ÿWPCÞ …# VU:a %› 0(¡U <Éw@ 4E Y Eh 0³j U< 0DY 0J 0Tç 0^; 0h™ 0r s 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u  0d‚ BæU *B)-DCV D3™ AMÌØ 0@ñ1OMLœv~èvÓf AO9ƈ 0DN D/’ BÁ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman y£z£{}~Ug€£D‚ƒÓ€Úƒç"3|xŽ(DG2Èô$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àÔ€XäkXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó·$Arrus BT Roman(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd""""'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òDecember€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àÔ€ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMuse€testified€that€his€pace€was€ð ða€little€bit€better€than€a€jog.ððÌ EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àÔ€ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMuseððs€foot€apparently€got€caught€in€a€segment€of€the€pipe€referred€to€inÏthe€record€as€a€ð ðððCðððð€opening.ððÌ BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àÔ€ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€this€claim€arose€May€4,€1990,€the€1997€Supplement€amendmentsÏaffect€adjective€law€only€and€not€substantive€law.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€Ôò ò›œßR€+,)A1-j| ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEó óÌ______________________________________________ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òESTATE€OF€JAMES€ARCHER€MUSEó ó,à à)à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÓ` °ŠXâÐ XÓà àClaimant/Appellee,à àà àà àà à)à àà àNo.€03A01„9704„CC„00126Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àOn€Appeal€from€the€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àTennessee€ClaimsÏCommissionÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà àà à)à àà à(Eastern€Division)€No.Ï15783Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌßA€" ) °°xdtE·xAßÌÌÌÓ  ÓFROM€THE€TENNESSEE€CLAIMS€COMMISSIONÌTHE€HONORABLE€MICHAEL€S.€LACY,€CLAIMS€COMMISSIONERÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌò òDaniel€P.€Streetó óÌKingsport,€Tennessee€€ÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌò òJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌò òMichael€E.€Mooreó óÌSolicitor€GeneralÌò òMary€M.€Bersó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓOPINION€FILED:€________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÑ7€ äk XXdXXdæ7ÑÔ€¼ÔÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€a€negligence€case€of€slip€and€fall€against€the€State€of€Tennessee.€ÏClaimant/Appellee€(Muse)€was€injured€after€slipping€on€piping€on€the€campus€ofÏEastern€Tennessee€State€University,€a€state€university€owned€by€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€Muse€filed€a€Complaint€against€the€State€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€Ô€'ÔððÔ€Ô€9„8„307(a)(1)€which€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€commission€or€each€commissioner€sittingÏindividually€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€determine€allÏmonetary€claims€against€the€state€falling€within€one€(1)Ïor€more€of€the€following€categories:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(C)€€Negligently€created€or€maintained€dangerousÏconditions€on€state€controlled€real€property.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€State€denied€liability€upon€the€defense€of€the€ð ðopen€and€obviousðð€ruleÏwhich€will€be€discussed€later€in€this€opinion.€€The€State€further€contended€that€ifÏthe€State€was€negligent€at€all,€Museððs€own€negligence€was€equal€to€or€greater€thanÏany€negligence€by€the€State,€thereby€barring€recovery.€€The€Tennessee€ClaimsÏCommission€found€the€liability€of€the€State€to€be€60%€and€the€liability€of€Muse€toÏbe€40%.€€Damages€for€Muse€were€assessed€at€$295,826.69€by€the€Commission.€ÏApportioning€damages€according€to€the€comparative€liability€of€the€parties,€theÏCommission€awarded€damages€to€Muse€of€$177,496.01.€€We€affirm.à àÌÌÓ  Óò òòòSTATEMENT€OF€THE€CASEóóó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€claimant€filed€a€Complaint€for€Damages€in€this€œnegligence›€claim€withÏthe€Division€of€Claims€Administration€on€February€21,€1991.€€Following€T.C.A.€Ô€'ÔððÔ€ÔÏ9„8„402(c),€the€Division€of€Claims€Administration€transferred€the€claim€to€theÏClaims€Commission€on€May€10,€1991.€€The€defendant€filed€its€answer€on€June€20,Ï1991.€€The€Claims€Commissioner,€Eastern€Division,€Michael€S.€Lacy,€entered€anÏorder€on€June€4,€1992€setting€this€claim€for€hearing€on€June€17,€1992.€€On€July€18,Ï1996,€Commissioner€Lacy€entered€a€Final€Decree€finding€liability€and€awardingÍdamages€to€the€claimant.€€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€an€òòen€bancóó€hearing€orÏmotion€to€alter€and€amend€the€judgment€on€August€14,€1996.€€The€ClaimsÏCommission€entered€its€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€on€March€13,€1997.€ÏFollowing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€12(II),€defendant€filed€a€notice€of€petition€for€review€onÏApril€9,€1997.€€During€the€pendency€of€the€appeal,€counsel€for€the€claimant€filed€aÏnotice€of€substitution€of€parties€upon€the€claimantððs€death.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òSTATEMENT€OF€THE€FACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àClaimant/Appellee,€James€Archer€Muse€(Muse),€was€employed€to€deliver€foodÏcoupon€booklets€for€a€telemarketing€company.€€On€May€4,€1990,€Muse€wasÏrunning× ƒ. ××  ×€across€the€campus€of€East€Tennessee€State€University€(ETSU),€a€stateÏuniversity,€delivering€the€booklets.€€At€one€point,€Muse€attempted€to€cut€across€aÏcourtyard.€€Bordering€the€courtyard€were€round,€metal€pipe€segments.€€AttemptingÏto€hop€over€the€piping,€Muse€stepped€on€a€pipe€segment€with€his€left€foot.€€As€heÏattempted€to€propel€his€right€foot€over€the€piping,€his€left€foot€got€caught€in€theÏpiping.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Muse€testified€that€he€ð ðheard€three€cracks€and€a€popðð€and€fell€down.€€As€aÍresult,€Muse€suffered€a€broken€hip.Ìà àThe€Claims€Commission€found€the€State€to€be€60%€liable€and€Muse€to€beÏ40%€liable€for€the€injuries€sustained€by€Muse.€€The€Commission€determined€thatÏMuseððs€total€damages€equaled€$295,826.69.€€This€assessment€included:€€$10,826.69Ïfor€past€medical€expenses;€$25,000.00€for€prospective€future€damages€for€a€hipÏreplacement;€$195,000.00€for€lost€earning€capacity;€and€$90,000.00€for€futureÏmedical€expenses,€permanent€impairment,€pain€and€suffering,€loss€of€enjoyment€ofÏlife,€and€other€damages.€€As€a€result,€the€State€was€ordered€to€pay€Muse€the€sum€ofÏ$177,496.01.Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€State€contends€that€the€Commission€erred€in€its€finding€thatÏthe€State€is€liable.€€According€to€the€State,€it€owed€no€duty€to€Muse€since€theÏdanger€was€open€and€obvious.€€In€addition,€the€State€challenges€the€CommissionððsÏassessment€of€Museððs€lost€earning€capacity.€€The€State€asserts€the€CommissionÏerred€by€comparing€the€pre„injury€earning€capacity€of€a€person€with€a€collegeÏeducation€with€the€post„injury€earning€capacity€of€a€person€without€a€collegeÏeducation.€€On€appeal,€Muse€contends€that€the€Commission€should€haveÏdetermined€that€the€State€was€even€greater€at€fault€and€should€have€found€thatÏMuse€had€suffered€even€greater€damages.ÌÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONS€OF€LAWó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court€has€jurisdiction€to€consider€appeals€from€the€Claims€CommissionÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€9„8„403(a)(1)€(Supp.€1997).œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€Our€reviewÏof€the€Commissionððs€findings€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€Commissionððs€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€òòdeÏnovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26Ï(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àWe€first€address€each€partyððs€contention€with€regard€to€the€CommissionerððsÏapportionment€of€fault.€€The€State€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€barredÏMuse€from€recovery.€€The€Commissioner€held€that€ð ðit€does€not€appear€to€beÏappropriate€to€have€expected€Mr.€Muse€to€be€aware€of€all€of€the€potentialÏcombinations€of€risks€associated€with€the€piping€and€the€related€stakes,€holes€andÏððCðð€openings.ðð€€The€State€claims€that€the€Commissioner€erred€by€not€barring€MuseÏfrom€recovery€in€light€of€the€ð ðopen€and€obvious€rule.ðð€€Ìà àAccording€to€the€open€and€obvious€rule,€an€injured€invitee€may€be€barredÏfrom€recovery€for€injuries€sustained€on€the€ownerððs€property€if€the€hazard€is€asÏreadily€apparent€to€the€invitee€as€to€the€owner.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Kendall€Oil€Co.€v.€Payneó óóó,Ï41€Tenn.€App.€201,€293€S.W.2d€40,€42€(1955);€ò òòòCooperwood€v.€Kroger€Food€Stores,ÍInc.ó óóó,€No.€02A01„9308„CV„00182,€1994€WL€72517,€*3€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€This€isÏpremised€on€the€notion€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[l]iability€is€sustained€on€the€ground€of€the€ownerððsÏsuperior€knowledge€of€a€perilous€condition€on€hisÏpremises€and€he€is€not€liable€for€injuries€sustained€fromÏdangers€that€are€obvious,€reasonably€apparent€or€as€wellÏknown€to€the€invitee€as€to€the€owner.ÌÌÓÓò òòòKendall€Oiló óóó,€41€Tenn.€App.€201,€293€S.W.2d€at€42.€€Ìà àThe€viability€of€the€open€and€obvious€ruleò òòò€ó óóóhas€been€repeatedly€questionedÏsince€Tennesseeððs€adoption€of€the€comparative€fault€regime€in€ò òòòMcIntyre€v.ÏBallentineó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€There€appears€to€be€some€degree€ofÏconfusion€within€the€Court€of€Appeals€concerning€the€appropriate€treatment€of€theÏrule€in€the€post„ò òòòMcIntyreó óóó€era.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Coln€v.€City€of€Savannahó óóó,€No.€02A01„9507„CV„00152,€1996€WL€544652€(Tenn.€App.€Sept.€25,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appealÏgrantedóó€(Feb.€2,€1997);€ò òòòCooperwood€v.€Kroger€Food€Stores,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€02A01„9308„CV„00182,€1994€WL€725217€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€30,€1994);€ò òòòShope€v.€Radio€Shackó óóó,ÏNo.€03A01„9508„CV„00288,€1995€WL€733885€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€7,€1995);€ò òòòJones€v.ÏExxon€Corpóó.ó ó,€No.€02A01„9507„CV„00159,€1996€WL€482674€(Tenn.€App.€Aug.€27,Ï1996).Ìà àRegardless€of€the€approach€taken,€we€find€that€the€hazard€in€the€present€caseÏwas€not€open€and€obvious.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€indicates€that€the€dangerÍwas€not€as€ð ðobvious,€reasonably€apparent€or€as€well€knownðð€to€Muse€as€to€ETSU.€Ïò òòòKendall€Oiló óóó,€€ò òòòsupraóó.ó ó€€The€Commissioner€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€bar€Muse€fromÏrecovery.Ìà àMuse€argues€that€the€Commissioner€should€have€attributed€a€greaterÏpercentage€of€the€fault€to€the€State.€€The€evidence€supports€the€CommissionerððsÏfinding€that€ð ðMuseððs€conduct€was€a€significant€factor€as€a€cause€in€fact€of€theÏharm.ðð€€The€evidence€indicates€that€Muse€was€running€and€that€he€was€familiarÏwith€the€area€since€he€had€attended€school€there.€€The€Commissioner€properlyÏconsidered€the€extent€to€which€Muse€assumed€the€risk€of€the€injury€since€MuseÏwas€capable€of€observing€ð ðthat€the€piping€consisted€of€very€heavy€metal,€had€aÏsilver€finish,€was€rather€round€and€smooth,€and€was€potentially€slick.ðð€€€We€affirmÏthe€Commissionerððs€apportionment€of€fault.€€Ìà àWe€now€turn€to€the€Commissionerððs€assessment€of€damages.€€Both€partiesÏcontend€that€the€Commissioner€erred€while€calculating€Museððs€lost€earningÏcapacity.€€According€to€the€State,€the€Commissioner€determined€the€pre„injuryÏearning€capacity€by€considering€a€person€with€a€college€education.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€when€the€Commissioner€determined€Museððs€post„injury€earning€capacity,€itÏconsidered€a€person€without€a€college€education.€€Muse€asserts€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€in€favor€of€increasing€Museððs€award€for€loss€of€earning€capacity.Ìà àThe€Commissioner€made€its€determination€of€Museððs€lost€earning€capacityÏbased€on€testimony€by€a€vocational€expert,€an€economist,€and€Muse.€€TheÏvocational€expert,€Dr.€Norman€œHankins,›€testified€that€Museððs€pre„injury€earningÏcapacity€as€a€college€graduate€was€$25,549.00€per€year.€€Dr.€Hankins€testified€thatÏas€a€result€of€the€injury,€Muse€could€earn€no€more€than€$7.00€per€hour.€€Based€onÏthese€figures,€Dr.€John€Moore,€the€economist,€concluded€that€Muse€had€suffered€aÏtotal€lost€earning€capacity€of€$544,620.00.€€Dr.€Moore€also€made€a€secondÏcalculation€based€on€the€earning€capacity€of€a€college€graduate€yet€reduced€by€50%Ïto€factor€in€loss€of€the€rate€of€advancement€resulting€from€the€injury.€€Based€onÏthis€assessment,€Dr.€Moore€calculated€Museððs€loss€of€earning€capacity€atÏ$184,216.00.Ìà àAfter€considering€this€testimony,€the€Commissioner€assessed€Museððs€pre„injury€earning€capacity€ð ðsomewhere€in€between€$15,600.00€and€$24,549.00.ðð€€ThisÏwas€due€to€the€fact€that€Muse€was€earning€approximately€$15,600.00€per€year€atÏthe€time€of€the€injury.€€ð ðUpon€a€consideration€of€the€assumptions,€calculations€andÏconclusions€of€both€the€vocational€expert€and€the€economist,€as€well€as€theÏtestimony€of€Mr.€Muse€and€the€record€as€a€whole,ðð€the€Commissioner€concludedÏthat€Museððs€loss€of€earning€capacity€equaled€$195,000.00.Ìà àAfter€a€careful€examination€of€all€the€evidence€in€the€record€on€the€questionÍof€loss€of€earning€capacity,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€theÏCommissionerððs€findings.€€Both€parties€had€ample€opportunity€during€the€trial€andÏdid€proffer€evidence€concerning€the€proper€calculation€of€earning€capacity€as€wellÏas€to€expose€flaws€in€the€methodology€used€by€their€opponent.€€The€recordÏindicates€that€the€Commissioner€thoroughly€considered€this€evidence€when€makingÏhis€determination.€€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€Commissioner.€€TheÏCommissionerððs€determination€of€Museððs€loss€of€earning€capacity€is€affirmed.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€Commission€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxedÏagainst€the€Appellant€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€€ÌœÌ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ìà àà àà àÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÇÓ  ÓœÑ7€ Èç XXdý XXdý7ÑIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌ______________________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌÌESTATE€OF€JAMES€ARCHER€MUSE,à à)à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àClaimant/Appellee,à àà àà àà à)à àà àNo.€03A01„9704„CC„00126Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àOn€Appeal€from€the€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àTennessee€ClaimsÏCommissionÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àà à(Eastern€Division)€No.€15783Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌßA€" ) °°xdtE‚xAßÌÌÓ  Óò òJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tó óÌÓ  ÓÌßA€" ) °°xdEŒxAßÌÌÓÓà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€regularly€considered€by€the€Court€on€the€recordÏand€for€the€reasons€stated€in€the€Courtððs€opinion€of€even€date,€it€is€ordered€that:Ìà à1.à àThe€Final€Decree€of€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€is€affirmed€andÏthis€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary.Ìà à2.à àCosts€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.