WPC u雇uξtN i}XsS.g=qw>{1jt>* .~S% # 'U'Ԡg&BWD.S#4>L ehN/ujiN=/8x_r?q ` C|@ _4l![1zX!EK,"UE>@Z\5ZpErlʗN1+y{Zɇ/x+h]SxU[*=uv0+`uq3 ~M)fi//nZ&Ơհl3Tɘ8 EɜijbpzO& Ø< Q+5.w9oaPvzK=!)-/Sb[;}FA%8_ N"'1 cDGXlEXtp=:XևO h ckb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   O 0DNUNnEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS: 0S 0D A;,s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9,linPL 3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0  R$      1  U  _ԀPlaintiffwasallowedbytheTrialCourttoamendhisoriginalComplainttonamethecorrectownersof  Silverados,PatPattonandEightTrackManagementCo.,LLC,d/b/aSilveradosSaloonandDanceHall,asdefendants. t Forsimplicityssake,wewilltreatPlaintiffsamendedcomplaintasthe Complaint.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   } R$      2  U  _ԀDefendantsspecificargumentinsupportoftheirMotiontoDismissisunclearfromthemotionsincethe  motionitselfdoesnotprovidetheirargumentandDefendantssupportingmemorandumoflawisnotcontainedinthe t recordonappeal.PlaintiffsresponsetotheMotiontoDismiss,however,statesDefendantsargued,inthemotion,that 8 theydidnotoweadutyofcaretoprotectPlaintifffromanassaultoccurringoffofitspremises.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  R$      3  U  _ԀWenoteTennesseecourtshaverecognized thatundercertaincircumstances,anowneroroccupier_of_  premisesmayoweadutytopersonsonapublicthoroughfareadjacenttothepremises.Estesv.Peels,No.E1999 t 00582COAR3CV,2000Tenn.App.LEXIS641,at*17(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.21,2000),noappl.perm.app.filed, 8 (citingDeArkv.NashvilleStoneSettingCorp.,279S.W.2d518(Tenn.Ct.App.1955)).Thesecases,however,provide L nosupportforPlaintiffspositiongiventhefactsofthiscase. - -(|G2$ !.8 ]dXXd8         0  U d(|3AB$ !.8 ]dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3AB$ !.8 ]dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 ]dd8     _   ]8HXXdd8  @  ]INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# ] #Ԉ &   May6,2002Session L XHX ] # ]XXH#K.MAHENDRA_CHOWBAY_Ԁv.BRIANDAVIS,etal.   6 @@ XHX ]AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  \ @@No.00C1099MariettaM._Shipley_,Judge  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A 4  @@TTNo.M200101838_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJune27,_2002_ /  AV) ` dE<` A     Inthispremisesliabilitycase,K.Mahendra_Chowbay_Ԁ( Plaintiff)suedtheownersofaclub,  _Silverado_sSaloonandDanceHall( _Silverado_s),forinjuriesPlaintiffreceivedduringanassault v byoneof_Silverado_spatrons,BrianDavis.PlaintiffalsosuedDavis._Silverado_sowners,Pat b PattonandEightTrackManagementCompany,LLC,d/b/a_Silverado_sSaloonandDanceHall N ( Defendants),filedaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismisswhichmustbetreatedasa : motionforsummaryjudgmentbecausemattersoutsidethepleadingsweresubmittedtotheTrial &v Court.DefendantscontendedintheirmotionthatsinceDavisassaultofPlaintiffoccurredon b propertyneitherownednoroperatedbyDefendants,DefendantsowednodutyofcaretoPlaintiff N toprotecthimfromsuchanassault.TheTrialCourtgrantedDefendantsmotion.Plaintiffappeals. : Weaffirm. &  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;   CaseRemanded.  !    D.Michael_Swiney_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH._Cantrell_,_P.J._,and J$# WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,joined. 6% $ J.ToddFaulkner,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,K.Mahendra_Chowbay_. '^"& C.BennettHarrison,Jr.,andNicoleR._Paulk_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,PatPatton (6$( andEightTrackManagementCompany,_L.L.C._,d/b/a_Silverado_'sSaloonandDanceHall. )"%)  -(- _@66' OPINION  @%Background      ` OneeveninginApril1999,PlaintiffandafriendwenttoSilverados.Plaintiff,while ` waitinginhiscarnearthefrontentranceoftheclubforhisfriend,sawBrianDavis,another L  Silveradospatron,fightingwithathirdpartyoutsideSilveradosneartheclubsfrontentrance. 8  Thereafter,DavisphysicallythreatenedPlaintiff,andthetwobeganarguing.AccordingtoPlaintiffs $ t Complaint,thispromptedSilveradossecurityemployeestotellPlaintiffandDavisto takeit  ` somewhereelse.TherecordshowsPlaintiffclaimshethendrovehiscaracrossthestreetfrom  L  Silveradostoavacantparkinglottoavoidtrouble.WhenPlaintiffsawhisfriendleaveSilverados,  8  hemotionedforhisfriendtocrossthestreettohiscar.Davisandalargegroupofmenthen $  followedPlaintiffsfriendtothevacantparkinglotwheretheysurroundedPlaintiff.Davis   physicallyassaultedPlaintiff,whichaccordingtoPlaintiff,resultedinseriousphysicalinjuries.      ` PlaintiffsuedDavisandSilveradosowners,PatPattonandEightTrackManagement   Company,LLC,d/b/aSilveradosSaloonandDanceHall.  #  1      ׀PlaintiffallegedDefendantsfailedto p protectPlaintifffromDavisassaultandservedDavistoomuchalcohol.Inresponse,Defendants \ filedamotiontodismissbaseduponTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6).Asgroundsfortheirmotion, H DefendantsarguedtheyowednodutyofcaretoprotectPlaintifffromtheassaultsincetheassault 4 didnotoccuronSilveradospremises. #  2      ׀Plaintiff,inhisresponsetothemotiontodismiss,contended  p theparkinglotwheretheassaultoccurredshouldbeconsideredapartofDefendantspremisessince  \ Silveradospatronsoftenuseditforoverflowparking.Insupportofhisresponsetothemotionto H dismiss,Plaintiffrelieduponhisaffidavitwhichprovided,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 4 8  8`   (1)Ontheeveningoftheassault,thevacantparkinglotwherethe   assaultoccurredwasusedasoverflowparkingbymanyof  Defendantspatrons;and` x` x 8  8`   (2)Onnumerousoccasionspriortotheassault,Plaintiffhad l patronizedSilveradosandnoticedmanySilveradospatronsusing X  thevacantlotforoverflowparking.D!` x` x     ` Thereafter,inDecember2000,theTrialCourtenteredanOrdercontinuingthe #l! hearingonDefendantsmotiontodismissuntilPlaintiff hashadtheopportunitytotakediscovery $X" ontheissueofwhether[Defendants]hadanycontroloverthepropertyuponwhichtheattack...  occurred.Approximatelysixmonthslater,inJune2001,DefendantsfiledaRenewedMotionto  Dismiss( MotiontoDismiss).Defendants,insupportoftheirmotion,attachedacopyoftheir  responsestoPlaintiffsdiscoveryrequests.Defendantscontendedtheirdiscoveryresponsesshowed t theyhadnocontroloverthevacantparkinglotandthatthislotwas simplyadjacentlandupon ` whichpatronschosetoparkwhen[Silverados]parkinglotwasfull.Defendantsarguedtheyowed L  nodutytoprotectPlaintifffromDavisassault.Inaddition,Defendantsdiscoveryresponses 8  showedthatwhiletheywereaware,atthetimeoftheattack,thatSilveradoscustomersusedthe $ t vacantparkinglot,Defendantsneitherownedthelotnorhadanyagreementwiththeownersofthe  ` lotregardingSilveradoscustomersuseofthelot.  L      ` TheTrialCourt,initsOrder( FinalOrder),grantedDefendantsMotiontoDismiss $  butdidnotstatethespecificreasonsforgrantingDefendantsmotion.TheFinalOrderprovidedthat    thisOrderisdeemedafinalOrderpursuanttoRule54.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil   Procedureinthatthereexistsnojustreasonfordelay.PlaintiffappealstheFinalOrder.   @))% Discussion p     ` Althoughnotexactlystatedassuch,Plaintiffraisesoneissueonappealforthis H Courtsconsideration:whethertheTrialCourterredingrantingDefendantsMotiontoDismiss 4 because,accordingtoPlaintiff,DefendantsowedadutytoPlaintifftoprotecthimfromtheassault  p byDavis.Defendants,ofcourse,donotdisputetheTrialCourtsgrantoftheirMotiontoDismiss  \ andraisenofurtherissuesonappeal. H    ` WhileDefendantsdispositivemotioninthismatterwascaptioned Motionto   DismissandwasbaseduponTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6),itmustbetreatedasamotionforsummary   judgmentbecausemattersoutsidethepleadings,PlaintiffsaffidavitandDefendantsdiscovery  responses,werepresentedtotheTrialCourtforitsconsideration.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02.  Accordingly,wewillusethestandardofreviewapplicabletoTenn.R.Civ.P.56motionsfor  summaryjudgmentinourdeterminationofthisappeal.OurSupremeCourtoutlinedthestandard l ofreviewofamotionforsummaryjudgmentinStaplesv.CBL&Assoc.,15S.W.3d83(Tenn. X  2000): D! XHXXXH8  0`   Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourt'sreviewofamotionforsummary #l! judgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionof $X" law,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourt'sjudgment, $D # andourtaskisconfinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhetherthe %0!$ requirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeenmet.SeeHunterv.Brown, &"% 955S.W.2d49,50-51(Tenn.1997);Cowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth, '#& 816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.04 (#' providesthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriatewhere:(1)thereisnogenuine )$( issuewithregardtothematerialfactsrelevanttotheclaimordefense |*%) containedinthemotion,seeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993); h+&* and(2)themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflawonthe  undisputedfacts.SeeAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,857S.W.2d555,  559(Tenn.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatitsmotion  satisfiestheserequirements.SeeDownenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d t 523,524(Tenn.1991).Whenthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesa ` properlysupportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoset L  forthspecificfactsestablishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfacts 8  whichmustberesolvedbythetrieroffact.SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat $ t 215. `` `  0  0` (#(# ` (#` (# 8  0`   Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmatively  8  negateanessentialelementofthenon-movingparty'sclaimorconclusively $  establishanaffirmativedefense.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,   960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998);Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423,426   (Tenn.1997).Ifthemovingpartyfailstonegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit,   thenon-movingparty'sburdentoproduceevidenceestablishingtheexistence   ofagenuineissuefortrialisnottriggeredandthemotionforsummary p judgmentmustfail.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d \ at588;Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426.Ifthemovingparty H successfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenon-movingpartymay 4 notsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustofferprooftoestablishthe  p existenceoftheessentialelementsoftheclaim. \` `  8  0`   Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummary 4 judgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidence   inthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawall   reasonableinferencesinthenonmovingparty'sfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,  952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat210-11.Courtsshouldgrant  asummaryjudgmentonlywhenboththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawn  fromthefactspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.See l McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900 X  S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).#XHXXXH^'#D!` `  Staples,15S.W.3dat8889. #l!    ` PlaintiffslawsuitagainstDefendantsisbasedupontheclaimthatDefendantswere $D # negligent.Toestablishaclaimfornegligence,aplaintiffmustprovethefollowingelements: %0!$ 8  8`   (1)adutyofcareowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff;'#&` x` x 8  8`   (2)conductbythedefendantfallingbelowtheapplicablestandardof )$( carethatamountstoabreachofthatduty;|*%)` x` x  h+&* 8  8`   (3)aninjuryorloss;` x` x 8  8`   (4)causationinfact;and` x` x 8  8`   (5)proximate,orlegal,causation....`` x` x XHXXXHStaples,15S.W.3dat89.#XHXXXH:#Ԁ 8     ` Therecordonappealshowsthepartiesdonotdisputethematerialfacts.The  ` controllingissueinthismatteriswhetherDefendants,astheownersofSilverados,hadadutyto  L  protectPlaintifffromanassaultbyDavis,anonemployee,whichoccurredonaparkinglotneither  8  ownednorcontrolledbyDefendantsafterPlaintiffandDavisleftSilveradospremises.Theissue $  ofwhetheradefendantowesadutyofcaretoaplaintiffisaquestionoflaw.Id.at89.Accordingly,   inourdenovoreview,wemustdetermineonlywhetherDefendantsareentitledtojudgmentasa   matteroflaw.Id.at88.      ` OurSupremeCourtdiscussedwhatduty,ifany,adefendantpropertyowneror p occupierowesitscustomerstoprotectthemfromcriminalactsoccurringonthedefendants \ premises,inpertinentpart,asfollows: H 8  8`    Abusinessordinarilyhasnodutytoprotectcustomersfromthe  p criminalactsofthirdpartieswhichoccuronitspremises.The  \ businessisnottoberegardedastheinsurerofthesafetyofits H customers,andithasnoabsolutedutytoimplementsecurity 4 measuresfortheprotectionofitscustomers.However,adutytotake   reasonablestepstoprotectcustomersarisesifthebusinessknows,or   hasreasontoknow,eitherfromwhathasbeenorshouldhavebeen  observedorfrompastexperience,thatcriminalactsagainstits  customersonitspremisesarereasonablyforeseeable,eithergenerally  oratsomeparticulartime.l` x` x Id.at89(quotingMcClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Pship,937S.W.2d891,902(Tenn.1995) D! (emphasisadded)). 0"     ` TheCourtinStaplesv.CBL&Associates,alsodiscussedtheconceptof dutyas $X" follows: $D # 8  8`   Dutyisthelegalobligationadefendantowestoaplaintifftoconform &"% toareasonablepersonstandardofcareinordertoprotectagainst '#& unreasonablerisksofharm....Inassessingwhetheradutyisowed (#' inaparticularcase,courtsmustapplyabalancingapproach,based )$( uponprinciplesoffairnesstoidentifywhethertherisktotheplaintiff |*%) wasunreasonable....ThisCourthasstatedthata riskis h+&* unreasonableandgivesrisetoadutytoactwithduecareifthe  foreseeableprobabilityandgravityofharmposedbydefendants  conductoutweightheburdenupondefendanttoengageinalternative  conductthatwouldhavepreventedtheharm.t` x` x Id.(quotingMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);Ricev.Sabir,979S.W.2d305, L  308(Tenn.1998)). 8     ` Plaintiff,onappeal,arguestheTrialCourterredinholdingthatDefendantshadno  ` dutytoprotectPlaintifffromtheassaultbecauseDefendantsneitherownednorcontrolledthevacant  L  parkinglotwheretheassaultoccurred.CitingStaplesv.CBL&Associates,Plaintiffcontends  8  DefendantshadadutytoprotecthimfromDavisassaultsincetheriskposedtoPlaintiff,a $  Silveradospatron,wasunreasonableandbecausetheattackwasforeseeabletoDefendants.   PlaintiffarguesDavisassaultofhimwasforeseeabletoDefendantsbecausesomeofSilverados   securityemployeeswitnessedtheverbalaltercationbetweenPlaintiffandDaviswhichoccurredon   Silveradospremises.Plaintiffalsocontends,andDefendantsdonotdisputethiscontention,that   DefendantsknewSilveradospatronswereusingthevacantparkinglotforoverflowparking. p    ` TherecordshowsthatwhileDefendantswereawareSilveradoscustomersusedthe H vacantparkinglotwhereDavisassaultofPlaintiffoccurred,Defendantsneitherownednor 4 controlledthelot,andPlaintiffdoesnotdisputethismaterialfact.Plaintiff,insupportofhis  p argumentonappeal,citesnoTennesseecases,norhasourresearchfoundany,whichholdthata  \ propertyowneroroperatorowesadutytoitscustomerstoprotectthemfromcriminalconduct H occurringoffdefendantspremises. #  3      ׀Infact,thecasescitedbyPlaintiffinsupportofhisargument 4 onappeal,includingStaplesv.CBL&Associates,setforththestandardfordeterminingwhethera   premisesowneroroperatorhasadutytoprotectitscustomersfromcriminalconductoccurringon   itspremises.Id.at8991.ApplyingthefactsandcircumstancesofthismattertocurrentTennessee  law,anydutyofSilveradostoprotectPlaintifffromcriminalconductendedwhenPlaintiffleft  Silveradospremises.A businessisnottoberegardedastheinsurerofthesafetyofitscustomers,  andithasnoabsolutedutytoimplementsecuritymeasuresfortheprotectionofitscustomers.Id. l at90(quotingMcClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Pship,937S.W.2dat902).Wedeclinetoextendthe X  dutyowedbyapremisesowneroroperatortoitscustomerstoincludeprotectionfromcriminalacts D! occurringoffthedefendantbusinessproperty.Accordingly,becauseDefendantsowednodutyto 0"  protectPlaintifffromanassaultoccurringacrossthestreetfromtheirpremisesinavacantparking #l! lotneitherownednoroperatednorcontrolledbyDefendants,weholdDefendantswereentitledto $X" judgmentasamatteroflaw,and,therefore,findnoerrorbytheTrialCourt. $D #  &"%  XHXXXH@  %Conclusion      ` ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremandedtotheTrial  Courtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,ifany,consistentwiththisOpinionandfor t collectionofthecostsbelow.ThecostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellant,K.Mahendra ` Chowbay,andhissurety. L     `     h   #XHXXXHU#   `     h     ___________________________________ $     `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE