ÿWPC¶8 Ãß9G—öGáà <~ΰ-GÆ}N›üEáR”Ô:éÙ¼B\ñ,}PE•ñ¬>5²;´$;°’â‚zÌR¬õXîÀãêFÑÜ^šõ¥—Oh:£&ö†û²r`±î_–G¿«Ã\lœ~݇ˆþ&TNFh\izпcoÈÿÛéeÔ±2ÿa¼MO gË›ò¤elrònÒrÙ`ÿÌÀqóàê²’9suºq³pûÕÞ‘ÌÉ¿M¨7L™Ós=Þ†Vm‡K–Þ“8ß»^TåÅòI‘ K©0³¾p?©<Š>_§H2‚¤cNy…Ç¥¢—Ü»¦€³m1[t4bÈÄ)‚˜CÍ:·¼Za‘Â.‚c†v‚+þnð9Û†[Þ°üaáØAïš™j, Oj¿„nÂ}n+E.…ÞÏ&äW²±^ø Ãü‘ÏO*Ûf‡î 0¼Ç•ÜÍP†);•r ¯ [©FŒ6)eÄùœ4Â,)•UΗ0˜>ü—ˆ 3[Øh‚’ïádÁ—µýqæ55¬×+:? Ež†((©0~ÊÊŸµ–·;ò)}¶'a𠉿0ä`úGaoA{¶¢*¯úaIæ"zÎò.‰rÿÍÝ*X¼qb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U6N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æí 1‡³N: 72< 0cnEÑ 0wÓ 0ŠJ 0 Ô 0´t 0Ç( 0Ûï 0ïÊ 0D¹ 1uý 72r 0D¤NèUN6à„`d U@Ä$Ä$U>%£B% å(Ìÿ(ƒË+mN-b».TÃ.š0000000000000000000000000000000000 0 ë±3±3±3±3 Bœ4œ4 0¤¹4 D5]5 D-’5 0K¿5¿5 AS 6Æ]6 0¤#7 0DÇ7 A« 8˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»‚51Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularEbÜ0˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5hÏ·CEIMQUY]aAutoList1        i)1)a) (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DÝ ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€ruling€does€not€mean€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€prevail€at€trial,€and€does€not€imply€that€the€plaintiffÐ ° Ðwill€or€will€not€survive€a€directed€verdict€motion€at€trial.€€We€merely€hold€that€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€failure€to€give€a€step„by„stepÐ tÄ Ðaccount€as€to€how€he€fell€is€not€fatal€to€his€claim€at€this€stage€of€the€litigation€based€on€the€record€before€us.€€It€is€clearÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€a€court€should€not€grant,€or€affirm€a€grant€of,€summary€judgment€simply€because€the€court€has€doubts,€even€seriousÐ üL Ðdoubts,×Ã,×× C ×€about€the€plaintiffððs€ability€to€prove€his€or€her€claim€at€trial.€€òòBlairóó,€130€S.W.3d€at€768.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ÖÝ ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡#ôþuòòôþuÔAlthough€the€terms€are€sometimes€used€interchangeably,€the€Supreme€Court€has€explained€the€appropriateÐ ° Ðusage€of€ð ðcomparative€negligenceðð€and€ð ðcomparative€fault.ððÐ tÄ ÐÌà8  àThe€term€ð ðcomparative€negligenceðð€is€defined€as€the€measure€of€the€plaintiffððs€negligence€inÐ üL Ðpercentage€terms€used€for€the€purpose€of€reducing€the€plaintiffððs€recovery€from€the€defendant€inÐ À Ðproportion€to€the€percentage€of€negligence€attributed€to€the€plaintiff.€.€.€.€€The€term€ð ðcomparative€faultððÐ „Ô Ðis€defined€as€those€principles€which€encompass€the€determination€of€how€to€ð ðapportion€damageÐ H ˜ Ðrecovery€among€multiple€or€joint€tortfeasors€according€to€the€percentage€of€fault€attributed€to€thoseÐ  \ Ðactors€after€reduction€for€the€plaintiffððs€percentage€of€negligence.ððÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó,€915€S.W.2d€420,€425€at€n.7€(Tenn.€1996)€(citations€omitted).Ô#†ôþuòò#ôþu~#Ô DEWEL COAFassbenderGallatin foreseeabilityKilpatrickbreezewayBalentine ColnPenley CBLShadrickCokerFrugePeralesBirman BainMageeMcClungKeetonProsserMcLainnuancedinviteesPsillasTenn.Ct.AppBettencourtGravoisTrauthLa.AppAmmonsBonillaRishtonBiscanrebuttableJeffreysMcCarleyKellumArnettLinderAyhart T]hefactfinderLaRuec]omparativeHilliardServsScruggsesPittman uncontrovertedMcClenahantortfeasorScruggsAyrhart(âx-  Z‹(Times New Roman ô\  `‹&Times New Roman ™Ý ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡#ôþuòòôþuÔSeveral€factors€are€to€be€considered€in€deciding€whether€a€risk€is€an€unreasonable€one,€thereby€giving€rise€toÐ ° Ða€duty.€€ð ðThose€factors€include€€the€foreseeable€probability€of€the€harm€or€injury€occurring;€the€possible€magnitude€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€potential€harm€or€injury;€the€importance€or€social€value€of€the€activity€engaged€in€by€€defendant;€€the€usefulness€ofÐ 8ˆ Ý Ðthe€conduct€to€defendant;€the€feasibility€or€alternative,€safer€conduct€and€the€relative€costs€and€burdens€associated€withÐ ° Ðthat€conduct;€the€relative€usefulness€of€the€safer€conduct;€and€the€€relative€safety€of€alternative€conduct.ðð€òòMcCall,€óó913Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€at€153.€Ô#†ôþuòò#ôþu~#ÔÿÿSearchTerm ÂÝ ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€presumption€cannot€be€used€to€create€an€inference€that€the€defendant€acted€negligently,€nor€does€it€shiftÐ ° Ðthe€burden€of€proof€to€the€defendant€or€authorize€the€jury€to€speculate€as€to€the€cause€of€the€injuries.€€òòMastersóó,€863Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€at€707.€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€presumption€is€simply€applied€to€establish€due€care€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiffÐ 8ˆ Ðsince€he€cannot€remember€the€details€of€his€fall.€€The€defendantsðð€negligence,€if€any,€must€rest€on€the€facts€of€defendantsððÐ üL Ðconduct.€€ yÝ ƒReG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ‡ô÷‚ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòBlairóó,€the€defendant€emphasized€one€Court€of€Appeals€judgeððs€comment€that€if€the€evidence€remained€theÐ ° Ðsame,€the€defendant€might€well€be€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict.€€130€S.W.3d€at€768.Ô‡X‚Xòô÷‚Ô cÝ ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Scruggses€stated€Mr.€Ayrhart€had€warned€their€son€that€morning€to€stay€away€from€the€opening€becauseÐ ° Ðhe€could€get€hurt€if€he€went€near€it.€€Mr.€Ayrhart€does€not€remember€whether€he€warned€the€child€or€not.- ù- JÝ ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThus,€the€trial€court€impliedly€accepted€the€Scruggsesðð€argument€that€they€had€no€duty€to€warn€Mr.€AyrhartÐ ° Ðabout€the€large€opening€in€the€floor.€€We€agree€there€was€no€duty€to€warn. Ý ƒRMs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThey€note€that€Tennessee€law€prohibits€the€courts€from€submitting€negligence€cases€to€juries€which€containÐ ° Ðonly€ð ða€spark€or€glimmer€of€evidence€that€requires€the€finder„of„fact€to€make€a€leap€of€faith€to€find€the€defendant€liableÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€plaintiffððs€injury.ðð€€òòPsillas€v.€Home€Depotóó,€66€S.W.3d€860,€866€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Since€there€is€no€directÐ 8ˆ Ðevidence€as€to€why€Mr.€Ayrhart€fell€through€the€opening,€the€defendants€contend€that€the€plaintiff€is€impermissibly€askingÐ üL Ðthe€trier€of€fact€to€speculate€as€to€the€cause.€€The€question€before€us,€however,€is€not€whether€a€jury€was€allowed€toÐ À Ðspeculate;€rather,€it€is€whether€defendants€were€entitled€to€summary€judgment.(|G2Ms$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Uõ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþuò»»Ô d(|3Im$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Uõ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Im$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Uõ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Uõ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Uõ»»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îPUõÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Uõ»îîP #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJanuary€8,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼UõÔÌò òÔ#†¼Uõ»XX!ô#ÔCHARLES€W.€AYRHART,€òòet€al.óó,€v.€DEWEL€B.€SCRUGGS,€òòet€al.óóÔ‡X!X»¼UõÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€22110„C€€€€€€C.€L.€Rogers,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00453„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R9„CV€„€Filed€September€21,€2004Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€an€interlocutory€appeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€grant€a€summary€judgment€to€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefendants€in€a€negligence€case.€€We€find€that€the€defendants€have€not€affirmatively€negated€anÐ d´ Ðelement€of€this€negligence€claim€and€that€reasonable€minds€could€differ€on€the€allocation€of€faultÐ P  Ðbetween€the€parties.€€Consequently,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€WeÐ <Œ Ðtherefore€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€affirm€the€denial€of€summary€judgment.Ô#†¼Uõ»XX!}#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼UõÔÐ (x ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ P ÐAffirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÔ#†¼Uõ»àX!ô#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼UõÔÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€and€òòFrankÐ Ä ÐG.€Clement,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌGary€A.€Brewer,€Paul€A.€Fassbender,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Dewel€B.€Scruggs,Ð ˆØ Ðand€Connie€Scruggs.Ð tÄ ÐÌBruce€N.€Oldham,€Gallatin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Charles€W.€Ayrhart€and€wife,€CarrieÐ L œ ÐAyrhart.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Uõ»XX!Ø#ԈР#`" ÐÔ€X!X»¼UõÔÌà  àThis€case€arose€from€an€accident€that€occurred€on€September€17,€2000,€during€theÐ è$8 $ Ðconstruction€of€a€house€being€built€by€and€for€defendant€Dewel€Scruggs€in€Sumner€County.€€PlaintiffÐ Ô%$!% ÐCharles€W.€Ayrhart,€Mr.€Ô_ÔScruggsÔ_Ôððs€brother„in„law,€had€been€helping€him€with€construction€for€aboutÐ À&"& Ðthree€weeks.€€There€was€a€large€opening€in€the€main€floor€of€the€house€for€the€entry€to€a€staircaseÐ ¬'ü"' Ðleading€to€the€basement.€€The€staircase€had€not€yet€been€built.€€In€the€weeks€prior€to€the€day€of€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðaccident,€the€opening€was€covered€by€a€sheet€of€plywood.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àAt€about€8:30€a.m.€on€the€day€of€the€accident,€the€plywood€was€removed€from€the€openingÐ \+¬&+ Ðso€it€could€be€used€elsewhere.€€Mr.€Ayrhart€had€to€walk€around€the€unprotected€opening€several€timesÐ H,˜', Ðthat€morning€to€get€two„by„fours€that€were€stacked€around€the€rear€of€the€opening.€€At€about€12:30Ð 4-„(-ýÿ ÐÔ_Ôp.m.,€Mr.€Scruggs€realized€he€had€not€heard€any€hammering€or€had€any€communication€from€hisÐ ° Ðbrother„in„law€for€some€period€of€time.Ð œì ÐÌà  àHe€went€looking€for€Mr.€Ayrhart,€and€discovered€him€lying€on€the€concrete€basement€floor,Ð tÄ Ðdirectly€beneath€the€opening€through€which€he€had€apparently€fallen.€€Mr.€Scruggs€called€Mr.Ð `° ÐAyrhartððs€wife.€€When€she€arrived€at€the€house,€an€ambulance€was€already€there.€€Mr.€Ayrhart€wasÐ L œ Ðstill€lying€on€the€floor,€in€a€pool€of€blood.€€He€was€brought€to€the€hospital,€where€he€remained€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðthree€weeks.€€After€he€was€discharged,€he€underwent€outpatient€physical€therapy.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àMr.€Ayrhart€sustained€serious€injuries€as€a€result€of€his€fall.€€Aside€from€a€broken€collarbone,Ð ü L  Ðthumb,€and€ribs,€he€also€suffered€a€closed€head€injury€which€resulted€in€a€loss€of€memory€and€aÐ è 8  Ðreduced€ability€to€function.€€One€of€the€results€of€the€injuries€was€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€could€notÐ Ô$  Ðremember€many€of€the€events€that€occurred€on€the€morning€of€his€fall,€including€the€fall€itself.Ð À  ÐÌà@ÍÍìàòòò òI.€€Trial€Court€Proceedingsóóó óˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€September€12,€2001,€Charles€Ayrhart€and€his€wife€Carrie€filed€a€Complaint€in€the€SumnerÐ pÀ ÐCounty€Circuit€Court,€naming€Dewel€Scruggs€and€his€wife€Connie€(the€two€wives€are€sisters)€asÐ \¬ Ðdefendants.€€They€claimed€that€the€defendants€were€negligent€for€failing€to€adequately€warn€Mr.Ð H˜ ÐAyrhart€about€the€dangerous€condition€and€by€failing€to€remedy€the€condition€by€covering€theÐ 4„ Ðopening.€They€asked€for€a€judgment€against€the€defendants€ð ðin€an€amount€not€to€exceed€$1,000,000Ð  p Ð.€.€.€.ðð€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€filed€an€Answer€to€the€Complaint€and€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€TheyÐ ä4 Ðadmitted€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€had€fallen€and€injured€himself,€but€contended€that€the€proximate€cause€ofÐ Ð  Ðhis€injury€was€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€own€negligence€in€failing€to€avoid€an€open€and€obvious€hazard.€€In€theirÐ ¼  ÐAnswer,€the€defendants€declared€that€they€relied€in€the€alternative€upon€the€doctrine€of€comparativeÐ ¨ø Ðnegligence.€€In€their€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€the€plaintiffs€asserted€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ð ”ä ÐMr.€Ayrhartððs€fault€was€greater€than€their€own,€and€that€the€plaintiffs€were€therefore€barred€from€anyÐ €Ð Ðrecovery.€€òòSee€McIntyre€v.€Balentine,óó€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€parties€submitted€numerous€documents€in€support€of,€and€in€opposition€to,€the€MotionÐ D!” Ðfor€Summary€Judgment.€€These€included€five€affidavits,€two€depositions,€two€memoranda€of€law,Ð 0"€  Ða€Statement€of€Undisputed€Facts,€and€a€Response€to€that€Statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€TheÐ #l! Ðparties€differed€somewhat€in€their€accounts€of€the€events€on€the€day€of€the€accident.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àOn€December€2,€2002,€the€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€Motion.€€After€the€hearing,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€ruled€as€follows.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒBased€upon€the€pleadings,€statements€of€disputed€facts,€discovery€and€affidavits,€saidÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmotion€is€denied.€€The€Plaintiff€is€found€to€have€had€notice€of€the€dangerousÐ )à$( Ðâ âcondition,€however€the€Defendants€did€not€address€the€Defendantsðð€duty€to€engageÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€alternative€conduct€in€light€of€the€risk€of€harm.€€òòColn€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,€966Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€34€(Tennessee€1988).Ð œì Ðâ âÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àThe€trial€court€and€this€court€granted€interlocutory€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@½½ ìàò òòòII.€€Summary€Judgmentó óóóˆÐ L œ ÐÌÔ‡#X!XXX!Ôà  àA€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€enjoys€no€presumption€ofÐ $ t Ðcorrectness€on€appeal.€€òòScott€v.€Ashland€Healthcare€Ctr.,€Inc.óó,€49€S.W.3d€281,€284€(Tenn.€2001);Ð  ` ÐòòPenley€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€31€S.W.3d€181,€183€(Tenn.€2000).€€This€courtððs€role€in€reviewing€theÐ ü L  Ðgrant€of€summary€judgment€is€to€review€the€record€and€make€a€fresh€determination€of€whether€theÐ è 8  Ðrequirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòÔ#†X!XX#X!Å#ÔStaples€v.€CBL€&€Associates,€Inc.,óó€15€S.W.3dÐ Ô$  Ð83,€88€(Tenn.€2000)òòóó;€òòShadrick€v.€Cokeróó,€963€S.W.2d€726,€731€(Tenn.1998)òò.óóÐ À  ÐÔ‡#X!XXX!ÔÌà  àThe€requirements€for€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€are€that€the€filings€supporting€theÐ ˜è  Ðmotion€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€toÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ô#†X!XX#X!Ó!#ÔÔ‡#X!XXX!ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04;€òòFruge€v.€Doeóó,€952€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.Ð pÀ Ð1997);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993)Ô#†X!XX#X!###ÔÔ‡#X!XXX!Ôòòóó;òò€Church€v.€Peralesóó,€39€S.W.3d€149,€156Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€Consequently,€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€theÐ H˜ Ðundisputed€facts,€and€the€inferences€reasonably€drawn€from€the€undisputed€facts,€support€oneÐ 4„ Ðconclusion€„€that€the€party€seeking€the€summary€judgment€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÐ  p Ðlaw.òò€€Webber€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,€49€S.W.3d€265,€269€(Tenn.€2001);€òòBrown€v.€BirmanÐ  \ ÐManaged€Care,€Inc.óó,€42€S.W.3d€62,€66€(Tenn.€2001);òòóó€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88Ô#†X!XX#X!û##Ôòòóó.òò€óóÔ‡#X!XXX!ÔÐ øH ÐÌÔ#†X!XX#X!½&#Ôà  àA€court€must€determine€first€whether€factual€disputes€exist€and,€if€so,€whether€the€fact€isÐ Ð  Ðmaterial€to€the€claim€or€defense€upon€which€the€summary€judgment€is€predicated€and€whether€theÐ ¼  Ðdisputed€fact€creates€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€214;€òòRutherford€v.€Polar€TankÐ ¨ø ÐTrailer,€Inc.óó,€978€S.W.2d€102,€104€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€A€court€must€review€the€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðpresented€at€the€summary€judgment€stage€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party,€affordÐ €Ð Ðall€reasonable€inferences€to€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€870€(Tenn.€1993);€òòByrdóó,€847Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€at€210„11.€€€ð ðIf€there€is€a€dispute€as€to€any€material€fact€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusionsÐ D!” Ðto€be€drawn€from€that€fact,€the€motion€must€be€denied.ðð€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211.€€òòóóSummaryÐ 0"€  Ðjudgment€procedure€and€burdens€have€been€explained€many€times.€€Ð #l! ÐÔ‡&X!XXX!ÔÌà8  àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmatively€negate€anÐ ô$D # Ðessential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establish€anÐ à%0!$ Ðaffirmative€defense.€€If€the€moving€party€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€non„moving€partyððs€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€aÐ ¸'#& Ðgenuine€issue€for€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€mustÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfail.€€If€the€moving€party€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„Ð )à$( Ðmoving€party€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðestablish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.Ô#†X!XX&X!¼+#ÔÐh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇòòÔ‡&X!XXX!ÔStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88„89€(citations€omitted).€€Thus,€Ô#†X!XX&X!E/#Ôif,€but€only€if,€the€moving€party€presentsÐ ° Ðevidence€sufficient€to€justify€grant€of€the€motion€if€the€facts€remain€uncontested,€the€nonmovingÐ œì Ðparty€is€required€to€come€forward€with€some€significant€probative€evidence€which€makes€it€necessaryÐ ˆØ Ðto€resolve€a€factual€dispute€at€trial.€€Ô‡#X!XXX!Ôò òòòó óóóWhere€the€moving€party€satisfactorily€challenges€the€nonmovingÐ tÄ Ðpartyððs€ability€to€prove€an€essential€element€of€its€claim,€the€nonmoving€party€has€the€burden€ofÐ `° Ðpointing€out,€rehabilitating,€or€providing€new€evidence€to€create€a€factual€dispute€as€to€that€element.€Ð L œ ÐòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88„89;òò€Rains€v.€Bend€of€the€Riveróó,€124€S.W.3d€580,€587„88€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 8 ˆ Ð2003).€€A€nonmoving€party€who€fails€to€carry€that€burden€faces€summary€dismissal€of€the€challengedÐ $ t Ðclaim.Ð  ` ÐÔ#†X!XX#X!1#ÔÌà@« « ìàò òòòIII.€€Essential€elements€of€negligence€claim€óóó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌò òòòóóó óà  àOn€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€by€a€defendant,€the€first€question€is€whether€theÐ À  Ðmoving€party€has€presented€evidence€that€negates€an€essential€element€of€the€plaintiffððs€claim.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðessential€elements€of€any€negligence€claim€are:€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;Ð ˜è  Ðconduct€by€the€defendant€that€amounts€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€an€injury€or€loss€suffered€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðplaintiff;€that€the€defendantððs€breach€of€duty€was€a€cause€in€fact€of€the€injury€or€loss;€and€proximate,Ð pÀ Ðor€legal,€causation.€€òòBurroughs€v.€Mageeóó,€118€S.W.3d€323,€327„28€(Tenn.€2003);€òò€McClung€v.€DeltaÐ \¬ ÐSquare€Partnership,óó€937€S.W.2d€891,€894€(Tenn.€1996).€òòóóÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àMr.€Scruggs€raises€three€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€whether€he€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€Mr.€Ayrhart;Ð  p Ð(2)€whether€the€plaintiffsðð€allegations€were€sufficient€to€establish€cause€in€fact;€and€(3)€whether,€asÐ  \ Ða€matter€of€law,€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€own€negligence€was€greater€than€that€of€the€defendant.€€We€willÐ øH Ðdiscuss€each€of€these€issues€in€turn,€but€first€must€address€the€evidence€provided€in€the€filings.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWe€begin€by€reiterating€that,€because€of€the€plaintiffððs€loss€of€memory€due€to€his€injuries,Ð ¼  Ðthere€are€large€gaps€in€the€evidence€as€to€the€exact€circumstances€surrounding€the€accident.€€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðplaintiff€did€not€remember€the€fall€itself€or€anything€that€happened€after€it.€€He€had€only€a€spottyÐ ”ä Ðmemory€of€the€other€events€of€that€morning.Ð €Ð ÐÌò òó óà  àThere€is€no€dispute€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€suffered€grievous€injuries€as€a€result€of€his€fall,€but€theÐ X ¨ Ðparties€differ€somewhat€as€to€the€events€that€preceded€the€fall.€€The€affidavit€of€Mr.€Scruggs€statesÐ D!” Ðthat€Mr.€Ayrhart€helped€him€remove€the€sheet€of€plywood€on€the€morning€of€the€accident.€€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐAyrhart€testified€in€his€deposition:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àI€do€not€remember€the€plywood€being€there€the€day€that€I€fell.€€I€believe€it€had€beenÐ ô$D # Ðthere€up€until€the€day€of€the€accident.€€I€do€not€know€who€removed€the€plywood.€€IÐ à%0!$ Ðdo€not€recall€assisting€Dewel€Scruggs€in€removing€the€plywood.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àHe€said€that€Mr.€Scruggs€later€indicated€that€ð ðhim€and€Connie€[Mrs.€Scruggs]€moved€it.ðð€€InÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âher€affidavit,€Carrie€Ayrhart€stated€that€it€was€her€understanding€that€Connie€Scruggs€had€beenÐ )à$( Ðworking€on€the€house€that€morning€and€that€Dewey€and€Connie€Scruggs€were€the€ones€who€actuallyÐ ° Ðremoved€the€plywood.׃-×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWhether€or€not€Mr.€Ayrhart€helped€move€the€plywood,€it€is€undisputed€that€he€was€aware€itÐ tÄ Ðno€longer€covered€the€opening.€€In€his€affidavit,€Mr.€Ayrhart€testified€that€he€knew€the€plywood€wasÐ `° Ðno€longer€covering€the€hole.€€He€further€stated€that€on€the€day€of€the€accident€he€and€his€brother„in„Ð L œ Ðlaw€were€putting€up€headers€for€the€breezeway€using€two„by„fours€that€he€retrieved€from€an€area€nearÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€opening€in€the€floor.Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àI€had€to€make€several€trips€around€the€hole€to€get€two„by„fours€from€around€the€otherÐ ü L  Ðside€of€the€opening.€.€.€.€I€seem€to€recall€that€the€hole€was€uncovered€at€that€time.€.€.Ð è 8  Ð.€€Dewel€was€aware€that€it€was€necessary€for€me€to€walk€very€close€to€the€hole€to€getÐ Ô$  Ðthe€two„by„fours.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓA.€The€Question€of€Dutyó óóóÐ ˜è  ÐÓ€CÓÌò òó óòòóóà  àThe€question€of€whether€a€defendant€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€the€plaintiff€is€a€question€of€lawÐ pÀ Ðto€be€determined€by€the€court.€€òòBurroughsóó,€118€S.W.3d€at€327;€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€89;€òòColn€v.€CityÐ \¬ Ðof€Savannahóó,€966€S.W.2d€34,€39€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€the€law€of€negligence,€duty€is€simply€a€legalÐ H˜ Ðobligation€owed€by€a€defendant€to€conform€to€a€reasonable€person€standard€of€care€for€the€protectionÐ 4„ Ðof€the€plaintiff€against€unreasonable€risks€of€harm.€€òòBurroughsóó,€118€S.W.3d€at€328;€òòStaplesóó,€15Ð  p ÐS.W.3d€at€89;€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€€Duty€is€ð ðan€expression€of€theÐ  \ Ðsum€total€of€those€considerations€of€policy€which€lead€the€law€to€say€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€toÐ øH Ðprotection.€òòóóðð€€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€€865,€870€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòW.€Page€Keetonóó,Ð ä4 ÐòòProsser€and€Keeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€53€at€358€(5òòthóó€ed.€1984)).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àÔ‡#X!XXX!ÔDuty€is€a€flexible€concept€and€dependent€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€situation.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€consistently€held€that€the€proper€analytical€framework€for€determiningÐ ”ä Ðthe€existence€or€non„existence€of€duty€is€a€balancing€approach€based€on€principles€of€fairness€andÐ €Ð Ðjustice.€Ô#†X!XX#X!EH#Ôòò€Burroughsóó,€118€S.W.3d€at€329;€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.83€at€89;òòóó€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€39;€òòTurnerÐ l¼ Ðv.€Jordanóó,€957€S.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ô‡#X!XXX!ÔBecause€every€person€has€a€duty€to€act€reasonablyÐ X ¨ Ðunder€the€circumstances€to€protect€others€against€unreasonable€risks€of€harm,€the€purpose€of€theÐ D!” Ðbalancing€is€to€determine€whether€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€plaintiff€was€unreasonable€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðcircumstances.€€òòóóð ðA€risk€is€unreasonable€and€gives€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeableÐ #l! Ðprobability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendantððs€conduct€outweigh€the€burden€upon€defendantÐ $X" Ðto€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€the€harm.ðð€Ô#†X!XX#X!¡J#ÔòòÔ‡#X!XXX!ÔMcCallóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153Ô#†X!XX#X!WM#ÔÔ‡#X!XXX!Ô.׃)×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ô$D # ЇÔ#†X!XX#X!µM#Ôà  àOver€the€years,€general€principles€have€been€adopted€to€define€the€duty€or€standard€of€careÐ ° Ðapplicable€to€specific€situations€or€relationships.€€Of€particular€relevance€herein,€an€owner€ofÐ œì Ðproperty€owes€a€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€or€ordinary€care€under€the€circumstances€to€preventÐ ˆØ Ðinjury€to€anyone€lawfully€on€the€premises.€€òòEaton€v.€€McLain,óó€891€S.W.2d€587,€593„94€(Tenn.€1994).Ð tÄ ÐÔ‡(X!XXX!ÔThe€duty€includes€the€obligation€of€the€owner€to€maintain€the€premises€in€a€reasonably€safe€conditionÐ `° Ðand€to€remove€or€warn€against€dangerous€conditions€on€the€premises€of€which€the€owner€is€awareÐ L œ Ðor€should€be€aware€through€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence.€€Ô#†X!XX(X!CP#ÔòòÔ‡(X!XXX!ÔId.€Ô#†X!XX(X!·Q#ÔóóÔ‡(X!XXX!Ôat€593„94.Ô#†X!XX(X!R#ÔÔ‡(X!XXX!Ô€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àNonetheless,€the€balancing€approach,€weighing€the€foreseeability€and€gravity€of€harm€againstÐ  ` Ðthe€feasibility€of€conduct€to€prevent€the€harm,€applies€to€the€duty€analysis€in€premises€liability€cases.€Ð ü L  ÐòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€89;€òòÔ#†X!XX(X!LR#ÔColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€43.€€In€òòColn,€óóour€Supreme€Court€limited€or€rejectedÐ è 8  Ðthe€old€rule€that€if€a€dangerous€condition€was€open€and€obvious,€no€duty€was€placed€on€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðand€recovery€was€barred.€€òòId.óó€at€43.€€In€its€place,€the€court€adopted€a€more€nuanced€rule,€specificallyÐ À  Ðthat€set€out€in€ðð€343A€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€which€provides€in€part:€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Ò(1)€A€possessor€of€land€is€not€liable€to€his€invitees€for€physical€harm€caused€to€themÐ „Ô  Ðby€any€activity€or€condition€on€the€land€whose€danger€is€known€or€obvious€to€them,Ð pÀ Ðòòunless€the€possessor€should€anticipate€the€harm€despite€such€knowledge€orÐ \¬ Ðobviousnessóó.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€41€(quoting€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðð€343A)€(emphasis€in€original).€Ð  p ÐThe€Court€found€that€ð ðthe€factors€in€ðð€343Aðð€relate€directly€to€the€foreseeability€question,€stating€ð ðinÐ  \ Ðshort,€if€the€foreseeability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€from€a€defendantððs€conduct,€even€if€ððopen€andÐ øH Ðobvious,ðð€outweighed€the€burden€on€the€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€to€avoid€theÐ ä4 Ðharm,€there€is€a€duty€to€act€with€reasonable€care.ðð€€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€43.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€ð ðfactorsðð€referred€to€by€the€court€must€necessarily€include€those€set€out€in€comment€(f)Ð ¨ø Ðto€ðð€343A.€€The€Court€had€earlier€quoted€that€comment,€which€elaborates€on€when€a€landownerÐ ”ä Ðmight€anticipate€harm:€Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒSuch€reason€to€expect€harm€to€the€visitor€from€known€or€obvious€dangers€may€arise,Ð X ¨ Ðfor€example,€where€the€possessor€has€reason€to€expect€that€the€invitee's€attention€mayÐ D!” Ðbe€distracted,€so€that€he€will€not€discover€what€is€obvious,€or€will€forget€what€he€hasÐ 0"€  Ðdiscovered,€or€fail€to€protect€himself€against€it.€€Such€reason€may€also€arise€where€theÐ #l! Ðpossessor€has€reason€to€expect€that€the€invitee€will€proceed€to€encounter€the€knownÐ $X" Ðor€obvious€danger€because€to€a€reasonable€man€in€his€position€the€advantages€ofÐ ô$D # Ðdoing€so€would€outweigh€the€apparent€risk.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòIdóó.€at€41.€€The€Court€also€explained€that€the€Restatement€further€provides€that€ð ðthe€premises€ownerððsÐ ° Ðduty€exists€if€the€harm€can€or€should€be€anticipated€notwithstanding€the€known€or€obvious€danger.ððÐ œì ÐòòId.óó€at€43.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€dangerous€condition€created€by€the€opening€in€the€floor€was€certainly€obvious,€especiallyÐ `° Ðto€someone€working€in€the€room.€€The€trial€court€herein€found€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€had€notice€of€theÐ L œ Ðdangerous€condition.׃/×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€€the€trial€court€also€found€that€the€question€of€the€defendantsðð€dutyÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€engage€in€alternative€conduct€to€eliminate€the€dangerous€condition€had€not€been€addressed€by€theÐ $ t Ðdefendants€in€their€summary€judgment€filings.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€determinativeÐ  ` Ðquestion€here€is€whether€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs€had€a€duty€to€act€reasonably,€irrespective€of€the€factÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€dangerous€condition€was€obvious€or€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€was€aware€of€it.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àApplying€the€test€set€out€above,€it€is€clear€to€us€that€the€danger€of€a€fall€could€have€easily€beenÐ À  Ðeliminated€by€placing€a€sheet€of€plywood€over€the€hole,€as€had€been€done€prior€to€the€day€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðaccident.€Thus,€the€burden€on€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs€to€engage€in€conduct€that€would€have€preventedÐ ˜è  Ðthe€harm€to€Mr.€Ayrhart€was€minimal.€€There€can€also€be€no€doubt€that€it€was€foreseeable€that€a€fallÐ „Ô  Ðthrough€the€hole€in€the€floor€onto€the€concrete€surface€a€story€below€could€likely€have€graveÐ pÀ Ðconsequences.€€These€factors€justify€a€finding€that€a€duty€existed.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€91.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs€contend,€however,€€that€since€Mr.€Ayrhart€was€aware€of€the€hole,€andÐ 4„ Ðsince€he€had€been€able€to€work€around€it,€his€subsequent€fall€was€not€foreseeable.€€They€point€outÐ  p Ðthat€Mr.€Ayrhart€is€a€mature€and€experienced€worker€who€could€be€expected€to€be€careful€whenÐ  \ Ðworking€around€a€known€hazard,€thus€rendering€such€an€accident€less€foreseeable.€€It€is€true,€ofÐ øH Ðcourse,€that€a€duty€of€care€is€dependent€upon€foreseeability.€€òòBurroughsóó,€118€S.W.3d€at€331„32;Ð ä4 ÐòòPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óó,€890€S.W.2d€425,€431€(Tenn.€1994).€€However,€ð ðthe€degree€of€foreseeabilityÐ Ð  Ðneeded€to€establish€a€duty€of€care€decreases€in€proportion€to€the€magnitude€of€the€foreseeable€harm.ðð€Ð ¼  ÐòòPittmanóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€433.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àDespite€the€factors€cited€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs,€we€cannot€conclude€that€a€fall€with€seriousÐ €Ð Ðinjury€was€not€foreseeable.€€Even€where€a€danger€is€known€or€obvious,€the€premises€owner€may€haveÐ l¼ Ða€duty€to€use€reasonable€care,€because€he€or€she€should€anticipate€the€harm€in€view€of€factors€suchÐ X ¨ Ðas€those€discussed€in€comment€(f)€to€ðð€343A€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts.€€The€factsÐ D!” Ðpresented€herein€do€not€remove€the€accident€that€occurred€from€the€realm€of€foreseeability€and,€thus,Ð 0"€  Ðdo€not€immunize€the€defendants€against€a€duty€to€use€reasonable€care€to€protect€the€plaintiff€fromÐ #l! Ðunreasonable€risk€of€harm.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€risk€to€which€Mr.€Ayrhart€was€exposed€was€unreasonable€because€theÐ à%0!$ Ðforeseeable€probability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€the€open€hole€in€the€floor€where€the€partiesÐ Ì&"% Ðwere€working€outweighed€the€burden€on€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs€to€take€action€to€prevent€the€harm.€Ð ¸'#& ÐConsequently,€the€unreasonable€risk€gave€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care.€€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ð37.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€issueÐ ° Ðof€duty€of€care.Ð œì ÐÌà@eeìàò òòòB.€€The€Question€of€Causationóóó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€set€out€earlier,€another€essential€element€of€a€negligence€claim€is€that€the€defendantððsÐ L œ Ðnegligence€must€be€shown€to€be€a€cause€in€fact€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury.€€Unlike€the€issue€of€duty,Ð 8 ˆ Ðcausation€is€a€question€of€fact,€generally€determined€by€the€jury.€€Nonetheless,€summary€judgmentÐ $ t Ðmay€be€granted€on€the€issue€of€causation€if€the€uncontroverted€evidence€and€inferences€therefromÐ  ` Ðpermit€reasonable€minds€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòWhite€v.€Lawrenceóó,€975€S.W.2d€525,€529„30Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€1998);€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€1991);€òòRainsóó,€124€S.W.3d€at€588.€Ð è 8  ÐMr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs€argue€that€the€facts€alleged€by€Mr.€Ayrhart€are€insufficient€to€establish€that€anyÐ Ô$  Ðbreach€of€a€duty€of€care€by€€them€can€be€considered€the€cause€of€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€injury.׃0×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€us,€however,€that€the€defendantððs€argument€fails€in€three€respects.€€First,€itÐ ˜è  Ðoverlooks€the€presumption€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€exercised€due€care,€a€presumption€that€is€accorded€toÐ „Ô  Ðaccident€victims€whose€injuries€have€€rendered€them€unable€to€remember€and€testify€as€to€eventsÐ pÀ Ðsurrounding€the€accident€that€caused€those€injuries.€€The€general€rule€is€that€ð ðwhere€the€loss€ofÐ \¬ Ðmemory,€or€other€incapacity€rendering€the€survivor€of€an€accident€incapable€of€testifying€as€to€theÐ H˜ Ðaccident,€is€shown€to€be€attributable€to€the€accident,€it€will€be€presumed€that€the€survivor€exercisedÐ 4„ Ðdue€care.ðð€€88€A.L.R.3d€625€(1978).€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAs€accident€and€amnesia€cases€from€many€jurisdictions€make€clear,€the€trier€of€fact€is€entitledÐ øH Ðto€rely€upon€reasonable€inferences€from€known€facts,€in€combination€with€the€presumption€of€dueÐ ä4 Ðcare,€in€order€to€reach€its€conclusion.€€This€entitlement€is€not€retracted€simply€because€the€plaintiffÐ Ð  Ðis€unable€to€establish€the€exact€sequence€of€events€that€immediately€preceded€the€accident.€€òòSeeóó,òò€e.g.óó,òòÐ ¼  ÐBettencourt€v.€Pride€Well€Services€Inc.,óó€735€P.2d€722€(Wyo.€€1987);€òòKnickerbocker€v.€Samson,óó€111Ð ¨ø ÐN.W.2d€113,€117€(Mich.€1961);€òòGravois€v.€Succession€of€Trauth,óó€498€So.2d€140€(La.€App.€1986).Ð ”ä ÐThus,€unless€the€presumption€is€rebutted€by€evidence€that€he€or€she€did€not€exercise€due€care,€theÐ €Ð Ðplaintiff€is€entitled€to€whatever€evidentiary€weight€it€carries.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àTennessee€courts€have€adopted€the€general€rule€and€applied€it€to€afford€an€Ô% ‡* ÔÔ%†*ãyÔÔ‡(X!XXX!Ôamnesiac€accidentÐ D!” Ðvictim€the€presumption€that€he€or€she€acted€with€due€care€as€to€events€about€which€the€amnesiac€hasÐ 0"€  Ðno€memory.€€òòAmmons€v.€Bonillaóó,€886€S.W.2d€239,€245€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòMasters€v.€Rishtonóó,Ð #l! Ð863€S.W.2d€702,€706„77€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòOder€v.€Parksóó,€34€Tenn.€App.€303,€237€S.W.2d€571,Ð $X" Ð576€(1948);€Ô#†X!XX(X!z#ÔòòBiscan€v.€Brownóó,€No.€€M2001ð!ð02766„COA€„R3„CV,€2003€WL€22955933,€at€*34€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCt.€App.,€December€15,€2003)€(perm.€app.€granted€May€10,€2004).Ð à%0!$ Їà  àIn€Tennessee,Ô‡(X!XXX!Ô€this€presumption,€like€that€applicable€to€a€dead€person,€is€intended€to€preserveÐ ° Ðfairness€because€of€one€partyððs€inability€to€tell€his€or€her€version€of€the€events.€€Ô#†X!XX(X!¾|#ÔÔ‡(X!XXX!ÔHowever,€Ô#†X!XX(X!¾}#ÔÔ‡(X!XXX!ÔtheÐ œì Ðpresumption€is€rebuttable€by€evidence€that€the€amnesiac€did€not€act€with€due€care.€€òòJeffreys€v.Ð ˆØ ÐLouisville€&€N.€R.R.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€560€S.W.2d€920,€921€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977)Ô#†X!XX(X! ~#Ô.׃+×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Where€there€isÐ tÄ Ðconflicting€evidence€as€to€whether€an€injured€party€exercised€due€care,€the€question€of€reasonablenessÐ `° Ðis€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€resolve,€and€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€a€jury€instruction€on€theÐ L œ Ðpresumption.òò€óó€òòBiscanóó,€2003€WL€22955933,€at€*34;òò€Fergus€v.€Action€Cartage€&€Distribution,€Inc.óó,Ð 8 ˆ ÐNo.€60,€1990€WL€43463,€at€*€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€17,€1990)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ $ t Ðfiled).€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThus,€although€the€only€witness€to€the€fall,€Mr.€Ayrhart,€is€unable€to€provide€specificÐ è 8  Ðtestimony€as€to€how€it€happened,€the€presumption€that€he€acted€with€due€care€supplies€that€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðuntil€it€is€rebutted.€€The€defendantsðð€claims€that€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€own€carelessness€must€have€causedÐ À  Ðthe€fall€do€not€rebut€the€presumption€at€summary€judgment€stage.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€second€reason€we€believe€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggsððs€argument€fails€is€because€it€wronglyÐ „Ô  Ðallocates€the€burdens€of€proof€placed€upon€the€respective€parties€by€a€summary€judgment€motion.€Ð pÀ ÐA€defendant€moving€for€summary€judgment€must,€in€its€filings€supporting€the€motion,€eitherÐ \¬ Ðaffirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establishÐ H˜ Ðan€affirmative€defense.€€òòBlair€v.€West€Town€Mall,€óó130€S.W.2d€761,€767€(Tenn.€2004);€òòStaplesóó,€105Ð 4„ ÐS.W.3d€at€88„89.€€Only€if€the€moving€party€presents€evidence€sufficient€to€justify€grant€of€the€motionÐ  p Ðif€the€facts€remain€uncontested€is€the€nonmoving€party€required€to€come€forward€with€someÐ  \ Ðsignificant€probative€evidence€which€makes€it€necessary€to€resolve€a€factual€dispute€at€trial.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€filings€supporting€the€summary€judgment€motion€filed€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€ScruggsÐ Ð  Ðcontained€no€evidence€affirmatively€negating€the€allegation€that€a€dangerous€condition€on€theirÐ ¼  Ðproperty€was€the€cause€(or€a€cause)€of€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€injury.€€Ô‡#X!XXX!ÔA€defendant€moving€for€summaryÐ ¨ø Ðjudgment€cannot€rely€solely€on€omissions€in€the€plaintiffððs€proof.€€òòÔ#†X!XX#X!Uˆ#ÔMcCarley€v.€West€Quality€FoodÐ ”ä ÐServiceóó,€960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€1998)Ô‡#X!XXX!Ô€(holding€that€the€plaintiffððs€inability€to€show€whetherÐ €Ð Ðhis€food€poisoning€was€caused€by€defendantððs€chicken€or€by€food€eaten€at€breakfast€did€not€sufficeÐ l¼ Ðto€affirmatively€negate€the€causation€element€of€his€negligence€claim).€€Mere€assertions€that€the€non„Ð X ¨ Ðmoving€party€has€produced€no€evidence€do€not€suffice€to€entitle€the€moving€party€to€summaryÐ D!” Ðjudgment.€òòÔ#†X!XX#X!r‰#Ô€Blairóó,€130€S.W.3d€at€767„68;€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88„89;€òòBlanchard€v.€Kellumóó,€975Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€522,€525€(Tenn.€1998);€òòMcCarleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€588;€òòArnett€v.€Dominoððs€Pizzaóó,€124Ð #l! ÐS.W.3d€529,€532€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003).€€Since€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggs€failed€to€negate€the€causationÐ $X" Ðelement€of€the€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€negligence€€claim,€Mr.€Ayrhart€was€not€required€to€come€forward€withÐ ô$D # Ðadditional€proof€in€order€to€avoid€dismissal€on€summary€judgment.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àThird,€the€facts€surrounding€the€accident€and€the€inferences€from€those€facts€are€sufficientÐ ° Ðto€establish,€for€summary€judgment€purposes,€that€Mr.€Scruggsððs€conduct€in€leaving€the€opening€inÐ œì Ðthe€floor€uncovered€was€a€cause€of€the€fall€and€the€resulting€injury.€€Regardless€of€the€exactÐ ˆØ Ðcircumstances€of€the€fall,€it€cannot€be€disputed€that€it€would€not€have€happened€if€the€opening€hadÐ tÄ Ðremained€covered.€€Thus,€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€allegations€satisfy€the€test€for€causation€in€fact:€the€ð ðbut€forððÐ `° Ðtest.€€ð ðThe€defendantððs€conduct€is€a€cause€of€the€event€if€the€event€would€not€have€occurred€but€forÐ L œ Ðthe€conduct.ðð€€òòWhite€v.€Lawrenceóó,€975€S.W.2d€525,€529€(Tenn.€1998),€quoting€òòSnyder€v.€LTGÐ 8 ˆ ÐLufttechnische€GmbHóó,€955€S.W.2d€252,€256€n.6€(Tenn.€1997);€òòsee€also€Kilpatrickóó€òòv.€Bryantóó,€868Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€594,€598€(Tenn.€1993).€€If€the€proof€shows€that€Mr.€Ayrhart€was€also€negligent,€the€questionÐ  ` Ðbecomes€one€of€comparative€negligence,€discussed€below,€not€negation€of€an€essential€element€ofÐ ü L  Ðhis€claim.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€ofÐ À  Ðcausation.׃"×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@±±ìàòòò òC.€€Comparative€Negligenceóóó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àMr.€and€Mrs.€Scruggsððs€arguments€regarding€duty€of€care€and€causation€relied€in€large€partÐ \¬ Ðon€the€effect€on€those€elements€of€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€conduct.€€Because€we€have€determined€that€Mr.€andÐ H˜ ÐMrs.€Scruggs€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€Mr.€Ayrhart€and€have€also€determined€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.Ð 4„ ÐScruggs€have€not€affirmatively€negated€the€element€of€cause€in€fact,€€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€conduct,€and€itsÐ  p Ðreasonableness€under€the€circumstances,€is€relevant€to€the€issue€of€comparative€negligence.׃$d×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€òòStaplesóó,Ð  \ Ð15€S.W.3d€at€83,€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€42.€€Where€a€defendant€has€pled€the€affirmative€defense€ofÐ øH Ðcomparative€fault,€the€reasonableness€of€the€plaintiffððs€conduct€in€confronting€a€risk€comes€into€play.€Ð ä4 ÐAccordingly,€the€defendantsðð€final€argument€is€that€even€if€their€negligence€was€a€factor€in€Mr.Ð Ð  ÐAyrhartððs€injuries,€they€were€still€entitled€to€summary€judgment€because€Mr.€Ayrhartððs€ownÐ ¼  Ðnegligence€must,€as€a€matter€of€law,€be€more€than€50%€responsible€for€his€injury.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÐ ”ä ÐÔ‡#X!XXX!Ôà  àGenerally,€once€it€is€shown€that€the€plaintiff€as€well€as€the€defendant(s)€were€negligent,€theÐ ° Ðallocation€of€fault€for€the€injuries€among€the€negligent€parties€is€a€question€of€fact€within€the€juryððsÐ œì Ðprovince.€€The€question€of€how€to€apportion€fault€among€the€parties€is€ultimately€dependent€uponÐ ˆØ Ðthe€circumstances€of€the€case€and€one€that€is€left€to€the€juryððs€common€sense€and€experience€whenÐ tÄ Ðthe€jury€is€properly€instructed€on€the€relevant€factors.€€òòEatonóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€593.òòóó€€A€number€ofÐ `° Ðrelevant€€factors€are€to€be€considered€in€comparing€negligent€conduct:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€[T]he€percentage€of€fault€assigned€to€each€party€should€be€dependent€upon€all€theÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€of€the€case,€including€such€factors€as:€(1)€the€relative€closeness€of€theÐ  ` Ðcausal€relationship€between€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€the€injury€to€theÐ ü L  Ðplaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€conduct€in€confronting€a€risk,€such€asÐ è 8  Ðwhether€the€party€knew€of€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€the€extent€toÐ Ô$  Ðwhich€the€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existing€opportunity€to€avoid€theÐ À  Ðinjury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€a€hastyÐ ¬ü  Ðdecision;€(5)€the€significance€of€what€the€party€was€attempting€to€accomplish€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðconduct,€such€as€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)€the€partyððs€particularÐ „Ô  Ðcapacities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education,€and€so€forth.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€592€(footnotes€omitted).€€Ô#†X!XX#X!™#ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThis€question€is€generally€one€left€to€the€factfinder€after€trial,€and€as€this€court€said€in€òòLaRueÐ  p Ðv.€1817€Lake,€Inc.óó,€966€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€€(1997),€ð ð[c]omparative€fault€is€a€questionÐ  \ Ðof€fact€within€the€juryððs€province,€which€should€not€be€lightly€invaded€by€the€trial€court.ðð€€However,Ð øH Ðsummary€judgment€is€appropriate€on€the€basis€that€the€plaintiffððs€negligence€was€equal€to€or€greaterÐ ä4 Ðthan€that€of€the€defendant€if,€but€only€if,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ Ð  Ðto€the€plaintiff€and€affording€all€favorable€inferences€to€the€plaintiff,€reasonable€minds€could€notÐ ¼  Ðdiffer€as€to€that€conclusion.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€91„92;€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€44.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€cannot€conclude€that€reasonable€minds€would€not€differ€on€the€relative€degree€of€faultÐ €Ð Ðattributable€to€each€party.€€Consequently,€summary€judgment€on€that€issue€was€properly€denied.Ð l¼ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òV.ó óˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€We€remand€this€case€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ #l! ÐSumner€County€for€further€proceedings.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants,€Dewel€andÐ $X" ÐConnie€Scruggs.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE