WPCl 2# U: % 0(b ?w@K4 0l 0D" 0Jf 0T 0^ 0hb 0r 0|< 0 0> 1u 0dC B AQ  0D 0@ 0D_ D/ B D3 U*" B)L DCu AM  v~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - EEDDӀ_#3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,C << G  !  #d#*  ""  *   YYY FILED*XDecember5,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#*       *     TheSupremeCourtgrantedpermissiontoappealinCooperwoodonthequestionofwhethertheopenandobviousruleislimitedtodeterminingwhetheradutyofcareisowedorwhetheritalsoappliesintheassessmentofrelativedegreesoffault.Theappealwasdismissed,however,andtheCourtdidnotreachthatissue.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . *      \RA'\7_XXdXXd7    !R-.,A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜FREDRIKAA.STEINER,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019705CV00233̜VS.      )      ) DavidsonCircuit      ) No.94C2468THEPARMANCORPORATION,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ * CONCURRINGOPINION *X    IconcurintheresultreachedinJudgeToddsopinion.MyonlyreasonforwritingseparatelyistofocusonwhatIperceivetobedecisiveinthiscase:thefactthatthedefendantdidnotviolateadutytotheplaintiff.Inthatway,Iavoidthenaggingproblemofthecourtapportioningfaultinacaseinwhichtheplaintiffwasentitledtoajurytrial.  Istartfromthepointthateverybodyowestoeverybodyelseadutyofduecareunderallthecircumstances.Doev.LinderConstr.Co.,845S.W.2d173(Tenn.1992).Forapossessorofproperty,adutytotakeactiontopreventinjurytoaninviteedependson8 8 thenatureanduseoftheland,thenatureoftheinvitation,thenatureoftherelationshipwiththeinvitee,theopportunityofthepossessorandtheinviteetoknowandavoidexistingorprobabledangersandanyandallotherfactorswhichwouldchallengetheattentionofthepossessorand/orinviteetotheprobabilityofdangertotheinvitee....Zangv.Leonard,643S.W.2d657at663(Tenn.App.1982)(emphasisadded).  Itnaturallyfollowsthatapremisesowneroroperatorhasnodutytoaninviteewhoseknowledgeofadangerousconditionisasgreatastheowneroroperators.AstheSupremeCourtsaidinEatonv.McClain,891S.W.2d587(Tenn.1994): AlthoughTennesseelawprovidesthatpremisesownersoweϜinviteesthedutytowarnoflatentorhiddendangers,thisdutydoesnotariseifthedangerisopenandobvious.891S.W.2dat595.  Assumingthataoneandonehalftotwoinchdifferenceinelevationbetweenaconcretepadandthesurroundingasphaltataservicestationisdangerous,theconditionwasasapparenttoaninviteeasitwastotheowner.Therefore,Idonotthinkthattheownerhadadutytowarntheplaintifftowatchherstep.  Iamawarethattheothersectionsofthiscourthaveheldthatthe openandobviousrulehasgonethewayofcontributorynegligence,remotecontributorynegligenceandimpliedassumptionoftherisk.SeeBroylesv.CityofKnoxville,App.No.03A019505CV00166(filedatKnoxville,Aug.30,1995);Cooperwoodv.KrogerFoodStores,App.No.02A019308CV00182(filedatJackson,Dec.30,1994).But,itseemstomethatmycolleagueshavedrawnthatconclusionwheretheopenandobviousruleisassertedasanabsolutebartoaclaimagainstanotherwisenegligentdefendant. /   כInthatcontext,Iwouldagreethatthenegligenceoftheplaintiffandthedefendantshouldbecompared,butthereisnothingtocomparewherethedefendantdidnotviolateadutytotheplaintiff.  IamcomfortablewithwhatIhavesaidsofar.IbecomeuncomfortablewhenIamaskedtoapportionfaultinacasewheretheplaintiffhasarighttoajurytrial.Wherethereissomeevidenceonbothsidesoftheissue,Iamnotsosurethatthecourtcansayasamatteroflawthattheplaintiffsfaultexceedsthatofthedefendant.Incasestriedwithoutajury,ofcourse,thecourtasthefinderoffactmustmakethatdetermination.Butthequestionremainsoneforthejuryincaseswhereeitherpartyexercisestherighttodemandajury.  Ialsoadmittohavingsometroublewiththequestionofwhetheritisforthejurytodetermineifaconditionisopenandobvious.Itmaybe.ButinthiscaseIthinkreasonablemindscouldreachonlyoneconclusion:thattheplaintiffknewasmuchaboutthehazardasthedefendantdid.Shehadwalkedovertheplacewheretheconcretemettheasphaltonherwaytothestore,andthedifferenceinelevationwasplainlyvisible.  Therefore,Iconcurinthemajorityopinion.̛̜      _________________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE