WPC2& xbU 5EN"̜Ipx%xDzO;-sܤhw{/pŽ>s7, cU[z n]S7}yRB++{'5,Gy I89; _@"/On v%Q2N8LN\[2YgbRxUNI % 0U<Pw@4U < 0+" AQ   0D)6!U:_")"U:########## B$!$ 0D$ 0D+% 0Do%o% D/%% B% D3%HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman %&U' (Ӏ)Ӏ*Ӏ+Ӏ,Ӏ8;n~<$3|x;)L  Z $Arrus BT Roman((3uk$ 7!  7XXdd7  X@XXX   `   0     uk$  XtFXXX `   1    ݀AlthoughneitherFederalnorTaylorwereservedwithprocess,theyfiled,and  thetrialcourtgranted,amotiontodismissforfailureofprocesstotollthestatuteoflimitations.FederalandTaylorarenotpartiestothisappeal. !"%C<< C   $ XzXXX   `   2    A.L.R.3dstatesinpertinentpartthat  8 ` 8 ` !` !becauseofthepersonalcharacterofdutiesowedtothepublicbyoneadoptingmeasurestoprotecthisproperty,ownersandoperatorsofenterprisescannot,bysecuringspecialpersonnelthroughanindependentagencyforthepurposesofprotectingproperty,obtainimmunityfromliabilityforatleasttheintentionaltortsoftheprotectingagency....     Seealso Brazener,38A.L.R.3dat1343.   $ XzXXX   `   2    A.L.R.3dstatesinpertinentpartthat  8 ` 8 ` !` !becauseofthepersonalcharacterofdutiesowedtothepublicbyoneadoptingmeasurestoprotecthisproperty,ownersandoperatorsofenterprisescannot,bysecuringspecialpersonnelthroughanindependentagencyforthepurposesofprotectingproperty,obtainimmunityfromliabilityforatleasttheintentionaltortsoftheprotectingagency....     Seealso Brazener,38A.L.R.3dat1343.($$   1     $ XzXXX   `   3     SeeZentkov.G.M.McKelveyCo. ,88N.E.2d265,268(OhioApp.1948)  (statingthatwhereanownerofanoperationorenterpriseundertakestoobtainsecurityservices,theownerssecuritydutiesarepersonalandnondelegable,andwheretheownerarrangesforandacceptstheservices,therelationshipofmasterandservantexists); Adamsv.F.W.WoolworthCo. ,257N.Y.S.776,781(N.Y.App.Div.  1932)( Astoreownerwhoplacesadetectiveagencyonhispremisesforthepurposeofprotectinghispropertybyvariousmeans,includingarrests,shouldnotbeimmunefromresponsibilitytoaninnocentvictimofafalsearrestmadebythedetectiveagency,evenasanindependentcontractor.); Dupreev.PigglyWigglyShopRite   Foods,Inc. ,542S.W.2d882,888(Tex.App.1976)( [B]ecauseofthepersonal    characterofdutiesowedtothepublicbyoneadoptingmeasurestoprotecthisproperty,ownersandoperatorsofenterprisescannot,bysecuringspecialpersonnelthroughanindependentcontractorforthepurposesofprotectingproperty,obtainimmunityfromliabilityforatleasttheintentionaltortsoftheprotectingagencyoritsemployees.); seealsoMalvov.J.C.PennyCo. ,512P.2d575(Alaska1973);   Noblev.Sears,Roebuck&Co. ,109Cal.Rptr.269(Cal.1973); SafewayStores,Inc.   v.Kelly ,448A.2d856,861n.12(D.C.1982); Hendricksv.LeslieFay,Inc. ,159   S.E.2d362(N.C.1968); Moorev.TargetStores,Inc. ,571P.2d1236(Okla.App.  1977); Rossv.TexasOnePartnership ,796S.W.2d206(Tex.App.1990); U.S.Sec.  = Serv.Corp.v.RamadaInn,Inc. ,665So.2d268(Fla.App.1995). ButseeMahon  v.CityofBethlehem ,898F.Supp.310(E.D.Pa1995).   $ XzXXX   `   3     SeeZentkov.G.M.McKelveyCo. ,88N.E.2d265,268(OhioApp.1948)  (statingthatwhereanownerofanoperationorenterpriseundertakestoobtainsecurityservices,theownerssecuritydutiesarepersonalandnondelegable,andwheretheownerarrangesforandacceptstheservices,therelationshipofmasterandservantexists); Adamsv.F.W.WoolworthCo. ,257N.Y.S.776,781(N.Y.App.Div.  1932)( Astoreownerwhoplacesadetectiveagencyonhispremisesforthepurposeofprotectinghispropertybyvariousmeans,includingarrests,shouldnotbeimmunefromresponsibilitytoaninnocentvictimofafalsearrestmadebythedetectiveagency,evenasanindependentcontractor.); Dupreev.PigglyWigglyShopRite   Foods,Inc. ,542S.W.2d882,888(Tex.App.1976)( [B]ecauseofthepersonal    characterofdutiesowedtothepublicbyoneadoptingmeasurestoprotecthisproperty,ownersandoperatorsofenterprisescannot,bysecuringspecialpersonnelthroughanindependentcontractorforthepurposesofprotectingproperty,obtainimmunityfromliabilityforatleasttheintentionaltortsoftheprotectingagencyoritsemployees.); seealsoMalvov.J.C.PennyCo. ,512P.2d575(Alaska1973);   Noblev.Sears,Roebuck&Co. ,109Cal.Rptr.269(Cal.1973); SafewayStores,Inc.   v.Kelly ,448A.2d856,861n.12(D.C.1982); Hendricksv.LeslieFay,Inc. ,159   S.E.2d362(N.C.1968); Moorev.TargetStores,Inc. ,571P.2d1236(Okla.App.   1977); Rossv.TexasOnePartnership ,796S.W.2d206(Tex.App.1990); U.S..  Serv.Corp.v.RamadaInn,Inc. ,665So.2d268(Fla.App.1995). ButseeMahon  v.CityofBethlehem ,898F.Supp.310(E.D.Pa1995).  !"  X%XXX:XX%   Ad FILEDX%X:   November20,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.t XX%AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  X%XXX:XX%   Ad FILEDX%X:   November18,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.t XX%AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  (#$  0  ''' dxdP Pd'dxd 7!  7ܕXXdXXd7  XtFXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7ܕXXdXXd78,r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r,8;8r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r8;;;@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@)ATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________ ANTWYAND.PRYOR,    ` PlaintiffAppellant,;; `     h     ShelbyLawNo.76490Vs. `     h     C.A.No.02A019709CV00217   ;t (>.*jx09` `@E$ ` ttx$\ t; SOUTHBROOKMALL   ASSOCIATES(LTD.)L.P.andAFFILIATEDMALLMANAGEMENT,INC.,  ` DefendantsAppellees.  ____________________________________________________________________________@H H FROMTHESHELBYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT@  THEHONORABLEDARMYBAILEY,JUDGE@WilliamE.FriedmanofMemphis@>>(ForAppellant@KarenL.SchlesingerofMemphis@II(ForAppellees@$ REVERSEDANDREMANDED  )%% @33'Opinionfiled: `     h      p   %W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 3//  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE% & ;779 &'  '((' ` Thiscaseinvolvestheliabilityofashoppingmallfortheactsofasecurityguard.AntwyanPryor(Pryor)appealsfromtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoSouthbrookMallAssociates,L.P.(Southbrook)andAffiliatedMallManagement(Affiliated). ` OnMarch3,1995,Pryor,wasallegedlyattackedandbeatenbyElbertTaylor(Taylor),asecurityguardatSouthbrookMallinMemphis.SouthbrookownsandAffiliatedmanagesSouthbrookMall.SouthbrookcontractedwithFederalSecurityCorporation(Federal)toprovidesecurityforthemall. ` PryorfiledsuitagainstFederal,Taylor  ##  1      ,Southbrook,andAffiliatedalleging  thatTaylorattackedhimwithoutprovocationandcaused severe,painful,disablingandpermanentpersonalinjuries.PryorfurtherallegedthatTaylorwasanagentoftheotherdefendants,andallwerevicariouslyliableforhisactions. ` PlaintiffsactionagainstSouthbrookandAffiliatedispremisedsolelyonthedoctrineofrespondeatsuperiorfortheactionsofthesecurityguard,Taylor.  SouthbrookandAffiliatedweregrantedsummaryjudgmentonthegroundthatTaylorwasanindependentcontractor.Pryorhasappealed,andthesoleissueforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgment. ` Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn. .** 1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailing 400 evidence. Id. In Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),ourSupreme  Courtstated:  '))'8 ` Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfact    fortrial.'(' XdrXXXdr#XdrXX Xdr`#'('8` !` !   ̜'(''(''**'Id. at211(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal).    ` Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvell  v.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflaware   involved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthetrial  courtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt.   Warrenv.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997). XdrXXXdr     ` SouthbrookandAffiliatedassertthatthefactsareundisputedthatTaylor   isanemployeeofanindependentcontractorandthat,therefore,theycannotbeliableunderthedoctrineofrespondeatsuperior.Werecognizethegeneralrulethat $  anemployerisnotordinarilyliableforthenegligenceofanindependentcontractor. Potterv.Tucker ,688S.W.2d833(Tenn.App.1985)(citing ($$ ( InternationalHarvesterCo.v.Sartain ,32Tenn.App.425,222S.W.2d854 * && (1949).In Potter ,plaintiffsuedthedefendantforcompensatoryandpunitive ,$(( damagesforunauthorizedcuttingoftimberonherland.Plaintiffsadjoininglandowner,Tucker,hadcontractedwithBrowntocuttimberonTuckersproperty,butBrown,inperformingthejob,cutplaintiffstimber.TuckercontendedthatshecouldnotbeliableforBrownsactionbecausehewasanindependentcontractor.ThisCourtdeterminedfromtherecordthatTuckerexercisedcontroloverBrown,andtheCourtalsodiscussedtheliabilityofan 8(44 employerofanindependentcontractor.TheCourtsaid:̜#XdrXX Xdr#')'XzXXXzԛ')')'')'  '++'8 ` 8 ` !` !  Thecourtsofthisstatehaverepeatedlyreferredto  theleadingcaseof Powellv.VirginiaConstr.Co. ,88  Tenn.692,13S.W.691(1890)forthedefinitionofindependentcontractor:    8 ` 8 ` !` !8  Anindependentcontractorisonewho,exercisinganindependentemployment,contractstodoapieceofworkaccordingtohisownmethodsandwithoutbeingsubjecttocontrolofhisemployer,exceptastotheresultofhiswork.Theemployerofsuchacontractor,ifhebeafitandproperperson,andtheworkbenotinitselfunlawful,oranuisanceinitself,or necessarilyattended  withdangertoothers ,willnotberesponsible  forhisnegligenceorthatofhissubcontractorsorhisservants.Mr.Thompson,inhisworkuponNegligence,saysthat"ineverycasethedecisivequestionis,Hadthedefendanttherighttocontrolinthegivenparticulartheconductofthepersondoingthewrong?"ThompsononNegligence,909.(Emphasissupplied). LL  8 ` 8 ` !` !Id. at697.   8 ` 8 ` !` !  Fromtherecordbeforeus,itappearsthatthedefendantBrownandTucker'sagentstestifiedconcerningvariousaspectsofthebusinessoperationinwhichTuckerexercisedcontroloverBrown.Wealsoobservethatalandownercontractingfortheharvestofhistimbershouldbecognizantoftheobviousdangertohisneighbor'spropertyunlesstheboundarylinesareexplicitlypointedouttoandscrupulouslyobservedbythecontractor.Itcouldbearguedthatunderthesecircumstancestheactionsoftheindependentcontractorare"necessarilyattendedwithdangertoothers"andconstituteanexceptiontothegeneralrulethattheemployerisnotresponsiblefortheactionsoftheindependentcontractor. XdrXXXdr-))   688S.W.2dat836. ` In McHargev.Newcomer ,117Tenn.595(1906),ourSupremeCourt,in 1-- discussingtheliabilityoftheemployerofanindependentcontractor,said:8 ` 8 ` !` !  Whilethegeneralruleoflawis,asstated,thattheproprietororemployerisnotliableforthenegligenceofitscontractorandtheservantsandassistantsofthelatter,yettherearewellestablishedexceptionsandlimitationstoit.Theseexceptionsingeneralare:Wheretheact 9 55 contractedtobedoneiswrongfulortortiousinitself;wheretheinjuryisthedirectornecessaryconsequenceof 9 55 theworktobedone; wherethethingtobedoneorthe  mannerofitsexecutioninvolvesadutytothepublicincumbentupontheproprietororemployer ;whenthework  contractedforisintrinsicallydangerous,andtheperformanceofthecontractwillprobablyresultininjurytothirdpersonsorthepublic;andwheretheproprietorinterfereswiththecontractorintheperformanceofthework.Nordoesitapplywhentheworkhasbeencompletedandaccepted.1JaggardonTorts,231;CommentariesontheLawofNegligence,secs.645651.     Id. at604.(Emphasissupplied).    ` Inthecasebeforeus,SouthbrookandAffiliatedcontractedwithFederal,anindependentsecurityagency,toprovideprotectiontomallemployeesandpatrons.Federalsuppliedtheuniformsandequipment.Itpaidalltaxes,socialsecuritybenefits,unemploymenttaxesandanyclaimsduetoinjuries,accidentsordeathsofguardpersonnel.ItcarriedliabilityinsurancefortheprotectionofSouthbrookandAffiliated.SouthbrookandFederalalsoagreedtoacodeofconductforthesecurityguardswhichwasattachedtotheemploymentcontract.Thecontractalsolistedregulationsthateachsecurityguardshouldenforce. ` PryorinsistssincenothinginthecontractbetweenSouthbrookandFederalstatesthatFederalisanindependentcontractor,byimplicationFederalmustbeSouthbrooksagentoremployee.Wedisagree.ThelawinTennesseeisclear [t]hemereplacingoftermssuchasagentorindependentcontractorinthecontractdoesnotmakethemsuchinlaw. UnitedStatesv.Boyd ,363S.W.2d193,200 )%% (Tenn.1962). ` PryorfurthercontendsthatSouthbrookandAffiliatedexercisedcontroloverthesecurityguards.Again,wedisagree.Thecontractsetforthregulationsthatthesecurityguardsweretoenforce,andprovidedregulationspertainingtotheguardsdressandconduct.However,theregulationsdonotrisetothelevelofcontrol.Further,theaffidavitoftheLandlordRepresentativeforSouthbrook,JackieEakin,statesthatTaylorwasnotemployedbythemall.AlthoughtherecordindicatesalackofcontrolbySouthbrookandAffiliated,wemustdetermineifthiscasefalls 9 55 withinanexceptionoftothegeneralrule. ` In McClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership ,937S.W.2d891(Tenn.1996),  ourSupremeCourtheldthatabusinessproprietorhasadutytotakereasonablestepstoprotectcustomersiftheproprietorhasreasontoknowthatcriminalactsagainstthecustomeronhispremisesarereasonablyforeseeable.Thus,itwouldappearthatthereisadisputedissueofmaterialfactastowhetheradutyisowedbytheadefendantsandtheextentofthatduty.AsourSupremeCourtnotedin McHargev.Newcomer ,117Tenn.at604,anexceptiontothegeneralruleof  nonliabilityofanemployerofanindependentcontractoris wherethethingtobedoneorthemannerofitsexecutioninvolvesadutytothepublicincumbentupontheproprietororemployer.Shoulditbedeterminedthatthereisadutyrequiringtheemploymentofsecuritypersonnel,thedefendantswouldcomewithintheexceptiontothegeneralruleandberesponsiblefortheactionsoftheindependentcontractor. ` Wealsobelievethatthereisadisputedissueofmaterialfactastowhetherthedefendantsinthiscasewouldcomewithinanotherexceptionassetoutin Powellv. " VirginiaConst.Co. ,88Tenn.at697: worknecessarilyattendedwithdangerto $  others.Wenotedin Potterv.Tucker ,688S.W.2d833(Tenn.App.1985) thata &"" landownercontractingfortheharvestofhistimbershouldbecognizantoftheobviousdangertohisneighborspropertyunlesstheboundarylinesareexplicitlypointedouttoandscrupulouslyobservedbythecontractor. Id. at836.Bythe ,(( sametokeninthecaseatbar,allownersandoperatorsshouldbecognizantoftheobviousdangertothecustomersvisitingthemallthatunlessthesecuritypersonnelactinalawfulmanner,thereisanobviousdangertothecustomers.Underthesecircumstances,wefeelthattherearedisputedissuesofmaterialfactthatprecludethegrantingofsummaryjudgmentinthiscase. ` Thepartieshavenotcited,norhavewefoundaTennesseecasediscussingthe 844 preciseissueconcerningsecurityguardsaswehaveinthiscase.However,courtsinotherjurisdictionshaveconsideredthequestion.41Am.Jur.2d Independent  Contractors 47(1995)states:  8 ` 8 ` !` ![s]toreoperatorshaveanondelegabledutytothepublictokeeptheirplaceofbusinessinareasonablysafeconditionandfreefromdangerofpersonalinjury,andthefactthatanindependentcontractorisengagedintheperformanceofworkonthepremisesdoesnotrelievethemofthatduty.    8 ` 8 ` !` ! Thus,abusinessthatcontractswithanindependent   contractortosupplysecurityguardswillbeliablefortheguardsintentionaltortsagainstcustomersandinviteesoftheplaceofbusiness.     Seealso RobertA.Brazener,Annotation, LiabilityofOneContractingforPrivate  PoliceorSecurityServiceforActsofPersonnelSupplied ,38A.L.R.3d1332,1339   (1974&Supp.1996).(Emphasissupplied).  ##  2         ` In PeachtreeCainCo.v.Pandazides ,316S.E.2d9(Ga.App.1984), affd ,  327S.E.2d188(Ga.1985),theGeorgiaCourtofAppealsruledthattheownersandpropertymanagerofashoppingcenterwerevicariouslyliabletotheirinviteesforintentionaltortscommittedbythecentersindependentsecurityservice.There,thePeachtreeCainCompanyandthePeachtreeHarrisCompanyownedthePeachtreeCenter,ashoppingcentermanagedbyPeachtreeCenterManagementCompany.PeachtreeManagementhiredanindependentcontractortoprovidesecurity.TheplaintiffbroughtsuitagainstallthePeachtreecompanies,thesecurityguard,andthesecuritycompanyallegingfalsearrest,slander,andinvasionofprivacy. Id. at10. ,((  ` Thecourtheldinpertinentpart: .** 8 ` 8 ` !` !AsownersofthePeachtreeCentercomplexthathadundertakentoobtainsecurityservices,theirdutytotheirinviteestoprovideresponsibleagentswaspersonalandnondelegable,andthusitdidnotmatterthattheownershadanadditionalfilter,i.e.,thePeachtreeCenterManagementCompany,betweenthemselvesandtheactualsecurityguard.Becausethatdutywaspersonalandnondelegable,arecoverybaseduponabreachofthatdutywouldnotconstituteliabilitywithoutfault.Toholdthattheappellantsareimmunefromvicariousliabilityinthesecaseswould,asnotedabove,present opportunitiesforgrossinjusticewhichwillnotheresanction.     Id. 󀀀    ` Inanotherpertinentcase, Rockwellv.SunHarborBudgetSuites ,925P.2d  1175(Nev.1996),anapartmentcomplexhiredanindependentcontractortoprovidesecurityguards.Oneoftheseguardsshotandkilledatenant.TheNevadaSupremeCourtheldthatwhereapropertyownerhiressecuritypersonneltoprotectitspremisesandpatrons,thatpropertyownerhasapersonalandnondelegabledutytoprovideresponsiblesecuritypersonnel,andforrespondeatsuperiorpurposes,theownerwastheemployeroftheguard,eventhoughtheownerengagedathirdpartytohirethesecuritypersonnel. Id. at1179. !  ` Theseareonlytwoofmanycasesholdingownersandoperatorsofbusinessesliablefortheintentionaltortsofsecurityguards,evenindependentcontractors. ##  3       % !! Thesecasesarepersuasive,andareconsistentwiththepreviouslymentionedexceptionstothegeneralrule. ` Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoSouthbrookandAffiliatedisreversed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary.ThecostsofappealareassessedagainsttheAppellees.XzXXXz `     h      p _________________________________    `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,    `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. # XzXX XzF#   CONCUR:    XzXXXz____________________________________   ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE # XzXX XzH#    XzXXXz____________________________________  HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE # XzXX XzI#     '