WPC~= XInD8dȿ>.V|ť#I9u*Iqn& ֚p[i+r)Xr^yT+!Yt,!fb=3k6YA8rs'n+vҥ_mN:d+qΙ)Oⶑu;kttRT*t$ː lIB+8P"Fiۿ䣗'I&FLb ,+Q Rq{.iJk=/hb6?7ғ^n]}:¡k(P2 8_Bc}ɎůMO^yO]m3fnVm3 '|lx9Gѹ '( 0v ) 0`) 0`) 0`@* 0`* 0`+ 08`+ 0+ 02j, 0, 0:- 0Y- 0_+. 0 . 0j/ 00 B*2 D/2 02 D/_4 04 06\5 05 0}6 0:7 0^7 B8 0<:8 0v8 D59 D-O9 0K|9 1e9 AS,:: 0E; 0D; A-<U6<U >=U*L=v=\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0Y$/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKb<6X9`(Courier NewKSc\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kb<6X9`(Courier NewKSc\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kb<6X9`(Courier NewKSc\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7M(X7  ?d%2A`Arial?  Sc\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dL)1dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?d%2A`Arial?  Sc\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7L)2dxd0KS.SampleKb<6X9`(Courier NewKSc\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong (|G2$ !.8[dXXd8         0  8dl6TypewriterKb<6X9`(Courier NewKSc\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB       d2 0CommentB  (|3k$ !.8[dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %&'()*+,!35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3k$ !.8[dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  !.8[dd8     __  [8 XXdd8  @ ][INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#[]#Ԉ &   February13,2003Session L X X[ #[XX #GAILALLEN,etal.v.SATURNCORPORATION,etal.X X[  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty  J @@No.6677JimT.Hamilton,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200201238COAR3CVFiledSeptember4,2003 #[XX #X X[    AV) ` dE<|` A }     Appellants,GailandLarryAllen,sustainedinjurieswhenatentcollapsedduringathunderstormat x  aHomecomingattheSaturnCorporationinSpringHill.Theybroughtsuitfortheirinjuriescaused d bynegligenceinmaintenanceandconstructionofthetent.Theydismissedorsettledtheirclaims P withallDefendantsexceptSaturnCorporation.SaturnfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgment < arguingthatAppellantswereunabletoestablishaprimafaciecaseoftheAppelleesnegligence. (x ThetrialcourtgrantedAppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment.Weaffirmthedecisionofthe d trialcourt. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt ( AffirmedandRemanded     #[X :#X X.[BenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichPatriciaJ.Cottrell,  J.andMariettaM.Shipley,Sp.J.,joined.  MichaelD._Galligan_ԀandRichardA._Dorris_,_McMinnville_,Tennessee,fortheappellants,GailAllen ` andLarryAllen. L  NancyS.Jones,MarkW.Peters,andEileenE._Burkhalter_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee, $"t! SaturnCorporation. #`" ^ OPINION #[XX #X X[ $8 $  I.  %$!% #[XX k #X X[    Appellants,GailandLarryAllen,wereinjuredwhileattendingtheSaturnHomecomingon '"' June25,1994.Inaviolentthunderstorm,theAppellantstookrefugeinatentdisplayingvarious (#( Saturnautomobiles.Theysubsequentlytookcoverinoneoftheautomobiles.Thetentcollapsed )$) duetoanaccumulationofwater,andatentpolehitthepassengerssideoftheautomobile.The p*%* Allenswerebothinjuredasaresultoftheincident. \+&+   H,', _  OnJune21,1995,theAppellantsfiledtheircomplaintinMauryCountyCircuitCourtagainst   ThePartyPlace,AcademyTent&CanvasandAppellee,SaturnCorporation.TheComplaintstated  thefollowing:   ` 6.PlaintiffsallegethattheDefendantswerenegligentinfailingtosecurethe ` tentpriortotheeventandallowingittocollapseunderthewaterfromthe L  thunderstorm. 8   (Uh83! ! ` 7.Plaintiffsallegethatthetentorinstrumentalitysupportingthetentwas $ t completelywithinthecontroloftheDefendantsandthatsaidtentcouldnotcollapse  ` orfallintheabsenceofnegligenceandthatPlaintiffswerecompletelyfreeof  L  negligenceontheirpart.  8  AppellantsdismissedAcademyTent&CanvasfromthelitigationinNovember17,1995.After   yearsofdiscovery,#[XX #X X[AppellantsenteredintoaSettlementAgreementwithThePartyPlaceonApril   7,1998.#[XX u#X X[    (5h88! !  SaturnfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentonMarch18,2002.ThisMotionreadinpart: p PlaintiffsclaimthatSaturnsaverrednegligencecausedthemtosufferinjurieswhen H atent( theTent)collapsedafteraccumulatingrainfallduringasuddenand 4 unexpectedthunderstormduringtheSaturnHomecomingeventin1994( the  p Homecoming).Plaintiffshaveresolvedandcompromisedtheirclaimsagainstthe  \ otherformerdefendantsinthiscause,leavingfortrialonlythoseinjuriescausedby H Saturns solenegligence. 4  ` PlaintiffscannotestablishaprimafaciecaseofnegligenceagainstSaturnand   thusSaturnsMotionforSummaryJudgmentmustbegrantedasamatteroflaw.  First,SaturnowednodutytoPlaintiffstosecuretheTentandpreventitfrom  collapsingbecauseithiredThePartyPlaceasanindependentcontractortoinstall,  secureandmaintaintheTent.Second,evenifSaturnowedadutytoPlaintiffs,itis l undisputedthatSaturnexercisedordinarycareanddiligenceinmaintainingthe X  SaturnHomecomingsiteinasafeconditionfortheHomecomingattendeesand D! PlaintiffscannotprovethatSaturnbreachedanydutyitowedtothem.Third, 0"  regardlessofwhetherSaturnowedadutytoPlaintiffsorbreachedit,Plaintiffs #l! cannotestablish,astheyarerequired,thatSaturnwasthelegalorproximatecause $X" oftheirallegedinjuriesbecausethoseclaimedinjurieswerecaused,ifatall,bythe $D # suddenthunderstorm,drenchingrainstormandgustingwinds,allofwhichTennessee %0!$ courtshaverecognizedconstitutean ActofGod.Moreover,evenifPlaintiffs &"% injurieswerecausedbyacombinationofanActofGodandsomepartysnegligence, '#& PlaintiffcannotprovethatnegligencetobeSaturnsalone.Foreachofthesereasons, (#' summaryjudgmentisrequiredasamatteroflaw. )$(  r |*%) TheAllensthenfiledaMotiontoAmendtheirComplaintpursuanttoRule15.01oftheTennessee   RulesofCivilProcedureonApril12,2002.Appellantsattemptedtoaddadditionalallegationsof  Appelleesnegligenceinfailingtosetupadequatewarningsystems,asafeplacetogointheevent  ofastorm,adequateemergencyservices,andthatAppelleehadanondelegabledutytoprovidesuch t services.OnApril23,2002,thetrialcourtgrantedAppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgment ` becauseAppellantsdidnotfileresponsesandopposingaffidavitsuntilthedayofthehearing. L    AppellantssubsequentlyfiledaMotiontoAlterorAmendJudgmentonMay10,2002.The $ t trialcourtdeniedthismotioninanOrderfiledJune20,2002.ThisOrderalsodeniedAppellants  ` MotiontoAmendtheircomplaint.Appellantsappealedthetrialcourtsorders.  L    II.  $   MotiontoAmend    "  Wewilladdressfirstthetrialcourtsorderdenyingthemotiontoamend.Rule15.01ofthe   TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureprovidesthat"[a]partymayamendhispleadingsonceasa   matterofcourseatanytimebeforearesponsivepleadingisserved...otherwiseapartymayamend p hispleadingsonlybywrittenconsentoftheadversepartyorbyleaveofcourt...."cX XXX SeeWilsonv. \ Ricciardi,#X XXcX $#cX XXX Ԁ778S.W.2d450,453(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).#X XXcX L%#ԀTheruleprovidesthatpermissiontoamend H maybeliberallygranted,butthedecisioniswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,andwill 4 notbereversedunlessabuseofdiscretionhasbeenshown.cX XXX ԀWelchv.Thuan,882S.W.2d792,793  p (Tenn.Ct.App.1994).#X XXcX &#Ԁ  \   ThetrialcourtdeniedthemotionbywrittenopinioninanOrderfiledJune20,2002.The 4 opinionstatedthecourthadreconsideredallpleadings,includingthelatefiledresponsetothe   SummaryJudgmentMotion.Thisorderstated:   First,PlaintiffsMotiontoAmendparagraphsevenoftheComplaintwasnotbased  uponthediscoveryofanynewevidence,andindeed,tothecontrary,wasfiledinan  apparentattempttodefeatDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment,atacticthat l isnotproperorpermissibleunderwellestablishedTennesseelaw.Saturnwouldbe X  undulyandirreparablyprejudicedbypermittingPlaintiffsproposedamendmentat D! thislatedateontheeveoftrial. 0"   ` Second,theavermentscontainedinPlaintiffsproposedamendedparagraph $X" sevenarenewanddifferentfromtheavermentsintheiroriginalComplaint.Asa $D # matteroflaw,Plaintiffsproposednewclaimsdonotrelatebacktothefilingdateof %0!$ theoriginalComplaintbecausetheydidnotariseoutofthesametransactionor &"% occurrence,andthusarebarredbytheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitations. '#& PlaintiffsMotiontoAlterorAmendtheCourtsOrderdenyingPlaintiffsMotion (#' toAmendparagraph7oftheComplaintisdenied. )$(  (( |*%)   Clearly,thetrialcourtfoundseveralreasonsfordenyingAppellantsMotiontoAmend.In   Merrimanv.Smith,599S.W.2d548(Tenn.Ct.App.1979),weanalyzedtheissueofwhenatrial  courtcanproperlydenyamotiontoamend.Westated:  Someofthebroadandlegitimatefactorsatrialjudgeshouldweighinconsidering ` aMotiontoAmend:Unduedelayinfiling;lackofnoticetotheopposingparty;bad L  faithbythemovingparty,repeatedfailuretocuredeficienciesbyprevious 8  amendments,undueprejudicetotheopposingparty,andfutilityoftheamendment. $ t X/J/Merriman,599S.W.2dat559(citingHagemanv.SignalL.P.Gas,Inc.,486F.2d479(6thCir.  L  1973)).  8    Wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingthemotiontoamend.The   MotiontoAmendwasfiledseven(7)yearsaftertheoriginalcomplaint.Theonlyexplanationfor   thedelaywasthattheplaintiffshadtofaceSaturnsmotionforsummaryjudgment.IftheMotion   toAmendweregranted,itmightdefeatSaturnsMotionforSummaryJudgment.Suchachainof   eventswoulddefinitelyleadtoundueprejudicetoSaturnsincetheamendmentaddednewtheories p ofliabilitysevenyearsafterthefilingofthecomplaint,andwouldessentiallymeanthattheparties \ hadtostartover.Thecombinationofunduedelayandprejudicetotheotherpartyaregoodreasons H todenyamotiontoamend.Merriman,599S.W.2dat559. 4 @^^( III.   \   MotionforSummaryJudgment  H 5  Uponreviewofagrantofsummaryjudgment,thisCourtmustdeterminewhetherthe   requirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeensatisfied.SeeHunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49,50   51(Tenn.1997).Asthisinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionoflaw,ourreviewisdenovowithout  apresumptionofcorrectness.Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997);McClungv.  DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996).Summaryjudgmentsare  appropriateonlywherethereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactrelevanttotheclaimordefense l containedinthemotionandthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflawonthe X  undisputedfacts.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03;Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997); D! Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,36(Tenn.1995).Courtsreviewingsummaryjudgmentsmust 0"  viewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyanddrawallreasonable #l! inferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor.Omer,952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208, $X" 210(Tenn.1993). $D #   TheAppelleefileditsMotionforSummaryJudgmentwithaStatementofUndisputed &"% MaterialFactsandAffidavitsonMarch18,2002.TheAppellantsfiledtheirResponseto '#& DefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgmentonApril18,2002.Thetrialcourtinitiallygrantedthe (#' AppelleesMotionforSummaryJudgmentbyanorderdatedApril23,2002.Thisorderstatedthat )$( thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionbecauseAppellantsfailedtofiletheirresponsesandopposing |*%) affidavitswithinfive(5)daysbeforethehearingasrequiredbyTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure h+&* Rules56.03and56.04.Thetrialcourtstatedthatthesedocumentswerenotfileduntilthedayofthe  hearing.TheAppellantsthenfiledaMotiontoAlterorAmendJudgment.Thetrialcourtfileda  secondorderonJune20,2002denyingtheMotiontoAmendthecomplaintandgrantingtheMotion  forSummaryJudgmentonothergrounds.WithregardtotheMotionforSummaryJudgment,this t orderstated: `  ` InconsummatingtheirsettlementagreementwithThePartyPlace,Plaintiffs 8  settledordismissedallclaimsinthissuitexceptasingleclaimagainstSaturnfor $ t negligenceinfailingtosecuretheTentandallowingittocollapse.Plaintiffscannot  ` establishaprimafaciecasethatSaturnwasnegligent.Therefore,sincetheonly  L  claimremaininginthiscaseisforthenegligenceofSaturn,summaryjudgmentis  8  appropriate.Plaintiffsclaimfornegligencefailsforthefollowingreasons,eachof $  whichindependentlyisalegallysufficientbasistograntDefendantsMotion.    ` First,itisundisputedthatSaturnenteredintoanindependentcontractor   arrangement( theContract)withThePartyPlaceandpursuanttotheContract.The   PartyPlacehadthelegaldutytoavoidharmtoinviteesrelatingtotheselection, p construction,erectionandmaintenanceoftheTent.ItisfurtherundisputedthatThe \ PartyPlacecontractedtoerectandmaintainthetentsandtoindemnifySaturninthe H eventanyclaimarosefromtheerectionormaintenanceoftheTent.Inotherwords, 4 SaturnowednospecialdutytoPlaintiffsbecauseSaturnhadcontractedawaythis  p dutytoThePartyPlace,anindependentcontractor.ItiswellestablishedTennessee  \ lawthatapartysuchasSaturnhereisnotliableforthenegligenceofitsindependent H contractor,suchasThePartyPlace. 4  ` Second,evenassumingarguendoSaturnowedsomedutytoPlaintiffs,Saturn   didnotbreachthatduty.ItisundisputedontherecordbeforethisCourtthatSaturn  engagedinextensivepreparationsandproceduresfortheHomecomingEvent,each  ofwhichsatisfiedanygeneraldutythatSaturnhadtoPlaintiffs.Itisundisputedthat  SaturnhadnospecialknowledgeoftheTent,itsmaterialsoritssetupprocedures l toimposeanyadditionaldutyuponSaturn. X   ` Third,itisundisputedthatSaturnwasnotthelegalcauseofPlaintiffs 0"  injuries.TheunusualandsuddenthunderstormthatdescendeduponSpringHill, #l! Tennessee,onJune25,1994,wasclearlyanActofGodasthattermisdefinedby $X" Tennesseelaw.Therainandwinditcreatedatleastpartlycontributedtotheinjuries $D # ofPlaintiffs.AnyactionsonthepartofSaturnweresimplynotthelegalcauseof %0!$ Plaintiffsinjuries.... &"%  `  '#&  @@  WeagreethatthetrialcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttoSaturn.Evenifwe (#' assumethetrialcourterredbyinitiallydenyingtheSummaryJudgmentbaseduponthelatefiled )$( response,thiserrorwasharmlesssincethecourtconsideredallpleadingsintheMotiontoAlteror |*%) Amend.Thecourtdecidedtheissuecorrectly.Theresponsedoesnotrefutetheundisputedfacts h+&* (1)thatSaturnhadnoknowledgeofanydangerposedbytheuseofthetent;and(2)thatthetentwas  furnishedanderectedbyanindependentcontractor.    WehavereproducedtheonlyallegationsofnegligenceagainstSaturninparagraphs6and t 7ofthecomplaint.ThecrypticallegationsseemtosaythatSaturnisliableunderatheoryofresipsa ` loquitororunderatheoryofstrictliability.Theplaintiffsdonotargueeithertheory.Butconstruing L  thecomplaintinthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiffs,wewillviewtheallegationsasageneral 8  claimthatSaturnviolatedadutyofcareowedtotheplaintiffsasSaturnsinvitees. $ t   Itisnotclearfromtherecordwhere,orhow,thetentwasdefective.Theplaintiffsarguethat  L  becauseitcollapsedinathunderstorm,Saturnviolatedadutyofcaretothem.Again,thissounds  8  likeanargumentthatSaturnwasstrictlyliableforthecollapse.ButthelawinTennesseehaslong $  heldthatapremisesownerowestoaninviteeonlyadutyofreasonablecareunderallthe   circumstances.SeeHudsonv.Gaitan,675S.W.2d699(Tenn.1984).Thisdutyrequirestheowner   toeitherremoveorwarnagainstanylatentdangerousconditiononthepremisesofwhichtheowner   isawareorshouldhavebeenawarethroughtheexerciseofreasonablediligence.SeeEatonv.   McClain,891S.W.2d587(Tenn.1994).Inotherwords, anownerisnotaninsureragainstaccident p orinjuryarisingfromtheconditionofabuildinguponhisorherpremises.Furthermore,anowner \ ofabuildingisnotliableforinjuriesoccasionedbylatentdefectswhichareeitherconcealedin H defectiveworkmanshiporareincidentaltotheordinarywearandtearofhousesandofwhichthe 4 ownerhadnonotice.See62AAm.Jur.2dPremisesLiability722.  p   So,byfailingtoshowwhatthedefectinthetentwas,ifany,andwhatnoticeSaturnhadof H thedefect,theplaintiffshavenotshownthatSaturnviolatedadutyofcaretothem. 4   Saturnarguesthatsincethetentwaserectedbyanindependentcontractor,thatfactalone   relievesSaturnofanyliability.InthisargumentSaturnreliesonthegeneralrulethatanemployer  isnotliableforthenegligenceofanindependentcontractor,whichwehaverecognizedinmany  cases.SeePowellv.VirginiaConstructionCo.,13S.W.691(Tenn.1890);Potterv.Tucker,688  S.W.2d833(Tenn.Ct.App.1985);ClevelandWreckingCo.v.Butler,421S.W.3d380(Tenn.Ct. l App.1967);InternationalHarvesterCo.v.Sartain,222S.W.2d854(Tenn.Ct.App.1949).Butwe X  thinktherulehasonlyalimitedapplicationhere.Nearlyallstructuresarebuiltbyindependent D! contractors,andifthecontractorbuildsanunsafestructurethelandownermaybeliableifhe/sheis 0"  awarethatthestructureisunsafeanddoesnothingtocorrectthedefectorwarnpersonswhomight #l! comewithinthezoneofdanger. $X"   Therefore,noticetothepropertyownerisstillthekeytoliability.Sincetheundisputedfacts %0!$ showthatSaturnhadnonoticeofanydangerrelativetotheuseofthetent,summaryjudgmentin &"% itsfavorwasproper. '#&   Forthereasonsstatedaboveweaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourtandremandthecause )$( totheCircuitCourtofMauryCounty.ThecostsofthisappealwillbetaxedtoAppellants,Gailand |*%) LarryAllen. h+&*      `     h   _________________________________________ t    `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.