WPC f<^y, )yvb139˟o> zu*bUQW:_фnK@^=%Ѿ!QKKu%ƥ ezL:ux2x +SCK<2hT`t%Uc),UKqCR BeMm T&&}AMo LzLWpO-X\ i ]'1H`ɋ%ߏDH7Fnw1ï$W8)yTh }@,_J01L*#EB>/\b,ʨJ;]ӝܭ)JE{ֱ4`u&ǖlðMBʌ4'g佬A A]v0k,]6c+u/fWTJ3Uുp!$£ PЅ>r+ ĿצSsx*Heu-.ؾ!'`h# %q ^ w 0 U!N wY 4] zq    m    a' 0DN1%3U<XEUNtb[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 0cccc BNN 0k D3 D-B 0Koo AS  0 0Dw A 04fHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0kI-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],̻ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU R$      4  T  _Apparently,afterChristmasbargainshoppinghadsomewhatdiminishedthecustomersChristmasspirit.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1  T  _Althoughitdoesnotbearontheissuesonappeal,therecordisnotcrystalclearonthedispositionofthe  remainingeightfigurines.-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman  R$      2  T  _2 TIndiscoveryresponses,Wellsclaimedinjuriestoherrotatorcuff,shoulders,neck,andback.Shesaidthatshe  incurredmedicalexpensesofalmost$16,000,andhad_had_Ԁsurgeryonherneckandhershoulder.Herphysiciangave | heradisabilityratingof15%tothewholebodyand10%totheupperextremity.Wellsalsosoughtmorethan$12,000 @ inlostwages,andclaimedthatshewassufferingfromposttraumaticstressdisorder,forwhichshewastakingmedication.#T 2~# (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular j R$      3  T  _ThecourtcitedthefollowingincidentsthatoccurredintheseventeenmonthspriortoMrs.McClungs  abduction: [A]bombthreat,fourteenburglaries,twelvereportsofmaliciousmischief,tenrobberies,thirtysixauto x thefts,ninetylarcenies,andoneattempted_kidnapping_Ԁ onaparkinglotadjacenttothedefendantsparkinglot.... @  McClung ,937S.W.2dat904.- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  T d(|3"$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3"$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK&c$""0 !.8dd8     _  8;XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   June6,2002Session X X;X #XX;#RUTHCAROLYNWELLSandRAYMONDL.WELLS,  ` IndividuallyandasHusbandandWife ( x Ѐv. @  _J.C._ԀPENNEYCOMPANY,INC.X;X  X  @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty `  @@No.304583T.D.6GeorgeH.Brown,Jr.,Judge P  @@*AV) ` dE<` A  p  @@TTNo.W200200102_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober9,_2002_ o AV) ` dE<` A O    Thisisapremisesliabilitycase. Theplaintiffcustomerwasshoppinginaretailstore.Aftera N disputewithanunidentifiedcustomeroverwhichcustomerwouldpurchasecertainmerchandise, > theunidentifiedcustomergrabbedtheplaintiffswrist.Theplaintiffcustomersuedtheretailstore, . assertingthatthestorehadadutytoprotectherfromthecustomersassault.Thestoremovedfor  summaryjudgment,whichthetrialcourtgranted.Weaffirm,findingthattheassaultwas  unforeseeable,andthereforetheretailerdidnothaveadutyofcaretoprotectthecustomerfromit.  S Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe @ CircuitCourtAffirmed     #X; #X;X.HollyK.Lillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers,J.,andDavid n R.Farmer,J.,joined. ^ DavidF.KustoffandJamesS.Strickland,Memphis,Tennessee,forappellants,RuthCarolynWells >! andRaymondL.Wells,IndividuallyandasHusbandandWife. ."~  G.RayBrattonandGregoryW.ONeal,Memphis,Tennessee,forappellee,J.C.PenneyCompany, $^" Inc. $N #  OPINION #XX;#X;X &."%     ThiscasedemonstratesthedangersofthecutthroatarenaofafterChristmasbargain ($' shopping.OnJanuary20,1999,Plaintiff/AppellantCarolynWells( Wells)wasshoppingataJ.C. )$( Penneys( Penneys)departmentstore.WellsdecidedtopurchasesomeChristmasclearance *%) merchandise,namely,collectablecrystalfigurines.Aftershegatheredapproximatelytenofthe +&* crystalfigurines,twoPenneyssalesassociatesofferedtoplacethemonashelfbehindthecounter ~,'+ whileWellscontinuedshopping.WhenWellsreturnedtomakeherpurchase,thecrystalfigurines n-(, werestillontheshelfbehindthecounter. Penneyscashregisters,however,weretemporarilynot  functioning,soWellswenttoanotherdepartmentinthestoretocontinueshopping.Whenshecame  backtopurchasethecrystalfigurines,eightofthemweremissingandtheremainingtwo,which  werecrystalbears,wereatthefrontcounter.Wellsaskedaboutthemissingcrystalfigurinesand  wastoldthattheyhadbeenreturnedtothesalesfloor.AfterWellsputherhandsonthetwo p remainingcrystalbears,anunidentifiedfemalecustomercursedherandorderedherto getyourg `  dhandsoffmyfgbears. Wellsdidnotletgoofthebears,butaskedaPenneysemployee P  tocallforsecurityandmanagement. Theemployeedidnotrespond. @    ThecustomerwalkedtowardWells,withWellsstillholdingthebears.Wellsagainasked  p  thePenneysemployeetocallsecurityandmanagementtosettletheissueofwhowouldbeallowed `  topurchasethebears.Again,thePenneysemployeedidnotrespond.Wellstriedtoexplainher P  viewthat,sinceneithershenortheangrycustomerhadyetpurchasedthecrystalbears,thestore @  managershoulddecidewhichwouldbepermittedtopurchasethem.Wellsthenaskedtheangry 0  customerhername.Thecustomerresponded, Fyou.Wellsreplied,  Thatsareallynicename.   Doyouusethateveryday?Shedidnotletgoofthetwobears.Theangrycustomerthenreached  acrossWellsandgrabbedherwrist,causingoneofthecollectablecrystalbearstofalltothefloor  andshatter. #  1      ׀    Atthispoint,atWellssrequest,thePenneysemployeecalledthesecurityguard.Afterthe  securityguardarrived,theangryunidentifiedcustomerwaspermittedtopurchasetheremaining p unbrokencrystalbear.WellsapparentlyleftthePenneysstorewithnocrystalbears. `   Thereafter,Wellsandherhusband,RaymondL.Wells,filedsuitagainst_J.C._ԀPenney  @ Companyallegingcommonlawnegligenceforfailuretoproperlyoperateandmaintainthestore, 0 andforfailuretotakereasonablestepstoprotectitscustomersandvisitorswhenitknew,orhad  p reasontoknow,thatcriminalactsagainstitscustomersandvisitorsonitspremiseswerereasonably ` foreseeable.Wellssought$550,000indamages.  #  2      ׀Herhusband,RaymondL.Wells,sought$50,000 P indamagesfordeprivationofMrs.Wellssearnings,society,services,company,andconsortium. @  Penneysfiledananswer,andthenamotionforsummaryjudgment. Thetrialcourt,without 0 elaboratingonitsreasoning,grantedPenneysmotionforsummaryjudgment.Fromthisorder,   Wellsnowappeals. !   Onappeal,WellsarguesthatPenneyswasnotentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw #! becauseWellssrequestsforsecurityandmanagementmadetheharmtoWellsforeseeablesuchthat $" Penneyshadadutytopreventtheharm.Therefore,Wellscontends,summaryjudgmentwas  improper.    X;XXX;Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthatthere  arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatter p oflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenof `  demonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622 P  (Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateview @  oftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthat 0  party,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. In Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),  p  theTennesseeSupremeCourtstated: `  8  Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact, @  thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,that 0  thereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05   [nowRule56.06]providesthatthenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhis  pleadingsbutmustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueof  materialfactfortrial.#X;XXX;#X;XXX;8    Id. at211(citationsomitted).    Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfrom ` thefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn. P 1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding @ atrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthe 0 trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentisdenovoontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.  p EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).#X;XXX;##X;XXX;  `   BecauseWellssuedPenneysunderatheoryofcommonlawnegligence,thedeterminative @ issueonappealiswhetherPenneysowedWellsadutytoprotectherfromthephysicalassaultby 0 theunidentifiedcustomer.UnderTennesseelaw,toproveaclaimfornegligence,theplaintiffmust   prove(1)thatthedefendantowedtheplaintiffadutyofcare;(2)thatthedefendantbreachedthat ! duty;(3)thattheplaintiffsustainedanactuallossduetothebreach;(4)thatthedefendantwasthe "  actualcauseofthelosstotheplaintiff;and(5)thatthedefendantwastheproximatecauseoftheloss #! totheplaintiff. SeeRicev.Sabir ,979S.W.2d305,308(Tenn.1998).Ifthedefendantdoesnot $" haveadutytoprotecttheplaintifffromtheloss,therecanbenoactionagainstthedefendantfor % # negligence. p&!$   Thedutyofamerchanttoprotectacustomerfromthecriminalactsofathirdpartyis P(#& discussedin McClungv.DeltaSquareLimitedPartnership ,937S.W.2d891(Tenn.1996). In @)$'  _McClung_ ,theplaintiffswifewasabductedatgunpointfromaWalMartparkinglot. Id. at89394. 0*%( Shewassubsequentlyrapedandmurderedbyherkidnapper. Id. at894.Theplaintiffsuedthe  +p&) defendantWalMart,allegingthatWalMarthadadutytoprotecthiswifefromthecriminalactsof  ,`'* thekidnapper. Id. The _McClung_ courtheld:  8  Abusinessordinarilyhasnodutytoprotectcustomersfromthecriminalactsofthird  partieswhichoccuronitspremises.Thebusinessisnottoberegardedastheinsurer  ofthesafetyofitscustomers,andithasnoabsolutedutytoimplementsecurity p measuresfortheprotectionofitscustomers.However,adutytotakereasonable `  stepstoprotectcustomersarisesifthebusinessknows,orhasreasontoknow,either P  fromwhathasbeenorshouldhavebeenobservedorfrompastexperience,that @  criminalactsagainstitscustomersonitspremisesarereasonablyforeseeable,either 0  generallyoratsomeparticulartime. p     Id. at902.Thus,althoughabusinessgenerallyhasnodutytoprotectitscustomersfromthe P  criminalactsofthirdparties,suchadutyarisesifthecriminalactsarereasonablyforeseeable.The @   McClung courtfurtherstatedthat theforeseeabilityofharmandthegravityofharmmustbe 0  balancedagainstthecommensurateburdenimposedonthebusinesstoprotectagainstthatharm,   andthat incasesinwhichalesserdegreeofforeseeabilityispresentorthepotentialharmisslight,  lessonerousburdensmaybeimposed. Id. at90204.Underthisbalancingtest,the _McClung_ court  consideredthenumberofcrimesthathadrecentlytakenplaceinthevicinityoftheWalMart  parkinglotandfoundthattheattackwasreasonablyforeseeable. #  3      ׀ Id. at904.    Wellsarguesthat,under _McClung_ ,herinjurywasforeseeabletosuchadegreethatPenneys p owedWellsadutyofcaretoprotectherfromtheactionsoftheunidentifiedcustomer.Wells ` contendsthathertworequestsforsecurityandmanagementpriortothephysicalaltercationmade P thephysicalassaultforeseeablesoastoimposeonPenneysadutytoprotectWells. @ #X;XXX;3'#  Wellsrelieson Staplesv._CBL_Ԁ&Associates,Inc . ,15S.W.3d83(Tenn.2000),inwhichthe  p balancingtestin _McClung_ wasappliedtoaretailstore. In Staples ,theplaintiffcustomer,while `  visiblyshaken,toldtwodepartmentstoreemployeesthatshewasbeingstalkedbyamanwhohad P followedhertoseveralstoresintheshoppingmall. Id. at86.Thestoreemployeesdidnotcallfor @ securityand,althoughtheypromised,failedtowatchtheplaintiffasshewalkedfromthestoreto 0 hertruck. Id. Theplaintiffwassubsequently_kidnapped_Ԁbythestalker.Theplaintiffcustomersued   thestore,allegingthatitbreacheditsdutytoprotecttheplaintifffromthestalker. Seeid. The !  Staples courtfoundthattheexchangebetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantstoresemployeesput "  thestoreonnotice,andthereforetheharmsheencounteredwasforeseeable. Id. at9091. X;XXX;#XX;M #X;X #!   Inthiscase,priortothecustomergrabbingherwrist,Wellsmadetworequeststhatthe % # Penneysemployeecallsecurityandthemanager.Thestatedreasonfortherequest,however,was p&!$ notWellssfearforhersafety,butratherherdesiretohavethemanagerorsecurityguarddecide `'"% whichcustomerwouldbepermittedtopurchasethetwocrystalbears.Moreover,Wellssactions  donotindicatethatshefearedaphysicalassault.Whentheangrycustomercursedher,Wellsdid  notletgoofthecrystalbearsorleavethevicinity.Whenthecustomerwalkedtowardher,Wells  stilldidnotletgoofthecrystalbears.Instead,sheexplainedherviewthatthemanagershould  determinewhichcustomerwouldbepermittedtopurchasethefigurines,andaskedtheunidentified p customerhername.Whenthecustomerrespondedwithyetanotherexpletive,  #  4      ׀Wellssresponsewas `  cavalier,andshestill didnotletgoofthefigurinesandleavethevicinity.Wellssactionspriorto P  thecustomergrabbingherwristindicatethatneithershenorthePenneysemployeesforesawthat @  thecustomerwouldassaultWellsoverthecrystalbears.Inaddition,unlike _McClung_ ,which 0  involvedanabductionatgunpointandsubsequentrapeandmurder,thegravityofharminthiscase  p  islow;thecustomergrabbedWellsswrist,resultinginoneofthecrystalbearfigurinesfallingand `  shattering.ThesecircumstancesdonotgiverisetoadutybyPenneystoprotectWellsfromthe P  assaultbytheunidentifiedcustomer.#X;XXX;@=##XX;=#X;XToholdotherwisewouldmakePenneys aninsurerofthe @  safetyofitscustomers,whichisnotthelawinTennessee. _McClung_ ,937S.W.2dat902. 0  Therefore,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterringrantingPenneysmotionforsummary   judgment.   #XX;E#X;X  Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtotheappellants,RuthCarolyn  WellsandRaymondL.Wells,andtheirsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XX;G#  X;X    `     h     ___________________________________ 0    `     h     HOLLYK.LILLARD,JUDGE