WPCV! ӈ<$X< I=ߍlҡsPNsY˼wt(Geʐ]v:]JpAX 7=Rh D64C|J_W,^kjFRJ h)Ys%[-O^Yxc J_Gz]7Z(0'ԠyXK-Ń?'Om( s69q5EΝ>2]J:]qetgXF>SoLcX:{XV oi5Q'~ّuԡlb#\ % UN# 0q U%N VG  ziG;W 0DoP5Nt^ Ew 4 !0 m2222222222222222222bIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0QQQQ B<< 0Y D5 D-2 0K__ AS 0 0Dg A HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular L R7*$      2  e  _ԀJeffreyRoarke,alsoanInterMediaemployee,testifiedthathewascontactedbyasupervisorandtoldtoput  saltonthestepsattheMt.Julietoffice.__  R7*$      4  e  _ԀInterMediaalsoclaimstobaseitsobjectiontothisevidenceonrule406,whichdealswithhabitsorroutine  practices.However,Rule406onlyoperatesasanavenuefortheadmissionofevidence.Itdoesnotprovideabasisfor t excludingevidence.TheonlyreasontoconsiderRule406inthiscasewouldbeifthatruleservedasthebasisforthe 8 trialcourtsdecisiontoadmitevidenceofInterMediasinternalpoliciesandprocedures.Thisdoesnotappeartobethe L case.ThereforeweshallnotconsiderRule406. 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 _ R7*$      6  e  _ԀJeffreyRoarke,theInterMediaemployeewhosaltedthestepsaftertheaccident,testifiedthattherewasno  reasonablewaytoenterthebuildingwithoutencounteringice.__ = R7*$      1  e  _ԀThedefendantRobinMediaGroupoperatedunderthename InterMediaor TennesseeValley  CableVision.Weshallrefertotheentityas InterMedia. M R7*$      7  e  _ԀWerecognizethatthiscasewasdecidedbeforetheadoptionof_comparativefault_ԀinTennessee.Thatfactdoes  not,however,makethequotedpassageanylessapplicable.Fault,orlackthereof,isgenerallytobedecidedbythetrier t offact.Thedifferencesbetweencontributorynegligenceandcomparativefaultareofnoconsequencetotheoutcome 8 inthiscase.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 F R7*$      5  e  _ԀInthissection,weshallonlydealwiththeverdictasitrelatestoMrs.Gibbs.Wewillconsiderthisissueas  itrelatestoLineberryinthesubsequentsectionsoftheopinion. j R7*$      3  e  _ԀTotheextentInterMediaclaimserrorinthetrialcourtadmittingTaylorsstatementthat, Nowthattheyve  fallen,theyredoingsomethingaboutit,webelievethedecisionwasharmlesserror.InterMediadoesnotdisputethe t subsequentremedialmeasureswhichwereundertaken.Taylorsstatementisonlyfurtherevidenceofthosemeasures, 8 anditsexclusionwouldhavehadlittle,ifany,practicaleffect.\)L ~(:i+003|xU- -(|G27*$ !.8@dd8         0  e d(|3ǀ$ !.8@dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǀ$ !.8@dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8@dd8     _  @8XXdd8  @ W@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#@W#Ԉ L   MARCH2000Session H  XX@ #@XX#_SHELIA_ԀRAEGIBBS,etal.v.ROBINMEDIAGROUP,etal.v. D  _LINEBERRY_ԀPROPERTIES,INC.XX@  l  @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWilsonCounty l @@No.9215;TheHonorableClaraByrd,Judge X @@*AV) ` dE<` A l @@TTNo.M199900820_COA_ԄR3CVFiled_August_Ԁ25,2000 g AV) ` dE<` A ?    XXXX  Thisappealarisesfromaslipandfallaccidentwhichoccurredonpropertyownedbythe : Defendant_Lineberry_ԀPropertiesandleasedbytheDefendantRobinMediaGroup.Thelatterappeals & fromthejuryverdictenteredintheWilsonCountyCircuitCourt.Thejuryassignedonehundred  percentofthefaultforthePlaintiffsinjuriestoRobinMedia.Afterthecourtdenieditsmotionsfor  _remittitur_Ԁoranewtrial,thepresentappealarose.#XXXX`##@XX#XX@  #@XX#XX@T Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  ^!   #@Xu#XX.@AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFarmer,J.andLillard,J., 6#! joined. "$r" JulieKarel_Elkin_,Nashville,forAppellant %J!$ HughGreen,Lebanon,forAppellees,_Shelia_ԀRaeGibbs&CharlesDavidGibbs '"#& KeeneW.Bartley,Nashville,forAppellee,_Lineberry_ԀProperties,Inc. ($'   OPINION #@XXB #XX@ Z-(, Ї#@XX #XX@  XXXXRobinMediaGroupappealsfromajuryverdictenteredintheWilsonCountyCircuitCourt.Forthe  reasonsstatedherein,weaffirmthetrialcourtdecision.    FactsandProceduralHistory  t     OnJanuary21,1994,SheilaGibbs( Plaintiff)traveledtotheMt.Juliet,Tennesseeoffice L  ofRobinMediaGroup( _InterMedia_or Appellant)forthepurposeofexchangingadefective 8  cablebox.   #  1      ׀PriortoJanuary21,theWilsonCountyareahadexperiencedsleetandsnow,andicehad $ t accumulatedonthesidewalkandstepsleadingtotheAppellantsoffice.Mrs.Gibbsenteredthe  ` buildingviastepswhichshenoticedtobeicy.Shewentintothebuildingandtransactedher  L  business.Uponexitingtheoffice,Mrs.Gibbsproceededdownthestepswheresheslippedandfell.  8  Asaresultofthefall,Mrs.Gibbssufferedseveralseriousinjuries. $    ThePlaintiffsfiledsuitagainstRobinMediaGroup,Inc.,d/b/a_InterMedia_._InterMedia_   answeredthecomplaintanddeniedthatithadpossessionorcontroloftheportionofthepremises   whereMrs.Gibbsfell.ThePlaintiffsfiledanamendedcomplaintonDecember10,1996,inwhich   theyadded_Lineberry_ԀProperties,Inc.( _Lineberry_)asadefendant._Lineberry_Ԁwastheownerofthe p property,andthe_InterMedia_Ԁofficewasoperatedunderaleaseagreementwith_Lineberry_.After \ _Lineberry_Ԁbecameapartytothelawsuit,_Lineberry_Ԁand_InterMedia_Ԁfiledcrossclaimsagainsteach H otherseekingindemnificationintheeventajudgmentwasrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffs.Both 4 defendantsalsofiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment,arguingthatneitherhadadutytoremovethe  p iceandsnowfromthepremises.Bothpartiesmotionsweredenied.  \   TheleaseagreementbetweenthepartieshadbeenpreparedbyWilliamFarmer,acorporate 4 officerof_InterMedia_.TheleaseprovidedthattheAppellantwasresponsiblefor maintenance   insidethebuilding,while_Lineberry_Ԁwasresponsiblefor maintenanceoutsidethebuilding.The   agreementdidnotspecificallyincludeorexcludethestepsandsidewalkasbeingwithinthearea  termed outside.Additionally,snowandiceremovalwasnotenumeratedasbeingincludedwithin  theterm maintenance.    AfterMrs.Gibbsfell,RaeTaylor,an_InterMedia_Ԁemployee,calledanambulanceand X  someonecontactedMrs.Gibbshusband,Charles.Uponarrivingatthe_InterMedia_Ԁoffice,Mr. D! Gibbslearnedthathiswifehadalreadybeentakenawaybytheambulance.Mr.Gibbshada 0"  conversationwithRaeTaylorinwhichthelatterstated, Ihadtoldthemthatsomeonewasgoingto #l! fallandtheyneedtogetthisiceup.Tayloralsostated, Nowthattheyvefallen,theyredoing $X" somethingaboutit.Atthattime,Mr.Gibbssawsomeoneplacingsaltonthestepsandsidewalk.  #  2      ׀ $D #     `  %0!$   Attrial,thecourtadmitted,over_InterMedia_sobjection,thedepositiontestimonyofBrenda   Scott,_InterMedia_srepresentative.Thattestimonydealtwiththeinternalpoliciesof_InterMedia_  regardingthesafetyofcustomersonitspremises.Thecourtalsoadmitted,onceagainover  _InterMedia_sobjection,thestatementsofRaeTaylormadetoMr.Gibbsaftertheaccident.Finally, t thecourtdenied_InterMedia_smotionin_limine_toexcludeevidenceshowingthat_InterMedia_ ` employeestookmeasurestoremovetheicefromthestepsafterMr.Gibbsaccident.Thejury L  renderedaverdictinfavoroftheplaintiffinthetotalamountof$115,000.Thejuryassigned100% 8  ofthefaultto_InterMedia_.Finally,thejurydeterminedthatneitherdefendanthadbreachedtheterms $ t oftheleaseagreement.Thisappealfollowed.  `   LawandAnalysis  $      _InterMedia_Ԁhaspresentedthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:1)whetherthecourt   erredinadmittingthestatementsofRaeTaylor,2)whetherthecourterredinadmittingevidence   of_InterMedia_ssubsequentremedialmeasures,3)whetherthecourterredinadmittingevidence   regarding_InterMedia_sinternalpoliciesandprocedures,4)whetherthereismaterialevidenceto p supportthejurysverdict,5)whetherspecifictermsintheleaseagreementbetween_Lineberry_ \ and_InterMedia_Ԁwereambiguous,and6)whetherthecourterredinitsinstructionsregardingthe H interpretationoftheleaseagreement.Weshallconsidereachoftheseissuesinturn. 4   I.StatementsofRaeTaylor  \     _InterMedia_ԀclaimsthatthestatementsofRaeTaylor,introducedthroughthetestimonyof 4 CharlesGibbs,wereinadmissiblehearsay.Anevidentiaryrulingbythetrialcourtisaquestionof   law,andourstandardofreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Cityof_Tullahoma_   v.BedfordCounty,938S.W.2d408(Tenn.1997).    Muchofthedebatebetweenthepartiesregardingthisissuecentersonthequestionof  whetherthestatementsqualifyasanexceptionunderRule803(1.2)(D)oftheTennesseeRulesof l Evidence.Wedonot,however,believethattheanalysisevergetstothatpointbecausethestatement X  isnothearsay. D!   Hearsayisdefinedasastatement,otherthanonemadebythe_declarant_Ԁwhiletestifyingat #l! thetrialorhearing,offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthematterasserted._T.R.E._Ԁ801(c).The $X" statementatissueisRaeTaylorsstatement, Ihadtoldthemthatsomeonewasgoingtofalland $D # theyneedtogetthisiceup.  #  3      ׀Thisstatementisclearlyanoutofcourtstatement,and,inthatregard, %0!$ itsatisfiesthehearsaydefinition.However,wemustalsoconsiderwhetherthestatementwas &"% offeredintoevidencetoprove thetruthofthematterasserted.ThematterassertedisthatRae  Taylortold themthatsomeonewasgoingtofallandtheiceneededtoberemoved.Thestatement  isremovedfromtherealmofhearsaybecausetheactualtruthofthatassertionisirrelevant.The  statementwasnotpresentedasproofthatRaeTaylortoldanyoneabouttheice.Thestatementwas t presentedtoshowthatsomeonewith_InterMedia_,namelyRaeTaylor,hadknowledgethaticehad ` builtuponthestepsand/orsidewalk. L    Webelieveittobeclearthatthestatementpresentedisnothearsay.Theveryactofmaking $ t thestatementisevidencethatRaeTaylorhadknowledgeofthedangerouscondition.Her  ` knowledge,regardlessofwhetherthatknowledgewasconveyedtoanyoneelseat_InterMedia_,was  L  sufficienttoput_InterMedia_Ԁonnoticeofthedangerouscondition,therebyinvokingadutyofcare.  8  SeeTheVogue,Inc.v.Cox,190S.W.2d307(Tenn.Ct.App.1945). $    II.Subsequentremedialmeasures       _InterMedia_Ԁalsoclaimserrorinthetrialcourtsadmissionofevidenceshowingthat   _InterMedia_Ԁemployeestookmeasurestoridthestepsoficeimmediatelyfollowingtheaccident. p _InterMedia_Ԁclaimsthattheactofsaltingthestepsandsidewalkswasanonadmissible,subsequent \ remedialmeasureunderRule407oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.Rule407provides: H 8  When,afteranevent,measuresaretakenwhich,iftakenpreviously,wouldhave  p madetheeventlesslikelytooccur,evidenceofthesubsequentremedialmeasures  \ isnotadmissibletoprovestrictliability,negligence,orculpableconductin H connectionwiththeevent. Thisruledoesnotrequiretheexclusionofevidence 4 ofsubsequentmeasureswhenofferedforanotherpurpose,suchasproving $ controvertedownership,control,orfeasibilityofprecautionarymeasures,or  impeachment .   (Emphasisadded)._InterMedia_Ԁapparentlyrecognizesthatthisevidencealsogoestotheissueof  control,whichwouldclearlyremoveitfromthepurviewofRule407.However,_InterMedia_Ԁargues t thatthis oneinstanceshouldnotconstituteevidenceofcontrol.Unfortunately,_InterMedia_s `  positionisclearlycontrarytotheabovequotedrule.Controlofthestepsandsidewalkwasanissue L! ofparamountimportanceinthiscase,andRule407plainlyprovidesthatitdoesnotpreclude 8"  evidencetenderedforthepurposeofprovingcontrol._InterMedia_sactofperformingtheseremedial $#t! measureswasclearlyadmissibleunderRule407,andwefindnobasisforconcludingthatthetrial $`" courterredinthisregard. $L #   III._InterMedia_sinternalpolicies &$"%     BrendaScottservedasthepersonalrepresentativeof_InterMedia_Ԁforthepurposesofthiscase, (#' andtheplaintiffsintroducedportionsofherdepositiontestimonyattrial._InterMedia_Ԁobjectedtothe )$( introductionoftestimonyrelatingtoitsinternalpoliciesandproceduresregardingthesafetyof *%) customers.Inessence,Ms.Scotttestifiedthatitwas_InterMedia_spolicytomaintainasafepremises p+&* forcustomersregardlessofissuessuchasownershiporcontrol.Shefurthertestifiedthatthispolicy  wouldencompasstheremovalofsnowandicefromthestepsandsidewalk._InterMedia_Ԁobjected  tothistestimonybasedonrule403oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.  #  4         x       `   Rule403oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidenceprecludestheadmissionofevidencewhen `  itsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionofthe L  issues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedless 8  presentationofcumulativeevidence._InterMedia_Ԁclaimsthattheadmissionofitsinternalpolicies $ t prejudiceditscaseinsofarasthejurymighthaveequatedabreachofthoseprocedureswithabreach  ` oflegalduty.Evenifweweretoagreethatthepossibilityofconfusionexisted,thatmerepossibility  L  isnotenough,under403,toexcludetheevidence.Theverylanguageoftheruleplacestheburden  8  uponthepartyseekingtoexcludetheevidencebyrequiringthattheprobativevaluebe substantially $  outweighed bythedangers.Therelevanceandprobativevalueofthisevidenceisclear.Aswe   statedpreviously,issuesofcontrolandresponsibilityareofextremeimportanceastheyrelatetothe   stepsandsidewalkoutsidethe_InterMedia_Ԁoffice.Weareunabletosaythatthisevidencewas   unfairlyprejudicialatall,muchlesssubstantiallyso.Accordingly,wefindnoerrorinthetrial   courtsadmissionofthisevidence. x   IV.Materialevidencetosupportthejuryverdict P     _InterMedia_Ԁclaimsthereisnomaterialevidencetosupportthefindingthattheyare100%at (x faultforMrs.Gibbsinjuries.Specifically,_InterMedia_Ԁclaimsthat_Lineberry_ԀorMrs.Gibbsherself d shouldhavebeenapportionedsomeofthefault.d  #  5       P   Thiscourtsroleinregardstothepresentissuedoesnotallowusto_reweigh_Ԁtheevidenceor ( considerwherethepreponderancelies.Instead,wemustdeterminewhetherthereisanymaterial  evidencetosupporttheverdict,and,ifthereis,wemustaffirmthejudgment.SeeReynoldsv.  OzarkMotorLines,Inc.,887S.W.2d822,823(Tenn.1994);_Pullen_Ԁv.Textron,Inc.,845S.W.2d  777,780(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Wearerequiredtotakethestrongestlegitimateviewofthe  evidenceinfavoroftheverdict,assumethetruthoftheevidenceinsupportthereof,allowall t reasonableinferencestosustaintheverdictanddisregardalltothecontrary.Hobsonv.FirstState `  Bank,777S.W.2d24(Tenn.Ct.App.1989). L!   InregardstoMrs.Gibbs,_InterMedia_Ԁarguesthatapercentageoffaultshouldhavebeen $#t! attributedtoherbecauseshevoluntarilyattemptedtotraversetheicysteps.Essentially,_InterMedia_ $`" claimsthatMrs.Gibbsactionswereunreasonableunderthecircumstances.However,thereisno  indicationthatMrs.Gibbswascarelessorfailedtoexercisereasonablecare.Mrs.Gibbswas  confrontedwiththedecisionofwhethertomaneuvertheiceinordertoenterthebuilding.Itdoes  notappearthatshewouldhavebeenabletoenterthebuildingwithoutencounteringice.   #  6      ׀Her t voluntarydecisiontomaneuvertheicedoesnotnecessarilymakehercareless.In_Hellon_Ԁv. ` _Trotwood_ԀApartments,Inc.,460S.W.2d372(Tenn.Ct.App.1970),thecourtstated: L  8  Where,however,theknowndangerisnotreadilyavoidableandissuchasto $ t effectivelyobstructthepathofplaintiff,plaintiffisputtothedecisionofwhetherhe  ` willtaketheinevitableriskofproceedingthroughthedangerorwillabandonhis  L  intendedcourseand  destinationaltogether.Whensuchasituationpresentsitself,  8  thequestionofwhethertheplaintiffundertookagreaterriskthananordinarily $  prudentpersonwouldtakeunderthecircumstancesisusuallyforthejury.   #  7       @P     Facedwiththefacts,thejuryreturnedaverdictfindingnofaultlaywithMrs.Gibbs.Asstated   previously,itisnotthiscourtsplacetousurpthejudgmentofthejuryunlessnomaterialevidence   supportsthejurysdecision.Inthepresentcase,therewasampleevidenceuponwhich_InterMedia_s p liabilitycouldbepredicated.Thequestionofwhethersomepercentageofthefaultshouldhavebeen \ attributedtoMrs.Gibbswasproperlylefttothejury,andwehaveneithertheauthoritynorthe H inclinationtodisturbtheverdict. 4   V.Ambiguityintheleaseagreement  \     Inthisissue,_InterMedia_Ԁclaimserrorinthetrialcourtsrulingtheterm maintenancetobe 4 ambiguous.Theleaseagreementprovidedthat_Lineberry_Ԁwasresponsibleformaintenanceoutside   thebuildingwhile_InterMedia_Ԁassumedthesameresponsibilityfortheinsideofthebuilding.The   specificquestioninthisregardiswhethertheterm maintenanceincludedsnowandiceremoval.  Pursuanttothetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthetermwasambiguous,thejurywasallowedto  determinewhether maintenanceencompassedsnowandiceremoval.    Asaninitialmatter,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsfindingthattheterm maintenance X  wasambiguous.Wearenomoresurewhatthetermmeanswithinthiscontextthanwasthetrial D! court.Moreover,havingmadesuchadetermination,theissuewascorrectlysubmittedtothejury. 0"  SeeHendrixv.Cityof_Maryville_,431S.W.2d292(Tenn.Ct.App.1968)( Whenthecontractisin #l! writinganditstermsareindefiniteandambiguous,oriftheevidenceshowsthatmorethanone $X" inferencecanbedrawnfromtherelationship,orifthereisevidenceofcircumstancesandrelations $D # outsideofthewrittenagreement,thewrittencontractalonecannotbedeterminativebutaquestion  offactariseswhichmustbedeterminedbythejury).    Theleaseclearlydidnotspeaktosnowandiceremoval.Inthelongrelationshipbetween t theparties,_InterMedia_Ԁhadneverrequestedthat_Lineberry_Ԁperformthisfunction.Theevidence ` showedthat_InterMedia_Ԁhadnoticeoftheicyconditionswhilethereisnoevidenceshowingthat L  _Lineberry_Ԁhadsuchnotice.Thejurysdeterminationthat_Lineberry_Ԁwasnotresponsibleforremoving 8  theicewhichledtoMrs.Gibbsaccidentisclearlysupportedbymaterialevidenceandwewillnot $ t disturbthatfinding.See_T.R.A.P_Ԁ13(d).  `   VI.JuryInstructions $      Initsfinalissue,_InterMedia_Ԁclaimsthatthetrialcourterredininstructingthejurythat   ambiguitiesinacontractweretobeconstruedagainstthedrafter.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   Havingfoundthelanguageintheleasetobeambiguous,thetrialcourtcompliedwithapplicablelaw   ingivingtheinstructionsatissue.SeeSpiegelv.Thomas,Mann&Smith,811S.W.2d528(Tenn. p 1991)(notingthegeneralrulethatambiguitiesincontractsareconstruedagainstthedrafter)(citing \ HanoverIns.Co.v._Haney_,425S.W.2d590(1968)). H   Conclusion  p     Forthereasonsstatedherein,weaffirmthetrialcourtdecision.Costsofthisappealare H taxedtotheAppellant,RobinMediaGroup,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXXX* ##@XX #XX@ 4 #@XX f#XX@   `     h     ___________________________________ l    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE