WPC "UQF0PĜƐV҃l.4$E]&Aq EcIleY W{[np`E _vvk(4t%bHboaUzҫ1~GtX^}EBtW!ODfȃ>0ޅA^)sN 5[Ơwb-Wʯ%LJ K?)T-}vI]Qz,;rߍB.*$ogcE[&d>A9QhD%7  s׀@睚tلL[bvA=4JncՄS~?+[! 7T?wIm727@^#\!Wmr<^}I'c$LgH9@W*T"7/٭NnAv"*UBL % 0tB 0 0\{ 0 0rd  0 D+k  0\ 0= 0& AQ 0 0DNLn\ 0r_LU.:w@W4-U:U: BTTTTT D3q\  `*Times New RomanTT'  The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW<5T.footerfooter   !        >4X` hp x (#>P8page numberpage numberXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWV!:footnote texfootnote text          `:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW(e2j$ !sss   'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2j$ !sss   ($    (e2j$ !sss      C<< c(f(3$ !sss       0  (#$  0   D j"sss   &Ws&W   Ad FILEDX7X  November24,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdA 3|x \  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP%2A`ArialTTomanTTXXX2PQXP(J$~4~4~4  C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT+K AZ"Arial Regular    E  E   Ӏ u[%` ##iXd#,  AZ"Arial Regular,kAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd !sss   TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ! ,XXX!AsXXA7sdXXd7   r)<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  r         @g g  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@$ATNASHVILLE t)>.*jx+` `@EQ` 8ttxP+ tߛ AMYTYLER,    h   ) p    `     h   )   ` Plaintiff/Appellant, h   )WilliamsonCircuitNo.96361 P     `     h   )VS.   `     h   )AppealNo.01A019711CV00661 0     `     h   )LARRYMORGAN,d/b/aLARRY  ) `  MORGANCONST.COMPANY, h   ) P  UNITEDCITIESGASCO.,ROGERP.  ) @  DYE,d/b/aROGERDYECONST.  ) 0  CO.,MURRAYTATUM,QUAD h   )   STATES,INC.,    h   )     `     h   )   ` Defendants/Appellees.  )   @APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFWILLIAMSONCOUNTY@ATFRANKLIN,TENNESSEE@  THEHONORABLECORNELIAA.CLARK,JUDGE WILLIAMB.BRADLEY 0 BARRYGARDNER Brentwood,Tennessee ` AttorneysforAppellant DOUGLASFISHER 0 HOWELL&FISHER,PLLC Nashville,Tennessee ! AttorneyforAppelleesLarryMorgand/b/aLarryMorganConst.Co.AndUnitedCitiesGasCo. JAMESD.KAY,JR. p&!$ BRIDGETTA.WOHLPART Nashville,Tennessee P(#& AttorneysforAppelleeRogerP.Dyed/b/aRogerP.DyeConst.Co. KENTE.KRAUSE ,`'* SHARONE.ENGLANDBREWER,KRAUSE&BROOKS Nashville,Tennessee .0*- AttorneysforAppelleesMurrayTatumandQuadStates,Inc. AFFIRMED 2-1     `     h      p   ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 4/3 ̜W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.DISSENTS DAVIDR.FARMER,J. 񀄀CONCURS    0948 7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7   7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7   7!XXdd7     Inthispersonalinjuryaction,PlaintiffAmyTylerappealsthetrialcourtsfinalorder  enteringsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheDefendants/AppelleesanddismissingTylers 7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7   7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7  7XXdd7   7!XXdd7   complaint.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.                    Atabout9:00ontheeveningofMay27,1995,TylerwaswalkingdownasidewalkattheSouthwindApartmentsinFranklinwhenshetrippedandfell,breakingbothofherarms.Afterherfall,Tylerdiscoveredthatshehadtrippedoverastringwhichhadbeenstretchedacrossthesidewalk.Earlierthatday,DefendantsMurrayTatumandQuadStates,Inc.,hadpouredanewsidewalkontheportionofthesidewalkwhereTylerfell.ϜAlthoughthenewlypouredconcretewasdry,thewoodenformsthatTatumandhisworkersusedtopourtheconcretewerestillinplace.Thestringwasattachedtotwowoodenstakeswhichmadeuppartoftheforms.  Asaresultofherinjuries,Tylerfiledthislawsuitagainstthefollowingparties:(1)UnitedCitiesGasCompany,whichhadcontractedtohaveanaturalgaslineinstalledunderthesidewalk;(2)LarryMorgan,thecontractorresponsibleforinstallationofthegasline;(3)RogerP.Dye,Morganssubcontractorwhoactuallyperformedtheinstallationofthegasline;(4)MurrayTatum,Dyessubcontractorwhopouredthenewsidewalkafterthegaslinewasinstalled;and(5)QuadStates,Inc.,Tatumsemployer.TyleralsosuedSouthwindLimitedPartnership,theowneroftheapartmentcomplex;however,shelateragreedtodismissSouthwindfromthislawsuit.TheremainingDefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgment,andthetrialcourtgrantedtheirmotions.Thisappealfollowed.  Webeginouranalysiswiththewellestablishedrulethat thepartyseekingsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenofdemonstratingtothecourtthattherearenodisputed,materialfactscreatingagenuineissuefortrial.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208, 3.2 215(Tenn.1993).Oncethepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesaproperlysupportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytopresentevidenceortopointtospecificevidenceintherecorddemonstratingtheexistenceofadisputedmaterialfactwhichneeds 0948 toberesolvedbythetrieroffact.Id.Inevaluatingamotionforsummaryjudgment,the  courtisrequiredtoviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandtodrawallreasonableinferencesfromtheevidenceinthenonmovingpartysfavor.Id. P    Adisputedfactismaterialifproofthereofwouldnegateorestablishanessentialelementoftheplaintiffsclaim.McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588 @  (Tenn.1998).Inthepresentcase,inordertorecoverfromtheDefendantsforinjuriescausedbytheallegeddangerousordefectivecondition,Tylerwasrequiredtoestablisheither(1)thattheDefendantscreatedtheconditionor(2)thattheDefendantshadactualorconstructivenoticeoftheconditionpriortoTylersinjury.Hardestyv.Service p MerchandiseCo.,953S.W.2d678,682(Tenn.App.1997).Accordingly,inthesummary P judgmentproceedingsbelow,thepartiesfocusedonevidencethattendedtosupportornegateTylersclaimthattheDefendantswereresponsibleforplacingthestringacrossthesidewalk.  Inmovingforsummaryjudgment,theDefendantsreliedonthefollowingevidence.MurrayTatum,thevicepresidentofQuadStates,testifiedinhisdepositionthatheandRogerDyeenteredintoaverbalcontractforTatumandotherQuadStatesemployeestopourthesidewalk.Theemployeespouredtheconcreteforthesidewalkbetween12:00noonand1:00p.m.onFriday,May27,1995.By2:30or3:00p.m.,whenTatumleftthejobsitefortheweekend,theemployeeshadfinishedpouringand broomingtheconcrete.ϜTatumtestifiedthat,by3:30or4:30p.m.,theconcretewouldhavebeendryenoughtowalkon.  Tatumfurthertestifiedthat,whenheleftthejobsite,noonehadplacedastringacrossthesidewalk.Tatumhadbeenintheconcretebusinessforoverfortyyears,butheneverhadplacedastringacrossthesidewalkinthemannerallegedbyTyler,heneverhadinstructedanyofhisworkerstoplaceastringacrossthesidewalk,andheneverhad 0948 Мobservedanyofhisworkersdoingso.Tatumtestifiedthat,inanyevent,thestringdepictedinthephotographspresentedbyTylerwasnotthetypeofstringTatumusedinhiswork.ϜThestringinthephotographsappearedtobebrowntwine,butTatumusedonlywhiteorfluorescentnylonstring.  WillieWhitsett,QuadStatesforeman,corroboratedTatumstestimony.Inanaffidavit,Whitsettstatedthatheandfourtosixworkersformed,poured,andfinishedthesectionofthesidewalkonaFridayinMay1995.Whitsettandhisworkerspouredtheconcretebetween12:00noonand1:00p.m.,andtheythen broomedtheconcrete.ϜNeitherWhitsettnoranyoneinhiscrewplacedastringacrossthesidewalk.WhenWhitsettandhisworkersleftthejobsitelaterthatafternoon,theconcretewasdryenoughtowalkonandtherewasnostringoneitherendofthenewlypouredsidewalk.  InopposingtheDefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,Tylerreliedonthedepositionofheruncle,KennethBruceBearden,andtheaffidavitofaneighbor,FrankSchmell.FrankSchmellnoticedthestringstretchedacrossthesidewalkonFriday,May27,1995.AsforthetimeframeinwhichSchmellobservedthestring,Schmellstatedonlythathenoticedthestring aftertheconcretewaspouredand duringthedaytimehours.Schmellsaffidavitdidnotstatewhetheranyworkerswerepresentwhenheobservedthestring,nordidtheaffidavitmentionevenobservinganyworkerspresentonthedayinquestion.  KennethBruceBeardendidnotobservethestringstretchedacrossthesidewalkuntilafterTylerfell.Bearden,whoalsohadworkedintheconcretebusinessforanumberofyears,testifiedthatthestringappearedtohavedriedconcreteonitasifitwasthesamestringusedbytheworkerstosetthewoodenformsforthesidewalkinplace.Earlierthatday,Beardenhadaconversationwiththeworkersrightaftertheyfinishedpouringthesidewalk.Beardenestimatedthattheconversationtookplaceatabout5:00or5:30p.m.ϜDuringtheirconversation,Beardenwarnedtheworkersthattheyhad betterbarricadethis 0948 upgoodbecause,...peopletravelthiswalk.AccordingtoBearden,theworkersassuredhimthattheywouldputupabarricade.  Inlightofthisconversation,Beardenassumedthattheworkerswereresponsibleforplacingthestringacrossthesidewalk.Bearden,however,hadnopersonalknowledgeastowhoplacedthestringacrossthesidewalk.Beardendidnotwitnessanyoftheworkersplacethestringacrossthesidewalk,nordidheobserveanystringstretchedacrossthesidewalkwhilehewasconversingwiththeworkers.WhenBeardenlefttheworkers,thestakeswereinplacebuttherewasnostringacrossthesidewalk.  Aftercarefullyreviewingtheforegoingevidence,weaffirmthetrialcourtsordersofsummaryjudgmententeredinfavoroftheDefendants.TheDefendantsfiledproperlysupportedmotionsforsummaryjudgmentinwhichtheyaffirmativelynegatedanessentialelementofTylersclaim.BothMurrayTatumandWillieWhitsettstatedunderoaththatneithertheynoranyotherQuadStatesemployeeplacedthestringacrossthesectionofthesidewalkwhereTylerfell.InorderforherclaimtosurvivetheDefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,therefore,Tylerwasrequiredtopresentorpointtoevidencewhich,ifproven,wouldestablishthatoneoftheDefendantswasresponsibleforcreatingthedangerousconditionwhichcausedherinjury.  WeconcludethatTylersprooffailsonthisissue.BasedonhisconversationwiththeQuadStatesworkers,KennethBruceBeardenassumedthattheworkerswereresponsibleforplacingthestringacrossthesidewalk.NeitherBeardennorFrankSchmell,however,attestedtoanypersonalknowledgethatwouldimplicateanyoftheDefendantsinplacingthestringacrossthesidewalk.Beardendidnotseeanyoftheworkersplacethestringacrossthesidewalk,andwhenhelefttheworkersthatday,therewasnostringacrossthesidewalk.AlthoughFrankSchmellobservedthestringacrossthesidewalk sometime duringthedaytimehours,helikewisedidnotseeanyoftheworkersplacethe P726 stringacrossthesidewalk,nordidheobservethestringinplacewhileanyoftheworkerswerestillpresent.   Werecognizethatadefendantscreationorknowledgeofadangerousconditionmaybeprovenbyeitherdirectorcircumstantialevidence.Martinv.WashmasterAutoCtr., 0  946S.W.2d314,317(Tenn.App.1996);Keenev.CrackerBarrelOldCountryStore,Inc., `  853S.W.2d501,504(Tenn.App.1992);Bensonv.H.G.HillStores,Inc.,699S.W.2d560, @  563(Tenn.App.1985).Intheabsenceofproofastowhenandhowadangerousconditioncameabout,however,thecourtsmaynotpermitthejurytospeculateonthesevitalelements.Hardestyv.ServiceMerchandiseCo.,953S.W.2d678,683(Tenn.App.  1997);Oglev.WinnDixieGreenville,Inc.,919S.W.2d45,47(Tenn.App.1995).Asthis p courtpreviouslystated,  8  8`   [A]casewillnotbesubmittedtoajuryuponmerespeculation. Acasedoesnothavetobesubmittedtoajurywherethereisameresparkorglimmerofevidence.Theremustbesomeevidenceofamaterialandsubstantialnature.Sadekv. P NashvilleRecyclingCo.,751S.W.2d428,431(Tenn.App. @ 1988). ` x` x ̜Jonesv.Golden,No.03A01-9108-CV-00269,1991WL238275,at*2(Tenn.App.Nov.18, ! 1991).  Basedontheevidencepresentedinthiscase,ajurycouldinferthatsomebodyplacedthestringacrossthesidewalksometimebetween5:30p.m.andsunset.Beardenstatedthatthestringwasnotinplacewhenhelefttheworkersatabout5:30p.m.,butSchmellsaffidavitrevealedthatheobservedthestringsometime duringthedaytimehours.Moreover,becauseofthepresenceofdriedconcreteonthestring,thejurycouldinferthatthestringcamefromtheconstructionsiteitselfor,attheveryleast,fromanothersitewhereconcretehadbeenpoured.Nevertheless,wedonotviewthisevidenceasbeingofamaterialandsubstantialnaturebecause,withoutmore,theevidencerequiresthejurytospeculateastowhoplacedthestringacrossthesidewalkandastowhenthisdangerousconditionwascreated.Accordingly,weholdthatthetrialcourtproperlygrantedtheDefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgment.  :p59 Ї  Inurgingthiscourttoreversethetrialcourtssummaryjudgments,Tylerarguesthat,regardlessofwhoplacedthestringacrossthesidewalk,theDefendantswerenegligentinfailingtoplaceabarricadeorwarningsignattheconstructionsitetoprotectthepublic.Weconcludethatthisargumentiswithoutmerit.Theevidencepresentedbelowindicatedthatthenewlypouredsidewalkdidnotconstituteadangerousconditionforthepublic.Itwasundisputedthat,atthetimeWhitsettandhisworkerslefttheconstructionsite,theconcretewasdryenoughtowalkonand,thus,nobarricadewasneededtokeeppedestriansoffofthesidewalk.AlthoughBeardendiscussedtheneedforabarricadewiththeworkers,histestimonydidnotcontradictWhitsettsassertionthattheconcretehaddriedsufficientlybythetimeWhitsettandtheotherworkerslefttorendertheuseofabarricadeunnecessary.Beardentalkedtotheworkersaftertheyhadfinishedpouringtheconcrete,buthedidnottestifyregardingthedegreetowhichtheconcretehaddried.ϜOtherthanthestringstretchedacrossthesidewalk,therefore,therecordcontainsnoevidencethatthenewlypouredsidewalkpresentedadangerousconditionforpedestrians.AbsentevidencethattheDefendantseithercreatedorknewaboutthestringstretchedacrossthesidewalk,Tylersclaimsofnegligencemustfail.  CitinglanguageinthecontractbetweenUnitedCitiesGasCompanyandLarryMorgan,TyleralternativelyarguesthatthiscontractimposedadutyupontheDefendantstoinspecttheconstructionsiteandtoensurethepublicssafetybyerectingbarricadesandtakingothersafetyprecautions.InasmuchasTylerhasfailedtoallegethatshewasathirdpartybeneficiaryofthecontractbetweentheGasCompanyandMorgan,however,werejecttheargumentthatthiscontractualdutyextendedtoTyler.Speakerv.CatesCo., -@), 879S.W.2d811,816(Tenn.1994);UnitedAm.Bankv.Gardner,706S.W.2d639,642 / +. (Tenn.App.1985).WelikewiserejectTylerscontentionthattheconstructionofthesidewalkwasinherentlydangerousworksuchastoimposeanabsolute,nondelegabledutyonanyofthepartiesinthiscasetoensurethesafetyofthesite.Marshallsof p504 Nashville,Tennessee,Inc.v.HardingMallAssocs.,799S.W.2d239,24344(Tenn.App. P726 1990).Simpsonv.AlliedVanLines,Inc.,612S.W.2d172,17475(Tenn.App.1980). 0948 Ї  DefendantsTatumandQuadStatesalsohaveraisedanissueonappeal,contendingthatthetrialcourterredindenyingtheirmotionfordiscretionarycosts.Theawardofdiscretionarycostsisgovernedbyrule54.04(2)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Pursuanttothisrule,costsnotincludedinthebillofcosts,i.e.discretionary P  costs, areallowableonlyinthecourtsdiscretion.SeeT.R.C.P.54.04(2).Thiscourtwill 0  notinterferewithanawardordenialofdiscretionarycostsexceptuponanaffirmativeshowingthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.Perduev.GreenBranchMiningCo.,837 @  S.W.2d56,60(Tenn.1992);InreMcCoy,No.03A01-9604-CH-00143,1996WL599703,   at*7(Tenn.App.Oct.21,1996),perm.app.denied(Tenn.Apr.7,1997);Ashfordv.  Benjamin,No.02A01-9311-CV-00243,1994WL677607,at*2(Tenn.App.Dec.6,1994);  Fauxv.Spears,No.03A01-9312-CV-00433,1994WL147830,at*2(Tenn.App.Apr.26, p 1994).  Generally,trialcourtsawardsuchcoststowhicheverpartyultimatelyprevailsinthelawsuit,providedtheprevailingpartyhasfiledatimely,properlysupportedmotion.Turnerv.Turner,No.01A01-9506-CV-00255,1997WL136448,at*17(Tenn.App.   Mar.27,1997);AustinPowderCo.v.Thompson,No.03A01-9607-CV-00229,1996WL "  718291,at*2(Tenn.App.Dec.16,1996);Dentv.Holt,No.01A01-9302-CV-00072,1994 $" WL440916,at*3(Tenn.App.Aug.17,1994),modifiedonothergrounds,1994WL p&!$ 503891(Tenn.App.Sept.16,1994);Harmonv.Shell,No.01A01-9211-CH-00451,1994 P(#& WL148663,at*7(Tenn.App.Apr.27,1994).Thesuccessfulparty,however,isnotautomaticallyentitledtoanawardofcosts.SeeBensonv.TennesseeValleyElec.Coop., ,`'* 868S.W.2d630,644(Tenn.App.1993);Fauxv.Spears,1994WL147830,at*2; -@), Webberv.Bolling,1989WL151496,at*4(Tenn.App.Dec.13,1989).Instead,trialcourts / +. arefreetoapportioncostsbetweenthelitigantsastheequitiesofeachcasedemand.Perduev.GreenBranchMiningCo.,837S.W.2dat60;InreMcCoy,1996WL599703,at 3.2 *7;Christianv.Harding,1993WL156164,at*1(Tenn.App.May14,1993).Accordingly, p504 ifanyequitablebasisappearsintherecordwhichwillsupportthetrialcourtsapportionmentofcosts,thiscourtmustaffirm.See,e.g.,Bensonv.TennesseeValley 0948 Elec.Coop.,868S.W.2dat644(holdingthattrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninfailing  toawardcoststosuccessfulplaintiffs,inlightoflargeamountofjuryverdictsinplaintiffsfavor);cf.Dentv.Holt,1994WL440916,at*3(holdingthattrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion p indenyingprevailingpartysmotionfordiscretionarycostswherenobasisforsuchdenialappearedinrecord).Onappeal,theappellantbearstheburdenofshowingthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninitsassessmentofcosts.Fauxv.Spears,1994WL147830, `  at*2.  Applyingtheforegoingstandard,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontodenyTatumsandQuadStatesmotionfordiscretionarycosts.Afterconductingahearingonthemotionfordiscretionarycosts,atranscriptofwhichdoesnotappearintheappellaterecord,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion.Insupportofitsdenial,thetrialcourtreasonedthatthiscasewasdisposedofbysummaryjudgmentrelativelyearlyinthelifeofthelawsuitand,further,thatDefendantsTatumandQuadStateswerebetterabletoaffordthediscretionarycoststhanTyler.Underthesecircumstances,TatumandQuadStateshavefailedtomeettheirburdenofshowingthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingtheirmotionforcosts.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtothePlaintiff,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.XX!s p&!$    XXs   `     h      p   򀀀 *%)    `     h      p    X!XXX  HIGHERS,J. +&*   CONCUR:         񀀀 81,0 CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. 񀄀  dIS   xi   Dissents  (2x-1 򀀀 5815 FARMER,J. 񀄀Concurs