WPC  &U z͎x>i?V1b9 ¥P糥x-z} +! R;!1D*В21#{,\" yĪ҂ڨ軰R9?׺d.69YGQ"1&Nh5gYʏm$y̪r\11Bam<9;$7s*'fCt.v#Tf)jZ!LRO\?V GS$RSo fܻmj\ UnW.&5mڜw4Kk{!R-MXk)Y,'" 8> RP6`42U`q]WܛL=y^VxڽGU;2x Rhe"R`a]Xo-!g؇ QDפeѯVEaɾ*>`V*# LUNW % 0(w4mU:U:U:e JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ AQT 0Dk 0D 0D D/7 Bf B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($DD.e E    UEHDDebDaDaDӀu[%3|x& ""   XoXXX X Xo   Ad FILED XoX   November16,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular,K AZ"Arial Regular !"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  ћ` ћ4` ҜTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TTR[A'Legal Red3'A' Legal3'T  7XXdd7   = | XXdd=XX"*US \\ (:!&)*   XoXXX  10\13\1998(11:58am)!  :.fVG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\RICE\RICEJOHN.DISfG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\RICE\RICEJOHN.DIS/  # X|X VG#ԛ r )<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP,`  rߛ@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE `  @ii)DATKNOXVILLE  L  JOHNL.RICE,@##/D)   @##/D) APPELLEE,@##/D) V @##/D)v.@##/D)  NO.03S019709CV00110 "  @##/D)VERONICAJ.SABIR,@##/D) N  @##/D) APPELLANT.@##/D)   @MM&D DISSENTINGOPINION  R  Irespectfullydissentfromthemajorityopinion.ThemajorityagreesthatagenuineandmaterialissueoffactexistswithregardtowhetherSabirhiredorauthorizedthehiringofRice.Thisdisputedissueoffactrecognizedbythemajoritywouldnormallyrequirearemandtothetrialcourt.Insteadofremanding,however,themajorityofthisCourtperformsanadditionalanalysistobalancethe"foreseeablegravityofthepotentialriskofharmagainsttheburdenimposedonthedefendanttopreventtheharm."ThemajorityconcludesthatnodutywasowedtoRice ,   evenifSabirhadauthorizedthehiringofRice.Thisconclusionisinconsistentwiththemajority'sstatementthat"[in]apremisesliabilitycase,anowner...ofpremiseshasadutytoexercisereasonablecarewithregardtosocialguestsorbusinessinviteesonthepremises." AsstatedinmyconcurringopinioninColnv.CityofSavannah,___966 2(- S.W.2d34____(Tenn.1998),themajority'sanalysisencompassestheweighingprocessthatisnormallyreservedtothejuryinnegligencecases.Thisweighingprocessistheperogativeprerogativeofthejuryunlessreasonablemindscannotdiffer.Themajority'sapproach,however,doesnotdeterminewhetherreasonableminds B9/5 coulddifferinthiscase.Itdoesnotdeterminewhether,asamatteroflaw,Rice'snegligenceexceededthenegligenceofthepremisesowner.Instead,themajorityproceedstoweightheevidenceanddeterminesthatthe"conditionoftheroofwasonethatSabirneitherknewaboutnorcouldreasonablyhave d discoveredwithduecare."Themajority , therefore , concludesthat"itisnot 4 probablethattheinjurywasreasonablyforeseeableandthatnoactionofSabir'scouldmoreprobablythannothavepreventedtheinjury." Thestatedreasonforthisconclusionisthat"thereisnoindicationthatSabirhadactualknowledgethatseveremildewhadaccumulatedontherooforthatitwasextremelyslipperyoranymoredangerousthannormal."Itisclearfromheraffidavit,however,thatsheknewthattherewasamoistureprobleminthelowerstoryofthehouse.Hertenant,Chandler,statesthatSabirtoldChandlerthatthemildewinsidethehousewastheresultofoverhangingtreesandstoppedupgutters.Ricewashiredtotrimthetreesandcleanthegutters,nottoremedyadefectintheroofingsystemme.Ricestatesthatthemildewontheroofwasnotobviousorreadilyapparenttohimandthatheusedreasonablecautionwhilesteppingontheroof. Thereasonablenessoftheactionsoftheplaintiffand of thepremisesownerandtheknowledgeofeachwouldnormallybequestionstobedeterminedbythetrieroffact.Manyofthesedeterminationsincludeissuesofcredibility,whichareillsuitedfordeterminationbysummaryjudgment.Onlyifreasonablemindscouldnotdiffershouldsummaryjudgmentbegranted.IwouldgrantsummaryjudgmentonlyifIcouldfindthatRice'snegligenceexceededSabir'sasamatteroflaw.Onthestrengthoftheseaffidavits,Icannotmakethatdetermination.  8.4  Themajorityhasweighedtheevidenceandmadeitsowndeterminationofthefactspresented.Bydoingso,themajorityofthisCourthasnotonlyignoredthestandardstobeappliedinsummaryjudgmentcasesbutalsohasusurpedthefunctionofthetrieroffact.IwouldaffirmtheCourtofAppealsandremandtothetrialcourttodeterminetherelativefaultoftheparties.   <      D T$T$MT$      <      D JUSTICEJANICEM.HOLDER