ÿWPC_ ^ƒš4µaç1‰°0±ŒOÍù'I+¶™Ts;Ê*Ðü_óœ÷áYàìX}Šà@–°È AJX§ú97Ñ7#‹òÓ ¯åÚæºõd`‰ð¤µ$ml§ !OЧÔH|UÑ0‚B+yL¿Ï?\©ÔÔ¦´0¤¡¡ÈLc7W†­{¡Å9*&OŸø2O!Á.öñMÆãúʤ‘p:2÷ÏÍnœ'n9»[-}ì|¯Þ–# €!\7²Mˆ :ëÁZòÂeø#(Ìz6g5Fä`¸±Pû%‚_¶Z‚>ìQzf÷ëQó²ÂÏÂõ9"bþFhäB$Õ7u@O®Øaûã¯ÕSHçg©Ñ~¬ÿÛ–!3¼á¼Ýø£äÿ˜ï§ª†9Ìy€Ebj¤ÕUyk¸{ÓÉ5Ed±â„œè[;Ø­×F -«*BÒÅñ‰Îàk†¹è#ˆqðËHô²XÊ|†–Q!RH±?Ú§˜@í )Ï¡Õe^>áN¿\ÿ@³EÝ©óÐN²Í•ÁªUЬýЗ  ib"ï·›M <¸æÙu‚ùXÛ°ÏüÌ©IZ•}*a>Ÿr@•IÊ?›o~ÒÁÁÁf‡¼j•[šÐsÛÝožžBÔb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ œ‘ Æ- Æó ƹ ÆÉEN* 0D:E~Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€bTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT 0ë\\\\ BGG 0¤d D3 D-; 0Khh AS³Æ 0¤Ì 0Dp A«´»2‘7-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 BecknerPryorShattuckAlliman COAcaversMcWherterBelewLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ¿Ý ƒRûŠ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently,€saltpeter€was€mined€in€the€cave€during€the€Civil€War. Ý ƒRûŠ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€previous€version€of€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70-7-104(1),€enacted€in€1963,€did€not€use€the€ð ðgross€negligenceðð€languageÐ ° Ðamong€the€exceptions€to€immunity.€€The€previous€subsection€(1)€of€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„104€provided€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThis€chapter€does€not€limit€the€liability€which€otherwise€exists:€ÐüL` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(1)€For€willful€or€malicious€failure€to€guard€or€warn€against€a€dangerous€condition,Ð À Ðuse,€structure€or€activity;€Ð„Ô` x` x ÐÌChapter€177,€Public€Acts€of€1963.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÊÝ ƒRûŠ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€phraseology€of€T.C.A.€ðð€70„7„104(1)€ð!ð€ð ð[Ô_Ôg]rossÔ_Ô€negligence,€willful€or€wanton€conduct€which€results€in...ððÐ ° Ðis€somewhat€curious.€€Among€other€things,€it€is€not€clear€whether€the€concept€of€ð ðwillful€or€wanton€conductðð€is€intendedÐ tÄ Ðto€be€a€separate€concept€from€that€of€ð ðgross€negligenceðð€or€is€simply€an€attempt€by€the€legislature€to€define€the€ð ðgrossÐ 8ˆ Ðnegligenceðð€language.€€Assuming,€without€deciding,€that€they€are€separate€concepts,€we€find€no€evidence€of€either.- ù-(|G2ûŠ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ m»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸åò»»Ô d(|3?j$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ m»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?j$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ m»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ m»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ m»»»ÔÑ8€\ÑXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÌ mÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ m»îîÌ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€15,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X\ÑX»¼ mÔÌò òÔ#†¼ m»XX\Ññ#ÔKAREN€BISHOP,€òòet€al.óó€v.€€HELEN€G.€BECKNERòòóóÔ‡X\ÑX»¼ mÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Anderson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99LA0466€€€€€€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€€23,€2002Ð ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` dE<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02627„COA„R3„CVÔ#†¼ m»XX\Ñl#ÔÔ‡X\ÑX»¼ mÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓJason€Bishop€was€killed€when€he€fell€off€a€ledge€while€inside€a€cave€on€the€defendantððs€property.€Ð d´ ÐThe€plaintiffs€ð!ð€mother€and€brother€of€the€deceased€ð!ð€sued€the€defendant.€€The€mother€sued€for€herÐ P  Ðsonððs€wrongful€death;€the€brother€sued€for€ð ðnegligent€infliction€of€emotional€harmðð€allegedly€causedÐ <Œ Ðby€his€witnessing€the€fall€that€led€to€his€brotherððs€death.€€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ (x Ðjudgment,€asserting€that€the€deceased€was€a€trespasser€to€whom€she€owed€a€limited€duty€ð!ð€one€thatÐ d Ðshe€claimed€not€to€have€violated;€and€that,€in€any€event,€she€is€immune€from€suit€under€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„Ð P Ð7„101,€òòet€seq.óó€(1995)€(ð ðthe€Recreational€Use€Statutesðð).€€Ô#†¼ m»XX\Ñ:#ÔÔ‡X\ÑX»¼ mÔ€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendantððsÐ ì< Ðmotion.€€The€plaintiffs€appeal,€claiming€that€the€deceased€was€not€a€trespasser€and€that€the€Ô#†¼ m»XX\ÑJ#ÔÔ‡X\ÑX»¼ mÔstatutoryÐ Ø( Ðimmunity€does€not€apply€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€We€affirm.€Ð Ä ÐÌÓÊÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð œì ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remanded€ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ m»àX\Ñ) #ÔÔ‡X\ÑX.¼ mÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,Ð `° ÐP.J.,€óó€and€òòD.€€Michael€Swineyóó,€J.òòóó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌRobert€E.€Pryor€and€Adam€M.€Priest,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€and€Peter€Alliman,€Madisonville,Ð $"t! ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Karen€Bishop€and€Eric€Bishop.Ð #`" ÐÌJerry€Shattuck,€Clinton,€Tennessee,€and€John€T.€Johnson,€Jr.,€and€Amanda€M.€Belew,€Knoxville,Ð è$8 $ ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Helen€G.€Beckner.€€Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌÓ\ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ m»XX\Ñ‹ #ÔÔ‡X\ÑX»¼ mÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ m»XX\Ñ* #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X\ÑX»¼ mÔÌÓ  ÓI.Ð p*À%* ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àSince€this€appeal€involves€a€grant€of€summary€judgment,€we€are€called€upon€to€decide€anewÐ H,˜', Ðð ðif€the€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€theÐ 4-„(-ýà Ðaffidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€òòmaterialóó€fact€and€that€the€movingÐ ° Ðparty€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04€(emphasis€added).€€InÐ œì Ðdeciding€this€case,€we€ð ðmust€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðnonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailingÐ tÄ Ðevidence.ðð€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210-11€(Tenn.€1993).€€Since€a€motion€for€summaryÐ `° Ðjudgment€presents€a€pure€question€of€law,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ L œ Ðas€to€the€trial€Ô_ÔcourtððsÔ_Ô€judgment.ò òòò€€Gonzales€v.€Ô_ÔAlmanÔ_Ô€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1993).€Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð ü L  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€material€facts€of€this€case€are€undisputed.€€On€October€28,€1998,€the€deceased,€who€wasÐ Ô$  Ð14€years€old,€and€his€brother,€Eric€Bishop,€age€18,€along€with€two€companions€entered€a€cave€knownÐ À  Ðas€the€Spring€Hill€Cave€(ð ðthe€caveðð),€which€cave€is€located€on€the€property€of€the€defendant€HelenÐ ¬ü  ÐG.€Beckner.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€cave€has€multiple€entrances€on€the€defendantððs€property,€and€it€is€a€ratherÐ ˜è  Ðsprawling€complex€of€tunnels€and€caverns.€€Prior€to€October€28,€1998,€the€Bishop€brothers€hadÐ „Ô  Ðvisited€the€cave€between€15€and€20€times.€€As€a€result€of€their€previous€visits,€the€brothers€wereÐ pÀ Ðgenerally€familiar€with€the€cave.€€On€the€day€of€the€accident,€the€brothers,€along€with€theirÐ \¬ Ðcompanions,€accessed€the€cave€through€an€entrance€that€they€had€not€previously€used.€€This€openingÐ H˜ Ðwas€located€just€above€the€entrance€usually€used€by€them.€€After€entering€the€cave,€the€members€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€caving€party€negotiated€through€about€100€feet€of€tunnels,€sometimes€squirming€along€tightÐ  p Ðpassageways€on€their€hands,€knees,€and€chests,€until€they€reached€a€large,€room„like€cavern.€€TheÐ  \ Ðtunnel€through€which€the€caving€party€accessed€the€cavern€did€not€open€into€the€floor€of€the€cavern;Ð øH Ðrather€it€opened€onto€a€ledge€that€extended€for€a€distance€into€and€above€the€floor€of€the€cavern.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðledge€sloped€downwards€to€a€point€where€it€ended;€the€caving€party€could€not€see€what€was€beyondÐ Ð  Ðthe€edge€of€the€ledge.€€The€group€traversed€the€ledge€into€the€open€area€and€then€stopped€and€satÐ ¼  Ðtogether.€€Upon€closer€inspection€with€the€aid€of€artificial€light,€at€least€one€member€of€the€party,€EricÐ ¨ø ÐBishop,€recognized€that€the€area€beyond€the€ledge€opened€up€into€an€area€that€he€had€previouslyÐ ”ä Ðaccessed€by€way€of€another€cave€entrance.€€Eric€had€previously€accessed€this€area€from€a€lowerÐ €Ð Ðtunnel,€and€had€noticed€that€the€ledge€upon€which€he€now€found€himself€was€50€to€75€feet€above€theÐ l¼ Ðbottom€of€the€cavern.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€four€individuals€remained€in€the€cave€for€a€time€and€conversed€with€each€other€about€theÐ 0"€  Ðcave.€€By€throwing€rocks€into€the€darkness€beyond€the€ledge,€they€discovered€that€several€secondsÐ #l! Ðwould€elapse€before€they€would€hear€it€hit€the€bottom.€€In€their€discussions,€the€members€of€theÐ $X" Ðcaving€party€commented€to€each€other€how€horrible€it€would€be€if€someone€fell€off€the€ledge.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àTo€exit€the€area,€the€group€traversed€back€across€the€ledge,€and€at€one€point€in€time,€theyÐ Ì&"% Ðagain€had€to€crawl€to€gain€access€to€the€narrow€tunnel€from€which€they€had€entered€the€cavern.€Ð ¸'#& ÐEither€at€the€end€or€near€the€end€of€the€ð ðtrainðð€of€the€crawling€cavers,€Jason€Bishop€began€to€slipÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdown€the€slope€of€the€ledge.€€Unable€to€regain€his€traction,€Jason€continued€to€slide€until€he€slippedÐ )à$( Ðover€the€edge€and€fell€50€to€75€feet€to€the€floor€below.€€Eric€witnessed€his€brotherððs€fall.€€AsÐ ° Ðpreviously€indicated,€Jason€Bishop€died€as€a€result€of€the€fall.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€1976,€the€defendant€purchased€the€property€upon€which€the€cave€is€located.€€That€tract,Ð tÄ Ðalong€with€other€contiguous€properties€purchased€over€time,€together€contains€some€150€acres.€€SheÐ `° Ðwas€aware€of€the€existence€of€the€cave€on€her€property€and€the€propensity€of€individuals€to€enter€herÐ L œ Ðproperty€to€go€to€the€cave.€€The€defendant€had€never€ventured€inside€the€cave€and,€until€she€heardÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€news€of€the€accident€involving€Jason€Bishop,€had€no€knowledge€of€anyone€being€injured€in€theÐ $ t Ðcave.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€do€not€allege€that€Mrs.€Beckner€expressly€invited€anyone,€including€theÐ è 8  Ðplaintiff€Eric€Bishop€or€the€deceased,€onto€her€property€for€any€purpose.€€Furthermore,€the€plaintiffsÐ Ô$  Ðdo€not€allege€that€the€defendant€specifically€knew€of€the€deceasedððs€presence€on€her€property€or€thatÐ À  Ðshe€took€any€specific€action€regarding€the€caving€partyððs€presence€on€her€property.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð „Ô  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€plaintiff€Karen€Bishop€alleges€that€the€negligence€of€the€defendant€caused€the€wrongfulÐ \¬ Ðdeath€of€Jason€Bishop,€and,€as€the€survivor€of€her€son,€she€is€suing€for€his€wrongful€death.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðplaintiff€Eric€Bishop€alleges€that€the€defendant€is€liable€to€him€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotionalÐ 4„ Ðdistress€resulting€from€his€witnessing€the€fall€that€injured€his€brother€and€caused€his€death.€€BothÐ  p Ðplaintiffs€allege€that€the€defendant€breached€a€duty€to€warn€Jason€Bishop,€as€an€alleged€licensee€onÐ  \ Ðthe€defendantððs€property,€of€the€dangerous€condition€that€existed€in€the€cave€and€that€this€breachÐ øH Ðconstitutes€negligence.€€The€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€failure€of€the€defendant€to€take€affirmative€stepsÐ ä4 Ðto€keep€the€cavers€from€entering€her€land€constituted€an€implied€invitation€to€enter€the€land€and€thatÐ Ð  Ðthis€invitation€means€the€deceased€was€a€licensee€to€whom€the€defendant€owed€an€affirmative€dutyÐ ¼  Ðof€care.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€counters€with€two€distinct€defenses.€€She€asserts€that€the€deceased€was€aÐ €Ð Ðtrespasser€to€whom€she€owed€a€limited€duty€to€refrain€from€willful€or€wanton€conduct.€€In€addition,Ð l¼ Ðthe€defendant€argues€that€the€Recreational€Use€Statutes,€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„101,€òòet€seq.óó,€òòóóprovide€her€withÐ X ¨ Ðimmunity€from€suit.€€We€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€address€the€status€of€the€deceased€on€theÐ D!” Ðdefendantððs€property,€as€we€find€and€hold€that,€regardless€of€the€deceasedððs€status,€the€defendant€hasÐ 0"€  Ðimmunity€from€this€suit€under€the€Recreational€Use€Statutes.Ð #l! ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð ô$D # ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€core€of€the€Recreational€Use€Statutes€is€found€at€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„102.€€As€pertinent€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfacts€of€this€case,€that€statute€provides€as€follows:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThe€landowner,...of€such€land€or€premises€owes€no€duty€of€care€toÐ )à$( Ðkeep€such€land€or€premises€safe€for€entry€or€use€by€others€for€suchÐ |*Ì%) Ðrecreational€activities€as...caving...,€nor€shall€such€landowner€beÐ h+¸&* Ðrequired€to€give€any€warning€of€hazardous€conditions,€uses€of,Ð ° Ðstructures,€or€activities€on€such€land€or€premises€to€any€personÐ œì Ðentering€on€such€land€or€premises€for€such€purposes,€except€asÐ ˆØ Ðprovided€in€ðð€70„7Ô_Ô„104.Ô_ÔÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌThe€statutory€scheme€of€which€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„102€is€a€part€does€not€differentiate€between€those€whoÐ L œ Ðenter€the€land€with€permission€and€those€who€do€not.€€This€can€be€seen€from€the€following€pertinentÐ 8 ˆ Ðlanguage€of€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„103:Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà8 ` àAny€landowner,...of€the€land€or€premises...òòwho€gives€permission€toÐ ü L  Ðanother€personóó€to...cave...upon€such€land€or€premises€does€notÐ è 8  Ðthereby:ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(1)€Extend€any€assurance€that€the€premises€are€safe€for€such€purpose;Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(2)€Constitute€the€person€to€whom€permission€has€been€granted€toÐ „Ô  Ðlegal€status€of€an€invitee€to€whom€a€duty€of€care€is€owed;€orÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(3)€Assume€responsibility€for€or€incur€liability€for€any€injury€to€suchÐ H˜ Ðperson€or€purposely€caused€by€any€act€of€such€person€to€whomÐ 4„ Ðpermission€has€been€granted€except€as€provided€in€ðð€70„7„104.Ð p` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€As€can€be€seen,€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðððð€70„7„102€&€„103€are€both€subject€to€the€sameÐ øH Ðexception,€òòi.e.óó,€ð ðexcept€as€provided€in€ðð€70„7„104.ðð€€The€latter€statute€reads,€in€pertinent€part,€asÐ ä4 Ðfollows:Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThis€chapter€does€not€limit€the€liability€which€otherwise€exists€for:Шø` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(1)€Gross€negligence,€willful€or€wanton€conduct€which€results€in€aÐ €Ð Ðfailure€to€guard€or€warn€against€a€dangerous€condition,€use,€structureÐ l¼ Ðor€activity;ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà@ŽŽ%ìà*€€€€*€€€€*ˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€Recreational€Use€Statutes€were€addressed€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€the€case€of€ò òòòParentÐ $X" Ðv.€Stateó óóó,€991€S.W.2d€240€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€that€claims€commission€case,€the€defendant€State€ofÐ ô$D # ÐTennessee€argued€that€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€did€not€allege€a€cause€of€action€because€the€complaintÐ à%0!$ Ðfailed€to€allege€one€of€the€exceptions€to€immunity€set€forth€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„104.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€242.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðclaims€commission€agreed€with€the€State€and€dismissed€the€complaint.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€On€appeal,€the€SupremeÐ ¸'#& ÐCourt€reversed€the€dismissal€of€the€plaintiffððs€complaint.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€243.€€In€the€course€of€its€opinion,€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSupreme€Court€clearly€stated€the€legal€effect€of€the€Recreational€Use€Statutes:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà8 ` à[Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô]€ðððð€70„7„101€òòet€seqóó.€is€merely€an€affirmative€defense€to€otherÐ ° Ðâ âviable€causes€of€action€outside€the€recreational€use€statute.€€TheÐ œì Ðexceptions€in€[Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô]€ðð€70„7„104€do€not€create€new€causes€of€action.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòSeeóó€[Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô]€ðð€òòóó70„7„104€(ð ðThis€chapter€does€not€limit€the€liabilityÐ tÄ Ðwhich€otherwise€exists€for....ðð).€€To€adequately€allege€a€claim,€theÐ `° Ðplaintiffs€are€not€required€to€plead€ðð€104€exceptions€to€the€StateððsÐ L œ Ðimmunity.€€Section€104€merely€operates€to:€(1)€negate€the€recreationalÐ 8 ˆ Ðuse€defense,€and€(2)€allow€a€claimant€to€pursue€a€cause€of€action€forÐ $ t Ðwhich€a€recreational€use€defense€has€been€raised.Ð `` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€242„43.€€In€the€ò òòòParentó óóó€case,€the€Supreme€Court€went€on€to€explain€how€the€Recreational€UseÐ è 8  ÐStatutes€are€to€be€applied:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThe€recreational€use€defense€requires€a€two„pronged€analysis€toÐ ¬ü  Ðdetermine€whether€the€[defendant]€is€entitled€to€immunity.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðinquiries€are€as€follows:€(1)€whether€the€activity€alleged€is€aÐ „Ô  Ðrecreational€activity€as€defined€by€the€statute;€and€if€so,€(2)€whetherÐ pÀ Ðany€of€the€statutory€exceptions€or€limitations€to€the€immunity€defenseÐ \¬ Ðare€applicable.€€If€[Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô]€ðð€70„7„102€is€applicable€and€no€exceptionsÐ H˜ Ðapply,€the€[defendant]€is€immune.€€If€[Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô]€ðð€70„7„102€isÐ 4„ Ðapplicable€but€an€exception€is€also€applicable,€the€[defendant]€may€beÐ  p Ðsubject€to€liability.Ð \` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€243.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàV.ˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€deceased€was€engaged€in€caving€on€the€defendantððs€property.€€ThisÐ ”ä Ðactivity€is€specifically€identified€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„102.€€Thus,€the€first€inquiry€under€ò òòòParentó óóó,€òòi.e.óó,Ð €Ð Ðð ðwhether€the€activity€alleged€is€a€recreational€activity€as€defined€by€the€statute,ðð€ò òòòidó óóó.,€is€clearlyÐ l¼ Ðanswered€in€the€affirmative.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àMoving€to€the€second€inquiry€under€ò òòòParentó óóó,€òòi.e.óó,€ð ðwhether€any€of€the€statutory€exceptions€orÐ 0"€  Ðlimitations€to€the€immunity€defense€are€applicable,ðð€ò òòòidó óóó.,€we€note€that€the€only€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„104Ð #l! Ðexception€relied€upon€by€the€plaintiffs€in€the€case€at€bar€is€that€of€ð ðgross€negligence.ðð€€As€supportÐ $X" Ðfor€this€contention,€the€plaintiffs€point€to€the€fact€that€the€defendant€failed€to€place€a€ð ðno€trespassingððÐ ô$D # Ðsign€on€the€boundary€of€her€property€and€did€not€place€a€warning€sign€outside€the€cave.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðplaintiffs€argue€that€these€omissions€amount€to€grossly€negligent€behavior.€€Thus,€so€the€argumentÐ Ì&"% Ðgoes,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€the€recreational€use€defense€set€forth€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„101,€òòetÐ ¸'#& Ðseqóó.€€We€disagree.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àThe€concept€of€ð ðgross€negligenceðð€is€not€defined€in€the€statutory€scheme.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€another€context,Ð ° Ðâ âit€has€been€defined€as€ð ða€negligent€act€done€with€utter€unconcern€for€the€safety€of€others,€or€one€doneÐ œì Ðwith€such€a€reckless€disregard€for€the€rights€of€others€that€a€conscious€indifference€to€consequencesÐ ˆØ Ðis€implied€in€law.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔOdumÔ_Ô€v.€Haynesó óóó,€494€S.W.2d€795,€807€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1972).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€subject€of€gross€negligence€as€an€exception€to€the€immunity€granted€by€the€RecreationalÐ L œ ÐUse€Statutes€has€been€addressed€in€at€least€one€case€since€the€General€Assembly€amended€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_ÔÐ 8 ˆ Ððð€70-7-104(1)€in€1987€to€add€the€concept.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòò òSumner€v.€United€Statesóóó ó,€794€F.€Supp.€1358€(M.D.Ð $ t ÐTenn.€1992),€òòò òóóó óthe€plaintiff€was€injured€by€unexploded€ordnance€on€a€firing€range€on€the€militaryÐ  ` Ðinstallation€at€Fort€Campbell.€ò òòò€Idó óóó.€at€1361.€€The€District€Court€explained€that€the€Army€knew€that€theÐ ü L  Ðrange€had€to€be€kept€clear€of€trespassers€because€it€knew€of€the€potential€for€injury€resulting€fromÐ è 8  Ðunexploded€ordnance;€in€other€words,€that€the€Army€had€created€the€hazard€and€knew€that€it€had€toÐ Ô$  Ðkeep€trespassers€off€the€range.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€1361.€€In€ò òòòSumneró óóó,€the€District€Court€held€that€a€failure€toÐ À  Ðmaintain€a€clear€legible€sign€warning€of€such€a€òòknown€óódanger€constituted€gross€negligence.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€atÐ ¬ü  Ð1367.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€while€the€defendant€knew€of€the€existence€of€a€cave€on€her€property,€sheÐ pÀ Ðdid€not€know€ð!ð€and€apparently€had€no€reason€to€know€ð!ð€that€the€cave€contained€a€particularlyÐ \¬ Ðdangerous€situation€that€might€cause€serious€bodily€harm€or€even€death.€€The€plaintiffs€takeÐ H˜ Ðexception€to€the€foregoing€statement.€€They€believe€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€can€beÐ 4„ Ðreasonably€interpreted€as€showing€that€the€defendant€had€some€prior€knowledge€of€the€fact€that€goingÐ  p Ðinside€the€cave€could€be€dangerous.€€They€point€to€the€following€deposition€testimony€of€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant:€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà8 ` àQà0¸ ` x` xàThis€accident€that€weððre€here€about€today,€how€did€you€learnÐ Ð  Ðabout€that€accident?м ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àAà0¸ ` x` xàThe€newspaper.€€The€late€night€news.€€I€wasnððt€home€that€day.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€11€oððclock€news€that€night,€I€knew€there€had€been€anÐ €Ð Ðaccident.Ðl¼¸ x¸ x ÐÐ X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àQà0 ¸ àSo€you€saw€the€newspaper€first€and€then€saw€the€news?а¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà8 ` àAà0¸ ` x` xàI€saw€the€news€that€night€and€then€the€next€dayððs€paper.Јظ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àQà0¸ ` x` xàI€see.€€Had€it€ever€crossed€your€mind€that€something€like€thatÐ `° Ðmight€happen€up€there€in€the€cave?ÐL œ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àAà0¸ ` x` xàWell,€I€think€you€think€about€that,€but€then€you€think€anybodyÐ $ t Ðgoing€in€there€would€exercise€good€judgment€and€commonÐ  ` Ðsense,€you€know.€€It€was€my€worst€nightmare€that€somethingÐ ü L  Ðlike€that€would€happen.Ðè 8 ¸ x¸ x ÐÌWe€do€not€believe€this€testimony€can€be€read€as€indicating€that€the€defendant€had€such€priorÐ À  Ðknowledge.€€In€our€judgment,€the€defendantððs€reference€to€her€ð ðworst€nightmareðð€is€nothing€moreÐ ¬ü  Ðthan€an€after„the„fact€expression€of€regret€that€this€young€man€was€killed€on€her€property.€€There€isÐ ˜è  Ðnothing€in€this€testimony€that€supports€the€plaintiffsðð€position.€€The€defendant€testified,€withoutÐ „Ô  Ðcontradiction,€that€she€had€never€entered€the€cave€prior€to€this€accident.€€Furthermore,€there€is€noÐ pÀ Ðdirect€proof€in€the€record€that€she€had€òòanyóó€knowledge€or€information€regarding€the€inside€of€the€cave.€Ð \¬ Ðòòò òóóó óÌà  àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€a€far€cry€from€ò òòòSumneró óóó€where€the€Army€knew€of€unexplodedÐ 4„ Ðordnance€on€its€property€ð!ð€a€condition€created€by€the€activities€of€the€Army€ð!ð€and€knew€of€theÐ  p Ðextreme€hazard€that€such€material€would€present€to€one€on€its€property.€€We€see€no€similarityÐ  \ Ðbetween€unexploded€ordnance,€created€by€the€landowner€and€known€by€it€to€exist€on€its€property,Ð øH Ðon€the€one€hand,€and€a€natural€feature€such€as€the€Spring€Hill€Cave,€the€nature,€extent,€and€anyÐ ä4 Ðpotential€danger€of€which,€was€totally€unknown€to€the€landowner,€on€the€other.€€In€the€instant€case,Ð Ð  Ðthe€defendant€did€not€create€a€danger€on€her€property€and€was€unaware€of€any€danger.€€We€findÐ ¼  Ðnothing€in€the€facts€before€us€that€would€give€rise€to€an€inference€of€a€ð ðconscious€indifference€toÐ ¨ø Ðconsequences,ðð€òòsee€ò òÔ_ÔOdumÔ_Ôó ó,óó€949€S.W.2d€at€807,€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThere€are€no€facts€or€reasonable€inferences€from€facts€that€could€be€construed€to€establishÐ l¼ Ðgross€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.€€When€we€ð ðtake€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,ðð€òòsee€ò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210,€we€find€that€the€evidence,Ð D!” Ðinterpreted€most€strongly€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs,€at€the€very€most€shows€simple€negligence€on€theÐ 0"€  Ðpart€of€the€defendant.€€Simple€negligence€does€not€operate€to€negate€the€immunity€of€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€70„7„Ð #l! Ð102.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àSince€we€have€determined€that€the€defendant€is€immune€from€suit€under€the€Recreational€UseÐ à%0!$ ÐStatutes,€the€status€of€the€deceased,€be€it€licensee€or€trespasser,€is€immaterial€to€the€summaryÐ Ì&"% Ðjudgment€analysis.€€Even€assuming,€purely€for€the€sake€of€argument,€that€there€are€disputed€materialÐ ¸'#& Ðfacts€as€to€whether€the€defendant€is€liable€to€the€plaintiffs,€there€are€no€disputed€material€factsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðimpacting€the€issue€of€the€recreational€use€immunity€defense.€€The€defendant€is€clearly€entitled€toÐ )à$( Ðit.€€Accordingly,€the€court€finds€that€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant€is€appropriate.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ll)ìàVI.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àFor€the€forgoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxedÐ ˆØ Ðto€Karen€Bishop€and€Eric€Bishop.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€collection€of€costsÐ tÄ Ðassessed€below,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Ð `° ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE