ÿWPCÑ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 0c8 0‹› U:& ` 0Jh 0T² 0^ 0hd 0rÌ 0|> 0†º 0@ 1uÐ 0dEU *©B)Ó BüDC AM\ü©Ã¥v~hvÓæ D3¹ 0@ì AO,Æ{ 0DA D/… B´˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - jkDlmnoDpqDrÓ€|DÒ \HENDO3|x|(" „$Ô‡XTXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;(2î¼$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XW†XXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó@"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d""""7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌDecember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóBy€the€time€the€plaintiffððs€case€came€to€trial,€she€had€divorced€and€remarried€such€that€herÏname€was€Teresa€Taylor€Gentry.€€However,€for€purposes€of€this€appeal,€the€plaintiff€will€be€referred€toÏby€her€previous€name€under€which€she€initiated€these€proceedings.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò####'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€W†XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌHARRIET€TERESA€MARTIN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CV„00242ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93C„2136ÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€%&$A1-j|NT` ç `€€@ÿRßWASHMASTER€AUTO€CENTER,à à)ÌU.S.A.,€d/b/a€WASHMASTERS€AUTOà à)ÌCENTERS,€and€MURFREESBOROà à)ÌROAD€AUTOWASH€CORPORATION,à à)Ìd/b/a€WASHMASTERS€AUTOà àà à)ÌCENTERS,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌLARRY€R.€WILLIAMSÌCAROLYN€E.€UNDERWOODÌLARRY€R.€WILLIAMS,€P.C.Ì329€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„0632Ìà àAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌTHOMAS€PINCKNEYÌANDY€ROWLETTÌHOWELL€&€FISHERÌCourt€Square€BuildingÌ300€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1107Ìà àAttorneys€for€Defendants/AppellantsÌÌÌÌà@ àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌLEWIS,€J.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€!„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€!XÔÌÌÑ7€ W† XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àà àIn›€this€slip€and€fall€case,€the€main€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€thereÏis€any€evidence€to€support€the€plaintiffððs€œverdict.€€We›€resolve€that€issue€against€theÏplaintiff€and€enter€a€judgment€for€the€defendant€in€accordance€with€the€motionÏmade€at€the€end€of€all€the€œevidence.€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àAfter›€falling€on€the€asphalt€at€Washmasters€Auto€Center,€a€NashvilleÏcarwash,€Harriet€Teresa€Martinœ× ƒ' ××  ×›€brought€suit€in€the€Davidson€County€Circuit€CourtÏwhere€a€jury€found€that€she€had€sustained€damages€in€the€amount€ofÏ$125,148.18.€€Upon€the€jury's€determination€that€the€Defendants,€WashmasterÏAuto€Center,€U.S.A.€d/b/a€Washmasters€Auto€Centers,€and€Murfreesboro€RoadÏAutowash€Corporation,€d/b/a€Washmasters€Auto€Centers,€were€75%€at€fault€andÏthe€plaintiff€25%,€the€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€against€the€defendants€in€theÏamount€of€$93,861.14.€€ÌœÌà à›à àThe€defendants€moved€the€trial€court€to€set€aside€the€judgment€onÏthe€jury€verdict€and€to€enter€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€their€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict.€€In€the€alternative,€the€defendants€moved€the€trial€court€for€a€newÏtrial.€€The€trial€court€denied€these€motions€and€œon€this›€appeal€œthe›€œdefendants›€haveÏraised€issues€involving€the€plaintiffððs€failure€to€prove€that€the€defendant€carwashÏwas€negligent.ÌÌœà à›à àð ðWhere€there€has€been€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€approved€by€theÏTrial€Judge,€in€considering€a€defendantððs€€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€must€look€at€all€the€evidence,€construe€it€most€favorably€to€the€plaintiff,Ítake€the€plaintiffððs€evidence€which€supports€his€theory€as€true,€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence€and€indulge€all€reasonable€inferences€to€uphold€theÏverdict.ððòò€€€œTennesseeóó›€òòLiquefied€Gas€Corp.€v.€œRossóó,›€450€S.W.2d€œ587,›€588€œ(Tenn.ÏApp.€1968).€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€this€Courtððs€responsibility€is€toÏdetermine€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.›ÌÓ  Ӝ̛ò ò€œII.Ìó ó›ÌÓ  Óœà à›à àThe€proof€in€its€most€favorable€light€to€the€plaintiff€shows€that€onÏDecember€28,€1989,€Teresa€Martin€stopped€at€the€Washmasters€carwash€inÏNashville€to€get€her€car€washed.€€€While€on€the€premises,€Ms.€Martin€fell€causingÏinjury€to€her€knee€and€giving€rise€to€this€œaction.›€€œBecause›€this€case€places€œat›€issueÏWashmastersðð€negligent€operation€of€its€carwash,€a€detailed€account€of€theÏcarwash€and€its€method€of€operation€must€be€given.€€The€Washmasters€facilityÏconsists€of€a€main€building,€a€smaller€building€used€for€specialty€detailingÏservices,€and€œa›€paved€asphalt€area€which€separates€the€two€œbuildings.›€€AfterÏturning€over€their€cars€to€attendants,€customers€enter€the€main€building€whereÏthere€is€a€customer€service€area€and€a€lobby€in€which€they€can€wait.€€Here,€thereÏare€windows€in€the€wall€through€which€customers€can€watch€their€cars€œas€theyÏmove›€through€a€car€washing€tunnel.€€ÌÌœà à›à àIn€1989,€Washmastersðð€œmost›€popular€œpackage,›€ð ðthe€Works,ðð€includedÏan€alkaline€presoak,€a€foamy€tire€cleaner,€another€alkaline,€forty€gallons€of€water,Ïa€hot€wax,€a€shine€plus,€a€polysilicone,€and€a€final€rinse€of€nine€gallons€of€water.€ÏAfter€receiving€this€treatment,€the€vehicles€run€through€a€forced€air€drying€area€atÏthe€end€of€the€tunnel.€€Testimony€established€that€some€water€might€remain€on€theÏcar€and€might€drip€off€as€the€car€emerges€from€the€tunnel.€€When€the€managerÏwas€asked€about€the€chemical€residue€included€in€this€water,€he€stated€that€thereÏwould€be€œnone€„„›€that€any€liquid€which€drips€off€as€the€car€emerges€from€theÏtunnel€would€be€pure€water.ÌœÌà à›à àWhen€the€cars€reach€the€end€of€the€tunnel,€employees€get€in€andÏdrive€them€out€of€the€tunnel€and€into€œone›€of€several€bays€in€the€main€building.€ÏHere,€employees€œtypically›€vacuum€the€interiors€of€the€cars€œremoving›€trash€fromÏthem€which€could€include€liquid€trash.€€In€addition,€on€a€busy€day,€the€windowsÏmight€be€cleaned€in€this€area.€€Once€a€car€is€finished€in€the€bay€area,€anÏemployee€drives€it€out€of€the€main€building€across€a€drain€between€the€indoor€bayÏand€the€outside€asphalt€area.ÌÌà àœà àOnce›€outside,€an€attendant€will€perform€the€final€work€on€a€car€suchÏas€cleaning€the€tires,€the€windows,€and€the€œinterior.›€€œThe›€cleaning€solutions€areÏkept€in€squirt€bottles€in€carts€in€this€outside€area.€€The€window€cleaner€used€is€anÏall„purpose€cleaner€diluted€with€water€at€a€ratio€of€twenty„four€units€of€water€to€oneÍunit€of€cleaner.€€The€tires€are€cleaned€by€squirting€a€pad€with€Protect„All€and€thenÏwiping€the€tires,€although,€sometimes,€Protect„All€is€applied€directly€to€the€tires.€ÏProtect„All€is€a€water„based€chemical€which,€upon€the€label,€states€that€it€reducesÏfriction.€€A€degreaser€may€be€sprayed€to€remove€minor€tar€from€the€exterior€of€theÏcars.€€The€carwash€manager€testified€that€carwash€employees€might€occasionallyÏdrop€the€plastic€bottles€of€cleaners€causing€some€cleaner€to€spill€out€onto€theÏœasphalt.›ÌÌœà à›à àThe€carwash€employs€supervisors,€known€as€"loose€persons,"€whoÏroam€the€premises€in€search€of€problems€that€have€arisen€and€customers€in€needÏof€assistance.€€These€employees€pick€up€trash€and€take€care€of€any€spillageÏwhich€might€necessitate€€blocking€off€portions€of€the€bay€area€in€order€to€clean€upÏa€spill.€€The€carwash€manager€testified€that€on€a€day€such€as€the€day€that€theÏplaintiff€fell,€Washmasters€would€have€had€six€loose€persons€monitoring€theÏcarwash.ÌÌœà à›€à àWhen€the€work€in€the€pick„up€area€is€completed€and€the€car€is€ready,Ïan€employee€waves€a€towel€to€signal€to€the€customer.€€It€is€undisputed€that€theÏmost€feasible€way€for€customers€to€retrieve€their€cars€after€exiting€the€lobby€is€toÏwalk€through€the€bay€areas,€across€the€drain,€and€onto€the€asphalt€work€areaÏwhere€the€cars€are€waiting.€€Robert€Whitaker,€an€expert€for€the€defendant€who€is€a€Ïstructural€engineer,€testified€that€the€surface€of€the€bay€floor€consists€of€texturedÍconcrete€paving€stones€which€are€widely€used€and€recommended€for€car€andÏpedestrian€traffic.€€Mr.€Whitaker€observed€that€water€accumulates€in€the€bay€area.€ÏHe€noted€that,€as€the€surface€is€made€of€precast€concrete,€it€does€not€absorbÏanything.€€œAlthough›€water€would€soak€through€the€mortar€joints€of€this€surface€ifÏthe€stones€had€been€installed,€as€recommended,€in€sand,€Mr.€Whitaker€testifiedÏthat€they€were€installed€in€mortar.€€œMoreover,›€the€bay€area€has€no€slope€to€it€Ïfurther€accounting€for€the€accumulation€of€water.ÌÌœà à›à àOn€the€other€hand,€according€to€this€expert,€the€asphalt€surface€ofÏthe€outside€pickup€area,€where€œthe›€plaintiff's€injury€occurred,€is€absorbent€andÏthus€even€an€oil€spill€will€not€stay€on€the€surface€for€long€periods.€€Mr.€WhitakerÏtestified€that€the€asphalt,€with€its€textured€surface,€has€good€traction€even€whenÏwet.€€Both€Mr.€Whitaker€and€the€carwash€manager€testified€that€water€poolsÏcannot€accumulate€on€the€asphalt€surface€because€there€is€a€slight€grade€towardÏthe€drain€that€separates€the€asphalt€from€the€bay€œarea.›ÌÌœà à›à àWhen€the€plaintiff€saw€that€her€car€was€œready›€around€10:30€on€theÏmorning€of€December€28€œ,›€she€walked€out€of€the€Washmasters€lobby€and€throughÏthe€bay€area€with€a€purse€over€her€left€shoulder€and€a€car€seat€in€her€right€hand.ÏAfter€crossing€the€drain€which€separates€the€bay€area€from€the€outside€asphaltÏarea,€œplaintiff›€took€several€steps€and€then€fell.€€She€testified€as€follows,€ð ð[a]s€soonÏas€I€walked€off€of€the€brick„type€surface€past€the€drain,€maybe€three€or€four€steps,€IÍimmediately€went€down,€slipped€and€went€down€on€my€left€knee€.€.€.€.€€What€IÏslipped€on€was€very€slippery;€I€mean,€it€had€to€be.€€I€went€straight€down.ððÌÌà àœà àMs.›€Martin€testified€that€the€carwash€was€very€busy€on€the€day€of€herÏaccident€and€that€she€noticed€ð ða€lotðð€of€water€on€the€asphalt€area€prior€to€œfalling.›€ÏWhen€asked€if€it€were€possible€that€she€slipped€on€something€that€a€customerÏdropped€or€rainwater,€Ms.€Martin€said,€ð ðI€donððt€know.€It€wasnððt€visible€.€.€.€.€€ThisÏwas€something€slippery€other€than€just€rainwater€or€ice€water.ðð€€She€stated€that€noÏemployee€of€the€carwash€had€warned€her€about€the€slippery€condition€of€theÏsurface€either€on€the€day€that€she€fell€or€on€any€of€her€previous€eighteen€or€twentyÏtrips€to€the€carwash.€€She€also€testified€that,€on€her€previous€visits,€she€had€neverÏnoticed€any€dangerous€condition.ÌÌœà àà à›€€€As€for€prior€œaccidents€on€the€premises,›€Mr.€œAndriotto,€the€car€washÏmanager,€testified›€that€he€had€slipped€œin€another€area€of€the€facility€while›€runningÏat€the€carwash€on€one€occasion€in€1984;€€however,€he€had€no€idea€what€heÏslipped€on.€€Other€than€this,€no€evidence€was€presented€at€trial€that€anyone€hadÏfallen€at€the€Washmasters€facility.€ÌÓ  ÓœÌò òIII.ó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óœà à›à àIn€light€of€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€œdefendants›€contend€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€in€error€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€in€its€favor.€€A€directed€verdictÏis€appropriate€when€the€evidence€supports€only€one€conclusion.€€œòòWilliams›€v.ÏœBrownóó,›€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993).€€However,€ð ð[a]€case€should€go€to€theÏjury,€even€if€the€facts€are€undisputed,€if€reasonable€persons€could€draw€conflictingÏinferences€from€the€facts.ðð€€œòòUnderwood›€v.€HCA€Health€Services€of€Tenn.,€œInc.óó,›€892ÏS.W.2d€423,€426€œ(Tenn.€App.€1994)€(òòcitingóó€òòSauls›€v.€œEvansóó,›€635€S.W.2d€377,€379Ï(Tenn.€1982)).€€The€jury€is€permitted€to€reasonably€infer€facts€from€circumstantialÏevidence,€and€these€inferred€facts€may€be€the€basis€of€further€inferences€of€theÏultimate€fact€at€issue.€€òòœBenson›€v.€H.€G.€Hill€Stores,€œInc.óó,›€699€S.W.2d€560,€563Ïœ(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€ð ðAn€inference€is€reasonable€and€legitimate€only€when€theÏevidence€makes€the€existence€of€the€fact€to€be€inferred€more€probable€than€theÏnonexistence€of€the€fact.ðð€€òòUnderwoodóó,›€892€S.W.2d€at€426.€€On€the€other€hand,€theÏjury€is€not€permitted€to€engage€in€conjecture,€speculation,€or€guesswork€as€toÏwhich€of€two€equally€probable€inferences€is€applicable.€€œòòStringer›€v.€œCooperóó,›€486ÏS.W.2d€751,€756€œ(Tenn.€App.€1972).ÌÌà àà àWe›€must€determine€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€Ms.€MartinððsÏevidence€would€enable€a€reasonable€person€to€conclude€that€her€injury€was,Ïmore€probably€than€not,€caused€by€Washmastersðð€negligence.€€While€businessÏproprietors,€such€as€Washmasters,€are€not€insurers€of€their€patronsðð€safety,€theyÏare€required€to€use€due€care€under€all€circumstances.€€œòòSmith›€v.€Inman€Realty€œCo.óó,›Í846€S.W.2d€819,€822€œ(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€In€order€for€an€owner€or€operator€ofÏpremises€to€be€held€liable€for€negligence€in€allowing€a€dangerous€or€defectiveÏcondition€to€exist€on€its€premises,€it€must€be€shown€that€the€condition€(1)€wasÏcaused€or€created€by€the€owner,€operator,€or€his€agent,€or€(2)€if€the€condition€wasÏcreated€by€someone€other€than€the€owner,€operator,€or€his€agent,€there€must€beÏactual€or€constructive€notice€on€€the€part€of€the€owner€or€operator€that€theÏcondition€existed€prior€to€the€accident.€€òòOgle›€v.€Winn„Dixie€Greenville,€œInc.óó,›€919ÏS.W.2d€45,€47€œ(Tenn.€App.€1995);€€òòJones›€v.€Zayre,€œInc.óó,›€600€S.W.2d€730,€732Ïœ(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€Constructive€knowledge€can€be€shown€by€proving€theÏdangerous€or€defective€condition€existed€for€such€a€length€of€time€that€theÏdefendant,€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care,€should€have€become€aware€ofÏsuch€condition.€€òòSimmons›€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€and€œCo.óó,›€713€S.W.2d€640,€641Ï(Tenn.€œ1986).ÌÌà àà àAlternatively,€the€notice€requirement€is€met€if€the€plaintiff€can€proveÏthat€the€defendantððs€method€of€operation€created€a€hazardous€situationÏforseeably€harmful€to€others.€€òòHale€v.€Blue€Boar€Cafeteria€Co.óó,€(Tenn.€App.,Ïunpublished€opinion,€filed€at€Jackson,€Feb.€21,€1980).ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó ó›ÌÌà àœà àThe›€œdefendants›€assert€that€plaintiff€offered€no€proof€as€to€whatÏcaused€her€to€fall.€€She€did€not€prove€that€defendants€created€a€dangerous€orÏdefective€condition€or€that€defendants€had€notice€of€such€a€condition.€€WhileÏplaintiff€is€correct€in€her€argument€that€she€is€not€required€to€prove€the€specificÏslippery€substance€that€caused€her€to€fall,€œòòseeó󛀜òòBeske›€v.€Opryland€USA,€œInc.óó,›€923ÏS.W.2d€544€œ(Tenn.€App.€1996),€it€is€necessary€that€she€show€that€the€defendantÏcaused€the€substance€upon€which€she€slipped€to€be€on€the€asphalt€or,€if€not,€thatÏthe€defendant€knew€or€should€have€known€that€the€slippery€substance€wasÏpresent.€€€€ÌÌà à›à àœThe€proof€showed€that€water€and€perhaps€friction„reducingÏchemicals€may€accumulate€in€the€indoor€bay€areas€of€the€car€wash€across€whichÏthe€plaintiff€had€to€walk€in€order€to€retrieve€her€clean€vehicle.€€Although€the€plaintiffÏtestified€that€she€noticed€water€on€the€asphalt€surface€where€she€actually€fell,€theÏuncontroverted€expert€testimony€was€that€this€surface€was€highly€absorbent€andÏsloped€toward€a€drain€so€that€liquid€substances€would€not€accumulate.€€TheÏplaintiff€acknowledged€that€pavement€wet€from€rainwater€alone€is€not€slippery€andÏthat€Washmaster€could€not€have€avoided€rainwater€being€on€this€outside€asphaltÏarea.€€The€plaintiffððs€theory€seems€to€be€that€the€defendant€created€this€dangerousÏcondition€by€allowing€slippery€car€wash€chemicals€to€be€on€the€ground€„„›Ïchemicals€which€came€into€contact€with€plaintiffððs€feet€either€as€she€walkedÏthrough€the€bay€area€or€as€she€emerged€onto€the€asphalt€œarea.›ÌÌœà à›à àWhile€plaintiffððs€theory€is€not€implausible,€it€must€be€more€probableÏthan€any€other€theory€in€order€for€this€Court€to€uphold€the€verdict.€€œòòSee›óó€œòòTennessee›ÏLiquefied€Gas€Corp.€v.€œRossóó,›€450€S.W.2d€587,€593€œ(Tenn.€App.€1968).€€As€weÏhave€stated,€the€jury€may€not€speculate€as€to€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€fall€whenÏone€is€not€shown,€nor€may€it€speculate€between€two€equally€probable€causes,€forÏonly€one€of€which€the€defendant€is€responsible.€€òòStringer›€v.€œCooperóó,›€486€S.W.2dÏ751,€756€œ(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€plaintiff€could€haveÏslipped€on€oil,€transmission€fluid,€coolant,€tobacco€juice,€or€ice.€€We€agree.€€EvenÏthe€plaintiff,€when€confronted€with€the€possibility€that€she€had€slipped€onÏsomething€dropped€by€a€customer,€testified€that€she€ð ðdidnððt€know.ðð€€The€plaintiff,Ïby€her€evidence,€effectively€demonstrates€a€potential€hazard€for€any€carwash€„„Ïthat€slippery€chemicals€might€be€inadvertently€placed€in€the€paths€of€patronsÏgiving€rise€to€such€accidents.€€However,€it€is€this€courtððs€opinion€that€the€plaintiffÏfailed€to€show€that,€more€probably€than€not,€it€happened€in€this€instance.ÌÌà à›à àIn€œòòChambliss›€v.€Shoneyððs€œInc.óó,›€742€S.W.2d€271€œ(Tenn.€App.€1987),Ïthe€trial€court€directed€a€verdict€for€the€defendant€in€a€situation€where€the€plaintiffÏhad€fallen€in€a€large€puddle€of€water€in€the€defendant€restaurantððs€bathroom.€€TheÏplaintiff€had€no€information€as€to€the€origin€of€the€water;€however,€it€was€theÏplaintiffððs€theory€that€the€water€was€tracked€in€from€the€outside€as€the€proofÏshowed€that€there€was€snow€and€slush€outside€and€that€the€parking€lot€was€ð ðpartlyÍfrozen€and€partly€slushy.ðð€€òòId.óó›€at€272.€€There€was€also€proof€that€there€were€noÏmats€in€place€for€customers€to€clean€their€feet€and€that€it€could€have€been€as€longÏas€forty„five€minutes€since€an€employee€made€a€periodic€inspection€of€theÏbathroom€floor€which€was€made€of€smooth€inlaid€brick.ÌÌœà à›à àIn€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€this€Court€stated€that€ð ð[t]here€isÏno€evidence€of€the€source€of€the€water€which€caused€the€plaintiff€to€fall.ðð€€œòòId.óó›€atÏ273.€€ð ðOther€than€the€presence€of€snow€and€slush€outside,€there€is€no€evidenceÏthat€the€defendant€knew€or€should€have€known€that€a€puddle€in€the€restroomÏwould€result€from€the€snow€and€slush€outside.ðð€€œòòId.óó›€at€274.€€In€the€reasoning€ofÏœòòChamblissóó,›€we€find€support€for€our€conclusion:€€other€than€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€carwash€uses€potentially€slick€chemicals,€there€is€no€evidence€thatÏthese€chemicals€were€on€the€outside€asphalt€surface€making€this€surfaceÏdangerously€slick.€€As€we€in€our€case€acknowledge€the€possibility€of€œplaintiffððs›Ïtheory,€the€œòòChambliss›óó€court€recognized€that€its€plaintiffððs€ð ðtrackageðð€explanationÏwas€a€possibility€though€remote€in€light€of€the€distance€between€the€outsideÏentrance€and€the€restroom.€€œòòSee›€œalso›€œDurham›€v.€œWebbóó,›€No.€02A01„9502„CV„00033,€1996€WL€298250€œ(Tenn.€App.€June€3,€1996)€(affirming€a€trial€courtððs€grantÏof€summary€judgment€where€plaintiff€alleged€that€she€slipped€on€an€oil€spot€at€theÏdefendant€gas€station€but€offered€no€proof€other€than€the€fact€that€she€saw€oil€inÏthis€spot€one€week€after€the€accident€and€the€testimony€of€a€frequent€customerÍwho€stated€that€she€had€observed€oil€spots€in€the€parking€lot€on€undisclosed€priorÏoccasions).ÌÌà à›à àEven€if€Ms.€Martin€failed€to€show€that€Washmasters€created€aÏhazardous€condition,€the€verdict€would€stand€if€she€could€show€that€the€jury€couldÏhave€reasonably€inferred€that€the€defendant€carwash€had€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice€of€a€dangerous€condition€created€by€someone€else.€€Ms.€Martin€testifiedÏthat€the€slippery€substance€was€not€visible€to€her€before€she€fell.€€However,€thisÏCourt€has€noted€that€notice€is€not€based€upon€the€ability€to€see€the€hazardousÏcondition,€but€the€visibility€of€the€event€which€caused€the€hazardous€condition€toÏbe€present.òò€€€œBenson›€v.€H.€G.óó€òòHill€Stores,€œInc.óó,›€€699€S.W.2d€560,€565€œ(Tenn.€App.Ï1985).€€The€plaintiff€has€offered€no€evidence€establishing€that€the€carwashððsÏemployees€actually€knew€that€a€slippery€substance€had€been€placed€on€theÏoutside€asphalt.€€As€for€constructive€notice,€in€light€of€the€fact€that€we€have€alreadyÏconcluded€that€there€is€insufficient€proof€establishing€that€the€slippery€conditionÏexisted€at€all,€there€is€certainly€no€evidence€showing€that€this€condition€hadÏexisted€for€such€a€length€of€time€that€the€defendant,€exercising€reasonable€care,Ïshould€have€been€aware€of€it.ÌÌà à›à àWe€next€address€the€plaintiffððs€assertion€that€the€ð ðMethod€ofÏOperationðð€theory€of€liability€as€outlined€in€œòòHale›€v.€Blue€Boar€Cafeteria€œCoóó.›€œ(Tenn.ÏApp.,€unpublished€opinion,€filed€at€Jackson,€Feb.€21,€1980),€is€applicable€to€theseÍfacts.€€The€defendant€in€òòBlue›€œBoaróó›€was€a€self„service€cafeteria€which€was€set€upÏso€that€customers€selected€food€from€a€line€and€then€carried€it€to€tables€in€one€ofÏtwo€dining€areas.€€Though€waitresses€would€come€to€the€tables€to€take€drinkÏorders,€there€was€a€service€stand€where€the€defendant€kept€ice,€water,€tea,€coffeeÏglasses€and€cups,€as€well€as€a€depository€for€dirty€dishes.òò€€œIdóó.›€at€3.€€CustomersÏwould€serve€themselves€drinks€from€this€service€stand.€ÌÌœà à›à àThe€floor€in€the€self„service€area,€which€was€adjacent€to€theÏcarpeted€smaller€dining€area,€was€hard€tile.€€It€was€necessary€for€all€occupants€ofÏthe€small€dining€room€to€walk€through€the€service€area€in€order€to€go€to€the€cashÏregister€or€to€leave€the€restaurant.€€The€proof€showed€that€it€was€customary€duringÏrush€hours€for€beverages€to€spill€or€for€bits€of€food€to€accumulate€on€the€floor.€ÏEmployees€were€instructed€to€clean€the€floor€prior€to€meals€and€any€other€timeÏthat€they€observed€debris€on€the€floor.€€The€plaintiff€fell€on€water€in€this€area,€butÏshe€could€not€show€who€spilled€the€water€or€that€the€defendant€had€notice€that€itÏhad€been€spilled.€€ÌÌœà à›à àThe€court€reviewed€the€law€ð ðin€slip€and€fall€cases€where€the€allegedÏcause€of€the€injury€was€a€transitory,€temporary€or€unusual€defect,€condition€orÏaccumulation€of€foreign€substances€on€floorsðð€and€found€the€law€to€be€that€noticeÏmust€be€shown€if€the€substance€upon€which€the€plaintiff€fell€was€not€placed€thereÏby€the€defendant.€òò€œId.›€óóat€5€œ(òòciting›óó€òòStringer€v.€œCooperóó,›€486€S.W.2d€751,€757€œ(Tenn.ÍApp.€1972)).€€Distinguishing€its€case€as€one€ð ðnot€predicated€upon€a€transitory,Ïtemporary€or€unusual€circumstance,ðð€the€court€articulated€the€following€rule:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIf›€a€proprietor€of€a€place€of€business€need€not€have€noticeÏof€a€defective€condition€caused€by€it€or€any€of€itsÏemployees,€it€appears€logical€not€to€require€notice€of€aÏhazardous€situation€created€by€the€method€in€which€theÏproprietor€chose€to€operate€its€business.€€€We,€therefore,Ïhold€that€in€situations€of€this€nature€it€is€not€a€matter€ofÏknowledge€in€or€actual€or€constructive€notice€to€theÏproprietor.€€€In€these€situations€the€questions€are:€€(1)Ïwhether€the€condition€created€by€the€chosen€method€ofÏoperation€constitutes€a€hazardous€situation€foreseeablyÏharmful€to€others,€(2)€whether€the€proprietor€usedÏreasonable€and€ordinary€care€toward€its€invitees€underÏthese€circumstances,€and€(3)€whether€the€conditionÏcreated€was€the€direct€and€proximate€cause€of€theÏplaintiff's€injury.ÌÌÓÓœÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒòòBlue›€œBoaróó›€at€6.ÌÌœà à›à àThe€three„question€test€announced€in€œòòBlue›€œBoaróó›€completely€omitsÏany€requirement€of€notice€under€the€theory€that€a€defendant€who€has€created€aÏdangerous€condition€needs€no€notice€of€what€he€has€done.òò€€œSee›€œid.óó›€at€5€œ(òòquoting›ÏœStringeróó,›€486€S.W.2d€at€757);€€œòòsee›€œalso›€œMaxwell›€v.€Red€Food€Stores,€œInc.óó,›€1988ÏWL€95273,€No.€œ88„110„II›€œ(Tenn.€App.€Sept.€16,€1988)€and›€œòòBledsoe›€v.€DeltaÏRefining€œCo.óó,›€œ(Tenn.€€App.,€unpublished€opinion€filed€at€Jackson,€Nov.€4,€1983)Ï(both€referring€to€the€three„prong€standard€of€òòBlue›€œBoaróó).›€€However,€in€the€wake€ofÏœòòBlue›€œBoaróó,›€this€Court€has€begun€to€articulate€the€Method€of€Operation€theory€inÍterms€of€constructive€notice.€€In€œòòWorsham›€v.€Pilot€Oil€œCorp.óó,›€728€S.W.2d€19,€20Ïœ(Tenn.€App.€1987),€the€Court€first€stated€that€ð ðthe€requirements€of€constructiveÏnotice€may€be€met€where€a€dangerous€condition€inside€a€self„service€business€inÏnot€an€isolated€one€but€is€reasonably€foreseeable€to€the€owner€because€theÏcondition€is€established€by€a€pattern€of€conduct,€a€recurring€incident€or€a€generalÏor€continuing€condition.ðð€€òòSee›€œBeard›€v.€SCOA€Industries,€œInc.óó,›€No.€88„358„II,€1989ÏWL€60360,€at€*4€œ(Tenn.€App.€June€7,€1989)€(referring€to€the€above€quotedÏlanguage€from€òòWorsham›óó€as€a€summary€of€the€Method€of€Operation€theory).€€MoreÏrecent€cases€have€focused€almost€entirely€on€determining€whether€there€is€aÏpattern€of€conduct,€a€recurring€incident€or€a€general€or€continuing€conditionÏindicating€the€dangerous€conditionððs€existence.€€œòòSee›€œBeske›€v.€Opryland€USA,ÏœInc.óó,›€923€S.W.2d€544,€546€œ(Tenn.€App.€1996)€(upholding€a€plaintiffððs€verdict€whereÏthere€was€ð ðevidence€of€the€recurrent€problem€of€discarded€beverages€in€the€areaÏand€of€the€failure€of€defendant€to€reasonably€monitor€this€recurrent€dangerousÏconditionðð)€òòand€Wilson€v.€Target€Stores,€Inc.óó,€No.€03„A„01„9209„CV„00322,€1993ÏWL€30617,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.,€Feb.€10,€1993)€(upholding€a€defendantððs€verdict€in€aÏcase€where€plaintiff€claimed€that€a€stack€of€ironing€boards€fell€on€her€where€ð ð[t]heÏproof€established€.€.€.€€that€the€ironing€boards€were€stacked€on€a€shelf€with€a€fenceÏor€border€holding€them€in€place€and€that€this€method€was€used€in€all€ofÏdefendant's€other€business€locations€without€any€incidents€such€as€thisÏoccurringðð).€€Ìà à›à àAs€applied€to€the€case€at€bar,€there€is€no€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€plaintiffððs€verdict€under€the€Method€of€Operation€standard€either€asÏinitially€stated€in€œòòBlue›€œBoaróó›€or€under€the€test€focusing€on€constructive€notice.€€AsÏfor€the€latter,€the€proof€did€not€indicate€that€car€wash€chemicals€had€ever€beforeÏmixed€with€the€water€on€Washmastersðð€floor€giving€rise€to€a€ð ðgeneral€orÏcontinuingðð€slippery€condition.€€The€plaintiff€testified€€that,€in€her€previous€eighteenÏto€twenty€visits€to€the€carwash,€she€had€never€noticed€a€dangerous€condition€atÏWashmasters.€€Furthermore,€there€was€no€evidence€that€ð ðslip€and€fallðð€accidentsÏat€the€carwash€were€a€common€or€ð ðrecurring€incident.ðð€€œòòSee›€œBeardóó,€1989›€WLÏ60360,€at€*5.€€Indeed,€the€plaintiff€presented€no€evidence€of€anyone€falling€otherÏthan€the€manager€Mr.€Andriotto€who€testified€that€he€had€fallen€five€years€prior€toÏthe€plaintiffððs€fall€while€running€in€the€indoor€bay€area.€€Significantly,€he€did€notÏsay€that€he€fell€due€to€slippery€conditions.€€In€conclusion,€there€is€simply€noÏevidence€showing€that€a€dangerous€condition€was€ððreasonably€foreseeable€to€theÏowner€because€the€condition€is€established€by€a€pattern€of€conduct,€a€recurringÏincident€or€a€general€or€continuing€condition.ðð€€œòòWorshamóó,›€728€S.W.2d€at€20.ÌœÌà à›à àLikewise,€analyses€under€the€standard€of€œòòBlue›€œBoaróó›€leads€to€aÏconclusion€that€the€carwash€was€not€negligent.€€In€determining€ð ðwhether€theÏcondition€created€by€the€chosen€method€of€operation€constitutes€a€hazardousÏsituation€foreseeably€harmful€to€others,ðð€we€look€to€the€deficiency€of€the€evidenceÏas€articulated€in€the€preceding€paragraph.€€Because€there€is€no€proof€that€slipperyÍconditions€or€resultant€falls€have€ever€been€a€problem€at€Washmasters,€weÏcannot€say€that€there€is€any€evidence€that€the€defendantððs€mode€of€operationÏcreated€a€hazardous€€situation.€œòòSee›€œBeardóó,1989›€WL€60360€at€*5€(no€materialÏevidence€that€defendantððs€method€of€operation€created€a€hazardous€conditionÏwhere,€though€customers€bought€and€occasionally€spilled€popcorn€in€departmentÏstore,€this€did€ð ðnot€present€the€level€of€unsafety€or€the€regularity€of€recurrenceÏevident€in€œòòBlue›€œBoaróóðð).›€ÌÌà àà àBecause€the€plaintiff€has€not€offered€any€material€evidence€uponÏwhich€the€jury€could€have€found€that€the€defendants€were€negligent,€we€set€asideÏthe€juryððs€verdict€and€grant€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendants.€€In€light€of€ourÏdisposition€of€this€case,€the€remaining€issues€concerning€the€grant€of€a€new€trialÏare€pretermitted.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€CountyÏfor€any€further€necessary€proceedings.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellee.ÌœÌÓÓÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ ° ÑÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌHARRIET€TERESA€MARTIN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CV„00242ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93C„2136ÌWASHMASTER€AUTO€CENTER,à à)ÌU.S.A.,€d/b/a€WASHMASTERS€AUTOà à)ÌCENTERS,€and€MURFREESBOROà à)ÌROAD€AUTOWASH€CORPORATION,à à)à àReversedÌd/b/a€WASHMASTERS€AUTOà àà à)à àandÌCENTERS,à àà àà àà àà à)à àRemandedÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòÔ€!¼ÔJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tó óóóÔ€!XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€there€is€reversible€error.Ìà àà àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€judgment€is€reversed.€€TheÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€furtherÏnecessary€proceedings€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà àà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Harriet€Teresa€Martin,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àà àENTER€_______________________.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEà àà àà àà àà à