WPC <4բ]fԟ5kJ.0 GzB˶ Sf|n\I4aj{ #Ci<Rџy~әxzTCӿvzɩ$ U{+Axp~qՀD3jg2v0K+"^YIJCv k QS`ESj4;Oo3Υ/ %c&bĒQNc# 7l_d>x}BȢ h&wxD~Pn;W`ȒbN~N*?Yo<48Wg6/0Bɶ UNX䱯\+]쮮 b$ Gvb$F[0L$+C#0ρHZ498Agc<% oV64@b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;=I Eik;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;b                                     0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASj 0 0D' AkHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0z1-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-bk1l  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R$      1    _Mr.DrydenallegesthesefactsinhisresponsetoMetrosmotionforsummaryjudgment. ? R$      2    _Mr._Rawls_ԀownedthepropertyattheintersectionofPort_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_ԀandLakeParkway.The_Drydens_  assertedthatthetreesandbushesonhispropertyobstructedMr.Drydensviewoftheyieldsign.Mr._Rawls_Ԁisnot t involvedinthisappeal.  R$      3    _ThelegislatureauthorizedtheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportationtoadoptamanualgoverningtraffic  signs.InChapter168031oftheRulesTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation,thedepartmentadoptedthe Manual t onUniformTrafficControlDevices,MillenniumEdition .  R$      4    __Metro_Ԁarguesthat _OGuin_ heldthatmunicipalitiesarenotrequiredtofollowtheUniformManualonTraffic  Devices.Wedisagree.In _OGuin_ ,weconsideredthemanualanddeterminedthatthemanualprovidesfordiscretion v inlocatingatrafficcontroldeviceinthefirstinstance.Inreachingourdecision,wenotedthatthemanual_provided_Ԁthat < _ [a]_Ԁstopsign may bewarranted...(emphasissupplied),notthatastopsign shall bewarranted. _OGuin_ ,777S.W.2d P at701.Ourdecisionin _OGuin_ didnotabrogatethelegislaturesclearmandatethatrequiresgovernmentalentitiesto  installtrafficcontroldevicesinconformitywiththemanual._Ԁ- -(|G2$ !.8KdXXd8         0   d(|3]$ !.8KdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3]$ !.8KdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Kdd8     _  K8aXXdd8  @ JKINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#KJ #Ԉ &   July9,2002Session L XaXK #KXXa#GABRIELDRYDEN,etal.v.THEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENT J OFNASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTYXaXK   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.00C673BarbaraN.Haynes,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200102594_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember17,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A      XaXXXaThiscaseinvolvesatrafficaccidentandtheapplicationoftheTennesseeGovernmentalTort  LiabilityAct.PlaintiffsvehiclewasstruckafterDefendantfailedtoyieldatanintersection. x DefendantcontendedthattheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty(Metro) d waspartiallyatfaultforitsfailuretoproperlywarnmotoristsoftheupcomingintersection.After P PlaintiffandDefendantsettledtheirsuit,DefendantpursuedaclaimagainstMetro.Thetrialcourt < grantedMetrosmotionforsummaryjudgment,rulingthatMetrowasentitledtogovernmental (x immunity.Wevacatethetrialcourtsawardofsummaryjudgmentandremandthecaseforfurther d proceedings. P  #XaXXXa##KXXa#XaXKTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated;and ( Remanded     #KXa#XaX.KDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andHollyK.Lillard,J.,joined.  William_Kennerly_ԀBurger,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,andLarryB.Hoover,Nashville,Tennessee, `!  fortheAppellants,GabrielDryden,SylviaDryden,GaryDryden,MichaelJ.Saunders,JuliaB. L"! SaundersandHunterSaunders. 8#" KarlF.Dean,DanielW._Champney_,JohnL.Kennedy,andDennisW.Stafford,Nashville, %` $ Tennessee,fortheappellee,TheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty. %L!%   \-(-  OPINION #KXXa #XaXK  #KXXa #  XaXKXaXXXa  OnApril30,1999,GabrielDrydenwasdrivingfromKnoxvilletohisparentshomein  Murfreesboro.  #  1      ׀Mr.DrydenwasastudentattheUniversityofTennesseeandwasreturninghome. t Afriend,alsoreturninghome,accompaniedMr.Dryden.Thefriendlivedinaneighborhoodthat ` wasunfamiliartoMr.Dryden. L    Mr.Drydendroppedoffhisfriendatabout6:30p.m.andresumedhistriptohisparents $ t house.Inleavingtheneighborhood,Mr.DrydenproceedednorthonPort_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_,searching  ` forinterstate40.WhiletravelingonPort_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_,Mr.Drydendroveataspeedof  L  approximately30milesperhourashesearchedfortheproperrouteoutoftheneighborhood.  8    AyieldsigncontrolstheentryofvehiclesfromPort_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_ԀontooracrossLake   Parkway.Port_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_ԀhasanaturalcurveintheroadpriortoreachingLakeParkway.This   curve,inadditiontotreelimbsandbushes,limitsthevisibilityoftheyieldsign.     AsMr.DrydenapproachedLakeParkway,hefailedtoslowhisvehicleinresponsetothe p yieldsign.Unfortunately,whenMr.DrydenenteredLakeParkway,hecollidedwithavehicledriven \ byJuliaSaunders.Ms.Saunderschild,Hunter,sustainedseriousinjuriesasaresultofthecollision. H Additionally,thecollisionbadlydamagedbothvehicles. 4   Ms.Saundersandherhusband,Michael,filedacomplaintagainstMr.Drydenandhismother  \ andfather.The_Drydens_ԀansweredthecomplaintandassertedthatMs.Saunders,JamesH._Rawls_, H andtheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty(Metro)werecomparatively 4 atfaultwithregardtothisaccident._T  #  2      _ԀSubsequently,thecourtenteredanorderapprovingapartial   resolutionofthecase.ThepartialsettlementincludedpaymentsfromMr.DrydentotheSaunders.   Accordingtothetermsofthesettlement,theSaundersagreedtoassignHunterscauseofactionto  the_Drydens_.TheSaundersalsoagreedtocooperatewiththe_Drydens_Ԁinpursuitoftheirclaim  againstMetro.    Metrofileda MotiontoDismissandforSummaryJudgment.Afterconsideringarguments X  fromeachside,thecourtgrantedMetrosmotion.ThecourtdeterminedthattheTennessee D! GovernmentalTortLiabilityActbarredthe_Drydens_claimbecauseMetrowasimmunefromsuit. 0"  The_Drydens_Ԁappealthecourtsdecision.The_Drydens_Ԁstatetheissueonappealasfollows: Once #l! agovernmentalentityhasexerciseditsdiscretionaryfunctioninfavorofinstallingayieldsignat $X" anintersection,willthedefenseofimmunityprotectthatgovernmentfromclaimswhicharisefrom $D # theallegedfailuretoeithermaintain,orfullycomplete,theinstallationoftheyieldsign. %0!$  &"%   TheTennesseeSupremeCourtrecentlyoutlinedthestandardofreviewofamotionfor  summaryjudgmentin Staplesv._CBL_Ԁ&Assoc. ,15S.W.3d83(Tenn.2000).Thecourtstatedas  follows:  8   ` Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourt'sreviewofamotionforsummary ` judgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionoflaw,no L  presumptionofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourt'sjudgment,andourtaskis 8  confinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhethertherequirementsofTenn.R. $ t Civ.P.56havebeenmet. SeeHunterv.Brown ,955S.W.2d49,50-51(Tenn.1997);  `  Cowdenv._Sovran_ԀBank/CentralSouth ,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).  P  TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.04providesthatsummaryjudgmentis  <  appropriatewhere:(1)thereisnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfacts (  relevanttotheclaimordefensecontainedinthemotion, seeByrdv.Hall ,847   S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);and(2)themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentas   amatteroflawontheundisputedfacts. SeeAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo. ,857   S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatits   motionsatisfiestheserequirements. See_Downen_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co. ,811S.W.2d | 523,524(Tenn.1991).Whenthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesaproperly l supportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfacts X establishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfactswhichmustberesolvedbythe D trieroffact. SeeByrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2dat215.0   8   ` Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmatively X negateanessentialelementofthenon-movingparty'sclaimorconclusivelyestablish D anaffirmativedefense. See_McCarley_Ԁv.WestQualityFoodServ. ,960S.W.2d585, 0 588(Tenn.1998); Robinsonv._Omer_ ,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997).Ifthe  movingpartyfailstonegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit,thenon-movingparty's  burdentoproduceevidenceestablishingtheexistenceofagenuineissuefortrialis  nottriggeredandthemotionforsummaryjudgmentmustfail. See_McCarley_Ԁv.West  QualityFoodServ. ,960S.W.2dat588; Robinsonv. _Omer_ ,952S.W.2dat426.If | themovingpartysuccessfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenon-moving l  partymaynotsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustofferprooftoestablishthe X! existenceoftheessentialelementsoftheclaim. p     D"    8   ` Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummary $l" judgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthe %X # lightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonable %D!$ inferencesinthenonmovingparty'sfavor. SeeRobinsonv._Omer_ ,952S.W.2dat &0"% 426; Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2dat210-11.Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgment '#& onlywhenboththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermita ($' reasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion. SeeMcCallv.Wilder ,913S.W.2d )$( 150,153(Tenn.1995); _Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms, 900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).#XaXXXa #*%)    +&* Ї Staples ,15S.W.3dat8889.XaXXXa    InMr.Drydenssoleissueonthisappeal,hecontendsthatMetroisnotimmunefromsuit  undertheGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct.Mr.DrydenconcedesthatMetrosinitialdecisionto t placeatrafficsignatanintersectionisdiscretionary.Mr.Drydenarguesthatthecourterred, ` however,indeterminingthattheplacementofasecond, yieldaheadsignwassubjecttoMetros L  discretion.Insupportofhisargument,Mr.DrydenstatesthattheGeneralAssemblyadoptedthe 8   UniformManualonTrafficControlDevicesforStreetsandHighways.Mr.Drydencontendsthat $ t thismanualrequiredMetrotoinstalla yieldaheadsignaftertheyexercisedtheirdiscretionin  ` installingtheoriginalyieldsign.BecauseMetrofailedtoinstallthesignasrequiredbythemanual,  L  Mr.DrydenarguesthatMetroissubjecttotortliability.  8    WhentheGeneralAssemblyenactedtheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,it   codifiedthecommonlawdoctrineofsovereignimmunity. Kirbyv.MaconCounty ,892S.W.2d   403,406(Tenn.1994).Thedoctrineofsovereignimmunityprotectedthestateanditsgovernmental   subdivisionsfromliabilityfordamagescausedbytheirtortiousacts. Id. Inadditiontorestatingthe   generalimmunityenjoyedbygovernmentalentities,thelegislaturepermittedsuitstobebrought p againstthestateinlimited,specificinstances. Id. Asthenameoftheactsuggests,theintentofthe \ legislaturewastolimitgovernmentaltortimmunity,whileprovidingstandardsandproceduresto H protectthepublicinterest. Crusev.CityofColumbia ,922S.W.2d492(Tenn.1996)(citing 4  Simpsonv.SumnerCounty ,669S.W.2d657,65960(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)).  p   Tworelevantexceptionstothegeneralruleofimmunityarecodifiedinsections2920203 H and2920205oftheTennesseeCode.Section2920203statesasfollows: 4 8  (a)Immunityfromsuitofagovernmentalentityisremovedforanyinjurycausedby   adefective,unsafe,ordangerousconditionofanystreet,alley,sidewalkorhighway,  ownedandcontrolledbysuchgovernmentalentity. Streetor highwayincludes  trafficcontroldevicesthereon.   8   ` (b)Thissectionshallnotapplyunlessconstructiveand/oractualnoticetothe l governmentalentityofsuchconditionbeallegedandproved....X    Tenn.CodeAnn.2920203(2000).Section2920205providesthefollowing: 0"  8  Immunityfromsuitofallgovernmentalentitiesisremovedforinjuryproximately $X" causedbyanegligentactoromissionofanyemployeewithinthescopeofhis $D # employmentexceptiftheinjuryarisesoutof:%0!$   8   ` (1)theexerciseorperformanceorthefailuretoexerciseorperforma &"% discretionaryfunction,whetherornotthediscretionisabused....'#&   Tenn.CodeAnn.2920205(2000). )$(  h+&* Ѐ      Mr.DrydenandMetropresentedelementsofeachprovisionthroughoutthetrialcourt  proceedings.Mr.Drydenappearedtobasehisclaimonsection2920203,whileMetroargued  immunityunderbothsections.Mr.DrydenthenrespondedtoMetrosdualargumentsforimmunity. t Thetrialcourt,ingrantingMetrosmotionforsummaryjudgment,didnotstatethebasisofits ` decision.Onappeal,bothpartiesinterweaveelementsofeachstatutewithintheirrespective L  arguments.WewillanalyzetheissueofMetrosliabilityunderbothsections,becausewhen the 8  factsofthecase,andtheessenceofthecomplaintmakeanothersectionoftheActapplicabletothe $ t case,thecourtmayanalyzethecaseunderthatothersectioninadditionto,orinsteadof,theoriginal  ` sectionrelieduponbytheparties. _Helton_Ԁv.KnoxCounty,Tenn. ,922S.W.2d877,880n.3(Tenn.  L  1996).  8    Liabilityundersection2920203(a)oftheTennesseeCodeisindependentfromliability   undersection2920205. _Helton_ ,922S.W.2dat882n.10; Kirby ,892S.W.2dat406.In _Helton_ ,   theplaintiffcontendedthatthegovernmentalentitywassubjecttoliabilityforitsfailuretoinstall   guardrailsonabridge. _Helton_ ,922S.W.2dat880.Thecourtstatedthat evenwhenthedecision   whethertoinstallguardrailsisadiscretionaryfunctionthatpreservesgovernmentalimmunityunder p 2920205(1),itispossiblethatthelackofguardrailsmightrenderthebridgeorroadwayso \ defective,unsafe,ordangerousthatimmunityiswaivedunder2920203. Id. at882n.10.The H samepremiseappliesequallytoagovernmentalentitysdecisionofwhethertoinstallatrafficsign. 4  SeeWhitev.CityofSomerville ,No.02A019203CV0092,1992Tenn.App.LEXIS981(Tenn.  p Ct.App.Dec.9,1992)( noperm.app.filed ).  \   WewillfirstaddressMetrospotentialforliabilityundersection2920205oftheTennessee 4 Code.Mr.DrydencontendsthatMetroissubjecttoliabilityforitsfailuretoinstalla yieldahead   sign.Thisomissioncouldresultintheremovalofgovernmentalimmunitypursuanttosection29   20205oftheTennesseeCode.Forsummaryjudgmentpurposes,thekeyquestionthatwemust  addressiswhetherMetrosdecision,asmadebyitslicensedtrafficengineers,wasadiscretionary  function.IfMetrosdecisionnottoinstallthe yieldaheadsignwasadiscretionaryfunction,then  Metrowillenjoygovernmentalimmunity.Tenn.Code.Ann.2920205(1); Kirby ,892S.W.2d l at407. X    Inordertodeterminewhetheranactisentitledtodiscretionaryfunctionimmunity,Tennessee 0"  courtsemploytheplanningoperationaltest. _Limbaugh_Ԁv.CoffeeMed.Center ,59S.W.3d73,85 #l! (Tenn.2001)  .Thefocusoftheplanningoperationaltestisonthedecisionmakingprocess,notthe $X" identityofthedecisionmaker. Id. Planningdecisionsinvolveconsiderationordebatebythosewho $D # formulateplansorpolicies. Id. Decisionsproperlyconsideredasplanningorpolicymakingare %0!$ discretionaryacts,immunefromtortliability. Id. Conversely, adecisionresultingfroma &"% determinationbasedonpreexistinglaws,regulations,policies,orstandards,usuallyindicatesthat '#& itsmakerisperforminganoperationalact. Bowersv.CityofChattanooga ,826S.W.2d427,431 (#' (Tenn.1992).Whenagovernmentalemployeeunreasonablyfailstocomplywiththosepreexisting )$( lawsorotherstandards,thediscretionaryfunctionexceptionwillnotapply,andthegovernmental |*%) entitywillbesubjecttoliabilityforitsactsoromissions. _Limbaugh_ ,59S.W.3dat85. h+&* Ї  In _OGuin_Ԁv._Corbin_ ,777S.W.2d697,700(Tenn.Ct.App.1989),thisCourtdeterminedthat  agovernmentalentitysinitialdecisiontoplaceatrafficcontroldeviceisentitledtodiscretionary  functionimmunity. Althoughthe _OGuin_ decisionprecededthesupremecourtsadoptionofthe  planningoperationaltestin Bowers ,weareoftheopinionthattheplanningoperationaltestwould t haveyieldedthesameresult.Therewerenolaws,regulations,policiesorstandardsthatmandated ` asignin _OGuin_ . Id. at701.Additionally,theroadengineerforthecountywasvestedwiththe L  responsibilitytousehisjudgementwhendeterminingwheretoplacesigns. Id. at698,701.These 8  factsleadustoconcludethatthecountysfailuretoinstallthesignin _OGuin_Ԁ wasadiscretionary $ t decisionunderthestandardoutlinedin Bowers .  `   Thepresentcase,however,requiresadifferentanalysis.Pursuanttosection545108(b)of  8  theTennesseeCode,thestatehasadoptedtheManualonUniformTrafficControlDevices.  #  3      ׀This $  provisionrequiresallgovernmentalagenciesinTennesseetoinstallsigns,signals,markings,and   postingsinconformitywiththemanual.Tenn.CodeAnn.545108(b)(1998).Regardingthe   placementofyieldsigns,themanualprovidesseveralsituationswhere YIELDsigns may be   installed. ManualonUniformTrafficControlDevices ,Ch.2B,2B.09(2000)(emphasisadded).   Ifagovernmentalentityinstallsayieldsignandthesignsvisibilityisrestricted,themanualstates p that ayieldaheadsign shall beinstalledinadvanceoftheyieldsign. Id. at2B.10(emphasis \ added).Themanualprovidesvisibilitycriteriafortrafficcontrolsigns. Id. atCh.2C,2C.26;Ch. H 4D,Table4D1. 4   Inthiscase,Metromadethediscretionarydecisiontoinstallayieldsignattheintersection  \ ofPort_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_ԀandLakeParkway.OnceMetromadethisdiscretionarydecision,the H manual,byitsterms, required a yieldaheadsigniftheyieldsignsvisibilityisrestricted._  #  4      _ԀThe 4 tableprovidedbythemanual,inadditiontothenationalstandardscitedbyMr.Dryden,establishes   thatthevisibilityoftheyieldsignwasrestricted.Consequently,thedecisiontoinstalla yield   aheadsigndidnotrequirepolicyconsiderationsordebateandcannotqualifyasaplanningdecision.  Instead,thedecisiontoinstalla yieldaheadsignisanoperationaldecisionbecauseitisadecision  thatresultsfromanapplicationofpreexistinglaws,regulations,policies,andstandards.Itfollows  thatMetrosfailuretoinstallthe yieldaheadsignisnotdiscretionaryfunctionthatwouldentitle l Metrotoimmunity.Accordingly,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedMetros X  motionforsummaryjudgment. D!  0"  ЀNext,wemustaddressMetrospotentialforliabilityundersection2920203(a)ofthe  TennesseeCode.InMr.Drydenscomplaint,hecontendsthatMetro createdadefective,unsafe,  anddangerousconditionon[the]roadway.Mr.DrydenarguesthatMetrosfailuretowarnofthe  roadsconditionsubjectsMetrotoliability. t   Suitsbasedonsection2920203oftheTennesseeCodehavethreeessentialingredients. L   SeeBurgessv.Harley ,934S.W.2d58,63(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).First,thegovernmentalentity 8  mustownandcontrolthelocationordevicethatallegedlycausedtheinjury.Tenn.CodeAnn.29 $ t 20203(a)(2000).Next,thelocationordevicemustbedefective,unsafeordangerous. Id. Finally,  ` thegovernmentalentitymusthaveconstructiveoractualnoticeorboth.Tenn.CodeAnn.2920  L  203(b)(2000).  8    Metrodoesnotdisputethatitownsandcontrolstheintersectionandtheyieldsignatthe   intersection.Therefore,ournextstepistodeterminewhetherMetrocreatedadefective,unsafe,or   dangerousconditionontheroad.Whetheraparticularlocationorinstrumentalityisdefective,   unsafe,ordangerousisaquestionoffact. _Helton_ ,922S.W.2dat882.Factorstoconsiderinclude    (1)thephysicalaspectsoftheroadway,(2)thefrequencyofaccidentsattheparticularlocation,and p (3)thetestimonyofexpertwitnesses. Burgess ,934S.W.2dat64(citing Sweeneyv.State ,768 \ S.W.2d253,255(Tenn.1989)).   H   In Burgess ,theplaintiffwasdrivingwestwardthroughanintersectionwhenanothervehicle  p struckhiscarfromthesouth. Burgess ,934S.W.2dat61.Astopsigncontrolledtrafficatthe  \ intersection,andinadditiontothestopsign,PutnamCountyhaderecteda stopaheadwarningsign H beforetheintersection. Id. Adownhillgradeobstructedtheviewofthosetravelingnorththrough 4 theintersection. Id.      TheplaintiffsuedPutnamCounty,allegingthatthecountycreatedandmaintaineda  dangerousintersection. Id. Thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthecountywasimmunefromsuitand  grantedthecountysmotionforsummaryjudgment. Id. ThisCourtreversedthetrialcourts  decision.Indeterminingthatafactualdisputeexistedregardingthesafetyoftheintersection,we l focusedontheplaintiffsexperttestimony. Id. at64.Theexpertconsideredthespeedlimitonthe X  roadandthevisibilityofthesigns. Id. Theexpertstatedthatthesigndidnotprovide adequate D! stoppingsightdistancefor[the]speedlimit. Id. Finally,theexpertconcludedthat [_t]he_Ԁexisting 0"  stopsignandstopaheadwarningsigndonotadequatelywarnthedriveroftheintersectionintime #l! tostophisorhervehicle. Id. 󀀀Wealsoconsideredaffidavitscontainingthetestimonyofarea $X" residents. Id. Theiraffidavitscontainedstatementsdetailingproblemsassociatedwiththe $D # intersectionandprovidedadditionalevidenceastowhethertheintersectionwasdangerousorunsafe.  %0!$ Id. &"%    Thiscasepresentsasimilarsituation.Mr.Drydensupportedhispositionwithanaffidavit (#' preparedbyRichardFitzgerald,Mr.Drydensexpertwitness.Inhisaffidavit,Mr.Fitzgerald )$( providedadetailedaccountoftheaccident.Mr.Fitzgeraldstatedthatthecurvatureoftheroadand t*%) thesurroundingvegetationrestrictthevisibilityoftheyieldsigntooncomingmotorists.Mr. `+&* Fitzgeraldalsostatedthata yieldaheadsignwould substantiallyincreasethelikelihoodofa  driversmindsetandattentionbeingspecificallydirectedtowardobservingandcomplyingwiththe  upcomingyieldsign.Mr.Fitzgeraldconcludedthattheabsenceofthewarningsign wasmore  likelythannotasubstantialcontributingfactorintheoccurrenceoftheaccident. t   InadditiontoMr.Fitzgeraldstestimony,Mr.Drydenpresentedpicturesoftheaccidentsite L  andhisdeposition.Thepictures,coupledwithMr.FitzgeraldstestimonyandMr.Drydens 8  deposition,illustratethephysicalaspectsoftheroadway.Finally,Mr.DrydensresponsetoMetros $ t motionforsummaryjudgmentcontainedMetrosanswerstointerrogatories.Metrosanswers  ` establishthatfourotheraccidentshaveoccurredatthisintersection.Intwooftheaccidents,the  L  policereportlistedfailuretoyieldasacontributingfactor.Thereportsalsoindicate,however,that  8  thetrafficcontroldevicewasvisibletothedriver.Inviewingtheevidenceinthelightmost $  favorabletoMr.Dryden,weconcludethatareasonablepersoncouldreachmorethanoneconclusion   regardingthesafetyoftheintersection.Accordingly,agenuinefactualdisputeexistsconcerning   whethertheintersectionwasdangerous,defective,orunsafe.     Finally,inordertosubjectMetrotoliabilityfortheconditionoftheintersection,Metromust p havehadconstructiveoractualnoticeoftheintersectionscondition.Tenn.CodeAnn.2920 \ 203(b)(2000).Thesupremecourtdefinedactualnoticeas knowledgeoffactsandcircumstances H sufficientlypertinentincharactertoenablereasonablycautiousandprudentpersonstoinvestigate 4 andascertainastotheultimatefacts. Kirby ,892S.W.2d409(citing TexasCo.v._Aycock_ ,227  p S.W.2d41,46(Tenn.1950)).Thecourtalsoprovidedadefinitionofconstructivenoticein Kirby.  \ Id. Constructivenoticeis informationorknowledgeofafactimputedbylawtoaperson(although H hemaynotactuallyhaveit),becausehecouldhavediscoveredthefactbyproperdiligence,andhis 4 situationwassuchastocastuponhimthedutyofinquiringintoit. Id. (quoting BlacksLaw   Dictionary ,1062(6thed.1990)).     Inlightofourdiscussionabove,Metrowasonconstructivenoticeoftheconditionofthe  roadway.ThestatesadoptionoftheUniformManualonTrafficControlDevicesprovidedMetro  withnoticeoftheyieldsignsvisibilityrestrictions.Thestandardsforvisibilityindicatethatpersons l enteringtheintersectionmaynotbeabletoseetheyieldsign.Ifadrivercouldnotseetheyieldsign, X  theywouldcertainlyhavealesserchancetoavoidoncomingtrafficintheintersection.Inresponse D! tothispotentialdanger,themanualmandatesthatMetroplacea yieldaheadsignatthe 0"  intersection.Thepurposeofthe yieldaheadwarningsignistoallowthedrivertoprepareforthe #l! yieldsign,whichwouldincreasethesafetyoftheintersection.Accordingly,Metrohadconstructive $X" noticeoftheneedforthe yieldaheadsignandthepotentialdangerthataccompaniesthe $D # intersectionwithoutthatwarningsign. %0!$   ThetrialcourterredingrantingMetrosmotionforsummaryjudgmentasitregardssection '#& 2920203oftheTennesseeCode.Agenuinefactualdisputeexistsconcerningwhetherthe (#' intersectionofPort_Anadarko_Ԁ_Trail_ԀandLakeParkwayisunsafeordangerousduetoMetrosfailure )$( toplacea yieldaheadsigntoalertmotoristsoftheupcomingyieldsign.Further,Metrohad |*%) constructivenoticeoftheconditionoftheintersection. h+&* Ї  WevacatethetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofMetroandremandthecase  forfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Metrowasnotentitledtosummaryjudgment  undereithersection2920205orsection2920203ofTennesseeCode.Costsofthisappealare  taxedtotheappellee,theMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,forwhich t executionmayissueifnecessary.#XaXXXa/# `    `     h     ___________________________________  `    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE