ÿWPCš" &ySÒµÊÎL׳G1#ÖÀ\j‹êbÉŸêûªü3kiÑ7év0›ùÝìܯyÓž!ó&tÄcq}T¤y+o_z|®x8u³DòäªV+[eiRZŸ.Là¸ÁyóG6÷ÑæðºÝ ødTFC;L)ⷥ兑¬=ìpp»¯šq«, ¤ŸÉ^Ù* |5ü6Ô rÕCâ¦VÃÌ?n+oVtŽ}œ²µìÓHš«»›z†'DHÐgŸ ¦ç•’î» “ ’ÛŠ© ñ”寚`ošTù»)1ðøjePø/¡çšîv-|«L›2ܦ\¨9ÔCêF0¼}ÿm“Œ=oï?–ìm…ƒ7PK[átëµ°Ó›Çm—ì#ø`Ç.ð ðßW0²‰ïm¦¾—±Áô"éª ñþÚÔé9Sc4óAÓ Û,~îýÕ»”Ô’9 —x°–45>:’Âux! =xüÎÔÝc#ݱ¡ >5Aƒ¦£#4‚‚Ää v,¤b#Á\ % U N# 0ˆq U"Nù ŠG ÃÑ z”Ò¡à Œ 0D£ÆçÆ­ÆsÆ9øÿN÷wù4ýEb:^ Q]l mn……………………………………………b 0ë•••• B€€ 0¤ D5A D-v 0K££ ASîÆA 0¤! 0D«! A«ï!˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular €Ý ƒRàp$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¤óX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XºXXX¤óÔÔ€ôR| òXXºÔÔ_Ô€Appellant€contends€that€Ô_ÔHardinÔ_Ô€could€have€taken€further€measures€to€prevent€his€injury.€€However,€Ô_ÔHardinÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðis€not€required€to€exhaust€every€conceivable€precaution,€but,€rather,€is€required€only€to€take€all€reasonable€precautions.€Ð |Ì ÐTherefore,€there€is€no€value€in€our€consideration€of€what€further€measures€might€have€been€employed.€€ ¹Ý ƒRàp$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¤óX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€XºXXX¤óÔÔ€ôR| òXXºÔÔ_Ô€Gurkin€also€points€out€that€the€Appellant€could€just€have€easily€fallen€over€ð ðtrash€cans,€detergent€boxes,€orÐ ° Ðbaskets.ðð€€We€refuse€to€deal€in€such€hypotheticals,€nor€does€such€an€argument€have€any€bearing€on€the€present€facts.€€IfÐ |Ì Ðthe€Appellant€had€fallen€over€an€object€which€he€had€reason€to€know€might€be€on€the€floor,€then,€perhaps,€our€analysisÐ @ Ðwould€be€different.€€However,€absent€some€warning€from€the€premises€owner,€no€customer€should€expect€to€encounterÐ T Ða€large€hole€in€the€floor,€and€the€position€in€Ô_Ôwhich€one€carries€hisÔ_Ô€laundry€basket,€if€foreseeable€and€reasonable,€has€noÐ È Ðeffect€on€the€premises€ownerððs€duty. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt —Ý ƒRàp$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¤óX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XºXXX¤óÔÔ€ôR| òXXºÔÔ_Ô€We€reject€Ô_ÔGurkinÔ_Ôððs€argument€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€disagree€that€the€Appellant€was€guilty€ofÐ ° Ðnegligence€at€least€equal€to,€if€not€greater€than,€their€own.€€Where€reasonable€minds€can€differ,€as€we€believe€they€canÐ |Ì Ðin€the€present€case,€the€apportionment€of€Ô_ÔfaultÔ_Ô€is€properly€left€to€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòPrince€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€St.€Thomas€Hospitalóó,€945Ð @ ÐS.W.2d€731€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Ô_Ô1996).Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô Ý ƒRàp$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¤óX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€XºXXX¤óÔÔ€ôR| òXXºÔÔ_Ô€Gurkin€refers€to€this€argument€as€the€ð ðstep€in€the€dark€rule.ðð Ý ƒRàp$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¤óX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€XºXXX¤óÔÔ€ôR| òXXºÔÔ_Ô€We€do€not€wish€to€imply€any€apportionment€of€Ô_ÔfaultÔ_Ô€in€the€present€case.€€That€determination€should€be€leftÐ ° Ðto€the€trier€of€fact.€Our€sole€conclusion€is€that€reasonable€minds€could€differ€as€to€the€material€aspects€of€this€case,Ð |Ì Ðthereby€precluding€summary€judgment.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 îÝ ƒRàp$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¤óX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôÈ< òXX¤óÔÔ_Ô€The€ð ðbarrelsðð€that€were€placed€around€the€hole€were€actually€garbage€cans.˜L-(1'­¡Corel ù 0Ñ#€mXÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑKxê(L 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-(|G2àp$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€³œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¹ûX»»Ô d(|3 $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€³œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€³œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¦D»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ8€¦D»»d»»d8ÑÔ€¼¦D»»»ÔÑ€މÑà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ È ÐÔ‡X¤óX»¼¦DÔÌò òÔ#†¼¦D»XX¤óq#ÔÓ  ÓJAMES€DONALD€POWELL,€òòet€al.óó€v.€M.€P.€GURKIN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X¤óX»¼¦DÔó óÐ Ð  ÐÓ·ÓÌà@ ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fayette€CountyˆÐ Ø ( Ðà@À À ìàNo.€3822;€The€Honorable€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood,€JudgeˆÐ È  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<— ` A߈Ð ˜ è  ÐÌà@¢ ¢ ìàNo.€W1999„00827„COA„R3„CV€„€Decided€July€10,€2000€ˆÐ —ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<v` AßÐ wÇ  Ðó óÌÔ‡XºXXX¤óÔThis€is€a€personal€injury€action€arising€out€of€a€slip„and„fall€accident€which€occurred€at€a€Ô_ÔlaundromatÔ_ÔÐ vÆ  Ðowned€by€the€Ô_ÔGurkinÔ_Ô€Defendants.€€The€fall€was€allegedly€caused€by€a€hole€in€the€floor€of€theÐ b²  ÐÔ_ÔlaundromatÔ_Ô€which€was€created€by€the€Defendant€Ô_ÔHardinÔ_Ô€in€attempting€to€locate€and€repair€a€waterÐ Nž Ðleak€in€the€Ô_ÔlaundromatÔ_Ô.€€The€Plaintiff€fell€while€walking€into€the€Ô_ÔlaundromatÔ_Ô€carrying€his€laundryÐ :Š Ðbasket.€€He€brought€the€present€suit€claiming€that€the€Defendants€were€negligent€in€failing€to€repairÐ &v Ðthe€hole€or€providing€adequate€warning€of€the€dangerous€condition.€€The€Defendants€filed€a€MotionÐ b Ðfor€Summary€Judgment€claiming€that€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€use€reasonable€care€in€confronting€aÐ þN Ðknown€risk.€€After€arguments€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€granted€both€Defendantsðð€Motions€forÐ ê: ÐSummary€Judgment.Ð Ö& ÐÌÔ#†X¤óXXXº)#ÔÔ#†¼¦D»XX¤ó#ÔÔ‡X¤óX»¼¦DÔò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð ®þ ÐReversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ žî ÐÌòòÔ#†¼¦D»àX¤ó& #ÔÔ‡X¤óX.¼¦DÔHighers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòCrawford,€P.J.,óó€and€òòFarmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ~Î ÐÌKendall€Reeves,€Timothy€J.€Williams,€Memphis,€For€AppellantsÐ ^® ÐÌRobert€B.C.€Hale,€Memphis,€For€Appellees,€M.€P.€Gurkin€and€Sons,€etc.Ð >!Ž  ÐJames€S.€Wilder,€III,€Memphis,€For€Appellee,€Curtis€Hardin€Plumbing€CompanyÐ ."~! ÐÌÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼¦D»XX¤ó #ÔÔ‡X¤óX»¼¦DԈРþ$N $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼¦D»XX¤ó #ÔÔ‡X¤óX»¼¦DÔÔ‡XºXXX¤óÔ€€€€€€€€€€€€In€this€personal€injury€action,€the€Plaintiffs,€James€and€Bobby€Powell,€appeal€from€the€orderÐ Þ&."& Ðof€the€Fayette€County€Circuit€Court€granting€the€Defendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment.Ð Ê'#' ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óÐ Ž*Þ%* ÐÌÓ  Óà  àM.P.€Gurkin,€Sr.,€M.P.€Gurkin,€Jr.,€Charles€Gurkin€and€George€Gurkin€(collectively€referredÐ f,¶', Ðto€as€ð ðGurkinðð€or€ð ðGurkin€Defendantsðð)€own€and€operate€Gurkinððs€Auto€Laundry€(ð ðLaundromatðð)Ð R-¢(-ýŽ ÐÑމÑâ âÑ8€¤óXXdð»»d8ÑÑ€.Ñâ âÑ  Ñin€Moscow,€Tennessee.€€€Sometime€toward€the€end€of€February€1996,€a€water€leak€was€discoveredÐ ° Ðinside€the€laundromat.€€€As€a€result€of€this€discovery,€one€of€the€owners€of€the€laundromat€calledÐ œì ÐCurtis€Hardin€Plumbing€Company€(ð ðHardinðð)€to€locate€and€repair€the€leak.€òòóó€€During€the€course€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€repair€work,€Hardin€had€to€excavate€concrete,€thereby€creating€a€hole€in€the€floor.€€€€Hardin€wasÐ tÄ Ðunable€to€locate€and€repair€the€leak€prior€to€leaving€the€job€on€the€afternoon€of€Friday,€March€1òòóó.€€HeÐ `° Ðleft€the€laundromat€that€afternoon€intending€to€return€on€the€following€Monday€morning€to€resumeÐ L œ Ðwork.€òòóó€€€Prior€to€leaving,€Hardin€instructed€Cecil€Crawford,€a€Gurkinððs€employee,€to€place€signs€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€store€windows€alerting€customers€of€the€hole€in€the€floor.€€€Hardin€also€undertook€to€mark€theÐ $ t Ðconstruction€by€placing€barrels€around€the€hole.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Finally,€Hardin€instructed€Cecil€Crawford€that€theÐ  ` Ðlaundromat€should€be€closed€until€the€job€was€finished.€€However,€after€consulting€with€one€or€moreÐ ü L  Ðof€the€owners,€Crawford€did€not€close€the€laundromat.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àJames€Powell€(ð ðAppellantðð)€entered€the€laundromat€on€Sunday,€March€3,€1996.€€He€enteredÐ À  Ðcarrying€his€laundry€basket€in€front€of€his€body,€thereby€obstructing€his€view€of€the€floor.€€òòóóUponÐ ¬ü  Ðentering,€he€proceeded€in€the€direction€of€the€washing€machines€where€he€stepped€into€the€hole€inÐ ˜è  Ðthe€floor€and€fell.€€€Appellant€noticed€construction€work€being€done€on€the€outside€of€the€premisesÐ „Ô  Ðas€he€approached€the€laundromat.€òòóó€€However,€he€claims€that€there€was€no€indication€that€work€wasÐ pÀ Ðbeing€done€on€the€inside€of€the€laundromat.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAppellant€brought€the€present€suit€asserting€claims€for€negligence.€€After€answering€theÐ 4„ Ðcomplaint,€both€Defendants€filed€motions€for€Summary€Judgment.€€On€July€6,€1999,€the€trial€courtÐ  p Ðgranted€the€Defendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment€and€dismissed€the€case.€€This€appealÐ  \ Ðfollowed.Ð øH ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òLaw€and€Analysisó ó€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€the€moving€party€demonstrates€that€there€areÐ ˜è Ðno€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€he€or€she€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.Ð „Ô ÐR.€Civ.€P.€56.03;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€review€the€summaryÐ pÀ Ðjudgment€motion€as€a€question€of€law€in€which€our€inquiry€is€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€ofÐ \ ¬ Ðcorrectness.€€òòFinister€v.€Humboldt€General€Hosp.,€Inc.óó,€970€S.W.2d€435,€437€(Tenn.€1998);€òòRobinsonÐ H!˜ Ðv.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.1997).€€We€must€view€the€evidence€and€all€reasonableÐ 4"„  Ðinferences€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210-11.€€If€bothÐ  #p! Ðthe€facts€and€conclusions€to€be€drawn€therefrom€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€oneÐ  $\" Ðconclusion,€then€summary€judgment€is€appropriate.€€òòRobinsonóó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,Ð ø$H # Ð936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).€€Guided€by€the€well„settled€principles€applicable€to€summaryÐ ä%4!$ Ðjudgment€analysis,€we€shall€consider€the€claims€asserted€against€both€Defendants.Ð Ð& "% ÐÌÓ  ÓòòÌÐ ”)ä$( ÐI.€HardinÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àóóIn€òòColn€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,€966€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1998),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ ˆØ Ðconsidered€the€negligence€principles€which€apply€to€premises€liability€cases.€€The€court€began€itsÐ tÄ Ðanalysis€by€noting€the€traditional€elements€of€a€negligence€claim:€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€to€the€plaintiff;€€(2)€conduct€by€the€defendant€falling€below€the€standard€of€care€amountingÐ L œ Ðto€a€breach€of€that€duty;€€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€€(4)€causation€in€fact;€€and€(5)€proximate€or€legal€cause.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€first€consideration,€the€duty€element,€is€a€question€of€law€requiring€the€court€to€determineÐ ü L  Ð"whether€the€interest€of€the€plaintiff€which€has€suffered€invasion€was€entitled€to€legal€protection€atÐ è 8  Ðthe€hands€of€the€defendant."€€òòId.óó€at€870€(quoting€W.€Page€Keeton,€Prosser€&€Keeton€on€Torts,€ðð€37Ð Ô$  Ðat€236€(5th€ed.€1984)).€€€We€recognize€that€Hardin,€as€a€independent€contractor,€can€have€liability€forÐ À  Ðthe€Appellantððs€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòBroome€v.€Parkview,€Inc.óó,€359€S.W.2d€566€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1962)(ð ðAÐ ¬ü  Ðcontractor,€who€performs€work€on€premises€to€which€the€public€is€invited€during€the€course€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðwork,€is€liable€for€injuries€caused€by€his€acts€in€rendering€the€premises€unsafe€and€dangerous€andÐ „Ô  Ðòònegligently€leaving€them€in€that€conditionóó.ðð)(emphasis€added).€€However,€we€need€not€ponder€longÐ pÀ Ðto€conclude€that€no€liability€exists€under€the€present€facts.Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€law€does€not€require€that€Hardin€be€the€absolute€guarantor€of€the€Appellantððs€safety.€Ð 4„ ÐRather,€the€law€only€requires€that€Hardin€take€all€reasonable€measures€to€prevent€an€injury.€Ð  p ÐReasonable€minds€could€not€differ€on€the€conclusion€that€Hardin€took€all€reasonable€precautions€toÐ  \ Ðprevent€an€injury.€Upon€leaving€the€laundromat€on€Friday,€Hardin€took€numerous€precautions€inÐ øH Ðorder€to€make€the€premises€safe.€€Hardin€instructed€a€Gurkinððs€employee€to€place€warning€signs€inÐ ä4 Ðthe€window,€placed€barrels€around€the€hole,€and€even€instructed€the€Gurkinððs€employee€that€theÐ Ð  Ðlaundromat€should€be€closed.€€In€short,€Hardin€took€all€reasonable€measures€to€ensure€that€anÐ ¼  Ðaccident€would€not€occur.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€fact€that€the€premises€owner€failed€to€implement€the€precautionsÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€Hardin€suggested€does€not€serve€to€place€liability€on€Hardin.€€This€fact€serves€only€to€placeÐ ”ä Ðliability,€if€any€exists,€on€the€owner€of€the€premises.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThere€can€be€no€doubt€that€summary€judgment€was€appropriate€as€to€Hardin.€Even€if€theÐ X ¨ ÐAppellant€could€show€that€a€duty€was€owed€by€Hardin,€it€is€clear€that€this€duty€was€not€breached.€Ð D!” ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€granting€Hardinððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€weÐ 0"€  Ðwill€not€disturb€that€ruling.Ð #l! ÐòòÌÓ  ÓòòóóÌÌÌÐ ¸'#& ÐII.€GurkinóóÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAs€with€the€previous€discussion,€our€consideration€of€the€negligence€claim€against€GurkinÐ ˆØ Ðbegins€with€the€traditional€elements€of€a€negligence€claim.€€Those€elements€must€be€considered€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€context€of€the€procedural€posture€in€which€this€case€arises,€namely€a€summary€judgmentÐ `° Ðdismissal.€€In€that€regard,€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ L œ Ðand€is€entitled€to€all€reasonable€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€discarding€allÐ 8 ˆ Ðcountervailing€evidence.€€òòShadrick€v.€Cokeróó,€963€S.W.2d€726,€731€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ð $ t Ð847€S.W.2d€208,€210-11€(Tenn.€1993)).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àDuty€is€the€legal€obligation€owed€by€defendant€to€plaintiff€to€conform€to€a€reasonable€personÐ è 8  Ðstandard€of€care€for€the€protection€against€unreasonable€risks€of€harm.€€òòSeeóó€òòPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óó,Ð Ô$  Ð890€S.W.2d€425,€428€(Tenn.€1994).€€Generally,€"[a]€risk€is€unreasonable€and€gives€rise€to€a€duty€toÐ À  Ðact€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeable€probability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendant's€conductÐ ¬ü  Ðoutweigh€the€burden€upon€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€theÐ ˜è  Ðharm."€€òòMcCallóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOwners€generally€have€a€duty€to€maintain€their€premises€in€a€reasonably€safe€condition.€Ð \¬ ÐòòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€593€(Tenn.€1994).òòóó€€A€premises€owner€may€owe€a€duty€to€visitorsÐ H˜ Ðif€the€owner€can€anticipate€harm,€even€if€a€hazard€is€open€and€obvious.€€òòSeeóó€òòColn€v.€City€ofÐ 4„ ÐSavannahóó,€966€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1998).€€"Such€reason€to€expect€harm€to€the€visitor€from€known€orÐ  p Ðobvious€dangers€may€arise,€for€example,€where€the€possessor€has€reason€to€expect€that€the€invitee'sÐ  \ Ðattention€may€be€distracted,€so€that€he€will€not€discover€what€is€obvious,€or€will€forget€what€he€hasÐ øH Ðdiscovered,€or€fail€to€protect€himself€against€it."€€òòJackson€v.€Bradleyóó,€987€SW.2d€852,€854€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ä4 ÐApp.€1998)(òòquotingóó€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€343(A)€(comment€f)).€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àGurkin€cites€to€the€case€of€òòEaton€v.€McLainóó€in€support€of€their€contention€that€no€duty€aroseÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€present€case.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòEatonóó,€the€plaintiff€fell€down€a€flight€of€stairsÐ ”ä Ðafter€stepping€through€a€doorway€that€she€believed€to€be€the€bathroom.€€òòóóThe€Tennessee€SupremeÐ €Ð ÐCourt,€in€dismissing€the€complaint,€stated€that€ð ðMs.€Eatonððs€failure€to€turn€on€any€lights,€coupledÐ l¼ Ðwith€her€willingness€to€open€the€door€and€step€into€an€unfamiliar€area,€is€such€a€radical€departureÐ X ¨ Ðfrom€reasonable€conduct€under€the€circumstances€that€the€McLains€could€not€have€reasonablyÐ D!” Ðforeseen€that€conduct€and€its€consequences.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€594.€€Just€as€Ms.€Eaton€could€have€avoided€anÐ 0"€  Ðinjury€simply€by€turning€on€a€light,€Gurkin€contends€that€the€Appellantððs€injuryòòóó€could€have€beenÐ #l! Ðavoided€by€the€ð ðsimple€actðð€of€positioning€his€laundry€basket€in€a€manner€which€would€have€allowedÐ $X" Ðhim€to€see€the€floor.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€do€not,€however,€consider€the€rule€in€òòEatonóó€to€be€dispositive€of€the€present€appeal.€Ð Ì&"% ÐWhereas€Ms.€Eatonððs€actions€were€a€ð ðradical€departureðð€from€reasonable€conduct,€the€AppellantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðentering€the€laundromat€with€a€laundry€basket€in€front€of€him€was€neither€unreasonable€norÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunforeseeable.€€Ð )à$( ЇIn€analyzing€the€defendantððs€duty,€the€òòEaton€óócourt€made€the€following€statement,Ð ° ÐÌà8  àAs€indicated€in€[òòDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.óó],€the€question€of€whether€the€McLains'€generalÐ ˆØ Ðduty€of€care€encompasses€the€duty€to€guard€against€the€acts€set€forth€in€the€complaintÐ tÄ Ðinvolves€an€analysis€of€the€foreseeability€of€the€risk€to€which€Ms.€Eaton€was€exposed.€Ð `° ÐIn€other€words,€òòthe€issue€is€whether€Ms.€Eaton€has€made€"any€showing€from€whichÐ L œ Ðit€can€be€said€that€the€defendants€reasonably€knew€or€should€have€known€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðprobability€of€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€which€caused€[her]€injuries."óó€Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌòòEatonóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€594(emphasis€added).€€While€we€do€not€disagree€that€Ms.€Eatonððs€actions€wereÐ ü L  Ðboth€unforeseeable€and€unreasonable,€we€do€not€consider€the€Appellantððs€actions€in€the€present€caseÐ è 8  Ðto€be€such.€€In€fact,€it€is€certainly€foreseeable€that€any€person€entering€a€laundromat€will€be€carryingÐ Ô$  Ða€laundry€basket€full€of€clothes.€€It€is€also€reasonable€that€a€person€may€be€carrying€that€basket€inÐ À  Ðfront€of€his€body.€€We€do€not€believe€that€a€person€carrying€a€laundry€basket€in€such€a€manner€entersÐ ¬ü  Ðat€his€own€peril.€€Moreover,€carrying€a€basket€in€such€a€manner€certainly€should€not€relieve€theÐ ˜è  Ðpremises€owners€of€their€duty€to€warn€their€customers€of€a€large€hole€in€the€floor.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòóóð ðThe€pertinentÐ „Ô  Ðquestion€is€whether€there€was€any€showing€from€which€it€can€be€said€that€the€defendants€reasonablyÐ pÀ Ðknew€or€should€have€known€of€the€probability€of€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€which€caused€theÐ \¬ Ðplaintiff's€injuries.€€òòDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1992)(òòciting€óóÐ H˜ ÐòòCorbitt€v.€Ringley-Crockett€Inc.óó,òòóó€496€S.W.2d€914€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€The€facts€before€us€clearlyÐ 4„ Ðindicate€that€the€Defendants€had€a€duty€to€warn€the€Appellant€of€the€dangerous€condition€in€theÐ  p Ðlaundromat.€€We€are€not€persuaded€that€any€actions€of€the€Appellant€relieved€the€Defendants€of€thisÐ  \ Ðduty.€€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€essence,€Gurkinððs€argument€is€a€somewhat€veiled€version€of€the€ð ðopen€and€obviousðð€rule.€Ð Ð  ÐUnder€that€rule,€a€premises€owner€will€not€be€liable€for€an€injury€which€occurs€due€to€a€conditionÐ ¼  Ðwhich€was€"obvious,€reasonably€apparent,€or€as€well€known€to€the€invitee€[or€licensee]€as€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðowner."€€òòKendall€Oil€Co.€v.€Payneóó,€293€S.W.2d€40,€42€(1955);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMcCormick€v.€Watersóó,€594Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.€1980).€€However,€the€open€and€obvious€doctrine€was€abrogated€by€the€òòColnóóÐ €Ð Ðdecision,€wherein€the€pertinent€consideration€became€whether€the€foreseeability€and€gravity€of€harmÐ l¼ Ðposed€by€the€defendant's€conduct,€even€if€"open€and€obvious,"€outweigh€the€burden€upon€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct.€€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€37.€€If€so,€the€defendant€has€a€dutyÐ D!” Ðto€act€with€reasonable€care€and€the€comparative€fault€principles€apply€under€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,Ð 0"€  Ð833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòId.óó€€€€€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àHaving€determined€that€a€duty€of€care€was€owed€to€the€Appellant,€we€believe€the€trial€courtÐ ô$D # Ðerred€in€dismissing€the€complaint€against€the€Gurkin€defendants.€€The€pertinent€questions€nowÐ à%0!$ Ðbecome€whether€the€Defendants€breached€their€duty€and,€if€so,€whether€that€breach€caused€theÐ ° ÐAppellantððs€injuries.€€Issues€of€breach€and€causation€are€generally€questions€decided€by€the€trier€ofÐ œì Ðfact.€€òòKelley€v.€Johnsonóó,€796€S.W.2d€155€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)(òòcitingóó€òòFrady€v.€Smithóó,€519€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð584,€586€(Tenn.€1974);€òòSenters€v.€Tullóó,€640€S.W.2d€579,€582€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€TheseÐ tÄ Ðquestions€become€questions€of€law€only€when€the€facts€and€inferences€drawn€from€the€facts€permitÐ `° Ðreasonable€persons€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòId.óó(òòcitingóó€òòEvridge€v.€American€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,Ð L œ Ð685€S.W.2d€632,€635€(Tenn.€1985);€€òòHaga€v.€Blanc€&€West€Lumber€Co.óó,€666€S.W.2d€61,€65€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1984).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€record,€we€believe€there€to€be€a€dispute€as€to€the€material€facts€in€the€caseÐ ü L  Ðsufficient€€to€preclude€summary€judgment€at€this€time.€€Specifically,€questions€exist€as€to€theÐ è 8  Ðwarnings€which€Gurkin€provided€and€the€adequacy€of€those€warnings.€€Our€review€of€the€recordÐ Ô$  Ðleads€us€to€conclude€that€reasonable€minds€could€differ€on€the€pertinent€questions,€therefore€we€mustÐ À  Ðreverse€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Ô_ÔGurkinÔ_Ô€Defendants.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€case€is€remandedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€trial€court€so€that€the€Appellant€may€have€the€opportunity€to€present€his€evidence€of€GurkinððsÐ ˜è  Ðnegligence.€€We€express€no€view€on€the€remaining€elements€of€the€Appellantððs€claim.׃ ¨×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð „Ô  ЀÌÌÓ  Óò òConclusionòòÐ H˜ ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€isÐ  p Ðaffirmed€as€to€the€Defendant€Hardin.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€toÐ  \ Ðthe€Gurkin€Defendants€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings.€€Costs€of€thisÐ øH Ðappeal€shall€be€taxed€one„half€to€the€Appellants,€James€and€Bobbye€Powell,€and€one„half€to€theÐ ä4 ÐAppellees,€M.P.€Gurkin,€Sr.,€M.P.€Gurkin,€Jr.,€Charles€Gurkin€and€George€Gurkin,€for€whichÐ Ð  Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€òòóó€€€€òòóó€€€òòòòóóóó€Ô#†X¤óXXXº† #ÔÔ#†¼¦D»XX¤óg #ÔÔ‡X¤óX»¼¦DÔÐ ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à