WPCR  0~p 0x 0kf 0k 0< 0~ 0T 0% 0  0 0  0 01 0C 0VB 0 0g 0  0 0r 0. 0 0 0eUB %J 0zP 0 1 0 ! 0=! 0F! 0P " 1p" 0## 0O>'E' 0}' 0x ( 0( 0j) 0e{) 0W) 0W7* 0* 0j+ 0|+ 05, 0- 0- 0r. 0f/ 0m0 0-1 0@2 03 04 0=5 05 0x6 07 07 08 09 19Y:ni: 04; BJ;4g; 0{;^< 0Jv<<>N?@@A 0@fB D+Bw@B D3C 0JDC 0TC 0^C 0h@D 0rD 0|E 0E 0F 1uF 0d!GU6GB)GDCG AO'HU*vHHv~Iv8K 0K Q AOVQ 0DQ D/Q BR A5RV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x9<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dڃ"$(G.2$ FT!   uXX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKKelleycrossbucksignageMainscottN.E.2dF.SuppE.D.Penn MeeKirbyHeltonSwaffordMadisonvilleFretwellChaffinCampanali 6thOGuinCorbinDicksonPeavlerLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("$    'dxd %&'D()*+[,-I.ӀGGGG'dxd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  [\]^_`ab ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dllll7Border 1ddORtmC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#k  oo   YYY FILEDoX October29,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.oAppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ( $ Figure  1  ORC<< C($$   1  ' dxdP PdMRtS&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK F! . k    7jgXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  l u` ORnpmA1-j|`  `@R ̛@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONCHERYLKELLEY@ @ ) ROANECOUNTY@ ) 03A019704CV00122 PlaintiffAppellee   @ )@ )@ ) v.   @ ) HON. RUSSELLE.SIMMONS,JR.,̀@ ) JUDGE@ ) @ THECITYOFROCKWOOD,)TENNESSEE@ ) @ ) DefendantAppellant@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDROBERTH.WATSON,JR.,OFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTJOHND.AGEEOFKINGSTONFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThisappealisfromtheCircuitCourtofRoaneCountyandconcernsliabilityundertheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,T.C.A.Title29,Chapter20.ThePlaintiff,CherylKelley,filedthepresentlawsuitonbehalfofherdeceasedchild,JoshuaKelley,whowasapassengeronamotorcycledrivenbyanotherchild,DouglasKing,whichcollidedwithaNorfolkSoutherntrainintheCityofRockwood,Tennessee.TheCityofRockwoodfiledaRule56motionforsummaryjudgmentbasedonsovereignimmunity.TheTrialCourtdeniedthemotionandthecasewasscheduledfortrial.PriortothetrialthePlaintiffsettledallmatterswithNorfolkSouthernRailwayCompany.  ThefollowingissuesarepresentedbytheDefendantforappeal:        I. WhetherornottheTrialCourtcommittederrorinfailingtodismisstheCityofRockwoodasadefendantintheabovelawsuituponsovereignimmunitypursuanttotheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,Tenn.Code.Ann.2920205,inthattheactionsorinactionsoftheCitywerediscretionary. II. WhetherornottheevidencesupportedtheTrialCourtsfindingofconstructivenoticetotheCityofRockwoodinthiscaseandmettherequirementthatBlackHollowRoadwasinadefective,unsafeordangerousconditionasrequiredbyTenn.Code.Ann.2920203. III. WhetherornottheTrialCourtsfindingofnonegligenceonthepartofthepassenger,JoshuaKelley,waserror.         TheTrialJudgeenteredaMemorandumOpiniononJanuary8,1997.HeawardedCherylKelley$750,000and,basedoncomparativefault,attributed90percentofthefaulttoDouglasKing,tenpercentofthefaulttotheCityofRockwood,andnofaulttoJoshuaKelley.Bothpartiesappeal.  JoshuaKelleyatthetimeoftheaccidentwas13yearsold.JoshualivedwithhismotherinRockwood,aboutonehalfmilefromthehomeofWilliamandMazelleKing.JoshuaplayedwiththeKings'son,Douglas,whowasalso13yearsoldatthetimeoftheaccident.DouglasKinglivedwithhisparentsonBlackHollowRoadandhadlivedthereforapproximatelysixyearspriortotheaccident.TheKings'homewaswithinamileoftheaccidentsceneandDouglashadriddenovertherailroadcrossingmanytimesasapassengerinanautomobile.DouglasKinghadbeenoperatingmotorcycletypevehiclesformanyyearsbuthadbeeninstructedbyhisparentstoneverdriveontheroad.  TheaccidentoccurredonMay22,1994,atarailroadcrossingonBlackHollowRoadwithinthecitylimitsofRockwood.ThemotorcyclewastravelingeasterlyandranintotheleftsideofanorthboundtrainkillingDouglasKinginstantly.JoshuaKelleydiedashorttimelaterattheUniversityofTennesseeMedicalCenter.  TheCityofRockwoodownedandmaintainedtherightofwayonthesouthsideofBlackHollowRoad.TheCitygenerallytrimmedthefoliageonBlackHollowRoadtwiceayear,onceintheFallandonceintheSpring,althoughnomoneywasspecificallyappropriatedtodothetask.OnthedayoftheaccidentthefoliagehadnotbeentrimmedsincethepreviousFall.TheviewofatrainapproachingfromthesouthwhentravelingeasterlyonBlackHollowRoadwasobstructedbytheuntrimmedfoliage.ThetreelimbsandbushesalsopartiallyobscuredtheviewofarailroadcrossbucksignlocatednearthecrossingonthesouthsideofBlackHollowRoad.ThiscrossbuckwastheonlysignonBlackHollowRoadwarningofarailroadcrossing.  PriortotheaccidenttheCityofRockwoodhadreceivednocomplaintsregardingfoliageobstructingtheviewoftrainsorsignageattherailroadcrossingonBlackHollowRoad.Therehadneverbeenareportedaccidentatthescenepriortotheoneinquestion.TheCityhadreceivedcomplaintspriortotheaccidentfromdriversregardinguntrimmedfoliageamileorsoupBlackHollowRoadfromtheaccidentscene.Thedriverscomplainedthatthefoliageonthesideoftheroadwasovergrownandscrapingtheircars.CityvehicleshadbeenintheareapriortotheaccidentbutnoonehadmentionedaproblemoffoliageobscuringtheviewoftrainsorsignagetoanycityofficialresponsibleformaintenanceoftherightofwayonBlackHollowRoad.  Additionally,thePlaintiffsubmitsthefollowingissuesonappeal:        I. WhethertheTrialCourterredinapportioningonlytenpercent(10%)faulttotheCityofRockwood.         TheCityofRockwoodfirstsubmitsthattheTrialCourterredinfailingtodismisstheCityasadefendantbaseduponsovereignimmunitypursuanttotheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,T.C.A.2920205,inthattheactionsorinactionsoftheCitywerediscretionary.TheTrialCourtdidnotbaseitsdecisiononwhethertheactoftrimmingornottrimmingfoliagewasadiscretionaryfunctionbutdiddenytheCityofRockwoodsmotionforsummaryjudgmentwhichwasbasedonthatveryissue.ForthisreasonweaddresswhethertheCityofRockwoodsfailuretotrimthefoliageonBlackHollowRoadwasadiscretionaryactionorinaction.  GovernmentalentitiesareimmunefromliabilityfordiscretionaryactsunderT.C.A.2920205.InordertodeterminewhetheranactionorinactionbyagovernmentalentityisconsidereddiscretionarytheTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedthe planningoperationaltest.Bowersv.CityofChattanooga,826S.W.2d427(Tenn.1992).TheBowersCourtdescribedthedifferencebetweenplanningandoperationalasfollows:        Aconsiderationofthedecisionmakingprocess,aswellasthefactorsinfluencingaparticulardecision,willoftenrevealwhetherthatdecisionistobeviewedasplanningoroperational.Ifaparticularcourseofconductisdeterminedafterconsiderationordebatebyanindividualorgroupchargedwiththeformulationofplansorpolicies,itstronglysuggeststheresultisaplanningdecision.Thesedecisionsoftenresultfromassessingpriorities;allocatingresources;developingpolicies;orestablishingplans,specifications,orschedules.... Ontheotherhand,adecisionresultingfromadeterminationbasedonpreexistinglaws,regulations,policies,orstandards,usuallyindicatesthatitsmakerisperforminganoperationalact.Similarlyoperationalarethoseadhocdecisionsmadebyanindividualorgroupnotchargedwiththedevelopmentofplansorpolicies.Theseoperationalacts,whichoftenimplementpriorplanningdecisions,arenot discretionaryfunctionswithinthemeaningoftheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct.... Anotherfactorbearingonwhetheranactshouldbeconsideredplanningoroperationaliswhetherthedecisionisthetypeproperlyreviewablebythecourts.Thediscretionaryfunctionexception recognizesthatcourtsareillequippedtoinvestigateandbalancethenumerousfactorsthatgointoanexecutiveorlegislativedecisionandthereforeallowsthegovernmenttooperatewithoutundueinterferencebythecourts.SeeMainscottv.State,642P.2d1355,1356(Alaska1982).Putsuccinctly:[T]hejudiciaryconfinesitself...toadjudicationoffactsbasedondiscernibleobjectivestandardsoflaw.Inthecontextoftortactions...theseobjectivestandardsarenotablylackingwhenthequestionisnotnegligencebutsocialwisdom,notduecarebutpoliticalpracticability,not[reasonableness]buteconomicexpediency.Tortlawsimplyfurnishesaninadequatecruciblefortestingthemeritsofsocial,political,oreconomicdecisions.Peavler,528N.E.2dat4445(quotingBlessingv.UnitedStates,447F.Supp.1160,1170(E.D.Penn.1978).       Bowers,at430431.  Applyingthe planningoperationaltesttothefactsofthiscasewefindthattheCityofRockwoodsfailuretotrimthefoliageonBlackHollowRoadwasanoperationaldecisionandnotdiscretionary.AsdiscussedinBowers,anoperationaldecisionisonebasedonpreexistinglaws,regulations,policies,orstandards.AlthoughtheCityofRockwoodhadnowrittenprocedureregardingthetrimmingoffoliageonBlackHollowRoadtheevidenceattrialshowedaclearpolicyorstandardtomaintaintherightofway.AtTrial,Mr.CarlMee,SuperintendentofRoadsforRockwood,wasasked:        Question: InsofarastheBlackHollowRoadcrossingisconcerned,youtoldusthatitwasyourcustomtocutbackthefoliagetwotimesannually,isthatcorrect?(Emphasisadded.) Answer:  Yes,sir.       ThedecisioneachFallandSpringtotrimthefoliageonBlackHollowRoadwasnotdeterminedafter considerationordebatebutwassimplyacustom,orinthewordsoftheBowersCourt,a policyorstandard.  TheCityofRockwoodarguesthattheissueofdiscretioninthiscasehasbeendealtwithintworecentTennesseeSupremeCourtdecisions.Kirbyv.MaconCounty,892S.W.2d403(Tenn.1994);Heltonv.KnoxCounty,922S.W.2d877(Tenn.1996).Bothcasesinvolvedacitysdecisiontoinstallguardrailsandthedecisionwasheldtobeaclearlydiscretionaryactforwhichgovernmentalimmunityapplied.Wefindthosecasesdonotapplytothefactsofthiscase.InHeltonandKirbythedecisiontoinstalltheguardrailswasnotbasedonanystandingcustomorpolicybutratherwasdeterminedafterconsiderationanddebateofvariouspolitical,economic,andsocialissues.TheCityofRockwoodhadnodecisiontomakeregardingwhethertotrimthefoliagebecausethedecisionhadalreadybeenmadeandthecustomorpolicywasinexistence.    However,theCityofRockwoodwascorrectinstatingthatthecourtshavedealtwiththisissuebefore.ThesameissuewithsimilarfactswasaddressedbytwocasescitedintheKirbyopinion.Swaffordv.CityofChattanooga,743S.W.2d174(Tenn.App.1987);Morrowv.TownofMadisonville,737S.W.2d547(Tenn.App.1987).InSwafford,acityhadmadeadecisiontopaintlinesonaroadbutthepersonresponsiblehadsimplynotdoneit.Thecourtheldthefailuretopaintthelineswasanoperationalomissionandthereforethecitywasnotimmune.SimilarlyinMorrow,acityhadmadetheinitialdecisiontoprotecttrafficbyplacinglidsonwatermeters.Thecitysfailuretofollowitsownpolicywasheldtobeanoperationalomission.Inthecasebeforeus,theCityofRockwoodhadalreadymadetheinitialdecisiontotrimthefoliageonBlackHollowRoadanditfailedtofollowitsownpolicy;thisfailurewasnotadiscretionaryact.  Finally,ourfindingthattheCityofRockwoodsfailuretotrimthefoliagewasanoperationalomissionissupportedbythetypeofquestionitinvolves.Theissuebeforeusisbasedmoreuponnegligencethansocialwisdom,moreuponduecarethanpoliticalpracticability,andmoreuponreasonablenessthaneconomicexpediency.Governmentalentitiesareimmunefrominjuriesresultingfromsocial,political,oreconomicdecisions,butthefailuretomaintaintherightofwayonBlackHollowRoadinvolvednosuchdecision.Therefore,theCityofRockwoodwasnotimmuneunderT.C.A.2920205.  TheCityofRockwoodnextclaimsthattheTrialCourterredinholdingthattheevidencesupportedafindingofconstructivenoticetotheCityandmettherequirementthatBlackHollowRoadwasinadefective,unsafeordangerousconditionasrequiredbyT.C.A.2920203.ItisnotnecessarythatweaddressthisissuesinceagovernmentalentitysimmunityneednotberemovedunderbothT.C.A.2920205andT.C.A.2920203inordertoloseitsprotection,andwehavealreadyfoundtheCityofRockwoodwasnotimmuneunderT.C.A.2920205.However,sincetheTrialCourtsdecisionwasbasedontheremovalofimmunityunderT.C.A.2920203wewilladdressthequestion.  TheTrialCourtheldthatBlackHollowRoadwasdefective,unsafeordangerousbecauseonthedateoftheaccidentthefoliageontheCityofRockwoodsrightofwayobstructedtherailroadwarningsigns,andthatthefoliageobscuredadriversviewofatrainapproachingfromthesouth.ThelawinTennesseeisclearthatadefective,unsafeordangerousconditionexistsifagovernmentalentityallowsfoliagetoobstructtheviewofatrafficsignthatwasplacedtherebylocalofficials.Fretwellv.Chaffin,652S.W.2d755(Tenn.1983).However,theremustbedirectproofintherecordthatthegovernmentalentityownedandcontrolledthetrafficsigninquestion.Harrisv.WilliamsonCounty,835S.W.2d588(Tenn.App.1992).  TheCityofRockwoodcannotberesponsiblefortheobstructionofasignwhichtheydidnotownandcontrol.Theonlyproofintherecordastowhoowned,controlledorerectedtherailroadcrossingsign,pointedtotherailroad.Nodirectproofappearsanywhereintherecordtocontradictthisassertion.Therefore,theCityofRockwoodsimmunitywasnotremovedbasedonthecrossbucksignbeingobscuredbyfoliage.  However,theTrialCourtalsoheldthatBlackHollowRoadwasdefective,unsafeordangerousbecausetheuntrimmedfoliageobstructedatravelersviewofanoncomingtrain.ThisspecificissuehasnotbeenaddressedbyTennesseecourts,althoughourSupremeCourthasprovidedalistofcharacteristicstoconsiderindeterminingwhetheraparticularsiteisdefective,unsafeordangerousforpurposesofgovernmentalimmunityunderT.C.A.2920203:       Thedecisionofwhetheraconditionofahighwayactuallyisadangerousandhazardousonetoanordinaryprudentdriverisafactualone,andthecourtshouldconsiderthephysicalaspectsoftheroadway,thefrequencyofaccidentsatthatplaceinthehighwayandthetestimonyofexpertwitnessesinarrivingatthisfactualdetermination.       Sweeneyv.State,768S.W.2d253,255(Tenn.1989).Thecourtsshouldalsoconsidertheroadslocation,thevolumeoftraffic,andthetypeoftrafficitaccommodates.Sweeneyv.State.  Ourreviewofcasestriedwithoutajuryis denovo upontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessasmandatedbyRule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.ThisRulerequiresustoupholdthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.Campanaliv.Campanali,695S.W.2d193(Tenn.App.1985).ItiswiththisstandardinmindthatweundertakeourreviewoftheTrialCourtsdecisiononthisissue.  TestimonyandexhibitsintherecordevidenceBlackHollowRoadasarural,lightlytraveledroad.Also,noonehadanyknowledgeofanaccidenteveroccurringintheareaoftherailroadcrossing.Picturesandvideotakenofthesiteseveraldaysaftertheaccidentgaveagoodindicationofthearea'sphysicalaspects.Theroadisnarrowandthefoliagewasverythickandovergrown.Thefoliagedefinitelyobscuredaneasterlytravelersviewofanorthboundtrain.TheclosesttestimonytothatofanexpertwasthetestimonyofJudgeHowardButlerwhowastheRockwoodcityrecorder.Hetestifiedthatitwaspartofhisresponsibilityascityrecordertokeepthebrushbackfromthesideoftheroad.HefurthertestifiedthatifhehadseenthefoliageonBlackHollowRoadthewayitwasonthedateoftheaccidenthewouldhavehadsomeonetrimitback.Lookingatthesefacts,whichSweeneyidentifiesasthestandard,wefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsholdingthatBlackHollowRoadwasdefective,unsafeordangerous.  TheCityofRockwoodarguesthateveniftheroadwasdangeroustheydidnothaveconstructivenoticeofthefact.        Constructivenoticeis informationorknowledgeofafactimputedbylawtoaperson(althoughhemaynotactuallyhaveit),becausehecouldhavediscoveredthefactbyproperdiligence,andhissituationwassuchastocastuponhimthedutyofinquiringintoit.       Kirby,at409quotingBlacksLawDictionary,1062(6thed.1990).TheCityofRockwoodhadreceivedcomplaintsaboutovergrownfoliagescratchingcarsastheydrovedownBlackHollowRoadandcityofficialshadbeenpasttheaccidentsitemanytimesjustpriortothewreck.Attheveryleast,theCityofRockwoodhadconstructivenoticethatitwastimeagaintotrimthefoliageonBlackHollowRoad.Therefore,theCityofRockwoodwasnotimmuneunderT.C.A.2920203.  Finally,theCityofRockwoodclaimsthattheTrialCourterredinfindingnonegligenceonthepartofthepassengerJoshuaKelley.AlthoughthelawinTennesseeisclearthataminorissubjecttoanadultstandardofcarewhenoperatingamotorvehicleonthepublicroads,itisequallyclearthatthisstandardhasnotbeenextendedtoaminorguestpassenger.Brownv.Smith,604S.W.2d56(Tenn.App.1980).InBrown,a12yearoldpassengerwasinjuredwhileridingonamotorcyclebeingdrivenbya15yearold.TheCourtfoundthepassengerwasnotheldtoanadultstandardofcarebutthedegreeofcareordinarilyexercisedbyapersonoflikeage,discretion,knowledgeandexperience.ApplyingtheappropriatestandardusedbytheBrownCourttothefactsofthiscasewefindnoerrorintheTrialCourtsholdingthatnonegligencebeapportionedtoJoshuaKelley.  WenowturntotheissueraisedbyCherylKelley.ShecontendsthattheTrialCourterredinapportioningonlytenpercentfaulttotheCityofRockwood.  AlthoughwefindthattheCityofRockwoodwasnotimmuneundereitherT.C.A.2920205orT.C.A.2920203,thisdoesnotnecessitateafindingoffaultonthepartoftheCity.InOGuinv.Corbin,acaseverysimilartothecaseathand,thetrialcourtfoundthatDicksonCountywasnotimmunebut,nonetheless,aprudentdrivercouldhaveavoidedtheaccident.777S.W.2d697(Tenn.App.1989).ThetrialcourtfoundthatDicksonCountysnegligencewasnottheproximatecauseoftheaccidentbut,rather,thatitwascausedbytheplaintiffsfailuretostopattheintersection.ThisCourtupheldthetrialcourt'sdecision.  AlthoughtheCityofRockwoodwasnegligentinfailingtomaintainitsrightofway,thegreatercauseofthewreckwastheactofDouglasKing.Acarefulandprudentdrivercouldhavenoticedtherailroadcrossingandtakenproperprecautionregardlessofthefoliagethatobscuredtheviewofthetrain.Therefore,wefindnoerrorintheTrialCourtsapportioningoffault.  Forthereasonsstatedabove,thejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofthejudgmentandcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalfagainsttheCityofRockwoodandonehalfagainstMs.Kelleyandhersurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.̜_(SeparateConcurringOpinion___CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.