WPC\D zg 4Y&5ږ7i}{MsrI߬th)jeڴ'ay$gr .8ӛ!K5X5j@lE|Go`[*%e%f>w@ ?UBL? 0D?? D3@U:$A^AU:}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B}B AOBCC 0DC D/D B?DV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dRC&$(G.2$ FT!   uXX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  ROSENBALMOVERTONGLENNAPADUCHKRESSINBENNERRascoeBlevinsBurchfieldHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLU<09Z .Courier New Regular I1$  uXX     1     ` Diversionoftrafficisnotcompensable.Tatev.Countyof `  Monroe,578S.W.2d642(Tenn.App.1978). I1$  VXX     1     ` Diversionoftrafficisnotcompensable.Tatev.Countyof `  Monroe,578S.W.2d642(Tenn.App.1978).<( 9Z &Courier Regular (eI[EEӀ<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(3$ F!   ZXXXXZkXZX   Ad FILEDZZk   March31,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.Zͪ ZAppellateCourt  Clerk GGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular \XXXX\kX\X   Ad FILED\\k   March24,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.\ͪ \AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial RegularWC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!   _  7XXdXXd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XTXXXXrXY<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rr[Y<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` r@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLEROBERTA.KEENER,and@*@@*)  KNOXCOUNTY   x THEKEENERCORPORATION h   )  03A019806CV00193 @ @*)  PlaintiffsAppellants  @*) 0  @*)@*)  HON.WHEELER_ROSENBALM_, `    v.@*)  JUDGE (  @*)@*)KNOXCOUNTY,TENNESSEEand@*)     THEROGERSGROUP,INC.@*) H  @*)  DefendantsAppellees@*)  VACATEDANDREMANDED 8 DONALDE._OVERTON_Ԁand_GLENNA_ԀW._OVERTON_ԀOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTSJOHNKNOX_WALKUP_,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,NASHVILLE,andCYNTHIAL._PADUCH_,SeniorCounsel,StateAttorneyGeneral'sOffice,Knoxville,FORAPPELLEEKNOXCOUNTY,TENNESSEER.FRANKLINNORTON,GEOFFREYD._KRESSIN_ԀandR.DAVID_BENNER_ԀOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEETHEROGERSGROUP,INC.   `    OPINION '&    `     h      p   QX XXTXGoddard,P.J. *!+    ` RobertA.KeenerandtheKeenerCorporationappealasummaryjudgmentgrantedinfavorofKnoxCountyandTheRogersGroup,Inc.,inasuitseekingastoKnoxCountycompensationonthetheoryofinversecondemnationandagainstRogers,fordamagestotheirpropertyasaresultoftheconstructionofwhatisknownintherecordastheHenleyConnectorindowntownKnoxville. :z1>    ` InthePlaintiffscaseagainstKnoxCountyitistheirtheorythatnotwithstandingthefactasettlementwasreachedastothecondemnationcaseagainstMr.Keener,bywhichKnoxCountyacquiredpropertynecessaryfortheconstructionoftheConnector,theresultingactivitiesofthecontractorsduringconstructionamountedtoafurthertakingoftheirpropertyforwhichtheywereentitledtocompensation.   ` AstoRogers,thesuitseeksdamagesonthetheoryofnegligenceforthesameactivitiesandstrictliabilityforblastingdonebyRogerssubcontractor,ArnoldConstructionCompany,whichultimatelysettledthePlaintiffsclaim.   ` AsbestweunderstandtheTrialJudgesmemorandumopinion,hefoundthattheclauseinthesettlementdecreeastothecondemnationsuit,whichreleasedKeenerCorporationforanyincidentaldamages,barredasuitininversecondemnation,andastoRogersthatnoblastingwasdonebyitonthedatesallegedand,consequently,itcouldnotbeliable.   ` ThePlaintiffsappealraisesthefollowingtwoissues:I. ` WHETHERORNOTTHETRIALCOURTERREDINGRANTING (.$, KNOXCOUNTYSSUMMARYJUDGMENTII. ` WHETHERORNOTTHETRIALCOURTERREDINGRANTING 0J'/ THEROGERSGROUPSMOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT   ` Aspertinenttothisappealthefollowingpleadingsandordersarecontainedintherecord:  1. ` November28,1994.Originalcomplaintfiledagainst 08.8 KnoxCounty,RogersandArnold. 9|0:   2. ` February17,1995.AmendedcomplaintastoKnoxCounty `  inresponsetoamotionforamorespecificstatementofclaim.  3. ` February24,1995.Amendedandsupplementalcomplaint   astoallthreeDefendants.  4. ` August16,1995.Judgmententeredgrantingsummary  judgmenttoRogersandKnoxCounty.  5. ` December11,1995.Secondamendedandsubstituted #@ complaint.  6. ` October1,1997.  Thirdamendedandsupplemental `'  complaint.  7. ` December20,1997.OrderstrikingreferencestoRogers  +!$ and StateofTennesseepersonnelfromthirdamendedandsupplementalcomplaint.  8. ` January15,1998.Orderofcompromiseanddismissalas 0`'* toArnold.   ` Wefirstobservebeforegoingtothemeritsofthis casethatthestandardusedfordeterminingtheproprietyof @8.2 summaryjudgmentissetoutinByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,214 `  (Tenn.1993):  ` Rule56comesintoplayonlywhenthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Thus,theissuesthatlieattheheartofevaluatingasummaryjudgmentmotionare:(1)whetherafactual `  disputeexists;(2)whetherthedisputedfactismaterialtotheoutcomeofthecase,and(3)whether N  thedisputedfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial. L     ` Thedecreeinthecondemnationsuitcontainedthefollowingprovision: ` ITISFURTHERORDEREDthattheawardsetouthereinaboveincludestheactualfaircashmarketvalueofthepropertyandpropertyrightsacquiredinthiscauseandofanyandalldamages,whetheractualorincidental,totheremainderofthepropertyoftheDefendant,andincludingfullsettlementofallclaimsforcompensationduetheDefendantbecauseofthetakingofthepropertydescribedaboveandbecauseoftheconstructionofHighwayProjectNo.47002211844,1407(62)387inKnoxville,KnoxCounty,Tennessee,asitaffectsTractNo.189S.   ` AstotheclaimagainstKnoxCounty,theamendedandsubstitutedcomplaintfiledonFebruary24,1995,soughtrecoveryonlyonthetheoryofinversecondemnation,andtheTrialCourt,uponexaminingtheforegoingorder,concludedthatthelanguageintheorderregardingincidentaldamageswassufficientlybroadtoprecludeacasebythePlaintiffsunderthistheory.  z7.1    ` ThecaseofBurchfieldv.StateofTennessee,774 `   S.W.2d178(Tenn.App.1988),addresses,althoughinadifferentcontext,thefactsthatmustbeshowntosustainafindingthatatakinghasoccurred.Afterreviewinganumberofcasestouchingonthequestionofataking,weconcludedthefollowing(atpage183): ` Uponconsiderationofallthecases,weconcludethatwhetheratakinghasoccurreddependsonthefactsofeachcase,specificallythenature,extentanddurationoftheintrusion.   ` InthepresentcasetheaffidavitofMr.KeenerrelativetothedamagessufferedbythePlaintiffsandthetakingofhispropertyissetoutinAppendix.   ` UponviewingtheaffidavitofMr.KeenerinthelightmostfavorabletothePlaintiffsandindulgingallreasonableinferencesinsupportofthePlaintiffsposition,weconcludethat,astomanyofthecomplaintsRS K   1      hehasenumerated,factual 0* # disputesremainastowhetherthecomplaintsmeetthetestofBurchfieldrelativetoatemporarytaking. -$'    ` Inreachingourconclusion,wearemindfulofthecaseofStatev.Rascoe,181Tenn.43,178S.W.2d392(1944),which 30*- holdsthataspointedoutinthebriefofKnoxCountyparties p5,/  arenotentitledtocompensationfordamagesnaturallyandunavoidablyresultingfromthecarefulconstructionandoperationofthepublicimprovementwhichdamagesaresharedgenerallybytheownerswhoselandsliewithintherangeofinconveniencesnecessarilyattendingthatimprovement.   ` BeforeleavingtheclaimagainstKnoxCounty,wenoteithasraisedtwoissueswhichmeritattention.First,itcontendsinthethirdamendedandsubstitutedcomplaint,filedonOctober1,1997,KnoxCountywasnotnamedasapartydefendant,butthisisunderstandablebecausethesuitagainstKnoxCountyhadlongsincebeenresolvedbytheTrialCourtsentryofthesummaryjudgmentonAugust16,1995.Indeed,thisisapparentbecauseofthemotionandsubsequentorderstrikinganyreferencetoKnoxCountyorRogers.   ` Bytheirsecondissue,KnoxCountycontendsanoticeofappealwasnottimelyfiledbecausethesummaryjudgmentwasenteredonAugust16,1995,andanoticeofappealwasnotfileduntilJanuary29,1998.ItshouldbenotedthatthesummaryjudgmententeredwasnotmadeafinaljudgmentpursuanttoRule54oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,andwasnotripeforanappealuntiltheentryoftheorderofcompromiseanddismissalastoArnold,whichresolvedallissuesastoallparties.  @8.2    ` AstoRogers,theTrialJudgesgrantofsummary judgmentwaspredicateduponafindingthatitdidnoblastingonthedatesalleged.However,thereisanaffidavitbyJohnCorum,anofficeroftheKeenerCorporation,thatblastingdidoccuronthoseparticulardays.ItmaybethattheTrialCourtwassayingthat,althoughblastingdidoccurbyArnold,thesubcontractor,nonewasdonebytheprincipalcontractor,Rogers.Thefallacyofthisreasoning,however,isthatunderthelawofthisStateapartycausingdamagebyblastingisstrictlyliable,andthegeneralcontractorisjointlyliablewiththesubcontractor.WaltonMcDowellCo.v.Jackson,5Tenn.C.C.A.324(1914);   CumberlandTelephone&TelegraphCo.v.Stoneking,1Tenn.C.C.A.  241(1911).   ` Itmightbecontendedthatasettlementofthecaseagainstthepartydoingtheblasting,inthiscaseArnold,servedtoreleasethegeneralcontractor,Rogers.Whilethiswouldordinarilybetrue,thepredicateforthesuitagainstRogersisnotvicariousliability,butRogersindependentnegligence.InthiscaseitwouldappearthatifthefactsupontrialremainthesameundertheteachingsofMcIntyrev.Balentine,833 .%( S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),andthelawofthisStatethattheprimecontractorandthesubcontractorarejointlyliableincasesofdamagesoccurringbyblasting,Rogerswouldbeliablefor50percentofanydamagesfoundtohavebeensufferedbythePlaintiffs.  :04    ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacatedandthecauseremandedforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalftothePlaintiffsandtheirsuretyandonehalftoRogers.X>/XXQXc   `     h   _______________________________ @     `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.̜________________________________񀀀No(NotParticipating)  p DonT.McMurray,J.#QXcXXX>/*3#Ԁ !`