WPC 2 HU B %BH 0t 0kZ 0p 0m5 0r 0 0 0 0` 0' 0 0o 0 0 0 0l 08 0W 0jh 0C AQUNfn 0r9w@A4 0[ 0D< 0@ 0D D/ B3 BP D3m 0J 0T 0^>! 0h! 0r" 0|v" 0" 0x# 1u$ 0d}$B)$DC % AMM%U*%J%' )v~*v6,\  `*Times New RomanTTX'   John Butler 0John Butler .   h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWT:endnote textendnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW^:endnote refeendnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWV:footnote texfootnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW`:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW85T,toc 1toc 1   4        >4X` hp x (#>88T,toc 2toc 2   4         >4X` hp x (#>8;T,toc 3toc 3  4         >4X` hp x (#>8;T,toc 4toc 4  4 <        >4X` hp x (#>8;T,toc 5toc 5  4<        >4X` hp x (#>85T,toc 6toc 6   4        >4X` hp x (#>8!,toc 7toc 7          85T,toc 8toc 8   4        >4X` hp x (#>85T,toc 9toc 9   4        >4X` hp x (#>@8T0index 1index 1   4         >4X` hp x (#>@8T0index 2index 2   4         >4X` hp x (#>P5T8toa headingtoa heading   T$        >4X` hp x (#>@0captioncaption  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW^:_Equation Ca_Equation CaptionXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW( $    !%&'(C<< C(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular3|x\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP2 `*Times New RomanTTXX P7XP(J$   pqDrs UtDuv DwxӀz=#Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((2+$ !UXXUU   XDXU      0  (3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  **' dxd dP Pd))))'dxd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  /0123456 ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X% Line 7 d????7Border 1dd!&@C << G<  9p`(Arial @ !  #d#   %"  BB   YYY FILEDBXOctober31,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#   "$X         ݀Thereisnoquestionthattheholdingin McClung appliestotheinstantaction.The McClung courtexpresslyheldthatitsdecisionwouldapplytoallcasesonappeal. SeeMcClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership ,937S.W.2d891,905(Tenn.1996).  !#d#   "$X         ݀ThereisnodirectevidencethatCorkerPropertiesgaveCorkerDevelopmentanycontroloverthesecurityoftheshoppingcenter,however;suchaninferenceisreasonablefromalloftheevidenceintherecord.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! .        \RA'\  \RA'\7DXdd7  ћ MARIONSHOFNER,Individually  ) andaspersonalrepresentativeof  ) theestateofDannyShofner,   )deceased,      )` ` ,X0        ) AppealNo.  ` ` X PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,  ) 01A019609CV00437       ) v.       ) BedfordCircuit       ) No.7048̜!RAC@A1-j|_`  `@RߛREDFOODSTORES(TENNESSEE), )INC.,CORKERPROPERTIESIII  ) LTD.andCORKERDEVELOPMENT )CORPORATION,     )       ) DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.  )  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALFORTHECIRCUITCOURTOFBEDFORDCOUNTYATSHELBYVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLELEERUSSELL,CIRCUITJUDGE  DOYLEE.RICHARDSONRogers,Richardson&Duncan100NorthSpringStreetManchester,Tennessee37355 ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANTPATRICKA.FLYNNP.O.Box90Columbia,Tennessee384020090 ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED    SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGEX  Opinion     ThisisanappealfromthedecisionoftheBedfordCountyCircuitCourt.Plaintiff/appellant,MarionShofner,claimsthecircuitcourterredwhenitgranteddirectedverdictsinfavorofdefendant/appellees,CorkerPropertiesIII,Ltd.( CorkerProperties)andCorkerDevelopmentCorporation( CorkerDevelopment).Plaintiffalsoclaimsthecourterredinorderinghertopaydiscretionarycosts.Thefactsoutofwhichthismatteraroseareasfollows. DannyShofnerwasshotandkilledon24April1987intheparkinglotoftheshoppingcenteroccupiedbydefendant,RedFoodStores(Tennessee),Inc.( RedFood).CorkerPropertiesownedtheshoppingcenter,andCorkerDevelopmentmanagedtheshoppingcenter.CorkerPropertiesretainedresponsibilityforthecommonareas,includingtheparkinglot.MichaelCompton,CorkerDevelopmentspropertymanager,hiredsecurityontwooccasions,theannualWalkingHorseCelebrationandHalloween.Healsotestifiedheplacedasmall NoLoiteringsignintheparkinglotandgavethepolicepermissiontopatroltheparkinglot.Mr.Comptoncouldnotsaywhohespoketoatthepolicestation.Foratleastayearpriortotheshooting,youngpeoplemetintheparkinglotonFridayandSaturdaynightstosocialize.Therewastestimonytheyoungpeoplewere goodkidsandtherewas somebeerdrinking. Youngpeoplebeganarrivingattheparkinglotbetween8:00and9:00p.m.on24April1987.Around9:30p.m.afightbrokeoutbetweenseveralyoungmen.DannyShofnerpulledupshortlyafterthefightbegan.Afterexitinghiscar,oneoftheyoungmen,CarlPendergrast,threatenedShofnerandhithimonthearmwithabaseballbat.Oneoftheyoungpeoplespottedthepoliceandtheaggressors,includingPendergrastandT.J.Hillis,left,butthreatenedtoreturn.OfficerRufusMortonoftheShelbyvillePoliceDepartmentarrivedonthescene.Severaloftheyoungpeopletoldtheofficeraboutthefight.OfficerMortontoldthecrowdhewouldhavesomeonekeepaneyeontheparkinglot.Thecrowddidnotdisperse. Shortlyafter11:00p.m.,Pendergrastandtheothertwoyoungmenreturnedtotheparkinglot.Pendergrasttookouta.22caliberrifleandpointeditatShofner.Shofnerthenpulledoutapistol,showedittoPendergrast,andreturnedthepistoltohispocket.HillisandPendergrastbeganfightingovertherifle.PendergrastgainedcontroloftherifleandshotShofner.HillisbeganhittingShofnerwithabaseballbat,andPendergrastshotShofnerasecondtime.NeitherShofnernorhisassailantswerecustomersofRedFoodonthenightinquestion. PlaintifffiledawrongfuldeathactionagainstRedFood,CorkerProperties,andCorkerDevelopmenton22April1988.Plaintiffvoluntarilydismissedthecaseon21September1993,butrefiledintheBedfordCountyCircuitCourton1September1994.Defendantsfiledajointanswerdenyingfaulton12October1994.Later,theyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentwhichthecourtdenied.  Ajuryheardthecaseon8July1996.AttheendofPlaintiffsproof,Defendantsmovedforadirectedverdict.ThecourtgrantedthemotionwithrespecttoCorkerDevelopmentandCorkerProperties,butoverruledthemotionwithrespecttoRedFood.Thejury,however,foundthatRedFoodwasnotatfault.Thecourtenteredafinaljudgmenton12July1996.On2August1996,Defendantsfiledamotionfordiscretionarycosts,andthecourtawardedDefendants$1,733.80.Plaintifffiledatimelynoticeofappeal.   DiscretionaryCosts    Absentanerroroflaw,thiscourtreviewsdecisionsawardingdiscretionarycostsusingtheabuseofdiscretionstandard. SeeLockv.NationalUnionFireIns.Co. ,809S.W.2d483,490(Tenn.1991).PlaintiffcontendsthecourtshouldnothaveassesseddiscretionarycostsagainstherindividuallybecauseshebroughtthesuitasthepersonalrepresentativeoftheDannyShofnerestate.Defendantsrecognizethereisanexceptionforaplaintiffsuingasapersonalrepresentative,butcontendPlaintiffbroughttheactionbothindividuallyandaspersonalrepresentative. ItistheopinionofthiscourtthatPlaintiffbroughtthesuitindividuallyandasDannyShofnerspersonalrepresentative.Assuch,thetrialcourtcouldassesscostsagainstherinherindividualcapacity.Moreover,itistheopinionofthiscourtthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion.   DirectedVerdicts    Thestandardofreviewforadirectedverdictiswellsettled.Acourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavoroftheopponent,allowallreasonableinferencesfromthatevidenceintheopponent'sfavor,discardallcountervailingevidenceandthen,affirmthedirectedverdictwhenreasonablemindscoulddrawbutoneconclusion. HarrogateCorp.v.SystemsSalesCorp. ,915S.W.2d812,817(Tenn.App.1995). Thetrialcourtreliedon Cornpropstv.Sloan ,528S.W.2d188(Tenn.1975),ingrantingthedirectedverdictsinfavorofCorkerDevelopmentandCorkerProperties.The Cornpropst courtstatedtherelevantruleoflawasfollows:8 Thereisnodutyupontheownersoroperatorsofashoppingcenter,individuallyorcollectively,oruponmerchantsandshopkeepersgenerally,whosemodeofoperationoftheirpremisesdoesnotattractorprovideaclimateforcrime,toguardagainstthecriminalactsofathirdparty,unlesstheyknoworhavereasontoknowthatactsareoccurringorabouttooccuronthepremisesthatposeimminentprobabilityofharmtoaninvitee;whereuponadutyofreasonablecaretoprotectagainstsuchactarises. Cornpropst ,528S.W.2dat198.Inalatercasedecidedafterthefilingofthefinaljudgmentinthiscase,theTennesseeSupremeCourtdescribedthe Cornpropst ruleas obsolete. McClungv.DeltaSquareLimitedPartnership, 937S.W.2d891,900(Tenn.1996).The McClung courtexplainedwhenadutyarises:8 Abusinessordinarilyhasnodutytoprotectcustomersfromthecriminalactsofthirdpartieswhichoccuronitspremises.Thebusinessisnottoberegardedastheinsurerofthesafetyofitscustomers,andithasnoabsolutedutytoimplementsecuritymeasuresfortheprotectionofitscustomers.However,adutytotakereasonablestepstoprotectcustomersarisesifthebusinessknows,orhasreasontoknow,eitherfromwhathasbeenorshouldhavebeenobservedorfrompastexperience,thatcriminalactsagainstitscustomersonitspremisesarereasonablyforeseeable,eithergenerallyoratsomeparticulartime. Id. at902.Thecourtthencontinuedandexplainedhowcourtsshoulddeterminetheextentofthedutyifonearises.Thecourtstated: Indeterminingthedutythatexists,theforeseeabilityofharmandthegravityofharmmustbebalancedagainstthecommensurateburdenimposedonthebusinesstoprotectagainstthatharm. Id.  Wemustnowdeterminewhetheradutyaroseand,ifso,theextentofthatduty. D   ׀ItistheopinionofthiscourtthatadutydidnotarisebecauseDefendantsneitherkneworshouldhaveknownfromtheirobservationsorpastexperiencethatcriminalactswerereasonablyforeseeable.Inordertoapplythelawtothefacts,wemustfirstmakecertainassumptions.Defendantsretainedcontrolovertheparkinglot,therefore;wemustassumetheyknewofthosethingstheyshouldhaveobserved. E   ׀Thatis,wemustassumeDefendantsknewyoungpeoplecongregatedintheparkinglotonFridayandSaturdaynightsandtherewassomebeerdrinkingbecause,asthecontrollersoftheparkinglot,Defendantsshouldhaveobservedthisactivity. ItisPlaintiffscontentionthatthisknowledgealonewasenoughtotriggertheimpositionofadutyunder McClung .Wecannotagree.Theargumentissimplytootenuous.Thiscourtcannotconcludethatcriminalactsagainsttheshoppingcenterscustomersarereasonablyforeseeablesimplybecauseyoungpeoplehangoutataremoteareaoftheparkinglotanddrinksomebeer.Moreover,theevidenceintherecordsupportstheconclusionthatPlaintiffscontentionlacksmerit.Mostimportant,theevidencerevealstherewerenocriminalactsreportedintheshoppingcentersvicinitypriortotheshootingdespitethefactthatyoungpeoplehadbeenmeetingattheparkinglotforatleastayear.Finally,Plaintiffevendescribedtheyoungpeopleas goodkids. Forthesereasons,itistheopinionofthiscourtthatthetrialcourtproperlygrantedthedirectedverdicts.EvenaftertakingthestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofPlaintiff,wemustconcludethatreasonablemindscouldonlydetermineDefendantsdidnothaveadutyinthiscase. Therefore,itfollowsthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.Costsonappealaretaxedtoplaintiff/appellant,MarionShofner.       ______________________________       SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGECONCUR:_____________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE_____________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S.