ÿWPCE! …# VUNa %¯ 0·µU<l w@¨ 4è ü  0í 0D 0JD 0TŽ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ 0d!U>…B)ÃDCì AM/U*|¤¦ˆJ·Ò B‰ D3¦U6Ùv~ 0@vÓÍ AO Æï 0Dµ D/ù B(!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(Ë-$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XTxXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman &E'(E)*D+D,U-î./Ó€s|˜!"3|x:(«2/x$¤¤Ý ƒË-!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X”XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àÛÛ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ31,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àÝ  Ýòò1óóThe€Catholic€Diocese€of€Memphis€in€Tennessee€owns€and€operates€St.ÏPaulððs€Catholic€School€and€its€child€care€center.Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àÝ  Ýòò2óóThe€Roes€withdrew€the€claims€for€breach€of€contract,€outrageousÏconduct,€and€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress,€and€they€wereÏdismissed€by€the€trial€court.Ì d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ7€…6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßR€$&#A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€________________________________________________ÌÌò òROBERT€ROE€and€JEAN€ROE,€ÌIndividually€and€as€next€FriendsÌfor€JOHN€ROE,€a€minor,ÌÌó óà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€55150€T.D.ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9603„CV„00048ÌÌò òCATHOLIC€DIOCESE€OF€MEMPHIS,ÌINC.,€and€ST.€PAULððS€CATHOLICÌSCHOOL,€ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellees.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€M.€THARPE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àDavid€J.€Sneed,€Robert€B.C.€Hale;€Ìà@ àWaring€Cox€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Plaintiffs„AppellantsÌÌà@ àC.€Thomas€Cates,€Melissa€A.€Maravich;€Ìà@ àBurch,€Porter€&€Johnson€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Defendants„AppelleesÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÓÓ›à àThis€is€a€negligence€case€involving€the€supervision€of€a€minor€child€by€aÏpreschool€day€care€program.€€The€plaintiffs,€Robert,€Jean,€and€John€Roe,€appealÏfrom€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏdefendants,€Catholic€Diocese€of€Memphis€in€Tennessee€and€St.€Paulððs€CatholicÏSchool€(hereinafter€St.€Paulððs).× ƒ' ××  ×€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€acts€alleged€inÏthe€complaint€were€unforeseeable€as€a€matter€of€law.Ìà àOn€July€16,€1993,€Robert€and€Jean€Roe€filed€a€complaint€individually€andÏas€next€friend€for€their€son,€John€Roe,€against€St.€Paulððs.€€The€complaint€aversÍthe€following€facts.€€John€Roe,€a€four„year„old€boy,€was€enrolled€in€the€preschoolÏday€care€program€at€St.€Paulððs€from€August€1991€to€May€21,€1993.€€On€May€21,Ï1993,€John€Roe€asked€permission€to€go€to€the€restroom€which€was€locatedÏdown€the€hall€out€of€the€sight€and€hearing€of€the€teacher.€€While€John€Roe€wasÏin€the€restroom,€Jimmy€Doe,€a€four„year„old€classmate,€was€allowed€to€leave€theÏroom€to€get€a€drink€of€water€at€the€fountain€near€the€restroom.€€Jimmy€DoeÏentered€the€restroom€and€sexually€assaulted€and€molested€John€Roe.€€NeitherÏchild€was€supervised€by€an€adult€while€they€were€absent€from€the€classroom.€€€€Ìà àThe€Roes€allege€that€St.€Paulððs€was€negligent€in€its€care€and€supervisionÏwith€respect€to€John€Roe,€both€under€the€common€law€and€in€violation€of€theÏminimum€standards€for€child€care€established€by€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEducation.€€The€Roes€also€allege€breach€of€contract,€outrageous€conduct,Ïintentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress.× ƒ( ××  ×Ìà àIn€its€answer,€St.€Paulððs€admits€that€John€Roe€was€enrolled€in€theÏpreschool€day€care€program€on€May€21,€1993,€but€denies€any€knowledge€of€anÏassault€by€Jimmy€Doe.€€St.€Paulððs€further€denies€that€John€Roe€was€improperlyÍsupervised€and€denies€that€it€violated€the€minimum€standards€of€careÏestablished€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€St.€Paulððs€asserts€that€no€action€of€any€ofÏits€employees€or€agents€was€a€proximate€cause€of€the€alleged€injury.Ìà àOn€June€7,€1994,€St.€Paulððs€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€relyingÏupon€the€pleadings,€a€memorandum€of€law,€and€the€affidavits€of€Mary€LynnÏLashlee€and€Sister€Mary€Jerome€Hannifin.€€The€Roes€filed€a€response€and€reliedÏupon€a€memorandum€of€law€and€the€affidavit€of€Sandra€B.€Turner.€€The€motionÏwas€argued€to€the€trial€court€on€October€6,€1995.€€€Ìà àFor€the€purposes€of€the€summary€judgment€motion,€St.€Paulððs€acceptedÏthe€allegations€of€the€complaint€as€true.€€St.€Paulððs€claimed€there€were€noÏdisputed€facts€and€conceded€that€it€owed€a€duty€of€reasonable€care€with€respectÏto€the€children€under€its€control.€€However,€St.€Paulððs€argued€that€a€sexualÏassault€between€two€four„year„old€boys€was€so€unforeseeable€that€there€was€noÏduty€to€guard€against€it.€€St.€Paulððs€also€argued€that€such€a€sexual€assault€couldÏnot€have€been€anticipated€and€the€nature€of€the€harm€was€unforeseeable,€and,Ïtherefore,€St.€Paulððs€actions€could€not€be€considered€the€proximate€cause€of€theÏinjury.€€St.€Paulððs€argued€that€the€real€question€should€be€whether€the€schoolÏshould€have€reasonably€foreseen€this€type€of€conduct€between€four„year„oldÍboys.€Ìà àThe€affidavit€of€Sister€Mary€Jerome€Hannifin,€the€principal€of€St.€Paulððs,€Ïstated€that€St.€Paulððs€had€never€received€a€complaint€or€report€concerning€anyÏsexual€assault€or€misconduct€among€its€preschoolers.€€She€stated€that€St.€PaulððsÏhad€never€received€a€complaint€or€a€report€regarding€a€sexual€assault€or€sexualÏmisconduct€about€John€Roe€or€Jimmy€Doe.€€She€also€claimed€that€St.€Paulððs€wasÏin€compliance€with€the€standards€set€by€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEducation€at€all€times€related€to€the€alleged€sexual€assault.Ìà àSt.€Paulððs€also€submitted€the€affidavit€of€Mary€Lynn€Lashlee,€theÏsubstitute€teacher€for€the€classroom€in€question€on€May€21,€1993.€€Ms.€LashleeÏstated€that€there€were€sixteen€children€present€in€the€class€on€that€day.€€In€herÏaffidavit,€she€related€the€following€facts.€€John€Roe€had€to€await€for€Jimmy€DoeÏto€return€to€the€classroom€before€he€could€go€to€the€restroom.€€After€John€RoeÏwent€to€the€restroom,€Ms.€Lashlee€allowed€Jimmy€Doe€to€return€down€the€hallÏto€get€a€drink€of€water,€although€she€instructed€him€specifically€not€to€enter€theÏrestroom.€€Ms.€Lashlee€stood€in€the€doorway€of€the€classroom€to€observe€theÏchildren€in€the€room€and€the€two€boys€in€the€hallway.€€However,€she€left€theÏdoor€to€attend€to€a€crying€child.€€Upon€her€return€to€the€doorway,€Ms.€LashleeÍobserved€both€boys€running€down€the€hallway€toward€her.€€She€was€only€absentÏfrom€the€doorway€for€two€to€three€minutes.€€Like€Sister€Hannifin,€Ms.€LashleeÏstated€that€she€had€never€received€a€report€of€any€sexual€assault€among€St.ÏPaulððs€preschoolers,€including€the€two€boys.€Ìà àIn€opposition€to€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€the€Roes€first€assertÏthat€there€is€a€disputed€issue€of€fact€because€Ms.€Lashlee€misstated€the€distanceÏto€the€door€of€the€restroom€and€because€she€claimed€that€she€was€only€absentÏfrom€the€door€for€two€to€three€minutes.€€The€Roes€claim€that€the€assault€asÏalleged€in€the€complaint,€which€has€been€accepted€as€true,€could€not€have€takenÏplace€within€two€to€three€minutes,€and€a€jury€could€infer€that€the€time€of€Ms.ÏLashleeððs€absence€was€longer.€€The€Roes€argue€that€the€children€were€notÏproperly€supervised€because€they€were€not€within€the€hearing€or€sight€of€Ms.ÏLashlee€and€because€she€did€not€know€where€Jimmy€Doe€was€during€her€absenceÏfrom€the€door.€€Finally,€the€Roes€argue€that€the€harm€was€foreseeable€becauseÏone€must€only€foresee€the€general€nature€of€the€harm€not€the€specific€nature€ofÏthe€injury.€€St.€Paulððs€concedes€that€a€scuffle€in€the€restroom€between€two€four„year„old€boys€is€foreseeable.€€The€Roes€argue€that€this€general€type€ofÏinteraction€is€the€general€manner€in€which€the€injury€occurred,€and€therefore,Íthe€assault€in€question€was€foreseeable.€€They€argue€that€the€fact€that€theÏassault€was€sexual€in€nature€only€goes€to€the€extent€of€the€damages€suffered€byÏthem.€€€€€€Ìà àIn€support€of€their€position,€the€Roes€submitted€the€affidavit€of€SandraÏB.€Turner.€€Ms.€Turner€was€offered€as€an€expert€in€early€childhood€education.€€InÏher€affidavit,€Ms.€Turner€stated€that€proper€adult€supervision€required€that€theÏsupervising€adult€be€able€to€see€or€hear€the€child€at€all€times.€€She€also€stated€itÏwas€not€proper€adult€supervision€to€allow€more€than€one€child€to€leave€theÏclassroom€unattended.€€Ms.€Turner€opined€that€a€teacher€cannot€properlyÏsupervise€a€child€in€a€restroom€down€the€hall€by€intermittently€standing€in€theÏdoorway€of€the€classroom.€€Finally,€Ms.€Turner€was€of€the€opinion€that€theÏnature€of€the€harm€that€can€come€to€a€four„year„old€left€unattended€in€theÏrestroom€is€limited€only€to€the€imagination€of€the€child.Ìà àThe€trial€court€agreed€with€St.€Paulððs€and€granted€the€Motion€forÏSummary€Judgment.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€acts€alleged€in€theÏcomplaint€were€not€foreseeable€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€Roes€have€appealed€thisÏorder€and€present€the€following€issue:€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€asÏa€matter€of€law€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€on€whether€the€actsÍalleged€by€them€were€foreseeable.à àÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€only€if€the€movant€demonstrates€that€there€are€noÏgenuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€toÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€T.R.C.P.€56.03;€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ï210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€TheÏparty€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€òòò ò€Byrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€On€a€motionÏfor€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€consider€the€motion€in€the€sameÏmanner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiff'sÏproof;€that€is,€"the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€inÏfavor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence."€òòò ò€Idó óóó.€at€210„211.€€InÏòòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€partyÏmust€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discoveryÏmaterials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05Ïprovides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€relyÏupon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóóÏshowing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÏfor€trial.Ì€à@ àÌòòò òÓÓIdó óóó.€at€211.€(citations€omitted,€emphasis€in€original).€€Where€a€genuine€disputeÏexists€as€to€any€material€fact€or€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€thoseÏfacts,€a€court€must€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€òòò ò€Byrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€atÏ211€(citing€òòò òDunnó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€80).Ìà àWe€believe€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€in€this€case€becauseÏthe€material€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€The€Roes€claim€that€a€material€disputeÏexists€because€the€jury€could€infer€from€the€nature€of€the€assault€that€it€tookÏlonger€than€Ms.€Lashlee€claims.€€However,€they€have€not€advanced€any€facts€thatÏsupport€this€suggestion.€€As€stated€above,€the€Roes€must€set€forth€ð ðòòspecific€factsóóÏshowing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ðð€€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€211.€€The€Roes€also€claim€that€Ms.€Lashlee€changed€the€distance€toÏthe€restroom€in€her€second€affidavit,€and€that€this€discrepancy€creates€aÏmaterial€issue€of€fact.€€In€her€first€affidavit,€Ms.€Lashlee€stated€that€it€wasÏtwenty€feet€to€the€door€of€the€restroom.€€When€she€realized€that€she€wasÏmistaken,€she€submitted€a€second€affidavit€that€changed€the€distance€to€fortyÏfeet.€€We€do€not€believe€that€this€discrepancy€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€ÏThe€Roeððs€own€expert€stated€that€adult€supervision€means€within€sight€orÍhearing€of€the€supervising€adult.€€Both€twenty€feet€and€forty€feet€are€within€theÏsight€and€hearing€of€a€reasonable€person.€€This€discrepancy€in€distance€has€noÏbearing€on€the€legal€issues€in€dispute€and,€therefore,€is€not€a€material€fact.Ìà àIn€order€for€there€to€be€a€cause€of€action€for€common€law€negligence,€theÏfollowing€elements€must€be€established:€€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€theÏdefendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€falling€below€the€applicable€standard€ofÏcare€amounting€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€inÏfact;€and€(5)€proximate,€or€legal,€cause.€€òòò òMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóóó ó,€806€S.W.2dÏ767,€774€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€only€element€in€issue€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€isÏproximate€cause.€€In€its€brief,€St.€Paulððs€argues€that€it€did€not€breach€the€dutyÏof€care€and€that€the€actions€of€Jimmy€Doe€were€an€intervening€cause€of€JohnÏRoeððs€injuries.€€However,€we€will€not€consider€these€issues€because€ourÏconclusion€concerning€foreseeability€is€dispositive€regardless€of€these€issues,€andÏbecause€they€were€not€properly€presented€for€our€review.€€T.R.A.P.€13(b).Ìà àIn€Tennessee,€there€is€a€three„pronged€test€for€proximate€causation:€€(1)Ïthe€tortfeasorððs€conduct€must€have€been€a€"substantial€factor"€in€bringing€aboutÏthe€harm€being€complained€of;€€and€(2)€there€is€no€rule€or€policy€that€shouldÏrelieve€the€wrongdoer€from€liability€because€of€the€manner€in€which€theÍnegligence€has€resulted€in€the€harm;€€and€(3)€the€harm€giving€rise€to€the€actionÏcould€have€reasonably€been€foreseen€or€anticipated€by€a€person€of€ordinaryÏintelligence€and€prudence.€€òòò òMcClenahanóóó ó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775.€€In€the€instantÏcase,€the€issue€is€mainly€one€of€the€third€prong:€€foreseeability.Ìà àThe€Roes€argue€that€summary€judgment€was€inappropriate€becauseÏforeseeability€is€a€question€of€fact€for€determination€by€the€jury.€€It€is€true€thatÏcourts€in€Tennessee€generally€hold€that€summary€judgment€is€inappropriate€inÏnegligence€cases.€€òòò òGonzales€v.€Alman€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€45€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993).€€Proximate€causation€is€a€jury€question€unless€the€uncontrovertedÏfacts€and€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€them€make€it€so€clear€that€all€reasonableÏpersons€must€agree€on€the€proper€outcome.€€òòò òMcClenahanóóó ó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775.€ÏIn€òòò òDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€183€(Tenn.€1992),€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€addressed€summary€judgment€in€negligence€cases:€ð ðIf,€as€aÏmatter€of€law,€the€plaintiff€has€failed€to€allege€or€prove€facts€sufficient€toÏestablish€notice,€the€existence€of€the€duty€to€act,€breach€of€the€duty,€orÏproximate€cause,€dismissal,€summary€judgment,€or€a€directed€verdict€would€beÏappropriate.ðð€(quoting€òòò òTedder€v.€Raskinóóó ó,€728€S.W.2d€343,€349€(Tenn.€App.Ï1987)).€€Ìà àThe€foreseeability€requirement€is€not€so€strict€as€to€require€the€tortfeasorÏto€foresee€the€exact€manner€in€which€the€injury€takes€place,€provided€it€isÏdetermined€that€the€tortfeasor€could€foresee,€or€through€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€diligence€should€have€foreseen,€the€general€manner€in€which€theÏinjury€or€loss€occurred.€€òòò òMcClenahanóóó ó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775.€€The€fact€that€anÏaccident€may€be€freakish€does€not€per€se€make€it€unpredictable€or€unforeseen.€ÏIt€is€sufficient€that€harm€in€the€abstract€could€reasonably€be€foreseen.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€Ìà àIn€ò òòòMcGaughy€v.€City€of€Memphisóóó ó,€this€Court€discussed€the€meaning€ofÏforeseeability:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àð ðIf€there€is€a€substantial€likelihood€that€certainÏconduct,€when€pursued€by€the€defendant,€will€result€inÏsome€appreciable€harm€to€the€plaintiff's€person,€thenÏthe€defendant,€if€he€so€conducts€(sic),€cannot€escapeÏliability€on€the€ground€that€he€could€not€foresee€theÏprecise€manner€in€which€the€harm€would€occur,€norÏthe€exact€nature€of€the€harm,€nor€the€full€extent€ofÏsuch€harm.€€What€must€be€foreseen,€in€order€toÏestablish€negligence,€is€ððharm€in€the€abstract,€nor€harmÏin€the€concrete.ðð€€The€defendant€need€not€foresee€ððthatÏan€injury€should€occur€in€the€exact€way€or€to€the€sameÏextent€as€that€which€did€occur.ðð€€He€need€only€foreseeÏthat€some€injury€of€a€like€general€character€is€notÏunlikely€to€result€from€failure€to€use€care."€€€JeremiahÏSmith,€Legal€Cause€in€Actions€of€Tort,€Selected€EssaysÏon€Law€of€Torts,€690.€€Ìà8 àà8 àà à"It€was€not€necessary€that€the€defendant€shouldÍhave€had€notice€of€the€particular€method€in€which€anÏaccident€would€occur,€if€the€possibility€of€an€accidentÏwas€clear€to€the€ordinarily€prudent€eye.òòò ò€€WashingtonÏ&€G.R.Co.€v.€Hickeyó óóó,€166€U.S.€521,€526,€527,€17€S.Ct.Ï661€[663,€663]€41€L.Ed.€1101,€1103,€1€Am.Neg.Rep.Ï758."€€€Holmes,€J.,€in€òòò òMunsey€v.€Webbó óóó,€231€U.S.€150,Ï156,€34€S.Ct.€44,€45,€58€L.Ed.€162,€166.€€ÌÌÓÓ823€S.W.2d€209,€215€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(quoting€òòò òSpivey€v.€St.€ThomasÏHospitaló óóó,€31€Tenn.€App.€12,€211€S.W.2d€450,€456€(1947)).Ìà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€acts€alleged€in€the€complaint€areÏunforeseeable€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€alleged€acts€would€be€considered€vile€andÏreprehensible€between€two€adults,€but€between€two€four„year„old€boys,€theÏalleged€acts€are€even€more€shocking€and€appalling.€€We€do€not€believe€that€aÏreasonable€person€would€ever€foresee€this€type€of€behavior€between€boys€of€thatÏage.€€The€possibility€of€an€accident€of€this€general€character€could€not€have€beenÏforeseen€by€St.€Paulððs.€€St.€Paulððs€presented€affidavits€showing€that€a€sexualÏassault€had€never€occurred€in€the€school,€and€that€the€school€had€no€reason€toÏsuspect€this€behavior€from€Jimmy€Doe.€€Moreover,€we€should€consider€the€factÏthat€the€teacher€could€not€reasonably€foresee€that€a€child€that€had€just€used€theÏrestroom€facilities€would€return€to€the€restroom€instead€of€the€classroom€afterÏgetting€a€drink€of€water€in€the€school€hall.Ìà àThe€Roes€argue€that€the€trial€court€interpreted€the€question€ofÏforeseeability€too€narrowly.€€The€Roes€claim€that€scuffles€or€pushing€and€shovingÏbetween€two€preschool€boys€are€foreseeable,€and€therefore,€the€injury€in€thisÏcase€is€foreseeable.€€However,€the€injuries€that€result€from€a€scuffle€are€differentÏfrom€the€injuries€alleged€in€the€complaint.€€The€Roes€alleged€severe€andÏirreparable€emotional€and€physical€damage.€€These€are€the€types€of€injuries€thatÏresult€from€a€sexual€assault,€not€a€scuffle€or€pushing€and€shoving.€€We€believeÏthat€these€types€of€injuries,€and€the€acts€that€produced€them,€wereÏunforeseeable€to€St.€Paulððs.€€Ìà àWe€conclude€that€St.€Paulððs€could€not€have€foreseen€the€ð ðgeneral€mannerÏin€which€the€injury€.€.€.€occurred.ðð€€òòò òMcClenahanóóó ó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€againstÏthe€appellants.€€€€à à€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌ̜Ԁ+ÔÔ€+Ô