ÿWPCíC ÆÛ¼Š0À^•KS$ƒš}DU„—sk]È8Ã_•LâÁrCC¾L¤ÕaÃ\š?²2)S*©ÅŽ’.ŽË¦O›nwKIKæ½ÔŸÔôAÚfƼƒ zÁ Ò; 1u  72‚^ ´wÀÆÄÆŠÆPÆ4ÜNð 0 DòÕ 6   !0 m2222222222222EI7K ‚>¢3àõ$b((((((((( 0Å++ 0Ñð+ 0³Á, 0­t- 0§!. 0¡È. 0›i/ 0•00000000000000000000 0 ë™0™0™0™0 B„1„1 0¤¡1 D3E2 D-x2 0K¥2¥2 ASð2ÆC3 0¤ 4 0D­4 A«ñ4ñ4ñ4ñ4ñ4ñ4 1eœ5œ5œ5œ5œ5d6>e9l£=£=Þ@˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»< ÿÿ:Footnote TexÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔ(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular<ÿÿ:Footnote Refòòóóô\  `‹&Times New Roman ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)¤~1Þ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÖƒF1ê:i¢×+00(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó Ë Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑÀ.ÑÑ8À½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ @ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔÈxÈ°ÔÔ‡¼M»»»Ôà  àòòò…òÚ  Ú5Ú  Úó…óÔ#†»M»¤¼M #ÔÔ‡ô³}ò¤»MÔóóThe€plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€to€amend€their€complaint€on€November€7,€2003.€€In€it,€they€sought€to€allege€thatÐ xÈ Ðthe€defendants€were€guilty€of€negligence€per€se€for€violating€the€following€Department€of€Health€and€EnvironmentÐ <Œ Ðregulations€pertaining€to€swimming€pools:€Ð P ÐÌà  àà8 ` àRule€1200„23„1.04(1)(b)€ð ðPool€Enclosures.€€Ventilation€must€be€sufficient€toÐ ˆØ Ðprevent€condensation€and€odor€accumulation.ððÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àRule€1200„23„1.04(3)(c)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€and€(ii):€Regarding€acceptable€levels€of€chlorine€inÐ Ô $ Ðpools€and€spas.И è` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àRule€1200„23„1.04(3)(c)(5):€Hand€chlorination€not€acceptable€except€forÐ  p  Ðemergencies,€infrequent€chlorination€purposes,€or€as€approved€by€the€Department.Ðä 4 ` x` x ÐÌThe€plaintiffs€further€alleged€that€Matthew€ð ðsustained€an€exacerbation€to€a€pre„existing€conditionðð€that€will€result€inÐ l¼  Ðfuture€hospital,€doctor€and€drug€expenses,€and€that€he€ð ðsustained,€and€will€continue€to€sustain,€great€pain€of€body€andÐ 0€  Ðmind.ðð€€The€court€entered€an€order€December€23,€2003,€allowing€the€motion.€€However,€the€trial€court,€in€its€order,€alsoÐ ôD  Ðallowed€defendantsðð€motion€to€amend€their€answer.€€Since€an€automatic€chlorination€system€manufactured€by€anotherÐ ¸  Ðentity€was€used€to€chlorinate€the€defendantsðð€pool,€and€that€same€company€furnished€the€chlorine€sanitizing€agent,€theÐ |Ì  Ðdefendants€specifically€denied€any€negligence.€€The€defendants€further€stated€that€although€they€contend€that€the€poolÐ @ Ðwas€properly€maintained€at€all€times,€any€injuries€to€the€plaintiffs€were€proximately€caused€by€the€automatic€chlorinationÐ T Ðsystem€and/or€chlorine€sanitizing€agent,€both€of€which€were€beyond€the€defendantsðð€control.€€Defendants€also€pledÐ È Ðcomparative€fault€as€an€affirmative€defense.€Ô#†»M»òô³} #ÔÔ‡XUaX»»MÔ Ñ ü Ñ3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ -Ý ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€ease€of€reference,€we€will€refer€to€Matthew€Lawson€and€the€other€minor€children€involved€in€this€matterÐ ° Ðby€their€first€names.€€We€intend€no€disrespect. Ý ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Ô_ÔDeeringÔ_Ô€and€her€son€Jason€arrived€later€that€day.€Ô‡XUaXòô³}ÔÔ#†ô³}òXXUaÔ#Ô 4Ý ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€following€morning,€when€Ms.€Lawson€walked€through€the€indoor€pool€enclosure,€she€noticed€that€the€waterÐ ° Ðwas€clearer€and€that€the€chlorine€odor€had€subsided.€€ )Ý ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€position€of€weekend€manager€on€duty€was€split€between€the€hotel€department€heads.€€Although€RonaldÐ ° ÐDavis€was€the€chief€engineer,€he€was€the€manager€on€duty€that€weekend.€€In€his€deposition,€he€testified€that€heÐ tÄ Ðinvestigated€a€complaint€of€excessive€chlorination€by€conducting€tests€on€August€7,€1999,€all€of€which€indicated€that€theÐ 8ˆ Ðpool€chlorination€was€within€normal€limits.€€He€also€testified€that€when€he€tested€the€ventilation€system€the€day€òòafteróó€theÐ üL Ðincident,€the€system€was€working.€€Mr.€Davis€admitted€having€a€conversation€with€Ms.€Lawson,€but€he€denied€sayingÐ À Ðthat€the€ventilation€system€had€been€turned€off.€€The€defendants€have€filed€a€motion€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô€to€exclude€this€testimonyÐ „Ô Ðshould€the€matter€go€to€trial.€€We€express€no€opinion€as€to€the€merits€of€the€motion. ëÝ ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendants€also€contend€that€the€other€factors€set€forth€in€ò òòòMcCalló óóó,€as€discussed€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔColnÔ_Ôó óóó,€counsel€againstÐ ° Ðthis€court€finding€that€the€defendants€had€a€duty€of€care€to€the€plaintiff€under€the€circumstances.€€They€suggest,€forÐ vÆ Ðinstance,€that€a€finding€that€the€injuries€sustained€were€foreseeable,€in€the€absence€of€any€evidence€that€the€ventilationÐ :Š Ðsystem€was€not€working,€would€have€the€ultimate€effect€of€shutting€down€pools.€€We€find€this€to€be€without€merit.€€ThisÐ þN Ðargument€presumes€that€the€ventilation€system€was€working.€€As€previously€discussed,€the€defendants€fail€on€their€motionÐ Â Ðbecause€they€have€not€conclusively€established€that€the€system€was€properly€working€on€the€day€in€question.Ð †Ö Ð- ù- Ý ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendants€argue€that€the€plaintiffs€fail€on€this€element€of€their€claim€because€the€hotel€did€not€have€noticeÐ ° Ðof€the€allegedly€dangerous€condition,€òòi.e.óó€the€lack€of€ventilation,€until€òòafteróó€Matthew€sustained€his€injuries.€€The€timingÐ tÄ Ðof€the€notice€is€only€relevant,€however,€where€persons€outside€the€defendantððs€employ€create€the€dangerous€condition.€Ð 8ˆ ÐòòSee€ò òÔ_ÔChamblissÔ_Ôó óóó,€742€S.W.2d€at€273.€€Since€defendants€have€not€proffered€any€evidence€showing€this,€we€hold€that€thereÐ üL Ðis€no€merit€in€the€defendantsðð€argument.€€*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(|G2ž $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»Ô d(|3Çn$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çn$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK789:;<=> ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. ZÝ ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€assessing€duty,€the€factors€appropriate€for€the€courtððs€consideration€areÐ ° ÐÌà  àà8 ` àthe€foreseeable€probability€of€the€harm€or€injury€occurring;€the€possible€magnitudeÐ 8ˆ Ðof€the€potential€harm€or€injury;€the€importance€or€social€value€of€the€activityÐ üL Ðengaged€in€by€defendant;€the€usefulness€of€the€conduct€to€defendant;€the€feasibilityÐ À Ðof€alternative,€safer€conduct€and€the€relative€costs€and€burdens€associated€with€thatÐ „Ô Ðconduct;€the€relative€usefulness€of€the€safer€conduct;€and€the€relative€safety€ofÐ H ˜ Ðalternative€conduct.Ð \` x` x ÐÌò òòòMcCalló óóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153. 4Ý ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendants€also€rely€on€ò òòòMcGuire€v.€Exxon€Corp.ó óóó,€No.€02A01„9805„CV„00129,€1999€WL€418343€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€W.S.,€file€June€22,€1999),€in€support€of€their€argument€that€since€they€had€no€notice€of€a€dangerous€condition,Ð vÆ Ðthey€cannot€be€found€to€be€negligent.€€In€ò òòòMcGuireó óóó,€the€plaintiff€was€doused€with€gasoline€when€she€attempted€to€put€gasÐ :Š Ðin€her€car.€€ò òòòId.,ó óóó€at€*1.€€The€court€granted€the€defendantððs€summary€judgment€motion€on€the€ground€that€the€plaintiff€failedÐ P Ðto€proffer€evidence€that€the€gas€station€had€constructive€or€actual€notice€of€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€at€theÐ Æ Ðpump.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*3.€€However,€the€issue€before€us€is€whether€the€defendants,€by€failing€to€ensure€that€the€ventilation€systemÐ ŠÚ Ðwas€working,€òòcreatedóó€a€dangerous€condition.Ð P   Ð bÝ ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLisa€McMahan,€the€inspector€for€the€Ô_ÔTDHÔ_Ô,€testified€in€her€deposition€that€she€had€never€been€taught€that€highÐ ° Ðlevels€of€chlorine€in€the€water€could€release€enough€gas€under€certain€conditions€to€cause€breathing€problems.€€However,Ð tÄ Ðthis€testimony€standing€alone€fails€to€negate€the€possibility€that€lack€of€ventilation€did,€in€fact,€cause€Matthewððs€breathingÐ 8ˆ Ðproblems.Ð üL Ð ÔÝ ƒRž $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Ô_ÔEllenburgÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€it€was€possible€that€Matthewððs€injuries€could€have€stemmed€from€exposureÐ ° Ðto€smog.€€€The€defendants€contend€that€this€testimony€would€impermissibly€permit€a€jury€ð ðto€engage€in€conjecture,Ð tÄ Ðspeculation,€or€guess€work€as€to€which€of€two€equally€probable€inferences€is€applicable.ðð€€òòò òMartin€v.€Ô_ÔWashmasterÔ_Ô€AutoÐ 8ˆ ÐCtr.ó óóó,€ò òòòUSAóó,€ó ó946€S.W.2d€314,€317€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(citation€omitted).€€However,€we€do€not€reach€this€issue€at€theÐ þN Ðsummary€judgment€stage€of€the€proceedings.€€Rather,€our€focus€is€on€whether€the€defendants€successfully€negated€theÐ Ä Ðpossibility€that€a€lack€of€ventilation€òòcouldóó€cause€Matthewððs€injuries.òòóóÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼M»»»ÔÑ8€UaXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡îlMÔÑ€¿jÑ€Ô‡îÆ îîîlÔÔ#†¼Ê!»îîÆ ú#ÔÔ‡X„}X»¼Ê!Ôà@ã ã ìà€Ô#†¼Ê!»XX„}m#ÔÔ‡îÆ î»¼Ê!ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Ê!»îîÆ Â#ԈРÖ& Ðà@ZZìàAugust€13,€2004€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ‡X„}X»¼Ê!ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ê!»XX„}±#ÔÓ  ÓMATTHEW€LAWSON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€EDGEWATER€HOTELS,€INC.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X„}X»¼Ê!Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÓ÷ÓÌÓ  Óà @ àò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J ÐÓÓÓ  ÓNo.€2000„594„I€€€€€€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÓÓÌà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÔ#†XUaXXX„}+#Ôà@ìì*ìàßA€V() °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà@U U ìàNo.€Ô‡X„}XXXUaÔE2003„03093„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ô#†XUaXXX„}È#Ô€„€FILED€NOVEMBER€30,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ԈР¥õ  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆà  àà p àà È àÌßA€V() °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  ÐÔ‡X„}XXXUaÔÌÌó óMatthew€Lawson,€by€his€mother€and€next€friend,€Shirley€Lawson,€and€Ms.€Lawson,€individuallyÐ d´ Ð(collectively€ð ðthe€plaintiffsðð)€brought€an€action€for€negligence€against€Edgewater€Hotels,€Inc.,€andÐ P  ÐÔ_ÔStokelyÔ_Ô€Hospitality€Properties,€Inc.€(collectively€ð ðthe€defendantsðð),€alleging€that€Matthew׃)×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€sustainedÐ <Œ Ðinjuries€as€a€consequence€of€swimming€in€the€indoor€pool€at€the€defendantsðð€hotel.€€According€to€theÐ (x Ðplaintiffs,€Matthew€sustained€these€injuries€(1)€due€to€the€excessive€amount€of€chlorine€in€the€poolÐ d Ðwater€and/or€(2)€because€the€defendants€failed€to€properly€ventilate€the€indoor€portion€of€the€pool.€Ð P ÐThe€defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€as€to€both€of€theÐ ì< Ðplaintiffsðð€theories.€€The€plaintiffs€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€with€respect€to€theÐ Ø( Ðplaintiffsðð€allegation€that€the€defendantsðð€pool€contained€excessive€levels€of€chlorine.€€However,€weÐ Ä Ðvacate€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€with€respect€to€the€allegation€that€the€defendantsðð€indoor€pool€wasÐ ° Ðnot€properly€ventilated.€€We€hold€that€the€defendants€failed€to€meet€their€burden€on€summaryÐ œì Ðjudgment€with€respect€to€this€claim.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ `° ÐAffirmed€in€Part;€Vacated€in€Part;€Case€Remanded.ó óÐ L œ ÐÓ: ÓÌòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,óóÐ $"t! Ðand€òòWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔSr.J.Ô_Ôóó,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌDavid€A.€Ô_ÔBurkhalterÔ_Ô,€II,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Matthew€Lawson,€by€his€motherÐ è$8 $ Ðand€next€friend,€Shirley€Lawson,€and€Shirley€Lawson,€individually.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌDavid€E.€Long€and€Joshua€A.€Wolfe,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Edgewater€Hotels,Ð ¬'ü"' ÐInc.,€and€Ô_ÔStokelyÔ_Ô€Hospitality€Properties,€Inc.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÐ p*À%*ýÅ ÐÑ¿jÑâ âÑü°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÓßÓÓ  ÓI.Ð ° ÐÓsÓÌà  àOn€August€6,€1999,€Shirley€Lawson€arrived€at€the€Edgewater€Hotel€in€Gatlinburg€for€aÐ ˆØ Ðvacation.€€She€was€accompanied€by€her€sons,€Matthew€Lawson€and€Nicholas€Lawson.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðdefendants€owned€the€hotel.€€Ms.€Lawson€and€her€sons€were€scheduled€to€stay€at€the€hotel€throughÐ `° Ðthe€morning€of€August€9,€1999.€€Her€sisters,€Melissa€Deering€and€Deybra€Munson,€along€with€Ms.Ð L œ ÐDeeringððs€son,€Jason,€were€to€meet€them€at€the€hotel€for€the€weekend.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àMs.€Lawson€arrived€at€the€hotel€sometime€between€10:00€a.m.€and€11:00€a.m€on€August€6,Ð  ` Ð1999.׃*×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€it€was€too€early€to€check€in,€Ms.€Lawson€secured€the€permission€of€the€front€desk€clerkÐ ü L  Ðfor€her€sons€to€play€in€the€pool€until€their€room€was€ready.€€The€pool€is€built€so€that€part€of€the€poolÐ è 8  Ðis€outdoors€and€part€is€indoors.€€The€two€sections€of€the€pool€are€separated€by€a€glass€partition.€€OneÐ Ô$  Ðcan€move€between€the€two€parts€of€the€pool€by€swimming€under€the€partition.€€The€enclosed€portionÐ À  Ðof€the€pool€also€includes€two€hot€tubs€and€a€waterfall.€€The€waterfall€draws€water€from€the€bottomÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€pool.Ð ˜è  Ѐ€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àWhen€the€Lawsons€and€the€Deerings€entered€the€indoor€pool€enclosure€on€August€6,€1999,Ð pÀ Ðthey€noticed€a€very€strong€smell€of€chlorine.€€They€observed€that€the€air€was€thick,€stuffy€and€humid,Ð \¬ Ðand€that€what€they€believed€to€be€chlorine€fumes€would€ð ðsort€of€burn€your€eyes.ðð€€The€glass€doorsÐ H˜ Ðand€windows€of€the€indoor€enclosure€were€closed€and€had€condensation€on€them.€€Ms.€Lawson,€Ms.Ð 4„ ÐDeering€and€their€respective€sons,€Nicholas€and€Jason,€spent€the€day€at€the€outdoor€portion€of€theÐ  p Ðpool.€€However,€son€Matthew€swam€in€the€indoor€pool€due€to€a€skin€condition€that€was€aggravatedÐ  \ Ðby€the€sun.€€The€airborne€chlorine€did€not€appear€to€bother€Matthewððs€eyes.€€It€should€be€noted,Ð øH Ðhowever,€that€he€was€wearing€goggles€while€in€the€pool.€€Although€Ms.€Lawson€and€Ms.€DeeringÐ ä4 Ðremained€outdoors€for€most€of€the€day,€Ms.€Lawson€would€periodically€check€on€Matthew.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€group€remained€at€the€pool€from€about€10:00€a.m.€or€11:00€a.m.€until€approximately€6:00Ð ¨ø Ðp.m.€€After€they€left€the€pool€to€get€ready€for€dinner,€Matthew€started€to€complain€that€his€throat€andÐ ”ä Ðhead€were€hurting.€€The€other€boys€were€also€complaining€of€burning€eyes;€they€were€also€coughing.€Ð €Ð ÐAbout€three€or€four€hours€earlier,€Ms.€Lawson€had€noticed€that€Matthew€was€coughing,€but€sheÐ l¼ Ðthought€it€was€because€he€had€swallowed€some€water.€€Since€he€appeared€to€be€having€a€good€time,Ð X ¨ Ðshe€did€not€remove€him€from€the€pool.€€The€plaintiffs€went€to€dinner€with€Melissa€Deering€and€herÐ D!” Ðson.€€Matthew€continued€to€cough,€laid€his€head€down€on€the€table,€and€was€unable€to€eat.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThat€evening,€Matthewððs€symptoms€worsened.€€He€began€to€have€difficulty€breathing,Ð $X" Ðexperiencing€chest€pains€and€headaches,€and€gagging,€although€he€never€actually€threw€up.€€Ms.Ð ô$D # ÐLawson€called€Dr.€Ellenburg,€Matthewððs€doctor.€Matthew€had€a€pre„existing€asthmatic€condition€andÐ à%0!$ Ðallergies€that€Dr.€Ellenburg€had€been€treating€for€some€time.€€Based€on€the€symptoms€described€byÐ Ì&"% ÐMs.€Lawson,€Dr.€Ellenburg€told€her€that€he€believed€Matthew€was€suffering€from€chlorine€poisoning.€Ð ¸'#& ÐHe€provided€instructions€as€to€how€to€best€care€for€the€boy.€€Ms.€Lawson€was€very€concerned,€butÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdid€not€take€Matthew€to€the€hospital€due€to€the€high€level€of€traffic€that€weekend.€€Ms.€Deering,Ð )à$( Ðhowever,€went€down€to€the€front€desk€and€asked€that€the€local€EMS€be€put€on€standby€in€case€theyÐ |*Ì%) Ðneeded€to€get€them€there€quickly.€€The€front€desk€clerk€allegedly€informed€her€that€an€ambulanceÐ ° Ðwould€be€able€to€get€to€them€and€that€EMS€did€not€need€to€be€put€on€standby.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€following€morning,€Matthewððs€symptoms€had€improved€but€he€had€not€fully€recovered.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€group€went€down€to€the€outdoor€pool׃+×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€so€Nicholas€and€Jason€could€swim.€€Matthew€attemptedÐ `° Ðto€go€into€the€pool€for€a€couple€of€minutes€that€afternoon,€but€was€too€tired€and€resumed€sitting€withÐ L œ Ðhis€mother€under€the€umbrella.€€Although€the€parties€were€scheduled€to€remain€at€the€defendantsððÐ 8 ˆ Ðhotel€until€Monday,€August€9,€1999,€the€parties€decided€to€leave€on€Sunday,€August€8,€1999,€out€ofÐ $ t Ðconcern€for€Matthewððs€health.€€The€hotel€furnished€a€refund€for€Sunday€night.€€When€checking€out,Ð  ` ÐMs.€Lawson€asked€to€speak€to€the€manager€on€duty.€€According€to€Ms.€Lawson,€the€manager€on€dutyÐ ü L  Ðapologized€and€informed€her€that€an€employee€had€forgotten€to€turn€on€the€ventilation€system€andÐ è 8  Ðopen€the€windows.׃,×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€manager€also€allegedly€explained€that€the€heated€whirlpool€vapors€and€mistÐ Ô$  Ðfrom€the€waterfall€caused€chlorine€to€be€airborne€and€become€concentrated€in€the€air.Ð À  Ðâ âÐ ¬ü  ÐÑ€V l<` Ñà  àOn€August€4,€2000,€the€plaintiffs€filed€this€action€against€the€defendants.€€In€their€complaintòòÑÈÑ׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝò…òÚ  Ú5Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×óó,Ð ° Ðâ âthe€plaintiffs€averred€that€ð ðthe€pool€in€which€they€were€swimming€had€excessive€levels€of€chlorine,Ð œì Ðand€the€pool€lacked€proper€ventilation,ðð€and€that€these€conditions€arose€from€the€defendantsððÐ ˆØ Ðnegligence.€€As€a€result,€the€plaintiffs€alleged€the€following€injuries:€that€Matthew€ð ðincurred€serious,Ð tÄ Ðpainful€and€permanent€damage€to€his€respiratory€systemðð;€that€he€ð ðhas€been€compelled€to€endureÐ `° Ðgreat€pain,€and€has€been€required€to€seek€medical€assistanceðð;€and€that€Ms.€Lawson€ð ðhas€beenÐ L œ Ðdeprived€of€the€services€of€her€son,€and€has€been€compelled€to€expend€large€sums€of€money€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðmedical€services.ððÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€filed€their€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€November€3,€2003.€FollowingÐ ü L  Ðoral€argument,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion.€€In€its€opinion€rendered€from€the€bench,Ð è 8  Ðthe€trial€court€stated€that€it€ultimately€ð ð[could€not]€get€around€€the€foreseeability€issue.ðð€€The€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€entered€an€order€to€this€effect€on€December€23,€2003.€€From€this€order,€the€plaintiffs€nowÐ À  Ðappeal.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àII.Ð „Ô  ÐÓƒ.ÓÌà  àSince€our€inquiry€in€reviewing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€raises€purely€a€question€ofÐ \¬ Ðlaw,€we€review€the€record,€according€no€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€Ð H˜ ÐWe€must€decide€anew€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€satisfied.€€ò òòòStaplesÐ 4„ Ðv.€CBL€&€Assoc.,€Inc.ó óóó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€88€(Tenn.€2000).€€For€summary€judgment€to€be€appropriate,Ð  p ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04€requires€(1)€that€there€be€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€factsÐ  \ Ðrelevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€and€(2)€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€toÐ øH Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€It€is€incumbent€upon€the€moving€party€to€prove€that€its€motionÐ ä4 Ðsatisfies€these€requirements;€if€and€when€the€moving€party€has€met€its€burden,€the€burden€shifts€toÐ ° Ðthe€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts€that€establish€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€ofÐ œì Ðmaterial€fact€that€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(citations€omitted).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€supporting€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€moving€party€must€do€more€than€merelyÐ `° Ðproffer€ð ðconclusory€assertion[s]€that€the€non„moving€party€has€no€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòMcCarley€v.€WestÐ L œ ÐQuality€Food€Svc.ó óóó,€960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€1993)).€€Rather,€the€movant€ð ðmust€either€òòaffirmatively€negateóó€òòan€essential€element€of€the€non„Ð $ t Ðmovantððs€claim€óóor€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(emphasis€added).€If€theÐ  ` Ðmoving€party€fails€to€negate€an€essential€element,€the€nonmoving€partyððs€burden€of€producingÐ ü L  Ðevidence€of€a€material€dispute€of€fact€is€not€triggered.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ è 8  ÐÓ XÓÐ Ô$  ÐÓ  Óà @ àIII.Ð À  ÐÓ7ÓÐ ¬ü  ÐIn€the€instant€case,€the€plaintiffs€proceeded€on€two€theories:€(1)€that€the€pool€was€overÐ ˜è  Ðchlorinated,€and€(2)€that€the€indoor€pool€was€not€properly€ventilated.€€The€defendants€moved€forÐ „Ô  Ðsummary€judgment€on€both€theories€based€on€the€following:€(1)€that€the€defendants€properlyÐ pÀ Ðmaintained€the€swimming€pool€and€the€ventilation€system,€and,€consequently,€they€ð ðdid€not€createÐ \¬ Ðor€tolerate€a€dangerous€condition€on€their€propertyðð;€(2)€that€since€Matthewððs€alleged€injuries€wereÐ H˜ Ðnot€foreseeable,€the€defendants€owed€no€duty€to€protect€him€from€those€alleged€injuries;€(3)€that€theÐ 4„ Ðplaintiffs€could€not€proffer€sufficient€evidence€to€show€causation;€and€(4)€that€even€assuming€thereÐ  p Ðwas€a€dangerous€condition€on€August€6,€1999,€the€defendants€had€no€knowledge€of€its€existenceÐ  \ Ðprior€to€the€injuries€incurred.€€In€support€of€its€motion,€the€defendants€submitted€the€affidavit€ofÐ øH ÐRonald€Davis,€the€chief€engineer€at€the€defendantsðð€hotel;€and€excerpts€from€(a)€the€deposition€ofÐ ä4 ÐLisa€McMahan,€an€inspector€with€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Health,€Division€of€GeneralÐ Ð  ÐEnvironmental€Health€(ð ðTDHðð),€who€conducted€regular€checks€of€the€defendantsðð€pool,€(b)€theÐ ¼  Ðdeposition€of€Shirley€Lawson,€and€(c)€the€deposition€of€Bret€Gautner,€the€general€manager€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendantsðð€hotel.€€€Ð ”ä ÐÐ €Ð ÐAs€to€the€plaintiffsðð€first€theory€ð!ð€that€the€pool€contained€excessive€amounts€of€chlorine€ð!ð€weÐ l¼ Ðfind€that€the€defendants,€as€the€moving€party,€satisfied€their€burden€by€proffering€evidence€negatingÐ X ¨ Ðthe€plaintiffsðð€claim.€€In€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€defendants€proffered,Ð D!” Ðamong€other€evidence,€an€affidavit€from€Ronald€Davis,€the€chief€engineer€of€the€defendantsðð€hotel.€Ð 0"€  ÐMr.€Davis€averred€that€the€poolððs€chlorine€and€pH€levels€are€checked€by€one€of€the€hotel€employeesÐ #l! Ðevery€morning,€and€that€these€levels€are€subsequently€recorded€by€that€employee.€Mr.€Davis€wasÐ $X" Ðresponsible€for€maintaining€these€records.€€On€the€day€in€question€ð!ð€August€6,€1999€ð!ð€these€recordsÐ ô$D # Ðdemonstrate€that€the€chlorine€level€of€the€swimming€pool€was€3.0€parts€per€million€(PPM)€and€theÐ à%0!$ ÐpH€level€was€7.6.€€The€records€further€illustrate€that€at€no€time€from€June€28,€1999,€to€August€6,Ð Ì&"% Ð1999,€did€the€chlorine€level€exceed€3.0€PPM.€€To€demonstrate€that€these€levels€were€within€the€limitsÐ ¸'#& Ðestablished€by€the€TDH,€the€defendants€referenced€the€deposition€testimony€of€Lisa€McMahan,€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðenvironmental€specialist€with€the€TDH,€whose€duties€include€conducting€surprise€inspections€at€theÐ )à$( ÐEdgewater€Hotel.€€Her€deposition€testimony€illustrates€that€3.0€PPM€is€at€the€upper€limit€of€the€rangeÐ |*Ì%) Ðcontemplated€by€the€regulations,€but€that€it€is€an€acceptable€reading.€€Similarly,€a€pH€of€7.6€fallsÐ h+¸&* Ðwithin€the€acceptable€range€set€forth€by€the€regulations.€€€€€Ð T,¤'+ ЇWe€hold€that€the€evidence€recited€in€the€foregoing€paragraph€successfully€negates€an€essentialÐ ° Ðelement€of€the€plaintiffsðð€claim,€òòi.e.óó,€that€the€defendantsðð€pool€contained€too€much€chlorine.€€TheÐ œì Ðadmissible€facts€presented€by€the€defendants€show€that€the€pool€did€òònotóó€contain€excessive€levels€ofÐ ˆØ Ðchlorine.€€Consequently,€the€burden€shifted€to€the€plaintiffs€to€present€admissible€facts€establishingÐ tÄ Ða€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€plaintiffsðð€allegation€of€òòbreachóó€of€duty€on€its€theory€of€excessiveÐ `° Ðchlorine€in€the€pool.€€òòSee€ò òMcCarleyó óóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€588.€€The€plaintiffs€did€not€offer€any€evidenceÐ L œ Ðshowing€excessive€levels€of€chlorine€in€the€pool.€€Since€the€plaintiffs€failed€to€controvert€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendantsðð€submission,€the€facts€before€us€establish€that€the€chlorine€in€the€pool€was€not€excessive;Ð $ t Ðtherefore€there€is€nothing€for€a€trier€of€fact€to€determine€as€to€the€plaintiffsðð€first€theory€of€recovery.€Ð  ` ÐIt€follows€that€the€defendants€are€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€to€the€theory€of€excessive€chlorineÐ ü L  Ðin€the€pool.Ð è 8  Ðà@ll)ìàIV.ˆÐ Ô$  ÐÐ À  Ðà@‹‹)ìàA.ˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÐ ˜è  ÐWith€respect€to€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€defendantsðð€pool€was€not€properly€ventilated,Ð „Ô  Ðhowever,€we€find€that€the€defendants€did€not€successfully€meet€their€burden€of€negating€an€essentialÐ pÀ Ðelement€of€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€of€negligence.Ð \¬ ÐÐ H˜ Ðà@‘‘)ìàB.ˆÐ 4„ ÐÐ  p ÐA€successful€negligence€claim€requires€that€a€plaintiff€establish€each€of€the€followingÐ  \ Ðelements€òòat€trialóó:€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€below€theÐ øH Ðapplicable€standard€of€care€that€amounts€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€cause€inÐ ä4 Ðfact;€and€(5)€proximate,€or€legal,€cause.€€ò òòòMcCall€v.€Wilderó óóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995)Ð Ð  Ð(citations€omitted).€€We€will€commence€our€discussion€with€the€first€element:€the€duty€of€care.€Ð ¼  ÐWhether€the€plaintiff€is€owed€a€duty€of€care€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€determined€by€the€court.€€òòò òColnÐ ¨ø Ðv.€City€of€Savannahó óóó,€966€S.W.2d€34,€39€(Tenn.€1998)€(citations€omitted).€€This€element€requiresÐ ”ä Ðconsideration€of€ð ðwhether€the€interest€of€the€plaintiff€which€has€suffered€invasion€was€entitled€toÐ €Ð Ðlegal€protection€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€(citations€omitted).Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐA€risk€is€unreasonable€and€imposes€a€duty€to€act€with€care€if€ð ðthe€foreseeable€probability€andÐ D!” Ðgravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendantððs€conduct€outweigh€the€burden€upon€defendant€to€engage€in€Ð 0"€  Ðalternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€the€harm.ðð׃l×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òòòMcCalló óóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153.€€Once€aÐ #l! Ðcourt€finds€that€a€duty€of€care€is€owed€to€the€plaintiff€ð!ð€either€a€duty€to€refrain€from€creating€aÐ $X" Ðdangerous€condition€or€a€duty€to€warn€against€such€a€condition€ð!ð€the€court€must€determine€ð ðwhetherÐ ° Ða€defendant€has€conformed€to€the€applicable€standard€of€care,€which€is€generally€reasonable€careÐ œì Ðunder€the€circumstances.ðð€€ò òòòColn,ó óóó€966€S.W.2d€at€39.€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€articulated€the€analysisÐ ˆØ Ðto€be€employed€in€determining€the€scope€of€duty€in€an€action€for€negligence:Ð tÄ ÐÐ `° Ðà8 ` àThe€term€reasonable€care€must€be€given€meaning€in€relation€to€theÐ L œ Ðcircumstances.€€Ordinary,€or€reasonable,€care€is€to€be€estimated€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrisk€entailed€through€probable€dangers€attending€the€particularÐ $ t Ðsituation€and€is€to€be€commensurate€with€the€risk€of€injury.€€The€riskÐ  ` Ðinvolved€is€that€which€is€foreseeable;€a€risk€is€foreseeable€if€aÐ ü L  Ðreasonable€person€could€foresee€the€probability€of€its€occurrence€orÐ è 8  Ðif€the€person€was€on€notice€that€the€likelihood€of€danger€to€the€partyÐ Ô$  Ðto€whom€is€owed€a€duty€is€probable.€€Foreseeability€is€the€test€ofÐ À  Ðnegligence.€€If€the€injury€which€occurred€could€not€have€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðreasonably€foreseen,€the€duty€of€care€does€not€arise,€and€even€thoughÐ ˜è  Ðthe€act€of€the€defendant€in€fact€caused€the€injury,€there€is€noÐ „Ô  Ðnegligence€and€no€liability.€€ð ð[T]he€plaintiff€must€show€that€the€injuryÐ pÀ Ðwas€a€reasonably€foreseeable€probability,€not€just€a€remote€possi„Ð \¬ Ðbility,€and€that€some€action€within€the€[defendantððs]€power€moreÐ H˜ Ðprobably€than€not€would€have€prevented€the€injury.ððÐ4„` x` x ÐÐ  p Ðò òòòDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.ó óóó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1992)€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð  \ ÐÔ#†XUaXXX„}#ÔÔ#†¼M»XXUaG#ÔÔ‡XUaX»¼MÔÔ‡X„}XXXUaÔà0 ` àò òòòÐ ` (#` (# Ðó óóóIn€the€instant€case,€the€defendants€contend€that€the€injuries€alleged€by€the€plaintiffs€wereÐ à0 ÐÔ#†¼Ê!»XX„}Z#ÔÔ‡X„}X»¼Ê!ÔÔ#†XUaXXX„}>Z#ÔÔ‡X„}XXXUaÔunforeseeable€and,€so€the€argument€goes,€they€were€under€no€obligation€to€undertake€measures€forÐ Ì ÐÔ#†XUaXXX„}b[#ÔÔ‡X„}XXXUaÔÔ#†¼Ê!»XX„} [#ÔÔ‡X„}X»¼Ê!Ômaintaining€their€pool€beyond€those€that€were€already€in€place.€€The€defendants€argue€that€theÐ ¸ Ðplaintiffs€neglected€to€proffer€any€evidence€that€the€ventilation€system€at€the€Edgewater€Hotelððs€poolÐ ¤ô Ðwas€not€working€on€the€day€of€the€alleged€injuries,€and€consequently€there€is€nothing€that€theÐ à Ðdefendants€could€have€done€beyond€their€regular€maintenance€to€reasonably€foresee€that€this€typeÐ |Ì Ðof€injury€could€occur.€€This€argument,€however,€fails€to€recognize€the€defendantsðð€burden€inÐ h¸ Ðsupporting€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€òòplaintiffóó€furnish€sufficientÐ T ¤ Ðevidence€to€allow€the€court€to€determine€that€the€ventilation€system€was€not€working€or€that€theseÐ @! Ðinjuries€were€foreseeable.€€Rather,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€defendants€at€the€summary€judgmentÐ ,"|  Ðstage€to€demonstrate€that€the€ventilation€was,€in€fact,€working€on€August€6,€1999.€€The€defendantsððÐ #h! Ðargument€assumes€that€they€have€proven€that€the€ventilation€system€was€on€and,€under€thoseÐ $T" Ðconditions,€it€is€not€foreseeable€that€Matthew€would€sustain€such€injuries.€€However,€the€defendantsÐ ð$@ # Ðhave€made€no€such€showing.€€The€defendants€failed€to€present€evidence€that€Matthewððs€injuries€wereÐ Ü%,!$ Ðòònotóó€a€foreseeable€consequence€of€a€poorly€ventilated€indoor€pool.€€For€this€reason,€we€hold€that€theÐ È&"% Ðduty€element€was€not€negated.€€It€follows€that€the€obligation€of€the€plaintiffs€to€present€evidence€onÐ ´'#& Ðthis€issue€was€not€triggered.€€òòSee€ò òMcCarleyó óóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€588.€€€€€€€€Ð  (ð#' ÐÐ Œ)Ü$( ÐThe€defendants€rely€primarily€on€the€case€of€ò òòòTompkins€v.€Annieððs€Nannies,€Inc.ó óóó,€59€S.W.3dÐ x*È%) Ð669€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),€for€the€proposition€that€an€injury€must€be€foreseeable€for€a€duty€to€arise.€Ð d+´&* ÐThis€case€is€inapposite€to€the€one€now€before€us.€€In€ò òòòTompkinsó óóó,€we€reviewed€the€trial€courtððs€grantÐ P, '+ Ðof€a€òòdirected€verdict€óówhere€a€plaintiff,€whose€knees€were€injured€in€a€downhill€race,€failed€to€profferÐ ° Ðevidence€that€her€injury€was€foreseeable.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€674.€€Although€the€evidence€demonstrated€that€theÐ œì Ðplaintiffððs€injuries€were€caused€by€running€down€the€hill,€the€trial€court€decided,€and€we€agreed,€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€could€not€have€reasonably€foreseen€that€such€a€rare€injury€would€have€occurred€whenÐ tÄ Ðchildren€under€its€care€ran€down€a€hill.€€ò òòòId.ó ó׃-×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×óó€Ð `° ÐÐ L œ ÐThe€issue€before€us€is€not€the€sufficiency€of€evidence€òòat€trialóó.€€In€ò òòòTompkinsó óóó,€the€plaintiff,€òòatÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrialóó,€had€the€burden€of€showing€foreseeability.€€In€the€instant€case,€we€are€not€dealing€with€a€trial.€Ð $ t ÐWe€are€dealing€with€summary€judgment.€€On€summary€judgment,€the€òòdefendantóó€has€the€burden€ofÐ  ` Ðshowing€a€òòlackóó€of€foreseeability.€€€This€the€defendants€have€not€done.€€The€defendants€failed€toÐ ü L  Ðòònegateóó€the€element€of€duty.€€As€a€consequence€of€this€failure,€the€plaintiffsðð€burden€to€prove€duty€wasÐ è 8  Ðnot€triggered.€€While€they€will€have€that€burden€at€trial,€they€do€not€have€it€now.Ð Ô$  ÐÐ À  ÐÓ  ÓC.òòÐ ¬ü  ÐóóÓ´jÓÐ ˜è  ÐIf€a€defendant€does€not€exercise€reasonable€care,€it€breaches€its€duty€to€a€plaintiff.€€ò òòòMcCalló óóó,Ð „Ô  Ð913€S.W.2d€at€153.€€òòò ò€ó óóóAlthough€the€owner€or€operator€of€premises€is€not€the€ð ðabsolute€insurerðð€of€theÐ pÀ Ðsafety€of€its€premises,€it€is€required€to€use€due€care€under€all€circumstances.€€ò òòòEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€587,€594€(Tenn.€1994).€€That€includes€removing€or€warning€against€any€latent€or€hiddenÐ H˜ Ðdangerous€conditions€of€which€the€owner€was€aware€or€should€be€aware€through€ordinary€diligence.€Ð 4„ Ðò òòòColnó óóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€40.€€Therefore,€before€a€premises€owner€can€be€held€liable€for€a€dangerous€orÐ  p Ðdefective€condition€on€its€premises,€there€must€be€evidence€òòat€trialóó€that€the€condition€was€createdÐ  \ Ðby€the€owner€or€its€agent,€or,€if€created€by€another,€that€the€owner€had€actual€or€constructive€notice׃2×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿ4ootelÝóóÝ  ÝÐ øH Ðof€the€condition€prior€to€the€alleged€injury.€€ò òòòChambliss€v.€Shoneyððs€Inc.ó óóó,€742€S.W.2d€271,€273Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(citation€omitted).€€The€defendants€contend€that€since€the€plaintiffs€presentedÐ Ð  Ðno€evidence€to€prove€this€element€of€its€cause€of€action€regarding€lack€of€ventilation,€summaryÐ ¼  Ðjudgment€was€appropriate€on€the€plaintiffsðð€second€theory€of€recovery.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÐ ”ä ÐThe€defendants€have€once€again€failed€to€grasp€the€partiesðð€respective€burdens€on€summaryÐ €Ð Ðjudgment.€€Whether€the€plaintiffs€presented€evidence€that€the€ventilation€system€was€not€workingÐ l¼ Ðon€the€day€in€question€is€not€the€issue.€€This€is€putting€the€proverbial€cart€before€the€horse.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðplaintiffsðð€submissions€are€not€even€subject€to€analysis€by€the€court€until€the€defendants€submitÐ D!” Ðevidence€demonstrating€that€the€system€òòwas€in€fact€workingóó.€€In€support€of€their€motion€for€summaryÐ 0"€  Ðjudgment,€the€defendants€proffered€the€following€evidence€relating€to€the€ventilation€system:€that€theÐ ° Ðsystem€was€hardwired€and€remained€on€24€hours€a€day;€that€it€could€only€be€turned€off€by€a€breakerÐ œì Ðlocated€in€the€pool€area,€which€was€practically€inaccessible€to€the€public,€or€by€an€electrical€storm,Ð ˆØ Ðin€which€case€the€pool€would€be€closed;€that€the€defendantsðð€employees€ð!ð€namely,€their€maintenanceÐ tÄ Ðengineers€ð!ð€were€expected€to€check€that€the€ventilation€system€was€working€when€they€conductedÐ `° Ðtheir€daily€chemical€tests€of€the€pool;€that€if€the€system€was€not€functioning€properly,€it€wouldÐ L œ Ðimmediately€be€attended€to;€and€that€when€Mr.€Davis€checked€the€chemical€levels€and€the€ventilationÐ 8 ˆ Ðsystem€on€August€7,€1999,€the€day€òòfollowing€óóthe€injury,€the€system€was€working€properly.€€ThisÐ $ t Ðevidence€certainly€casts€doubt€on€the€assertion€by€the€plaintiffs€that€the€ventilation€system€was€notÐ  ` Ðworking€on€August€6,€1999;€but€this€is€not€the€issue.€€The€question€for€us€to€decide€is€whether€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendantsðð€evidence€negates€the€plaintiffsðð€allegation€that€the€indoor€pool€was€not€properlyÐ è 8  Ðventilated€during€the€relevant€time.Ð Ô$  ÐÐ À  ÐAs€we€have€previously€stated,€ð ð[m]aterial€supporting€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€mustÐ ¬ü  Ðdo€more€than€ððnip€at€the€heelsðð€of€an€essential€element€of€a€cause€of€action;€it€must€òònegateóó€thatÐ ˜è  Ðelement.ðð€€ò òòòMadison€v.€Loveó óóó,€No.€E2000„01692„COA„RM„CV,€2000€WL€1036362,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€E.S.,€filed€July€28,€2000).€€The€evidence€before€us€does€not€show€that€the€indoor€pool€wasÐ pÀ Ðproperly€ventilated€when€the€pool€was€used€by€Matthew.€€No€one€associated€with€the€hotel€testifiedÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€indoor€pool€was€properly€ventilated€during€the€critical€period€of€Matthewððs€use.€€AlthoughÐ H˜ Ðthe€log€containing€the€chlorine€and€pH€levels€sufficed€to€satisfy€the€defendantsðð€burden€on€the€issueÐ 4„ Ðof€excessive€chlorination€in€the€pool,€that€log€fails€to€give€any€indication€of€the€engineerððsÐ  p Ðassessment€of€the€ventilation€system.€€Since€there€is€no€evidence€unequivocally€showing€that€theÐ  \ Ðventilation€system€was€working€on€August€6,€1999,€these€assertions€by€the€defendants€and€theirÐ øH Ðagents€merely€cast€doubt€on€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€ventilation€system€was€not€working.€€TheyÐ ä4 Ðdo€not,€however,€negate€the€plaintiffsðð€lack„of„ventilation€allegation€in€a€way€that€would€trigger€theÐ Ð  Ðplaintiffsðð€burden€to€proffer€evidence€that€the€ventilation€system€was€not€working.€€òòSee€ò òMcCarleyó óóó,Ð ¼  Ð960€S.W.2d€at€588.׃m×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  ÓD.€€Ð €Ð ÐÓ€Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àCausation,€or€cause€in€fact,€deals€with€the€ð ðbut€forðð€consequences€of€the€defendantððs€conduct,Ð X ¨ Ðthat€is,€that€ð ð[t]he€defendantððs€conduct€is€a€cause€of€the€event€if€the€event€would€not€have€occurredÐ D!” Ðbut€for€that€conduct.ðð€€ò òòòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantó óóó,€868€S.W.2d€594,€598€(Tenn.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€Ð 0"€  ÐThe€defendants€argue€that€the€evidence€proffered€by€the€plaintiffs€ð!ð€namely€the€testimony€of€Dr.Ð #l! ÐEllenburg€that€Matthewððs€alleged€injuries€were€caused€by€exposure€to€chlorine€fumes€ð!ð€fails€toÐ $X" Ðdemonstrate€cause€in€fact.€€Yet€again,€we€need€not€reach€the€plaintiffsðð€evidence€on€this€issue€whereÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendants€have€failed€to€negate€this€element.€€The€defendants€proffered€no€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðdemonstrating€that€an€indoor€pool€in€which€the€ventilation€system€was€not€functioning€properly€couldòòÐ ° Ðnot€causeóó€injuries€of€the€type€suffered€by€Matthew.€€Consequently,€where€the€defendants€have€failedÐ œì Ðto€negate€the€causation€element,€the€burden€does€not€shift€and€thus€it€is€not€necessary€that€we€addressÐ ˆØ Ðthe€strength€of€the€plaintiffsðð€evidence€relating€to€causation.€€€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€their€brief,€the€defendants€contend€that€there€is€no€testimony€that€would€contradict€theirÐ L œ Ðclaim€that€the€hotel€conducted€daily€pool€inspections,€that€the€pool€was€maintained€at€proper€chlorineÐ 8 ˆ Ðlevels,€and€that€there€was€adequate€ventilation€in€the€pool€and€hot€tub€area.€€Even€if€this€is€the€case,Ð $ t Ðit€is€not€this€courtððs€duty€to€make€a€determination€on€this€issue€absent€any€evidence€that€on€the€dayÐ  ` Ðon€which€Matthew€Lawsonððs€injuries€allegedly€occurred,€there€was€adequate€ventilation€in€the€poolÐ ü L  Ðarea.€€In€ò òòòMcCarleyó óóó,€the€defendant€restaurant€proffered€evidence€that€cast€doubt€on€the€plaintiffððsÐ è 8  Ðassertion€that€its€food€caused€his€food€poisoning.€€ò òòòMcCarleyó óóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€588.€€The€court€found,Ð Ô$  Ðhowever,€that€where€the€evidence€proffered€by€the€defendant€failed€to€òòexcludeóó€the€defendantððs€foodÐ À  Ðas€a€potential€source€of€the€plaintiffððs€injuries,€summary€judgment€was€not€proper.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Similarly,Ð ¬ü  Ðwhere€the€evidence€presented€casts€doubt€on€the€plaintiffsðð€contention€as€to€what€caused€MatthewððsÐ ˜è  Ðinjuries,€but€fails€to€negate€improper€ventilation€from€the€list€of€possible€causes׃n×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€a€genuine€issueÐ „Ô  Ðof€material€fact€exists€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  ÓE.òòÐ H˜ ÐóóÓà‹ÓÌà  àThe€test€for€proximate€cause,€or€legal€cause,€is€three„fold:€(1)€the€defendantððs€conduct€mustÐ  p Ðhave€been€a€substantial€factor€in€bringing€about€the€harm€complained€of;€(2)€there€is€no€rule€or€policyÐ  \ Ðthat€should€relieve€the€wrongdoer€from€liability€because€of€the€manner€in€which€the€negligence€hasÐ øH Ðresulted€in€the€harm;€and€(3)€the€harm€giving€rise€to€the€cause€of€action€could€have€reasonably€beenÐ ä4 Ðforeseen€or€anticipated€by€a€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€and€prudence.€€ò òòòKilpatrickó óóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€598,€n.1€(citing€ò òòòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyó óóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€1991)).€€In€light€of€ourÐ ¼  Ðdiscussion,€it€follows€that€the€defendants€also€failed€to€satisfy€their€burden€on€proximate€causation.€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€defendants€attempt€to€rely€on€Dr.€Ellenburgððs€deposition€testimony׃pŒ×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€which€he€stated€that€ifÐ ”ä Ðthe€chlorine€and€pH€levels€were€normal,€and€the€pool€was€properly€ventilated,€he€could€not€haveÐ €Ð Ðforeseen€that€Matthew€would€sustain€those€injuries.€€The€defendants€attempt€to€rely€on€this€statementÐ l¼ Ðto€argue€that€Matthewððs€injuries€were€not€foreseeable.€€Yet€again,€we€need€not€address€the€sufficiencyÐ X ¨ Ðof€this€evidence€to€demonstrate€proximate€causation€when€the€defendants€have€failed€to€negate€thisÐ D!” Ðâ âelement€with€evidence€that€a€poorly€ventilated€pool€could€not€cause€Matthewððs€injuries.€Ð 0"€  ÐConsequently,€the€plaintiffsðð€burden€of€producing€evidence€on€the€issue€of€proximate€cause€wasÐ ° Ðnever€triggered.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ  ÓV.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓU“ÓÓ SÓÓ€ g789:;<=>(ÿÿ03 Óà  àThe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€on€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€Edgewater€Hotelððs€pool€contained€excessive€levels€of€chlorine€is€affirmed.€€The€grant€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðsummary€judgment€to€the€defendants€as€to€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€pool€was€not€properlyÐ $ t Ðventilated€is€hereby€vacated.€This€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings,€consistent€with€thisÐ  ` Ðopinion.€Exercising€our€discretion,€costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€parties€equally.Ð ü L  ÐÓ SÓÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ ˜è  ÐÔ#†XUaXXX„}\#ÔÔ#†¼M»XXUa[\#Ô