WPCB ­رd u MD.݅6Ɠpf/H86m0-<^B[-D6]XC'yJ!w1l >bZ&~"!|(T) p՟Vu(!tQk ʌ4bXL7&9Mt{É(Mnzt$mV (FB:},4D>ypS{@zn -d GYK+~̒l6K=飛HvHߥ 6x&e.M 'XoD K$j^*˵q&c3b19Ӧ  &O P,uZ[#dߦ c 2G?h6%})ڥ?@+b0AY/Y̸<:^p;S r#m2b X6\`׆8y#m2Y"$Fu% i %^  0U9NXw4 zG  m #2    c)N 0D 0cIE 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0r 0L 0# 0C 0: 0 0 0 0 0O 0! 0! 0@" 0" 0# 0$ 0O%b& 0"& 0& 0' 0q( 00.) 0<^) 0) 0>X* 0v* 0` + 0`l+ 0`+ 0`,, 0`, 08, 0$- 02- 0(. 0:$/ 0Y^/ 0_/ 0 0 0j 1 02 B*4 D/84 0g4 D/5 06 066 07 0:&8 0^`8 0<8 1e8 0_9U6J:U>:U*: B: 1u; 0z; D3< D-Q< 0K~< 72< AS<N= 0> 0D> A>???r@r@r@By/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.b014c23|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0  сLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 _d R.8Rdd8 @       2  A  Thenonmovingpartymayestablishthat essentialelementsoftheclaimexistby  8  8`   (1)pointingtoevidenceoverlookedorignoredbythemovingpartythatestablishes 8 amaterialfactualdispute,(2)byrehabilitatingtheevidenceattackedinthemoving L partyspapers,(3)byproducingadditionalevidenceshowingtheexistenceofa  genuineissuefortrial,or(4)submittinganaffidavitexplainingwhyfurther  discoveryisnecessaryasprovidedforinTenn.R.Civ.P.56.06. H ` x` x Staples ,15S.W.3dat89n.2(emphasisadded)(citationsomitted)  .d(#$  0  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?  ST\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?  ST\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2$ !.8Rdd8         0  A<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|3?$ !.8Rdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  Wi)^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$ !.8Rdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK R$      3  A  _See Kirbyv.MaconCounty ,892S.W.2d403(Tenn.1994).  R$      1  A  _Thiscasewasheardin_Morristown_Ԁbeforestudentsfrom_Morristown_ԀEastHighSchooland_Morristown_ԀWest  HighSchoolasapartoftheCourts_C.A.S.E._Ԁ( C ourtofAppeals A ffecting S tudent E ducation)Project.  !.8Rdd8     _d  R8XXdd8   OY@ LRINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @#AT_MORRISTOWN__e #  1      _#RL##Ԉ &   October14,2003Session L XXR #RXX#JOHNR.REED,etal.v.CARTERCOUNTY  J @@ XXRAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCarterCounty  p @@No.C8226JeanA.Stanley,Judge#RXXF# 4  FILEDNOVEMBER25,2003 4  @@*AV) ` dE<[` A \  @@TTXXRNo.E200203131_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<V` A W    JohnR.Reedandwife,MargaretReed,filedsuitagainstCarterCounty,allegingtheysuffered R personalinjuriesandpropertydamageasaresultofanaccidentthatoccurredwhiletheywere > crossingaonelanebridgebuiltin1916or1918.Theplaintiffswereinawagonbeingpulledbya *z horseandmuleteam.Itisallegedthatthemuleslippedoffthebridgecausingthewagontobecome f entangledattheedgeofthebridge.ThebridgeisownedandmaintainedbyCarterCounty;itdid R nothaveguardrails.Theplaintiffschargethatthe defective,unsafe,ordangerousconditionofthe > bridgeproximatelycausedtheaccidentandtheirresultinginjuriesanddamages.Thecountyfiled * amotionforsummaryjudgment,raisingtheaffirmativedefenseofgovernmentalimmunitypursuant  totheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct( the_GTLA_),Tenn.CodeAnn.2920101,et  seq.Thet#RXX#XXRrialcourtgrantedthemotion.Theplaintiffsappeal,arguingthatthetrialcourterredin  grantingsummaryjudgment.Theyarguethatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhether  thebridgewas defective,unsafe,ordangerous.Inaddition,theycontendthetrialcourtimproperly v weighedtheevidence,ratherthanviewingitinthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiffsasthe b nonmovingparties.Weaffirmthegrantofsummaryjudgmentinpartandreversethatgrantinpart N  andremandtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. :!  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt #b! AffirmedinPartandReversedinPart;CaseRemanded  #N"   CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichD.Michael_Swiney_,J., %&!$ andThomasR._Frierson_,II#RX! #XX.R,Sp.J.,joined. &"% RobertJ._Jessee_,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheappellants,JohnR.ReedandMargaretReed. (#'   )$(  OY      DanaC.HollowayandC.ChristopherBrown,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CarterCounty,   Tennessee.  _ _ OPINION  t I. L      Thecomplaintallegesnegligenceinverygeneralterms: $ t   8 ` TheonlypublicaccesstoandfromtheReeds[sic]homeisacross  L  thisbridge.OnAugust20,2000,theplaintiffJohnReedwasdriving  8  ahorsedrawnwagonacrossthebridgeandtheplaintiffMargaret $  Reedwasridinginthebackofthewagon.Thewagonwasbeing   pulledbyahorseandmuleteamownedbytheReeds.Asthehorse   andmulewerepullingthewagonacrossthebridge,themuleside   steppedawaterpuddleonthebridgeandthenslippedoffthebridge,   draggingtheotherhorse,thewagonandtheReeds.Thewagon p caughtonpartofthebridgessuperstructureandthewagonwasthus \ preventedfromfallingcompletelyoffthebridge.Mrs.Reedwas H thrownviolentlyaboutthebackofthewagon.Mr.Reedwasthrown 4 forward,butwasabletograboneofthebridgegirdersandthereby  p avoidfallingintotherivergorgefiftyfeetbelow.Theotherhorsein  \ theteamhadbeendraggedpartiallyoffthebridgewhenthemulefell, H butotherindividualswiththeReedswereabletograbitandpullit 4 backtosafety.Mr.Reedandotherscutthemuleoutofitsharness   anditfellintotheriver.Themulewasinjured,butsurvivedthefall. ` x` x @%***    8 ` Theaforesaidpersonalinjuriesandpropertydamagewere l proximatelycausedbythedefective,unsafe,ordangerouscondition X  ofthebridge.ThedefendantCarterCountyowedalegaldutytothe D! plaintiffstomaintainthebridgeinasafecondition,whichitfailedto 0"  do.#l!` x` x (Paragraphnumberingincomplaintomitted).Ascanbeseen,thecomplaintdoesnotaverhowthe $D # bridgewas defective,unsafe,ordangerousorhowthecountyfailedto maintainthebridgeina %0!$ safecondition.Apparently,noattemptwasmadebythecountytoobtainamoredefinitestatement &"% oftheplaintiffsallegationsofnegligence.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.12.05. '#&   Thepartiesundertookdiscoverytofleshoutthefactualbasisoftheplaintiffsgenerally )$( wordedcomplaint.Thatdiscoveryestablishedthatthemainthrustoftheplaintiffscomplaintwas |*%) (1)thatthebridgewasdefective,unsafe,ordangerousbecauseoftheabsenceofguardrails;and,to h+&* alesserextent,(2)thatthecountysdecisionnottoinstallguardrailsamountedtonegligence.The  plaintiffsresponsetothecountysmotionestablishedanadditionalclaimofnegligence.The  followingstatementsintheplaintiffsresponseareuncontrovertedintherecord:    8 ` Approximatelysixmonthstoayearbeforetheaccident,theplaintiff, ` JohnReed,toldJimStrickland,aforemanwiththeCarterCounty L  HighwayDepartment,thatthecurbonthebridgewasdeteriorating 8  andthatthecountyneededtoputaguardrailonthebridge. $ t [DepositionofJimStrickland@5.]Thecurbingwasbeginningto  ` deteriorate.[DepositionofJimStrickland@5.] L ` x` x (Paragraphnumberinginresponseomitted). $  @)II.     Thecountysmotionforsummaryjudgmentwasaddressedtothesixthdefenseinitsanswer,   asamended: p   8 ` TheDefendantaversthatitisimmunefromsuitpursuantto H TennesseeCodeAnnotated[]2920201etseq.,andspecifically 4 TennesseeCodeAnnotated[]2920205(1).Defendantaversthat  p theallegedactsof...CarterCountyinowningandmaintainingthe  \ bridgeinquestionconstitutetheexerciseorperformanceorthe H failuretoexerciseorperformadiscretionaryfunction.4` x` x Thetrialcourt,ingrantingthecountysmotion,statedinitsorderthatitcouldnot saythatthe   subjectbridgewasdefective,unsafe,ordangerous.Inthesameorder,thetrialcourtheldthatthe  decisiontoinstallornotinstallguardrails isadiscretionaryfunction.Itnotedthatthecountyhad  decidedtoinstallguardrails sometwoweeksbefore[theplaintiffs]wereinjured,buthadfailed  toinstallthembeforetheaccident.Thecourtaddressedthisfailureasfollows: l   8 ` ItseemstothisCourtthatthedecisiontheniswhethertherewas D! negligenceinwaitingtwoweekstoperformtheinstallation.The 0"  decisionwhentoinstalltheguardrailswas operationalinnature. #l! Thereisnoevidenceintherecordthatthistwoweekdelaywas $X" unreasonableornegligent,especiallywhere,despitePlaintiffs $D # complaints,therehadbeennoaccidentsorinjuriesinvolvingsober %0!$ personsinover80years.&"%` x` x @vv(III. (#'   #RXX#XXR Summaryjudgmentinvolvesonlyquestionsoflawandnotdisputedissuesoffact. |*%)  Edwardsv.HallsdalePowellUtil.Dist. ,115S.W.3d461,464(Tenn.2003)#RXXO(#dXXR.Therefore,ourreview h+&* ofa grantofsummaryjudgmentisdenovowithoutanypresumptionofcorrectnessastothelower  courtsruling. Webberv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co. ,49S.W.3d265,269(Tenn.2001);see  also Edwards ,115S.W.3dat464.Assuch,ourreview isconfinedtoreviewingtherecordto  determinewhethertherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeenmet. Staples  v.CBL& t Assocs.,Inc. ,15S.W.3d83,88(Tenn.2000).Inreviewingtherecord, [c]ourtsmustviewthe ` evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonable L  inferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor. Id. at89.Summaryjudgmentisappropriateif both 8  thefactsandconclusionstobedrawntherefromwould permitareasonablepersontoreachonly $ t oneconclusion. Webber ,49S.W.3dat269(quoting Seaversv.MethodistMed.Ctr.ofOakRidge ,  ` 9S.W.3d86,91(Tenn.1999));seealso Staples ,15S.W.3dat89.  L  @ll)IV. $    #RXXZ)#XXR  Theplaintiffscontendthatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentbecause,so   theargumentgoes,agenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsastowhetherthebridgewas defective,   unsafe,ordangerous.     Summaryjudgmentisappropriatelygrantedonlyafterthemovingpartyshowsthat there \ isnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatheorshe isentitledtoajudgmentasamatter H oflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;seealso Edwards ,115S.W.3dat464#RXX/#XXR.Themovingpartybearsthe 4 burdenofprovingthatthesummaryjudgmentmotionsatisfiesTenn.R.Civ.P.56. Staples ,15  p S.W.3dat88. Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmativelynegate  \ anessentialelementofthe[nonmoving]partysclaimorconclusivelyestablishanaffirmative H defense. Id. Uponmakinga properlysupportedmotion,themovingpartys burdenshiftstothe 4 nonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfactsestablishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfacts   whichmustberesolvedbythetrieroffact. Id. Ifthemovingpartysucceedsinnegating an   essentialelementoftheclaim,thenonmovingparty mustofferprooftoestablishthat essential  elementsoftheclaimexist;the [nonmoving]partymaynotsimplyrestuponthepleadings. Id.   at8889. #  2      #RXX1#XXR    Inthiscase,thedefendantassertstheaffirmativedefenseofgovernmentalimmunityunder X  theGTLA.Inresponse,theplaintiffsarguethatgovernmentalimmunitywaswaivedbecausethe D! bridgewasdefective,unsafe,ordangerous. 0"   #l!   Thecaseof Heltonv.KnoxCounty ,922S.W.2d877(Tenn.1996),statesthe#RXX6#XXRwell  establishedprinciple,recognizedinbothcommonlawandstatutorylaw,that governmentalentities  aregenerallyimmunefromliabilityforanyinjuryresultingfromtheexerciseofgovernmentalor  proprietaryfunctions. Id. at881#RXX8#XXR  . ThisprincipleiscodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.2920201(a) t (2000): d   8 ` Exceptasmaybeotherwiseprovidedin[theGTLA],all <  governmentalentitiesshallbeimmunefromsuitforanyinjurywhich ( x mayresultfromtheactivitiesofsuchgovernmentalentitieswherein  d suchgovernmentalentitiesareengagedintheexerciseanddischarge  P  ofanyoftheirfunctions,governmentalorproprietary. < ` x` x   UndertheGTLA,immunityiswaivedforinjuriesthatare proximatelycausedbyanegligent   actoromissionofany[governmental]employeewithinthescopeofhis[orher]employment,Tenn.   CodeAnn.#RXX':#XXRԀ2920205(2000)#RXX=#XXR;however,immunityispreservedinsuchcaseswhentheactor   omissioninvolvesa discretionaryfunction,#RXX>#XXRTenn.CodeAnn.#RXX>#XXRԀ2920205(1).#RXX0?#XXRImmunityisalso    removedforanyinjurycausedbyadefective,unsafe,ordangerousconditionofanystreet...or t highway,ownedandcontrolledbysuchgovernmentalentity.Tenn.CodeAnn.2920203(a) ` (2000).TheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.#RXX?#XXRԀ2920203(a),however,#RXXA#XXRԀdonot createanexception L fordiscretionaryfunctionswhenaclaimismadethataninjuryhasoccurredasaresultofa 8  defective,unsafe,ordangerouscondition. Helton ,922S.W.2dat885.#RXXlA#XXRԀThedeterminationasto $t whetherahighwayorstreet isdefective,unsafe,ordangerousforpurposesofwaiving ` governmentalimmunityunder[Tenn.CodeAnn.]2920203isaquestionoffact. Id. at882. L   TheTennesseeSupremeCourtinterpretedtheGTLAinthe Helton case.Thefactsinthat $ casearesomewhatsimilartothefactsnowbeforeus.In Helton ,adriverwas killedwhenthe  vehiclehewasdrivingwentoffabridgethatdidnothaveguardrails. Id. at879.Thedrivers  widowsuedKnoxCountyundertheGTLA,allegingthatthe bridgewasunsafebecausetherewere  noguardrailsonit. Id. at879.ThewidowreliedonTenn.CodeAnn.2920203(a), id .,which,  aspreviouslynoted,waivesgovernmentalimmunityforinjuriescausedby defective,unsafe,or p dangerousconditionsontheroadway.TheSupremeCourt,inclarifyinganearlierdecisionofthat \  court,b #  3      ׀emphasizedthat asamatteroflaw,lackofstandardmetalguardrailsdoesnotrendera H! bridge...defective,unsafe,ordangerousperse. Id. at882n.10.TheSupremeCourtemphasized 4"  that,whenanalyzingsimilarcases, courtsshouldconsiderallofthephysicalaspectsofaparticular  #p! bridge,togetherwithitslocation,thevolumeoftraffic,thetypeoftrafficitaccommodates,andthe  $\" historyofaccidentsoccurringthere,todecidewhetheraparticularbridgeisdefective,unsafe,or $H # dangerous. Id. In Helton ,theSupremeCourtheldthat,underthefactsbeforeit,the lackof %4!$ guardrailswasnotadefective,unsafe,ordangerousconditionsoastowaiveimmunityunderthe & "% GTLA. Id .at885.TheSupremeCourtin Helton alsoanalyzedTenn.CodeAnn.2920205to ' #& determinewhetherthedecisiontoinstallguardrailsisadiscretionaryfunction. Id. ,922S.W.2dat (#' 88587.Afteranalyzingthequestionunderthe planningoperationaltestadoptedin Bowersv. )$( CityofChattanooga ,826S.W.2d427(Tenn.1992),theSupremeCourtconcludedthat thedecision  nottoinstallguardrailswasdiscretionaryandthusgovernmentalimmunitywaspreserved. Helton ,  922S.W.2dat885,887.    Thus,wearepresentedwithtworelated,butdifferent,questions.Thefirstissue!andthe ` onlyonethattheplaintiffsreallypressonthisappeal!iswhether,inthiscase,thelackofguardrails L  renderedthebridge defective,unsafe,ordangerous.Ifthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactas 8  tothisissue,thecasemustproceedtotrialbecause,aspreviouslynoted,thecountys discretionary $ t functionargumentsimplydoesnotcomeintoplaywhenthisTenn.CodeAnn.2920203(a)  ` waiverofimmunityisimplicated.  L    Theotherrelatedissueiswhetherthedecisionnottoinstallguardrailsintheinstantcaseis $  adiscretionaryfunction,which,underTenn.CodeAnn.2920205(1),hastheeffectofleaving   immunityfromsuitinplace.Theplaintiffsdonotarguethatthetrialcourtincorrectlyinterpreted   and/orapplied Helton astothe decisionissue.Thisbeingthecase,wewillnotfurtheraddressthe   decisionofthecountynottoinstallguardrails.     Wenoteinpassingthatweagreewiththetrialcourtsholdingthat,oncethedecisionwas \ madebythecountytoinstallguardrails,itsfailuretodosowithinthetwoweektimeframethat H precededtheaccident,couldnotreasonablybeconstruedasnegligence.Thisbeingthecase,wefind 4 nogenuineissueofmaterialfactpertainingtothistwoweek delay.  p   Returningtothefirstofthesetworelatedissues,wenotethattheplaintiffsarguethata H genuineissueofmaterialfactremainsastowhetherthelackofguardrailsmadethebridge 4  defective,unsafe,ordangerous.Wedisagreewiththeplaintiffsassessmentofthefactsinthis   case.     Thetrialcourtevaluatedthefactsinthiscaseinlightofthefactorssetforthin Helton .See   Helton ,922S.W.2dat882n.10.Thefactsbeforethetrialcourt,andnowbeforeus,showthat(1)  thebridgehadneverbeenequippedwithguardrails;(2)itwasbuiltover80yearsago;(3)it served l lessthansevenfamilies;and(4)asfarasanyonecouldrecall,therehadbeenonlyoneaccidenton X  thebridgeinthepast,andthatmishapinvolvedadrunkdriver.Thetrialcourt,inmakingitsanalysis D! under Helton ,notedthattheplaintiffshadusedthebridgewithoutanyproblematleastonceaday 0"  forover20years.Weagreewiththetrialcourtsimplicitholdingthatreasonablemindscouldnot #l! disagreeastowhetherthelackofguardrailsmadethebridge defective,unsafe,ordangerous. $X" Clearly,reasonablemindscouldnotdisagreeastothiscriticalissue.Thelackofguardrailsdidnot $D # makethisparticularbridge defective,unsafe,ordangerous.Wedisagreewiththeplaintiffs %0!$ assertionthatthetrialcourtimproperlyweighedtheevidenceinmakingitssummaryjudgment &"% analysis.Allthecourtdidwastorecognizethatalloftherelevantfactsconclusivelyshowed,asa '#& matteroflaw,that,inthiscase,alackofguardrailsdidnotmakethebridge defective,unsafe,or (#' dangerous. )$(   |*%)   Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsholdingthatthebridgewasnot defective,unsafe,or   dangerousasaresultofthelackofguardrails.Itfollowsthatimmunitywasnotwaivedunderthe  languageofTenn.CodeAnn.2920203(a).The  trialcourtcorrectlygrantedsummaryjudgment  astoallissuespertainingtotheguardrails. t @)V. L    Whileweagreewiththetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentastotheissuespertaining $ t toguardrails,weobservethatthedefendantsmotionassertingimmunityastotheguardrailsdoes  ` not,inanyway,addresstheplaintiffstheoryofrecoverybasedupontheirassertionthatthebridge  L  was defective,unsafe,ordangerousduetoadeterioratingcurb.Wehavenoideaastowhether  8  thisrenderedthebridge defective,unsafe,ordangerous,nordoweknowwhetherthereisproof $  thatthedeterioratingcurbwasaproximatecauseofthisaccident.Whatwedoknowisthatthe   deterioratingcurbwasapartoftheplaintiffstheoryofwhytheywereentitledtorecover.Sincethis   theorywasnotaddressed,inanyway,bythematerialfiledinsupportofthecountysmotion,there   wasnoobligationonthepartoftheplaintiffstoprovethistheoryatthisjunctureintheproceedings.   Thisisbecausetheburdennevershiftedtotheplaintiffsonthisfactualissueinthis battleonthe p papers.See Staples ,15S.W.3dat88.Whenthefactualmaterialbeforeusisviewedinthelight \ mostfavorabletotheplaintiffs,weconcludethatsummaryjudgmentwasnotappropriateastothe H plaintiffstheorythatadeterioratingcurbrenderedthebridge defective,unsafe,ordangerous 4 underTenn.CodeAnn.2920203(a).  p @ll)VI. H   Weaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment(1)astotheplaintiffscomplaintthat   thebridgeinquestionwas defective,unsafe,ordangerousbecauseofalackofguardrailsand(2)   astothesuggestionthatthecountysdecisionnottoinstallguardrailsamountedtonegligence.We  reversethetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentastoplaintiffscomplaintthatthebridgewas   defective,unsafe,ordangerousbecauseofadeterioratingcurb.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrial  courtforfurtherproceedings.CostsonappealaretaxedonehalftoJohnR.ReedandMargaret l ReedandonehalftoCarterCounty. X  #RXXB#XXR   `     h      p      x    `     h     _______________________________ $X"    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE#RXXji#