ÿWPCd t#f:âB-ÙYÒv*V¾÷I-ÂY,ííjÚd”<©fâ·ìÛêºYES_xØ[óHVˆ'¼ŒÚ‹…ð¥›IJ3÷­:¤]3%0òÏë£ü¦Qm¢eÃ=Áßü’Ї£/Ý I@½ìרr¹î¢q´¼ìré0‹°V&2)¡ì÷¤´i+î¸LËì3êå4QØ…B‘ Û""5¼ Vð! O!rZ!`n´htJ—zRã_T»¸‹Qå šÏ^Ó+|˜õš{W5}½CIOaÈnF¿÷Ì~v§oBÍ5&“(½ÐÇ$•+»Áw§ýr«½W…9—R€«y½O5$²4FWßP.¬×‹äÈ› ülëDå‰( Xùtâ]ü^³~Â9³_cªð»–7^^¤þꇆ7µf~PY«í×y¹60všíæEΘÀÄÆøo`úË_`gMhyôa£Yáwð¤õ˜ã]b)ˆ¤—oä8Ú=cÉLžtCÕÑÑŽk¡³GöTDª¿ÐAáOùª@P=fiBP.ixˆ1¡_'Œí6æ=JÒµ`#%‹+î@ÿbç‚é?åÐñ¢‰¦Ýû¿+ªÜ>è‡ÞÅHœž> Ue5b#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN 0DO 1‡“ z Ò” f 1uç 72\^ ŽÆšÆ`Æ&Æìw²N¶ 0 c¸4E/1@ mBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 0ëaaaa BLL 0¤i D3  D-@ 0Kmm AS¸Æ  0¤Ñ 0Du A«¹˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. ˜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.wpt wÝ ƒRÿ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº¤ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThis€appeal€involves€Merritt€only€and€the€exculpatory€clause€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€signed.€€No€motion€forÐ ° Ðsummary€judgment€has€been€granted€in€favor€of€the€Ô_ÔHarmansÔ_Ô.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)Šr0Ï Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÂJ00t4.dll3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2ÿ#$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº¤ò»»Ô d(|3À´$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3À´$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ù»»»ÔÑ8€ÊÏXXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡îh®î»¼ÙÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ù»îîh® #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓNOVEMBER€17,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÊÏX»¼ÙÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ù»XXÊÏô#ÔÔ_ÔCINDIÔ_Ô€CAREY,€òòet€al.óó€v.€DONALD€L.€MERRITT€d/b/a€MERRITTÐ ï? ÐRESIDENTIAL€AND€COMMERCIAL€INSPECTIONSòòóóÔ‡XÊÏX»¼ÙÔó óÐ  P ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CH„02„1470„3€€€€€€D.€J.€Ô_ÔAlissandratosÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ ä 4 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¡` AßÐ ¢ò  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„00771„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€March€18,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ›ë  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<n` AßÐ o¿  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X æXXXÊÏÔThis€case€involves€a€suit€for€the€negligent€inspection€of€a€home€performed€by€the€Defendant.€€TheÐ g· ÐPlaintiffs€signed€an€exculpatory€clause,€which€released€Defendant€from€any€liability.€€The€trial€courtÐ P  Ðbelow€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€the€Plaintiffs€appeal.€€For€theÐ 9‰ Ðfollowing€reasons,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð "r ÐÔ#†XÊÏXXX æU#ÔÔ#†¼Ù»XXÊÏ×#ÔÔ‡XÊÏX»¼ÙÔÌÓIÓÌò òÌTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Reversed€andÐ Ç ÐRemandedó óÐ ± ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ù»àXÊÏ“#ÔÔ‡XÊÏX.¼ÙÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,€óóÐ „Ô Ðand€òòHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð m½ ÐÌGregory€C.€Morton,€Memphis,€TN,€for€AppellantsÐ ? ÐÌRichard€Ô_ÔGlassmanÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔTamekaÔ_Ô€Turner„Perry,€Memphis,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ !a  ÐÓTÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ù»XXÊσ#ÔÔ‡XÊÏX»¼ÙÔÐ ã"3" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ù»XXÊÏÖ #ÔÔ‡XÊÏX»¼ÙÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X æXXXÊÏÔà@ûûìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ ¶$ $ ÐÌà  àOn€July€29,€2001,€Ô_ÔDennieÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔCindiÔ_Ô€Carey€(collectively€the€ð ðÔ_ÔCareysÔ_Ôðð€or€ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€enteredÐ ‰&Ù!& Ða€contract€to€purchase€the€home€of€the€co„Defendants,€John€and€Catherine€Harman€(collectively€theÐ r'Â"' Ðð ðÔ_ÔHarmansÔ_Ôðð),€in€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.€€The€contract€for€sale€provided€that€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€could€hireÐ [(«#( Ða€home€inspector€to€examine€various€aspects€of€the€home,€including€the€plumbing,€heating,€airÐ D)”$) Ðconditioning,€electrical€wiring,€and€the€roof.€€The€report€of€the€inspector€was€to€determine€what,€ifÐ -*}%* Ðany,€repairs€the€Ô_ÔHarmansÔ_Ô€needed€to€perform€to€place€the€house€in€good€repair€before€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€tookÐ +f&+ Ðpossession€of€the€property.€€The€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€hired€Donald€Merritt€(ð ðMerrittðð€or€ð ðDefendantðð)€to€conductÐ ÿ+O', Ðthe€inspection,€which€Merritt€completed€in€August€2001,€examining€the€roof,€attic,€heating/coolingÐ è,8(- Ðsystem,€plumbing,€electrical€system,€and€other€miscellaneous€items.€Ð Ñ-!).ý Їà  àBefore€Merritt€would€release€his€inspection€report€of€the€home,€he€required€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€toÐ ° Ðsign€a€document€entitled€Exclusions€and€Limitations€of€this€Inspection€and€Report.€€This€documentÐ ™é Ðprovides,€in€pertinent€part:€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hisÔ_Ô€company€assumes€no€liability€and€shall€not€be€liable€for€anyÐ ‚Ò Ðmistakes,€omissions,€or€errors€in€judgement€[sic]€of€an€employee€beyond€the€cost€of€the€report.€€ThisÐ k» Ðlimitation€of€liability€shall€include€and€apply€to€all€consequential€damages,€bodily€injury€andÐ T¤ Ðproperty€damage€of€any€nature.ðð€€The€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€closed€on€the€property€in€October€2001€and€tookÐ =  Ðpossession€the€next€month.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€allegedly€discovered€past€leak€sites,€waterÐ & v Ðdamage€bleeding€through€fresh€paint,€and€two€active€leaks€in€the€roof,€none€of€which€wereÐ  _ Ðmentioned€in€Merrittððs€report.€€In€addition,€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€allege€that,€after€the€first€rain,€numerous€otherÐ ø H Ðleaks€were€revealed,€causing€water€damage€in€virtually€every€room€in€the€house.€€As€a€result,€onÐ á 1  ÐAugust€2,€2002,€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€filed€suit€against€the€Ô_ÔHarmansÔ_Ô€and€Merritt,€alleging€breach€of€contract,Ð Ê   Ðmisrepresentation,€fraud,€and€negligence.Ô_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Merritt€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€citing€theÐ ³  Ðexculpatory€agreement.€€The€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€granted€this€motion,€stating€thereÐ œì  Ðwere€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact.€€The€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€timely€appealed€and€raise€the€following€issuesÐ …Õ  Ðfor€our€review:Ð n¾  ÐÌÓ€ (5h83 ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£žÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€exculpatory€agreement€is€void€as€against€public€policy€and€the€trialÐ @ Ðcourt€erred€when€it€enforced€this€agreement;€and݃3£ž×ÝŒÐ)y` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝIn€the€alternative,€if€the€exculpatory€clause€does€not€violate€public€policy,€whetherÐ b Ðthe€agreement€is€unenforceable€because€the€Ô_ÔCareysÔ_Ô€did€not€agree€or€assent€to€theÐ ûK Ðexculpatory€provision€until€after€the€inspection€had€been€performed.݃3£AÝŒÐä4` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌMerritt€also€raises€the€following€additional€issue:Ð ¶ ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£[ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€decided€that€no€genuine€issues€of€material€factÐ ˆØ Ðexisted€and€summary€judgment€was€appropriate.݃3£[”ÝŒÐqÁ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌFor€the€following€reasons,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment.Ð C“ ÐÌÓ  Óò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ e ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOur€Supreme€Court€has€stated€the€following€about€appellate€review€of€summaryÐ è 8 Ðjudgment€motions:Ð Ñ!!  ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  Óà0  àà ` àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ £#ó" Ðjudgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€of€law,€noÐ Œ$Ü# Ðpresumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€isÐ u%Å $ Ðconfined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.Ð ^&®!% ÐCiv.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.€Brownóó,€955€S.W.2d€49,€50„51€(Tenn.€1997);Ð G'—"& ÐòòÔ_ÔCowdenÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSovranÔ_Ô€Bank/Cent.€S.óó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€TennesseeÐ 0(€#' ÐRule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.03€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:Ð )i$( Ð(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€orÐ ° Ðdefense€contained€in€the€motion,€òòsee€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.Ð ™é Ð1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€theÐ ‚Ò Ðundisputed€facts.€€òòSee€Anderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559Ð k» Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€its€motion€satisfiesÐ T¤ Ðthese€requirements.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔDownenÔ_Ô€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Coóó.,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.Ð =  Ð1991).€€When€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properly€supportedÐ & v Ðmotion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€factsÐ  _ Ðestablishing€the€existence€of€disputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€theÐ ø H Ðtrier€of€fact.€€òòSee€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.Ðá 1 Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àà ` àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmativelyÐ ³  Ðnegate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establishÐ œì  Ðan€affirmative€defense.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMcCarleyÔ_Ô€v.€W.€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960€S.W.2d€585,Ð …Õ  Ð588€(Tenn.€1998);€òòRobinson€v.€Ô_ÔOmerÔ_Ôóó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997).€€If€theÐ n¾  Ðmoving€party€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non„moving€partyððsÐ W§  Ðburden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€isÐ @ Ðnot€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMcCarleyÔ_Ô€v.€W.Ð )y ÐQuality€Food€Serv.óó,€960€S.W.2d€at€588;€òòRobinson€v.€Ô_ÔOmerÔ_Ôóó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€IfÐ b Ðthe€moving€party€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„movingÐ ûK Ðparty€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€theÐ ä4 Ðexistence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.ÐÍÐ Ð  ÐÌà0  àà ` àThe€standards€of€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summaryÐ Ÿï Ðjudgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonableÐ qÁ Ðinferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Ô_ÔOmerÔ_Ôóó,€952€S.W.2d€atÐ Zª Ð426;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summary€judgmentÐ C“ Ðonly€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€aÐ ,| Ðreasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2dÐ e Ð150,€153€(Tenn.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔCarvellÔ_Ô€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÐþNÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ X ÓÓ ÓòòStaples€v.€Ô_ÔCBLÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€88„89€(Tenn.€2000)€(footnote€omitted).Ð Ð!   ÐÌÓ  Óò òHome€Inspectors€and€Public€Policyó óÐ ¢#ò" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPlaintiffs€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€enforced€the€exculpatory€clause€the€PlaintiffsÐ u%Å $ Ðsigned€before€receiving€Defendantððs€inspection€report.€€Specifically,€the€Plaintiffs€contend€that€theÐ ^&®!% Ðclause€should€have€been€declared€void€because€it€violates€public€policy.€€In€general,€TennesseeÐ G'—"& Ðcourts€recognize€that,€barring€an€exception,€ð ðparties€may€contract€that€one€shall€not€be€liable€for€hisÐ 0(€#' Ðnegligence€to€another.ðð€€òòCrawford€v.€Ô_ÔBucknerÔ_Ôóó,€839€S.W.2d€754,€756€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòEmpressÐ )i$( ÐHealth€&€Beauty€Spa,€Inc.€v.€Turneróó,€403€S.W.2d€188€(Tenn.€1973);€òòÔ_ÔChazenÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔTrailmobileÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€384Ð *R%) ÐS.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1964);€òòMoss€v.€Fortuneóó,€340€S.W.2d€902€(Tenn.€1960);€òòDixon€v.€Ô_ÔManierÔ_Ôóó,€545Ð ë*;&* ÐS.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976)).€€One€such€exception,€public€policy,€was€discussed€by€theÐ Ô+$'+ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court,€which€enumerated€several€factors€for€a€court€to€consider€to€determineÐ ° Ðif€an€exculpatory€clause€violates€public€policy.€€òòOlson€v.€Ô_ÔMolzenÔ_Ôóó,€558€S.W.2d€429,€431€(Tenn.€1977).€Ð ™é ÐThose€factors€are€as€follows:Ð ‚Ò ÐÌÓ XÓà  à[a.]€It€concerns€a€business€of€a€type€generally€thought€suitable€for€public€regulation.Ð T¤ ÐÌà0  à[b.]€The€party€seeking€exculpation€is€engaged€in€performing€a€service€of€greatÐ & v Ðimportance€to€the€public,€which€is€often€a€matter€of€practical€necessity€for€someÐ  _ Ðmembers€of€the€public.Ðø HÐ Ð  ÐÌà0  à[c.]€The€party€holds€himself€out€as€willing€to€perform€this€service€for€any€member€ofÐ Ê   Ðthe€public€who€seeks€it,€or€at€least€for€any€member€coming€within€certain€establishedÐ ³  Ðstandards.Мì Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  à[d.]€As€a€result€of€the€essential€nature€of€the€service,€in€the€economic€setting€of€theÐ n¾  Ðtransaction,€the€party€invoking€exculpation€possesses€a€decisive€advantage€ofÐ W§  Ðbargaining€strength€against€any€member€of€the€public€who€seeks€his€services.Ð@Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  à[e.]€In€exercising€a€superior€bargaining€power€the€party€confronts€the€public€with€aÐ b Ðstandardized€adhesion€contract€of€exculpation,€and€makes€no€provision€whereby€aÐ ûK Ðpurchaser€may€pay€additional€reasonable€fees€and€obtain€protection€againstÐ ä4 Ðnegligence.ÐÍÐ Ð  ÐÌà0  à[f.]€Finally,€as€a€result€of€the€transaction,€the€person€or€property€of€the€purchaser€isÐ Ÿï Ðplaced€under€the€control€of€the€seller,€subject€to€the€risk€of€carelessness€by€the€sellerÐ ˆØ Ðor€his€agents.ÐqÁÐ Ð  ÐÓ XÉ6ÓÌòòOlsonóó,€558€S.W.2d€at€431€(citing€òòÔ_ÔTunklÔ_Ô€v.€Regents€of€Univ.€of€Cal.óó,€383€P.2d€441€(Cal.€1963)).€€AÐ C“ Ðparty€need€not€show€all€of€these€factors€in€order€to€invalidate€an€exculpatory€clause,€and€generally,Ð ,| Ða€transaction€with€some€of€these€circumstances€present€is€sufficient€to€render€such€clause€void.€€òòIdóó.€Ð e ÐIn€general,€application€of€the€òòOlsonóó€factors€is€limited€to€circumstances€involving€a€contract€with€aÐ þN Ðprofession,€as€opposed€to€ð ðtradesmen€in€the€marketplace.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€430;€òòsee€also€Russell€v.€Brayóó,€116Ð ç 7 ÐS.W.3d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔPartonÔ_Ô€v.€Mark€Ô_ÔPirtleÔ_Ô€Oldsmobile„Cadillac„Isuzu,€Inc.óó,Ð Ð!   Ð730€S.W.2d€634,€636€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)).€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that,€though€he€is€a€home€inspector€and€owner€of€Merritt€Residential€&Ð ‹$Û# ÐCommercial€Inspections,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€suggest€he€thought€of€himself€as€aÐ t%Ä $ Ðprofessional,€distinguishing€this€case€from€òòRussell€v.€Brayóó,€where€the€Eastern€Section€of€this€CourtÐ ]&­!% Ðheld€that€an€exculpatory€clause€for€a€home€inspector€was€void€as€against€public€policy.€€However,Ð F'–"& Ðgiven€that€Defendantððs€business€was€home€inspection€and€that€he€sold€his€opinions€in€the€form€ofÐ /(#' Ðreports€as€part€of€that€business,€we€conclude,€as€the€Court€in€òòBrayóó€did,€that€Defendant€is€aÐ )h$( Ðprofessional€and€the€exculpatory€clause€should€be€analyzed€under€the€factors€enumerated€in€òòOlsonóó.€Ð *Q%) ÐòòBrayóó,€116€S.W.3d€at€6.€€In€addition,€Defendant€admits€that€his€inspection€was€conducted€inÐ ê*:&* Ðaccordance€with€the€Standards€of€Practice€and€the€Code€of€Ethics€of€the€American€Society€of€HomeÐ Ó+#'+ ÐInspectors.€€Other€than€the€fact€that€Defendant€did€not€think€of€himself€as€a€professional€or€utilizeÐ ° Ðbrochures€to€advertise€his€business,€Defendant€fails€to€support€the€argument€that€he€is€only€aÐ ™é Ðtradesman€in€the€marketplace.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àUpon€examining€the€first€factor,€we€are€mindful€that€Tennessee€does€regulate€the€inspectionÐ T¤ Ðof€new€residential€buildings.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€62„6„301€to€„302€(2003).€€We€agree€with€the€òòBrayóóÐ =  Ðcourt€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]lthoughÔ_Ô€inspectors€of€existing€residential€buildings€are€not€specifically€regulated,€theÐ & v Ðfact€that€Tennessee€regulates€some€inspectors€of€residential€buildings€indicates€Defendantsðð€businessÐ  _ Ðis€the€type€of€business€that€is€generally€thought€òòsuitableóó€for€public€regulation.ðð€òòBrayóó,€116€S.W.3dÐ ø H Ðat€6€(emphasis€in€original);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€62„6„301€to€„302.€€The€Court€in€òòBrayóó€also€noted€thatÐ á 1  Ðthe€defendant€in€that€case€admitted€to€holding€a€contractorððs€license€and€that€defendant€believed€heÐ Ê   Ðwas€required€to€meet€statutory€criteria€to€perform€inspections.€€We€agree€with€the€òòBrayóó€court€thatÐ ³  Ðsuch€a€belief€should€not€be€controlling.€€However,€we€do€note€that,€while€not€admitting€to€havingÐ œì  Ða€license,€Defendant€did€admit€he€performed€the€inspection€in€accordance€with€the€ethics€code€of€theÐ …Õ  ÐAmerican€Society€of€Home€Inspectors€(ð ðÔ_ÔASHIÔ_Ôðð).€€One€of€the€statutory€methods€of€gaining€legalÐ n¾  Ðpermission€to€inspect€new€homes,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€62„6„301,€is€to€hold€a€membershipÐ W§  Ðwith€the€Ô_ÔASHIÔ_Ô.€€Such€admission€evidences€the€Defendantððs€awareness€of€the€regulation€of€hisÐ @ Ðprofession.€€Therefore,€for€these€reasons,€Defendantððs€business€should€be€considered€the€typeÐ )y Ðsuitable€for€public€regulation.Ð b ÐÌà  àNext,€we€hold€that€the€second€factor€of€òòOlsonóó€applies€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€Ð ä4 ÐDefendant€is€ð ðengaged€in€performing€a€service€of€great€importance€to€the€public,€which€is€often€aÐ Í Ðmatter€of€practical€necessity€for€some€members€of€the€public.ðð€€òòOlsonóó,€558€S.W.2d€at€431.€€Again,Ð ¶ ÐDefendant€attempts€to€argue€that€this€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòBrayóó,€relying€on€the€fact€thatÐ Ÿï ÐDefendant€did€not€publish€a€brochure€of€services€provided€like€the€defendant€in€òòBrayóó.€€Such€aÐ ˆØ Ðdifference€is€irrelevant€for€purposes€of€the€second€criterion€of€òòOlsonóó.€€The€purchase€of€a€home€is,Ð qÁ Ðperhaps,€the€largest€investment€an€average€person€will€make.€€In€addition,€as€the€Court€in€òòBrayóó€notes:Ð Zª ÐÌÓ XÓà0  àà ` àOur€legislature€also€has€recognized€that€inspections€of€residential€property€areÐ ,| Ðof€great€importance€to€the€public.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€66„5„201€(2002)€(statingÐ e Ðthe€statutorily€required€disclosure€statement€ð ðis€not€a€warranty€of€any€kind€by€a€sellerÐ þN Ðand€is€not€a€substitute€for€inspections€either€by€the€individual€purchasers€or€by€aÐ ç 7 Ðprofessional€home€inspector.ðð);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€66„5„202(1)€(2002)€(stating€ð ðtheÐ Ð!   Ðdisclosure€form€shall€contain€a€notice€to€prospective€purchasers€and€owners€thatÐ ¹" ! Ð[they]€.€.€.€may€wish€to€obtain€professional€advice€or€inspections€of€the€property.ðð);Ð ¢#ò" ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€66„5„210€(2002)€(providing€that€the€required€disclosure€containÐ ‹$Û# Ða€statement€indicating€ð ðthis€is€not€a€warranty,€or€a€substitute€for€any€professionalÐ t%Ä $ Ðinspections€or€warranties€that€the€purchasers€may€wish€to€obtain.ðð).Ð]&­!%Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ XûPÓòòBrayóó,€116€S.W.3d€at€7.€€We€note€that,€in€addition€to€the€recognition€of€the€importance€of€homeÐ /(#' Ðinspections,€such€inspections€of€plumbing,€electrical€wiring,€appliances,€roofing,€and€heating/coolingÐ )h$( Ðare€likely€beyond€the€ability€of€members€of€the€general€public.€€òòSee€idóó.€€Therefore,€such€inspectionsÐ *Q%) Ðby€the€Defendant€are€of€great€importance€to€the€public€and€a€matter€of€practical€necessity€for€mostÐ ê*:&* Ðmembers€of€the€public.Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àNext,€we€consider€whether€Defendant€was€willing€to€perform€this€service€for€any€memberÐ ° Ðof€the€public€who€seeks€it,€or€for€a€member€coming€within€certain€established€standards.€€ThoughÐ ™é ÐDefendant€represents€himself€as€a€company€and€places€that€company€name€on€the€cover€of€hisÐ ‚Ò Ðinspection€reports,€there€is€no€other€evidence€in€this€record€to€support€the€third€criterion€thatÐ k» ÐDefendant€held€himself€out€to€the€public€as€willing€to€perform€services€for€any€member€of€the€public.€Ð T¤ ÐTherefore,€the€third€factor€in€òòOlsonóó€does€not€apply€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case.Ð =  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€after€our€review€of€the€record,€we€are€unable€to€apply€the€fourth€and€fifth€factorsÐ  _ Ðof€òòOlsonóó€to€the€present€case.€€There€is€simply€no€evidence€regarding€the€ð ðeconomic€settingðð€of€theÐ ø H Ðtransaction€was€or€if€such€setting€gave€Defendant€a€decisive€advantage€in€bargaining€power.€€We€areÐ á 1  Ðunable€to€determine€from€the€record€whether€Plaintiffs€could€have€used€another€inspector€withoutÐ Ê   Ðthe€requirement€of€signing€a€contract€with€an€exculpatory€clause.€€òòSee€Brayóó,116€S.W.3d€at€7.€€InÐ ³  Ðaddition,€while€there€is€evidence,€from€the€statements€of€Ô_ÔCindiÔ_Ô€Carey€in€her€affidavit,€that€theÐ œì  ÐPlaintiffs€did€not€have€the€option€of€paying€a€reasonable€fee€to€Defendant€to€obtain€protectionÐ …Õ  Ðagainst€Defendantððs€negligence,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Defendant€held€a€superior€bargainingÐ n¾  Ðposition.€€òòSee€idóó.€at€7„8.€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€sixth€criterion€of€òòOlsonóó€does€find€application€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€Ð )y ÐDefendant€argues€that,€because€Defendant€did€not€utilize€a€brochure€like€the€defendant€in€òòBrayóó,€thereÐ b Ðis€no€evidence€that€the€property€of€the€Plaintiffs€was€placed€under€the€control€of€the€Defendant,Ð ûK Ðsubject€to€the€risk€of€his€carelessness.€€Again,€this€distinction€from€òòBrayóó€has€no€application€to€thisÐ ä4 Ðfactor€and€only€affects€the€third€factor€from€òòOlsonóó,€regarding€how€Defendant€presented€himself€toÐ Í Ðthe€public.€€The€sales€contract€between€the€Plaintiffs€and€the€Ô_ÔHarmansÔ_Ô€states,€in€relevant€part:Ð ¶ ÐÌÓ XÓà0  àPurchaser€shall€inspect€Property€or€engage€a€qualified€home€inspector€of€PurchaserððsÐ ˆØ Ðchoice,€who€is€also€acceptable€to€Seller,€to€inspect€Property€prior€to€closing,€atÐ qÁ ÐPurchaserððs€expense,€for€the€purpose€of€evaluating€the€plumbing,€heating,€electrical,Ð Zª Ðair€conditioning,€fireplace,€appliances,€and,€if€one€exists,€the€swimming€pool,€itsÐ C“ Ðequipment€and€accessories,€to€determine€if€they€are€in€normal€working€order,€and€ifÐ ,| Ðthe€roof€has€any€visible€leaks,€and/or€structural€defects,€or€standing€water€or€moistureÐ e Ðdamage€under€any€conventional€foundation.€.€.€.€The€inspection€report€shallÐ þN Ðdetermine€what€repairs,€if€any,€are€reasonably€necessary€to€place€the€above„listedÐ ç 7 Ðappliances,€systems,€equipment,€and€improvements€in€normal€working€order,€and/orÐ Ð!   Ðto€repair€or€make€the€roof€free€of€visible€leaks.€€Seller€agrees€to€make€and€pay€forÐ ¹" ! Ðsuch€repairs,€subject€to€the€limitation€provided€in€Paragraph€10€hereof,€but€SellerÐ ¢#ò" Ðshall€not€have€any€obligation€to€remedy€or€repair€any€item€other€than€those€listedÐ ‹$Û# Ðherein€.€.€.€If€Purchaser€does€not€inspect€or€have€Property€inspected€within€14€daysÐ t%Ä $ Ðfrom€the€effective€date€of€this€Contract,€then€Purchaser€shall€lose€the€right€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðinspection.ÐF'–"&Ð Ð  ÐÓ XgaÓÌThe€contract€later€states€in€Paragraph€10€that€the€Seller€will€pay€the€first€$1,000€in€repairs€and€if€theÐ )h$( Ðnecessary€repairs€exceed€this€amount,€the€Plaintiffs€have€the€option€of€either€accepting€the€houseÐ *Q%) Ðwith€the€repairs€or€terminating€the€contract.€€Like€the€circumstances€in€òòBrayóó,€the€sale€of€the€propertyÐ ê*:&* Ðin€this€case€was€conditioned€upon€the€above€listed€items€being€in€normal€working€order.€€Also€as€inÐ Ó+#'+ ÐòòBrayóó,€the€findings€by€the€home€inspector€could€have€been€a€deal€breaker,€since€the€Plaintiffs€and€theÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔHarmansÔ_Ô€were€required€to€accept€the€findings€of€the€home€inspector€regarding€necessary€repairs.€Ð ™é ÐTherefore,€in€this€case,€the€Plaintiffsðð€property,€in€the€form€of€their€contractual€right€to€inspect€theÐ ‚Ò Ðhome,€was€under€the€control€of€Defendant€and€subject€to€the€risk€of€his€carelessness.Ð k» Ðà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€hold€that€the€exculpatory€clause€between€the€Plaintiffs€andÐ T¤ ÐDefendant€is€contrary€to€public€policy€and€void.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€grant€ofÐ =  Ðsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Defendant.€€Because€of€this€disposition,€the€second€issue€raised€byÐ & v Ðthe€parties,€concerning€whether€Plaintiffs€assented€to€the€exculpatory€clause,€need€not€be€addressed.Ð  _ ÐÌÓ  Óò òGenuine€Issues€of€Material€Factó óÐ á 1  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFinally,€Defendant€contends€that,€even€if€the€exculpatory€clause€is€unenforceable,€summaryÐ ´  Ðjudgment€in€his€favor€is€still€appropriate.€€ð ðIn€negligence€cases,€summary€judgment€is€onlyÐ í  Ðappropriate€when€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€Ô_ÔuncontrovertedÔ_Ô€facts€are€so€certainÐ †Ö  Ðthat€all€reasonable€persons€must€agree€with€them.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔBucknerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔVarnerÔ_Ôóó,€793€S.W.2d€939,€940€(Tenn.Ð o¿  ÐCt.€App.€1990)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔBrookinsÔ_Ô€v.€The€Round€Table,€Inc.óó,€624€S.W.2d€547€(Tenn.€1981)).€Ð X¨  ÐGenerally,€a€trial€court€should€be€hesitant€to€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€a€negligenceÐ A‘ Ðcase€because€the€determinative€issues€should€be€decided€by€the€trier€of€fact€after€viewing€theÐ *z Ðwitnessesðð€demeanor€and€evaluating€the€witnessesðð€credibility.€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòKnapp€v.€Holiday€Inns,Ð c ÐInc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)).€€Upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€hold€that,€becauseÐ üL Ðthe€exculpatory€clause€is€unenforceable€between€these€parties,€there€remain€genuine€issues€ofÐ å5 Ðmaterial€fact€regarding€Plaintiffsðð€claim€for€negligence€against€Defendant.€€Defendant€in€this€case,Ð Î Ðabsent€the€exculpatory€clause,€simply€fails€to€fulfill€his€burden€of€affirmatively€negating€an€essentialÐ · Ðelement€of€Plaintiffsðð€claim€or€conclusively€establishing€an€affirmative€defense.€€Therefore,€the€grantÐ  ð Ðof€summary€judgment€was€inappropriate€for€this€case.Ð ‰Ù ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionó óÐ [« ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favorÐ .~ Ðof€Defendant€and€remand€this€case€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€thisÐ g Ðappeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellee,€Donald€L.€Merritt,€d/b/a€Merritt€Residential€&€CommercialÐ  P ÐInspections,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†XÊÏXXX æb #ÔÔ#†¼Ù»XXÊÏ4 #ÔÔ€XÊÏX»¼ÙÔÐ é 9 ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤#ô" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€Ô_ÔHIGHERSÔ_Ô,€JUDGE