WPC  Dad Ȉ{O1_&npsJ kbLsWW0M"dvt+Ud%q%@)X9%#='sۘz¶2I5@SG+bd`ߐ7s 2-:]Z[9W*2!a &@d^a~'Z S fL7(Rۘ,-@^A0*!P*׎ Y % ^ M_/ ;t~3KB| B~]2BNLS]1U}A K4>?] 9w~ÕFA8+ ;7Z]x:"|+~}9 e"q[H||6;P3-G#Ih@zP$BG18Ix+8[\4d#!xUN % 0(w  4 3 B \ bd UNl N 0P ^  m 01  0D RJ U@    o7\U: 0D B D5.. Ac D? BG# AQj 0D 0DHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(${Z='tttttt3|xwaiver- -(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular((3/Q$ !   d 9='L U((2.$ !      OXX   0    .$   @ @XX   2    _ԀXXStorepolicydirectsthatthelotbeinspectedeachmorningandanyspillscleanedup.  Whilenotabasisfornegligenceperseprinciples,thepolicyisrelevantwhenassessing  reasonablealternativemeasureswhichmighthavepreventedtheharm.(#$  0   H#d#      \  `(Times NewRomanTT   .$   @ @XX   1    _XXԀInthepast,ourlawdidnotimposeliabilityonproprietorsforinjuriescausedby  defectiveordangerousconditionsthatwere"openandobvious.SeeEaton,891S.W.2dat  595;McCormick,594S.W.2dat387.HoweverinColnv.CityofSavannah,thecourtheldthat  aplaintiffsrecoveryisnotpersebarredbyafindingthatadangerisopenandobvious.See t Coln,966S.W.2dat42.#XX# e .$   @ @XX   3    _XXԀAlthoughneitherpartydisputesthat_Coln_governsthiscase,theevidencedoesnot  necessarilysupportthetheorythattheoilitself,whichwasthedanger,wasopenandobvious.#XX#  XXIn_Coln_,#XX#XXthecourtadoptedtheapproachespousedbytheRestatement(Second)ofTorts,  343A,whichstatesasfollows:#XXm# t 8 XX(1)Apossessoroflandisnotliabletohis_invitees_Ԁforphysicalharmcausedto r  thembyanyactivityorconditiononthelandwhosedangerisknownorobvious ^   tothem,unlessthepossessorshouldanticipatetheharmdespitesuchknowledgeorobviousness.  ! ! Id.at41.Thecourtobservedthat t 8 theword knowndenotes notonlyknowledgeoftheexistenceoftheconditionoractivityitself,butalsoappreciationofthedangeritinvolves,andtheword obviousmeansthatboththeconditionandtheriskareapparenttoandwouldberecognizedbyareasonableman,inthepositionofthevisitor,exercisingordinaryperception,intelligence,andjudgment.  ! ! Id.(quotingRestatement(Second)ofTorts,343A(commentb)).#XXY# - b"  _XvXXX&XXv   Ad FILEDXvX&  September29,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !   dYYYY)!dxdxT^y  <<= 8C____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dabTc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _XX'XXX'TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  (_T _@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE_x`2.jz8`  `@E` 8ttxP( 8 x_ JAMESE.SHERLOCK 8     ) J   0      8   )6(XXXX6 Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  AppealNo.  f    )  01A019807CV00346 $ t v.   ) 2     )  RutherfordCountyCircuit @  _KWIK_Ԁ_SAK_Ԁand  )  No.36997 N  _EMRO_ԀMARKETINGCOMPANY  ) \     ) Defendants/Appellees.  ) x     )#XvX TG#T XXv  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORRUTHERFORDCOUNTYATMURFREESBORO,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEROBERTE._CORLEW_ԀPRESIDING9,XXX(XX9  T.TURNER_SNODGRASS_95WHITEBRIDEROAD,SUITE223NASHVILLE,TENNESSEE37205#XvX T#T XXvATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT t%  M.CLARK_SPODEN_BROWN,TODD&_HEYBURN_2222FIRSTAMERICANCENTERNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE37238ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES  REVERSEDANDREMANDED  1^,*      PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_CANTRELL_,P.J.CAIN,J._  #XvX T# XXvOPINION :53 ( 8dXXd8        #XvX  #9,X4X,XXX9T XXv  Inthiscase,involvinginjuriessustainedinaslipandfallaccident  inaparkinglot,theplaintiff,Mr.JamesE.Sherlock(hereinafterPlaintiff),appealstheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants,_Kwik_Ԁ_Sak_Ԁanditsparentcompany,_Emro_ԀMarketingCompany(hereinafterDefendants).  I.   AtaroundmidnightonJuly31,1995,anemployeeof_Kwik_Ԁ_Sak_,aconveniencestorein_Smyrna_,Tennessee,noticedapuddleofoilintheparkinglot.Sheimmediatelyspreadapowderysubstancecalled oildryonthespot.Thespot,whencoveredwithoildry,measuredapproximatelytwofeetindiameter.Atapproximately10:00a.m.thenextmorning,Plaintiff TԀwalkedoutofthe_Kwik_Ԁ_Sak_,steppedoffthesidewalkcurb 4 onhiswaytohisparkedtruck,slippedontheoilspotandsustainedinjury.  PlaintiffsuedDefendants,allegingnegligentfailuretocompletelyremovetheoilorwarnofthehazard.ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentforDefendantsbasedonafindingthatDefendantsdidnotowePlaintiffadutyofcareunderthestandardannouncedin_Coln_Ԁv.CityofSavannah,#T #966S.W.2d &!  34(Tenn.1998). TThetrialcourtalsomadeanalternativefindingthatif ( $" Defendantsowedadutyofcare,nobreachoccurred,becauseDefendantstooktheremedialstepofdeployingtheoildry.@-II.  Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifthemovingpartyestablishesthatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactremaintobetriedand,undertheundisputedfacts,judgmentisrequiredasamatteroflaw.See_Tenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁ56#T #; 50. Whitev.Lawrence,975S.W.2d525,528(Tenn.1998)(citingByrdv. 730 Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993)).Courtsreviewingmotionsfor 9$52 summaryjudgmentmustconsidertheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothe_nonmovant_,drawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatpartyanddiscardallcountervailingevidence.SeeWhite,975S.W.2dat529. 8 Themotionmustbedeniedunlesstheonlyconclusionthatcanreasonablybedrawnfromtheundisputedfactsisthatthe_movant_Ԁisentitledtosummaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeMcCallv.Wilder, <  913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);_Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23, X  26(Tenn.1995). TԀBecauseitissolelyalegalquestion,ourdeterminationof t whethertherequirementsof_Tenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁ56havebeensatisfiedisdenovo,and  thetrialcourtsdeterminationdoesnotenjoyapresumptionofcorrectness.See   Hunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49,50-51(Tenn.1997);Masonv._Seaton_,942 0 S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).#T 6# T T #T u#@ff,III. (x   Toprevail,apartyassertinganegligenceclaimmustprove(1)adutyofcareowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff,(2)conductfallingbelowthestandardofcarethatamountstoabreachofthatduty,(3)aninjuryorloss,(4)causeinfact,and(5)proximatecause.See_McClung_Ԁ &!  v.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996). ($"  Dutyofcarereferstothedefendantsobligationtoconformtothereasonablepersonstandardofcarefortheprotectionoftheplaintifffromunreasonablerisksofharm.SeeMcCall,913S.W.2dat153.Thisduty /X*( ofcaremustbeconsideredinrelationtoalltherelevantcircumstances:8  Indeterminingthedutythatexists,the_foreseeability_Ԁofharmandthegravityofharmmustbebalancedagainstthecommensurateburdenimposedonthebusinesstoprotectagainstthatharm.Incasesinwhichthereisahighdegreeof_foreseeability_Ԁofharmandtheprobableharmisgreat,theburdenimposedupondefendantmaybesubstantial.Alternatively,incasesinwhichalesser 942 degreeof_foreseeability_Ԁispresentorthepotentialharmisslight,lessonerousburdensmaybeimposed.    ̀_McClung_,937S.W.2dat902.Ӏ *   Theexistenceofadutyinaparticularsituationisaquestionoflawtobedecidedbythecourt.SeeBlairv.Campbell,924S.W.2d75,  b 78(Tenn.1996);Bradshawv.Daniel,854S.W.2d865,869(Tenn.1993). .~    Inthecontextofpremisesliability,thepersonincontrolofthepremiseshasthedutytoexercisereasonable,ordinarycareunderthecircumstancestoavoidinjuringonelawfullyonthepremises.See  Johnsonv._EMPE_,Inc.,837S.W.2d62,65(Tenn.App.1992).Thisduty  requiresproprietorstomaintaintheirpremisesinareasonablysafecondition.Becauseoftheirsuperiorknowledgeofthepremises,ownersandpossessorsofpropertymustexercisereasonablecaretomakethepremisessafe.  TԀSeeMcCormickv.Waters,594S.W.2d385,387(Tenn.1980); ^ Jonesv.ExxonCorp.,940S.W.2d69,71(Tenn.App.1996).#T  g$# 2!   TԀ  Ifthepremisescontainalatentorhiddendefectordanger,theowner V# hasadutytoeitherremovethatdangerorwarncustomersaboutit,iftheownerknows,orthroughreasonablediligenceshouldknow,aboutthedanger.#T  U%#See '"! Blair,924S.W.2dat76;Eatonv._McLain_,891S.W.2d587,593594 )%# (Tenn.1994)  T.If,ontheotherhand,thedangerisnothidden,butisobservable, +.'% theownermayoweadutytocustomerstotakereasonableactionstopreventharmtothemiftheownercanforeseeoranticipatetheharmanditspotentialseriousness. #  1      ׀Inthatsituation,adutyonthepartoftheownerwillariseifthe J2-+ foreseeableprobabilityandgravityoftheharmposedbytheownersconductoutweightheburdenupontheownertoengageinalternativeconductthatwouldhavepreventedtheharm.See#T  C'#_Coln_,966S.W.2dat43.  T H #T  -*#  Toprevailinthefaceofanopenandobviouscondition,a  l plaintiffmustprovethattheinjuryreceivedwasreasonablyforeseeableandthatthedefendantcouldhavetakenanactionwhichmoreprobablythannotwouldhavepreventedtheinjury.SeeDoev._Linder_ԀConstr.Co., p  845  TS.W.2d#T  +#Ԁ173,178(Tenn.1992).    IV.l,  Atthispointinouranalysis,wemustreviewthefacts._Kwik_Ԁ_Sak_employeesobservedtheoilspotandspreadtheoildrythenightbeforeMr.Sherlockincurredhisinjuriesaspartoftheirdutiesrelatedtoclosingthestore.Tenhourslater,onaclearday,Mr.Sherlockfellonthespotandsustainedinjury.TherecordcontainsnoshowingthatduringtheinterveningtimebetweenspreadingtheoildryandMr.Sherlocksinjury,Defendantsattemptedtoascertainwhethertheoildryhadworkedorifthespotwasstillslick.Thereisalackofevidencethattheemployeesundertookadditionalremedialmeasuresorattemptedtowarnpatronsofthehazard,ortoinhibitfoottrafficoveroraroundthespot.TheemployeesopeningthestorethemorningofPlaintiffsinjurydidnotchecktheparkinglotortheoilspot. #  2      ׀Defendantsoperationsmanual,under /P*(  GeneralSafetyGuidelines,directsemployeesto useoildryonoilorfuelspillsonthedriveway,assoonaspossibleaftertheyoccur.Thereisnoevidenceregardingtheproperapplicationofoildryorwhetheritwas T50. properlyappliedhere.̀  Atapproximately10:00a.m.Plaintiffwentintotheconvenience  storetomakeapurchase.Whenheleftheusedthetelephoneinfrontofthestore.Inwalkingbacktohistruck,whichwasparkedinthestoresparkinglot,hesteppedoffthecurb.Hethensteppedontoawhitesubstance,hisfeetwentoutfromunderhim,andhefell.Plaintiffattestedthathedidnotsee theoilspotuntilhewasintheprocessofsteppingontoit Twhenitwastoolatetoalterhiscourse.Hedeniedknowinglystepping t intheoil.#T 3#XvX TԀ#T XXvP4#OneofDefendantssemployees,whoobservedthespot  immediatelyafterPlaintiffsinjury,statedthatshedidnotseeanyoilseepingthroughtheoildry.Shesawoildry,whichshedescribedas alighttanpowderedsubstancethatwekeeponanyoilspotsthatareonthepavedorconcretepadinfrontofourstoretokeepanyonefromslippinginoil.  V.6  ItisundisputedthatDefendantsknewabouttheoilspot.Beforetheyappliedtheoildry,boththespotanditsdangerwere,arguably,openandobvious.Theoildry,however,mayhavedisguisedthespotand/orhiddenitsdangerousnature.    TWhethertheoilspotatthetimeMr.Sherlockencountereditwasa ,$(&  latent,dangerousconditionorwhetheritwasan openandobviousconditionwhosedangerMr.Sherlockcouldapprehend, #  3      ׀thebasictestfordetermining 1l,* _whetherKwikSakowedhimadutyremains:8  8@   Asinanynegligenceaction,ariskisunreasonableandgivesrisetoadutyiftheforeseeabilityandgravityofharmposedbyadefendantsconduct,evenifopenandobvious,outweightheburdenuponthedefendanttoengageinconductthatwouldhavepreventedtheharm.Coln,966S.W.2dat46. . ~   #T  @7#  TItisforeseeablethatacustomerwouldwalkthroughtheparkinglot R  betweenhisvehicleandthestore.Itisalsoforeseeablethatapersonwalkingacrossoilspilledontheparkinglotwouldslip,fallandsustaininjuries.KwikSakitselfforesawthesepossibilities.Therefore,tosustainthetrialcourtssummaryjudgmentofdismissalonthebasisthatKwikSakhadnodutytoPlaintiff,theundisputedfactsmustdemonstratethatanyotheractionsbyKwikSakwhichmighthavepreventedPlaintiffsinjuriesweresoburdensomeastooutweightheriskthathewouldfallontheoilspotandsustaininjury.#T  :#  Basedontherecordbeforeus,wecannotfindthatalternative r measurestoremovetheoilortoremovetheriskofharmbyinhibitingtrafficoverthespotorbywarningofthedangerweresoburdensomeastorelieveKwikSakofitsduty.WealsocannotagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthatKwikSakdidnotbreachanydutyofcarewhichmayhaveexistedbecauseitdeployedoildry.Afterreviewingtheevidencebothsupportingandopposingthesummaryjudgment,weconcludethat ,j'% reasonablemindscoulddifferastowhetherKwikSakssoleactofapplyingoildrywasconsistentwithitsdutyofcare.  TԀSummaryjudgment  shouldnotbegrantedifanyreasonabledoubtexistswithregardtotheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheundisputedfacts.SeeChrismanv.HillHome  d Dev.,Inc.978S.W.2d535,538(Tenn.1998).#T  @#ԀTherefore,wereversethetrial 8  courtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentofdismissal.   \    VI.A  Accordingly,theordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantsisreversed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellee.Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.0  0 T$ T$_____________________________ T$T$     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:________________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE(M.S)________________________________________WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE