ÿWPC} 4# èU:ó %- 0(3b [w@g4§» 0lÊ 0D6z 0J‚ 0TÌ 0^  0h~ 0ræ 0|X 0†Ô 0Z 1uê 0d_ Bà AQà Æ1 0D÷ 0@; 0D{ D/¿ Bî D3 U *> B)h DC‘ AMÔ ! I2±{v~,vÓª˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ‘D’“U”D•–—D˜™Ó€£ê‚_#3|x£((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌMay€29,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóGovernmental€immunity€is€removed€for€certain€other€torts€by€other€sections€of€the€Act.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„202,€204,€and€205.Ì §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€deviation€in€elevation€from€the€brick€pavers€to€the€sidewalk€in€òòColn›€v.€City€of€SavannahóóÏwas€three„eighths€of€an€inch€when€the€brick€pavers€were€installed.€€By€the€time€of€the€accident,Ïhowever,€the€deviation€was€several€inches€greater.ÌPtPtHHØ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÿXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÙ€!ÙßR€./-A1-j|!ò` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€+XÔÌÌÌÌÌDONNA€S.€OGILVIEà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9709„CV„00466ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95C„1673ÌMETROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENT€OFà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌNASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSONà àà à)ÌCOUNTY,€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌJOEL€H.€MOSELEYÌMOSELEY€&€MOSELEYÌSuite€300,€One€Church€StreetÌ101€Church€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1609Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌJAMES€L.€MURPHYÌDirector€of€LawÌDepartment€of€Law€of€the€MetropolitanÌGovernment€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€CountyÌÌPHILIP€D.€BALTZÌMetropolitan€AttorneyÌ222€Third€Avenue€North,€Suite€501ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌBUSSART,€W.,€S.J.ÌÌÌÓÓò òÔ€+„Ôòòà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€+XÔÌÌà àà àThe€plaintiff€sued€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€andÏDavidson€œCounty,›€alleging€that€the€dangerous€and€unsafe€condition€of€a€cityÏsidewalk€caused€her€to€fall€and€sustain€personal€injuries.€€After€a€bench€trial,€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€œfound€that€the€sidewalk€was€not€defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous€and€that€the€plaintiff€was€more€than€fifty€percent€at€fault.›€€WeÏaffirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àOn€June€26,€1994,€the€plaintiff,€in€the€company€of€her€husband€andÏson,€walked€along€the€sidewalk€on€the€south€side€of€Union€Street€in€Nashville.€€AtÍsome€point€between€Fifth€and€Sixth€Avenues,€she€stumbled€over€a€ð ðlipðð€a€littleÏover€one€inch€high€in€the€sidewalk.€€The€lip€resulted€from€the€failure€to€build€orÏmaintain€the€sidewalk€flush€with€the€top€of€a€concrete€underground€œchamber,›€œtheÏsurface€of€which›€formed€part€of€the€sidewalk.€€œMs.›€Ogilvie€fell€and€sustainedÏpainful€personal€injuries.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àBecause€this€is€an€action€against€the€local€government,€theÏTennessee€œGovernmental›€Tort€Liability€Act€applies€to€the€claim.€€After€providingÏ(or€reiterating)€a€general€rule€of€immunity,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(a),€theÏAct€removes€the€immunity€of€a€local€government€for€injuries€ð ðcaused€by€aÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€of€any€street,€alley,€sidewalk€orÏhighway,€owned€or€controlled€by€such€governmental€entity.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„20„203(a).œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€Subsection€(b)€requires€as€a€precondition€to€liability€that€theÏgovernmental€entity€have€notice,€actual€or€constructive,€of€the€dangerousÏcondition.€€œThe€City›€does€not€deny€that€it€had€notice€of€the€condition€or€that€theÏsidewalk€was€under€its€ownership€and€control.ÌÌà àà àThe€real€question,€then,€is€whether€the€sidewalk€was€defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous.€€The€trial€judge€held€that€it€was€neither,€and€relying€in€partÏon€that€conclusion,€he€dismissed€the€claim.€€The€question€of€what€condition€of€aÏsidewalk€will€make€it€defective,€dangerous,€or€unsafe€has€troubled€the€courts€forÏmany€years.€€Our€books€contain€numerous€cases€dealing€with€sidewalkÏirregularities€from€great€to€small.€€œIn›€òòCity€of€Memphis€v.€œMcCrady›óó,€124€S.W.2d€248Ï(Tenn.€1938)€the€court€held€that€a€two€and€one„half€inch€ð ðlipðð€at€an€expansion€jointÏin€the€sidewalk,€over€which€the€plaintiff€tripped€in€broad€daylight,€would€notÏsubject€the€city€to€liability.€€In€òòBatts€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€123€S.W.2d€1099€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1939)€the€court€surveyed€a€number€of€cases€that€dealt€with€defects€of€variousÏsizes€and€shapes€in€sidewalks€or€streets.€€The€defects€ranged€from€a€two€andÏthree„eighths€inch€difference€between€sections€of€a€sidewalk,€òòMcCormick€v.€CityÏof€Racineóó,€277€œN.W.›€646€œ(1938),›€to€a€three€inch€deep€hole€in€a€sidewalk,€òòœGetzoff›€v.ÏCity€of€New€Yorkóó,€64€œN.Y.S.›€636€œ(1900),›€and€in€each€case€the€court€held€as€aÏmatter€of€law€that€the€condition€did€not€render€the€area€defective€or€dangerous.ÌÌà àà àIn€fairness,€we€should€point€out€that€the€Tennessee€cases€all€sayÏthat€liability€does€not€depend€on€how€high€the€irregularity€œis.€›€œNo›€bright€line€can€beÏdrawn€on€the€size€and€depth€of€holes€in€the€sidewalk€beyond€which€the€city€wouldÏbe€liable.€€The€court€in€òòBattsóó€summed€up€the€rule€in€this€way:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€à àIt€would€be€impossible€to€derive€a€rule€from€theÏnumerous€cases€by€which€to€fix€the€line€of€demarcationÍbetween€actionable€size€and€depth€of€holes€in€streetsÏand€sidewalks€and€œnonactionable›€size€and€depth.€€TheÏcases€all€come€back€to€the€question€of€whether€or€not€itÏcould€be€reasonably€anticipated,€by€a€reasonablyÏprudent€person,€that€a€traveler€on€the€sidewalk€orÏhighway€unexpectedly€encountering€the€obstruction€orÏhole,€would€suffer€injury,€or€as€some€of€the€casesÏexpress€it,€would€probably€suffer€injury.ÌÌ123€S.W.2d€at€1104.ÌÌÌœÌà àà àIn€òòCity€of€Memphis€v.€McCradyóó,€124€S.W.2d€248,€249€(Tenn.€1938)Ïthe€ÌÌcourt€put€it€this€way:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€municipality€cannot€be€held€as€an€insurer,€nor€canÏit€be€charged€with€the€duty€to€correct€slight€defects€inÏsidewalks€resulting€from€inequality€in€the€expansionÏjoints,€produced€by€natural€causes,€where€theÏinequality€or€unevenness€does€not€make€a€dangerousÏobstruction€calculated€to€produce€injury€to€personsÏexercising€reasonable€care.€€And€so,€where€theÏevidence€is€conflicting€or€the€facts€such€as€to€authorizeÏdifferent€inferences€as€to€whether€the€defect€is€aÏdangerous€obstruction€calculated€to€cause€injury,€theÏcase€must€be€submitted€to€the€jury,€but,€where€theÏdefect€or€obstruction€is€such€that€reasonable€menÏwould€not€differ€in€the€conclusion€that€the€obstruction€orÏdefect€was€not€dangerous€to€travel€in€the€ordinaryÏmodes€by€persons€exercising€due€care,€a€verdictÏshould€be€directed.Ì›ÌÓÓà àà àÌà àà àœThe›€courts€have€consistently€held€that€whether€a€particular€site€isÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous,€thereby€removing€governmental€immunity,€is€aÍquestion€of€fact.€€òòœColn›€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,€____€œS.W.›€____€(Tenn.€1998);€òòœHelton›Ïv.€Knox€Countyóó,€922€S.W.2d€877€(Tenn.€1996).€€And€the€factual€determinationÏœinvolvesÌthe€analysis€specified€in€òòBattsóó€above.›ÌÓÓœÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€sidewalk€where€the€plaintiff€fell€was€notÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous.€€That€finding€comes€to€this€court€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€Civ›.€Proc.€€We€cannot€find€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€it.ÌÌœÌÌÌ›à@ àò òIII.ó óÌœÌà àà àIn€what€may€or€may€not€be€a€trend,€the€more€recent€cases€haveÏassumed€that€more€minor€deviations€in€the€surface€of€the€sidewalk€are€dangerousÏand€have€focused€on€how€comparative€fault€principles€affect€the€duties€of€theÏrespective€parties.€€òòSee€Coln€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,€____€S.W.€____€(Tenn.€1998);× ƒ1 ××  ×ÍòòBroyles€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€No.€03A01„9505„CV„00166€(filed€at€Knoxville,€Aug.Ï30,€1995).€€So,€an›€argument€could€be€made€that€the€older€cases€we€have€citedÏhave€been€nullified€by€the€œadoption€of›€comparative€œfault.€€The€Supreme›€CourtÏdecision€in€òòœColn›€v.€City€of€œSavannahóó€based›€its€decision€entirely€on€an€analysis€ofÏthe€cityððs€duty€(to€do€something)€to€protect€pedestrians€who€might€encounter€aÏdeviation€of€several€inches€in€the€sidewalk.€€One€could€assume€that€the€courtsÏshould€go€through€the€duty€analysis€in€each€case,€and€if€a€duty€is€œfound,›€theÏpremises€are€œautomatically›€dangerous€for€the€purpose€of€removing€the€cityððsÏimmunity.ÌÌà àà àEven€if€we€did€that€analysis€in€this€case,€however,€the€plaintiff€wouldÏstill€have€to€overcome€the€trial€courtððs€additional€finding€that€the€plaintiffððs€ownÏnegligence€was€more€than€fifty€percent€of€the€cause€of€her€injuries.€€òòSee€McIntyreÏv.€œBalentine›óó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€That€finding€is€also€presumed€to€beÏcorrect€under€œRule›€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€Proc.ÌÌà àà àThe€factors€to€be€considered€in€assessing€the€fault€of€each€party€areÏset€out€in€òòEaton€v.€œMcLain›óó,€891€S.W.2d€œ587›€(Tenn.€œ1994).›€€They€include€but€areÏnot€limited€to€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àthe€relative€closeness€of€the€causal€relationshipÏbetween€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€the€injury€toÏthe€plaintiff;ÌÑ X ÑÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àthe€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€conduct€inÏconfronting€a€risk,€such€as€whether€the€party€knew€ofÏthe€risk,€or€would€have€known€of€it;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àthe€extent€to€which€the€defendant€failed€toÏreasonably€utilize€an€existing€opportunity€to€avoid€theÏinjury€to€the€plaintiff;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àthe€existence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiringÏa€hasty€decision;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àthe€significance€of€what€the€party€was€attemptingÏto€accomplish€by€the€conduct,€such€as€to€saveÏanotherððs€life;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)à àthe€partyððs€particular€capacities,€such€as€age,Ïmaturity,€training,€education,€and€so€forth.ÌÌ891€S.W.2d€at€œ592.›ÌÌÌÌÓÓœà àà àWhen›€we€consider€these€factors€in€light€of€the€conditions€underÏwhich€the€plaintiff€fell€„„€in€broad€daylight€(although€overcast),€a€Sunday€afternoonÏwhen€the€sidewalk€was€not€crowded€and€the€plaintiffððs€attention€was€notÏdistracted,€the€fact€that€the€defect€was€open€and€obvious€„„€we€cannot€find€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððs€finding.€€œWe€arrive€at€thisÏconclusion€despite€the€proof€that€the€hazard€could€have€been€easily€remedied.›ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedings€thatÏmight€become€necessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌœÓÓÌà à›à àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœ__________________________________›ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌœ__________________________________›ÌWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÑ  ÑÔ€+¼Ôò òà@ àœó ó›