ÿWPCs 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9w@a4¡µÄ 0lÌ 0D8 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä 0dY 0@½ D3ý B0 U>M B)‹ DC´ AM÷ U*D AQn Æ¿ 0D… 0DÉ D/ B< Y Áav~"vÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL,Î(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÿDUVVÓ€Œƒ*#ÿÿÿ3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd þÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òSeptember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€1996,€Rule€701€was€amended€to€read€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà à(a)€Generally.€€If€a€witness€is€not€testifying€as€an€expert,€the€witness'sÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€opinions€or€inferences€is€limited€to€those€opinions€orÏinferences€which€areÌÌà8 àà à(1)€rationally€based€on€the€perception€of€the€witness€andÌÌà8 àà à(2)€helpful€to€a€clear€understanding€of€the€witness's€testimony€or€theÏdetermination€of€a€fact€in€issue.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Evid.€701(a).€€Our€decision€would€be€the€same€under€this€version€of€the€Rule.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌMELBA€ROBBINS€and€DEWEY€ROBBINS,à à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Law€No.€46665€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMEMPHIS€LITTLE€THEATRE€PLAYERS€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€€02A01„9601„CV„00018Ìò òœÙ€*ÙßR€'/&A1-j|³ûC` Å `€€@ÿRß›ASSOCIATION€a/k/a€THEATRE€MEMPHISà à)Ìa/k/a€MEMPHIS€LITTLE€THEATRE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àDefendants/Appellees.à àò òà à)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€M.€THARPE,€JUDGE€€€€€€€€ÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó:òòÌóóÌJohn€C.€Wagner€€€€€à àà àà àà àJoe€Lee€Wyatt€€€€ÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€€AFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌBROOKS€McLEMORE,€SP.€J.ÌÇØØÙ  Ùò òÓÓÓ  ÓÑ7€Œ‹XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€is€a€slip„and„fall€case.€€At€the€end€of€the€plaintiffsðð€proof,€the€trial€court€granted€theÏdefendant€a€directed€verdict,€based€on€a€lack€of€evidence€of€causation€and€œof€the›€defendantððsÏcreation€or€knowledge€of€the€dangerous€condition.€€We€affirm.Ìà àOn€June€22,€1991,€at€approximately€7:45€p.m.,€Appellants€Melba€Robbins€(ð ðMrs.ÏRobbinsðð)€and€Dewey€Robbins€(ð ðMr.€Robbinsðð)€arrived€to€see€a€play€at€a€theater€run€by€AppelleeÏMemphis€Little€Theatre€Players€Association€(ð ðthe€Theatreðð).€€The€Robbins€went€to€the€entrance€toÏthe€theaterððs€upper€seating€area,€where€they€were€met€by€an€usher.€€The€usher€was€holding€someÏtheater€programs€in€her€hands€and€was€cradling€a€large€number€of€programs€between€her€left€armÏand€her€body.€€The€usher€took€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Robbinsðð€tickets€but€did€not€give€them€a€program.€ÏœShe€led›€them€single€file€down€into€the€seating€area,€with€Mrs.€Robbins€directly€behind€œher›€and€Mr.ÏRobbins€following.Ìà àThe€aisle€to€the€theater€had€alternating€wide€steps€and€narrow€steps.€€Mrs.€Robbins€steppedÏdown€onto€the€first€narrow€œstep.€€She›€was€following€closely€behind€the€usher,€who€effectivelyÏblocked€her€view€of€the€steps.€€There€were€no€hand€rails.€€Her€right€foot€slipped€on€somethingÏð ðslick,ðð€and€she€fell€down€three€or€four€steps,€sustaining€a€compound€fracture€in€her€right€leg.Ìà àA€paramedic€in€the€audience€rushed€to€her€aid,€as€did€Mr.€Robbins.€€A€Theatre€employeeÏsubsequently€appeared€and€asked€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Robbins€to€fill€out€an€accident€form.€€As€all€thisÏwas€going€on,€Mrs.€Robbins€saw€a€crumpled€program€lying€on€the€step€immediately€behind€her.€ÏShe€had€not€seen€it€before€the€fall.€€Several€people€helped€carry€her€out€into€the€foyer,€and€theÏparamedic€handed€Mr.€Robbins€her€purse,€a€shoe,€and€the€crumpled€program.Ìà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Robbins€subsequently€filed€a€premises€liability€lawsuit€against€the€Theatre.€ÏAt€the€jury€œtrial,€Mr.€and€Mrs.›€œRobbins€testified.›€€At€one€point€during€Mrs.€Robbinsðð€testimony,Ïwhen€asked€to€describe€how€the€program€was€crumpled,€she€responded:ÌÓÓà8 àA.à àI€donððt€know€whether€it€was€the€front€or€the€back€of€the€program.€€I€donððtÏknow€how€it€happened,€but€it€was€crumpled€up€„„€and€I€donððt€want€to€do€this€one€„„Ïas€if€someone€had€actually€stepped€on€it€and€crumpled€it.€€This€is€a€very€firm,€slickÏpaper,€and€it€just€doesnððt€happen€if€you€just€dropped€it,€it€doesnððt€just€happen€that€itÏwould€crumple€like€that.ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€bench€conference,€the€court€sustained€the€Theatreððs€objection€and€instructed€the€jury€toÏdisregard€Mrs.€Robbinsðð€last€response.€€During€Mr.€Robbinsðð€testimony,€he€also€said€that€theÏprogram€ð ðlooked€like€someone€had€stepped€on€it.ðð€€The€Theatre€objected.€€The€trial€court€replied,Ïð ðWe€already€spoke€about€that,ðð€apparently€sustaining€the€objection.€€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€paramedic€from€the€theaterððs€audience€testified,€and€the€Robbins€read€intoÏevidence€the€deposition€testimony€of€the€treating€physician€and€of€the€Theatreððs€general€manager.€Ïà àAt€the€close€of€the€plaintiffsðð€proof,€the€Theatre€moved€for€a€directed€verdict,€pointing€outÏthat€no€one€had€seen€the€program€on€the€steps€prior€to€the€fall,€no€one€knew€who€had€dropped€it,Ïand€no€one€could€testify€that€Mrs.€Robbins€actually€slipped€on€the€program.€€In€addition,€theÏcrumpled€program,€which€had€been€given€to€Mr.€Robbins,€had€not€been€introduced€into€evidence,Ïand€no€one€knew€what€had€happened€to€it.€€The€trial€court,€stating€that€ð ðit€would€be€pureÏspeculation€to€allow€this€jury€to€get€this€case€for€consideration,ðð€granted€the€directed€verdict.€€Mr.Ïand€Mrs.€Robbinsðð€subsequent€motion€to€reconsider€or€grant€a€new€trial€was€denied.€€They€nowÏappeal€to€this€Court.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Robbins€raise€several€issues,€which€can€be€narrowed€down€toÏtwo.€€They€assert€that€the€trial€court€improperly€sustained€the€Theatreððs€objection€to€the€testimonyÏthat€the€program€looked€like€it€had€been€stepped€on.€€In€addition,€they€argue€that€there€wasÏsufficient€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€find€the€Theatre€liable,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€a€directed€verdict.€Ìà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Robbins€argue€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€testimony€toÏthe€effect€that€the€crumpled€program€looked€like€it€had€been€stepped€on.€€They€concede€thatÏtestimony€that€the€program€could€not€have€been€crumpled€any€other€way€was€properly€excluded,Ïbut€they€argue€that€the€testimony€that€the€program€looked€like€it€had€been€stepped€on€œwas›€properÏlay€œopinion›€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€701.Ìà àThe€trial€court€has€great€discretion€in€the€admission€or€rejection€of€evidence,€and€the€court'sÏaction€will€be€overturned€on€appeal€only€when€there€is€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€ò òòòOtis€v.ÍCambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€1992).€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,ÏRule€701€provided,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(a)€€Generally.€€If€the€witness€is€not€testifying€as€an€expert,€the€witnessððsÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€opinions€or€inferences€is€limited€to€those€opinions€orÏinferences€where:ÌÌà8 àà à(1)€€The€opinions€and€inferences€do€not€require€a€special€knowledge,€skill,Ïexperience,€or€training;ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€€The€witness€cannot€readily€and€with€equal€accuracy€and€adequacyÏcommunicate€what€the€witness€has€perceived€to€the€trier€of€fact€without€testifying€inÏterms€of€opinions€or€inferences;€andÌ̜Ǜà8 àà à(3)€€The€opinions€or€inferences€will€not€mislead€the€trier€of€fact€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€objecting€party.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€701(a).œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€In€this€œcase,€the›€crumpled€condition€of€the€program€could€have€beenÏdescribed€without€opining€that€it€looked€ð ðstepped€on.ðð€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdisallowing€this€testimony.Ìà àSecond,€the€Robbins€argue€that€they€presented€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€find€theÏTheatre€liable.€€Therefore,€œthey›€maintain€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€Theatreððs€motionÏfor€directed€verdict.Ìà àIn€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€the€appellate€court€mustÏexamine€all€the€evidence,€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€that€evidence€in€favor€of€the€partyÏopposing€the€motion,€draw€any€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€that€party,Ïdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence,€and€reverse€the€trial€court€if€there€remains€any€material€factÏdispute€or€doubt€as€to€the€proper€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€all€the€evidence.€€òòò òHurley€v.ÏTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€887,€891€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€If€the€recordÏcontains€any€material€evidence€in€support€of€a€verdict€for€the€non„moving€party€under€any€of€hisÏtheories,€then€this€Court€must€reverse.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌà àIn€order€to€prevail€in€a€negligence€action,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€each€of€the€followingÏelements:€€a€duty€of€care€owed€him€by€the€defendant,€a€breach€of€that€duty,€an€injury,€causation€inÏfact,€and€proximate€cause.€€òòò òMcCall€v.€Wilderó óóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€aÍpremises€liability€action€where€the€plaintiff€has€been€injured€by€a€dangerous€condition,€he€mustÏprove€either€that€the€defendant€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€the€condition€or€that€theÏdefendant€caused€the€condition.€€òòò òKeene€v.€Cracker€Barrel€Old€Country€Storeó óóó,€853€S.W.2dÏ501,€503€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àTo€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€Theatreððs€motion€for€directedÏverdict,€we€must€examine€the€Robbinsðð€proof€that€(1)€slipping€on€the€crumpled€theater€programÏwas€the€cause€of€her€injury,€and€(2)€the€Theatre€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€that€theÏprogram€was€on€the€theaterððs€steps€or€that€an€employee€of€the€Theatre€caused€the€program€to€be€onÏthe€step.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€was€that€Mrs.€Robbins€slipped€because€she€stepped€on€somethingÏð ðslick,ðð€that€the€paper€on€which€the€theater€programs€were€printed€had€a€ð ðslickðð€œsurface,ò ò›€ó óand€that€aÏcrumpled€program€was€found€near€Mrs.€Robbins€after€she€fell.€€The€Robbins€argue€that€a€juryÏcould€permissibly€infer€from€this€evidence€that€the€crumpled€theater€program€caused€Mrs.€RobbinsððÏfall.€€The€Theatre€argues€that€the€proof€that€the€crumpled€theater€program€was€the€cause€of€Mrs.ÏRobbinsðð€fall€is€too€speculative,€where€no€one€saw€the€program€on€the€steps€prior€to€Mrs.ÏRobbinsðð€fall,€the€program€was€not€introduced€into€evidence,€and€no€one€knew€what€happened€toÏit.€€Ìà àWhile€a€jury€is€not€permitted€to€speculate€regarding€two€equally€probable€inferences,€aÏplaintiff,€to€bring€his€case€before€the€jury,€need€not€produce€evidence€that€excludes€every€otherÏreasonable€conclusion.€€ò òòòBenson€v.€H.€G.€Hill€Stores,€Inc.ó óóó,€699€S.W.2d€560,€563€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1985).€€The€plaintiff€need€only€present€proof€which,€if€found€credible,€makes€the€plaintiffððsÏtheory€more€probable€than€that€of€the€defendant.€œò òòòId.€€ó óóóAlthough›€the€plaintiffððs€evidence€is€far€fromÏstrong,€it€is€sufficient€for€a€jury€to€conclude€that€the€crumpled€theater€program€was€the€cause€ofÏMrs.€Robbinsðð€fall.Ìà àHowever,€the€Robbins€presented€no€evidence€that€an€employee€of€the€Theatre€either€causedÏthe€dangerous€condition€by€dropping€the€program€or€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€itsÍpresence.€€No€one€saw€the€program€before€the€fall.€€It€could€have€been€dropped€by€an€employee€orÏa€patron€and€could€even€have€been€dropped€immediately€after€the€fall.€€Under€these€circumstances,Ïthe€Theatre€argues€that€it€is€too€speculative€to€permit€a€jury€to€infer€that€the€usher€dropped€it€or€thatÏit€had€been€on€the€steps€sufficiently€long€enough€for€an€employee€to€have€knowledge€of€it.€€TheÏTheatre€cites€òòò òJones€v.€Zayre,€Inc.ó óóó,€600€S.W.2d€730€(Tenn.€App.€1980),€in€which€this€CourtÏupheld€a€directed€verdict.€€The€plaintiff€in€ò òòòJonesó óóó€slipped€on€a€plastic€clothes€clip€at€the€defendantÏstore.€€There€was€no€evidence€of€how€the€clip€got€on€the€floor,€how€long€it€had€been€there,€or€thatÏthe€defendant€or€any€of€his€employees€knew€it€was€there.€€This€Court€held€that€there€was€noÏevidence€that€the€store€either€œÇcaused›€the€dangerous€condition€or€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€it.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€œ731„32;òòò ò€see›Ïalso€Neff€v.€Southeastern€Salvage€Co.óóó ó,€694€S.W.2d€311,€313€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€Ìà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Robbins€argue€that,€if€the€jury€can€infer€from€the€evidence€that€the€crumpledÏprogram€caused€the€fall,€it€is€also€reasonable€to€infer€that€the€program€was€dropped€by€the€usher€orÏœshould›€have€been€œseen€on€the€steps›€by€the€œusher€prior€to€the€fall.›€€It€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€thatÏan€inference€cannot€be€drawn€from€another€inference.€òòò òBenton€v.€Snyderó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€415Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€However,€a€fact€may€be€inferred€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€If€ð ðthe€evidenceÏsupporting€the€first€inference€[is€of]€such€a€character€and€so€strong€that€it€justifies€a€conclusion€or€aÏfinding€of€fact,ðð€then€a€second€œfact›€œð ðmay›€be€inferred€without€contravening€the€rule€that€an€inferenceÏcannot€be€based€upon€an€inference.ðð€€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€the€inference€that€theÏprogram€caused€Mrs.€Robbins€to€slip€and€fall€is€too€weak€to€support€a€second€inference.Ìà àTo€support€their€argument,€the€Robbins€cite€ò òòòKeene€v.€Cracker€Barrel€Old€CountryÏStore,€Inc.óóó ó,€853€S.W.2d€501€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€In€ò òòòKeeneó óóó,€a€customer€in€a€restaurant€slippedÏand€fell€while€following€a€waitress€to€her€table.€€Afterwards,€her€sister€discovered€two€grease€spotsÏon€the€slacks€which€the€plaintiff€had€been€wearing€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€502.€€TheÏCourt€determined€that€there€was€enough€evidence€to€support€a€prima€facie€case€of€negligence€andÏthat€summary€judgment€had€thus€been€improperly€granted€to€the€restaurant.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€504.€€TheÏevidence€indicated€that€the€grease€was€the€type€found€in€that€restaurant,€and€that€only€employeesÏcarried€food€to€and€from€the€tables.€€There€was€no€other€explanation€for€the€grease€stains€on€theÏplaintiffððs€slacks.€€The€Court€found€that€it€was€reasonable€to€infer€that€any€grease€on€the€floor€mustÏhave€been€spilled€by€an€employee.€€The€Court€also€found€that€it€was€reasonable€to€infer€from€theÏstains€on€the€plaintiffððs€slacks€œthat›€negligently€spilled€grease€caused€her€to€fall.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌà àThe€facts€in€this€case,€however,€are€œdistinguishable›€from€ò òòòKeeneó óóó.€€In€ò òòòKeeneó óóó,€the€evidenceÏshowed€that€the€grease€could€have€come€from€no€source€other€than€an€employee.€€In€the€œinstant›Ïcase,€either€a€patron€or€an€employee€could€have€dropped€the€program.€€Thus,€unlike€ò òòòKeeneó óóó,€thereÏis€no€evidence€œthat€it€was€more€likely€than€not€that›€the€dangerous€condition€was€caused€by€theÍdefendant.Ìà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Robbins€also€cite€ò òòòSimmons€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€&€Co.óóó ó,€713€S.W.2dÏ640€(Tenn.€1986).€€In€òòò òSimmonsó óóó,€the€plaintiffððs€foot€slipped€on€something€while€he€wasÏdescending€some€stairs€at€a€department€store.€€He€fell€and€sustained€injuries.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€640„41.€€AfterÏthe€fall,€someone€discovered€a€pencil€at€about€the€same€spot€where€the€plaintiff€fell.€€Nothing€in€theÏrecord€showed€who€dropped€the€pencil€or€how€long€it€had€been€on€the€stairs.€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€the€defendant€a€directed€verdict,€concluding€that€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€demonstrateÏactual€or€constructive€knowledge€on€the€part€of€the€store€for€a€period€of€time€long€enough€to€rectifyÏthe€problem.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€641.Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€642.€€The€Court€cited€testimony€that€theÏstairs€were€littered€with€debris€and€that€store€employees€had€been€using€the€stairs,€in€their€litteredÏcondition,€for€at€least€fifteen€minutes€prior€to€the€accident.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€640„41.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€the€Court€found€that€it€did€not€matter€whether€the€pencil€had€caused€the€fall.€€ThereÏwas€so€much€litter€on€the€steps€that€it€was€evident€that€some€of€this€litter,€whether€the€pencil€or€not,Ïhad€caused€the€plaintiff€to€slip.€€In€addition,€the€evidence€indicated€that€the€litter€had€been€on€theÏsteps€long€enough€that€the€employees€using€the€stairs€should€have€noticed€the€debris€and€takenÏaction€to€clean€it€up€or€warn€customers.€€Thus,€the€store€œhad€at›€œleast›€constructive€knowledge€of€theÏdangerous€condition.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€641„42.Ìà àIn€this€case,€unlike€œòòò òSimmonsó óóó,›€the€Theatreððs€stairs€were€not€littered€with€debris.€ÏConsequently,€it€is€not€evident€that,€if€the€program€did€not€cause€the€slip,€the€slip€must€have€beenÏcaused€by€some€other€condition€for€which€the€Theatre€was€responsible.€€Moreover,€there€was€noÏevidence€of€how€long€the€crumpled€program€had€been€on€the€floor€and€whether€or€not€the€TheatreÏshould€have€known€of€it.€€Therefore,€unlikeò òòò€Simmonsó óóó,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€Theatre€hadÏactual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€the€alleged€dangerous€condition.€Ìà àAccordingly,€we€must€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€permit€the€jury€to€findÏthat€the€Theatre€caused€the€alleged€dangerous€condition€or€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€œÌof€›€it.€€Ìà àThe€Robbins€also€assert€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtððs€disallowance€of€their€testimony€thatÏthe€program€looked€ð ðstepped€onðð€caused€confusion€to€the€jury.€€This€issue€is€pretermitted€by€ourÏaffirmance€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€Theatreððs€motion€for€directed€verdict.€Ìà àIn€sum,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€disallow€the€Robbinsðð€testimony€that€theÏtheater€program€looked€as€though€it€had€been€ð ðstepped€on.ðð€€The€evidence€was€barely€sufficient€forÏthe€jury€to€find€that€the€crumpled€program€caused€Mrs.€Robbinsðð€fall.€€However,€the€RobbinsÏpresented€no€evidence€that€the€Theatre€caused€the€alleged€dangerous€condition€or€had€actual€orÏconstructive€knowledge€of€it.€€Any€other€issues€raised€on€appeal€are€pretermitted€by€this€holding.€Ìà àThe€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Appellants,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌBROOKS€McLEMORE,€SP.€J.ó ó