ÿWPCŸ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ U, 0dG U,« U>× B)DC> AMU*Î Bø!v~6vÓ´ D3‡ 0@º AOúÆI 0D D/S B‚˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-Z[\E]D^_Ó€iDÒ 3|xi2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌJuly€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–yXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›EVELYN€JUNE€œTHOMASON›,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€Third€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€œ94C›„3358ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9602„CV„00067ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|æX` ç `€€Lß›THE€METROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENT€à à)ÌOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€à à)ÌCOUNTY,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€THIRD€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€BARBARA€N.€HAYNES,€JUDGEÌÌÌROBERT€J.€œNOTESTINE›,€IIIÌ104€œWoodmont›€Blvd.ÌSuite€115ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37205ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌThe€Department€of€Law€of€theÌMetropolitan€Government€ofÌNashville€and€Davidson€CountyÌÌJAMES€L.€MURPHY,€IIIÌDirector€of€LawÌÌWARREN€A.€JASPERÌMetropolitan€AttorneyÌ204€Metropolitan€CourthouseÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌFOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌEVELYN€JUNE€œTHOMASON›,à àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àDavidson€Third€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àNo.€€œ94C›„3358ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à à01„A„01„9602„CV„00067ÌTHE€METROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENT€à à€)ÌOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€à à€)ÌCOUNTY,à àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à€)ÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiff,€Evelyn€June€œThomason›,€has€appealed€from€a€summary€judgmentÏdismissing€her€suit€against€the€defendant,€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€DavidsonÏCounty,€Tennessee,€for€personal€injuries€sustained€in€a€fall€on€the€premises€of€the€œLentz›€HealthÏCenter,€a€facility€owned€and€managed€by€the€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€complaint,€as€amended,€alleged€that,€in€an€attempt€to€enter€the€building€of€the€œLentz›ÏHealth€Center€she€walked€on€an€unlighted€driveway€and€was€caused€to€fall€by€a€ð ðspeed€bumpððÏin€the€driveway.€€The€defendant€was€alleged€to€be€negligent€by€failing€to€illuminate€theÏdriveway€for€use€after€dark.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€filed€the€following€motion€to€dismiss:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Comes€the€defendant,€the€Metropolitan€Government€ofÏNashville€and€Davidson€County,€and€moves€this€HonorableÍCourt€to€dismiss€the€Amended€Complaint€filed€against€it.€€AsÏgrounds,€the€defendant€states€that€the€Amended€Complaint€failsÏto€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure,€No.€12.02(6).€€The€defendant€reliesÏupon€the€attached€Affidavit€and€Memorandum€of€Law€in€supportÏof€its€motion.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€supporting€affidavit€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€2.€€The€driveway€in€which€the€plaintiff€tripped€is€one€wayÏfor€vehicles.€€The€driveway€has€no€space€assigned€for€pedestrianÏtravel.€€The€driveway€is€designed€for€use€by€vehicles€only.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àà8 à€€€€€€3.€€The€lighting€in€the€area€was€adequate€for€vehicles€entering€theÏbreezeway€to€park€at€the€health€center.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€4.€€All€signs,€safety€and€warning€devices€wee€placed€inÏcontemplation€of€vehicles€entering€the€parking€area€from€theÏprescribed€direction.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€5.€€At€the€point€of€the€speed€bump,€there€is€no€lightingÏdevice€or€fixture.€€All€lighting€fixtures€are€placed€under€theÏbreezeway€for€parking€and€were€adequate€for€parking€under€theÏbreezeway.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€6.€€The€Metropolitan€Government€received€no€complaints€orÏadvance€notice€that€the€speed€bump,€where€the€plaintiff€tripped,Ïconstituted€any€danger€to€vehicles€or€pedestrians.€€There€were€noÏcomplaints€regarding€the€lighting€in€this€area€for€the€one€yearÏperiod€preceding€the€plaintiffððs€accident.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiffððs€responsive€affidavit€contained€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€2.à àI€tripped€over€a€speed€bump€in€the€driveway€of€theÏCenter€which€was€not€marked€or€painted€to€distinguish€it€fromÏthe€smooth€asphalt€pavement€around€it.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€3.à àThe€area€surrounding€the€speed€bump€was€unlighted€andÏsince€the€accident€occurred€in€the€evening,€the€speed€bump€couldÏnot€be€seen.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€4.à àI€was€forced€to€park€in€the€rear€of€the€Health€Center€dueÏto€the€fact€that€all€side€parking€was€reserved€by€permit€only€forÏHealth€Center€personnel.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€in€this€caseÏknew€visitors€had€to€park€in€the€unlighted€rear€of€the€HealthÏCenter.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€5.à àFurther,€the€defendant€in€this€case€had€promulgated€aÏpolicy€of€allowing€night€visitors€to€enter€the€building€through€theÏfront€door€only,€thereby€forcing€me,€and€others,€to€walk€in€theÏunlighted€driveway€to€the€front€of€the€building.ÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendant€filed€a€further€affidavit€stating;ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€€à à3.€€The€normal€operating€hours€of€the€Health€Center€onÏJanuary€6,€1994€were€8:00€a.m.€until€8:00€p.m.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à4.€€On€January€6,€1994,€it€was€the€policy€of€the€HealthÏDepartment€that€all€entrances€to€the€Health€Center€be€unlocked€toÏallow€entry€into€the€Health€Center€from€all€parking€areas€fromÏ6:30€a.m.€until€8:00€p.m.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à5.€€There€was€no€policy€in€place€on€January€6,€1994Ïforcing€anyone€to€use€the€front€entrance€to€the€Health€Center€orÏto€utilize€any€particular€pathway€to€gain€entry€to€the€exclusion€ofÏthe€available€entrances€or€pathways.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à6.€€There€were€no€allegations€prior€to€January€6,€1994,Ïthat€any€policy€promulgated€by€me€regarding€building€hours€orÏpermitted€access€created€a€dangerous€condition€or€hazard.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à7.€€There€are€sidewalks€provided€on€all€sides€of€theÏHealth€Center€providing€access€for€pedestrian€to€the€HealthÏCenter.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à8.€€There€were€no€complaints€one€year€prior€to€JanuaryÏ6,€1994€regrading€inadequate€lighting€in€any€of€the€parking€areasÏat€the€Health€Center.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Trial€Judge€entered€an€order€stating:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à.€.€.€à à1.€€There€was€no€dangerous,€defective,€or€unsafeÏcondition€justifying€suit€against€Metro€under€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203(a).ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àà8 àà à2.€€Metro€did€not€have€notice€of€a€dangerous,€defective,€orÏunsafe€condition€as€required€by€the€Tennessee€Governmental€TortÏLiability€Act€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203(b)€assuming€such€aÏcondition€existed.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à3.€€Because€a€dangerous,€defective,€or€unsafe€conditionÏand€notice€thereof€are€required€before€Metro€can€be€held€liableÏfor€the€injuries€alleged€to€have€been€suffered€by€plaintiff,Ïplaintiff€has€failed€to€meet€her€burden€under€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àIt€is,€therefore,€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€andÏDECREED€that€this€cause€be€and€the€same€is€hereby€dismissed,Ïwith€costs€taxed€to€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€the€summary€dismissal€ofÏplaintiffððs€suit.ÌÌà àWhere€evidence€is€presented€to€and€considered€by€the€Trial€Court,€a€motion€to€dismissÏmay€be€considered€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€œT.R.C.P.›€Rule€12.02.ÌÌà àThe€party€seeking€a€summary€judgment€has€the€burden€of€presenting€evidence€of€factsÏwhich,€if€not€contradicted,€entitled€that€party€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,ÏóóTenn.€1993,€847€œS.W.2d›€1993.ÌÌà àNo€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€summary€judgments€which€are€decisions€ofÏlaw€and€not€of€facts.€€òòRoberts€v€Roberts,€óóTenn.€App.€1993,€845€œS.W.2d›€225.ÌÌà àPlaintiffððs€right€to€recover€rests€upon€an€unlighted€access€to€a€public€building,€lockedÏdoors€requiring€motorists€to€walk€a€dark€driveway€to€the€only€unlocked€entrance,€and€anÏunmarked€ð ðbumpðð€in€the€driveway.€€Examination€of€the€evidence€offered€by€defendant€fails€toÏdisclose€any€uncontradicted€evidence€denying€the€existence€of€these€three€conditions.ÌÌà àThe€motion€to€dismiss€merely€states€that€the€complaint€fails€to€state€grounds€for€relief.€ÏThe€complaint€does€state€grounds€for€relief.ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€attached€to€the€motion€does€not€deny€the€allegations€of€the€complaint,€butÏasserts€other€facts€which€œmight›€relieve€the€defendant€of€liability€as€a€matter€of€œlaw€ifÏuncontradicted.›€€œHowever,›€plaintiffððs€responsive€affidavit€clarified€and€specified€the€reasonsÏwhy€the€affidavit€presented€by€defendant€did€not€present€a€defense€which€was€conclusive€as€aÏmatter€of€law.ÌÌà àPrior€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition€was€not€necessary€if,€as€alleged€by€plaintiff,€theÏconditions€were€rendered€œdangerous€by›€the€closure€of€access€to€the€building€from€the€parkingÏlot€which€required€plaintiff€to€walk€around€the€building€on€the€driveway€in€the€dark.€€A€map€ofÏthe€area€attached€to€plaintiffððs€affidavit€illustrates€the€situation€confronting€plaintiff€when€sheÏfound€a€side€entrance€locked€and€she€was€forced€to€walk€in€the€driveway€where€there€was€noÏsidewalk.€€A€copy€of€this€drawing€is€appended€to€this€œopinion.€€A€notation€on€the€drawingÏidentifies€the€locked€access€door€which€forced€plaintiff€to€use€the€driveway€to€reach€the€onlyÏunlocked€door.›ÌÌà àDefendant€relies€upon€evidence€that€policies€of€defendant€required€all€entrances€to€beÏopen.€€This€is€not€a€conclusive€response€to€plaintiffððs€allegation€that€at€least€one€entrance€wasÏlocked.€€Plaintiffððs€right€to€recovery€is€not€based€upon€a€policy€of€defendant,€but€upon€anÏalleged€negligent€violation€of€that€policy€by€an€employee€of€œdefendant€in€locking€a€door€whichÏshould€have€been€left€unlocked.›ÌÌà àDefendant€presented€evidence€that€there€were€sidewalks€on€all€sides€of€the€building,€butÏthere€is€no€evidence€that€the€sidewalks€were€continuous.€€Moreover,€plaintiffððs€affidavit€andÏexhibit€are€evidence€that€there€was€no€sidewalk€at€the€point€where€she€was€injured.ÌÌà àThe€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€defendant€is€reversed€and€vacated.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€taxed€against€the€defendant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€furtherÏproceedings.ÌÌà àReversed€and€Remanded.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE