ÿWPCq lÅæâOŒ”P â•…(%aÁUx»Bí( ]ÎkŽE'¡Fü ªT+ ì,Ÿ,ˆÆ bcÌÉLSp¿VÔ2 ,861Q ²~» wy½«>?ßÞ ˆX‰HLCE6p$Ìà4ž4Nä,‘üŒÀc ;ý͈õ ¢3²vÌ£q·~±¸ô|™£L¹VÎO‰Å0aUÈ5…wÚHS,4м¦×´ñ5§^„ Wæù›äÔnâ׆Þ# Ȉø­~±”¥ë݃ù.0éï³€–1]]*uË3ǦŸãp®ïîŽ+ ¿¢2}©Å iÏà/]HO¦z›;Ž“ãªÀÝš {2×Eã7‰â²Â`¥„V9íí!8e[’ô™ÝàèޱõN8Š{¢ƒnÝE­E šë‘D3|°Rû!çJ³Ú5JÀÅÏ…~y8‚l˜ÙòÚ"k²Tÿñßwz7ÍKh®]“\–žwÓ«;¤"B_ÿ>'}á‘l …ëe©Ž÷rtüÅQv(¦ÆŸ$é5n&…–ÓŽ—ANÆ2!r"”«Û±ówüœeÆåÔ§è®É‘XX›mrZµ7!ØcÂc€èŸÇAäÿÆ×*Ø‹ßI„àªWb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ ư ÆvÆ<Æ 0DÈN UNE\^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^bffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff 0ënnnn BYY 0¤v D3 D-M 0Kzz ASÅÆ 0¤Þ 0D‚ A«Æ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»‘’5)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularûr')ÀÆŸ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRˆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôY ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ& L ÔRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€343A€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ð[a]€possessor€of€land€is€not€liable€toÐ ° Ðhis€invitees€for€physical€harm€caused€to€them€by€any€activity€or€condition€on€the€land€whose€danger€is€known€or€obviousÐ tÄ Ðto€them,€unless€the€possessor€should€anticipate€the€harm€despite€such€knowledge€or€obviousness.ððÔ'L ~ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular - ù-(|G2ˆ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I »»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô,°ò»»Ô d(|3Íó$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I »»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Íó$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I »»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qü»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼[™»»»ÔÑ8€?ìXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î[ð[™ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼[™»îî[ð #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X­X»¼[™ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[™»XX­î#ÔòòBETTY€L.€FOXóó€v.€FOOD€LION,€INC.,€STORE€#539òòóóÔ‡X­X»¼[™Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2„156„97€€€€€€Harold€Ô_ÔWimberlyÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€21,€2000Ð ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1911„00015„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓBetty€L.€Fox€sued€Food€Lion,€Inc.,€Store€#539,€seeking€damages€for€personal€injuries€sustained€whenÐ xÈ  Ðshe€fell€in€an€aisle€of€the€defendantððs€store.€€The€trial€court€approved€the€juryððs€verdict€for€theÐ d´ Ðplaintiff€and€entered€judgment€in€her€favor€for€$112,000.€€The€defendant€appeals,€raising€three€issues,Ð P  Ðwhich€we€restate€as€follows:€€(1)€whether€there€is€material€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€actual€orÐ <Œ Ðconstructive€notice€of€the€allegedly€dangerous€condition€that€caused€the€plaintiffððs€fall;€(2)€whetherÐ (x Ðthe€defendant€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€the€plaintiff;€and€(3)€whether€there€is€material€evidence€toÐ d Ðsupport€the€juryððs€allocation€of€fault.€€We€affirm.Ð P ÐÓ¼ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð Ø( ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼[™»àX­k#ÔÔ‡X­X.¼[™ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ôóó,Ð œì ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€and€òòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌClarence€Ô_ÔRisinÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Food€Lion,€Inc.,€Store€#539.Ð `° ÐÌMark€E.€Floyd,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Betty€L.€Fox.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ”ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[™»XX­Ã#ÔÔ‡X­X»¼[™ÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼[™»XX­% #ÔÔ€X­X»¼[™ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ® ÓÌà  àWe€review€the€facts€in€this€case€mindful€of€the€limited€nature€of€our€jurisdiction€in€jury€cases:Ð À&"& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€the€long€established€rule€in€this€state€that€in€reviewing€a€judgmentÐ ˜(è#( Ðbased€upon€a€jury€verdict€the€appellate€courts€are€not€at€liberty€toÐ „)Ô$) Ðweigh€the€evidence€to€decide€where€the€preponderance€lies,€but€areÐ p*À%* Ðlimited€to€determining€whether€there€is€material€evidence€to€supportÐ \+¬&+ Ðthe€verdict;€the€appellate€court€is€required€to€take€the€strongestÐ H,˜', Ðlegitimate€view€of€all€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict,€toÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôassume€the€truth€of€all€that€tends€to€support€it,€allowing€all€reasonableÐ ° Ðinferences€to€sustain€the€verdict,€and€to€discard€all€to€the€contrary.€Ð œì ÐHaving€thus€examined€the€record,€if€there€be€any€material€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðto€support€the€verdict,€it€must€be€affirmed;€if€it€were€otherwise,€theÐ tÄ Ðparties€would€be€deprived€of€their€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌò òòòElectric€Power€Bd.€v.€St.€Joseph€Valley€Structural€Steel€Corp.,ó óóó€691€S.W.2d€522,€526€(Tenn.€1985)Ð 8 ˆ Ð(citations€omitted);€òòsee€also€ò òÔ_ÔTruanÔ_Ô€v.€Smith,ó óóó€578€S.W.2d€73,€74€(Tenn.€1979).€€Our€role€is€clear.€Ð $ t ÐWe€must€scour€the€record€in€search€of€material€evidence€of€facts,€and€reasonable€inferences€fromÐ  ` Ðthose€facts,€that€tend€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€€In€the€process,€we€must€disregard€all€evidence€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€contrary,€even€though€such€evidence€may€have€supported€one€or€more€of€Food€Lionððs€theoriesÐ è 8  Ðof€defense€at€trial.€€In€summary,€our€responsibility€is€to€determine€whether€there€is€any€materialÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict,€òòsee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€regardless€of€the€quantum€ofÐ À  Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð „Ô  ÐÓ7ÓÌà  àOn€the€morning€of€June€20,€1996,€at€approximately€9:15,€Fox,€who€was€then€65€years€old,Ð \¬ Ðwas€shopping€in€defendantððs€grocery€store.€€She€began€shopping€in€aisle€one,€which€wasÐ H˜ Ðapproximately€11€feet€wide€and€had€rows€of€fixed€shelves€on€either€side€and€various€displays€ofÐ 4„ Ðmerchandise€down€the€center.€€Fox€proceeded€down€the€right„hand€side€of€aisle€one€to€the€rear€of€theÐ  p Ðstore.€€She€stopped€and€picked€up€a€box€of€crackers€and€began€reading€the€label€on€the€box.€€AfterÐ  \ Ða€few€steps,€she€looked€up€and€saw€several€12„pack€cases€of€soft€drinks€stacked€on€the€floor€againstÐ øH Ðthe€shelves€on€the€other€side€of€aisle€one.€€As€she€began€walking€toward€these€stacked€cases,€sheÐ ä4 Ðtripped€and€fell€over€an€empty€wooden€display€base,€fracturing€her€hip.€€The€subject€display€base€wasÐ Ð  Ðapproximately€eight€feet€long,€three€feet€wide,€and€six€inches€high.€€It€was€located€between€twoÐ ¼  Ðdisplays€of€merchandise€in€the€center€of€the€aisle.€€The€display€base€had€been€placed€in€the€aisle€byÐ ¨ø Ðthe€defendantððs€store€planner€several€months€prior€to€the€accident€and€was€typically€utilized€as€aÐ ”ä Ðdisplay€for€12„pack€cases€of€soft€drinks.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAfter€Fox€fell,€Linda€Ellison,€the€customer€service€manager€on€duty€that€day,€was€summonedÐ X ¨ Ðto€aisle€one.€€Upon€arriving,€Ellison€noted€that€the€display€base€was€empty.€€As€required€by€theÐ D!” Ðstoreððs€safety€policies€and€procedures,€Ellison€filled€out€an€incident€report.€€She€also€took€aÐ 0"€  Ðphotograph€of€the€scene,€showing€the€empty€display€base€and€the€soft€drink€cases€stacked€to€the€sideÐ #l! Ðagainst€the€shelves.€€In€her€report,€Ellison€noted€that€the€reason€for€the€accident€was€that€FoxÐ $X" ÐÌà  àà8 ` àfell€over€a€Coke€display€stand€„„€12pk€Cokes€were€sitting€on€the€floorÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€left€of€display€stand€„„€Tiles€had€been€replaced€last€night.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌShe€also€noted€on€the€report€that€an€ð ðunusual€conditionðð€existed€at€the€site€of€the€accident.€€SheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestified€at€trial€that€the€condition€she€was€referring€to€was€the€replacement€of€floor€tiles€in€that€areaÐ )à$( Ðthe€night€before.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àJeffrey€Ô_ÔSheltonÔ_Ô€was€the€produce€manager€of€the€store€on€the€day€of€the€accident.€€He€hadÐ ° Ðarrived€at€work€that€day€at€6:00€a.m.€to€begin€stocking€the€produce€department.€€He€recalled€that€heÐ œì Ðwent€through€aisle€one€approximately€10€to€15€times€the€morning€plaintiff€fell€in€order€to€bringÐ ˆØ Ðproduce€from€the€coolers€located€in€the€rear€of€the€store€to€the€produce€department€in€the€front€of€theÐ tÄ Ðstore.€€He€testified€that€on€each€of€these€trips,€he€saw€12„pack€cases€of€soft€drinks€on€the€display€baseÐ `° Ðand€that€he€never€saw€it€empty.€€Ô_ÔSheltonÔ_Ô€further€testified€that€after€the€accident€occurred,€the€displayÐ L œ Ðbase€still€had€some€12„pack€cases€on€it€and€that€these€remaining€cases€were€removed€to€facilitate€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtaking€of€a€photograph€of€the€display€base.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof,€and€again€at€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof,€Food€LionÐ ü L  Ðmoved€for€a€directed€verdict,€which€motion€was,€each€time,€denied.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€inÐ è 8  Ðfavor€of€Fox,€finding€that€Food€Lion€was€80%€at€fault€for€her€injuries.€€It€assessed€the€remainder€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€fault€to€Fox.€€The€trial€court€approved€the€juryððs€verdict€and€awarded€Fox€$112,000€in€damages.€Ð À  ÐThis€appeal€followed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð „Ô  ÐÓ$ÓÌÓ  ÓA.Ð \¬ ÐÓU$ÓÌà  àFood€Lion€first€argues€that€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€thatÐ 4„ ÐFood€Lion€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition€that€caused€Foxððs€fall€andÐ  p Ðresulting€injuries.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àGenerally€speaking,€the€liability€of€an€owner€or€operator€of€property€for€a€dangerous€orÐ ä4 Ðdefective€condition€on€its€premises€is€dependent€upon€a€showing€that€the€condition€(1)€was€causedÐ Ð  Ðor€created€by€the€owner/operator€or€its€agent,€or€(2)€if€created€by€someone€other€than€the€principalÐ ¼  Ðor€its€agent,€was€a€condition€of€which€the€owner/operator€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€prior€toÐ ¨ø Ðthe€accident.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔHardestyÔ_Ô€v.€Service€Merchandise€Co.,ó óóó€953€S.W.2d€678,€682€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);Ð ”ä Ðò òòòMartin€v.€Ô_ÔWashmasterÔ_Ô€Auto€Center,€U.S.A.,ó óóó€946€S.W.2d€314,€318€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€there€is€material€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€floorÐ X ¨ Ðtiles€had€been€replaced€in€the€general€area€of€the€display€base€the€night€before€the€plaintiff€fell.€€ThereÐ D!” Ðwas€also€material€evidence€indicating€that€when€the€plaintiff€fell,€the€base€was€empty.€€From€theseÐ 0"€  Ðfacts,€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€that€an€agent€of€the€store€had€removed€the€soft€drinkÐ #l! Ðcases€from€the€display€base€the€night€before€the€plaintiffððs€fall€and€stacked€them€against€the€shelvesÐ $X" Ðto€facilitate€the€replacement€of€the€floor€tiles€in€the€general€area€of€the€plaintiffððs€fall.€€Furthermore,Ð ô$D # Ðthe€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€from€the€evidence,€including€the€incident€report,€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsoft€drink€cases€had€not€been€re„stacked€on€the€display€base€following€the€completion€of€the€tileÐ Ì&"% Ðreplacement€project.€€Although€this€latter€conclusion€contradicts€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðproduce€manager€that€the€display€base€was€not€empty€immediately€after€the€plaintiffððs€fall,€the€juryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwas€free€to€disregard€his€testimony,€particularly€in€light€of€the€testimony€of€Fox€and€the€customerÐ )à$( Ðservice€manager€to€the€contrary.€€ð ðReconciling€apparently€conflicting€testimony€and€evaluating€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðwitnessesðð€credibility€are,€in€the€first€instance,€the€juryððs€responsibilities.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔGrissomÔ_Ô€v.€MetropolitanÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€of€Nashville,ó óóó€817€S.W.2d€679,€683€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€The€jury€could€have€concludedÐ ° Ðfrom€the€produce€managerððs€testimony,€however,€that€he€indeed€traversed€aisle€one€10€to€15€timesÐ œì Ðthe€morning€of€the€accident€and€had€seen€what€was€there€to€be€seen,€that€is,€the€empty€display€base.€Ð ˆØ ÐFrom€all€of€this€evidence,€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€that€Food€Lion€created€theÐ tÄ Ðdangerous€condition€or,€at€a€minimum,€had€actual€notice€of€the€condition€prior€to€the€plaintiffððs€fall.€Ð `° ÐWe€therefore€find€that€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€a€finding€that€Food€Lion€is€legallyÐ L œ Ðculpable€with€respect€to€the€dangerous€condition€resulting€from€the€empty€display€base.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓB.Ð  ` ÐÓ•2ÓÌà  àIn€order€to€assert€a€successful€claim€of€negligence,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€the€followingÐ è 8  Ðelements:€ð ð(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€by€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðfalling€below€the€standard€of€care€amounting€to€a€breach€of€the€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)Ð À  Ðcausation€in€fact;€and€(5)€proximate€causation.ðð€€ò òòòRice€v.€Ô_ÔSabirÔ_Ô,ó óóó€979€S.W.2d€305,€308€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð ¬ü  ÐIn€determining€whether€a€duty€exists,€which€is€a€question€of€law,€òòsee€ò òCarson€v.€Headrickó óóó,€900Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€685,€690€(Tenn.€1995),€a€court€must€balance€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€and€gravity€of€the€harm€Ð „Ô  Ðagainst€the€burden€on€the€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€theÐ pÀ Ðharm.à  àò òòòÔ_ÔColnÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Savannah,ó óóó€966€S.W.2d€34,€43€(Tenn.€1998).ò òòòó óóóÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àFood€Lion€argues€that€it€owed€no€duty€to€Fox€because€her€injury€was€not€foreseeable.€Ð 4„ ÐSpecifically,€it€argues€that€it€had€no€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition;€that€the€display€was€open€andÐ  p Ðobvious;€that€it€was€not€foreseeable€that€plaintiff€would€be€reading€a€box€of€crackers€while€walkingÐ  \ Ðthrough€the€store;€and€that€her€injuries€were€not€foreseeable€in€light€of€her€familiarity€with€the€store.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àFood€Lionððs€first€argument€„„€that€it€did€not€owe€a€duty€to€Fox€because€it€had€no€notice€of€theÐ Ð  Ðdangerous€condition€„„€is€without€merit.€€We€have€already€determined€that€there€is€material€evidenceÐ ¼  Ðin€the€record€to€support€a€finding€that€Food€Lion€created€or€had€actual€notice€of€the€dangerousÐ ¨ø Ðcondition,€thereby€imposing€a€duty€on€Food€Lion€to€act€with€reasonable€care.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àNext,€Food€Lion€contends€that€it€could€not€have€foreseen€the€probability€of€harm€given€theÐ l¼ Ðopen€and€obvious€nature€of€the€display€base.€€The€defendant€emphasizes€the€considerable€size€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðbase,€as€well€as€the€ð ðstark€contrastðð€between€the€base€„„€being€black€in€color€„„€and€the€white€floor.€Ð D!” ÐIt€is€also€Food€Lionððs€contention€that€Fox€negligently€failed€to€observe€the€ð ðopen€and€obviousððÐ 0"€  Ðdanger€posed€by€the€empty€display€base€because€she€was€reading€a€box€of€crackers€while€walkingÐ #l! Ðdown€the€aisle.€€Moreover,€Food€Lion€argues€that€Foxððs€injuries€were€not€foreseeable€because€sheÐ $X" Ðwas€a€frequent€shopper€at€the€store€and€thus€was€familiar€with€the€storeððs€layout,€including€theÐ ô$D # Ðâ âlocation€of€the€display€base.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€so„called€ð ðopen€and€obviousðð€doctrine€was€addressed€and€changed€by€the€Supreme€CourtÐ ° Ðin€ò òòòColn€v.€City€of€Savannah,ó óóó€966€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1998).€€Inò ò€òòColnó óóó,€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€theÐ œì Ðapproach€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€343A׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€held€as€follows:Ð ŒÜ Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThat€a€danger€to€the€plaintiff€was€ð ðopen€or€obviousðð€does€not,€òòipsoÐ d´ Ðfacto,óó€relieve€a€defendant€of€a€duty€of€care.€€Instead,€the€duty€issueÐ P   Ðmust€be€analyzed€with€regard€to€foreseeability€and€gravity€of€harm,Ð < Œ Ðand€the€feasibility€and€availability€of€alternative€conduct€that€wouldÐ ( x Ðhave€prevented€the€harm.€€€The€factors€provided€in€the€RestatementÐ  d Ð(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€343A€relate€directly€to€the€foreseeabilityÐ  P  Ðquestion;€in€short,€if€the€foreseeability€and€gravity€of€harm€posedÐ ì <  Ðfrom€a€defendantððs€conduct,€even€if€ð ðopen€and€obvious,ðð€outweighedÐ Ø(  Ðthe€burden€on€the€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€to€avoidÐ Ä  Ðthe€harm,€there€is€a€duty€to€act€with€reasonable€care.€€TheÐ °  Ðcircumstances€of€the€case€are€then€analyzed€under€comparative€fault.€Ð œì  ЀÐ ` x` x Ðà  àÌò òòòColn,€óóó ó966€S.W.2d€at€43.Ð `° ÐÌà  àUpon€reviewing€the€record,€we€cannot€agree€with€Food€Lion€that€it€had€no€duty€under€theÐ 8ˆ Ðduty„of„care€analysis€of€ò òòòColnó óóó.€€The€base€was€only€six€inches€tall€and€was€placed€between€two€tallerÐ $t Ðcenter„of„the„aisle€displays€stocked€with€merchandise.€€Even€if€the€subject€display€base€was€ð ðopenÐ ` Ðand€obvious,ðð€however,€such€a€condition€would€not€necessarily€relieve€Food€Lion€of€a€duty€of€careÐ üL Ðto€its€customers.€€òòSee€ò òid.ó óóó€€A€premises€ownerððs€duty€may€arise,€despite€the€obviousness€of€theÐ è8 Ðdangerous€condition,€if€the€owner€ð ðhas€reason€to€expect€that€the€inviteeððs€attention€may€be€distracted,Ð Ô$ Ðso€that€he€will€not€discover€what€is€obvious,€or€will€forget€what€he€has€discovered,€or€fail€to€protectÐ À Ðhimself€against€it.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€41€(quoting€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€343A€(comment€f)).€€WeÐ ¬ü Ðfind€that€Food€Lion€had€reason€to€expect€that€the€attention€of€a€customer€such€as€Fox€would€beÐ ˜è Ðdistracted;€Linda€Ellison,€the€defendantððs€customer€service€manager,€acknowledged€as€much€whenÐ „Ô Ðshe€testified€that€merchandise€is€placed€on€shelves€and€on€displays€for€the€purpose€of€attracting€theÐ pÀ Ðattention€of€customers.€€Furthermore,€a€grocery€store€should€reasonably€expect€customers€to€inspectÐ \ ¬ Ðand€read€items€while€they€are€shopping.€€Thus,€even€if€Fox€had€been€reading€a€box€of€crackers€whenÐ H!˜ Ðshe€fell€„„€a€theory€unsupported€by€the€evidence€in€this€case€„„€her€injuries€were€not€unforeseeable.€Ð 4"„  ÐOn€the€contrary,€we€find€that€the€plaintiffððs€fall€and€resulting€injuries€were€entirely€foreseeable.€€InÐ  #p! Ðfact,€Food€Lion€acknowledged€in€its€own€safety€policies€and€procedures€the€potential€hazard€ofÐ  $\" Ðleaving€a€display€base€empty.€€Both€the€defendantððs€customer€service€manager€and€its€produceÐ ø$H # Ðmanager€admitted€that€such€a€condition€is€a€violation€of€those€policies€and€procedures.Ð ä%4!$ Ðâ âÐ Ð& "% Ðà  àFinally,€the€fact€that€Fox€had€regularly€shopped€in€the€store€does€not€relieve€Food€Lion€of€itsÐ ° Ðâ âduty€of€care€with€regard€to€this€dangerous€condition.€€There€was€no€evidence€to€suggest€that€theÐ œì Ðdisplay€base€had€been€empty€on€any€of€Foxððs€prior€visits.€€Furthermore,€the€fact€that€Fox€may€haveÐ ˆØ Ðbeen€familiar€with€the€general€layout€of€the€store€does€not€change€the€fact€that€this€display€base,€leftÐ tÄ Ðempty,€was€a€dangerous€condition€that€imposed€on€Food€Lion€a€duty€to€act€with€reasonable€care.€Ð `° ÐThere€is€material€evidence€from€which€a€jury€could€reasonably€conclude€that€Food€Lion€breachedÐ L œ Ðits€duty€in€this€case.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓC.Ð  ` ÐÓ:PÓÌà  àFinally,€Food€Lion€contends€that€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€allocationÐ è 8  Ðof€80%€of€the€fault€to€Food€Lion€and€20%€to€Fox.€€It€argues€that€Fox€was€responsible€for€more€thanÐ Ô$  Ð50%€of€her€injuries.€€A€juryððs€allocation€of€fault€will€be€set€aside€only€if€there€is€no€material€evidenceÐ À  Ðto€support€the€verdict.€€òòSee€ò òTurner€v.€Jordanóó,ó ó€957€S.W.2d€815,€824€(Tenn.€1997).€€Upon€reviewingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€evidence,€we€find€that€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€allocation€of€fault€in€thisÐ œì  Ðcase.€€This€issue€is€also€found€adverse€to€the€defendant.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð `° ÐÓ9SÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant.€€ThisÐ 8ˆ Ðcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€enforcement€of€the€judgment€and€collection€of€costs€assessedÐ $t Ðbelow,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.Ð ` ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE