ÿWPC$ ÿ¦ŒõpôÿŒ²‡ËŒù‡ïhVv£Z¬nÉ(¹m¥îÙ^ÖÂ5FJÊËŽ4g—ÔiPKÑ-Rˆâ¨|¶»|VE¨º¯ŸPà>/8ÇÏ€Ëë»Ô’¹ýnƒýþêÓíñ›WM  ð•þ}; (®q\&*eq!(kgI!’÷igÛù[¸„¼!kæêÄ¡¡$5ç^I$¶·0¥ÓBÔÿÌ )ýú8ƒûÇÒúè¹6$j” 90Õ…0®9m°IAΈËÁG @PÔŽ>d)ØC³ÈÅcy5yíó¨Èù»U¢<Œ/aèZ‰R|S+4*¯¢ GÐ\£É\‘ö»2'àx3çÐP›ìŠ Ð­±«h#'G2ºg÷1ø§²Ê+‹Ü”În l &¤fAÚFÎQ=)ïö6ŠSÚÏ(Š¡é°ìèEœº(f¸”æ5;õp?¹¦Qü5­çÜí÷š…ý=­;¸Î{°ƒÔ¡­9ËÖÛ9s\š‚à Ú™&ì]r ¯³z2p˜FÅS|ç¡–ßÀ+2ÆlõB®l"yVy ×òßÏ*ªNO]‘ò|ø^¿Ç6aÉÝ‚gØfUao¶WƒºDÍ1¦ýïñ^‡n ¯2sé«„óµQb %\UNb 0ˆ°N8U!N:`ˆ è zˆ Ò zÔ SNÛ¡ 0 D|ÆÀƆÆLÆ/ØNo vxEî^ ðwü4# m%#É<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<b 0 ë     Bøø 0¤ D3¹ D-ì 0K!! ASd!Æ·! 0¤}" 0D!# A«e#»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular VÝ ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Mr.€Teaford€indicates€that€no€inspection€of€the€grate€was€done€because,€prior€to€Mr.€Hambyððs€accident,€UTÐ ° Ðhad€had€no€other€reports€of€incidents€or€injuries€associates€with€any€grate€coverings. –Ý ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Mr.€Hugh€Teaford,€the€safety€officer€for€UT,€testified€that€the€new€grates€were€still€ð ðspringyðð€when€steppedÐ ° Ðon€and€should€not€be€used€as€a€walkway.€€According€to€Mr.€Teaford,€steel€replacement€grates€were€not€used€because€theÐ qÁ Ðarea€was€not€meant€as€a€walkway€but€only€to€keep€someone€who€might€trip€from€falling€into€the€pit.€€Additional€workÐ 2‚ Ðwas€needed€in€form€of€heavier€and€more€secure€grates€in€order€to€make€the€area€Ô_ÔtransversableÔ_Ô. ˜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 pÝ ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Mr.€Tiebout€also€testified€that€there€were€no€TOSHA€warnings€or€citations€relating€to€UTððs€inspection€of€theÐ ° Ðgrating.€€Mr.€Teaford€testified€that€UT€is€ð ðself„inspectingðð€and€presents€reports€to€TOSHA€every€year. IÝ ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Mr.€Hurda€was€accompanying€Mr.€Hamby€for€the€purpose€of€providing€pricing€for€whatever€equipment€Mr.Ð ° ÐHamby€recommended€so€that€the€Pickering€Firm€could€give€an€accurate€quote€to€UT.€ ÑÝ ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€University€of€Tennessee€at€Memphis€is€a€subdivision€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 %Ý ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Mr.€Justis€did€not€accompany€Messrs.€Hamby€and€Hurda€to€the€site€where€the€accident€occurred.€€The€UTÐ ° ÐPolicies€on€Safety€and€Health€include€a€provision€wherein€ð ðthe€campus€police€shall€restrict€areas€of€risk.€€Visitors€shallÐ qÁ Ðbe€required€to€be€accompanied€by€or€under€the€direct€responsibility€of€an€authorized€UT€Memphis€student,€faculty€or€staffÐ 2‚ Ðmember.ðð eÝ ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€To€clarify,€the€10€inches€above€ground€level€is€the€result€of€a€concrete€ð ðcurbðð€around€the€perimeter€of€theÐ ° Ðopening.€€In€order€to€step€onto€the€grating€from€the€ground,€one€must€step€up€and€over€the€curb. lÝ ƒRrH$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Take€the€following€analogous€situation€by€way€of€clarification:€A€homeowner€contracts€with€a€plumber€toÐ ° Ðrepair€a€hot€water€heater€located€in€the€homeownerððs€basement.€€In€order€to€enter€the€basement,€the€plumber€must€openÐ qÁ Ða€door€and€go€down€a€stairway.€€If€the€plumber€is€injured€by€the€door€or€on€the€stairway€because€of€some€defect€that€theÐ 2‚ Ðhomeowner€could€have€discovered€with€reasonable€care,€the€homeowner€has€breached€a€duty€to€the€plumber.€€If,€on€theÐ óC Ðother€hand,€the€plumber€makes€it€safely€to€the€water€heater€and€is€subsequently€injured€because€of€a€loose€valve€or€someÐ ´ Ðother€defect€in€the€appliance,€the€homeowner€has€breached€no€duty.M„\-Ï `[P-A+Y±€9 Êª3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0- ù-(|G2rH$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ÿ‰»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Äò»»Ô d(|3ÿ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ÿ‰»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ÿ‰»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ÿ‰»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ÿ‰»»»ÔÑ8€À¯XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡î~Žî»¼Ÿ‰ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»îî~Ž #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€19,€2002€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÀ¯X»¼Ÿ‰ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»XXÀ¯õ#ÔNORMAN€Ô_ÔHAMBYÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÀ¯X»¼Ÿ‰Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€20100628€€€€€€The€Honorable€Randy€C.€Camp,€CommissionerÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„00928„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X`XXXÀ¯Ôà  àThis€is€a€premises€liability€case€arising€from€Plaintiffððs€fall€into€a€ventilation€pit€on€theÐ V¦  ÐUniversity€of€Tennessee€at€Memphis€(referred€to€herein€as€UT)€campus€when€an€aluminum€grateÐ ? Ðcovering€the€opening€collapsed€while€Plaintiff€was€standing€on€it.€The€Commissioner€of€Claims€ofÐ (x Ðthe€Western€Division€held€that€the€accident€was€not€foreseeable€and€that€UT€did€not€have€actual€orÐ a Ðconstructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€grating€over€the€pit.€Plaintiff€appeals.€WeÐ úJ Ðreverse€and€remand.à ¸ àÔ#†XÀ¯XXX`³#ÔÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»XXÀ¯‰#ÔÔ‡XÀ¯X»¼Ÿ‰ÔÐ ã3 ÐÓ§ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Claims€Commission€Reversed€andÐ µ ÐRemandedó óÐ Ÿï ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»àXÀ¯Š#ÔÔ‡XÀ¯X.¼Ÿ‰ÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Ô_ÔFArmerÔ_Ô,Ð r ÐJ.óó€and€òòHolly€Kirby€Ô_ÔLillardÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð [« ÐÌStephen€R.€Ô_ÔLefflerÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€For€Appellant,€Norman€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_ÔÐ -} ÐÌÔ_ÔTandaÔ_Ô€R.€Ô_ÔGrishamÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€For€Appellee,€State€of€TennesseeÐ ÿO ÐÓaÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»XXÀ¯#ÔÔ‡XÀ¯X»¼Ÿ‰ÔÐ Ñ!!! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»XXÀ¯K #ÔÔ‡XÀ¯X»¼Ÿ‰ÔÓ  ÓÑ8€`XXdéXXdé8Ñà  àThis€is€a€premises€liability€case€arising€from€Plaintiffððs€fall€into€a€ventilation€pit€on€theÐ ¤#ô# ÐUniversity€of€Tennessee€at€Memphis€(referred€to€herein€as€UT)€campus€when€an€aluminum€grateÐ $Ý$ Ðcovering€the€opening€collapsed€while€Plaintiff€was€standing€on€it.€€UT€retained€the€Pickering€FirmÐ v%Æ % Ðto€perform€an€investigation€regarding€underground€fuel€storage€tanks€and€boiler€fueling€problems.€Ð _&¯!& ÐNorman€R.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€(ð ðAppellant,ðð€ð ðPlaintiff,ðð€or€ð ðMr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôðð)€is€senior€design€engineer€€with€theÐ H'˜"' ÐPickering€Firm.€On€March€17,€2000,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô,€accompanied€by€Mr.€Peter€Ô_ÔHurdaÔ_Ô€of€CumminsÐ 1(#( ÐMid„South,€arrived€at€the€UT€Center€for€Health€Sciences€in€Memphis.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Upon€arrival,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_ÔÐ )j$) Ðchecked€in€with€UT€employee€Ed€Ô_ÔJustisÔ_Ô€at€the€physical€plant€then€proceeded€to€the€Dunn€DentalÐ *S%*ý ÐBuilding€on€the€UT€campus.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Outside€the€Dunn€Dental€Building,€facing€Union€Avenue,€€is€aÐ ° Ðventilation€system.€€This€ground„level€opening€is€approximately€thirty€(30)€feet€long€andÐ ™é Ðapproximately€five€(5)€to€seven€(7)€feet€deep.€€The€surface€of€the€opening€is€approximately€ten€(10)Ð ‚Ò Ðinches€above€ground€and€the€entire€surface€of€the€opening€is€covered€with€a€series€of€aluminumÐ k» Ðgrates.׃”×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€each€grate€rested€on€a€1€to€1€ðð€inch€concrete€ledge.€€TheÐ T¤ Ðequipment€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€was€on€site€to€inspect€was€located€at€the€bottom€of€the€ventilation€systemÐ =  Ðin€the€basement€of€the€Dunn€Dental€Building.€€In€order€to€get€a€better€look€at€the€equipment,€Mr.Ð & v ÐÔ_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€stepped€onto€one€of€the€grates.€€The€grate€slipped€off€the€ledge€and€both€the€grate€and€Mr.Ð  _ ÐÔ_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€fell€into€the€pit.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€suffered€injury€to€his€right€shoulder€and€left€knee.€Ð ø H ÐÌà  à€Richard€Ô_ÔTieboutÔ_Ô,€the€manager€of€maintenance€and€construction€for€UT,€testified€that€he€hadÐ Ê   Ðnot€inspected€the€ventilation€system€prior€to€the€accident€but€had€subsequently€modified€the€gratesÐ ³  Ðso€that€they€sat€on€a€three€(3)€inch€shelf€instead€of€the€1€ðð€inch€ledge.׃Þ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€same€type€and€grade€ofÐ œì  Ðaluminum€grates€was€used€in€the€modification.Ô_Ô׃( ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Mr.€Ô_ÔTieboutÔ_Ô€also€indicated€that€the€grates€were€onlyÐ …Õ  Ðmeant€as€a€covering€for€the€ventilation€system€and€not€as€a€walkway€over€the€area;€however,€he€doesÐ n¾  Ðtestify€that€there€were€no€signs€or€warnings€posted€to€indicate€that€the€grates€were€not€to€be€walkedÐ W§  Ðon€or€were€otherwise€unsafe.€€The€ventilation€system€is€not€accessible€by€walkway€nor€is€it€near€anÐ @ Ðentrance€to€the€Dunn€Dental€Building.€€There€is€no€requirement€or€policy€by€UT€that€such€gratedÐ )y Ðopenings€must€be€surrounded€by€guardrails€or€that€signs€must€be€posted.׃ ô ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Prior€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_ÔððsÐ b Ðaccident,€the€grating€had€been€in€place€for€twenty€(20)€to€twenty„five€(25)€years€without€incident.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àOn€October€19,€2000,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€filed€a€claim€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€personalÐ Í Ðinjuries€under€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„8„301(a)(1)(C).׃ >×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€On€January€24,€2001,€the€Division€of€ClaimsÐ ¶ ÐAdministration€notified€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€that€it€was€unable€to€act€on€his€claim€within€the€ninety€(90)€dayÐ Ÿï Ðtime€limit,€and€the€claim€was€transferred€to€the€Claims€Commission€pursuant€to€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„8„402(c).€Ð ˆØ ÐOn€January€16,€2002,€the€case€was€heard€before€the€Honorable€Randy€Camp,€Commissioner€ofÐ qÁ ÐClaims,€Western€Division.€€At€the€close€of€all€proof,€the€Commissioner€ruled€from€the€bench€for€theÐ ° ÐState€of€Tennessee.€€A€Final€Order€was€entered€on€January€23,€2002.€€The€Order€stated€that€ð ðthe€riskÐ ™é Ðwas€unforeseeable€and€the€University€had€no€notice€of€the€danger€until€after€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€fell.ðð€€TheÐ ‚Ò ÐCommissioner€did€not€address€the€issue€of€comparative€fault.€€€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€appeals€and€presents€one€issue€for€review:€Whether€the€University€of€TennesseeÐ =  Ðat€Memphis€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€defective€gratingÐ & v Ðwhich€collapsed€causing€injury€to€Norman€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô.Ð  _ ÐÌà  àThis€is€a€direct€appeal€from€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€and€is€governed€by€theÐ á 1  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€ò òòòSee€óóó óÔ_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9-8-403(a)(1).€€Since€this€is€a€non„jury€case,Ð Ê   Ðwe€review€the€caseòòò ò€de€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€factÐ ´  Ðby€the€commission.€€Unless€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€we€must€affirm,€absent€errorÐ žî  Ðof€law.€€òòò òSanders€v.€Stateó óóó,€783€S.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1989);ò òòòó óóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d).Ð ‡×  ÐÌà  àThe€jurisdiction€of€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€was€invoked€pursuant€to€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„8„Ð Zª  Ð307(a)(1)(C)€(2001€Supp.),€which€states:Ð C“ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òJurisdictionð!ðClaimsð!ðWaiver€of€actionsð!ðStandard€for€tortÐ e Ðliabilityð!ðDamagesð!ðImmunitiesð!ðDefinitionsð!ðTransfer€ofÐ ÿO Ðclaimsð!ðó ó(a)(1)€The€commission€or€each€commissioner€sittingÐ é9 Ðindividually€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€determine€all€monetaryÐ Õ% Ðclaims€against€the€state€based€on€the€acts€or€omissions€of€ð ðstateÐ ¾ Ðemployees,ðð€as€defined€in€ðð€8„42„101(3),€falling€within€one€(1)€orÐ §÷ Ðmore€of€the€following€categories:Ðà` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*Ðb²` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(C)€Negligently€created€or€maintained€dangerous€conditions€on€stateÐ 4„ Ðcontrolled€real€property.€€The€claimant€under€this€subsection€mustÐ m Ðestablish€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€of€the€risks€and€notice€given€to€the€properÐ  V Ðstate€officials€at€a€time€sufficiently€prior€to€the€injury€for€the€state€toÐ ï ? Ðhave€taken€appropriate€measures;ÐØ!( ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.Ð ª#ú" ÐÌà  àó óóóA€negligence€claim€requires€a€plaintiff€to€prove€the€following€elements:€(1)€a€duty€of€careÐ z%Ê $ Ðowed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€by€the€defendant€falling€below€the€standard€ofÐ c&³!% Ðcare€amounting€to€breach€of€the€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€in€fact;€and€(5)€proximateÐ L'œ"& Ðcausation.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Bradshaw€v.€Danieló óóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€duty€elementÐ 5(…#' Ðis€a€question€of€law€requiring€the€court€to€determine€ð ðwhether€the€interest€of€the€plaintiff€which€hasÐ )o$( Ðsuffered€invasion€was€entitled€to€legal€protection€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€870€(quotingÐ *X%) ÐW.€Page€Ô_ÔKeetonÔ_Ô,€òòÔ_ÔProsserÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔKeetonÔ_Ô€on€Tortsóó,€ðð€37€at€236€(5òòthóó€ed.€1984)).€€In€order€to€answer€thisÐ ò*B&* Ðquestion€in€the€context€of€€a€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(C)€claim,€we€must€first€decide€what€duty€theÐ Û++'+ Ðstate€owes€to€Ô_ÔinviteesÔ_Ô€on€state€property.€€€€€To€that€end,€tòòò òó óóóhe€following€provisions€of€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„8„307Ð ° Ðare€also€applicable€to€this€case:Ð ™é ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€The€determination€of€the€stateððs€liability€in€tort€shall€be€based€onÐ k» Ðthe€traditional€tort€concepts€of€duty€and€the€reasonably€prudentÐ T¤ Ðpersonððs€standard€of€care.Ð= ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(d)€The€state€will€be€liable€for€actual€damages€only.€€No€award€shallÐ  _ Ðbe€made€unless€the€facts€found€by€the€commission€would€entitle€theÐ ø H Ðclaimant€to€a€judgment€in€an€action€at€law€if€the€state€had€been€aÐ á 1  Ðprivate€individual...ÐÊ  ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.Ð œì  ÐÌà  àó óóóThis€Court€has€previously€addressed€the€issue€of€what,€if€any,€duty€the€state€owes€to€visitorsÐ l¼  Ðwho€come€onto€property€owned€by€the€state€and€has€reached€the€following€conclusion:Ð U¥  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFrom€the€usual€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€words€of€this€statute,€weÐ 'w Ðbelieve€that€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(C)€removes€the€stateððs€immunityÐ ` Ðto€the€same€extent€as€the€obligation€of€a€private€owner€or€occupier€ofÐ ùI Ðland.€€In€other€words,€for€the€purposes€of€determining€the€stateððsÐ â2 Ðliability€after€removal€of€immunity,€the€statute€merely€codifies€theÐ Ë Ðcommon€law€obligation€of€the€owner€or€occupier€of€land.€€OwnersÐ ´ Ðand€occupiers€of€land€have€an€obligation€to€exercise€ordinary€careÐ í Ðand€diligence€in€maintaining€their€premises€in€a€safe€condition€forÐ †Ö Ðvisitors€upon€the€premises,€and€are€under€an€affirmative€duty€toÐ o¿ Ðprotect€these€persons€against€dangers€of€which€they€know€or€which,Ð X¨ Ðwith€reasonable€care,€they€might€discover.ÐA‘` x` x ÐÌò òòòSanders€v.€Stateó óóó,€783€S.W.2d€948,€951€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(citing€ò òòòMcCormick€v.€Watersó óóó,€594Ð c ÐS.W.2d€385€(Tenn.€1980)).€€òòò òÐ ýM Ðà  àÌà  àó óóóAppellee€argues€that€its€duty€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€falls€within€an€exception€to€the€general€rule€asÐ Î!  Ðoutlined€above.€€Relying€in€part€upon€ò òòòBlair€v.€Campbelló óóó,€924€S.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€1996),€the€State€ofÐ ·"! ÐTennessee€takes€the€position€that,€although€a€premises€owner€generally€owes€a€contractor€the€dutyÐ ¡#ñ" Ðto€provide€a€reasonably€safe€workplace,€that€duty€does€not€apply€when€the€contractor€is€injured€whileÐ Š$Ú# Ðmaking€the€specific€repairs€called€for€in€the€contract.€€The€gravamen€of€the€Stateððs€theory€is€that€theÐ s%à $ Ðgrates€that€covered€the€ventilation€area€were€part€of€the€equipment€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€€was€on€site€toÐ \&¬!% Ðinspect.€€From€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€reach€this€conclusion.€€The€Pickering€Firm€wasÐ E'•"& Ðretained€by€UT€to€do€a€study€of€the€underground€equipment€housed€in€the€basement€and€extendingÐ .(~#' Ðinto€the€ventilation€area€of€the€Dunn€Dental€Building.€€Contrary€to€the€Stateððs€argument,€the€gratesÐ )g$( Ðâ âcovering€the€opening€to€the€ventilation€pit€were€not€intimately€associated€with€the€equipment€Mr.Ð *P%) ÐÔ_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€was€there€to€inspect.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Consequently,€the€State€owed€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô,€its€business€invitee,€a€dutyÐ ° Ðâ âto€remove€or€warn€against€latent€or€hidden€dangerous€conditions€on€the€premises€of€which€the€StateÐ ™é Ðwas€or€should€have€been€aware€through€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence.€€ò òòòSee€Blair€v.€Campbelló óóó,Ð ‚Ò Ð924€S.W.2d€75€at€76.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€State€also€argues€that,€at€the€time€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€accident,€the€grates€were€being€usedÐ > Ž Ðin€a€manner€not€intended.€€In€short,€the€grates€were€not€meant€as€a€walkway€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô,€becauseÐ ' w Ðof€his€engineering€expertise€and€experience,€should€have€found€that€fact€open€and€obvious.€€It€is€trueÐ  ` Ðthat€the€traditional€rationale€for€imposing€a€duty€on€an€owner/occupier€of€land€to€a€visitor€or€inviteeÐ ù I Ðwas€the€ownerððs€superior€knowledge€of€conditions€on€the€premisesò òòòóóó ó.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,ò òòò€Kendall€Oil€Co.€v.Ð â 2  ÐPayneó óóó,€293€S.W.2d€40,€42€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1955).€€However,€our€Supreme€Court€has€recently€heldÐ Ì   Ðthat€a€duty€may€exist€even€where€the€injury„causing€condition€is€alleged€to€be€open€and€obvious€toÐ ¶  Ðthe€plaintiff:Ð Ÿï  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThat€a€danger€to€the€plaintiff€was€open€and€obvious€does€not,€ipsoÐ qÁ  Ðfacto,€relieve€a€defendant€of€a€duty€of€care.€€Instead,€the€duty€issueÐ Zª  Ðmust€be€analyzedòòò òòòóó€ó óóówith€regard€to€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€and€gravity€of€harm,Ð C“ Ðand€the€feasibility€and€availability€of€alternative€conduct€that€wouldÐ -} Ðhave€prevented€the€harm.€€The€factors€provided€in€the€RestatementÐ f Ð(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€343(A)€relate€directly€to€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_ÔÐ ÿO Ðquestion;€in€short,€if€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€and€gravity€of€harm€posedÐ è8 Ðfrom€a€defendantððs€conductòòò ò,€ó óóóeven€if€open€and€obvious,€outweighedÐ Ñ! Ðthe€burden€on€the€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€to€avoidÐ »  Ðthe€harm,€there€is€a€duty€to€act€with€reasonable€care.Фô` x` x ÐÌò òòòÔ_ÔColnÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Savannahóóó ó,€966€S.W.2d€34,€43€(Tenn.€1998).Ð vÆ ÐÌà  àOf€course,€the€duty€due€an€invitee€exists€only€while€the€visitor€is€on€the€part€of€the€premisesÐ I™ Ðwhich€the€occupier€has€opened€to€the€visitor€for€the€purpose€that€makes€the€visitor€an€invitee.€€TheÐ 2‚ ÐRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€332€refers€to€this€as€the€ð ðarea€of€invitation.ðð€€The€area€of€invitationÐ k Ðwill€vary€according€to€the€facts€of€each€case€but€in€all€cases€the€area€will€extend€to€all€parts€of€theÐ  T Ðpremises€to€which€the€purpose€may€reasonably€be€expected€to€take€the€invitee,€and€to€those€areasÐ í = Ðwhich€are€located€so€as€to€lead€the€invitee€to€reasonably€think€they€are€open€to€his€or€her€purpose.€Ð Ö!&  Ðò òòòSeeó óóó€òòÔ_ÔProsserÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔKeetonÔ_Ô€on€Tortsóó€ðð€61€at€424€(5òòthóó€ed.€1984).€€On€the€other€hand,€there€is€no€liabilityÐ ¿"! Ðfor€harm€resulting€from€ð ðconditions€from€which€no€unreasonable€risk€was€to€be€anticipated,€or€fromÐ ©#ù" Ðthose€which€the€occupier€neither€knew€about€nor€could€have€discovered€with€reasonable€care.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóÐ ’$â# Ðat€426.€€In€this€regard,€the€ð ðmere€existence€of€a€defect€or€danger€is€generally€insufficient€to€establishÐ |%Ì $ Ðliability,€unless€it€is€shown€to€be€of€such€a€character€or€of€such€duration€that€the€[fact€finder]€mayÐ ° Ðreasonably€conclude€that€due€care€would€have€discovered€it.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€426„27.€€In€short,€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_ÔÐ ™é Ðis€the€gravamen€of€negligence:Ð ƒÓ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_ÔForeseeabilityÔ_Ô€is€the€test€of€negligence.€€If€the€injury€which€occurredÐ U¥ Ðcould€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen,€the€duty€of€care€does€notÐ > Ž Ðarise,€and€even€though€the€act€of€the€defendant€in€fact€caused€theÐ ' w Ðinjury,€there€is€no€negligence€and€no€liability.€€The€plaintiff€mustÐ  ` Ðshow€that€the€injury€was€a€reasonably€foreseeable€probability,€not€justÐ ù I Ða€remote€possibility,€and€that€some€action€within€the€[defendantððs]Ð â 2  Ðpower€more€probably€than€not€would€have€prevented€the€injury.ÐË  ` x` x ÐÌò òòòDoe€v.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€Constr.€Co.ó óóó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted).Ð í  ÐÌà  à€Turning€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€find€that€UT€could€reasonably€have€expected,€andÐ pÀ  Ðindeed€should€have€expected,€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€inspection€would€take€him€to€the€ventilation€pit.€Ð Y©  ÐSince€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€purpose€for€being€on€UTððs€campus€was€to€observe€the€equipment€that€lay€at€theÐ B’ Ðbottom€of€that€pit,€he€was€well€within€reason€to€think€that€the€area€of€invitation€included€the€gratesÐ +{ Ðthat€covered€the€surface€of€that€pit.€Because€the€grates€were€within€the€area€of€invitation,€Mr.Ð d ÐÔ_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€accident€was€not€a€ð ðremote€possibilityðð€but€rather€a€ð ðforeseeable€probability.ðð€€EvenÐ ýM Ðindependent€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€accident,€the€record€indicates€that€a€similar€accident€was€foreseeable.€Ð æ6 ÐThe€Stateððs€witness,€Mr.€Richard€Ô_ÔTeafordÔ_Ô,€testified€that€ð ðthis€grating€was€just€to€prevent€people€fromÐ Ï Ðtripping€and€falling€into€the€pit....ðð€€If€one€of€the€purposes€of€the€grating€was€to€keep€a€person€whoÐ ¸ Ðtripped€from€accidentally€falling€into€the€pit,€UT€had€a€duty€to€inspect€the€grates€to€ensure€that€theyÐ ¡ñ Ðwould€support€the€weight€of€a€human€body.€€Whether€the€body€tripped€and€fell€upon€the€grating€orÐ ŠÚ Ðstepped€over€the€concrete€curb€onto€the€grating€is€not€paramount,€although€a€falling€body€wouldÐ sà Ðcertainly€exert€more€force€than€a€standing€body.€€What€is€important€is€UTððs€contemplation€that€aÐ \¬ Ðperson,€by€whatever€means,€could€Ô_ÔforeseeablyÔ_Ô€make€his€or€her€way€onto€the€grates.Ð E• ÐÌà  à€The€State€also€relies€in€part€upon€the€fact€that€the€grates€had€been€in€place€for€some€twentyÐ g Ð(20)€to€twenty„five€(25)€years€without€incident€to€prove€that€the€accident€at€issue€here€was€not€aÐ  P Ðforeseeable€probability.€€We€cannot€agree.€€In€light€of€the€duty€imposed€upon€UT€as€discussed€inÐ é 9 Ðdepth€above,€UT€should€have€inspected€this€area€long€before,€and€regardless€of,€€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_ÔððsÐ Ò!"  Ðbusiness€on€the€campus.€€Our€interpretation€is€that€UT€had€twenty€(20)€to€twenty„five€(25)€years€inÐ »" ! Ðwhich€to€conduct€what€should€have€been€a€routine€inspectionð!ðan€inspection€that€would€have€shownÐ ¤#ô" Ðthe€dangerous€condition€presented€by€an€easily€accessible€grating€system€supported€only€by€a€1€ððÐ $Ý# Ðinch€ledge.€€The€fact€that€no€one€was€injured€prior€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€falls€under€the€auspices€of€luck€andÐ v%Æ $ Ðcannot€be€the€basis€for€relieving€UT€of€a€clear€duty.€Ð _&¯!% ÐÌà  àIn€addressing€the€issue€before€us,€our€task€does€not€end€with€our€finding€that€the€PlaintiffÐ 1(#' Ðsatisfied€the€basic€elements€of€a€negligence€claim.€€In€ò òòòJones€v.€Ô_ÔZayreÔ_Ô,€Inc.ó óóó,€600€S.W.2d€730€(Tenn.Ð )j$( ÐCt.€App.€1980),€the€Eastern€Section€of€this€Court€said:Ð *T%) Ðâ âÐ í*=&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBefore€an€owner€or€operator€of€premises€can€be€held€liable€forÐ ° Ðâ ânegligence€in€allowing€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€to€exist€onÐ ™é Ðits€premise,€it€must€have€(1)€been€created€by€the€owner€or€operator€orÐ ‚Ò Ðhis€agent€or,€(2)€if€the€condition€was€created€by€someone€other€thanÐ k» Ðthe€owner€or€operator€or€his€agent,€there€must€be€actual€orÐ T¤ Ðconstructive€notice€on€the€part€of€the€owner€of€operator€that€theÐ =  Ðcondition€existed€prior€to€the€accident.€€òòÔ_ÔGargaroÔ_Ô€v.€Kroger€GroceryÐ & v Ð&€Baking€Co.óó,€22€Ô_ÔTenn.AppÔ_Ô.€70,€118€S.W.2d€561€(1938).Ð _` x` x ÐÌ600€S.W.2d€at€732.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àBefore€discussing€the€issue€of€notice€as€it€relates€to€this€case,€we€must€first€be€clear€that€theÐ ³  Ðissue€of€comparative€fault€is€not€before€this€Court.€€Furthermore,€the€issue€of€comparative€fault€isÐ œì  Ðnot€part€of€a€notice€analysis.€€From€our€reading€of€the€record,€it€appears€that€the€Commissioner,€inÐ …Õ  Ðhis€ruling€from€the€bench,€ties€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€alleged€fault€into€his€ruling€on€the€issue€of€notice€andÐ n¾  ÐÔ_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô.€€The€Appellant€relies,€in€part,€upon€this€Courtððs€decision€in€ò òòòSanders€v.€Stateó óóó,€783Ð W§  ÐS.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€In€ò òòòSandersó óóó€a€nine„year„old€boy€sustained€a€head€injury€whenÐ A‘ Ðhe€fell€from€playground€equipment€at€a€Tennessee€state€park.€€The€injury€resulted€from€an€exposedÐ +{ Ðconcrete€footing.€€In€his€ruling€from€the€bench,€the€Commissioner€distinguishes€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€claimÐ d Ðfrom€ò òòòSandersó óóó€as€follows:Ð ýM ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€[the€ò òòòSandersó óóó]€case€the€Claims€Commission€found€that€the€State€didÐ Ð  Ðhave€notice€of€a€dangerous€condition,€that€being€the€exposed€concreteÐ º  Ðfooting€in€either€one€of€two€ways:€Either€it€was€built€that€way€by€theÐ £ó ÐState€with€it€exposed€or€over€a€period€of€time,€the€footing€becameÐ ŒÜ Ðexposed€and€the€employee€who€had€corrected€any€erosion€that€mightÐ uÅ Ðhave€occurred€to€the€exposed€footing€would€have€had€actual€notice€ofÐ ^® Ðthe€dangerous€condition€by€not€filling€in€that€area€with€soil€and€woodÐ G— Ðchips€or€either€the€State€constructed€it€that€way€and€would€haveÐ 0€ Ðknown€by€the€construction€that€it€was€a€dangerous€condition€with€itÐ i Ðbeing€exposed€and€children€would€be€playing€there.Ð R` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€the€State€was€liable€in€that€caseÐ Ô!$  Ðbecause€of€the€knowledge€in€either€of€the€ways€that€the€State€wouldÐ ½" ! Ðhave€had€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€condition€was€dangerous.Ц#ö"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€have€to€distinguish€the€Sanders€case€from€the€claim€we€have€here.€Ð x%È $ ÐIn€the€Sanders€case,€we€have€a€9€year€old€child€playing€in€aÐ a&±!% Ðplayground€that€was€built€for€the€purpose€of€children€playing€there.ÐJ'š"&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€this€case,€we€have€a€situation€where€these€grates€were€covering€anÐ )l$( Ðarea€that€was€not€intended€for€walking€and€was€out€of€the€normalÐ *U%) Ðâ âtraffic€area.€€So,€I€have€to€distinguish€it€on€that€basis,€with€the€age€ofÐ î*>&* Ðthe€Claimant€and€the€fact€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€had€been€on€these€gratesÐ ° Ðbefore.à  àЙé` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHe€had€Ô_ÔhadÔ_Ô€training€and€experience€in€the€area€that€he€was€out€thereÐ k» Ðto€do€the€study€in,€and€he€was€familiar€with€the€grates€and€evenÐ T¤ Ðtestified€that€he€had€walked€on€them€in€the€past.€€The€problems€I€haveÐ =  Ðhere€with€this€claim€are€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€and€notice€issues.Ð& v` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*Ðø H` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ô€was€a€professional€person.€€He€was€there€for€a€particularÐ Ê   Ðpurpose.€€He€was€familiar€with€that€area€and€had€been€on€those€gratesÐ ³  Ðbefore.€€There€is€no€testimony€that€any€action€of€any€kind€everÐ œì  Ðoccurred€on€these€grates.€€There€is€no€testimony€that€these€gratesÐ …Õ  Ðwere€in€a€particular€area€where€it€would€even€be€foreseeable€thatÐ n¾  Ðsomeone€would€walk€on€them€unless€they€desired€to€do€so,€that€it€wasÐ W§  Ðtheir€intent€to€do€so.Ð@` x` x ÐÌÌà  àÔ_ÔForeseeabilityÔ_Ô€is€the€test€under€negligence€as€discussed€above€and€comparative€fault€is€aÐ ûK Ðseparate€inquiry€altogether.€€The€issue€of€notice€should€be€decided€under€the€€two„pronged€testÐ ä4 Ðoutlined€in€òòò òJones€v.€Ô_ÔZayreÔ_Ô,€Incóóó ó..€€€The€first€question€is€whether€the€state€or€its€agent(s)€created€orÐ Í Ðconstructed€the€offending€instrumentality.€€If€that€answer€is€yes,€the€inquiry€stops€and€the€state€isÐ · Ðcharged€with€actual€notice.€€If€the€answer€is€no,€then€there€must€be€actual€or€constructive€notice€onÐ  ð Ðthe€part€of€the€owner€of€operator€that€the€condition€existed€prior€to€the€accident€€€The€age,Ð ‰Ù Ðexperience,€profession,€or€other€attributes€of€the€injured€person€are€not€part€of€the€notice€inquiry.€Ð r ÐLikewise,€neither€the€placement€of€the€instrumentality,€nor€€its€intended€purpose€is€relevant€to€theÐ [« Ðissue€of€notice.€€Having€already€addressed€the€gratingððs€purpose€and€placement€under€the€dutyÐ D” Ðanalysis€above,€we€leave€Mr.€Ô_ÔHambyÔ_Ôððs€experience€and€actions€to€the€arena€of€comparative€fault.Ð -} ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€this€case€is€not€distinguishable€from€ò òòòSandersó óóó€on€the€issue€of€notice.€€€€InÐ ÿO Ðòòò òSanders€ó óóó,€we€said€that,€ð ðIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€state€constructed€the€offending€instrumentality€andÐ é 9 Ðobviously€must€be€charged€with€notice€of€its€condition€as€constructed.ðð€€783€S.W.2d€948,€952€(Tenn.Ð Ó!#  ÐCt.€App.1989).€€òòò òSee€also€Ô_ÔMcGaughyÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Memphisó óóó,€823€S.W.2d€209,€214-15€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¼" ! ÐApp.1991).€€€According€to€the€testimony€in€this€case,€the€grating€was€part€of€the€original€constructionÐ ¦#ö" Ðof€the€Dunn€Dental€Building.€€Before€this€accident,€the€grating€had€remained€unchanged€in€theÐ $ß# Ðtwenty€(20)€to€twenty„five€(25)€years€since€the€building€was€completed.€€Testimony€indicated€thatÐ x%È $ Ðthe€grating€was€there€to€keep€debris€out€of€the€pit€and€to€protect€anyone€from€falling€into€it.€Ð a&±!% ÐAlthough€the€grating€succeeded€in€keeping€debris€from€the€machinery€below,€it€was€woefullyÐ J'š"& Ðinadequate€for€its€other€function€of€keeping€people€from€falling€into€the€pit.€Because€we€find€that€Ð 3(ƒ#' Ðthe€state€or€its€agent(s)€created€the€offending€instrumentality€when€it€constructed€the€Dunn€DentalÐ )l$( ÐBuilding,€we€must€charge€them€with€notice€under€the€first€prong€of€òòò òJones€v.€Ô_ÔZayreÔ_Ô,€Incóóó ó.€Ð *U%) Ðâ âÐ ï*?&* Ðà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ ° Ðâ âCommissionerððs€ruling.€€We,€therefore,€€reverse€the€order€of€the€Commissioner€and€remand€the€caseÐ ™é Ðfor€further€proceedings€which€may€include€the€issue€of€comparative€fault.€€Costs€of€appeal€areÐ ‚Ò Ðassessed€against€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð k» Ðà  àòòòòóóò òÌó óóóà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àÔ#†¼Ÿ‰»XXÀ¯© #ÔÔ€XÀ¯X»¼Ÿ‰ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð É   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô