WPC  ~@]܅NεIr꣭WۣHN)U^"rǥs^W 4ƠW<9d h˹!C Q14)Ks^M8p]`&,t;X!5?A8',טϧdG帀vX͌Qd2(vm닷Se+aW4\.ݮ|Nc i[=UQ2G3fzimhN6H?xM4D_AB|0~Ud@&5NZρIh!@RIPсd.T-;θX9p, C 2b)ys@|BfR0T9AW6&uM?QY%vUETͳJadWO}76RLP,lTp(֌oO M]cϲSgXs Su&SJwc$#!UN %g 0mU< w\4`tL 0N{ } ^ l x z m B 0D HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT RomantpO'x 3|xC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT   F$  XXXX `   1    _ ThestoremanagerfortheFredsStoreinSomerville,Tennesseehad X workedforFredsStoresforthirteenyearsandhadbeenthestoremanagerin X SomervilleforapproximatelyfouryearsatthetimeMs.Holdenfell.((3LT$ 7!  8XXdd8  X6XXX   `   0     F$  XXXX `   2    _ԀTheFredsemployeesinterpretationofthesignindicatesabeliefthataspill X hadreceivedattention,andonlywaterremainedtodry.Thesameconclusionis X suggestedinMs.Holdensbriefasoneofseveralpossibleconclusionsregardingthe X warningsign.xN'L U d(#$  0   7!  8XXdd8  X6XXX  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXX@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE X @)ATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________ ALICEHOLDEN,  X  ` PlaintiffAppellant, `     h      p _Fayette_ԀCircuitNo.3798Vs. `     h      p C.A.No.02A019902CV00040 Z   FREDSSTORESOFTENNESSEE,  Z    INC., \     ` DefendantAppellee. `  ____________________________________________________________________________@  FROMTHE_FAYETTE_ԀCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT@  THEHONORABLEJONKERRYBLACKWOOD,JUDGE@AlanG.CroneandJamesJ.Webb,Jr.@ Crone&MasonofMemphis,ForAppellant@ DavidL._Bearman_ԀandBradleyE._Trammell_Ԉ@  Baker,_Donelson_,_Bearman_Ԁ&CaldwellofMemphis,ForAppellee@$ REVERSEDANDREMANDED  `#!! @'Opinionfiled: `     h      p   W.FRANKCRAWFORD, `.,,  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,_W.S._CONCUR:ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBY_LILLARD_,JUDGE  r755  t<:: _ ` Thisisapremisesliabilitycase.Plaintiff,AliceHolden,appealsfromtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgementtodefendant,FredsStoresof X Tennessee,Inc. X  ` OnNovember27,1995,Ms.HoldenwentshoppingatFredsinSomerville, X Tennesseeinordertopurchaseprescriptionsforhermotherandafewother X  householditems.Enteringthroughthefrontdoorsheproceededdownaisleseven X  towardthepharmacylocatedatthebackofthestore.Onherwaydowntheaisle, X  plaintiffcameuponanothershopperwhowaspushingabasket.Priortoplaintiffs X arrivalatthestore,abottleoflampoilhadbrokeninaisleseven.Anemployeehad X attemptedtocleanupthespillwithwaterandamopandhadplacedayellow X warningsigninaisleseven.Asplaintiffpassedtheotherpatronandenteredthearea X oftheaislecoveredbyoilywater,sheslippedandfell,landingonherleftlegwithher X armsandheadlandingintheshelving.Itwasatthistime,afterplaintifffell,that X plaintifffirstnoticedtheAframeyellowwarningsign,advising CautionWetFloor. X Ѐ ` Itisanuncontestedfactthattherewasoilandwaterontheflooratthetime X thatplaintiffproceededdownaisleseven,howeverthereremainsadisputeasto X  whetherthewarningsignpostedbythedefendantwassufficientwarningtothe X"  plaintiff. X$""  ` Ms.Holdenscomplaintallegesthatshesufferedpainandsuffering, X&$$ diminishmentoftheenjoymentoftheordinarypleasuresoflife,personinjury,and X(&& incurredmedicalexpenses. X*((  ` Plaintiffpresentedfiveissuesonappeal;however,weperceivethe_dispositive_ X,** issuetobewhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingdefendantsmotionforsummary X.,, judgment. X0..  ` Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthe_movant_ X200 demonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemoving X422 partyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Theparty X644 Ѐmovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuine X866  X<:: issueofmaterialfactexists. _Bain_Ԁv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).On X amotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateview \ oftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesin \ favorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. In Byrdv.Hall ,847 \ S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),ourSupremeCourtstated: `  8 ` 8 ` !` !Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisno `   genuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymust `   thendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials, `  thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarranta `  trial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthe ` nonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadings ` butmustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisa ` genuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial.8@.   `  Id. at211(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal).`    ` Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegal d  conclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. _Carvell_Ԁv. d  Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Ifthefactsare_uncontroverted_,summary h judgmentisinappropriateifreasonablemindscoulddifferastotheinferencestobe l drawntherefrom. Keenev.CrackerBarrelOldCountyStore,Inc. ,853S.W2d501 l! (Tenn.App.1992); Prescottv.Adams ,627S.W.2d134(Tenn.App.1981).Since p#!! onlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding t%## atrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. _Bain_ ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,our t'%% reviewofthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbefore x) '' thisCourt. Warrenv.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997). |+$))  ` Ms.HoldencontendsthatFredsStoresdidnotdischargetheirdutytowarn -(++ herofaslipperyfloor.AccordingtoMs.Holdensdepositiontestimonythewarning /(-- signwasshovedupagainsttheshelvingsothatthewarningwasnotvisibletoheras 1(// sheproceededdownaislesevenandthatthewordsofwarningwereactuallyfacing 3(11 theshelves.Ms.Holdenfurtherassertsthatgiventheplacementofthesign,against 5(33 theshelving,thefinderoffactcouldconcludethatitwouldbereasonablefora 7(55 persontothinkthatitsplacementagainsttheshelvesindicatedthatthespilland 9(77  ;(99 cleanupwerelimitedonlytoasmallarea,closetotheshelving,whiletherestofthe X aisleremainedcleananddry.Or,thesignsplacementcouldleadafinderoffactto X concludethatthespillhadbeencleanedupandthatthesignhadremainedsolong X thatithadbeenpushedupagainsttheshelves,andthusdisregardthesign.Ajuror X couldconcludethatareasonablepersonwalkingintheaislecouldcometooneof X  manyreasonableconclusionsuponviewingthesignatthetimethatMs.Holdenfell. X  Ms.Holdenassertsthatbecausereasonablemindswouldnotnecessarilyreachonly X  oneconclusionthatthesigngaveadequatewarningofthepresentdanger,afloor X wetwithoilandwaterthatthereexistsagenuineissueofmaterialfact. X  ` Inadditiontotheassertionthatreasonablemindscouldcometomorethan X oneconclusionabouttheplacementofthewarningsign,Ms.Holdencontendsthat X thelanguageonthesignwarnedofawetfloor,yetthesubstanceonthefloorwasa X mixtureofoilandwater.Areasonablepersonmightproceedoverafloorthathe X believedwaswetwithwater,whilethesamepersonmightnotproceedoverafloor X thatheknewwascoveredwithoilandwater.Ms.Holdenassertsthatapatron X mightreasonablythinkthatthesignedwarnedofwaterthatwoulddry,insteadof X  oilandwaterthatwouldnotdry,thereforethewarningprovidedbyFredswas X"  inadequatebecauseitdidnotwarnpatronsoftherealdangerpresent.Inviewofthe X$"" differencesbetweentherisksassociatedwithoilandwaterMs.Holdenarguesthat X&$$ despitethefactthatFredsplacedawarningsigninaisleseven,itfailedtowarnof X(&& alatentdangerandthereforebreacheditsdutyofcare. X*((  ` Fredsassertsthatoncetheyplacedthecautionsigninaisleseventheyhad X,** metorexceededtheapplicablestandardofcare.Fredsassertsthatthesignwas X.,, placedinsuchawaythatthecautionarylanguagewasvisibletopatronswalkingfrom X0.. thefrontorfromthebackofthestore.FredscontendsthatalthoughMs.Holden X200 disputestheplacementofthesignatthetimeofherfall,sheadmittedthatshedid X422 notknowtheoriginalpositionofthesignandfurtheradmittedthatthesignwas X644  X<:: presentatthetimeofherfall.FredsreliesontheaffidavitoftheirSomervillestore X manager  ##  1      ׀todefinetheapplicablestandardofcarewithregardtowarningpatrons X aboutwetorslipperyfloors.Accordingtotheirstoremanager,thedutyofcareto X warncustomersofawetorslipperyfloorismetbyplacingabrightlycoloredcaution X signintheimmediateareaofthespill.Fredscontendsthattheproperquestion X  beforethisCourtisnotwhetherMs.Holdenactuallysawthebrightyellowcaution X  sign,butrather,whetherFredsdischargeditsdutybyplacingawarningsigninaisle X  seventhatwasreasonablycalculatedtogiveMs.Holdennoticeoftheconditionof X thefloor.Furthermore,whetherlanguageonthesignwasvisibletoMs.Holdenat X thetimethatshefellisnotanissue,sinceMs.Holdenadmittedtoknowingthe X purposeofbrightlycoloredsigns,suchastheoneusedbyFredsStores. X  ` FredsStoresassertsthatMs.Holdensargument,thatoilandwaterpresent X twodifferentlevelsofdanger,andthereforetwodifferentlevelsofcare,iscompletely X unsupportedbyanyevidenceorbyaffidavit,expertorotherwise.FredsStores X contendsthattheargumentmadebyMs.Holdenthatsuggestswhatreasonable X peoplemightthinkuponviewingthesignisnonsensicalandcompletelyunsupported X  bytherecord. X"   ` Fredsassertsthatitisentitledtosummaryjudgmentnotonlybecauseit X$"" dischargeditsdutyasamatteroflaw,butalsobecausethefactsofthiscase X&$$ demonstratethatMs.Holdenisatleast50%negligentasamatteroflaw.Freds X(&& contendsthatMs.Holdenhadanadequateopportunitytobecomeawareofher X*(( path,asshewasafrequentshopperatFreds,visitingtherethreeorfourtimesa X,** week.Furthermore,FredscontendsthatMs.Holdenadmittedtowalkingpastthe X.,, signbeforeshefell.Fredsarguesthatreasonablemindscouldnotdifferin X0.. concludingthatMs.Holdensinattention,asamatteroflaw,wasthesolecause,or X200  X644 Їattheleast50%thecauseofherinjury.Fredsassertsthat,assumingthecautionsign X wasinthepositionthatMs.Holdenclaimed,itwouldhaveprotrudedintotheaisle, X blockingalmostonethirdoftheaisle.FredscontendsthatsinceMs.Holdenwas X familiarwiththe Aframesignsandtheirpurpose,shehadampleopportunityto X seethesign,andtakestepstoavoidanydanger. X   ` FinallyFredsassertsthatanindependentbasisforsupportingsummary X  judgmentisthatonceithadplacedthewarningsigninaisleseven,anydanger X  becameanopenandobviousone,therebyprecludingMs.Holdenofanyrecovery. X Fredsassertsthatasamatteroflawitisnotforeseeablethatacustomerwhois X familiarwiththepurposeofabrightlycoloredwarningsign,andwhowalkeddirectly X aroundandpastthesignvisibletoanyonewhowasattentive,wouldfallonthevery X thingthatthesignwarnedofawetfloor. X  ` Inordertobringasuccessfulsuitbasedonaclaimofnegligence,theplaintiff X mustestablish: X 8 ` 8 ` !` !(1)adutyofcareowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff; X (2)conductfallingbelowtheapplicablestandardofcare X amountingtoabreachofthatduty;(3)aninjuryorloss; X  (4)causationinfact;and(5)proximate,orlegalcause.X!    `  ` Bradshawv.Daniel ,854_S.W._Ԁ2d865,869(Tenn.1993)(citing _McClenahan_ X#!! v.Cooley ,806_S.W._Ԁ2d767,774(Tenn.1991); Lindseyv.MiamiDev.Corp. ,689 \%## _S.W._Ԁ2d856,858(Tenn.1985)).Duty,thefirstelementoftheclaim,isthelegal `'%% obligationadefendantowestoaplaintifftoconformtothereasonableperson `)'' standardofcareinordertoprotectagainstunreasonablerisksofharm. McCallv. `+)) Wilder ,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995).Whetheradefendantowesadutyto d- ++ aplaintiffinanygivensituationisaquestionoflawforthecourt. Bradshaw ,854 h/-- S.W.2dat869. l1//  ` Theexistenceandscopeofthedutyofthedefendantinaparticularcaserests l311 onalltherelevantcircumstances,includingthe_foreseeability_Ԁofharmtotheplaintiff l533 andothersimilarlysituatedpersons. _Pittman_Ԁv.UpjohnCo. ,890S.W.2d425,433 l755  p;99 (Tenn.1994). X  ` Oncedutyisestablished,thequestionofbreachofdutyandproximatecause X oftheplaintiffsinjuryareusuallytreatedasquestionsoffact. X 8 ` 8 ` !` ![_W]hether_Ԁthedefendantbreacheditsdutyandwhether X thebreachproximallycausedtheinjuryaregenerally X  decidedbythetrieroffact.(citationsomitted) These X  questionsbecomequestionsoflawonlywhenthe Z   factsandinferencesdrawnfromthefactspermit \   reasonablepersonstoreachonlyoneconclusion.^      Kelleyv.Johnson ,796S.W.2d155,157(Tenn.App.1990)(citationomitted) b  (emphasisadded). f  ` Incasesinvolvingpremisesliability,thepremisesownerhasadutytoexercise f reasonablecareunderthecircumstancestopreventinjurytopersonslawfullyonthe f premises. Eatonv._McLain_ ,891S.W.2d587,59394(Tenn.1994).Thisdutyis f basedupontheassumptionthattheownerhassuperiorknowledgeofanyperilous j conditionthatmayexistontheproperty. KendallOilCo.v.Payne ,41Tenn.App. j 201,293S.W.2d40,42(1955).Thedutyincludestheobligationoftheownerto n maintainthepremisesinareasonablysafeconditionandtoremoveorwarnagainst n  latentorhiddendangerousconditionsonthepremisesofwhichtheownerisaware n"  orshouldbeawarethroughtheexerciseofreasonablediligence. Eaton ,891S.W.2d n$"" at59394.Thedutyofapremisesowneris adutyofreasonablecareunderallthe r&$$ circumstances Jonesv.ExxonCorp. ,940S.W.2d69,71(Tenn.App.1996)(quoting r(&&  Eaton at593).Thescopeofthisdutyisgroundeduponthe_foreseeability_Ԁoftherisk v*(( involved. Id. at72Thus,inordertoprevailinapremisesliabilityaction,the z,"** plaintiffmustshowthattheinjurywasareasonablyforeseeableprobabilityandthat ~.&,, someactionwithinthedefendantspowermoreprobablythannotwouldhave ~0&.. preventedtheinjury. Doev._Linder_ԀConstr.Co. ,845S.W.2d173,178(Tenn. ~2&00 1992). 4*22  ` Traditionally,liabilitywasnotimposedonapremisesownerbycourtsofthis 6*44  <*:: stateforinjuriesthatresultedfromdefectiveordangerousconditionsthatwere open X andobvious. SeeMcCormickv.Waters ,594S.W.2d385(Tenn.1980); Kendall X OilCo.v.Payne ,41Tenn.App.201,293S.W.2d40(1955).  However,the \ SupremeCourtofTennesseerecentlyrestrictedthisruleoflawprovidingabalancing ` testin _Coln_Ԁv.CityofSavannah ,966S.W.2d34(Tenn.1998).The _Coln_ Court `  held: d  8 ` 8 ` !` !thedutyissuemustbeanalyzedwithregardto d  _foreseeability_Ԁandgravityofharm,andthefeasibilityand d  availabilityofalternativeconductthatwouldhave d  preventedtheharm. d    Id. at43.Q d   ` The _Coln_ Courtfurtherstatedthat summaryjudgmentremainsappropriate h wheretheplaintiffhasnotproducedsufficientevidencetomeetanycomponentof l anegligenceclaim,asamatteroflaw. Id. at44. l  ` FredssupportssummaryjudgmentinitsbriefbyarguingthatonceFreds p placedtheyellowcautionsignintheaisletheyhadmetthestandardofcare.Freds p relieson _Coln_Ԁv.CityofSavannah ,966S.W.2d34(Tenn.1998),arguingthatany p perilthatexistedbecameopenandobvious,therebyrelievingtheFredsofany t! furtherduty.Inaddition,Fredsarguesthatsummaryjudgementisproperbecause t#!! Ms.Holdenisatleast50%negligent. t%##  ` InthemajorityofcasesafterthedecisionoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt t'%% in McIntyrev._Balentine_ ,833_S.W._Ԁ2d52(Tenn.1992): t)'' 8 ` 8 ` !` ![_w]hen_Ԁaninviteeisinjuredbecauseofdangersthatare x+ )) obvious,reasonablyapparent,oraswellknowtothe x, ** injuredpartyastotheowneroroperatorofthepremises, x- ++ liability,ifanyshouldbedeterminedinaccordancewith x. ,, theprinciplesofcomparativefaultanalysisandthe x/ -- generalnegligencelawofthisstate.x0 ..    Jones ,940_S.W._Ԁ2dat72(quoting _Cooperwood_Ԁv.KrogerFoodStores,Inc. ,No. x2 00 02A019308CV00182,1984WL725217(Tenn.App._W.S._ԀDec.30,1994)). |4$22 Before McIntyre ,underthecontributorynegligencesystemthedeterminationof |6$44  <(:: liabilityincludedthenotionthat: X 8 ` 8 ` !` ![_n]egligence_,contributorynegligence,andproximate X causeareordinaryissuestobedecidedbythejury,and X canbewithdrawnfromthejuryanddecidedbythecourt X onlyinthosecaseswherethefactsareestablishedby X evidencefreefromconflict,andtheinferencefromthe X factsissocertainthatallreasonablemen,intheexercise X  ofafreeandimpartialjudgment,mustagreeuponit.X     PrinceByandThroughBoltonv.St.ThomasHosp. ,945_S.W._Ԁ2d731,735(Tenn. X  App.1996)(quoting _Frady_Ԁv.Smith ,519_S.W._Ԁ2d584,586(Tenn.1974)(regarding \  amotionforadirectedverdict)(citationomitted)).Thatnotiondidnotchangeafter ` theadoptionofcomparativefault,andtheprincipleremainsthat comparisonand ` allocationoffaultissuesareproperlylefttothejury. Id. at735 ` Ѐ ` InarguingthatFredsdidnotbreachitsdutyofcaretoMs.Holden,Freds d  citestheOhiocase _Nibert_Ԁv.KMartCorp. ,No.CA8909019,1990WL67011 d  (OhioApp.May21,1990),appealedtoOhioS.Ct.dismissed,563N.E.2d297(Ohio h 1997)(courtheldthatsummaryjudgmentforthedefendantwasproper,statingthat h thewarningwas reasonablycalculatedtogiveaninviteeknowledgeofadangerous h orhazardouscondition. Id. at*3).Fredsalsoarguesthatwhereabusinessowner h  hasdischargedhisdutywithadequatewarning,thereisnotalatentconditionand l"  defendantowesnofurtherdutytoplaintiff. Dillardv.VanderbiltUniversity ,970 l$"" S.W.2d958,960(TennCt.App.1998). p&$$  ` Wedisagreewiththedefendantthatthewarningsatisfiedtheduty p(&& requirementasamatteroflaw,andinsteadagreewiththeplaintiff,thatreasonable p*(( mindscoulddifferonwhetherthedefendantbreacheditsdutyofcare.The p,** depositiontestimonyofadepartmentmanagerfortheFredsatpages3334is p.,, illustrativeonthispoint. p0.. 8 ` 8 ` !` !Q:  Ithinkmypreviousquestionwas,doyou p200 rememberanythingbeingonthefloorwhenyouarrived p311 atthesceneoftheaccidentandfoundMs.Holdeninthe p422 floor?Ithoughtyoutestifiedthatyoudidntremember p533 therebeinganythingonthefloor.p644   8 ` 8 ` !` !A:  Well,the wetfloorsignwasthere,and,no,Ip755      p<:: Ї `    dontrememberanythingjustbeingrightonthefloor. X  `    The wetfloorsigntellsmethatsomethinghasbeen X  `    cleanedupthere.  ##  2       X  ` WiththepresenceofoilontheflooritisnotunreasonabletoexpectFredsto X atleastclosetheaisleandimmediatelycleanthefloor. X  ` Followingtheanalysisin _Coln_Ԁ withregardtothedutyissue , byweighingthe X  foreseeableriskandgravityofharmagainsttheburdenplacedonthedefendantto \   engageinalternativeconduct,weareoftheopinionthatajurycouldconcludethe \  harmwasreasonablyforeseeableandreasonablemindscoulddifferinrequiring \ alternativeconduct.Underthecircumstancespresentinthiscase,weholdthat \ recorddoesnotleadreasonablemindstoonlyoneconclusioninconsideringifthe \ defendantbreacheditsdutytotheplaintiff. \  ` Inlightofourconclusionthatreasonablemindscoulddifferonwhetherthe \ defendantbreacheditsdutyofcareinprovidinganadequatewarningofthewet,oily \ floor,wedonotagreewiththedefendantthatMs.Holdenwasatleast50% \ negligentasamatteroflaw. \  `  Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgment \  isreversedandthiscaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasnecessary.Costs \"  ofappealareassessedtoAppellee. \$""  `     h      p _________________________________ \&$$  `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD, \'%%  `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,_W.S._  ^(&&  CONCUR: `*(( ____________________________________ d, ** ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGE  f-++  ____________________________________ h/-- HOLLYKIRBY_LILLARD_,JUDGE