ÿWPC  €H4Hã=?®¢©SâbÑ8Á{mÚ;³§êÓ;XÄ «HKHó)¬­ý§T‚Ekx®‡ÍÇI#,°šÿ=ù¶Ý“â5Y—\âða´o©[èê™Ê9 †A.Í•6ü”6 ¢9r`ŽéwL;©Ügþö­Çðz75õds†`ƒ£êµÎš'kEº·¸’·2³”äõüµãó_Úšó—ñÝÓ@,ã[éœàc 8ü ÄGŒªõ3æ%g]aÂú»©8ô@ÖbÀ kÁ†Â½l…„ê|±ÓJþ6r‡Ÿ²×IƳ>›8Ž7Àvju990³þ¼Äf’å9F½Ìfãý§‹×üÍDºÐ…ž…JáG©ssÉ<#rù>T|}Vð m§¦ ª¯,Ѓ֠"_ºg\#_öNÑK‰; Ø%ÛúàwK›G¤˒ ïy« ãFºœÈòÚÈÀDÁYô -kÁ_8å …I ºˆ}áUFiC‚•`=.’}0øÁ/І« àÅu/«dí²5¸e£Âô!¡¡<óÛgÏUo½™ò£ úŠàúÍ¥0Ÿ»[”L5•¼ª¦õ4×?Tw(•c°~¯A² RäM"¯ƒ«Z»´4Éø|ô–~lh¡d*# LUNW %¥ 0(«bÓw@Û4/>FU:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AQƒÆÔ 0Dš 0DÞ 0D" " D/f B• B² D3Ï ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- w:Ex:Ey:z:D{:|:U}:U~::Ó€‰:Ö…#%3|x‰: ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XÜ3XXXÔÔ€ CX XÜ3ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XÜ3X CÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€14,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ:ñ›ñ:ñѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¶XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òñ‰:ññ:ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñ:ññ‰:ññ‰:ññ‰:ññ:ñ›ñ:ñLINDA€CHIP€RIGBY€GARRARD,à  à)à p àDavidson€CircuitÐ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€€96C„2597Ð ôì Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellant,à h àà À àà  à)Ð àØ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìñ‰:ñœßt€ )>.*jxkA` `€€@E_ù ` 8ttxP—¸ ð A tß›ñ‰:ñVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ¸ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¤ œ ÐMETROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENTà  à)à p àAppeal€No.Ð  ˆ ÐOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSONà  à)à p à01A01„9803„CV„00117Ð | t ÐCOUNTY,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð h` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellee.à h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ @8  ÐÌÌà@C C ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@¼¼(®àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@  ®àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@;;#®àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌÓ  ÓHONORABLE€WALTER€C.€KURTZ,€JUDGEó óÐ Œ„ ÐÓÚÓÌÌÌÌKenneth€M.€Switzer,€#5785ÌJohn€B.€Carlson,€#4754ÌWILLIAMS€&€ASSOCIATES,€P.C.ÌSuite€1425,€First€American€CenterÌ315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37238„1425ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌThomas€G.€Cross,€#14810Ì204€Metropolitan€CourthouseÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED.ó óÐ *#& ÐÓk ÓÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHENRY€F.€œTODD,€JUDGE›Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ ”;Œ499 Їò òLINDA€CHIP€RIGBY€GARRARD,à  à)à p àDavidson€CircuitÐ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€€96C„2597Ð ôì Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellant,à h àà À àà  à)Ð àØ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ¸ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¤ œ ÐMETROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENTà  à)à p àAppeal€No.Ð  ˆ ÐOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSONà  à)à p à01A01„9803„CV„00117Ð | t ÐCOUNTY,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð h` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellee.à h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ @8  Ðó óÌÌÓÓÓÓà@88(®àòòò òÔ‡„ûÝ„XXÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†X¶X„„ûÝq#Ôó óóóˆÐ ü  ÐÓGÓÌÓ  ÓÒ°jE„Òà ` àThe€plaintiff€Linda€Chip€Rigby€Garrard,€has€appealed€from€a€non€jury€judgmentÏfinding€damages€of€$40,000€for€personal€injury€from€a€defective€sidewalk€maintained€byÏMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville,€and€Davidson€County€(Metro),€but€reducing€saidÏdamages€to€$22,000€because€of€45%€contributory€fault€of€the€plaintiff.ÌÌà ` àThe€memorandum€and€order€of€the€Trial€Court€states:ÌÌÒ„°ÿÒÒ` „ÒÒ¸ ÒÓÓà  àOn€August€16,€1995€between€the€hours€of€9:30€p.m.Ïand€10:00€p.m.€the€plaintiff€was€walking€on€a€cementÏsidewalk€in€a€residential€neighborhood€on€Kendell€Drive€inÏNashville€€when€she€stumbled€over€the€edge€of€a€concreteÏsidewalk€segment€that€protruded€unevenly€two€to€three€inchesÏabove€the€adjacent€segment.€€The€plaintiff€fell,€suffered€aÏbroken€wrist€and€various€other€injuries.ÌÓóÓÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓyÓÓÓà  àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€the€portion€of€the€sidewalkÏwas€pretty€much€dark€and€that€she€simply€could€not€see€theÏuneven€portion€of€the€sidewalk.€€The€Court€finds€that€thereÏwas€a€street€light€almost€directly€behind€the€plaintiff€as€sheÏproceeded€down€the€street.€€There€was€also€a€street€lightÏdirectly€in€front€of€the€plaintiff.€€Both€these€street€lightsÏbracketed€the€area€in€which€she€fell€and€both€wereÏapproximately€100€feet€in€front€of€and€behind€the€area€of€theÏfall.€€(See€Exhibits€5,€photoððs€1€and€2).€€While€the€CourtÏcredits€to€some€degree€the€testimony€that€there€were€shadowsÏon€the€sidewalk,€the€Court€finds€that€the€positioning€of€theÏstreet€lights€impeaches€the€plaintiffððs€description€of€theÏlighting€and€convinces€the€Court€that€plaintiff€has€exaggeratedÏthe€lack€of€lighting€available.ÌÌà  àThe€plaintiff€does€rely€further€on€the€testimony€of€aÏsafety€engineer,€Charles€Turnbow.€€His€testimony€can€beÏsimply€summarized.€€Mr.€Turnbow€says€that€the€raise€in€theÐ 0:(37 Ðsidewalk€found€in€this€case€presents€a€hazard€to€a€pedestrianÏand€that€it€was€probable€that€a€€person€would€fall€under€theseÏcircumstances.€€It€is€doubtful€if€the€testimony€of€an€expert€isÏneeded€to€tell€the€Court€about€the€common€experiences€ofÏwalking€and€tripping.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.E.€702.€€It€seems€that€commonÐ ¸ ° Ðexperience€has€taught€all€of€us€about€walking€and€tripping€onÏsidewalks.€€The€Court,€however,€has€considered€the€testimonyÏof€Mr.€Turnbow.ÌÓÓÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓÓÓÓà  àIf€the€fall€of€the€plaintiff€had€taken€place€duringÏdaylight€hours€the€results€of€this€case€would€have€beenÏdifferent.ÌÌà  àThe€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€sidewalk€inÏquestion€during€night€time€hours€was€dangerous.€€While€theÏplaintiff€has€exaggerated€the€inadequacy€of€the€lighting,€theÏCourt€finds€that€there€was€some€impairment€of€the€ability€toÏsee€the€defect€in€the€sidewalk€and€that€the€MetropolitanÏGovernment€was€negligent.€€The€Court€further€finds,Ïhowever,€that€the€plaintiff€was€also€negligent€in€her€failure€toÏkeep€a€proper€lookout€and€that€while€the€lighting€in€the€areaÏwas€diminished,€the€lack€of€lighting€and€the€presence€ofÏshadows€is€not€the€sole€cause€of€this€accident.€€The€plaintiffÏwas€also€at€fault€for€failure€to€keep€a€proper€lookout€underÏthese€conditions.ÌÒ¸ 9ÒÒ„` +ÒÓGÓÒ°ã„ÒÌAppellant€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓÌÒ„°©ÒÒ` „ÒÒ¸ Òà  à1.à h àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ °"¨ Ðadmitting€Exhibit€10,€an€unauthenticated€photograph,€intoÏevidence.ÌÌà  à2.à h àWhether€the€evidence€preponderated€againstÐ `&X" Ðthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Chip€Garrard€was€forty„fiveÏpercent€at€fault€in€the€August€16,€1995€accident.ÌœÓåỚҸ ÒÒ„` ÒÒ°„ÒMetro€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÓ–ÓÌÒ„°ÐÒÒ` „ÒÒ¸ Òà  à1.à h àShould€the€trial€court€have€dismissed€GarrardððsÐ À-¸&* Ðclaims€at€the€close€of€her€proof€under€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act?ÌÌà  à2.à h àIf€Garrardððs€claims€were€not€subject€toÐ p1h*. Ðdismissal,€did€the€trial€court€€properly€allocate€fault€among€theÏparties€based€on€the€proof€at€trial?ÌÒ¸ >ÒÒ„` 0ÒÓÓœÌÌÌÐ ¼9´27 Ðò òAppellantððs›€First€Issue:€Exhibit€10.ó óÐ  М̛à ` àUnless€an€exhibit€is€self„authenticating€(and€a€picture€is€not),€it€must€be€identified€byÏcompetent€testimony€as€illustrating€a€fact€relevant€to€the€controversy.€€The€record€contains€noÏsuch€testimony€as€to€Exhibit€10.€€The€plaintiff€expressly€testified,€without€contradiction,€thatÏExhibit€10€did€not€accurately€portray€what€could€and€could€not€be€seen€on€the€occasion€of€herÏinjury.ÌÌà ` àThe€brief€of€Metro€does€not€discuss€this€issue.ÌÌà ` àBy€comparison€with€other€pictures€in€the€record,€it€may€be€reasonably€inferred€that€itÏrepresents€the€same€scene€as€the€other€pictures,€but€it€should€not€be€considered€for€the€purposeÏfor€which€it€was€offered,€i.e.€to€show€what€was€and€was€not€visible€on€the€night€of€plaintiffððsÏinjury.€€The€foregoing€governs€the€consideration€of€said€exhibit€by€this€Court€in€reviewing€theÏevidence€de€novo€as€provided€by€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).ÌÌò òAppellantððs€Second€Issue:€Percentage€of€Faultó ó.Ð ˆ$€  ÐÌà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€the€location€of€plaintiffððs€fall€was€lighted€by€two€street€lights.€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€as€to€their€exact€location€or€distance€from€the€site€of€injury€except€theÏtestimony€of€plaintiff€that€both€were€on€the€opposite€side€of€the€street€and€one€was€behind€herÏand€one€was€in€front€of€her.€€She€testified€without€contradiction€that€the€area€was€not€pitch€dark,Ïbut€that€there€were€ð ðstrange€shadowsðð€in€the€area.€€This€Court€interprets€this€testimony€to€meanÏthat€some€obstruction€such€as€trees€prevented€the€street€lights€from€illuminating€the€sidewalkÏuniformly€so€that€some€œspots›€were€lighted€and€some€were€not.ÌÌà ` àThe€Trial€Court€determined€that€plaintiff€was€at€fault€in€failing€to€keep€a€proper€lookout.€ÏIf€her€undisputed€testimony€is€to€believed,€it€was€impossible€to€keep€a€proper€lookout€as€to€thatÐ Ø8Ð16 Ðpart€of€the€sidewalk€where€the€shadows€were.€€This€would€raise€the€question€of€the€duty€of€theÏplaintiff€to€wander€about€looking€for€a€safe,€well€lighted€path€for€her€passage,€leaving€theÏsidewalk€when€necessary€to€walk€in€the€light.ÌÌà ` àThe€general€rule€is€that€a€citizen€walking€along€a€street€does€not€have€to€look€at€theÏpavement€constantly€„€he€may€presume€that€the€city€has€performed€its€duty.òò€€Buford€v.€City€ofÐ @8  ÐClarksvilleóó,€Tenn.€App.€1994,€885€S.W.2d€78.€€Ð   ÐÌà ` àThe€allocation€of€fault€involves€the€reasonableness€of€the€conduct€of€the€injured€party€andÏthat€of€the€defendant.€€òòEaton€v.€McClainóó,€Tenn.€1994,€891€S.W.2d€587.Ð  ˜ ÐÌà ` àOn€April€27,€1995,€111€days€before€plaintiffððs€injury,€Metro€was€notified€of€the€defectÏin€the€sidewalk€which€had€not€been€corrected€when€plaintiff€was€injured.€€ÌÌà ` àœThe€allocation€of€percentage€of€fault€requires›€consideration€œofñ~:ñ€the€revision€œofñ~:ñ›€€òòColn€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,Ð Ø Ð ÐTenn.€1998,€966€S.W.2d€34€wherein€the€Supreme€Court€revised€the€open€and€obvious€rule€toÏplace€an€additional€burden€upon€the€controller€of€the€injury€scene€to€avoid€œinjury€of€a›€personÏexercising€ordinary€prudence.ÌÌà ` àThe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€that€plaintiff€was€45%€at€fault€in€theÏproduction€of€her€injury.ÌÌà ` àThe€grievous€fault€of€Metro€in€delaying€111€days€in€repairing€œa›€dangerous€defect€in€itsÏsidewalk€constituted€œ75%›€of€the€fault€producing€plaintiffððs€injury€and€plaintiffððs€oversight€wasÏœ25%€of€the€fault€producing€her€injury.›€€The€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€modified€accordingly.ÌœÌ̛РÐ8È16 Ðò òDefendantððs€First€Issue:€Failure€to€Dismissó ó.Ð  Ðñ~:ñœñ~:ñœÌ›à ` àMetro€cites€a€portion€of€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203€reading€as€follows:ÌÓÓÒ` „ÒÒ¸ ÒImmunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entity€is€removed€forÏany€injury€caused€by€a€defective,€unsafe€or€dangerousÏcondition€of€any€street,€alley,€sidewalk€or€highway€owned€andÏcontrolled€by€such€governmental€entity.ÌÒ¸ 6/ÒÒ„` (/ÒÓ/ÓÌà ` àMetro€argues€that€the€foregoing€is€in€derogation€of€common€law€and€must€be€strictlyÏconstrued,€citing€òòHelton€v.€Knox€Countyóó,€Tenn.€1996,€922€S.W.2d€877,€which€involved€anÐ øð  Ðallegedly€dangerous€bridge.€€That€authority€stated€that€the€standard€of€care€is€one€ofÏreasonableness,€citing€òòSwain€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€170€Tenn.€99,€92€S.W.2d€405€(1936),€whichÐ ¨  Ðstated€that€the€duty€of€ordinary€care€to€maintain€a€reasonable€safe€condition€for€users€exercisingÏreasonable€care.€€ÌÌà ` àA€municipality€is€liable€when€the€obstruction€is€a€danger€from€which€injury€might€beÏreasonably€anticipated.€€òòCity€of€Memphis€v.€McGradyóó,€174€Tenn.€162,€124€S.W.2d€248€(1938).€Ð à Ø ÐIn€the€cited€case,€the€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€a€suit€based€upon€a€2€ðð€inchÏdifference€in€level€of€adjoining€sections€of€a€sidewalk€where€the€injured€party€struck€her€heelÏupon€the€projection€of€the€sidewalk€in€daylight.€€Also,€the€cited€authority€stated:ÌÒ` „ÒÒ¸ ÒÓÓà  àWe€have€no€statute€measuring€the€liability€ofÏmunicipalities€for€injury€resulting€from€defects€in€sidewalks.€ÏThis€case€is€to€be€determined€by€reference€to€the€commonÏlaw.ÌÒ¸ d4ÒÒ„` V4ÒÓr4ÓÌñ~:ñœñ~:ñà ` àœIn›€the€present€case€the€special€sircumstances€of€darkness€relieved€by€only€partialÏœillumñu:ñeñu:ññv:ñiñv:ñnation›€distinguish€the€authorities€based€upon€observation€in€daylight.€€A€2€ðð€inch€ð ðstep€upððÏwhich€would€be€readily€visible€to€an€ordinarially€prudent€pedestrian€in€daylight€might€not€beÏnoticed€by€the€same€pedestrian€when€obsured€by€shadows€at€night.€€ÌÌà ` àœIñw:ñn€›the€›present€›state€›of€›the€›law€›of€›Tennessee,€›iñw:ñf›€was€not€error€for€the€Trial€Judge€to€fail€to€dismiss€plaintiffððs€suit€for€contributoryÏnegligence€or€lack€of€evidence€of€negligence€of€the€city.Ð Ø8Ð16 Їò òDefendantððs€Second€Issue:€Percentage€of€Fault.ó óÐ  ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€has€already€been€determined€in€disposing€of€plaintiffððs€second€issue.ÌÌà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€modified€to€reduce€the€percentage€of€plaintiffððs€faultÏto€œñx:ñ10ñx:ññy:ñ25ñy:ñ%›€and€to€increase€the€amount€of€the€judgment€to€œ$3ñz:ñ6ñz:ññ{:ñ0ñ{:ñ,000.›€€As€modified,€the€judgment€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÏCourt€for€further€proceedings€in€conformity€with€this€opinion.à  àÐ ðè  ÐÌÓ ÓÓ KÓÒ°$™„Òò òÓ  ÓÔ‡¼L&¼XX&8ÔMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÔ#†X&8X¼¼L&;#Ôó ó.Ð  ˜ ÐÓ;ÓÓÓÌÌà « àà  àà [ àà ³ àà  àà c à___________________________Ìà « àà  àà [ àà ³ àà  àà c àHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌà « àà  àà [ àà ³ àà  àà c àÌÓ Kä:ÓÒ„°ò:ÒÒ` ÀX„Òœñ}:ñÌÌÌÌÌñ}:ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÒ„` ß<ÒÓ;Óœñ|:ñÌñ|:ññ}:ñ›ñ}:ññ|:ñÌñ|:ñ›