ÿWPCT …#†VUNÜ %* 00U:L 0† 4¶ Ê 0JÙ 0T# 0^w 0hÕ 0r= 0|¯ 0†+ 0± 1uAU,¶ 0dâU,FU>rU*°U*ÚB)DC- AMpÙ½ B–v~³vÓ1 D3 0@7 AOwÆÆ 08Œ 0DÄ D/ B7˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0ÕP —OöŸR  ‚+V#(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ô%$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XhXXXÔÓÓÑ7€hXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WINDOWS\STANDARD.WPT3x2øð 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ21,Ï1995ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3N$¢¢Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑѰÑÑXÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XøòXXXÔÓÓÑ7€õXXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÓÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÑ#€  Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ° ÑÑ X ÑÓÓò òÑ7€õXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURTÏOF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERNÏSECTION€AT€JACKSONÌòòà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌHOWARD€LUDLOW,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà àò ò)€€ShelbyÏCircuit€No.€48265€T.D.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€AppealÏNo.€02A01„9408„CV„00196Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMEMPHIS„SHELBY€COUNTYà àà à)ÌAIRPORT€AUTHORITY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àò ò)ÌÌÌó óà@ àAPPEAL€FROMÏTHE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,ÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLEÏWYETH€CHANDLER,€JUDGEÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|¡ý¦` 81 `€€LßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òDAVID€O.€PRICEÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òSTEPHEN€R.€LEFFLERÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€SP.€J.ó óà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€arises€from€a€trip€and€fall€accident€which€occurred€on€propertyÏowned€Ñ7€õXXdìXXdì7Ñby€the€Defendant„Appellant€Memphis€and€Shelby€County€Airport€AuthorityÏ("Airport").€€The€lower€court,€sitting€without€a€jury,€found€that€the€Airport's€failure€toÏproperly€designate€a€change€in€elevation€at€the€base€of€an€approach€ramp€created€aÏdangerous€condition€which€proximately€caused€personal€injury€to€the€Plaintiff„Appellee,€Howard€T.€Ludlow€("Ludlow").€€The€lower€court€assessed€Ludlow'sÏnegligence€at€40%.€€The€Airport€appeals€the€trial€court's€decision.ÌÌà àAt€approximately€1:00€p.m.€on€September€29,€1991€Ludlow€was€at€the€MemphisÏAirport€with€the€intention€of€boarding€a€Northwest€Airlines€flight€to€Pensacola,€Florida.€ÏAs€he€approached€the€Northwest€Airlines€entrance€to€the€€airport€terminal,€LudlowÏtripped€and€fell€on€a€raised€concrete€"lip"€at€the€base€of€a€pedestrian€approach€ramp.ÏThe€curb€in€question€borders€the€roadway.€€The€curb€was€reduced€from€its€originalÍheight€of€six€inches€to€its€current€height€of€one€and€one„half€inches€in€order€to€createÏan€approach€ramp,€facilitating€access€to€the€terminal€building€for€passengers€withÏluggage.€€According€to€the€Airport,€the€new€curb€was€not€constructed€to€be€flush€withÏthe€roadway€because€a€sufficient€thickness€of€concrete€was€required€to€cover€the€re„enforced€steel€structure€over€which€the€curb€was€built.€€€The€Airport€painted€a€yellowÏstrip€across€the€top,€horizontal€plane€of€the€one€and€one„half€inch€curb€at€the€pointÏwhere€€the€curb€meets€the€roadway;€however,€the€yellow€paint€was€chipped€and€barelyÏvisible€at€the€time€of€Ludlow's€accident.€€While€the€inside,€vertical€plane€of€the€one€andÏone„half€inch€curb€was€not€painted€yellow,€other€portions€of€the€curb€along€theÏroadway€were€painted€yellow€on€both€the€horizontal€and€vertical€planes.€€AirportÏofficials€testified€that€the€curb€is€painted€yellow€solely€to€indicate€a€no€parking€area,€notÏto€indicate€an€increase€in€elevation€between€the€roadway€and€the€approach€ramp.€ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€his€fall,€Ludlow€fractured€his€left€arm€in€two€places.€€€The€trial€courtÏrendered€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Ludlow€in€the€amount€of€€$31,697.68.€€The€trial€courtÏreduced€the€verdict€by€40%€to€account€for€Ludlow's€comparative€negligence.€€ÌÌà àThis€case€was€tried€by€a€court€sitting€without€a€jury.€€Thus,€we€review€the€caseÏòòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€theÏtrial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,Ïabsent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).ÌÌà àThe€first€issue€the€Airport€presents€for€this€Court's€review€is€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€denying€the€Airport's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€€In€òòBradford€v.€CityÍof€Clarksvilleóó,€885€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1994),€this€Court€stated:€€"A€€trial€court'sÏdenial€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€predicated€upon€the€existence€of€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact,€is€not€reviewable€on€appeal€when€a€judgment€is€subsequentlyÏrendered€after€a€trial€on€the€merits."€€€In€the€present€case,€the€lower€court€found€that€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€existed€as€to€whether€the€Airport's€failure€to€maintain€theÏpaint€on€the€one€and€one„half€inch€raised€lip€of€the€approach€ramp€constitutedÏnegligence.€€Accordingly,€we€decline€to€review€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€Airport'sÏmotion.ÌÌà àThe€second€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€€Ludlow€failed€to€prove€a€òòprima€facieóóÏcause€of€action€concerning€notice,€the€existence€of€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition,Ïand€waiver€of€immunity.€€Because€this€case€involves€the€Airport,€a€€governmental€entityÏcreated€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€42„3„103,€Ludlow's€cause€of€action€is€controlled€by,€andÏmust€be€brought€in€strict€compliance€with,€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€LiabilityÏAct,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„101€òòet€seq.€óó(1980€&€Supp.€1995).€€€Although€governmental€entitiesÏsuch€as€the€Airport€are€largely€immune€from€suit,€€immunity€may€be€removed€in€limitedÏsituations.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„204€€provides:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€€Immunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entity€is€removedÏfor€any€injury€caused€by€the€dangerous€or€defectiveÏcondition€of€any€public€building,€structure,€dam,€reservoirÏother€public€improvement€owned€and€controlled€by€suchÏgovernmental€entity.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€€Immunity€is€not€removed€for€latent€defective€conditions,Ïnor€shall€this€section€apply€unless€constructive€and/orÏactual€notice€to€the€governmental€entity€of€such€condition€beÏalleged€and€proved€.€.€.€ÌÓÓÌà àInitially,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€Airport's€maintenance€of€theÍraised€one€and€one„half€inch,€poorly€painted,€concrete€lip€at€the€base€of€an€approachÏramp€constitutes€a€dangerous€condition.€€Testimony€at€trial€revealed€that€the€Airport,€atÏsome€point,€painted€the€horizontal,€or€top,€plane€of€the€one€and€one„half€inch€curbÏyellow.€€However,€the€paint€was€chipped€and€hardly€visible€at€the€time€of€Ludlow'sÏaccident.€€The€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[h]ad€this€condition€been€at€the€foot€of€the€driveway,Ïpossibly€your€driveway€and€everyone€else's€drivewayÏwhere€you€don't€get€the€heavy€pedestrian€traffic,€certainlyÏthere€is€no€need€for€painting€of€any€sort€or€any€other€sort€ofÏwarning.€€But€we€are€talking€about€a€place€where€thousandsÏand€thousands€of€people€walk€in€and€out€every€day.€€ÓÓÌWe€agree.€€The€Airport€constructed€the€approach€ramp€in€question€in€order€to€facilitateÏthe€flow€of€passengers,€with€baggage,€from€the€parking€area€into€the€terminal€building.€ÏA€wide,€marked,€pedestrian€crossing€zone€leads€from€the€parking€area€to€the€approachÏramp.€€A€raised€curb€at€the€base€of€an€approach€ramp€which€is€inadequately,€if€at€all,Ïmarked€to€indicate€an€increase€in€elevation€invites€danger.€We€find€unpersuasive€theÏAirport's€argument€that€a€raised€concrete€lip€on€an€approach€ramp€is€not€dangerousÏaccording€to€"common€experience."€€Particularly€at€a€large€international€airport,€whereÏpassengers€are€frequently€rushed€and€burdened€with€luggage,€an€unmarked€concreteÏlip€on€what€the€Airport€acknowledges€to€be€an€approach€òòrampóó,€is€a€dangerousÏcondition.€€€ÌÌà àThe€Airport€contends€that,€because€Ludlow€was€the€first€person€to€report€anÏaccident€due€to€the€raised€concrete€lip,€the€lip€was€not€dangerous.€€€We€disagree.€€TheÏcourts€of€this€state€have€frequently€found€that€a€dangerous€condition€exists€€whereÏthere€is€no€evidence€that€the€accident€under€consideration€has€previously€occurred.€ÏòòSee€generallyóó€òòBradfordóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€82€(Tenn.€App.€1994)€(finding€that€meter€lidÍwhich€caused€plaintiff's€injuries€constituted€a€dangerous€condition,€despite€fact€thatÏmeter€lid€had€existed€in€defective€state€for€twenty€years€and€there€was€no€evidence€ofÏprevious€accidents);€òòMcGaughy€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€823€S.W.2d€209,€214€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991)€(holding€defendants€liable€for€deaths€resulting€from€€dangerous€conditionÏcreated€by€high€powered€electric€power€lines€that€were€not€properly€insulated);ÏòòSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€743€S.W.2d€174,€177€(Tenn.€App.€1987)€(findingÏdangerous€condition€where€city€failed€to€properly€delineate€five€lane€thoroughfare).€€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€find€that€the€concrete€lip€created€a€dangerous€condition,€this€CourtÏmay€impose€liability€on€the€Airport€only€if€we€find€that€the€Airport€had€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„204(b).€€In€òòKirby€v.ÏMacon€Countyóó,€892€S.W.2d€403,€409€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏstated€that€"'[a]ctual€notice'€has€been€defined€by€our€Court€as€'knowledge€of€facts€andÏcircumstances€sufficiently€pertinent€in€character€to€enable€reasonably€cautious€andÏprudent€persons€to€investigate€and€ascertain€as€to€the€ultimate€facts.'"€€Doyle€Reed,€theÏAirport's€Director€of€Operations€and€Public€Safety,€testified,€without€contradiction,€thatÏLudlow's€accident€was€the€first€reported€accident€allegedly€caused€by€the€concrete€lipÏat€the€base€of€the€approach€ramp.€We€conclude€that€the€Airport€did€not€have€actualÏnotice€of€the€dangerous€condition€presented€by€the€concrete€lip€prior€to€Ludlow'sÏaccident.ÌÌà à"'Constructive€notice'€is€'information€or€knowledge€of€a€fact€imputed€by€law€to€aÏperson€(although€he€may€not€actually€have€it),€because€he€could€have€discovered€theÏfact€by€proper€diligence,€and€his€situation€was€such€as€to€cast€upon€him€the€duty€ofÍinquiring€into€it.'"€€òòId.óó€at€409.€€€In€the€present€case,€the€approach€ramp€is€bordered€onÏboth€sides€by€six€inch,€brightly€painted,€yellow€curbs.€€It€is€foreseeable€that€aÏreasonable€person€would€believe€that€the€unpainted€portion€in€the€middle;€that€is,€theÏbase€of€the€approach€ramp,€was€flush€with€the€designated€pedestrian€crosswalk.€€OnÏthe€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that,€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence,€theÏAirport€should€have€noticed,€and€remedied,€the€hazard€presented€by€the€raised€oneÏand€one„half€inch€lip€at€the€base€of€the€approach€ramp.€€Further,€as€the€designer€andÏbuilder€of€the€ramp,€the€Airport€was€charged€with€notice€of€its€condition.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€final€issue€the€Airport€presents€for€this€Court's€review€is€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€assessing€Ludlow's€contributory€negligence€at€only€40%.€€The€AirportÏargues€that,€because€Ludlow€had€visited€the€Memphis€Airport€before,€his€knowledge€ofÏany€dangerous€condition€was€equal€to€or€superior€than€that€of€the€Airport€itself,€andÏtherefore€should€preclude€Ludlow's€recovery.€€€Ludlow€testified€that€he€had€been€to€theÏMemphis€Airport€and€successfully€traversed€the€same€concrete€lip€on€previousÏoccasions.€€However,€Doyle€Reed€testified€that€he€had€been€the€Airport's€Director€ofÏPublic€Safety€for€twenty€years.€€€We€cannot€agree€with€counsel's€argument€that€anÏAirport€visitor's€knowledge€of€a€dangerous€condition€at€the€Airport€is€equal€to€orÏsuperior€than€the€knowledge€of€the€full„time€public€safety€director.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€assessed€Ludlow's€negligence€at€40%.€€In€considering€theÏAirport's€contention€that€the€trial€court's€assessment€of€Ludlow's€negligence€was€tooÏlow,€we€find€òòMorrow€v.€Town€of€Madisonvilleóó,€737€S.W.2d€547,€549€(Tenn.€App.€1987)Ïpersuasive:€€"a€citizen€walking€along€a€street€does€not€have€to€keep€his€eyes€on€theÍpavement€all€the€time;€he€may€presume€the€city€has€done€its€duty.€€It€is€not€negligenceÏto€fail€to€look€for€danger€which€under€the€surrounding€circumstances€he€had€no€reasonÏto€apprehend.'"€(quoting€òòBatts€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€22€Tenn.€App.€418,€426„27,€123ÏS.W.2d€1099,€1104€€(1938)).€€€Ludlow's€uncontradicted€testimony€was€that€he€was€notÏin€a€rush.€€He€was€wearing€his€prescription€glasses.€€€Simply€put,€Ludlow€was€walkingÏinto€the€Memphis€Airport€much€as€any€other€traveler,€talking€to€companions€andÏpreparing€to€board€an€airplane.€€He€had€no€reason€to€anticipate€anticipate€danger.€ÏAlthough€this€Court€declines€to€charge€Ludlow€with€superior€knowledge€of€the€variousÏdangerous€conditions€that€may€exist€at€the€Airport,€we€recognize€that€Ludlow€had€aÏduty€to€use€due€care€with€regard€to€the€path€he€chose.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€finding€that€Ludlow€was€40%€negligent.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSUMMERS,€SP.€J.