ÿWPCó /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w@14q…” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU>ÝB) AQD Æ• 0D[ 0@Ÿ 0Dß DC# D/f B• B² D3Ï AM U*O )y v~¢ vÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¬8­8D®8D¯8°8D±8U²8³8U´8Ó€¾8ê‚_#3|x¾82 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌAugust€19,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€æ XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌJEROME€R.€HERBISON€and€à àà à)ÌMARGARET€H.€HERBISON,à àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€€96C„2636Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌÙ€!ÙœßR€*,%A1-j|’` ç `€€@ÿRß›HANSEN€CHRYSLER„PLYMOUTH,à à)€ÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9710„CV„00594Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ  ÓHONORABLE€BARBARA€N.€HAYNES,€JUDGEÌÓ  Óó óÌÌÌÌRobert€L.€Whittaker,€#17209Ì1712€Parkway€TowersÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌÌJohn€E.€Herbison,€#12659Ì2016€Eighth€Avenue€SouthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37204ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSÌÌGareth€S.€Aden,€#2371ÌGULLETT,€SANFORD,€ROBINSON€&€MARTIN,€PLLCÌ230€Fourth€Avenue€North,€3rd€FloorÌP.O.€Box€198888ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„8888ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌœCONCURS:›ÌœWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌò òÌó óCONCURS€IN€RESULT:ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEò òÌJEROME€R.€HERBISON€and€à àà à)ÌMARGARET€H.€HERBISON,à àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€€96C„2636Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌHANSEN€CHRYSLER„PLYMOUTH,à à)€ÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9710„CV„00594Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)Ìó óÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€plaintiffs,€Jerome€R.€And€wife€Margaret€Herbison,€have€appealed€from€theÏsummary€dismissal€of€their€suit€against€the€defendant,€Hansen€Chrysler„Plymouth,€Inc.,€forÏinjuries€received€by€Mr.€Herbison€on€the€premises€of€the€defendant€when€he€tripped€on€a€metalÏstrip€imbedded€in€the€concrete€floor€on€the€premises€of€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€is€an€automobile€dealer€with€a€large€shop€for€servicing€and€repairingÏautomobiles.€€The€parts€department€is€located€in€the€shop.€€The€outside€entrance€to€the€shop€isÏequipped€with€doors€which€close›€against€a€metal€strip€which€protrudes€from€15/16€inch€to€1„1/8€inch€above€the€level€of€the€concrete€floor.ÌÌà àMr.€Herbison€operates€his€own€auto€repair€shop€and€occasionally€enters€defendantððsÏshop€through€the€described€door€way€in€order€to€procure€parts€from€the€parts€department.€€AsÍhe€entered€the€shop,€he€noticed€that€the€parts€department€had€been€moved€and€was€looking€forÏit€as€he€tripped€on€the€protruding€track.€€He€testified€that€the€track€could€have€been€made€safeÏfor€pedestrians€by€welding€additional€metal€on€each€side€of€the€track€to€create€a€beveled€slope,Ïrather€than€an€abrupt€change€of€elevation.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€moved€for€summary€judgment€upon€the€deposition€of€Mr.€HerbisonÏstating€the€above€facts.€€The€memo€supporting€the€motion€cited€òòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€Tenn.€1994,Ï891€S.W.2d€587,€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€the€ð ðopen€and€obviousðð€rule€inÏrespect€to€premises€liability€despite€the€adoption€of€ð ðcomparative€faultðð€in€òòMcIntyre€v.ÏBallentineóó,€Tenn.€1992,€833€S.W.2d€52.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€sustained€the€motion€and€dismissed€plaintiffsðð€suit€without€stating€aÏreason,€but€it€is€clear€that€the€open€and€obvious€rule€was€the€reason.ÌÌà àThe€only€issue€on€appeal€is€the€correctness€of€the€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àDefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€supported€by€plaintiffsðð€responses€to€aÏrequest€for€admissions,€the€deposition€of€the€injured€plaintiff,€and€the€depositions€of€DennisÏHansen€and€Erik€A.€Olson.ÌÌà àThe€responses€of€the€plaintiffs€and€the€deposition€of€the€injured€plaintiff€established€thatÏhe€had€operated€an€auto€repair€shop€for€23€years,€that€he€visited€defendants€premises€three€orÏfour€times€a€year€to€purchase€repair€parts,€that€he€almost€always€entered€the€shop€of€theÏdefendant€through€the€doorways€used€for€moving€vehicles€into€the€shop,€that,€on€July€24,Í1995,€he€œparked›€in€the€parking€œlot›€and€walked€to€the€doorway€he€ordinarily€used,€that€heÏtripped€on€a€yellow€metal€ridge€in€the€floor€of€the€doorway,€that€if€he€had€been€looking€at€hisÏpath€he€would€have€seen€the€yellow€metal€ridge,€but€he€was€looking€ahead€for€the€partsÏdepartment€which€had€been€moved€to€a€different€part€of€the€shop.€€He€admitted€that€there€wereÏsigns€at€the€scene€which€read€ð ðDo€not€use€vehicle€doors€to€enter€bay,€walk€in€Service€EntranceððÏœwith€arrow€pointing›€to€another€œdoor,›€and€ð ðService€Entranceðð€beside€the€other€door,€but€that€heÏthought€the€signs€referred€to€service€customers€and€not€parts€customers.ÌÌà àThe€parties€stipulated€that€the€metal€strip€protruded€15/16€inch€to€1„1/8€inch€above€theÏconcrete€floor.ÌÌà àPlaintiffsðð€response€to€the€interrogatory€admitted€that€the€metal€strip€did€not€violate€anyÏbuilding€code.ÌÌà àThe€injured€plaintiffððs€deposition€stated€that€the€entrance€where€he€was€injured€could€beÏmade€safer€for€pedestrians€by€welding€strips€on€either€side€of€the€imbedded€strip€so€as€to€formÏa€sloping€ramp€and€by€painting€said€ramps€with€yellow€paint.ÌÌà àIn€his€deposition,€the€service€manager€admitted€that€pedestrians€do€use€the€vehicleÏentrance€and€that,€other€than€the€signs,€they€have€not€been€forbidden€or€prevented€form€doingÏso.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court,€the€open€and€obvious€rule€had€beenÏrecognized€as€the€law€of€Tennessee.€€However,€on€March€30,€1998,€the€Supreme€CourtÏreleased€its€opinion€in€òòColn€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,€for€publication,€in€which€the€Court€said:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓœ›à àAfter€reviewing€the€two€cases€before€use,€theÏextensive€literature,€our€Tennessee€cases€on€the€subject,€andÏcases€from€other€jurisdictions,€we€conclude€that€an€openÏand€obvious€danger€does€not€automatically€result€in€aÏfinding€of€no€duty€and€therefore€no€landowner€liability.€€AsÏin€any€negligence€action,€we€think€a€risk€is€unreasonableÏand€gives€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€if€theÏforeseeable€probability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€aÏdefendantððs€conduct€outweigh€the€burden€upon€theÏdefendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€wouldÏprevent€the€harm.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€Applying€this€analysis,€if€the€foreseeabilityÏand€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€the€defendantððs€conduct,€evenÏif€ð ðopen€and€obvious,ðð€outweigh€the€burden€upon€theÏdefendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct,€the€defendantÏhas€a€duty€to€act€with€reasonable€care€and€the€comparativeÏfault€principles€apply€under€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentine,€supraóó.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÒ [ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÓ  Ó(1)€A€possessor€of€land€is€not€liable€to€hisÏinvitees€for€physical€harm€caused€to€them€byÏany€activity€or€condition€on€the€land€whoseÏdanger€is€known€or€obvious€to€them,€òòunlessÏthe€possessor€should€anticipate€the€harmÏdespite€such€knowledge€or€obviousnessóó.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  ÓSuch€reason€to€expect€harm€to€the€visitorÏfrom€known€or€obvious€dangers€may€arise,Ïfor€example,€where€the€possessor€hasÏreason€to€expect€that€the€inviteeððs€attentionÏmay€be€distracted,€so€that€he€will€notÏdiscover€what€is€€obvious,€or€will€forgetÏwhat€he€has€discovered,€or€fail€to€protectÏhimself€against€it.€€Such€reason€may€alsoÏarise€where€the€possessor€has€reason€toÏexpect€that€the€invitee€will€proceed€toÏencounter€the€known€or€obvious€dangerÏbecause€to€a€reasonable€man€in€his€positionÏthe€advantages€of€doing€so€would€outweighÏthe€apparent€risk.ÌÒ S ÒÒ ° ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ ` Òà àMoreover,€the€open€and€obvious€rule€is€inconsistentÏwith€our€cases€which€analyze€duty€by€balancingÍforeseeability€and€gravity€of€harm€with€feasibility€andÏavailability€of€alternatives€that€would€have€avoided€theÏharm.ÌÒ S ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€directive€of€the€Supreme€Court,€this€Court€has€evaluated€theÏnature€of€the€danger,€the€duty€of€a€reasonably€prudent€user€of€the€premises€and€haveÏconcluded€that€the€controller€of€the€premises€performed€its€duty€and€the€sole€cause€of€theÏinjury€was€the€culpable€inattention€of€the€injured€party.ÌÌà àEven€though€the€attention€of€the€injured€party€may€have€been€diverted€by€hisÏsearch€for€the€parts€department,€he€had€adequate€opportunity€to€familiarize€himself€withÏthe€nature€of€his€pathway€in€his€previous€visits€and,€on€the€day€of€his€injury€as€heÏapproached€the€doorway€from€the€parking€œlot.€€This›€conclusion€renders€unnecessary€anyÏconsideration€of€comparative€negligence.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€toÏthe€appellants.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€necessary€furtherÏproceedings.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓò òÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€œREMANDED.ÌÔ€XÔó ó›œÌÓ  Ó›à àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLEÏSECTIONÌÓ  ÓœCONCURS:›ÌÌœ_____________________________›ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌœÌÌCONCURS€IN€RESULT:ÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌ›