ÿWPC"$ @# U:› %Õ 04Û4#2w@: 0xz 0DòÆ6ÆüÆÂƈÆN  0P Bd U@ eÁ AO 0D 0JU 0TŸ 0^ó 0hQ 0r¹ 0|+ 0†§ B- 0J D3Ú 1u  D/‚U,± A©Ý 0@† 0dÆ D+* 0KUU, U *ÌB)öDC AOb±ÁLj*§v~ÑvÓO˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  ÓRU{ tÔôÔô3|x© ŸP P¡P¢À£Ó€¤¦§¨‚©(((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3¾¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝüÿP Pd ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT+(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd !"#% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)'÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(Modern +.-›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd+.8Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔó óÌò òÔ€6¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€6XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€6ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€deriving€this€rule,€the€òòBlanksóó€court€primarily€relied€upon€Annotation,€òòDuty€ofÏà àOwner€of€Premises€to€Furnish€Independent€Contractor€or€His€Employee€a€SafeÏà àPlace€of€Work,€Where€Contract€is€for€Repairsóó,€31€A.L.R.€2d€1375€(1953).€€WhenÏthe€à àannotation€was€published,€an€overwhelming€number€of€jurisdictions€adhered€toÏthis€à àrule€in€some€form.€€òòSeeóó€cases€collected€at€ðð€2.€€A€review€of€the€ð ðLater€CaseÏà àServiceðð€to€the€annotation,€published€in€1995,€reveals€that€this€is€still€the€law€inÏmost€à àjurisdictions.€€Moreover,€the€annotation€reveals€several€cases€dealingÏspecifically€à àwith€roofers€in€which€the€rule,€or€some€analogous€form€thereof,€wasÏapplied€to€deny€à àrecovery€as€matter€of€law.€€òòSee€e.góó.,€òòGrant€v.€Eastern€Airlines,€Incóó.,Ï556€So.€2d€1135€à à(Fla.€App.€1989);€òòBeckford€v.€Canessaóó,€613€N.Y.S.2d€659€(N.Y.ÏApp.€Div.€1994);€òòà àMuscat€v.€Khalilóó,€388€N.W.2d€€267€(Mich.€App.€1986).€€€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€pole€was€hinged€in€the€middle€so€that€it€could€be€lowered€to€change€theÏlight€à àbulbs.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Indeed,€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€412,€Comment€c€provides:€ð ðin€theÏà àpresent€era€of€specialization,€it€may€be€proper€for€a€lay€employer€to€trustÏimplicitly€à àin€the€technical€competence€of€a€contractor€who€makes€a€business€ofÏmaking€or€à àrepairing€many€of€the€instrumentalities€which€have€become€a€part€ofÏeveryday€life.ððÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÓ&€55X„d&ÓÑ#€55Xd#ÑÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÑ7€4XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&ÓÙ€ÙßL€9:8;+'h|¹â `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSON€ÌÌÌÌÌJACK€H.€BLAIR,à àà àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àœÌ›à àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà àœ)à àà àFiled:€May€20,€1996›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSARAH€CAMPBELL,à àà àà à)à àHon.€George€H.€Brown,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ€€€€€No.›€02S01„9601„CV„00134ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àà àœòòà àFor›€Defendant„Appelleeóó:ÌÌR.€Sadler€Baileyà àà àà àà àœà àWilliam›€W.€Dunlap,€Jr.ÌLaw€Offices€of€Bailey€&€Associatesà àœà àHarris,›€Shelton,€Dunlap€&€CobbÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àœà àMemphis,›€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€6„ÔÌÌÌà@ àÔ€6°ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€6XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT›€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€premises€liability€case€the€plaintiff,€Jack€H.€Blair,€appeals€from€theÏCourt€of€Appealsðð€affirmance€of€the€summary€judgment€granted€in€favor€of€theÏdefendant,€Sarah€Campbell.€€The€issue€for€our€determination€is€whether€theÏdefendant,€the€owner€of€the€premises,€owed€to€the€plaintiff,€an€independentÏcontractor€hired€by€the€defendant€to€repair€a€leaking€roof,€a€duty€to€provide€aÏreasonably€safe€place€to€work€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€œAlthough€a€premisesÏowner€generally€owes€a€contractor€the€duty€to€provide€a€reasonably€safeÏworkplace,€we€conclude€that€this€duty€does€not€apply€when€the€contractor€isÏinjured€while€making€the€specific€repairs€called€for€in€the€contract.€€Since€it€isÍundisputed€that€the€plaintiff€was€so€injured€in€this€case,€we›€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€and€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€1990€Sarah€Campbell,€the€defendant,€acquired€a€duplex€located€inÏUnion€City,€Tennessee.€€Because€Campbell€lives€in€a€retirement€home€inÏMemphis,€she€arranged€to€have€Jane€Thomas,€a€Union€City€realtor,€manage€theÏproperty€for€her.€€Ìà àWhen€Campbell€acquired€the€property,€it€was€generally€in€a€state€ofÏdisrepair.€€Since€she€wished€to€get€the€duplex€ready€to€be€rented€or€sold,ÏCampbell€asked€Thomas€to€hire€someone€to€perform€the€necessary€repair€work.€ÏIn€June€1991€Thomas€spoke€with€Jack€Blair,€the€plaintiff,€about€doing€the€work.€ÏAt€that€time€Blair€agreed€to€paint€the€exterior€of€the€duplex€and€to€replace€someÏwindow€sills.€€Blair€subsequently€completed€this€work€and€was€paid€$1,500.ÌÌà àShortly€thereafter€Campbell€traveled€from€Memphis€to€Union€City€toÍinspect€the€property.€€After€the€inspection€she€asked€Blair€to€perform€additionalÏwork,€including€€painting€the€interior€of€the€duplex€and€replacing€some€rottenÏwooden€siding€on€the€structure.€€Campbell€also€specifically€requested€that€BlairÏrepair€or€replace€the€roof€over€the€porch€of€the€duplex€because€ð ðit€was€leaking.ðð€ÏBlair€agreed€to€perform€the€additional€work€at€the€rate€of€$10€per€hour€for€himselfÏand€$6€per€hour€for€his€employees.€€€Blair€was€given€full€control€as€to€how€theÏrequested€repairs€were€to€be€accomplished.€ÌÌà àOn€August€3,€1991,€Kenny€Dyer,€one€of€Blairððs€employees,€propped€aÏladder€against€the€gutter€running€alongside€the€porch€roof€and€ascended€for€theÏpurpose€of€tearing€the€shingles€off€the€roof.€€After€Dyer€had€removed€some€or€allÏof€the€shingles,€he€asked€Blair€to€come€up€on€the€roof€and€tell€him€what€to€doÏnext.€€Blair€climbed€the€ladder€and€stepped€onto€the€roof,€but€told€Dyer€that€theyÏshould€talk€about€the€matter€on€the€ground€because€of€the€extreme€heat.€€As€BlairÏstepped€out€onto€the€ladder,€the€wood€supporting€the€gutter€collapsed,€causingÏthe€ladder€to€turn.€€Blair€was€thrown€to€the€ground;€and€he€sustained€seriousÏpersonal€injuries€in€the€fall.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€wood€supporting€the€gutterÍwas€rotten,€and€that€this€condition€caused€Blair€to€fall.ÌÌà àIn€August€1992€Blair€brought€a€negligence€action€against€Campbell,Ïalleging€that€she€had€failed€to€provide€him€with€a€reasonably€safe€place€to€work.€ÏAfter€denying€all€allegations€of€negligence,€Campbell€moved€for€summaryÏjudgment,€which€was€granted€by€the€trial€court.€€Blair€appealed€from€this€ruling€toÏthe€Court€of€Appeals,€which€determined€that€Campbell€had€no€duty€to€provideÏBlair€with€a€safe€place€to€work€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case;€therefore,Ïthat€court€affirmed€the€judgment.€€We€granted€Blairððs€application€for€permission€toÏappeal€in€order€to€address€this€issue€in€light€of€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2dÏ52€(Tenn.€1992)€and€its€progeny.à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àÌÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àIt€is€well„settled€that€an€owner€generally€owes€an€independent€contractorÏhired€to€perform€work€on€the€premises€a€duty€to€provide€a€reasonably€safe€placeÏin€which€to€work.€€òòHutchison€v.€Teeteróó,€687€S.W.2d€286,€288€(Tenn.€1985);ÍòòBroome€v.€Parkviewóó,€359€S.W.2d€566,€568€(Tenn.€App.€1962).€€This€general€dutyÏincludes€the€specific€responsibility€of€either€removing,€or€warning€theÏindependent€contractor€of,€any€hidden€or€latent€dangers€on€the€property.€€òòEaton€v.ÏMcClainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€595€(Tenn.€1994);€òòOdum€v.€Haynesóó,€494€S.W.2d€795,Ï800€(Tenn.€App.€1972);€òòJackson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Authorityóó,€413€F.€Supp.Ï1050,€1056€(M.D.€Tenn.€1976).€€à8 àÌà àAn€important€exception€to€this€general€rule€has,€however,€long€beenÏrecognized€in€Tennessee€law.€€In€òòShell€Oil€Co.€v.€Blanksóó,€330€S.W.2d€571€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1959),€a€case€in€which€a€contractor€hired€to€paint€a€œsteel€lightpole€on›€œgas›Ïstation€œpremises€brought›€suit€after€the€pole€collapsed€and€caused€his€ladder€toÏfall,€the€Court€of€Appeals€explained€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àœAn›€exception€to€the€general€rule€is€recognized€where€the€risks€ariseÏfrom,€or€are€intimately€connected€with,€defects€of€the€premises€or€ofÏmachinery€or€appliances€located€thereon€which€the€contractor€hasÏundertaken€to€repair.€€As€to€contracts€for€such€repair€work,€it€isÏreasoned€that€the€contract€is€sufficient€in€itself€to€impart€notice€of€aÏdefect,€the€extent€of€which€the€repairman€must€discover€for€himself.€ÏThis€is€merely€to€say€that€one€assumes€the€risk€of€a€known€dangerÏor€of€an€undertaking€which€is€inherently€œdangerous.›ÌÌòòBlanksóó,€330€S.W.2d€at€571.× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€applying€the€rules€to€the€case€before€it,€the€òòBlanksóó€court€first€noted€thatÏthe€pole€was€defective€in€that€the€œð ðbolt€and€tapðð€used›€to€hinge€the€pole€in€theÏmiddleœ× ƒ< ××  ×›€had,€after€becoming€inoperable,€been€replaced€by€the€owner€with€a€coilÏof€wire,€which€had€then€been€painted€the€same€color€as€the€rest€of€the€pole.€ÏThus,€the€Court€concluded,€the€pole€contained€a€latent€defect€that€was€notÏreasonably€discoverable€by€the€œcontractor;€and€this€defect€had€caused€the€pole€toÏcollapse.›€€The€Court€then€concluded€that€the€aforementioned€exception€to€theÍgeneral€duty€to€provide€a€reasonably€safe€workplace€did€not€apply€because€Ïð ðòò[the]€contract€was€not€to€repair€the€pole€but€to€paint€it.€€There€was,€therefore,Ïnothing€in€the€contract€to€imply€the€existence€of€a€defect€or€a€danger€to€beÏavoidedóó.ðð€€òòBlanksóó,€330€S.W.2d€at€572€(emphasis€added).€€Because€it€determinedÏthat€the€general€rule€was€applicable,€and€because€the€premises€owner€failed€toÏdischarge€its€duty€to€warn,€the€Court€affirmed€a€jury€verdict€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff.ÌÌà àThe€application€of€òòBlanksóó€to€the€case€before€us€yields€a€clear€result.€€It€isÏundisputed€that€Blair€was€specifically€asked€by€Campbell€to€repair€the€porch€roofÏbecause€it€was€leaking.€€Although€Blair€was€not€told€of€the€extent€of€the€damageÏto€the€roof,€and€perhaps€could€not€have€known€until€he€œclimbed€the›€ladder,€this€isÏimmaterial€under€òòBlanksóó:€the€repair€contract€itself€is€sufficient€to€put€the€contractorÏon€notice€of€a€defect€in€the€premises,€and€it€is€the€contractorððs€responsibility€toÏdetermine€the€extent€of€the€œdefect.€€The›€case€before€us€obviously€falls€within€theÏexception€enunciated€in€òòBlanksóó;€therefore,€œpursuant€to€that€case€the›€owner€œhereÏwas›€under€no€duty€to€provide€a€reasonably€safe€workplace€to€the€contractor.€ÌÌà àAlthough€conceding€that€òòBlanksóó€has€not€been€expressly€overruled,€BlairÏœnevertheless€asserts›€that€it€should€not€control€this€case.€€He€first€argues€that€theÏexception€recognized€in€òòBlanksóó€is€actually€œa›€ð ðprimary€implied€assumption€of€theÏriskðð€defense,€and€that€because€we€abolished€œthat€defense›€in€òòPerez€v.ÏMcConkeyóó,€872€S.W.2d€897€(Tenn.€1994),€this€case€must€be€determined€ð ðunderÏstraight€comparative€fault€principles€enunciated€in€òòMcIntyreóó€...ðð€€Therefore,€BlairÏargues,€the€duty€question€should€have€been€presented€to€the€jury€for€itsÏdetermination.ÌÌà àWe€cannot€accept€this€argument.€€While€it€is€true€that€we€did€abolishÏð ðprimary€implied€assumption€of€the€riskðð€as€a€distinct€defense€in€òòPerezóó,€we€alsoÏrecognized€that€the€œdefense›€is€simply€another€expression€of€the€common€lawÏconcept€of€duty.€€We€stated:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€its€primary€sense,€implied€assumption€of€risk€focuses€not€on€theÏplaintiffððs€conduct€in€assuming€the€risk,€but€on€the€defendantððsÏgeneral€duty€of€care.€€The€doctrine€of€primary€implied€assumption€ofÏrisk€ððtechnically€is€not€a€defense,€but€rather€a€legal€theory€whichÏrelieves€a€defendant€of€the€duty€which€he€might€otherwise€owe€toÍthe€plaintiff€with€respect€to€particular€risks.ðð€€Clearly,€primary€impliedÏassumption€of€risk€is€but€another€way€of€stating€the€conclusion€that€aÏplaintiff€has€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€by€failing€toÏestablish€that€a€duty€exists.ÌÌòòPerezóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€902€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÌà àIn€deciding€not€to€retain€the€terminology€of€the€defense,€we€reasoned:ÌÌÌÌà8 àBecause€duty€is€an€element€of€the€plaintiffððs€prima€facie€case,€theÏdoctrine€of€primary€implied€assumption€of€risk,€as€an€alternateÏexpression€of€the€concept€of€duty,€would€serve€no€productiveÏpurpose;€indeed€it€would€only€confuse€and€convolute€the€issues€...€ÏòòWhile€we€agree€that€those€situations€described€by€commentators€asÏinvolving€the€concept€of€primary€implied€assumption€of€the€risk€willÏpreclude€recovery€under€a€scheme€of€comparative€fault,€the€sameÏresult€will€be€obtained,€without€any€unnecessary€confusion,€ifÏTennessee€courts€use€the€common„law€concept€of€duty€to€analyzeÏthe€issuesóó.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€905€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€obvious€that€our€adoption€of€the€principles€of€comparative€fault€did€notÏalter€the€analysis€applicable€to€the€common„law€concept€of€duty,€òòsee€e.góó.,€òòEatonÏv.€McClainóó,€891€S.W.2d€593„597€(Tenn.€1994);€and€it€is€beyond€œdispute€that›€dutyÍis€a€question€of€law€for€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€òòCarson€v.€Headrickóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€685,€690€(Tenn.€1995).€€Therefore,€this€argument€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àBlair€alternatively€argues€that€the€òòBlanksóó€rule€is€flawed€as€a€matter€ofÏpublic€policy.€€He€contends€that:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]f€there€is€no€duty€arising€from€the€very€repairs€the€contractor€isÏengaged€to€make,€there€is€a€disincentive€for€contractors€to€acceptÏrepair€jobs€where€there€might€be€any€doubt€as€to€the€safety€of€theÏwork€site.€€Contractors€will€be€in€the€position€of€having€to€weigh€pureÏeconomic€need€against€perceived€threats€to€their€safety.€€In€otherÏwords,€a€contractor€will€have€to€decide€whether€a€given€job€is€worthÏthe€physical€risk€of€harm€that€might€be€presented€by€accepting€theÏjob.€€Landowners€will€have€an€incentive€to€repair€property€for€theÏsake€of€third€parties,€but€at€the€same€time€they€will€be€in€the€positionÏof€giving€repair€workers€no€guarantee€of€safety€...€€Such€an€absenceÏof€duty€should€be€void€as€against€public€policy€...€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€argument,€however€eloquently€made,€fails€because€it€describes€aÏmarket€situation€already€endorsed€by€public€policy.€€In€other€words,€the€law€of€thisÏstate,€and€of€all€others€that€we€are€aware,€perceives€danger€as€a€legitimateÏconsideration€in€the€bargaining€process,€as€long€as€the€contractor€has€œaÍreasonably€specific€idea›€of€the€perils€that€he€or€she€will€encounter.€€For€example,Ïit€is€common€knowledge€that€construction€workers€on€skyscrapers€œand€other€veryÏtall€structures€earn›€more€than€their€co„workers€in€less€dangerous€positions.€ÏœSimply›€put,€danger€is€often€treated€as€œone€of€the€many€factors›€in€the€pricing€of€anÏeconomic€transaction.€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€policy€of€placing€the€risk€of€incurring€physical€harmÏduring€a€repair€job€on€a€contractor€holding€himself€or€herself€out€as€an€expert€inÏthat€work,€as€opposed€to€the€œlay€premises›€owner,€is€not€unjustified,€at€least€asÏlong€as€the€owner€does€not€willfully€or€intentionally€harm€the€contractor.× ƒ= ××  ×€€€To€holdÏotherwise€would€be€to€require€the€untutored€owner€to€inspect€the€roof€for€defectsÏbefore€calling€a€roofing€contractor;€it€would€also€require€the€owner€to€inspect€theÏelectrical€box€before€employing€an€electrician.€€We€do€not€believe€sound€publicÏpolicy€requires€such€a€œanomalous€result;›€therefore,€the€plaintiffððs€argument€onÍthat€ground€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àœ____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌ€€€€€€ÌÌœConcur:ÌÌAnderson,›€œCJ.ÌReid,›€Birch,€œWhite,€JJ.›