WPC  | Vx;/zNc{.xfp-SC-ژH(hximmDٔ&ٽVWWc-E 4gxx"\V*˴.w+q:M`Zgψuy* sQԽcYn-B/|M?KS3ieRpma-UTAp38} !by*4=]2SX fߴґdpaRkt]w293~VVu3u2}V5M= q>8]~7sʯ@.d|̻EFl$eQ& a֙*Kϛ52c۝QJbEy51 #ZV6Q$e5m|VY;RGȚX0fB4ǏD9cf\ }ǿ~"UNI % 0(Lw@4QetU:|UI:-*U:GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG AQ 0D 0D 0D D/d B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT Ueg#gӀ!n~<$3|x,  AZ"Arial Regular"Arial Regular ##  Xd#  !"  XXXXf(XX   Ad FILEDXXf(   September18,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !   TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tќ XXXX7 { XXdd7 6  7  XXdXXd7ќ r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ r@m m  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@hh%ATJACKSONPEGGYSTRICKLINARNOLD, h   ) ` andEDWARDL.ARNOLD, h   ) L     `     h   )   ` Plaintiffs/Appellants,  )ShelbyCircuitNo.61907T.D. $ t    `     h   )VS.   `     h   )AppealNo.02A019803CV00075  L     `     h   )t (>.*jx` `@ELd` ttx$( d tDEHONEYBISHOPINTERIORS,  ) $  INC.,d/b/aDEHONEYINTERIORS,  )      `     h   )   ` Defendant/Appellee.  )    @APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@ ATMEMPHIS,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEKAYS.ROBILIO,JUDGE MICHAELS.LONG  LONG,UMSTED&JONES  l Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellants THOMASL.BRANNON !&  McWHIRTER&WYATT  "! Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee REVERSEDANDREMANDED )H%)     `     h      p   ALANE.HIGHERS,J. D2-2 CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.DAVIDR.FARMER,J. 7  XXd XXd7   #  Xd#     PlaintiffsPeggyStricklandStricklinArnoldandEdwardL.Arnold(hereinafterreferredtoas |;6<  7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   7  XXd XXd7   Plaintiffor Plaintiffs)appealthetrialcourtsordergrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofDefendantDehoneyBishopInteriors,Inc.(hereinafterreferredtoas Defendantor Dehoney).Forthereasonshereinafterstated,weherebyreversethejudgmentofthetrialcourtandremandthiscasefortrial. @ I.FactualandProceduralHistory       InOctoberof1993,BowdenBuildingCorporationwasthegeneralcontractorfora \  modelhomeconstructedat2275LakeSpringsLaneinCordova,Tennessee.DehoneyBishopInteriorswasasubcontractorhiredbyBowdentoinstallcarpetinthemodelhome.Bowdenistheownerandmanagerexercisingexclusivecontroloverthehome.BowdensmodelsserveasavisualdepictionofthestyleandlayoutofahomebuiltbytheBowdenBuildingCorporation.  OnOctober17,1993,PlaintiffPeggyStricklandArnoldvisitedthesaidmodelhomewhichwasopentothepublic.ShewaswearingReebokrunningshoesatthetime.Ms.Arnoldinitiallyviewedthedownstairsareaofthemodelhomeandthenproceededupstairstoviewtheremainingrooms.Onherwayupstairs,shenoticedthatthehandrailwaslooseatthetopofthestairway.Ms.Arnolddidnotnoticeanyconditionconcerningthecarpetonherwayupthestairs.AfterMs.Arnoldhadfinishedviewingtheupstairsarea,shebeganwalkingdownthestairway.Ms.Arnoldwasnotholdingthehandrailandasshereachedthesecondstepinherdescent,shefeltasifherfeetwereknockedandthecarpetpulledoutfromunderher.Asaresult,Ms.Arnoldfelldownthestairsreceivingmultipleinjuries,includingaruptureddiskinherneck.  StevenOttosen,agentforBowdenBuildingCorporation,hadtraversedthestairsinquestionapproximately20timesonthatsamedayandhadtraversedthestairshundredsoftimesintheprecedingmonths.Ottosennevernoticedanydefectiveconditionswiththecarpet.Morethan200peoplehadusedthesamestairsinthemonthprecedingMs.Arnoldsfall,noneofwhichreportedanydangerousordefectivecondition 844: ofthecarpetandnoneofwhomtrippedorfell.  ThecarpethadbeeninstalledonthestairbyDefendantDehoneyBishopInteriors,Inc.onoraboutJune7,1993.ThecarpetconditionwasrepairedbyemployeesofthedefendantonOctober18,1993.  OnMay23,1994,PlaintiffsfiledaComplaintforMoneyDamages,andfiledanAmendedComplaintforMoneyDamagesonJune30,1994.DefendantsfiledtheiransweronAugust8,1994.AmotionforSummaryJudgmentwasfiledbyDefendantonNovember7,1997,withPlaintiffsfilingtheirresponseonDecember4,1997.  InsupportofitsMotionforSummaryJudgment,DefendantcontendedthatPlaintiffsdidnotcomeforthwithevidenceastothematerialissuesofbreachofdutyofcareowedMs.Arnoldbyit,orthatithadanynotice,actualorconstructive,ofanydefectiveconditioninthecarpetortheinstallation.DefendantassertedthatPlaintiffsdidnotpresentevidencetothesematerialissuesuponwhichreasonablemindscandisagree.Additionally,DefendantcontendedthatPlaintiffscouldnotproveessentialelementsofaprimafaciecaseagainstDefendants.Particularly,Defendantarguedthattheevidenceisuncontradictedthatitusedreasonablecareininstallingthecarpetinthemodelhome.Also,DefendantinsistedthatitdidnotbreachadutytoMs.Arnoldbecausenoallegedlydefectiveconditionexisted.Alternatively,Defendantcontendedthatifadefectiveconditiondidexist,ithadnonoticeofthecondition.  InrespondingtoDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment,PlaintiffscontendedthatthereisaninferencethatthecarpetwasnegligentlyinstalledoritwouldnothavecomeloosewhenMs.Arnoldwalkedonit.Plaintiffspointedtothetestimonyofthecarpetinstaller,FredFulgenzi,whostatedthatinorderforproperlyinstalledcarpettocomeloose 0948 someonewouldhavetophysicallypullthecarpetup.Hence,Plaintiffsarguedthatsincethecarpetwaslooseandnoonepulleditup,thecarpetmusthavebeennegligentlyinstalledforittohavecomelooseabsentphysicalpulling.Plaintiffsalsopointedtothetestimonyoftheirexpert,VirgilPerry,professionalcarpetinstallerfor19years.Perryopinedthatthecarpetwasnotproperlyinstalledonthestairsbecauseproperlyinstalledcarpetwouldnotcomeloosefrommerelywalkingonthecarpet.  ThetrialcourtfoundthattherewerenogenuineissuesastoanymaterialfactsinthiscauseandenteredanOrderGrantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgmentonJanuary29,1998.ThisappealbythePlaintiffsfollowed. @JJ%II.Notice P    ThisCourtwilldispensequicklyoftheDefendantsargumentthatDefendantdidnotbreachadutytothePlaintiffbecauseDefendanthadnonoticeofanyallegedlydefectivecondition.TheDefendantstatesthatitcouldnothaveanticipatedorrepairedanyallegedlydefectiveconditionwithoutnotificationfromBowdenhomes,Inc.DefendantallegesthatsincePlaintiffcannotestablishthatDefendantowedPlaintiffanydutytowarnofanallegedlydefectivecondition,Plaintiffcannotproveanessentialelementofherprimafacienegligenceclaim.  NoticetotheDefendantisnotanissueinthiscase. Ifproofshouldshowitwasdefendantwho...causedthedefectivecondition,nocircumstancesconstitutingnoticeneedbeshown,sincedefendantneednotbeotherwisenotifiedofwhathehimselfhasdone.Stringerv.Cooper486S.W.2d751,757(Tenn.Ct.App.1972).Plaintiffsallegethat 1-0 Defendantimproperlyinstalledthecarpetonthestaironwhichthecarpetcameup,causinghertofall.Thisisnotapremisesliabilitycase.TheDefendantinthismatterisDehoneyBishopInteriors,Inc.,theinstallerofthecarpet.AconsentorderwasentereddismissingwithprejudiceBowden,theownerofthepremisesuponwhichPlaintiffwas 0948 injured.IfBowdenremainedaDefendantinthisaction,andthedefectiveconditionwasdeterminedtobecausedbyanother,noticetoBowdenwouldbeanissue.However,theonlyremainingDefendantisDehoneyandnoticetoanegligentpartyastotheirownnegligenceisnotrequired.DefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldthereforenotbegrantedbaseduponlackofnoticetoDefendant.   ` @eeIII.ImproperInstallation @     Decisionstograntasummaryjudgmentdonotenjoythepresumptionofcorrectness  onappeal,becausetheyinvolveonlyquestionsoflaw.Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,  26(Tenn.1995).OurtaskonappealsfromsummaryjudgmentsistodetermineindependentlywhetherthemovingpartyhassatisfiedtherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56.Hembreev.State,925S.W.2d513,515(Tenn.1996);Paynev.Breuer,891S.W.2d 0 200,201(Tenn.1994).Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03requiresapartyseekingasummaryjudgmenttodemonstratethattherearenogenuinedisputesconcerningthematerialfactsandthattheyareentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,   622(Tenn.1997);Wyattv.A-BestCo.,910S.W.2d851,854(Tenn.1995). "    Asageneralrule,negligencecasesarenotamenabletodispositiononsummaryjudgmentunless,fromallthefactstogetherwiththeinferencestobedrawntherefrom,factsandinferencesaresocertainanduncontrovertedthatreasonablemindsmustagree. 0*%( Keenev.CrackerBarrelOldCountryStore,Inc.853S.W.2d501,50203(Tenn.Ct.App. ,`'* 1992).Innegligencecases,summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhentheinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheuncontrovertedfactsaresocertainthatallreasonablepersonsmustagreeonthem.Id.at503.Converselystated,ifthefactsareuncontroverted, 1-0 summaryjudgmentisinappropriateifreasonablemindscoulddifferastotheinferencestobedrawntherefrom.Id.at503. p504   TheTennesseeSupremeCourtexpoundedonthesummaryjudgmentissueinByrd 0948 v.Hall847S.W.2d208(1993).TheCourtprovidedthefollowingguidance:  ` ` Indeterminingwhetherornotagenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsforpurposesofsummaryjudgment,courtsinthisstatehaveindicatedthatthequestionshouldbeconsideredinthesamemannerasamotionfordirectedverdictmadeatthecloseoftheplaintiff'sproof,i.e.,thetrialcourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence.Then,ifthereisadisputeastoanymaterialfactoranydoubtastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromthatfact,themotionmustbedenied.Poore,666S.W.2dat49("[I]fthemindofthe 0  courtentertainsanydoubtwhetherornotagenuineissueexistsastoanymaterialfactitisitsdutytooverrulethemotion.");Dooleyv.Everett,805S.W.2d380,383(Tenn.Ct.  App.1990).Thecourtisnotto"weigh"theevidencewhenevaluatingamotionforsummaryjudgment.` $/` /   ` Byrdv.Hallat21011.  2/  ThisCourtwillfirstaddressDefendantsallegationthatnosuchdefectiveconditionexisted.DefendantpointsoutthatPlaintiffwastheonlypersontoclaimtherewasadefectinthecarpetoutofthehundredsofvisitorstousethestairwayofthemodelhome.DefendanttakesthepositionthatPlaintiffdidnotnoticeadefectiveconditioninthecarpetbecausenosuchconditionexisted.However,thereisevidenceintherecordofthefollowingfacts:ThePlaintiffdidslipandfallonthestairswhichwerecarpetedbyDefendant,thecarpetcameup,andthecarpetlookedlikeaslidebetweenthestepaboveitandthestepbelowitafterthefall.ThePlaintiffreportedtheincidenttoSteveOttosen,asalesmanatBowdenHomes,andMr.Ottosenattemptedtokickthecarpetbackinplacewiththeheelofhisshoe.Defendantwascalledbackouttothepropertyaftertheincidenttocheckthecarpet,andDefendantsemployeesdidinfactreturntothehomeonOctober18,1993,thedayaftertheincident.Thereiscertainlysufficientevidenceonthisissuetogotoajury.  ThemainissueuponwhichthiscaseturnsiswhetherthereisadisputeastoanymaterialfactconcerningtheDefendantsinstallationofthecarpet.Defendantcontendsthatithaspresenteduncontradictedevidencethatthecarpetatissuewasinstalledinareasonablemannerwhichiscustomaryfortheindustry.Defendantassertsthatthecarpet 0948 wasinstalledproperlyandthereisnoevidencethatitwasimproperlyinstalled.  Plaintiffs,ontheotherhand,contendthattheypresentedsufficientcircumstantialevidencetocreateatriableissueforthejury.Plaintiffsadmitthattheirexpertdidnotviewtheaccidentsceneortheactualinstallationofthecarpet.However,theirexperttestifiedthatthereisonlyonewaytoproperlyinstallcarpet,andifcarpetisproperlyinstalleditwillnotsliporcomeupunlesssomeonephysicallypullsthecarpetup.Plaintiffsclaimthatsincethereisnoevidencethatsomeonephysicallypulledthecarpetup,thefactthatitcamelooseisitselfevidencethatitwasnotproperlyinstalled.  WhileDefendantassertsthattheevidenceisuncontradictedthatthecarpetwasproperlyinstalled,thisCourtisnotequallyconvinced.TherecordmadeavailabletothisCourtdoesnotcontainthefulldepositionofFredFulgenzi,theinstallerofthecarpet.ThisCourthasbeforeitonlysuchportionofthatdepositionaswasattachedtotheDefendantsMemorandumsubmittedinsupportoftheirmotionforsummaryjudgment.Inthatportionofthedeposition,theinstallerappearstobesayingthathedoesnotrememberthisparticularinstallation,orthesubsequentrepairtothecarpet.Hetestifiestotheproperinstallationprocedureandtestifiesthatthisishowheregularlyinstallscarpet.ThisCourt $" takesnoteofthestatementmadebytheinstallerthat Ivebeendoingthisfortwentyyears.Idontmaketoomanymistakes,butsometimes,wedo.  Theinstaller,Mr.Fulgenzi,alsotestifiedthatifcarpetisinstalledproperly,itwillnotnormallycomeloose.Hestatedthattheonlythinghecouldthinkofcausingittocomelooseissomebodycomingandtearingitup,somebodypullingonit.Hetestifiedthatsomeonevacuumingthecarpetwouldnotcauseittocomeoffthetackstripifitwasproperlyinstalled.Mr.Fulgenzifurtherstatedthatsteamcleaningwouldnotcauseproperlyinstalledcarpettocomeloose,butratherwouldshrinkitupandmakeittighteronthepins. Theonlywaycarpetcancomelooseifitisproperlyinstalledissomebodyputtingtheirhandunderneathitandpullingitup. 0948   Plaintiffsexpert,VirgilPerry,acarpetinstallerformorethan19years,testifiedthatthereisonlyonewayintheindustrytoprofessionallyinstallcarpetonstairs.Hetestifiedtothepropermethod,whichwasthesamemethodtheactualinstaller,FredFulgenzi,testifiedto.Mr.Perrythentestifiedthattheonlywayproperlyinstalledcarpetingwillcomeupisifyougrabthecarpetandliftitstraightupwhichwouldgetitoffthetackstripandthenpullitinanupwardandoutwardmotion.Hetestifiedthatforthecarpettocomeloosewithoutphysicallypullingitup,itwouldbetheresultofthecarpetnotbeingcompletelyoverbothsetsofnails,whichwouldnotbetheproperinstallation.` ` ` `     Mr.Perryfurthertestifiedthatitisnotuncommonforacarpetinstalleroccasionallytoinstallcarpetimproperly.Hestatedinrelevantpart:` {G` _GGButmyopinionisthisbecauseitsacommoncircumstance,Ivecomeincontactwithit,allcarpetstoresarequitefamiliarwithit,carpetlayersworkbasedontheirspeed.Wemakebetweenthreefifty,fourhundreddollarsaday,sowhenwestartajoboneday,wedontwanttohavetogobacktomorrowbecausetomorrowinterfereswithmakingthesameamountofmoneythatday.Okay.Sosometimeswellrunintosituationswherewellputthat,wellthinkwegotthatcarpetinthereanditmaynot.Anditsnotanuncommoncallforacarpetcompanytoreceive,hey,listen,Ivegotyouknow,oneofmystepscominglooseandmaybetwo.Usuallynomorethanoneortwobecausecarpetlayers,eventhoughweworkfast,wetrytobeprettyefficient.H` `   Oncrossexamination,Mr.Perrywasaskedifheeverhadanycarpetoverstairscomeloose.Mr.Perrystatedyesandthathewouldsaythathewasnegligentinlayingthecarpetwhenitcameloose.3L` ` Q:Youwouldsaythatyouwerenegligent?A:Absolutely.ThatshowcomeIgiveallmycustomersayearswarrantyonthequalityofmyworkmanship.Itsnormallyastandardinourindustrybecausewerecognize,ortheindustryrecognizedthattherearetimeswhenmenwillmakemistakes.Itsallpartofthehumanelement.Andwegobackoutthereandtakecareofthatatnocosttothestore,soasaresultitsatnocosttothe` #M` M1M  Mr.Perrydidtestifyinhisdepositionthathedidnotseewhetherthisparticularcarpetwasproperlyinstalledonthestepsandhethereforecouldnotstatethatitwasimproperlyinstalled.Inhisdepositiontestimony,herepeatedlystatedthathewasbasing  :p59 histestimonyonthepropermethodofinstallationintheindustry,thatthereisonlyonepropermethod,andifthecarpetisproperlyinstalleditwillnotcomelooseabsentphysicallypullingitup.Helaterstatedinanaffidavitthatitwashisopinionthatthecarpetwasnotproperlyinstalledoverbothsetsofnailsonthetackstripsandthatthecleaningofthecarpet,walkinguponthecarpetbyprospectivepurchasersandsalesmenoracombinationofthosethingscausedthecarpettocomeloosefromthetackstripsduetoitsimproperinstallation.  DefendantmakesmuchofthiscontradictionbetweenthedepositiontestimonyandtheaffidavitofMr.Perry.However,thefactthatthecarpetwasnotproperlyinstalledappearstobeMr.Perryspositionfromthebeginning.WhileitistruethatMr.Perryadmittedinhisdepositionthathedidntseethecarpetandcouldnotsaythatitwasimproperlyinstalled,themainthrustofhisentiretestimonywasthatitmusthavebeen 0 improperlyinstalled,orthecarpetwouldnothavecomeup.WhilethisCourtcannotdelveintothemindofMr.Perry,itiscertainlypossiblethatinhisdepositionMr.Perrywassayingthathehadnofirsthandknowledge,hadnodirectevidence,thatthecarpetwasimproperlyinstalled.Inhisaffidavit,Mr.Perrystatestheconclusionthathewas,infact,urginginhisdepositiontestimony.Hisopinionisthatthecarpetwasimproperlyinstalledbecausethatistheonlywayitwouldhavecomeloose.  TherewasadditionaltestimonyonthecarpetinstallationfromMr.RogerBishop,copresidentofDehoneyBishopInteriors,Inc.HetestifiedthatFredFulgenziwasinfacttheinstallerofthecarpetinquestion.Mr.Bishophadinstalledcarpetforapproximatelytenyears,althoughheadmittedthathehadnotinstalledcarpetinquitesometime.Hetestifiedthatexcessivecleaningcouldcauseacarpettocomeloosefromatackstrip.Hestated maybetoomuchwalking,whichisabitunlikely.Then,pullingitup.Hetestifiedthatexcessivecleaningcouldcauseittocomeloosebecause somuchwateronthebackinghasatendencytomakeitrelease,andthenitwillalsoshrinkitanditisjustaconstantproblemofshrinkinganddelaminatingthecarpetanditwillfinallyreleaseitatsomepoint. 0948   Factsmaybeinferredfromcircumstantialevidence,andaninferredfactmaybethebasisofafurtherinferencetotheultimateorsought-forfact.Bensonv.H.G.HillStores,  Inc.,699S.W.2d560,563.(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Inacivilcasedependingupon p circumstantialevidence,itissufficientforapartyhavingtheburdenofprooftomakeoutthemoreprobablehypothesis,andtheevidenceneednotarisetothatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillexcludeeveryotherreasonableconclusion.Id.at563.Itisonlynecessaryfor `  theplaintifftopresentproofwhich,ifbelievedbythejury,makesplaintiffstheoryofthecasemoreprobablethanthetheoryofthedefendant.Id.     ThePlaintiffscasereliesmainlyoncircumstantialevidence.Theyputonproofthatthereisonlyoneproperwayintheindustrytoinstallcarpetonstairs,andifitisinstalledproperly,itwillnotcomeupasitdidinthiscase.Theinstallerhimselftestifiedthatproperlyinstalledcarpetwillnotcomeupabsentsomeonephysicallypullingitup.WhiletherewastestimonyofMr.Bishopthatexcessivecleaningandperhapstoomuchwalkingcouldcausethecarpettocomeup,itisnotnecessarythattheproofoftheplaintiffsexcludeeveryotherreasonableconclusion.Bensonat563.     Defendantassertsthatithaspresenteduncontradictedevidencethatthecarpetatissuewasinstalledinareasonablemannerwhichiscustomaryfortheindustry.However,neitherpartyhaschosentoincludeintherecordthedepositionofMr.Fulgenzi,theinstallerofthecarpet,thatissocrucialtothisissueofproperinstallation.ThisCourtdoeshaveavailableintherecordtheportionofthedepositiontestimonyofMr.FulgenziwhichwasattachedtoDefendantsmemoranduminsupportoftheirmotionforsummaryjudgement.ThisCourtmustbaseitsrulingonwhatwehavebeforeusintherecord.ItappearsfromhistestimonythatMr.Fulgenzidoesnotrememberthisparticularinstallation.Unfortunately,thisCourthasonlyhisanswer,andnottheparticularquestionasked.However,nowhereintherecordbeforethisCourtdoesMr.Fulgenzistatethathedoes p504 remembertheinstallation.ItisalsoofimportancethatMr.Fulgenzistatesthathesometimesmakesmistakes. 0948   Thejuryinthiscasewouldbeentitledtoconsiderthevariousinferencestobedrawnfromtheprovenfactsandtodeterminewhichinitsjudgmentisthemostprobable.Thejuryisnotpermittedtospeculateastowhichoftwoequallyprobableinferencesisapplicable,butthatisnotthesituationhere.ThereisnotestimonyintherecordbeforethiscourtthatMr.Fulgenziremembersinstallingthisparticularcarpetproperly.Therewastestimonyoftwopersonsthattheonlywayproperlyinstalledcarpetcouldcomeupisbyphysicallypullingitup.Alternatively,therewastestimonybyMr.Bishopthatexcessivecleaningorperhapstoomuchwalkingcouldcauseproperlyinstalledcarpettocomeloose.Itwouldbethejobofthejurytoweighthecredibilityofthesewitnessesanddecidewhattestimonytobelieve.Furthermore,ifthejurychosetobelieveMr.Bishop,theywouldalsohavethejobofdecidingiftherewas,infact,excessivecleaningortoomuchwalkingonthecarpet.  ThejurycouldfairlybelievethetestimonyofMr.PerryandMr.Fulgenzithattheonlywayproperlyinstalledcarpetingwouldcomeupisifitisphysicallypulledup.Thejurycouldthenfairlyinferthatbecausethiscarpetcameupintheabsenceofsuchphysicalpulling,itwasimproperlyinstalled.Fromthetestimonyoftheinstallerhimselfthathesometimesmakesmistakes,andfromthetestimonyofPlaintiffsexpert,Mr.Perry,thatitisnotuncommontoimproperlyinstallcarpetonastairortwoinanotherwiseproperinstallation,thejurycouldfairlyreasonthatMr.Fulgenzi,whileutilizingthepropermethodof P(#& installation,didnotproperlyinstallthecarpetonthisparticularstair.Takingthestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,weareoftheopinionthatthefactsandthereasonableinferencestobedrawnfromthosefactsmakeaprimafaciecasefortheplaintiffandrendersummaryjudgmentinappropriate.  WearethereforeoftheopinionthatthetrialcourterredingrantingDefendant'sMotionforSummaryJudgment. @* 0948 @#IV.Conclusion   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyreversedandthiscaseisremandedfortrial. p CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheDefendant,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   `     h      p   򀀀 @     `     h      p   HIGHERS,J. 0  CONCUR:򀀀 ` CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.W.S.񀀀 ` FARMER,J.̀