ÿWPCø –šjm°´BÓù§bs×é¡àN)[¹*Í(ºÂêêyއ1çµR§Ã'?ŽÖ2ÏÖä’Èyb&@ÈÍì"c~ÉB¶U‡Ò»Tõ/Y‘ß›ÓYãÑç/dÓAy À'9YŒ¬Õ§ƒªñƒmè;ý˾/d-ŒjðB¹™¯/!Ø·©p _b¼~÷hg—0ýúš ý<†˜~Œ åZB¹Zï™ö~ãù³È“$u@D¸`˜™ÀŠx}Í#ŠÄ¥–¥AhæŒÖ>Ïúñ°5ÐÇ=Z|‘é0Ö$Æ!›3zñÄ„·y–2怶⮲Šä‘Ú©q»TÁc*ü!C®Ó-pÂR‹‘$;Á4 Ñ¥÷ÅöƒŠÄç ¡|x·t(yü¿IË®bZr÷ }õ¿BþT ]Ø›w÷øDQP·ñY-]Û´xD?‰.ÚìFÚ°O« {^ü\o׋ªöExiùè—“à‹»^ ™¶Ížý}T\¼¨iªƒÈÁX·Ì\#Jº»MЧÿ¨ŒÌ\'‡aqdW4Äê:¢ûâj+F ?6YðÓ(cÞ+ U¹K|Œ]„sA÷§Ð˜æ­S*Â"ed«²ݘýÕIà*(@ÝL.c—òBDÓ?¶–XñÙ‹«±KÚ`ÞŽCàÿºÐ BFË©»Ržb#Á\ % ^ # 0/ U)NE w“ 4— z« Ò% ÷  m  Æ' Æí Ƴ ÆyyN???EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0yKKKK BÄÄ 02á D3 D-F 0Kss AS¾Æ 02× 0D  A«M˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¸¦Š+s (î—¦$¡¡Ñ€..ÑÑ8€½t»»d»»d8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  ÓÔ€š_. š»»ÔÔ€­øe¬ šš_.ÔÔ€¿½t»¬­øeÔÔ€³í 3²»¿½tÔÓCÓ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+¤g¤ ˜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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-( G2rž$¤¤Ý ƒ—¦!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÔ€šx€š»»ÔÔ€­¸£¬ššx€ÔÔ€¿MÕ»¬­¸£ÔÔ€³s²»¿MÕÔÓCÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷=ò²³sÔ d( 3ø$££Ý ƒ—¦!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÔ€šx€š»»ÔÔ€­¸£¬ššx€ÔÔ€¿MÕ»¬­¸£ÔÔ€³s²»¿MÕÔÓCÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5( 3ø$¢¢Ý ƒ—¦!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÔ€šx€š»»ÔÔ€­¸£¬ššx€ÔÔ€¿MÕ»¬­¸£ÔÔ€³s²»¿MÕÔÓCÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ—¦!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€MÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÔ€šx€š»»ÔÔ€­¸£¬ššx€ÔÔ€¿MÕ»¬­¸£ÔÔ€³s²»¿MÕÔÓCÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€ÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@  ìàԇ柚岳sÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@mm$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†³s²å柚{#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€October€9,€2001SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡Q O²³sÔÌò òÔ#†³s² OQc#ÔGUY€WILSON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ð ûK ÐTHOMPSON€CONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡Q O²³sÔó óÐ  ] ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ  Z Ðà@@øøìàNo.€€20134„Cà @ àà @ à€€€€€C.L.€Rogers,€JudgeÐ ó C ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<­` AßÐ ®þ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„03200„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€€„€Filed€December€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¦ö  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<w` AßÐ xÈ  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌThis€is€a€suit€by€Guy€Wilson€and€his€wife€Ô_ÔRhessaÔ_Ô,€owners€of€a€building€in€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,Ð ]­ Ðagainst€their€general€contractor€in€the€construction€of€an€addition€to€the€building€and€against€theirÐ H˜ Ðelectrical€subcontractor.€€The€complaint€charges€negligence€in€the€use€of€a€defective€fiberglass€ladderÐ 3ƒ Ðthat€broke€as€Guy€Wilson€was€climbing€on€it€to€inspect€the€work.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€generalÐ n Ðcontractor,€Thompson€Construction€Company,€had€breached€no€duty€of€care€to€Plaintiffs€and€that€theÐ  Y Ðelectrical€contractor,€Gary€R.€Boyd,€was€an€independent€contractor€for€whose€alleged€negligenceÐ ôD ÐThompson€Construction€Company€was€not€vicariously€liable.€€On€such€basis,€the€trial€court€grantedÐ ß/ Ðsummary€judgment€to€Thompson€Construction€Company€on€all€issues€and,€pursuant€to€TennesseeÐ Ê ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure€54.02,€entered€final€judgment€on€all€issues€in€favor€of€ThompsonÐ µ ÐConstruction€Company.€€Plaintiffs€appeal,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð  ð ÐÓVÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ vÆ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†³s² ×Q#ÔÔ‡XÉX(³sÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòóóBòòENóó€H.€CòòANTRELLóó,€P.J.,€M.S.,€andÐ J š ÐòòóóPòòATRICIAóó€J.€CòòOTTRELLóó,€J.,€joined.Ð 9!‰  ÐÌPhilip€N.€Elbert€and€Ô_ÔKendraÔ_Ô€E.€Samson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Guy€Wilson€andÐ #g" ÐÔ_ÔRhessaÔ_Ô€Wilson.Ð $V# ÐÌRobert€L.€Ô_ÔEstesÔ_Ô€and€Leonard€F.€Pogue,€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€ThompsonÐ ä%4!% ÐConstruction€Company€and€Gary€R.€Boyd€d/b/a€Boyd€Electric.Ô#†³s²XXÉÏ #ÔÔ‡ÛBŸÚ²³sÔÐ Ó&#"& ÐÓ  ÓÌÌò òÔ#†³s²ÚÛBŸ‰ #ÔÔ‡XÉX²³sÔOPINIONó óÔ#†³s²XXÉõ #ÔÐ <)Œ$) ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÔ€Q O²³sÔà  àPlaintiffs/Appellants,€Guy€and€Ô_ÔRhessaÔ_Ô€Wilson,€owned€a€building€located€at€122€West€FranklinÐ ?+&+ ÐStreet,€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€in€which€Loco„Ô_ÔLupeÔ_Ôððs€restaurant€was€operated€by€a€lessee.€€Some€timeÐ *,z', Ðearly€in€1998,€they€determined€to€have€an€addition€made€to€the€building€for€expansion€of€theÐ -e(-ý Ðrestaurant.€€Appellee,€Thompson€Construction€Company€(hereinafter€ð ðThompsonðð),€had€previouslyÐ ° Ðdone€extensive€renovation€work€on€the€restaurant€building€for€the€Wilsons,€and€when€the€renovationÐ ›ë Ðarchitect€drew€the€plans€for€the€1998€expansion,€Guy€Wilson€specifically€asked€the€architect€to€beÐ †Ö Ðsure€that€Thompson€received€a€copy€of€the€plans€in€order€that€they€might€submit€a€bid.€€ThompsonÐ qÁ Ðwas€the€low€bidder€and€subcontracted€with€Defendant,€Gary€R.€Boyd,€Ô_ÔdbaÔ_Ô€Boyd€Electric€(hereinafterÐ \¬ Ðð ðBoydðð),€to€do€all€electrical€work€on€the€project.€€Guy€Wilson€visited€the€job€scene€periodically€toÐ G — Ðinspect€the€work€and€discuss€various€matters€with€Thompsonððs€employees.Ð 2 ‚ ÐÌà  àOn€December€15,€1998,€near€the€end€of€the€renovation€as€Gary€Boyd€was€finishing€up€theÐ  X Ðelectrical€work€on€the€building,€Boyd€had€placed€an€extension€ladder€against€the€building€to€gainÐ ó C  Ðaccess€to€the€roof€area.€€In€Boydððs€absence,€Guy€Wilson€started€to€ascend€the€extension€ladder€inÐ Þ .  Ðorder€to€look€at€the€roof.€€The€extension€ladder€broke,€and€Wilson€fell€to€the€ground,€extensivelyÐ É  Ðinjuring€his€leg.Ð ´  ÐÌà  àOn€December€14,€1999,€the€Ô_ÔWilsonsÔ_Ô€sued€Thompson€and€Boyd€alleging€negligence€on€theÐ ŠÚ  Ðpart€of€Thompson€and€on€the€part€of€Boyd,€for€which€Thompson€was€alleged€to€be€vicariously€liable.€Ð uÅ  ÐThompson€defended€on€the€basis€that€it€was€guilty€of€no€act€of€negligence€and€that€Boyd€was€anÐ `° Ðindependent€contractor€whose€negligence,€if€any,€could€not€be€attributed€to€Thompson.Ð K› ÐÌà  àAfter€discovery€was€completed,€Thompson€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€both€onÐ !q ÐPlaintiffsðð€theory€of€individual€negligence€by€Thompson€and€vicarious€responsibility€for€the€allegedÐ  \ Ðnegligence€of€Boyd.€€The€trial€court,€on€November€16,€2000,€granted€€summary€judgment€on€allÐ ÷G Ðissues€as€to€Thompson€and€certified€same€as€final€under€Rule€54.02.€€Plaintiffs€appealed.€Ð â2 ÐÌà  àTwo€issues€were€presented€for€review:Ð ¸ ÐÌà8  àA.à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€holding€that€the€plaintiff€failedÐ ŽÞ Ðto€prove€the€essential€elements€necessary€to€maintain€an€action€forÐyÉ` x` x Ðà  àà ` ànegligence.Ð d´ Ðà  àB.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€the€law€in€holding€thatÐ OŸ ÐThompson€Construction€could€not€be€vicariously€liable€for€the€allegedÐ : Š Ðnegligence€of€its€subcontractor,€defendant€Gary€Boyd€d/b/a€BoydÐ %!u ÐElectric.Ð"` ` x` x ÐÌà  àAs€there€is€neither€allegation€nor€proof€of€any€defective€or€unsafe€condition€at€the€work€site,Ð æ#6" Ðother€than€the€alleged€defective€extension€ladder€owned€by€Boyd€from€which€Guy€Wilson€fell.€€TheÐ Ñ$! # Ðreal€issues€boil€down€to€two€questions,€to€wit:€(1)€is€there€a€dispute€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€orÐ ¼% !$ Ðnot€Defendant€Thompson€knew€or€should€have€known€that€the€ladder€was€defective,€and€(2)€whetherÐ §&÷!% Ðthere€is€a€disputed€material€fact€as€to€whether€Boyd€was€an€employee€of€Thompson€ConstructionÐ ’'â"& ÐCompany€or€an€independent€contractor.Ð }(Í#' ÐÌà  àIn€addressing€first€the€alleged€negligence€of€Thompson,€it€is€necessary€to€acknowledge€theÐ S*£%) Ðunique€facts€of€the€case.€€Guy€Wilson€is€the€owner€and€landlord€of€the€premises.€€He€employedÐ >+Ž&* ÐThompson€to€construct€an€addition€to€his€building€based€on€architectural€plans€approved€by€him.€Ð ),y'+ ÐHe€remains€the€landowner,€but€is€suing€his€selected€contractor€alleging€negligence€by€the€contractorÐ ° Ðcausing€injuries€to€himself.€€Ð ›ë ÐÌà  àNo€similar€case€in€Tennessee€is€cited€by€either€party,€and€none€has€been€discovered€by€theÐ qÁ ÐCourt.€€The€cases€cited€by€Appellant,€òòÔ_ÔKantnerÔ_Ô€v.€Combustion€Engineeringóó,€701€Ô_ÔF.SuppÔ_Ô.€943€(Ô_ÔD.N.H.Ô_ÔÐ \¬ Ð1988);€òòÔ_ÔLarimoreÔ_Ô€v.€Carolina€Power€&€Lightóó,€531€S.E.2d€535€(S.C.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòPenceÐ G — ÐConstruction€Corp.€v.€Watsonóó,€470€S.W.2d€637€(Tex.€1971),€are€cases€involving€the€liability€ofÐ 2 ‚ Ðgeneral€contractors€occupying€the€premises€to€employees€of€subcontractors€and€persons€other€thanÐ  m Ðthe€landowner.€€Historically,€liability€of€a€landowner€for€injuries€to€an€invitee€is€predicated€on€theÐ  X Ðlandownerððs€superior€knowledge€of€the€condition€of€his€property,€thus,€constituting€him€to€be€theÐ ó C  Ðperson€normally€best€able€to€prevent€harm€to€others.€€òòKendall€Oil€Co.€v.€Payneóó,€293€S.W.2d€40,€42Ð Þ .  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1955);€òòÔ_ÔParadisoÔ_Ô€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€499€S.W.2d€78€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€The€SupremeÐ É  ÐCourt€of€Tennessee€has€held:Ð ´  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€duty€of€the€owner€or€occupier€of€the€land€arises€from€the€position€ofÐ ŠÚ  Ðcontrol€which€this€person€in€possession€occupies;€he€is€the€person€normally€best€ableÐ uÅ  Ðto€prevent€any€harm€to€others.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔParadisoÔ_Ô,€supraóó.€€This€same€position€of€superiorÐ `° Ðknowledge€and€control€gives€rise€to€the€requirement€that€the€possessor€of€landÐ K› Ðexercise€ordinary€or€reasonable€care€to€provide€a€reasonably€safe€place€for€theÐ 6† Ðperformance€of€work€by€employees.€€òòStringer€v.€Cooper€and€Cooper€OfficeÐ !q ÐEquipment,€Inc.óó,€486€S.W.2d€751€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMcCormick€v.€Watersóó,€594€S.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.€1980).Ð â2 ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€owner€of€the€property€is€the€injured€Plaintiff.€€Defendant€contractor€has€noÐ ¸ Ðsuperior€knowledge€as€to€the€condition€of€the€premises,€and€no€defect€of€any€kind€is€alleged€orÐ £ó Ðproven€as€to€the€premises.€€The€only€basis€asserted€for€liability€is€that€a€fiberglass€extension€ladderÐ ŽÞ Ðplaced€against€the€building€by€an€electrical€subcontractor€broke€under€the€weight€of€the€240€poundÐ yÉ Ðowner€of€the€property€causing€him€injury.€€There€is€no€allegation€that€the€land€beneath€the€ladder€wasÐ d´ Ðnot€compacted€sufficiently€to€hold€the€ladder€in€place€or€that€the€ladder€was€improperly€positioned,Ð OŸ Ðeither€on€the€ground€or€against€the€building.Ð : Š ÐÌà  àWilson€asserts€that,€as€a€condition€to€drawing€money€on€his€construction€loan€in€order€to€payÐ "`  ÐThompson,€it€was€necessary€for€either€him€or€his€representative€to€periodically€check€the€progressÐ û"K! Ðof€the€work€on€the€addition€to€the€building.€€Mr.€Wilson€was€checking€this€progress€toward€the€endÐ æ#6" Ðof€the€job€when€he€decided€to€inspect€the€air€conditioning€unit€located€on€the€roof€of€the€building,Ð Ñ$! # Ðand,€without€the€knowledge€or€consent€of€either€Thompson€or€Boyd,€Wilson€proceeded€to€ascendÐ ¼% !$ ÐBoydððs€fiberglass€ladder€leaning€against€the€building.€€Before€climbing,€Wilson€checked€the€ladderÐ §&÷!% Ðto€make€sure€that€it€was€properly€set.€€He€acknowledged€that€the€ladder€felt€steady,€and€heÐ ’'â"& Ðexperienced€no€difficulty€or€movement€of€the€ladder€as€he€climbed€up€it.Ð }(Í#' ÐÌà  àAssuming€that€the€principal€contractor€is€the€possessor€of€the€premises€within€the€òòMcCormickÐ S*£%) Ðóórule€and€that€such€relationship€is€sufficient€to€cast€upon€Thompson€the€ð ðsafe€work€place€dutyðð€of€anÐ >+Ž&* Ðowner,€it€has€long€been€held€that€such€a€duty€does€not€make€the€possessor€of€the€land€an€insurer€ofÐ ),y'+ Ðthe€safety€of€the€premises.€€òòJolly€Motor€Livery€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔAllenbergÔ_Ôóó,€221€S.W.2d€513,€515€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1949).Ð ›ë ÐÌà  àTo€establish€a€cause€of€action€for€negligence,€Plaintiff€must€prove:€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owedÐ qÁ Ðby€Defendants€to€Plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€by€Defendants€falling€below€the€standard€of€care€amountingÐ \¬ Ðto€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€in€fact;€(5)€proximate€or€legal€causation.Ð G — Ðòòsee€Ô_ÔMcClenahanÔ_Ô€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€774€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€initial€requirement€involvingÐ 2 ‚ Ðthe€existence€of€a€legal€duty€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€court€requiring€a€balancing€of€theÐ  m ÐÔ_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€and€gravity€of€the€potential€harm€against€the€burden€imposed€in€preventing€that€harm.€Ð  X ÐòòÔ_ÔMcClungÔ_Ô€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Ô_ÔPððshipÔ_Ô.óó,€937€S.W.2d€891,€901€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ó C  ÐÌà  àSince€summary€judgment€was€granted€by€the€trial€court,€only€questions€of€law€are€involvedÐ É  Ðon€appeal,€and€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regarding€the€action€of€the€trial€court.€€òòÔ_ÔBainÔ_Ô€v.Ð ´  ÐWellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).€€Our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court€Ð Ÿï  Ðwith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòWarren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð ŠÚ  ÐApplying€the€standards€set€forth€in€òòEaton€v.€Ô_ÔMcLainÔ_Ôóó,€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994),€òòDoe€v.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_ÔÐ uÅ  ÐConstr.€Co.óó,€845€S.W.2d€173€(Tenn.€1992),€òòRice€v.€Ô_ÔSabirÔ_Ôóó,€979€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€1998)€and€òòRobertsÐ `° Ðv.€Robertsóó,€845€S.W.2d€225€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€we€cannot€find€that€any€general€duty€of€care€owedÐ K› Ðby€Thompson€encompasses€the€duty€to€guard€against€the€events€involved€in€the€injury€of€Wilson.Ð 6† ÐÌà  àIn€òòEaton€v.€Ô_ÔMcLainÔ_Ôóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€Court€has€recently€enunciated€the€proper€analysis€to€be€used€inÐ â2 Ðdetermining€the€scope€of€the€duty€of€care€in€a€negligence€case.€€In€òòDoe€v.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_ÔÐ Í ÐConstr.€Co.óó,€845€S.W.2d€173€(Tenn.€1992),€we€stated:иРР ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€term€reasonable€care€must€be€given€meaning€in€relation€to€theÐ ŽÞ Ðcircumstances.€[citation€omitted].€€Ordinary,€or€reasonable,€care€is€toÐ yÉ Ðbe€estimated€by€the€risk€entailed€through€probable€dangers€attendingÐ d´ Ðthe€particular€situation€and€is€to€be€commensurate€with€the€risk€ofÐ OŸ Ðinjury.€[citation€omitted].€€The€risk€involved€is€that€which€isÐ : Š Ðforeseeable;€a€risk€is€foreseeable€if€a€reasonable€person€could€foreseeÐ %!u Ðthe€probability€of€its€occurrence€or€if€the€person€was€on€notice€that€theÐ "`  Ðlikelihood€of€danger€to€the€party€to€whom€is€owed€a€duty€is€probable.€Ð û"K! ÐÔ_ÔForeseeabilityÔ_Ô€is€the€test€of€negligence.€€If€the€injury€which€occurredÐ æ#6" Ðcould€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen,€the€duty€of€care€does€notÐ Ñ$! # Ðarise,€and€even€though€the€act€of€the€defendant€in€fact€caused€theÐ ¼% !$ Ðinjury,€there€is€no€negligence€and€no€liability.€€ððThe€plaintiff€mustÐ §&÷!% Ðshow€that€the€injury€was€a€reasonably€foreseeable€probability,€not€justÐ ’'â"& Ða€remote€possibility,€and€that€some€action€within€the€[defendantððs]Ð }(Í#' Ðpower€more€probably€than€not€would€have€prevented€the€injury.ððÐ h)¸$( Ð[citation€omitted].ÐS*£%)` x` x Ðâ âà  àà ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð >+Ž&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€pertinent€question€is€whether€there€was€any€showing€from€whichÐ ° Ðâ âit€can€be€said€that€the€defendants€reasonably€knew€or€should€haveÐ ›ë Ðknown€of€the€probability€of€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€whichÐ †Ö Ðcaused€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.ÐqÁ` x` x Ðà  àòòDoeóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€178.Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àAs€indicated€in€òòDoeóó,€the€question€of€whether€the€Ô_ÔMcLainsÔ_Ôðð€general€duty€ofÐ 2 ‚ Ðcare€encompasses€the€duty€to€guard€against€the€acts€set€forth€in€the€complaintÐ  m Ðinvolves€an€analysis€of€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€of€the€risk€to€which€Ms.€Eaton€was€exposed.€Ð  X ÐIn€other€words,€the€issue€is€whether€Ms.€Eaton€has€made€ð ðany€showing€from€whichÐ ó C  Ðit€can€be€said€that€the€òòdefendants€reasonably€knew€or€should€have€known€of€theÐ Þ .  Ðprobability€of€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€which€caused€[her]€injuries.óóðð€€òòId.óó€Ð É  Ð(emphasis€added).д Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€no€such€showing€has€been€made.€€In€order€for€theÐ ŠÚ  ÐÔ_ÔMcLainsÔ_Ô€to€be€charged€with€the€duty€to€leave€on€the€light€in€the€hall€and€to€lock€theÐ uÅ  Ðbasement€door,€they€must€have€been€able€to€reasonably€foresee€that€Ms.€Eaton€wouldÐ `° Ðget€out€of€bed€in€total€darkness,€walk€across€the€hall,€and€step€into€the€basementÐ K› Ðstairwell,€all€without€turning€on€any€lighting€whatsoever.Ð6†Ð Ð  ÐÌòòEaton,€óó891€S.W.2d€at€594.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àTo€extend€the€duty€of€a€general€contractor,€on€the€facts€of€this€case,€would€require€ThompsonÐ â2 Ðto€foresee€not€only€that€Wilson€would€use€the€ladder€belonging€to€a€subcontractor€but€also€that€theÐ Í Ðsubcontractor€would€make€use€of€a€defective€ladder€thus€extending€the€contractorððs€duty€to€aÐ ¸ Ðmeticulous€inspection€of€the€ladder,€logically,€the€duty€could€not€stop€there€but€must€also€Ô_ÔonerateÔ_Ô€theÐ £ó Ðprincipal€contractor€with€the€same€duty€to€meticulously€inspect€not€just€his€own€equipment€on€theÐ ŽÞ Ðjob€but€all€independent€contractor€equipment€that€might€conceivably€cause€an€injury.€€Nothing€inÐ yÉ ÐWilsonððs€own€inspection€of€the€ladder€indicated€any€problem.€€The€ladder€belonged€to€Boyd€notÐ d´ ÐThompson.€€The€foundation€under€the€ladder€was€solid,€and€Wilson€determined€beforehand€that€theÐ OŸ Ðladder€was€properly€positioned.€€Nothing€gave€Thompson€ð ðsuperior€knowledgeðð€as€to€any€defect€inÐ : Š Ðthe€ladder.€€To€establish€the€duty,€a€risk€must€be€foreseeable,€and€such€ð ðis€foreseeable€if€a€reasonableÐ %!u Ðperson€could€foresee€the€probability€of€its€occurrence€or€if€the€person€was€on€notice€that€theÐ "`  Ðlikelihood€of€danger€to€the€party€to€whom€is€owed€a€duty€is€probable.ðð€€òòEaton,óó€891€S.W.2d€at€594.Ð û"K! ÐÌà  àAs€in€òòJones€v.€Exxon€Corpóó.,€940€S.W.2d€69€(Tenn.€App.€1996),€a€ð ðremote€possibilityðð€is€notÐ Ñ$! # Ða€ð ðreasonably€foreseeable€probability.ðð€€Id.€at€73.€€No€duty€was€owed€by€Thompson€to€Wilson€underÐ ¼% !$ Ðthe€facts€established€in€this€case,€and€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€summary€judgment€on€thisÐ §&÷!% Ðground.Ð ’'â"& ÐÌEmployee€or€Independent€Contractor?Ð h)¸$( ÐÌà  àTennessee€has€long€followed€the€near€universal€rule€that€an€employer€or€general€contractorÐ >+Ž&* Ðis€not€ordinarily€liable€for€the€negligence€of€an€independent€contractor.€€òòPotter€v.€Tuckeróó,€688€S.W.2dÐ ),y'+ Ð833€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòInternational€Harvester€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔSartainÔ_Ôóó,€222€S.W.2d€854€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ° Ð1948).Ð ›ë ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held:Ð qÁ ÐÌà8  àà ` àððAn€independent€contractor€is€one€who,€exercising€an€independentÐ G — Ðemployment,€contracts€to€do€a€piece€of€work€according€to€his€own€methods,€andÐ 2 ‚ Ðwithout€being€subject€to€control€of€his€employer,€except€as€to€the€result€of€his€work.€Ð  m ÐThe€employer€of€such€a€contractor,€if€he€be€a€fit€and€proper€person,€and€the€work€beÐ  X Ðnot€in€itself€unlawful€or€a€nuisance€in€itself,€or€necessarily€attended€with€danger€toÐ ó C  Ðothers,€will€not€be€responsible€for€his€negligence,€or€that€of€his€subcontractors€or€hisÐ Þ .  Ðservants.€€Mr.€Thompson,€in€his€work€upon€Negligence,€says€that€ððin€every€case,€theÐ É  Ðdecisive€question€is,€had€the€defendant€the€right€to€control,€in€the€given€particular,€theÐ ´  Ðconduct€of€the€person€doing€the€wrong?ðð€€2€Thompson€on€Negligence,€909.ðð€€òòPowellÐ Ÿï  Ðv.€Virginia€Construction€Co.óó,€88€Tenn.€692,€697„698,€13€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€691,€692,€17Ð ŠÚ  ÐÔ_ÔAm.St.RepÔ_Ô.€925.ÐuÅ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThis€leading€case€has€been€constantly€followed€in€our€decisions.€€òòSee€NationalÐ `° ÐOptical€Stores€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Bryantóó,€181€Tenn.€266,€181€S.W.2d€139.€€Also,€a€fullÐ K› Ðdiscussion€of€the€rule€may€be€found€in€òòÔ_ÔD.M.Ô_Ô€Rose€&€Co.€v.€Snyderóó,€185€Tenn.€499,Ð 6† Ð206€S.W.2d€897.Ð!qÐ Ð  ÐÌòòJolly€Motor€Livery€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔAllenburgÔ_Ôóó,€221€S.W.2d€513,€515€(Tenn.€1949).Ð ÷G ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€the€relationship€between€the€general€contractor€and€the€subcontractorÐ Í Ðis€that€of€employer„employee€or€general€contractor„independent€contractor,€the€factors€to€beÐ ¸ Ðconsidered€are:€(1)€the€right€to€control€the€conduct;€(2)€the€right€of€termination;€(3)€the€method€ofÐ £ó Ðpayment;€(4)€the€freedom€to€select€and€hire€helpers;€(5)€the€furnishing€of€tools€and€equipment;€(6)€Ð ŽÞ Ðself€scheduling€of€work€hours;€(7)€the€freedom€to€offer€services€to€other€entities.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔStrattonÔ_Ô€v.Ð yÉ ÐUnited€Intermountain€Telephone€Co.óó,€695€S.W.2d€947,€950€(Tenn.€1985).Ð d´ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€ever€making€its€bid€to€Wilson,€but€after€reviewing€the€architectural€drawings€for€theÐ : Š Ðaddition€to€the€building,€Thompson€sought€bids€from€subcontractors.€€On€April€29,€1998,€BoydÐ %!u ÐElectric€submitted€its€bid€to€ð ðThompson€Constructionðð€for€ð ðelectricalðð€at€Loco„Ô_ÔLupeÔ_Ôððs.€€TheÐ "`  Ðdescription€of€the€work€was€to€ð ðcomplete€electrical€per€drawings€on€new€addition€30€amp€220€circuitÐ û"K! Ðfor€a/c.ðð€They€submitted€a€bid€for€the€electrical€work€of€$3,078.00.€€Using€this€electrical€bid,€alongÐ æ#6" Ðwith€numerous€other€subcontractor€bids,€Thompson,€on€June€15,€1998,€submitted€its€bid€for€the€totalÐ Ñ$! # Ðcontract€of€just€under€$80,000.€€Included€in€this€bid€was€the€Boyd€bid€for€the€electrical€work€togetherÐ ¼% !$ Ðwith€a€percentage€added€to€that€bid,€making€the€total€bid€for€electrical€work€$3,785.80Ô_Ô.Ô_ÔÐ §&÷!% ÐÌà  àBoyd€contracted€to€do€this€work€for€Thompson€according€to€his€own€methods€in€accordanceÐ }(Í#' Ðwith€plans€and€specifications€submitted€to€him€and€used€in€forming€the€basis€of€his€monetary€bid€forÐ h)¸$( Ða€complete€electrical€job.€€Boyd€used€his€own€employees,€furnished€his€own€tools€and€equipmentÐ S*£%) Ðâ â(including€the€alleged€defective€ladder),€and€scheduled€his€own€working€hours€in€order€to€fit€theÐ >+Ž&* Ðelectrical€work€in€proper€timing€with€the€other€parts€of€the€construction.€€Boyd€also€served€otherÐ ° Ðcustomers€on€other€electrical€jobs.Ð ›ë Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Wilsons€primarily€seek€to€avoid€independent€contractor€status€by€asserting€thatÐ qÁ ÐThompson€retained€the€power€to€terminate€the€relationship€with€Boyd€at€will.€€This€assertion€is€basedÐ \¬ Ðupon€the€premise€established€by€testimony€that€if€Thompson€was€not€satisfied€with€Boydððs€work€heÐ G — Ðcould€be€removed€by€Thompson.€€The€proof€establishes€no€dissatisfaction€with€the€work€of€Boyd,Ð 2 ‚ Ðand€the€fact€that€Thompson€could€breach€his€contract€with€Boyd€by€terminating€his€services€withoutÐ  m Ðcause€is€not€the€equivalent€to€the€unconditional€right€to€terminate€without€cause.Ð  X ÐÌà  àThe€contract€between€Thompson€and€Boyd€was€not€written,€and€the€whole€arrangement€isÐ Þ .  Ðbest€described€by€Mr.€Boyd€in€his€deposition:Ð É  ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.€€€à ¸ à.€.€.€How€long€had€you€worked€at€the€job€before€this€accident?Пï Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€guess,€strictly€guessing€now,€on€and€off,€not€every€day,€for€probablyÐ ŠÚ  Ðfour€to€six€weeks.€€Iððm€guessing€on€that.ÐuÅ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àHad€you€been€there€every€day?Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.Ð K› Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àHow€many€days€had€you€worked?Ð6†Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àOut€of€that€period€of€time,€probably€ten,€at€the€most.Ð!qÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€keep€a€time€sheet?Ð  \ Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.€€I€kept€up€with€my€laborerððs€time€for€paying€him€every€week,Ð ÷G Ðwrote€it€in€a€book.Ðâ2Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDo€you€still€have€that€book?ÐÍÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àYes,€sir.Ð ¸ Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDo€you€have€a€record,€then,€that€book€or€some€other€record,€whichÐ £ó Ðwould€tell€you€what€days€you€were€at€that€job?à p àÐŽÞÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.€€All€I€write€down€on€that€is,€I€list€the€days€of€the€week,€first,Ð yÉ Ðsecond,€third€and€fourth,€whatever,€and€then€each€day€I€do€that.€€And€at€the€end€of€thatÐ d´ Ðweek,€I€add€up€his€time.€€I€donððt€put€that€we€worked€two€hours€here€on€this€job€andÐ OŸ Ðone€hour€here€on€this€job,€no.€€Iððve€got€a€book€like€that€now€that€Iððve€been€using€forÐ : Š Ðthe€last€seven€or€eight€months.Ð%!uÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€have€a€calendar€or€something€that€told€you€when€you€wereÐ "`  Ðsupposed€to€be€out€at€this€job€on€122€West€Franklin€Street?Ðû"K!Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo.Ð æ#6" Ðà  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWhat€did€you€do€at€this€job?Ð Ñ$! # Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àDone€the€electrical€rough„in€first.€€Thatððs€pulling€all€your€wire€thatððsÐ ¼% !$ Ðgoing€to€be€buried€in€walls,€laying€out€boxes,€electrical€boxes€and€stuff.€€And€then€IÐ §&÷!% Ðget€that€done€and€I€get€it€inspected.€€Mr.€Wright€will€call€me€when€the€sheetrock€andÐ ’'â"& Ðpainting€gets€done€and€Iððll€go€back€and€trim€it€out.Ð}(Í#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWhat€had€you€done€already,€by€time€of€the€accident?€€You€told€meÐ h)¸$( Ðâ âelectrical€rough„in.ÐS*£%)Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àWe€already€had€that.€€We€done€already€had€all€the€plugs€and€switchesÐ ° Ðput€in€and€breakers€on€the€panel.€Right€then,€we€was€finishing€up€the€candlelights€inÐ ›ë Ðthe€ceiling€and€tying€in€the€heat€and€air.€€And€thatððs€all€we€lacked€on€the€job.ІÖÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€come€back€and€finish€work€after€the€accident?ÐqÁÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àYes,€sir.Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWhat€more€did€you€do€after€the€accident?ÐG —Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àTied€in€the€heat€and€air€unit€and€finished€up€the€lights€in€the€ceiling.Ð2 ‚Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àOn€that€job,€did€you€have€a€written€contract€at€any€time€with€anybody?Ð mÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.Ð  X Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àHow€did€you€come€to€be€on€the€job?Ðó C Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àMr.€Wright€called€me,€wanted€to€know€about€how€much€it€would€run.€Ð Þ .  ÐI€told€him€and€he€said€do€it.ÐÉ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWere€you€paid€by€the€hour€or€by€the€job?д Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àBy€the€job.€€On€rough„in,€I€collected€to€pay€my€bills€and€pay€labor,€andÐ Ÿï  Ðfinal,€I€got€the€rest€of€the€money.ÐŠÚ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€turn€in€invoices?ÐuÅ Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àTo€whom?Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àTo€Mr.€Wright.Ð K› Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.€€Yes.€€An€invoice.€€Iððm€sorry.€€Yeah,€I€made€a€bill€out€to€him.Ð6†Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àAnd€on€the€bill,€did€you€specify€hours€and€materials?Ð!qÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.€€Labor€and€material.€€I€didnððt€specify€how€many€labor€hours.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àSo€itððs€just€a€general€labor€and€material€bill?Ð÷GÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àRight.Ð â2 Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àThe€only€reason€you€were€on€that€job€is€because€Mr.€Wright€asked€youÐ Í Ðto€be€there,€right?иРР Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àAsked€me€to€finish€up,€yes,€sir.Ð £ó Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWere€you€the€only€electrical€contractor?ÐŽÞÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àYes,€sir.Ð yÉ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€Thompson€on€the€basis€that€Boyd€was€anÐ OŸ Ðindependent€contractor€and€Thompson€was,€thus,€not€vicariously€liable.€€There€is€no€materialÐ : Š Ðevidence€to€the€contrary,€and€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€summary€judgment.€€The€judgment€ofÐ %!u Ðthe€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€affirmed€with€costs€assessed€against€Appellants.€€The€case€isÐ "`  Ðremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.Ð û"K! ÐÌà  àòò€€óó€€€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ Ñ$! # ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð §&÷!% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE