WPC   (&qx"HK W-tO0anV#{OK$|nO컀p.Lۿ$wĊhZ ʒv.?1[{L@$Ҟ^|?~J,_,M7kW\23'7LpcM;X5,<H$(W{**FU<رmsVkj)lkR8);#hw2~:]וD}~-۫id_k_=#fNd1V!I,`IN(6= 6nfZuƸ͋ɚW5se9n6~|1n"©Td7T1 LjTK>3_{1r'< Hͫ|~` LLހ[XiͳOOF ؉sthXQϙA RDpi|/o\/%Q.1mQ]mWRDnRpb~*# LUNW % 0U<^w@4 0DIU:MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM AQ 0D 0D 0D& & D/j B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman xyDzH{H|H}~Ӏu[%3|x(3$ !   ""   X;qXXX  X X;q   Ad FILED X;qX    November24,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!" $&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (#$  0  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd 7!  7<XXdd7  XDzXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7<XXdXXd7r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@(ATNASHVILLE `  ______________________________________________ t )>.*jx` `@E2 ` 8ttxP tߛAMYTYLER,    ` PlaintiffAppellant, `     h     WilliamsonCircuitNo.96361Vs. `     h     C.A.No.01A019711CV00661    LARRYMORGAN,d/b/aLARRY   MORGANCONST.COMPANY,UNITEDCITIESGASCO.,ROGERP.DYE,d/b/aROGERDYECONST.CO.,MURRAYTATUM,QUADSTATES,INC.,     ` DefendantsAppellees.____________________________________________________________________________@( DISSENT   ____________________________________________________________________________   CRAWFORD,J.    ` Irespectfullydissentfromthemajorityopinion.Beardensaffidavitstatesthathehadaconversationwiththedefendantxsxysyemployeesrightaftertheyfinishedpouringtheconcreteatabout5:00or5:30p.m.Hefurtherstatesthatafter{the{warningϜztoztheworkersthattheyshouldbarricadethearea,hewasassuredbytheworkersthattheywouldputupabarricade.Althoughastretchedstringisnotmuchofabarricadeaswenormallythinkofabarricade,tosomepeopleitcouldbeconsideredatypeofawarningbarricade.SinceBeardenwasassured}by}|that|theworkers~thatthey~wouldputupabarricade,andsubsequentlythesocalledbarricadeexisted,thereappearstobeaninferencethattheworkersplacedthebarricade. ` Inconsideringamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmustconsiderthemotioninthesamemannerasamotionfordirectedverdictmadeatthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof;thatis,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingpartyallowingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatpartyanddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Suddathv.Park ,914S.W.2d 733 910(Tenn.App.1995). ` Althoughthedefendantscategoricallydenyanyknowledgeofthestring,the ;77w factthatthedefendantsemployeessaidtheyweregoingtoerectabarricade,inmyopinioncreatesagenuineissueastoamaterialfactandprecludessummaryjudgment. ` Iwouldreversetheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentandremandthiscaseforfurtherproceedings. `     h      p _________________________________ `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,    `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.