ÿWPC³ …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š ™ B¡ 0Jã 0T- 0^ 0hß 0rG 0|¹ 0†5 0» 1uK 0dÀ U>$U*bB)ŒDCµ AMøèE B-v~JvÓÈ D3› 0@Î AOÆ] 0D# D/g B–˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ãäEåæEçèEéêëÓ€÷ÍD0"ial Re3|x÷C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òMay€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€}¨XXdædÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|Ë` Å `€€@ÿRßMARILYN€MORGAN,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€57118€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9604„CV„00072Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVELMA€McCRORY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€A.€LANIER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òCOREY€B.€TROTZÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òLOUIS€F.€ALLENÌROBERT€B.€C.€HALEÌWARING€COX,€PLCÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó ó›à àœÌÓÓà àIn›€this€slip€and€fall€case,€Marilyn€Morgan€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€filed€suit€against€VelmaÏMcCrory€Ñ7€}¨XXdæXXdæ7Ñ(ð ðDefendantðð)€for€injuries€sustained€from€a€fall€at€Defendantððs€apartment.€€TheÏtrial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€PlaintiffððsÏproof€holding€that€Plaintiffððs€negligence€was€at€least€equal€to€that€of€the€DefendantÏbecause€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€traverse€an€alternative€ð ðunobstructed,€normal€pathwayÏwhich€would€have€been€only€slightly€a€few€feet€further€out€of€her€way€than€the€otherÏdirection.ðð€€Plaintiff€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€court€below€arguing€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€granting€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€For€the€reasons€statedÏhereafter,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òà@ àFACTSó óÌÌà àIn€the€fall€of€1989,€Plaintiff€entered€into€an€oral€agreement€with€the€DefendantÏwhereby€Plaintiff€agreed€to€rent€an€apartment€located€at€the€rear€of€893€South€CooperÏStreet€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€from€the€Defendant€for€$215.00€per€month€on€a€monthÍto€month€basis.€€ÌÌà àAfter€living€in€the€apartment€for€two€or€three€weeks,€Plaintiff€noticed€the€crackedÏcondition€of€the€driveway.€€œUpon›€living€in€the€apartment€for€eight€to€ten€months,€PlaintiffÏcomplained€to€the€Defendant€about€the€drivewayððs€dilapidated€condition.€€œReceiving›Ïno€response€from€the€Defendant,€Plaintiff€complained€another€five€or€six€times€aboutÏthe€condition€of€the€driveway.€€€Defendant,€however,€never€repaired€the€driveway.ÌÌà àOn€October€19,€1992€at€approximately€7:00€a.m.,€Plaintiff€pulled€her€garbageÏcart€to€the€curb€of€Cooper€Street€without€incident.€€œOn›€her€return€trip€from€the€curb€toÏher€apartment,€Plaintiff€ð ðhungðð€her€right€foot€on€a€raised€piece€of€concrete€and€fellÏbreaking€her€right€arm.€€œPlaintiff›€testified€that€the€raised€concrete€was€approximatelyÏtwo€to€three€inches€high.€€œNoting›€the€drivewayððs€cracked€condition,€Plaintiff€stated€thatÏon€the€day€in€question€she€ð ðwas€walking,€watching,€being€as€careful€as€I€couldðð€but€thatÏshe€was€unable€to€avoid€the€œfall.€€Plaintiff€further€testified€that€walking€on€the€drivewayÏwas€like€walking€on€a€ð ðland€mine.ðð€›ÌœÌ›à àAlthough€the€driveway€was€the€shortest€route€from€Plaintiffððs€apartment€toÏCooper€Street,€Plaintiff€admitted€that€an€alternate€pathway€existed€leading€fromÏCooper€Street€to€her€apartment.€€œThe›€walkway€led€from€Cooper€Street€through€the€frontÏyard,€to€œa›€gate€at€the€side€yard,€through€the€backyard€and€around€to€PlaintiffððsÏapartment.€ÌÌà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€sole€issue€before€this€Court€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€theÏDefendantððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€Plaintiffððs€proof.ÌÌà àThe€rule€in€determining€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€requires€the€trial€judge€andÏthe€reviewing€court€on€appeal€to€look€to€all€of€the€evidence,€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€it€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€the€motion,€and€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€from€it€in€his€favor.€€òòBeske€v.€Opryland€USA,€Inc.óó,€923€S.W.2d€544,€545Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòDobson€v.€Shortóó,€929€S.W.2d€347,€349„50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1996);€òòWadlington€v.€Miles,€Inc.óó,€922€S.W.2d€520,€522€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòBills€v.ÏLindsayóó,€909€S.W.2d€434,€438€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòDaniels€v.€White€ConsolidatedÏIndus.,€Inc.óó,€692€S.W.2d€422,€424€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€The€court€must€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence,€and€if€there€is€then€any€dispute€as€to€any€materialÏdeterminative€evidence,€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusion€to€be€drawn€from€the€wholeÏevidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€òòWharton€v.€Transport€Corp.€v.€Bridgesóó,€606ÏS.W.2d€521,€525€(Tenn.€1980);€òòCrosslin€v.€Alsupóó,€594€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1980);ÏòòHolmes€v.€Wilsonóó,€551€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€1977)€òòBeskeóó,€923€S.W.2d€at€545;ÏòòDobsonóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€349„50;€òòBillsóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€438;€òòFlynn€v.€Shoneyððs,€Inc.óó,€850ÏS.W.2d€458,€459„50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏHinsonóó,€651€S.W.2d€235€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àUnder€the€doctrine€of€comparative€negligence€as€adopted€in€Tennessee,€aÍplaintiff€who€is€at€least€fifty€percent€negligent€is€barred€from€recovery.€€òòMcIntyre€v.ÏBalentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52,€57€(Tenn.€1992).€€€In€òòPerez€v.€McConkeyóó,€872€S.W.2d€897Ï(Tenn.€1994),€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€issues€involving€implied€assumption€of€theÏrisk€should€be€analyzed€under€the€principles€of€comparative€fault.€€The€CourtÏexplained€œthat:›ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àAttention›€should€be€focused€on€whether€a€reasonablyÏprudent€person€in€the€exercise€of€due€care€knew€of€the€risk,Ïor€should€have€known€of€it,€and€thereafter€confronted€theÏrisk;€and€whether€such€a€person€would€have€behaved€in€theÏmanner€in€which€the€plaintiff€acted€in€light€of€all€theÏsurrounding€circumstances,€including€the€confronted€risk.€€ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€905.ÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòManes€v.€Hines€&€McNair€Hotelsóó,€197€S.W.2d€889€(Tenn.€1946),€plaintiff€andÏher€husband€rented€a€room€in€an€apartment€building€for€twelve€dollars€per€month.€ÏApproximately€four€feet€from€the€door€of€plaintiffððs€room,€there€was€a€wet€spot€on€theÏfloor€caused€by€water€dripping€from€an€overhead€hot€water€pipe.€€On€November€3,Ï1943,€plaintiff€came€out€of€her€room,€closed€the€door,€took€two€or€three€steps€and€thenÏslipped€and€fell€on€the€puddle€of€water€in€the€floor€suffering€a€broken€hip.€€PlaintiffÏtestified€that€she€knew€about€the€water€accumulation€for€many€months€and€that€sheÏpassed€by€it€several€œtimes›€a€day.€€Noting€that€plaintiff€knew€about€the€water€drippingÏand€standing€on€the€floor€for€many€months,€the€court€held€that€plaintiffððs€negligenceÏbarred€her€recovery€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòIdóó.€at€891.ÌÌà àIn€òòMerritt€v.€Carróó,€621€S.W.2d€740€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980),€plaintiff€operated€aÏdairy€farm€for€the€defendant.€€Plaintiff€knew€of€two€open€drains€in€a€holding€pen€andÍsuggested€that€defendant€provide€covers€for€the€drains€to€prevent€injury€to€a€cow€fromÏstepping€in€the€open€drains.€€Defendant€did€not€provide€the€covers,€and€plaintiffÏcontinued€to€use€the€pen€with€the€open€drains.€€This€Court€held€that€the€plaintiffððsÏknowledge€of€the€danger€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€that€of€the€defendant€and€thatÏcontinued€use€of€the€pen€after€recognizing€the€danger€precluded€recovery€for€plaintiffððsÏinjuries€when€a€cow€stepped€in€the€open€drain€and€fell€on€him.€€In€affirming€a€directedÏverdict€for€the€defendant,€this€Court€stated:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àœà8 àThe›€Plaintiff€not€only€knew€of€the€defects€about€which€heÏcomplains€but€appreciated€the€dangers€connectedÏtherewith€as€fully,€if€not€more€so,€than€anyone€else€and€withÏthis€knowledge€he€voluntarily€entered€the€holding€pen€withÏthe€herd€of€cattle.ÌœÌÓÓòòIdóó.›€at€745.ÌÌœ›à àIn€òòHamilton€v.€Mooreóó,€14€Tenn.App.€584€(1932),€plaintiff€rented€a€house€from€theÏdefendant€on€a€week€to€week€basis.€€Plaintiff€slipped€and€fell€with€the€breaking€of€œoneÏof€the›€rear€outside€steps€leading€to€the€house.€€Plaintiff€complained€to€the€defendantÏtwo€months€prior€to€the€accident,€and€defendant€promised€to€have€the€steps€œrepaired.›€ÏIn€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€for€the€defendant,€this€CourtÏœstated›€œthat:›ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[T]he›€lease€was€from€week€to€week,€so€that€the€tenant€couldÏvacate€promptly€upon€the€breach.€€Instead,€[plaintiff]Ïremained€in€the€house€for€about€six€weeks€after€the€firstÏpromise€[to€repair]€was€made.€€The€defect€in€the€steps€andÏthe€danger€from€injury€therefrom€were€well€known€to€herÏand€yet€she€made€constant€use€of€the€steps.€.€.€œ.The›€plaintiffÏchose€to€remain€in€the€house€and€take€the€risk€of€injury€untilÏthe€promise€to€repair€should€be€performed.€€The€law€doesÏnot€make€the€landlord€an€insurer€to€the€tenant.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€586.ÌÌœ›à àIn€òòTalley€v.€Curtisóó,€129€S.W.2d€1099€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1939),€plaintiff€fell€and€wasÏinjured€while€descending€a€flight€of€four€steps€which€led€from€a€side€porch€to€theÏground.€€At€the€time€of€his€injury,€plaintiff€had€been€occupying€the€house€in€question€asÏa€month€to€month€tenant€of€the€defendant€for€approximately€three€years€and€tenÏmonths.€€Having€inspected€the€steps€approximately€four€months€before€plaintiffððs€fall,Ïplaintiff€and€defendant€knew€of€the€defective€condition€of€the€steps.€€AlthoughÏdefendant€had€stated€that€he€would€have€to€install€new€steps,€the€defendant€did€notÏrepair€the€steps,€and€plaintiff€continued€to€use€the€steps€on€a€daily€basis.€€In€affirmingÏthe€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€plaintiffððs€suit,€this€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àA›€tenant€cannot€assume€a€known€serious€risk€from€defectsÏin€the€premises€and€expect€to€recover€damages€from€theÏlandlord€because€his€promise€to€repair€had€not€beenÏperformed.€.€.€.€In€this€case€we€must€hold€that€the€plaintiffððsÏnegligence€in€using€steps€known€to€be€dangerous€barredÏany€right€of€action€for€her€injuries.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€1103.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòCummings€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€No.€œ02A01„9506„CV„00122,›€1996€WL€544366Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€25,€1996),€a€case€similar€to€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant,€City€ofÏMemphis,€and€the€defendant,€White€Contracting,€Inc.,€entered€into€a€contract€toÏrenovate€Ontario€Street,€the€œstreet€on€which›€plaintiff€resided.€€€As€a€result€of€theÏconstruction,€plaintiff€and€her€neighborsðð€yards€were€ð ðall€torn€upðð€for€a€period€of€severalÏmonths.€€While€attempting€to€find€a€construction€manager€to€assist€in€clearing€a€path€toÍher€driveway,€plaintiff€chose€to€walk€through€a€pile€of€debris€consisting€of€pipes,€wireÏand€bricks€in€order€to€avoid€walking€through€a€muddy€area.€€Plaintiff€fell€when€her€footÏslipped€on€some€pipes.€€In€noting€that€there€were€other€alternative€paths€that€theÏplaintiff€could€have€chosen,€this€Court€held€that€the€plaintiff€was€at€least€fifty€percentÏnegligent€and€was€thereby€precluded€from€recovery.€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€it€was€uncontroverted€that€the€driveway€leading€fromÏPlaintiffððs€apartment€to€œCooper›€Street€was€cracked€and€in€poor€condition.€€PlaintiffÏnoticed€the€cracked€condition€of€the€driveway€during€the€fall€of€1989,€œthree€yearsÏbefore€her€accident.›€€Plaintiff€complained€to€the€Defendant€about€the€cracked€drivewayÏon€at€least€six€prior€œoccasions,€and›€Plaintiff€stated€that€walking€on€the€driveway€wasÏlike€walking€on€a€ð ðland€mine.ðð€€Plaintiff€admitted€that€there€was€an€alternative€path€sheÏcould€have€taken,€even€though€it€was€less€convenient.€€ÌÌà àBecause€Plaintiff€knew€and€appreciated€the€dangers€associated€with€theÏcracked€condition€of€the€driveway€and€because€Plaintiff€admitted€that€there€was€anÏalternative€œroute€she›€could€have€taken,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€directing€a€verdict€inÏfavor€of€the€Defendant.€€ÌœÌ›Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏAppellant€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€œÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à›Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›ÌÌÌÌÌà àò òÌó ó