WPC# _b>g9Qf,Rsȡ4Pg2CވV^}#iiJnzj#7e`^TB8&_PV&ɨ'aixt *I1WEZ@,DkOy/gB<4yUwmAo"ތ-k#û^,al* аQl|.P& iҗ/K) 4+R+o Udzϗ\igKM[֌Yߦ̼yi3Ekx:wy`ڎiM^ي& +Yu5tyBfP+{8L|-h@~>_ 0=W[yWN-= o0аƺNǩBHcLe3x/_𼃖ybu A FK5wN@e6A4O/l?J}THЩP W<(PS1@j@b#\ % UN# 0q UN G [ z^ kwwv 0DzJ4NE mb 0 B   0& D5 D- 0K,, ASw 0 0D4 AxHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  R/$      1  A   _ԀForthepurposesofthesummaryjudgmentmotion,Targetconcededthatashoppingcartwasresponsiblefor  theaccident.  R/$      3  A   _ԀWewouldnotethatthereislittle,ifany,evidenceinthiscasespecifictothedateinquestion.ThePlaintiffs  argumentsrelyonpastobservationsandpastoccurrences.Wefindlittleevidenceastowhatactuallyhappenedonthe t dateoftheinjury.Althoughitisnotnecessarytoourdecision,webelievethislackofspecificevidencewouldpresent 8 thePlaintiffswithaseriousobstacleinregardstothequestionofcausation,anotheressentialelementofanegligence L claim. 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)   R/$      2  A   _ԀTheoriginalcomplaintnamed Target,Inc._as_ԀtheDefendant.However,thePlaintiffssubsequentlyamended  thecomplaintandnamed DaytonHudsonCorporation,d/b/aTargetastheDefendant.Forthesakeofsimplicity,we t shallrefertotheDefendantas Targetor Defendant.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5B ):i+003|xU- -(|G2/$ !.8Bd d 8         0  5 d(|3$ !.8Bd d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Bd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\Td d8     _  8"XXdd 8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ &   APRIL2000Session L XX #XX#SUSAN_SMYTKA_Ԁ&DONALD_SMYTKA_v.DAYTONHUDSON J CORPORATION,aTennesseeCorporation,d/b/aTARGETXX   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  ^ @@No.80767T.D.;TheHonorableRobertA.Lanier,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901751_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust25,2000   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealarisesoutofacomplaintforpersonalinjuriessustainedwhenthePlaintiffwasstruck  byashoppingcartintheparkinglotoftheDefendantsstore.TheDefendantfiledamotionfor x summaryjudgmentarguingthatitdidnotviolatethedutyofcareowedtothePlaintiff.Thetrial d courtgrantedthemotionandenteredjudgmentaccordingly.#XX#XX P % Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  (x   #X#XX.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,and P Farmer,J.,joined. < StephenP.Hale,JosephM._Koury_,Memphis,forAppellants  RobertD.Flynn,_Minton_ԀP.Mayer,Memphis,forAppellee   OPINION #XX#XX `!  #XX #XX  SusanandDonald_Smytka_ԀappealfromthedecisionoftheShelbyCountyCircuitCourtgrantingthe 8#" DefendantDaytonHudsonCorporationsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Forthereasonsstated $$t# herein,weaffirmthetrialcourtdecision. %` $   I.FactsandProceduralHistory  '$#'     OnApril29,1996,Susan_Smytka_,then63yearsold,waswalkingfromthegrocerystoreto )$) herhomeinMemphis,Tennessee.Asshewaswalking,astormformedintheareaanditbeganto *%* rain.Inordertoavoidtherain,Ms._Smytka_ԀcutthroughtheparkinglotofaTargetstoreseeking +&+ theshelterofseveraltreeswhichlinedthebaseofthelot.Asshewaswalkingthroughtheparking p,', lot,shewassuddenlyknockedtotheground.Althoughshedidnotseewhathadhither,she \-(- testifiedthataTargetshoppingcartwasthefirstthingshesawafterlookingup.Shefurthertestified  thatshebelievedtheshoppingcartwasresponsibleforknockingherdown.  #  1      ׀Asaresultofthe  incident,Ms._Smytka_Ԁsufferedseveralseriousinjuries.    Ms._Smytka_Ԁandherhusband,Donald,( Plaintiffs)filedtheirinitialcomplaintonAugust ` 16,1996.   #  2      ׀TheyclaimedthattheDefendantwasnegligentfor:failingtoprovideabrakingsystem L  ontheshoppingcarts,failingtomaketimelyinspectionsoftheparkingarea,failingtoplacewarning 8  signsintheparkingarea,failingtoerectbarriers,andfailingtomaintainthepremisessoastoavoid $ t theinjuriessufferedbyMs._Smytka_.TargetfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonFebruary23,  ` 1999,alongwithastatementofundisputedmaterialfacts.Themotionclaimedthatsummary  L  judgmentwasappropriatebecausethePlaintiffshadfailedtoproduceanyevidencewhichwould  8  tendtoestablishadisputedissueofmaterialfactwithregardtotherequiredelementsofanegligence $  claim,specificallywhetherTargethadbreacheditsdutyofcare.Targetcontendedthatits   proceduresforthecollectionandremovalofshoppingcartsfromitsparkinglotsatisfieditsdutyof   reasonablecareunderthecircumstances.Afterahearingonthemotionforsummaryjudgment,the   trialcourtgrantedthemotionandenteredjudgmentinfavoroftheDefendant.Thisappeal   followed. p    II.LawandAnalysis 4      Ourstandardofreviewonamotionforsummaryjudgmentiswellsettled.Sinceourinquiry  \ involvespurelyaquestionoflaw,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothetrialcourt's H judgment,andourtaskisconfinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhethertherequirements 4 ofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeenmet._Cowden_Ԁv._Sovran_ԀBank/CentralSouth,816S.W.2d741,744   (Tenn.1991).Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04providesthatsummaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhere:   (1)thereisnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfactsrelevanttotheclaimordefense  containedinthemotion,Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);and(2)themovingparty  isentitledtoajudgmentasmatteroflawontheundisputedfacts.Andersonv.StandardRegister  Co.,857S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatitsmotion l satisfiestheserequirements._Downen_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523,524(Tenn.1991)(citing X  Jonesv.HomeIndemnityIns.Co.,651S.W.2d213,214(Tenn.1983).Assuch,wemustviewthe D! evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonable 0"  inferencesinthenonmovingparty'sfavor.Byrd,847S.W.2dat210-11. #l!   Anegligenceclaimrequiresaplaintifftoprovethefollowingelements:(1)adutyofcare $D # owedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff;(2)conductbythedefendantfallingbelowthestandardof %0!$ careamountingtoabreachoftheduty;(3)aninjuryorloss;(4)causationinfact;and(5)  proximatecausation.Ricev._Sabir_,979S.W.2d305,308(Tenn.1998)(citingBradshawv.Daniel,  854S.W.2d865,869(Tenn.1993)).Failuretoestablishanyoneoftheseelementsisfataltoa  causeofactionfornegligence. t   Asaninitialmatter,werecognizethatsummaryjudgment,asageneralrule,isinappropriate L  innegligencecases.SeeBowmanv._Henard_,547S.W.2d527,530(Tenn.1977);Gonzalesv. 8  _Alman_ԀConstr.Co.,857S.W.2d42,45(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).However,inDoev._Linder_ԀConstr. $ t Co.,845S.W.2d173,183(Tenn.1992),theTennesseeSupremeCourtnoted:"If,asamatteroflaw,  ` theplaintiffhasfailedtoallegeorprovefactssufficienttoestablishnotice,theexistenceoftheduty  L  toact,breachoftheduty,orproximatecause,dismissal,summaryjudgment,oradirectedverdict  8  wouldbeappropriate."(quoting_Tedder_Ԁv._Raskin_,728S.W.2d343,349(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)). $  Therefore,summaryjudgmentisappropriateinthepresentcaseifthePlaintiffshavenotproduced   sufficientevidencetoshow,asamatteroflaw,thattheDefendantbreacheditsdutyofcare.See   _Coln_Ԁv.CityofSavannah,966S.W.2d34,43(Tenn.1998)(citingByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208   (Tenn.1993)).     Generally,premisesownersoweguestsor_invitees_Ԁadutyofreasonablecareunderallthe \ circumstances.Eatonv._McLain_,891S.W.2d587(Tenn.1994).Thus,ownersgenerallyhaveaduty H tomaintaintheirpremisesinareasonablysafecondition.Id.Forthepurposesofthepresentappeal, 4 TargetconcedesthatitowedadutyofcaretoMs._Smytka_.However,themainpointofdispute  p betweentheparties,andthe_dispositive_Ԁissueinthiscase,iswhetherthatdutywasbreached.  \   Insupportofitsmotionforsummaryjudgment,Targetpresentedevidenceregardingits 4 proceduresformonitoringandremovingshoppingcartsfromitsparkinglots.Targetemploys   shoppingcartattendantswhoseprimaryresponsibilityistheremovalofshoppingcartsfromthe   parkinglot.OnthedateMs._Smytka_Ԁwasinjured,twoshoppingcartattendantswereonduty.Target  alsoprovidesraingearfortheseattendantssothattheremovalofcartscouldcontinueduring  episodesofinclementweather.Inadditiontotheproceduresforremovingcartsfromitsparkinglot,  Targetalsohadcartcorralsinitsparkinglotwherecustomerscouldplacetheircartsafterunloading. l Eightsuchcorralswereplacedthroughouttheparkinglot. X    ThePlaintiffsofferseveralargumentstorefuteTargetsclaimsregardingthecollectionof 0"  shoppingcartsfromitsparkinglots.Specifically,theycitetofortythree(43)separatereportsof #l! damageresultingfromshoppingcartscomingintocontactwithvehiclesparkedinthelot.Also,Ms. $X" _Smytka_ԀtestifiedthatsheoftensawTargetshoppingcartsrollingfreeintheparkinglot.Finally,the $D # PlaintiffscitetestimonyfromTargetemployeesindicatingthatshoppingcartswouldconsistently %0!$ gatheratthebottomoftheslopedTargetparkinglotfollowinginclementweather. &"%   Asweanalyzethevariousassertionsbytheparties,wemustconcludethatthereisnodispute (#' astothematerialfactsofthiscase.WehavelittledoubtthatTargetdoeshaveamechanismfor )$( collectingcartsandthatthisprocessisongoingthroughouttheday.Also,consistentwithMs. |*%) _Smytka_stestimony,wealsohavelittledoubtthat,atanygiventime,shoppingcartswillberolling h+&* freeintheparkinglot.Thequestioniswhetherthefactsaresufficienttoshowabreachoftheduty  ofcare.WeagreewiththetrialcourtthattheundisputedfactsdonotallowforafindingthatTarget  breacheditsdutyofcare.    Itisalmostimpossibletokeepaparkinglotcompletelyclearofshoppingcarts,especially ` whenastoreisasbusyasthisparticularTargetstoreappearstobe.Unfortunately,Targetcannot L  forcecustomerstoplacetheirshoppingcartsinthecartcorrals,norisitpracticaltobelievethat 8  Targetcankeeptheparkinglotconstantlyfreeofshoppingcarts.Likewise,Targetcannotcontrol $ t theweather.Thiscombinationoffactorspracticallyguaranteesthatshoppingcartswillrollfree  ` duringepisodesofinclementweather.ThereisnoproofthatTargetwasnegligentinitsremovalof  L  cartsonthedaytheinjuryoccurred.TofindTargetnegligentunderthecircumstanceswouldbeto  8  imposestrictliability.However,amerchantisnottheabsoluteinsurerofthesafetyofitscustomers. $  Jonesv._Zayre_,Inc.,600S.W.2d730,732(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).Theremustbeashowingthatthe   merchantbreachedthedutyofreasonablecareunderthespecificcircumstances.Inthepresentcase,   thereisnosuchevidence.Themerefactthatcartsperiodicallyrolledfreeintheparkinglotdoesnot   mandateadecisiontothecontrary.     Weconclude,asdidthetrialcourt,thatreasonablemindscouldnotdifferastothequestion \ ofwhetherTargetbreacheditsdutyofcaretoMs._Smytka_.Asstatedpreviously,anycontrary H conclusionwouldbetantamounttoimposingstrictliability,therebymakingTargettheabsolute 4 insurerofitscustomerssafety.Ms._Smytka_srandomobservationsofcartsrollingfreeisnot  p sufficienttocreateadisputeastothematerialfacts.Atmost,thoseobservationsonlyserveto  \ confirmwhatiscommonknowledge,namelythatshoppingcartswillgatherintheparkinglotofa H retailoutletsuchasTarget.Suchaccumulationofcartscan,andwill,takeplacedespiteTargets 4 bestintentions.ThecircumstanceswhichledtoMs._Smytka_sinjuriesarecertainlyunfortunate.   However,Targetdoesnotbeartheresponsibility,absentsomeevidenceshowingitsactionsfell   belowthestandardofreasonablecare.Wefindnosuchevidenceinthiscase.  #  3          Finally,wewishtoaddressthespecificargumentadvancedbythePlaintiffsthatTargetwas  negligentbecauseitfailedtoemployanautomaticbrakingsystemonitsshoppingcarts.Webelieve l thisargumentfailsbecauseTargetsdutywasthatofreasonablecareunderthecircumstances. X  Certainly,therearecircumstancesinwhichapartyischargedwiththeabsolutedutytoinsurethat D! injuriesdonotresult.However,thelawofnegligencedoesnotcontemplatesuchrequirements. 0"  Targetsdutywasthatofreasonablecare.SuchadutydoesnotrequireTargettoemployevery #l! conceivablesafeguardwhichisavailable.Moreover,thefactthatTargetchoosestoemploysuch $X" abrakingsystematotherstoresisnotabasisforfindingTargetnegligentinthepresentcase.We $D #  believethePlaintiffsargumentsinthisregardsoundinstrictliability.Sincethereexistsnobasis %0!$ forimposingsuchastringentstandardofcareinthiscase,wefindnovalidityinthePlaintiffs  contentions.     Conclusion `     Fortheaforementionedreasons,weaffirmthetrialcourtdecisiongrantingsummary 8  judgmentinfavoroftheDefendant.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellants,Susanand $ t Donald_Smytka_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XX #XX  `    `     h      `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE