ÿWPC ¥L²‰HQÁµxÏX‡‡Û¯‡—g‚•S\¬ó8$(\­¢gPM3»%èog z»ƒ† Žx¥ÇÆØ<§å5Ù ÌjSÔ¼õcUÛ*Ò5´Ù[èÖl†«¯#qºÈÅ Îá€=ÔÁpKf/>t¢ÃžNa›f«+À3TYßç¿°;§C¿n̸,µG9³$ã6˜+óã}BØö2Y‡pngþÚÜÀ<6 ²O4Aurö8ŒÎ{bôîÕ™p;0•³&©³&aù_øŒ^¥ýÒ)C«B µùü,SÑAhÝ0»•ßǬf—¢úèŠD†Ä{ù9âiµéѶ¶ñQÒh¬;?üqÆØ¹©á‰n7“Ûæ…ÉÇ¿ü½è€ 2?Ú1ÿ¡ -‘)q°VwQŽ!XÏ‚ž²Û®ë7 ˜ð–ûá@‘Ñž.êŽo»åâ31¶œqLEÓ8ÛbL?¿Âóˆ)Æ¢j…U»dð˜ Ìw‡„ǰ›;?„/ åÄW„çåìéDQ‹˜áñ=±Ò,· ¢oÕô8&šù YÔHמ­=Æ$KÒJ›¹5šý hU¹d´À'©|ÎÛj¶ZêáíËrHz¾‰+,Õ¬“$>f{M¢¤Õ¾¬$ü‘–ýb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ é™ Æ‚ ÆHÆÆÔ 0DšNÞ*à 1u E 72 0c³nb„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ 0댌ŒŒ Bww 0¤” D38 D-k 0K˜˜ ASãÆ6 0¤ü 0D  A«ä»$›[1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ßÝ ƒRÁ6$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëÝò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€we€refer€to€the€plaintiff€in€the€singular,€we€are€referring€to€the€injured€party,€Debby€Fox.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  foreseeability3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à dÝ ƒRÁ6$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëÝò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€702€provides€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€theÐ 8ˆ Ðtrier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÐ üL Ðqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ À Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.- ù-(|G2Á6$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëÝò»»Ô d(|3ÿt$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿt$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Q5»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îT|Q5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Q5»îîT| #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€10,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼Q5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Q5»XX9ñ#ÔBILL€FOX,€òòet€al.óó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X9X»¼Q5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission,€Eastern€DivisionÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€20101550€€€€€€Vance€W.€Cheek,€Jr.,€CommissionerÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02024„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€€„€FILED€OCTOBER€27,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€premises€liability€action,€Debby€Fox€(ð ðthe€plaintiffðð)׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€her€husband,€Bill€Fox,€filed€a€claimÐ xÈ  Ðagainst€the€State€of€Tennessee€(ð ðthe€Stateðð)€for€damages€sustained€by€the€Foxes€when€the€plaintiffÐ d´ Ðwas€injured€as€a€result€of€a€fall€from€a€stage€during€a€play€rehearsal€on€the€campus€of€the€UniversityÐ P  Ðof€Tennessee€at€Knoxville€(ð ðUTðð).€€The€claims€commission€found€in€favor€of€the€State,€holding€(1)Ð <Œ Ðthat€the€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€her€claim€of€negligence€and€(2)€that€she€was€guilty€of€100%€of€theÐ (x Ðfault€in€the€accident.€€The€plaintiff€and€her€husband€appeal,€arguing,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€evidenceÐ d Ðpreponderates€against€the€claims€commissionððs€determinations.€€We€affirm.Ð P ÐÓÃÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Claims€CommissionÐ Ø( ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Q5»àX9i#ÔÔ‡X9X.¼Q5ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_ÔóóÔ#†¼Q5»XX9E #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼Q5Ô,Ð œì Ðand€òòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌW.€Andrew€Fox,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Bill€Fox€and€Debby€Fox.Ð `° Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌRonald€C.€Ô_ÔLeadbetterÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Q5»XX9 #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼Q5ÔÐ #`" ÐÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌòòóóÔ#†¼Q5»XX9ä #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼Q5ÔI.Ô#†¼Q5»XX9Z #ÔÔ€X9X»¼Q5ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌÓ$ Óà  àIn€the€spring€of€2000,€Renee€Ô_ÔHaralsonÔ_Ô,€a€senior€at€UT,€directed€a€play€on€the€UT€campus€toÐ À&"& Ðsatisfy€a€required€component€of€her€Ô_ÔtheatreÔ_Ô€major.€€Cast€members€included€UT€students€as€well€asÐ ¬'ü"' Ðnon„students€with€whom€Ms.€Ô_ÔHaralsonÔ_Ô€had€worked€on€previous€theatrical€projects.€€The€play€wasÐ ˜(è#( Ðset€to€be€performed€at€the€Carousel€Ô_ÔTheatreÔ_Ô,€which,€as€its€name€suggests,€is€a€Ô_ÔtheatreÔ_Ô„in„the„round.€Ð „)Ô$) ÐThe€plaintiff,€a€non„student,€was€a€cast€member€in€the€play.Ð p*À%* ÐÐ \+¬&+ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€plaintiff€had€extensive€theatre€experience.€€She€appeared€in€her€first€play€shortly€afterÐ ° Ðher€marriage€in€1976.€€She€had€acted€in€some€30€to€35€ð ðfull€stage€productions.ðð€€Her€extensiveÐ œì Ðexperience€in€local€theatre€led€her€to€appear€in€productions€at€the€Oak€Ridge€Playhouse,€theÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee€Theatre,€the€Bijou€Theatre,€and€the€Clarence€Brown€Theatre€on€the€UT€campus,€as€wellÐ tÄ Ðas€the€Carousel€Theatre.Ð `° ÐÌà  à€The€Carousel€Theatre€is€designed€with€several€concentric€descending€levels€or€steps€ð!ð€eachÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€which€appear€from€the€photographs€in€the€record€to€be€approximately€3€feet€in€depth€ð!ð€thatÐ $ t Ðencircle€the€entire€theatre;€the€audience€is€seated€in€chairs€on€each€of€these€steps,€with€several€spacesÐ  ` Ðleft€for€the€aisles€descending€down€to€a€large€round€area€with€a€concrete€floor.€€Presumably,€manyÐ ü L  Ðtheatrical€productions€are€staged€in€this€lower€floor€area.€€However,€in€the€case€at€bar,€a€raisedÐ è 8  Ðplatform€or€stage€was€built€on€top€of€the€lower€few€steps€of€the€theatre,€which€stage€encompassedÐ Ô$  Ðapproximately€one„fourth€of€the€total€area€of€the€circular€levels.€€To€give€the€reader€a€betterÐ À  Ðunderstanding€of€this€configuration,€we€have€attached€one€of€the€exhibits€in€the€instant€case€as€anÐ ¬ü  Ðappendix€to€this€opinion.€€The€sole€purpose€of€the€appendix€is€to€give€the€reader€a€general€orientationÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€layout€of€the€Carousel€Theatre.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAfter€Ms.€Haralson€had€assembled€her€cast,€she€conducted€most€of€the€play€rehearsals€at€aÐ \¬ Ðlocal€church.€€However,€approximately€one€to€two€weeks€prior€to€the€April€26,€2000,€opening€night,Ð H˜ Ðrehearsals€were€moved€to€the€Carousel€Theatre.€€Once€the€rehearsals€moved€to€the€theatre,€the€castÐ 4„ Ðand€crew€had€their€first€rehearsals€with€stage€lights€and€blackouts;€blackouts€are€often€used€in€aÐ  p Ðtheatre€for€scene€changes,€as€well€as€to€signify€the€beginning€and€end€of€the€play.€€To€assist€the€actorsÐ  \ Ðand€stagehands€who€must€maneuver€and€place€sets€and€props€on€the€stage€during€the€blackout,€ð ðglowÐ øH Ðtapeðð€is€placed€on€the€edges€of€the€set€pieces,€as€well€as€the€edges€of€platforms€and€steps,€amongÐ ä4 Ðother€things.€€Glow€tape,€which€is€a€staple€in€the€theatre€business,€is€a€photoluminescent€tape€thatÐ Ð  Ðstores€light€energy€and€glows€in€the€dark.€€At€one€of€the€rehearsals€in€the€theatre,€which€occurredÐ ¼  Ðeither€on€April€20,€2000,€or€April€21,€2000,€cast€member€Lisa€Slagle€complained€to€the€stageÐ ¨ø Ðmanager€that€she€could€not€see€to€make€one€of€her€entrances€ð!ð€that€the€stage€was€too€dark€and€thatÐ ”ä Ðthere€was€not€enough€glow€tape€placed€on€the€set€pieces€near€her€entrance.€€She€reported€that€the€lackÐ €Ð Ðof€glow€tape€had€caused€her€to€stumble€into€the€pieces€of€the€set€and€fall.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOn€Saturday,€April€22,€2000,€the€cast€and€crew€gathered€for€what€was€apparently€the€first€fullÐ D!” Ðdress€rehearsal.€€Prior€to€the€rehearsal,€the€cast€met€with€Ms.€Haralson€to€go€over€the€notes€she€hadÐ 0"€  Ðmade€during€the€previous€rehearsal;€the€cast€was€gathered€in€the€audience€area€of€the€theatre.€€At€theÐ #l! Ðmeeting,€Ms.€Haralson€mentioned€that€more€glow€tape€had€been€placed€on€the€set€in€response€to€LisaÐ $X" ÐSlagleððs€complaint.€€After€she€had€reviewed€her€notes€with€the€cast€and€crew,€she€called€for€ð ðplacesððÐ ô$D # Ðand€the€rehearsal€was€set€to€begin.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffððs€initial€entrance€was€not€to€be€on€the€stage€proper;€rather€she€was€scheduledÐ ¸'#& Ðto€enter€the€theatre€by€way€of€one€of€the€descending€aisles,€some€distance€from€the€stage€itself.€€InÐ ¤(ô#' Ðother€words,€her€initial€appearance€would€be€down€an€aisle€with€audience€members€sitting€on€eitherÐ )à$( Ðside€of€her.€€She€would€be€entering,€in€the€parlance€of€the€theatre,€from€the€wings€at€ð ðstage€right.ðð€Ð |*Ì%) ÐFrom€the€perspective€of€the€audience€in€front€of€the€stage,€she€would€be€entering€from€the€left€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðstage€complex.€€However,€rather€than€taking€her€place€in€the€right€wings,€the€plaintiff€discovered€thatÐ ° Ðshe€needed€some€props€in€order€to€make€her€entrance€and€headed€backstage€to€retrieve,€among€otherÐ œì Ðthings,€a€purse€from€the€prop€room.€€The€prop€room€was€located€to€the€rear€of€the€theatre.€€Once€sheÐ ˆØ Ðreached€the€prop€room,€she€discovered€that€it€was€locked.€€At€that€point,€the€plaintiff€decided€sheÐ tÄ Ðcould€use€her€own€purse,€which€she€had€left€in€the€audience€area€of€the€theatre€ð!ð€a€point€almostÐ `° Ðexactly€opposite€from€the€spot€from€which€she€was€to€make€her€entrance.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWhen€the€plaintiff€left€the€back€hallway€where€the€prop€room€was€located,€she€discoveredÐ $ t Ðthat€the€theatre€was€pitch€black.€€Ms.€Haralson€had€called€for€a€blackout,€but€the€plaintiff€did€not€hearÐ  ` Ðthis€as€it€apparently€occurred€while€she€was€in€the€hallway€behind€the€theatre.€€When€the€plaintiffÐ ü L  Ðlater€described€the€level€of€darkness,€she€stated€that€she€was€ð ðshocked€when€[she]€saw€how€black€itÐ è 8  Ðwas€out€there.ðð€€In€spite€of€the€total€darkness,€the€plaintiff€made€the€decision€to€retrieve€her€purseÐ Ô$  Ðfrom€the€audience€area€in€front€of€the€stage€before€positioning€herself€for€her€entrance.€€It€appearsÐ À  Ðthat€the€plaintiffððs€plan€was€to€proceed€down€the€steps€of€one€of€the€aisles€that€was€adjacent€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstate€ð!ð€to€her€stage€right€ð!ð€until€she€reached€the€concrete€floor€of€the€theatre,€and€then€cross€theÐ ˜è  Ðconcrete€floor€to€the€audience€section€where€her€purse€was€located.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhen€the€plaintiff€reached€stage€right,€she€came€upon€steps€that€were€marked€at€the€edgeÐ \¬ Ðwith€glow€tape.€€The€plaintiff€slowly€made€her€way€down€the€steps.€€When€she€reached€an€area€thatÐ H˜ Ðhad€no€glow€tape,€the€plaintiff€assumed€that€she€was€standing€on€the€concrete€floor€of€the€theatre€andÐ 4„ Ðbegan€walking€forward.€€However,€the€plaintiff€was€actually€standing€on€the€stage,€which€apparentlyÐ  p Ðwas€on€the€same€level€as€one€of€the€steps;€we€can€only€conclude€that,€rather€than€walking€down€theÐ  \ Ðsteps€in€a€straight€line,€the€plaintiff€unknowingly€was€walking€in€a€diagonal€fashion,€which€causedÐ øH Ðher€to€unwittingly€end€up€on€the€stage.€€After€taking€approximately€five€steps,€the€plaintiff€walkedÐ ä4 Ðoff€the€front€of€the€stage€and€fell€to€the€concrete€floor,€causing€her€to€sustain€a€badly€broken€ankle.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€her€injury,€the€plaintiff€filed€her€claim€against€the€State,€claiming€that€UT€wasÐ ¨ø Ðnegligent€in€that€it€failed€to€place€glow€tape€on€the€edge€of€the€stage.€€The€plaintiff€claims€that€if€theÐ ”ä Ðstage€had€been€edged€with€glow€tape,€she€would€have€realized€that€she€was€not€standing€on€theÐ €Ð Ðconcrete€floor€and€consequently,€she€would€not€have€fallen€and€sustained€her€injury.€€Mr.€Fox€joinedÐ l¼ Ðhis€wifeððs€claim,€seeking€damages€for€loss€of€consortium.€€The€State€answered€the€Foxesðð€joint€claim,Ð X ¨ Ðdenying€all€claims€of€negligence.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€claims€commission€heard€the€case€in€May,€2003.€€Following€the€hearing,€theÐ #l! Ðcommissioner€entered€a€judgment,€finding€that€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€prove€that€the€State€wasÐ $X" Ðnegligent€in€its€placement€of€glow€tape.€€As€an€alternative€holding,€the€commissioner€opined€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðplaintiff€was€100%€at€fault€in€the€accident.€€From€this€judgment,€the€plaintiff€and€her€husband€appeal.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÓ®0Óà  àIn€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedings€below;€butÐ )à$( Ðthe€record€comes€to€us€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determinationsÐ |*Ì%) Ðð!ð€one€that€we€must€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);Ð h+¸&* Ðò òòòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995);€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.Ð ° ÐHuddlestonó óóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€Our€review€of€questions€of€law€is€òòde€novo€óówith€noÐ œì Ðpresumption€of€correctness€attaching€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€FloridaÐ ˆØ ÐSteel€Corp.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòPresley€v.€Bennettó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1993).Ð `° ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓr4Óà  àThe€plaintiffs€raise€four€issues€on€appeal,€which€we€think€can€be€succinctly€stated€as€follows:Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà8 ` à1.€€Does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€the€claims€commissionððsÐ è 8  Ðfinding€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€that€the€State€was€liable€to€herÐ Ô$  Ðunder€a€premises€liability€theory?ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€the€claims€commissionððsÐ ˜è  Ðfinding,€under€a€comparative€fault€analysis,€that€the€plaintiff€wasÐ „Ô  Ð100%€at€fault?ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€allowing€witnesses€Renee€Haralson€andÐ H˜ ÐLaura€Simms€to€offer€their€opinion€testimony,€as€said€witnesses€wereÐ 4„ Ðnot€qualified€as€experts€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702?Ð p` x` x ÐÌWe€will€address€each€of€these€issues€in€turn.Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð Ð  ÐÌA.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ¤8Óà  àThe€plaintiffððs€primary€assertion€on€appeal€is€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ €Ð Ðclaims€commissionððs€holding€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€that€the€State€was€liable€to€her€underÐ l¼ Ða€premises€liability€theory.€€We€agree€with€the€conclusions€reached€by€the€claims€commission.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€brought€her€claim€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307€(Supp.€2003),€whichÐ 0"€  Ðprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)(1)€The€commission€or€each€commissioner€sitting€individually€hasÐ ô$D # Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€to€determine€all€monetary€claims€against€theÐ à%0!$ Ðstate€based€on€the€acts€or€omissions€of€ð ðstate€employees,ðð€.€.€.€,€fallingÐ Ì&"% Ðwithin€one€(1)€or€more€of€the€following€categories:и'#&` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð )à$( Ðâ âÓœ<ÓÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(C)€Negligently€created€or€maintained€dangerous€conditions€on€stateÐ ° Ðâ âcontrolled€real€property.€€The€claimant€under€this€subsection€mustÐ œì Ðestablish€the€foreseeability€of€the€risks€and€notice€given€to€the€properÐ ˆØ Ðstate€officials€at€a€time€sufficiently€prior€to€the€injury€for€the€state€toÐ tÄ Ðhave€taken€appropriate€measures;Ð`°` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓç>ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(H)€Negligent€construction€of€state€sidewalks€and€buildings;Ð `` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð è 8  ÐÓº?ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€The€determination€of€the€stateððs€liability€in€tort€shall€be€based€onÐ À  Ðthe€traditional€tort€concepts€of€duty€and€the€reasonably€prudentÐ ¬ü  Ðpersonððs€standard€of€care.Иè ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307.€€Thus,€in€order€to€prevail€under€this€statute,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€allÐ pÀ Ðof€the€elements€of€negligence:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conductÐ 4„ Ðby€the€defendant€falling€below€the€standard€of€care€amounting€to€aÐ  p Ðbreach€of€the€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€in€fact;€and€(5)Ð  \ Ðproximate€causation.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌò òòòRice€v.€Sabiró óóó,€979€S.W.2d€305,€308€(Tenn.€1998).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€the€State€was€negligent€in€failing€to€place€glow€tape€ð ðalong€the€edgeÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€elevated€stage,€which€would€warn€of€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€elevated€stage.ðð€Ð ”ä ÐMoreover,€the€plaintiff€contends€that€the€State€was€put€on€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition€whenÐ €Ð Ðcast€member€Lisa€Slagle€complained€about€the€lack€of€glow€tape€on€set€pieces€just€a€day€or€twoÐ l¼ Ðbefore€the€plaintiffððs€accident.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€determining€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€carry€her€burden€of€proving€negligence€on€the€partÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€State,€the€claims€commission€relied€heavily€upon€the€case€of€ò òòòHames€v.€Stateó óóó,€808€S.W.2d€41Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€1991).€€In€ò òòòHamesó óóó,€a€golferððs€widow€brought€a€claim€for€wrongful€death€against€the€State.€€HerÐ $X" Ðhusband€had€been€struck€by€lightning€and€killed€while€on€a€State„owned€golf€course.€€ò òòòId.ó ó€óóat€42,€43.€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€plaintiff€brought€her€claim€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(C),€on€the€theory€that€theÐ à%0!$ ÐState€was€negligent€in€failing€to€provide€lightning„proof€shelters€or€warning€devices€on€the€golfÐ Ì&"% Ðcourse.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€42,€43.€€The€claims€commission€found€in€favor€of€the€State,€ruling€that€there€was€ð ðnoÐ ¸'#& Ðindustry€standard€requiring€storm€shelters€or€warning€devices€and€that€ððcommon€knowledge€tells€oneÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€lightning€is€dangerous.ðððð€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€43.€€This€court€reversed,€finding,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€State€hadÐ )à$( Ðnotice€of€the€dangerous€condition.€€ò òòòId.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àó óóóThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€Court€of€Appeals,€and€stated€the€following:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€also€significant€that€there€is€no€industry€standard€to€implementÐ ˆØ Ðwarning€devices€or€shelters€that€are€lightning€proof;€indeed,€the€proofÐ tÄ Ðclearly€reveals€that€most€golf€courses€do€not€contain€either€warningÐ `° Ðdevices€or€lightning€proof€shelters.€€Customary€conduct,€while€notÐ L œ Ðconclusive€or€controlling,€may€be€considered€as€furnishing€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðstandardized€gauge€and€as€one€circumstance€to€be€weighed€along€withÐ $ t Ðall€others€in€determining€whether€or€not€ordinary€care€has€beenÐ  ` Ðexercised.€.€.€.€€In€sum,€we€hold€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€did€notÐ ü L  Ðfall€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care,€reasonableness€under€allÐ è 8  Ðthe€circumstances,€and€thus€there€was€no€negligence.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòHamesó óóó,€808€S.W.2d€at€45„46€(internal€citation€omitted).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€claims€commission€analogized€ò òòòHamesó óóó€to€the€plaintiffððs€case,€pointingÐ „Ô  Ðout€that€the€plaintiffððs€own€expert€witness€testified€that€there€was€no€industry€standard€for€theÐ pÀ Ðplacement€of€glow€tape.€€Indeed,€the€claims€commission€found€that€the€placement€of€glow€tape€wasÐ \¬ Ða€ð ðfluid€processðð€and€was€applied€as€cast€and€crew€members€requested€it.€€With€respect€to€the€edgeÐ H˜ Ðof€the€stage,€the€commissioner€specifically€found€that€there€was€no€industry€standard€ð ðrequir[ing]Ð 4„ Ðthe€application€of€glow„tape€on€the€stage€boundary.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€claims€commission€found€thatÐ  p Ðthe€plaintiff€had€failed€to€prove€the€existence€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€plaintiff€with€respect€to€theÐ  \ Ðplacement€of€glow€tape,€and,€as€a€consequence€of€that€finding,€that€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðfall€and€resultingÐ øH Ðinjury€were€unfortunate€accidents€that€do€not€amount€to€the€legal€definition€of€negligence€on€the€partÐ ä4 Ðof€the€State€of€Tennessee.ððÐ Ð  ÐÌà@‘‘)ìàB.ˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€State€owed€the€plaintiff€a€duty€of€reasonable€care€under€all€of€theÐ €Ð Ðcircumstances,€òòi.e.óó,€a€duty€ð ðto€maintain€[its]€premises€in€a€reasonably€safe€and€suitable€condition.ðð€Ð l¼ Ðò òòòEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€593€(Tenn.€1994).€€To€borrow€language€from€ò òòòEatonó óóó,€this€dutyÐ X ¨ Ðð ðincluded€the€responsibility€of€either€removing€or€warning€against€any€latent€dangerous€conditionÐ D!” Ðon€the€premises€of€which€the€[State€was]€aware€or€should€have€been€aware€through€the€exercise€ofÐ 0"€  Ðreasonable€diligence.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€594.€€As€the€Supreme€Court€instructed€in€ò òòòEatonó óóó,€the€facts€of€the€instantÐ #l! Ðcase€require€us€to€determine€whether€the€general€duty€outlined€above€includes€a€more€ð ðspecificÐ $X" Ðresponsibility,ðð€which,€based€upon€the€allegations€in€the€instant€case,€would€be€the€duty€to€place€glowÐ ô$D # Ðtape€at€the€front€edge€of€the€elevated€stage.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€question€of€whether,€in€a€negligence€case,€a€defendant€owes€a€duty€of€care€to€the€plaintiffÐ ¸'#& Ðis€a€question€of€law€for€the€court.€€ò òòòBradshaw€v.€Danieló óóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðò òòòEatonó óóó€case,€the€Supreme€Court€extensively€addressed€the€correct€analysis€regarding€duty€of€care€inÐ )à$( Ða€negligence€action.€€In€part,€it€said€the€following:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà8 ` àThe€term€reasonable€care€must€be€given€meaning€in€relation€to€theÐ ° Ðcircumstances.€€[citation€omitted].€€Ordinary,€or€reasonable,€care€is€toÐ œì Ðbe€estimated€by€the€risk€entailed€through€probable€dangers€attendingÐ ˆØ Ðthe€particular€situation€and€is€to€be€commensurate€with€the€risk€ofÐ tÄ Ðinjury.€€[citation€omitted].€€The€risk€involved€is€that€which€isÐ `° Ðforeseeable;€a€risk€is€foreseeable€if€a€reasonable€person€could€foreseeÐ L œ Ðthe€probability€of€its€occurrence€or€if€the€person€was€on€notice€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðlikelihood€of€danger€to€the€party€to€whom€is€owed€a€duty€is€probable.€Ð $ t ÐForeseeability€is€the€test€of€negligence.€€If€the€injury€which€occurredÐ  ` Ðcould€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen,€the€duty€of€care€does€notÐ ü L  Ðarise,€and€even€though€the€act€of€the€defendant€in€fact€caused€theÐ è 8  Ðinjury,€there€is€no€negligence€and€no€liability.€€ð ðThe€plaintiff€mustÐ Ô$  Ðshow€that€the€injury€was€a€reasonably€foreseeable€probability,€not€justÐ À  Ða€remote€possibility,€and€that€some€action€within€the€[defendantððs]Ð ¬ü  Ðpower€more€probably€than€not€would€have€prevented€the€injury.ðð€Ð ˜è  Ð[citation€omitted].Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà@ŽŽ%ìà*€€€€*€€€€*ˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThe€pertinent€question€is€whether€there€was€any€showing€from€whichÐ 4„ Ðit€can€be€said€that€the€defendants€reasonably€knew€or€should€haveÐ  p Ðknown€of€the€probability€of€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€whichÐ  \ Ðcaused€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌò òòòEatonó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€594€(quoting€ò òòòDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.ó óóó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1992)Ð Ð  Ð(citations€in€ò òòòDoeó óóó€omitted€in€ò òòòEatonó óóó).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€concluded€ð!ð€and€we€are€here€again€borrowing€language€from€ò òòòEatonó óóó€ð!ð€that€theÐ ”ä Ðplaintiff€€ð ðfailed€to€submit€legally€sufficient€evidence€as€to€the€duty€element€of€[the€plaintiffððs]€claimsÐ €Ð Ðof€negligence.ðð€€ò òòòEatonó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€593.€€Our€review€of€the€record€persuades€us€that€the€trial€courtÐ l¼ Ðwas€correct€in€concluding,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that,€based€upon€the€record€before€the€commission€andÐ X ¨ Ðnow€before€us,€the€plaintiff€failed€to€establish€that€the€State€owed€a€duty€to€her€to€place€glow€tapeÐ D!” Ðat€the€site€of€the€plaintiffððs€accident€at€the€time€she€fell€off€the€stage.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€the€State€was€put€on€notice€of€this€dangerous€condition,€òòi.e.óó,€theÐ $X" Ðlack€of€glow€tape€on€the€edge€of€the€stage,€when€cast€member€Lisa€Slagle€complained€about€the€lackÐ ô$D # Ðof€glow€tape€on€set€pieces€at€a€rehearsal€just€prior€to€the€rehearsal€during€which€the€plaintiff€fell.€Ð à%0!$ ÐHowever,€the€fact€that€a€cast€member€requested€the€placement€of€glow€tape€on€pieces€of€a€set€òòthatÐ Ì&"% Ðwere€some€distance€from€the€edge€of€the€stage€óócertainly€does€not€give€rise€to€notice€that€there€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðany€dangerous€condition€in€another€part€of€the€stage.€€Ms.€Slagleððs€complaint€has€no€bearing€on€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðissue€of€whether€the€lack€of€glow€tape€at€the€edge€of€the€stage€was€a€danger€of€which€the€State€wasÐ )à$( Ðon€notice.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€issue€of€duty€of€care€ð ðinvolves€an€analysis€of€the€foreseeability€of€the€risk€to€which€[theÐ ° Ðplaintiff€in€the€instant€case]€was€exposed.ðð€€ò òòòEatonó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€594.€€This€analysis€prompts€theÐ œì Ðfollowing€inquiry:€€Has€the€plaintiff€made€a€ð ðshowing€from€which€it€can€be€said€that€the€òòdefendantóó[]òòÐ ˆØ Ðreasonably€knew€or€should€have€known€of€the€probability€of€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€whichÐ tÄ Ðcaused€[her]€injuries.óóðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€594€(quoting€ò òòòDoeó óóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€178€(emphasis€in€ò òòòEatonó óóó).Ð `° ÐÌà  àWhen€the€theatre€was€placed€in€complete€darkness,€none€of€the€actors€were€to€be€on€the€stage.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐFurthermore,€according€to€the€script,€none€of€the€actors€were€to€move€onto€the€stage€until€after€theÐ $ t Ðlights€had€come€up.€€As€pertinent€to€the€claim€before€us,€the€plaintiff€was€to€enter€the€theatre€fromÐ  ` Ða€point€some€distance€from€the€stage,€òòi.e.óó,€at€the€top€of€one€of€the€descending€aisles.€€The€State€didÐ ü L  Ðnot€know,€and€had€no€reason€to€foresee,€that€the€plaintiff,€an€experienced€actor,€òòwould€venture€intoÐ è 8  Ðthe€dark€at€a€place€where€she€was€not€supposed€to€beóó.€€There€was€no€reason€to€believe€that€the€lackÐ Ô$  Ðof€glow€tape€at€the€edge€of€the€stage,€even€when€the€stage€and€the€surrounding€environs€were€inÐ À  Ðcomplete€darkness,€was€a€danger€when€no€one€was€to€be€on€the€stage,€or€enter€the€elevated€stage,Ð ¬ü  Ðuntil€the€lights€came€back€up.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiff€has€failedÐ ˜è  Ðto€present€legally€sufficient€evidence€to€establish€the€duty€alleged€in€her€claim.€€In€our€judgment,€theÐ „Ô  Ðapplication€of€the€duty€analysis€found€in€ò òòòEatonó óóó€to€the€facts€of€this€case€is€a€complete€answer€to€theÐ pÀ Ðplaintiffððs€first€issue.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓC.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ~pÓà  àThe€plaintiff€next€contends€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€claims€commissionððsÐ  \ Ðfinding€that€she€was€100%€at€fault.€€While€the€plaintiff€acknowledges€that€she€had€a€duty€to€actÐ øH Ðreasonably€under€the€circumstances,€she€asserts€that€navigating€in€the€dark€is€simply€a€part€of€anÐ ä4 Ðactorððs€job€and€that,€as€an€actor,€she€must€rely€upon€the€crew€to€do€its€job€properly.€€Thus,€she€arguesÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€failure€of€the€crew€to€place€glow€tape€in€the€appropriate€places€contributed€more€to€her€injuryÐ ¼  Ðthan€did€any€negligence€on€her€part.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€claims€commission€recognized€that,€in€finding€that€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€prove€theÐ €Ð Ðelement€of€duty,€the€negligence€inquiry€had€ended€and€there€was€no€need€to€address€the€issue€ofÐ l¼ Ðcomparative€fault.€€However,€in€òòobiter€dictumóó,€the€commissioner€noted€that€had€the€plaintiff€beenÐ X ¨ Ðsuccessful€in€making€out€a€claim€for€negligence,€ð ðany€negligence€on€the€[p]art€of€[the€plaintiff]Ð D!” Ðwould€equal€or€exceed€any€negligence€of€the€State.ðð€The€claims€commission€went€on€to€state€theÐ 0"€  Ðfollowing:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHer€own€negligence€for€knowingly€entering€a€darkened€hall€andÐ ô$D # Ðelecting€to€descend€a€flight€of€stairs€was€the€proximate€cause€of€herÐ à%0!$ Ðaccident€and€far€exceeded€any€potential€negligen[ce]€on€behalf€of€theÐ Ì&"% ÐState.€€Given€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€Claim,€theÐ ¸'#& ÐCommission€ò òFINDSó ó€that€[the€plaintiff]€did€have€an€opportunity€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðavoid€the€dangers€presented€her€and€therefore€the€CommissionÐ ”)ä$( Ðò òHOLDSó ó€that€one€hundred€percent€(100%)€of€the€liability€for€[theÐ €*Ð%) Ðplaintiffððs]€injury€rests€upon€her€shoulders.€€€Ðp+À&*` x` x Ї(Capitalization€and€bold€print€in€original).Ð ° ÐÌà  àUnder€Tennesseeððs€doctrine€of€modified€comparative€fault,€the€question€for€the€court€toÐ ˆØ Ðconsider€is€whether€ð ðthe€fault€attributable€to€[the]€plaintiff€[is]€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€faultÐ tÄ Ðattributable€to€the€defendant.ðð€€ò òòòEatonó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€590€(emphasis€in€original€omitted).€€Thus,€aÐ `° Ðfinding€that€a€plaintiff€is€100%€at€fault€is€no€different,€in€legal€effect,€than€a€finding€that€a€plaintiffÐ L œ Ðis€50%€at€fault€ð!ð€in€either€situation,€the€plaintiffððs€recovery€is€barred.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIf€it€were€to€be€determined€in€the€instant€case€that€the€State€did€owe€a€duty€to€the€plaintiff€toÐ  ` Ðplace€glow€tape€at€the€edge€of€the€elevated€stage,€we€still€hold€that€the€plaintiff€cannot€recover.€€ThisÐ ü L  Ðis€because€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€claims€commissionððs€findingÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€plaintiffððs€fault€equaled€or€exceeded€any€fault€on€the€part€of€the€State.€€While€the€plaintiff,Ð Ô$  Ðupon€realizing€that€the€theatre€was€pitch€black,€could€have€asked€the€stage€manager€to€raise€the€lightsÐ À  Ðso€she€could€see€her€way,€she€chose€not€to€do€so.€€Instead,€she€chose€to€proceed€in€total€darkness.€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€are€not€persuaded€ð!ð€nor€was€the€claims€commission€ð!ð€by€the€plaintiffððs€assertion€that€it€wouldÐ ˜è  Ðhave€been€improper€for€her€to€stop€the€rehearsal€and€ask€for€lights.€€Indeed,€the€plaintiffððs€own€expertÐ „Ô  Ðadmitted€at€trial€that€safety€concerns€would€outweigh€the€impropriety€of€stopping€a€dress€rehearsal.€Ð pÀ ÐMoreover,€by€the€plaintiffððs€own€testimony,€the€rehearsal€had€not€yet€begun€when€she€fell.€€We€failÐ \¬ Ðto€see€how€asking€for€lights€at€that€time€would€have€in€any€way€hindered€the€rehearsal€or€adverselyÐ H˜ Ðaffected€the€plaintiffððs€reputation€as€an€actor.€€We€therefore€hold€that€the€evidence€€preponderatesÐ 4„ Ðin€favor€of€the€finding€that€the€plaintiff€was€50%€or€more€at€fault€in€this€case.Ð  p ÐÌÓ  ÓD.Ð øH ÐÓ‰ÓÌà  àThe€plaintiff€asserts€that€the€claims€commission€erred€in€permitting€Ms.€Haralson€and€LisaÐ Ð  ÐSimms€to€give€opinion€testimony€as,€according€to€the€plaintiff,€they€had€not€been€qualified€as€expertÐ ¼  Ðwitnesses€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€With€respect€to€Ms.€Haralson,€the€plaintiffÐ ¨ø Ðobjected€to€her€testimony€as€to€where€glow€tape€should€be€placed€based€upon€ð ðher€experience€as€aÐ ”ä Ðdirector.ðð€€Likewise,€the€plaintiff€objected€to€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Simms€pertaining€to€herÐ €Ð Ðexperience€with€the€rules€governing€the€interruption€of€dress€rehearsals.€€The€plaintiff€contended€thatÐ l¼ Ðthis,€too,€was€expert€testimony€given€by€one€not€properly€qualified.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àBoth€witnesses€were€qualified€by€ð ðexperienceðð€to€ð ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€orÐ 0"€  Ðotherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€receipt€of€this€evidence.€€EvenÐ #l! Ðif€in€error,€the€admission€of€this€evidence€did€not€ð ðinvolv[e]€a€substantial€right€[that]€more€probablyÐ $X" Ðthan€not€affected€the€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ Ðà@––)ìàE.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€Ms.€Haralson€and€others€involved€in€the€production€of€the€play€wereÐ ˆØ Ðnot€employees€or€agents€of€the€State.€€Hence,€so€the€argument€goes,€the€State€is€not€responsible€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€negligent€acts,€if€any,€of€those€individuals.€€In€view€of€our€rulings€with€respect€to€the€issues€ofÐ `° Ðduty€and€comparative€fault,€we€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€reach€the€Stateððs€issue.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð $ t ÐÓ&‰ÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€claims€commission€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€the€collectionÐ ü L  Ðof€costs€assessed€below,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellants,€BillÐ è 8  Ðand€Debby€Fox.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE