]¡ðöR hÅ]yâѨÀ}ºïæð«û{ßšŠ7’€!¥ÜL>½üŠO­4Šu®M¹¿ƒn˜T¯5¥.âcN^Ǿ"àŒýDº„ùñ›m<»€5ø‚gåû’Ò—Ú\Y+ý¹Ú÷¯ÿFC¿7'Ä$C¶¹péŸvl8ª‡ø»¡ÙúmÔKñ¦¿2ˆðbÉ=ÚEÞ!DÆ"±éP8MrÏ®y¯æ”gO0ý”ŽÏ¤ñžes’WU;c››Ò”Îĉ²'%u¢4˜Ù}lÄ7ñ<þFíådÿFRm$®Ÿ¿.åéÅgvN QÍ àòù˜QÚÙ„+¥>Åõð^šã¦ à@ÒœB—Y³XgÚ”Zo<ºšn=¡r‹O+)x§$¤u Ç±Š[Š[ú—fÒäôc€ÞØÛU×ó“ݤ—«xã§~8ΔŸ=%Ô´E‹ð»3×,E׳”³d·Š)CÓÐP1Ÿ}¥]¿Ä{gûþÑÓ¨ø<1¬9IQXÌ Áév‹˜ŽHF!YèQNj-*# LU :W %‘ 0(—w@¿4ÿb "n­.ÛãU:çççççççççççççççççççç AQ!Ær 0D8 0D| 0DÀ À D/ B3 BP D3m ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ãDäåEæçDèéaê ëÓ€õìu[%xâ Zæ3|xõ- ù -«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XþXXXÔÔ€ „oX XþÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XþX „oÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñëñ›ñëñÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€þXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼¦ ¼XXÔÓ  Óñõññëñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñëññõññõññõññõññëñ›ñëññõññõñ›ñõñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñõñœßt€ )>.*jxÏÿ` `€€@EÃ.` 8ttxPûð  tß›ñõñà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XþX¼¼¦ ԈР ÐÌÌÌÌœJAMES€HANCOCK€and€wife,à 8 àà  à)ñèñ›ñèñÐ È À Ðñèñ›ñèñBRITT€HANCOCK,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)›Ð ® ¦ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àœPlaintiffs/Appellants,›à 8 àà  àœ)›Ð zr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœ01„A„01„9801„CC„00001›Ð F>  ÐœVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœMontgomery€Circuit€Civil›Ð   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœNo.€C11„225›Ð øð  ÐœU„HAUL€COMPANY€OF€TENNESSEEà  à)›à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àœÐ ÞÖ  Ðñèñ›ñèñd/b/a€U„HAUL€STORAGE€FACILITY,à  à)›Ð ļ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à 8 àà  à)Ð ˆ ÐÌÌà@  êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€œCIRCUIT€COURT›€OF€œMONTGOMERY€COUNTY›ˆÌà@"êàAT€œCLARKSVILLE,€TENNESSEE›ˆÌÌà@R R êàTHE€HONORABLE€œJAMES€E.€WALTON,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌMART€G.€FENDLEYÌ107€North€Third€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€925ÌClarksville,€TN€37041„0925Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌMICHAEL€G.€MCLARENÌSTEPHEN€C.€BARTONÌ2900€One€Commerce€SquareÌ40€S.€Main€StreetÌMemphis,€Tennessee€38013Ìà Ø àAttorneys€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌà@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 à›à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àBEN€H.€CANTRELLÌœà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌœKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.›ÌÐ  ´9¬289 ÐÓÓò òÔ€„ì„XXþÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XþX„„ìԈР ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffs€brought€suit€for€the€loss€of€their€furniture€and€otherÏproperty,€which€was€stolen€from€the€defendantððs€self„storage€facility.€€The€defendantÏcontended€that€the€contract€between€the€parties€relieved€it€of€any€liability€for€theÏplaintiffsðð€loss.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant.€€WeÏaffirm.ÌÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ d\ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àJames€Hancock€and€his€wife€œBritt›€sold€their€home€in€œClarksville›€becauseÏthey€were€planning€to€build€a€new€house€in€Phoenix,€Arizona.€€They€needed€to€storeÏtheir€furniture€and€household€goods€until€their€new€home€was€completed,€so€on€JulyÏ7,€1995,€Mr.€Hancock€went€to€a€storage€facility€in€œClarksville›€operated€by€defendantÏU„Haul€of€Tennessee,€Inc.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Hancock€noted€with€approval€the€strong€physical€security€featuresÏat€the€facility,€such€as€the€nine€or€ten€foot€high€chain€link€fence€topped€by€serpentineÏor€barbed€wire,€which€surrounded€the€compound,€and€the€good€lighting.€€He€spoke€toÏPaul€Browning,€the€manager€of€the€facility,€who€told€Mr.€Hancock€that€he€and€his€wifeÏlived€on€the€premises.€€Mr.€Browning€offered€Mr.€Hancock€a€contract,€which€includedÏa€highlighted€section€with€the€following€provisions:ÌÒ„ÒÓÓÒ0 €Òò òPROPERTY€IS€STORED€AT€OCCUPANTððS€SOLE€RISKó óÐ ˜/(, ÐI€understand€that€this€self€storage€facility:Ì1.à0 ˆ àis€a€commercial€business€renting€space,€and€is€not€aÐ j1b*. Ðwarehouseman;Ð ˆÐ ˆÐ  Ð2.à0 ˆ àis€not€responsible€for€loss€to€my€property;Ð63.,0ˆÐ ˆÐ  Ð3.à0 ˆ àdoes€not€provide€insurance€on€my€property€for€me;Ð 4-1 ÐandÐ ˆÐ ˆÐ  Ð4.à0 ˆ àrequires€that€I€provide€for€my€own€insurance€coverageÐ è5à.3 Ðor€be€ð ðself€insuredðð€(personally€responsible€for€my€ownÏâ âloss).д7¬05ˆÐ ˆÐ  ÐÒ€0 ÒÒ„Ò€ÓÓà Ø àà 0 àThe€same€section€included€boxes€for€the€customer€to€check,€to€indicateÐ  Ðâ âwhether€he€was€choosing€to€purchase€insurance€from€his€own€agent;€choosing€to€beÏself€insured;€or€choosing€to€purchase€the€optional€œSafestor›€package,€a€limited€form€ofÏinsurance€offered€by€U„Haul,€with€maximum€coverage€of€$15,000,€and€premiums€ofÏ$24€per€month.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Hancock€signed€a€lease€for€one€storage€room€at€$94.95€per€month,Ïand€checked€the€box€for€purchasing€insurance€from€his€own€agent.€€However€he€didÏnot€purchase€any€such€insurance.€€He€and€his€wife€subsequently€moved€all€theirÏhousehold€goods€into€the€storage€room,€and€placed€their€own€padlock€on€the€unit.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àShortly€thereafter,€the€œBrownings›€went€on€vacation.€€The€facility€thenÏcame€under€the€supervision€of€a€manager€who€remained€on€the€premises€only€duringÏoffice€hours€(7:00€a.m.€to€7:00€p.m.€on€most€days).€€On€August€10,€1995,€JimÏœHabacker›,€an€employee€of€the€defendant,€discovered€that€there€was€no€lock€on€theÏplaintiffððs€storage€unit.€€He€placed€a€U„Haul€padlock€on€the€unit,€but€did€not€notify€theÏowners.€€On€August€18,€1995,€the€œHancocks›€returned€to€their€unit€to€add€a€bedÏcomforter€they€had€purchased,€and€discovered€that€most€of€their€property€had€beenÏstolen.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àFrom€the€quantity€of€the€goods€taken€(allegedly€over€$50,000€worth),Ïand€the€nature€of€the€goods€left€behind,€it€appeared€that€the€thieves€had€the€time€toÏbring€a€large€truck€into€the€facility€(perhaps€through€the€rear€gate),€to€ð ðpick€throughððÏthe€property€of€the€œHancocks›,€and€to€fully€load€the€truck.€€There€were€no€indicationsÏof€forced€entry.€€Suspicion€naturally€fell€upon€some€employees€of€U„Haul,€but€noÏcharges€were€ever€brought.Ìâ âÐ È7À04 Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€œHancocks›€filed€a€complaint€against€U„Haul€on€December€4,€1995,Ïâ âalleging€that€its€employees€had€either€been€negligent€in€their€management€of€theÏstorage€facility,€or€had€participated€in€the€theft.€€The€plaintiffs€filed€an€amendedÏcomplaint€on€August€14,€1997€to€add€a€claim€for€fraudulent€or€negligentÏmisrepresentation€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€47„18„101€et€seq.€€The€defendant€answered€the€original€complaint€on€March€1,Ï1996,€and€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€August€7,€1997.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àU„Haul€contended€that€the€exculpatory€clause€quoted€above€insulatedÏit€from€any€liability€for€the€plaintiffsðð€loss.€€The€defendant€denied€that€it€had€made€anyÏrepresentations€at€all€to€the€plaintiffs€as€to€its€security€arrangements,€and€made€aÏspecific€denial€that€the€œBrownings›€had€represented€themselves€as€a€24€hour€a€dayÏð ðsecurity€teamðð€on€the€premises.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€defendant€also€argued€that€there€was€no€proof€that€any€of€its€ownÏemployees€were€involved€in€the€theft,€but€contended€that€even€if€they€had€been,€theÏcompany€was€not€liable€for€the€intentional€conduct€of€employees€acting€outside€theÏcourse€and€scope€of€their€employment.€€The€trial€court€agreed€with€the€reasoning€ofÏthe€defendant,€and€granted€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€December€1,€1997.ÏThis€appeal€followed.€ÌÌà@ÙÙêàò òII.€€The€Consumer€Protection€Actó óˆÐ h.`'* ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€offers€protection€againstÏbusinesses€that€prey€on€the€consuming€public€by€the€use€of€unfair€or€deceptiveÏpractices.€€A€long€list€of€such€forbidden€practices€is€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€47„¼18„104.€€In€general,€these€involve€false€or€misleading€representations€designed€toÏinduce€the€consumer€to€deal€with€the€business€making€those€misrepresentations.€Ð ¨9 26 Їà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€present€case,€there€is€no€evidence€that€U„Haul€or€its€employeesÏmade€any€verbal€or€written€representations€to€the€œHancocks›€as€to€the€nature€or€qualityÏof€the€security€measures€it€would€employ€to€protect€its€customersðð€goods.€€Since€PaulÏBrowning€told€James€Hancock€that€he€and€his€wife€lived€on€the€premises€of€theÏstorage€facility,€Mr.€Hancock€apparently€assumed€this€meant€that€he€would€receive€theÏbenefit€of€24€hour€a€day€surveillance€of€the€facility.€€But€there€was€no€such€provisionÏin€the€leasing€contract,€the€œBrownings›€did€not€state€that€this€was€being€offered,€andÏthey€did€not€promise€that€they€would€never€take€a€vacation€or€otherwise€temporarilyÏleave€the€facility.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àJames€Hancock€testified€in€deposition€that€he€had€previously€storedÏgoods€at€a€U„Haul€facility€in€Mesa,€Arizona,€and€had€been€impressed€by€the€securityÏarrangements€there.€€He€observed€that€the€defendantððs€œClarksville›€facility€wasÏphysically€similar€to€the€one€in€Arizona,€and€he€concluded€that€it€operated€the€sameÏway.€€He€argues€that€the€existence€of€a€formidable€enclosure€around€the€facilityÏamounts€to€an€actionable€misrepresentation€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act,Ïwhere€it€is€not€accompanied€by€stringent€security€measures€to€prevent€entry€byÏunauthorized€individuals.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWhile€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€can€apply€to€non„verbal€as€well€asÏoral€or€written€representations,€we€believe€it€is€stretching€the€point€to€contend€that€theÏnature€of€the€enclosure€around€the€U„Haul€facility€amounts€to€an€explicit€€promise€thatÏany€specific€level€of€security€will€be€maintained.€€We€also€do€not€believe€that€theÏexistence€of€similar€physical€barriers€at€two€different€U„Haul€locations€creates€aÏguarantee€that€the€same€security€measures€will€be€employed€at€both€locations.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àFor€example,€the€record€indicates€that€there€are€at€least€two€differentÏmodes€of€controlling€public€access€to€customer€storage€areas€that€U„Haul€employs€atÐ ¨9 26 Ðits€various€locations.€€At€some€facilities,€two€locks€are€placed€on€each€rented€unit,€oneÏby€U„Haul€and€one€by€the€customer.€€The€individual€who€wishes€to€have€access€to€hisÏown€unit€must€first€sign€in€at€the€office€and€leave€a€piece€of€I.D.€before€he€is€given€theÏkey€to€U„Haulððs€lock.€€At€the€œClarksville›€facility€and€others,€only€the€customerððs€lock€isÏplaced€on€his€unit.€€Thus,€an€individual€who€is€wandering€around€in€such€a€facilityÏwithout€checking€in€at€the€office€first€is€less€likely€to€be€challenged.€€The€record€showsÏthat€Mr.€Hancock€never€discussed€the€security€arrangements€at€the€œClarksville›€facilityÏwith€Mr.€Browning€or€with€any€other€employee€of€U„Haul€prior€to€renting€his€unit.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€record€further€indicates€that€during€the€œBrownings›ðð€absence,€theÏdefendantððs€employees€patrolled€the€enclosure€daily,€and€kept€the€front€and€rear€gatesÏlocked€after€business€hours.€€The€appellants€contend€that€the€keys€to€U„Haulððs€locksÏwere€accessible€to€too€many€people,€and€that€the€lock€to€the€rear€gate€was€flimsy.€ÏThe€magnitude€of€the€Hancockððs€loss€makes€it€clear€in€hindsight€that€U„Haulððs€securityÏarrangements€were€inadequate,€but€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€œHancocks›Ïfailed€to€state€a€claim€for€a€violation€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Actððs€prohibitionÏagainst€fraudulent€or€negligent€misrepresentations.€€€€€ÌÌà@ÑÑ êàò òIII.€€The€Exculpatory€Clauseó óˆÐ È(À!$ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€courts€of€this€state€have€determined€that€contracting€parties€mayÏmake€agreements€whereby€one€party€can€escape€from€liability€for€its€own€negligence,Ïand€shift€the€risk€of€loss€to€the€non„negligent€party.òò€€œChazen›€v.€œTrailmobile›€Inc.óó,€384Ð H0@), ÐS.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1964);€òòEmpress€Health€and€Beauty€Spa,€Inc.€v.€Turner,óó€503€S.W.2dÐ (2 +. Ð188€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThere€are€some€exceptions€to€this€general€rule.€€Thus,€a€common€carrierÏmay€not€by€contract€exempt€itself€from€liability€for€breach€of€a€duty€imposed€on€it€forÐ ¨9 26 Ðthe€benefit€of€the€public.€€òòSeeóó€òòœParton›€v.€Mark€œPirtle›€Oldsmobile„Cadillacóó,€730€S.W.2dÐ  Ð634€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€An€individual€can€contract€for€freedom€from€liability€forÏordinary€negligence,€but€liability€for€gross€negligence€cannot€be€contracted€away.ÏòòAdams€v.€œRoark›óó,€686€S.W.2d€73€(Tenn.€1985).€€A€doctor€or€other€licensed€practitionerÐ ¨   Ðcannot€contract€for€immunity€from€the€consequences€of€professional€negligence.ÏòòOlsen€v.€œMolzen›óó,€558€S.W.2d€429€(Tenn.€1977).€Ð h`  Ðà Ø àÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€œHancocks›€argue€that€the€language€in€the€storage€contract€was€notÏspecific€enough€to€notify€them€that€by€signing€the€contract,€they€were€giving€up€theirÏright€to€hold€U„Haul€accountable€for€property€losses€caused€by€ordinary€negligence.ÏBut€we€agree€with€the€appellee€that€the€contract€was€unambiguous,€and€that€Mr.ÏHancock,€a€knowledgeable€businessman€who€had€managed€several€franchiseÏoperations€during€the€course€of€his€career,€was€bound€by€its€provisions.ÌÌà@ÆÆ%êàò òIV.€€Public€Policyó óˆÐ H!@ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€œHancocks›€also€urge€us€to€state€that€exculpatory€clauses€in€contractsÏsuch€as€the€one€before€us€violate€Tennesseeððs€public€policy.€€However€the€legislatureÏis€€primarily€responsible€for€declaring€the€public€policy€of€this€state.€€The€role€of€theÏcourts€is€limited€to€interpreting€the€public€policy€that€is€evidenced€by€a€constitutional,Ïstatutory,€or€regulatory€provisions.€€òòSeeóó€òòStein€v.€Davidson€Hotelóó,€945€S.W.2d€714Ð ˆ,€%( Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€No€such€provisions€are€cited€here.Ì€€Ìà Ø àà 0 àAppellants€rely€upon€the€òòOlsenóó€case,€supra,€and€the€case€of€òòœCrawford›Ð (2 +. Ðv.€œBuckner›óó,€839€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€1992),€both€of€which€found€public€policy€reasonsÐ 4-0 Ðto€bar€enforcement€of€exculpatory€clauses.€€In€both€cases,€the€court€recited€theÏâ âfollowing€six€conditions,€which€when€present€in€the€contract€and€bargaining€postureÐ È7À04 Ðof€the€parties,€make€enforcement€of€exculpatory€clauses€inappropriate.€€We€believeÏit€would€be€helpful€to€recite€these€conditions€once€again:€Ìâ âÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ à(a.)€€€It€concerns€a€business€of€a€type€generallyÏthought€suitable€for€public€regulation.€€à @ àÐ ¸ ° Ðà ˆ à(b.)€€€The€party€seeking€exculpation€is€engaged€inÏperforming€a€service€of€great€importance€to€the€public,€whichÏis€often€a€matter€of€practical€necessity€for€some€members€ofÏthe€public.€€Ìà ˆ à(c.)€€€€The€party€holds€himself€out€as€willing€to€performÏthis€service€for€any€member€of€the€public€who€seeks€it,€or€atÏleast€for€any€member€coming€within€certain€establishedÏstandards.€€Ìà ˆ à(d.)€€€As€a€result€of€the€essential€nature€of€the€service,Ïin€the€economic€setting€of€the€transaction,€the€party€invokingÏexculpation€possesses€a€decisive€advantage€of€bargainingÏstrength€against€any€member€of€the€public€who€seeks€hisÏservices.€€Ìà ˆ à(e.)€€In€exercising€a€superior€bargaining€power€theÏparty€confronts€the€public€with€a€standardized€adhesionÏcontract€of€exculpation,€and€makes€no€provision€whereby€aÏpurchaser€may€pay€additional€reasonable€fees€and€obtainÏprotection€against€negligence.€€Ìà ˆ à(f.)€€€€Finally,€as€a€result€of€the€transaction,€the€personÏor€property€of€the€purchaser€is€placed€under€the€control€of€theÏseller,€subject€to€the€risk€of€carelessness€by€the€seller€or€hisÏagents.€ÌÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„Ò558€S.W.2d€at€431.ÌÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellants€in€the€present€case€argue€that€the€legislature€has€indeedÏseen€fit€to€regulate€the€self„storage€industry;€that€such€storage€is€a€matter€of€practicalÏnecessity€for€some€people;€that€U„Haul€holds€itself€out€as€willing€to€perform€itsÏservices€to€any€member€of€the€public€seeking€them;€that€U„Haul€possesses€a€clearÏadvantage€in€bargaining€strength€over€individuals€seeking€its€services;€that€theÏcontract€it€offered€was€a€contract€of€adhesion;€and€that€the€transaction€in€questionÏplaced€their€valuable€property€under€U„Haulððs€control.€€Finally,€appellants€note€that€theÏòòOlsenóó€and€òòœBuckner›óó€courts€both€stated€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€all€six€factors€toÐ 3,/ Ðbe€present€in€any€given€transaction€for€that€transaction€to€be€deemed€offensive.€Ìâ âÐ Ø6Ð/3 Ðà Ø àà 0 àU„Haul€admits€that€it€held€itself€out€as€willing€to€perform€its€services€toÏâ âany€members€of€the€public€seeking€them,€but€rebuts,€at€least€in€part,€the€appellantsððÏarguments€on€the€other€five€cited€factors.€€The€appellee€points€out€that€the€stateððsÏregulation€of€the€self„storage€industry€primarily€involves€the€facility€ownerððsÏenforcement€of€liens€on€abandoned€property,€and€is€not€the€sort€of€comprehensiveÏregulation€which€shows€a€significant€state€interest€in€the€industry;€that€the€servicesÏprovided€by€self„service€facilities€are€far€less€important€to€the€public€than€the€practiceÏof€medicine€(òòOlsen€v.€œMolzen›óó)€or€the€safety€of€residential€housing€(òòœCrawford›€v.Ð (  ÐœBuckner›óó);€that€U„Haul€did€not€possess€a€decisive€bargaining€advantage,€because€theÐ  ÐœHancocks›€could€easily€have€made€alternate€arrangements€for€storage€of€theirÏfurniture;€that€the€lease€in€question€did€provide€the€customer€with€the€opportunityÏ(however€limited)€to€pay€additional€fees€for€insurance€against€negligence;€and€that€theÏœHancocks›€retained€control€over€their€property€because€they€placed€their€own€lock€onÏthe€storage€unit,€and€U„Haul€did€not€have€access€to€the€key.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àApplying€the€six€factors€to€the€present€case€does€not€produce€a€resultÏthat€is€completely€clear„cut,€but€we€are€satisfied€that€U„Haul€has€made€out€the€betterÏcase,€particularly€with€regard€to€the€important€questions€of€state€regulation,€theÏexistence€of€reasonable€alternatives€for€the€individual€who€is€not€satisfied€with€theÏterms€presented€to€him,€and€the€question€of€control€over€the€appellantsðð€property.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àFurther,€we€are€reluctant€to€throw€the€protective€mantle€of€a€declarationÏof€public€policy€over€a€subject€that€our€legislature€has€not€yet€chosen€to€rule€upon,Ïespecially€in€view€of€our€previous€opinions€which€upheld€the€validity€of€similarÏexculpatory€clauses€in€self„storage€contracts.€òò€Merritt€v.€Nationwide€Warehouse€Co.óó,Ð 4-0 Ð605€S.W.2d€250€(Tenn.€App.€1980);€òòœPettit›€v.€Poplar„Union€Extended€Mini„Storageóó,Ð è5à.2 ÐApp.€No.€œ02A01›„9402„CV„00022€(filed€at€Jackson,€January€26,€1995).€€We€thereforeÏfind€the€exculpatory€clause€at€issue€to€be€an€enforceable€one.€Ð ¨9 26 Їà@‹‹-êàò òV.ó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Montgomery€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.ÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à____________________________Ìà 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.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÐ  è&à" ÐñéñœñéññéñÑÜÑñéñÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ç·¼XXÙSÔò òà@êê.êàœñêñIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü Ðà@™™(êàAT€œNASHVILLEˆÌÌÌÌÌñêñó óñêñÔ‡XÙSX¼¼Ç·ÔJAMES€HANCOCK€and€wife,à 8 àà  à)Ð ` „ ÐBRITT€HANCOCK,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð P t Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ô#†¼Ç·¼XXÙSˆP#ÔÔ‡XÙSX¼¼Ç·ÔÐ 0T  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9801„CC„00001Ô#†¼Ç·¼XXÙSþQ#ÔÔ‡XÙSX¼¼Ç·ÔÐ  D  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ 4  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àMontgomery€Circuit€CivilÔ#†¼Ç·¼XXÙS¿R#ÔÔ‡XÙSX¼¼Ç·ÔÐ $  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€C11„225Ô#†¼Ç·¼XXÙSðS#ÔÔ‡XÙSX¼¼Ç·ÔÐ ð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ à ÐU„HAUL€COMPANY€OF€TENNESSEEà  à)à è àAffirmed€andà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ Ðô Ðd/b/a€U„HAUL€STORAGE€FACILITY,à  à)à è àRemandedÐ Àä Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à 8 àà  à)Ð  Ä ÐÔ#†¼Ç·¼XXÙS§T#ÔÔ€XÙSX¼¼Ç·Ô›ÌÌñêññèñœñèññêñÔ€¼Ç·¼XXÙSÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€œTóóó ó›ˆÐ p” ÐÓӜԀXÙSX¼¼Ç·ÔÌ›à Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÏœCircuit€Court›€of€œMontgomery€County,›€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€œjudgment€of€the€trial€courtÏthere›€is€œno€reversible€error.›Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€œadjudged›€by€this€Court€that€the€œjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.›€ÏThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€œCircuit€Court›€of€œMontgomery€County›€for€œany€furtherÏproceedings€necessary€and›€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€œJames€Hancock€and€wife,€BrittÏHancock,€Principals,›€and€œMart€G.€Fendley,€Surety,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÓÓÌñêññèñœñèññêñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ____________________________________ñêññèñ›ñèññêñ__ñêññâññàñ_ñàññâññêñ›Ìœà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGEñáñ,€M.S.ñáñÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à›ÌÌœñêññãñà Ø àñãññêñ›à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ________________________________ñäñ______Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€ñäññêññåññäñBñäññåññêññæñC.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌñæññêññçñ›Ð ¢;š47g ÐÐ ¢;š47† ЛÐ ¢;š47† Лà Ø àñçññêñ›à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ________________________________ñèñ______Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEñèññêñ›