WPC0 e v0qZ_2FiOzI90)6N7ml?*6 c!Tڧ?}oosN^c rs?GRAMݭ[n_kJ4AVrQ{oox$ɥ $p=Q=vSky{k= #4d SL`|Lx\ *r/ ,#hÙ .510N[+ fI-S%aDeǷiGAPɇX>j BLX'fxo?KY".(pi.fLuM^#̜M IlJh_Ccٷ; Zt{y`͍L~ [ם\b᫁ qCY)-%#$k~<s αqA)jL7u2)K FDgE-*LHoCV@n Mk/$"*# LUNW % 0(w@4'6U :> x 0 0D U:dU:J  0D H^ e  U:  U:oob B AQ 0D 0D) 0Dmm D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  qe U U U U U U Ӏ u[%3|x ,rAZ"Arial Regular   e$ `   2     XX °  ԀThereisnoindicationastowhetherJacksoninspectedthepremisesorwhatactionhe  took,ifany.(8(2e$ !   `   0  (#$  0  +zAZ"Arial Regular   e$ `   4    XXXX° XXԀ °  °AlthoughBlairinvolvedacontractorwhowasinjuredbytheveryconditionhewashiredto  repair,webelievethesepublicpolicyconcernsareequallyapplicablehere.#°   °#,  AZ"Arial Regular )  .J:G:\TSC1\OPINIONS\RICEJOHN.OPNJG:\TSC1\OPINIONS\RICEJOHN.OPN/  (3$ !   >  e$ `   1     X,XXX  X X,ԀAstheCourtofAppealsobserved,thepartieshavenotraisedanyissueswithregardtothe  plaintiffsworkerscompensationtheory.  ""  X,XXX $ XX,   Ad FILEDX,X  $  November16,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular w  e$ `   3    XXXX° XXԀAlthoughthescopeofthedutyformerlydependedonwhethertheplaintiffwasalicenseeor  invitee,thatdistinctionhasbeenabolished.Hudsonv.Gaitan,675S.W.2d699,704(Tenn.1984).,  AZ"Arial Regular- - d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !    XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T X,XXX7SXXdd7   XSXX X,   # X,XXXS#6=*XXdd=Ӝ    r )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  r     @MMDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @zz)DATKNOXVILLE t )>.*jx"` `@E` 8ttxP " tߛ  `     h      p FORPUBLICATION  & J JOHNL.RICE,   h     ) p Filed:November16,1998      `     h     ) ` Appellee,   h     )    `     h     ) p HAMILTONCIRCUIT    `     h     )Vs. `     h     ) |   `     h     ) p HON.WILLIAML.BROWN, b   `     h     ) p   JUDGE Hl VERONICAJ.SABIR, h     ) .R  `     h     ) ` Appellant.   h     ) p No.03S019709CV00110  ̜    ̜     ̜  ForAppellant:   h      p ForAppellee:    SamuelR.Anderson h      p JohnD.McMahan x   (#  ! ShaneUsary   h      p G.BrentBurks "  DavidL.Moss   h      p McMAHAN&ASSOCIATES #! LUTHERANDERSON,PLLP     p Chattanooga,Tennessee z$" Chattanooga,Tennessee̜  ̜   ECX X, q EC@)D OPINION# EC q' #Ԉ \.(-  X,X EC `     h ̜  COURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED;    p      x   9D38  JUDGMENTOFTRIALCOURTREINSTATED .     x ANDERSON,C.J.  :*49(   7*XXdXXd7 ` Inthispremisesliabilitycase,theissueiswhethertheownerofahouseoweda  dutyofcaretowarnacontractoroftheexistenceofmildewonthehouseroofuponwhichhehadbeenhiredtoworkandfromwhichhefellandwasinjured. ` Thetrialcourtgrantedtheownerasummaryjudgment,  concludingthatnodutyofcarewasowedbecausetheownerdidnothireorauthorizethehiringofthecontractor  and  becausetheindependentcontractorwasinjuredbyanobvious,readilyobservablecondition.TheCourtofAppealsreversedthegrantofasummaryjudgmentafterconcludingthatagenuineandmaterialfactualissueexistedwithrespecttowhethertheownerhiredorauthorizedthehiringofthecontractor. ` WeagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthatagenuineandmaterialfactualissueexistswithregardtowhethertheownerhiredorauthorizedthehiringofthecontractor.Wenonethelessconcludethattheownerdidnotoweadutyofcaretowarnthecontractorabouttheconditionoftheroofbecausetheriskofharmwasnotreasonablyforeseeableandtheriskofharmdidnotoutweightheburdenofpreventingtheharmunderthefactsofthiscase.WethereforereversetheCourtofAppealsjudgmentandreinstatethejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@kk*D BACKGROUND  ($"&  ` Theplaintiffcontractor,JohnL.Rice,wasseriouslyinjuredonJuly22,1994,whenheslippedandfellfromtheroofofahouseownedbythedefendant,VeronicaJ.Sabir.ThehousewasleasedbySabirtoGwenzellaChandler,whohadhiredRicetotrimtreesawayfromtheroofandtocleanthegutters.RicefiledacomplaintagainstSabirundernegligenceandworkerscompensationtheories.  #  1       1,+0  ` DefendantSabirfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.Inheraffidavitinsupportofthemotion,SabirassertedthatsheownedahomeonHansleyDriveinChattanooga, l606 Tennessee,whichsheleasedtoGwenzellaChandler.OnJuly12,1994,ChandlertoldSabirabouta mildewprobleminthehouse.OnJuly16,1994,Sabirinspectedthehomeandfoundmildew inthelowerstoryofthehouse.Sabircontactedacontractor,CharlesJackson,toinspectthepremisesand makewhateverrepairswereneededtocorrecttheproblem.   #  2      ׀SabirassertedinheraffidavitthatshedidnothireJohnRice,  0 authorizeChandlertohireRice,orconsenttoallowRicetoperformanymaintenanceontheroofofthehome. ` Inresponsetothemotionforsummaryjudgment,theplaintiff,JohnRice,submittedanaffidavitfromGwenzellaChandler.Accordingtoheraffidavit,ChandlertoldSabiraboutthe seriousmildewproblemsinMarchof1994,butnoactionwastaken.ShetoldSabirabouttheproblemagaininJulyof1994,andSabirtoldherthatthemildewinsidethehousewascausedbytreeshangingovertheroofandcloggedgutters.SabirtoldChandlertogetJohnRicetotrimthetreesawayfromtheroofandtocleanouttheguttersandto fixeverything. ` AccordingtoRicesaffidavit,hewascontactedbyGwenzellaChandlerinJulyof1994andasked togetontheroofoftheSabirproperty,andcutbackthetreesthatweregrowingupandaroundtheroofofthatproperty.Ashebegantowork,Rice fellofftheSabirroofbecauseitwasdangerousandexcessivelyslippery.Ricefurtherasserted:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#ThemildewaccumulationintheSabirresidencehadalsoaccumulatedontheroof,therebycreatingahazardanddefectontheroofthatwasunknowntomeorGwenzellaChandler.   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#VeronicaSabirneverwarnedmeoradvisedmethattheroofofherpropertywasdangerousandthatIshouldnotclimbontothatrooftocutthetreesawayfromtheroof....TheseveremildewaccumulationontheroofoftheSabirpropertywasnotobvioustomenorwasitreadilyapparenttomeunderthecircumstances.Theslopeoftheroofwas notsuchthatitwouldbedangeroustowalkuponit,ifithad `606 notbeeninanunreasonablyslipperyandhazardouscondition....    Riceconcludedthathewouldnothaveattemptedthemaintenanceworkhadhebeenwarnedthattherewasmildewontheroof. ` ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoSabir,findingthat therewasnorelationshiporauthorizedrepairoremploymentofJohnRicebyVeronicaSabirandthat thatconditionoftheroofcertainlycouldbeobservedby[Rice]withregardtomildeworanyotherdefectsthatwouldbeobservedbyanyoneclimbingontheroof.TheCourtofAppealsdeterminedthatsummaryjudgmentwasimproperbecauseSabirandChandlermadeconflictingfactualassertionswithregardtoamaterialfact,thatis,thehiringofRice.WegrantedthisappealandnowreversetheCourtofAppealsandreinstatethejudgmentofthetrialcourt. @*DLEGALDUTY  (  ` Aswehavefrequentlyobserved,anegligenceclaimrequiresaplaintifftoprovethefollowingelements:(1)adutyofcareowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff;(2)conductbythedefendantfallingbelowthestandardofcareamountingtoabreachoftheduty;(3)aninjuryorloss;(4)causationinfact;and(5)proximatecausation.See, 4&X $ e.g.,Bradshawv.Daniel,854S.W.2d865,869(Tenn.1993).Thedutyelementisa ($"& questionoflawrequiringthecourttodetermine whethertheinterestoftheplaintiffwhichhassufferedinvasionwasentitledtolegalprotectionatthehandsofthedefendant.Id.at870  (quoting    W.PageKeeton,Prosser&KeetononTorts,37at d-', 236(5thed.1984)).Appellatereviewofaquestionoflawis  de     novo.    Bradshaw,854 0/T). S.W.2dat870. ` Inanalyzingduty,thecourtmustbalancetheforeseeabilityandgravityofthepotentialriskofharmtoaplaintiffagainsttheburdenimposedonthedefendantinprotectingagainstthatharm.McClungv.DeltaSquareLtdPartnership,937S.W.2d ,8P28 891,  90   2      (Tenn.1996).A riskisunreasonableandgivesrisetoadutytoactwithdue 94: careiftheforeseeableprobabilityandgravityofharmposedbydefendantsconductoutweightheburdenupondefendanttoengageinalternativeconductthatwouldhavepreventedtheharm.McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995). t   ` Inapremisesliabilitycase,anowneroroccupierofpremiseshasadutytoexercisereasonablecarewithregardtosocialguestsorbusinessinviteesonthepremises.  #  3      ׀Thedutyincludestheresponsibilitytoremoveorwarnagainstlatentor   hiddendangerousconditionsonthepremisesofwhichonewasawareorshouldhavebeenawarethroughtheexerciseofreasonablediligence.SeeBlairv.Campbell,924 <` S.W.2d75,76(Tenn.1996);Eatonv.McLain,891S.W.2d587,  59394    (Tenn.  1994).         ,   Although  thetraditionalrationaleforimposingthisdutywastheownerssuperiorknowledgeofconditionsonthepremises,seee.g.,KendallOilv.Payne,293S.W.2d  40,42(Tenn.App.1955),werecentlyheldthatadutymayexistevenwheretheinjurycausingconditionisallegedtobe openandobvioustotheplaintiff.Weexplained:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Thatadangertotheplaintiffwasopenorobviousdoesnot,ipsofacto,relieveadefendantofadutyofcare.Instead,the   dutyissuemustbeanalyzedwithregardtoforeseeabilityandgravityofharm,andthefeasibilityandavailabilityofalternativeconductthatwouldhavepreventedtheharm.ThefactorsprovidedintheRestatement(Second)ofTorts,343(A)relatedirectlytotheforeseeabilityquestion;inshort,iftheforeseeabilityandgravityofharmposedfromadefendantsconduct,evenifopenandobvious,outweighedtheburdenonthedefendanttoengageinalternativeconducttoavoidtheharm,thereisadutytoactwithreasonablecare.   Colnv.Cityof  Savannah     ,     966    S.W.2d  34,43    (Tenn.1998). ~,&+  ` Thedutyimposedonthepremisesowneroroccupier,however,doesnotincludetheresponsibilitytoremoveorwarnagainst conditionsfromwhichnounreasonableriskwastobeanticipated,orfromthosewhichtheoccupierneitherknewaboutnorcouldhavediscoveredwithreasonable  care.    ProsserandKeetononTorts,supra, z5/5 61at426.Inthisregard, themereexistenceofadefectordangerisgenerally F7j17 insufficienttoestablishliability,unlessitisshowntobeofsuchacharacterorofsuchdurationthatthejurymayreasonablyconcludethatduecarewouldhavediscoveredit.Id.at42627.AsweexplainedinDoev.LinderConst.Co.,845S.W.2d173,178 t  (Tenn.1992):8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Foreseeabilityisthetestofnegligence.Iftheinjurywhichoccurredcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseen,thedutyofcaredoesnotarise,andeventhoughtheactofthedefendantinfactcausedtheinjury,thereisnonegligenceandnoliability.  [T]he  plaintiffmustshowthattheinjurywasareasonablyforeseeableprobability,notjustaremotepossibility,andthatsomeactionwithinthe[defendants] Vz  powermoreprobablythannotwouldhavepreventedtheinjury."F    (emphasis     added)(citation   s      omitted). @JJ+DANALYSIS  l  ` Webeginouranalysisandapplicationoftheforegoingprinciplesbyreviewingthestandardsapplicabletosummaryjudgment.Asummaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifthemovingpartyshowsthatnogenuineandmaterialfactualissueexistsandheorsheisentitledtoreliefasamatteroflaw.Inrulingonthemotion,thecourtmustconsidertheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustallowallreasonableinferencesinhisfavor.Asummaryjudgmentmaybeproper,therefore,only whenthereisnodisputeovertheevidenceestablishingthefactsthatcontroltheapplicationofaruleoflaw.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21415(Tenn.1993);Tenn. )#( R.Civ.P.56. ` PlaintiffRiceargues,andtheCourtofAppealsagreed,thatagenuineandmaterialfactualissueexistedwithregardtowhetherdefendantSabireitherhiredorauthorizedhis  hiring     .Specifically,    Sabirassertedthatshedidnothireorauthorizethehiringof  Rice    anddidnotknowofhisattemptstoperformmaintenancetothepremisesuntilafterhewas  injured     ;     whereas,    ChandlerstatedthatSabirtoldhertogetRiceto fixeverythingbytrimmingtreesandcleaningthegutters.Sabirarguesthatregardlessofthisfactualdispute,thetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthatsheowednodutyofcare 94: becauseRicewasanindependentcontractorwhowasinjuredbyan obvious,readilyobservablecondition. ` WeagreethatagenuineandmaterialfactualissueexistedwithregardtowhetherSabirhiredorauthorizedthehiringofRice,butwedisagreethataremandisnecessarytoresolvethisfactualissue.Asdiscussed,traditionaldutyanalysisentailsbalancingoftheforeseeablegravityofthepotentialriskofharmagainsttheburdenimposedonthedefendanttopreventtheharm.McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2dat153. p  Thisanalysisappliesevenwhentheinjurycausingconditionwaspurportedlyopenandobvious.See  Coln,  966S.W.2dat43.  񀀀Whenweapplythisanalysis,evenassuming , thatSabirhadauthorizedthehiringofRice,weconcludethatnodutywasowedunderthefactsofthiscase. ` WeinitiallyobservethatthereisnoindicationthatSabirhadactualknowledgethatseveremildewhadaccumulatedontherooforthatitwasextremelyslipperyoranymoredangerousthannormal.AlloftheevidencereflectsthatSabirhadknowledgeonlyoftheexistenceofmildewinsidethehouse.Wealsoconcludethatthecondition "  oftheroofwasnotreasonablydiscoverablewithduecare.Indeed,forSabirtohavegainedknowledgeoftheconditionontheroofwouldhaverequiredhertoconductaselfinspectionortohireanothercontractorforthepurposeofensuringitssafetypriortohiringRice.Aswerecentlyobservedinasimilarcase:     8 ` 8 ` (#` (#[T]hepolicyofplacingtheriskofincurringphysicalharmduringarepairjobonacontractorholdinghimselforherselfoutasanexpertinthatwork,asopposedtothelaypremisesowner,isnotunjustified,atleastaslongastheownerdoesnotwillfullyorintentionallyharmthecontractor.Toholdotherwisewouldbetorequiretheuntutoredownertoinspecttherooffordefectsbeforecallingaroofingcontractor;itwouldalsorequiretheownertoinspecttheelectricalboxbeforeemployinganelectrician.Wedonotbelievesoundpublicpolicyrequiressuchananomalous  result.    ...     F7j17   Blair,  924S.W.2dat78.  #  4      ׀Havingconcludedthattheconditionoftheroofwasonethat   Sabirneitherknewaboutnorcouldreasonablyhavediscoveredwithduecare,itthereforefollowsthatitisnotprobablethattheinjurywasreasonablyforeseeableandthatnoactionofSabirscouldmoreprobablythannothavepreventedtheinjury. ` Weemphasizethatouranalysisdiffersfromthatofthetrialcourt,whichhadobservedthattheconditionoftheroofwas obvious,readilyobservable.AswesaidinColn,  966S.W.2dat34,    merelylabelingtheinjurycausingcondition openand p  obviousdoesnotendtheinquiryastoduty.Instead,thecourtmustweightheforeseeableriskandgravityofharmagainsttheburdenplacedonthedefendanttoengageinalternativeconductwhichwouldhavepreventedtheharm.Here,weconcludethattheharmwasnotreasonably  foreseeable    andthatnoalternativeconductwasrequiredofthedefendant.@*D CONCLUSION  (  ` Weconcludethatthedefendantownerowednodutyofcaretotheplaintiffcontractorunderthefactsofthiscasebecausetheriskofharmwasnotreasonablyforeseeableanddidnotoutweightheburdenofpreventingtheharmfromoccurring.WethereforereversetheCourtofAppealsjudgmentandreinstatethetrialcourtsjudgmentawardingsummaryjudgmenttothedefendant.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheplaintiff,JohnL.Rice,forwhichexecutionshallissueifnecessary.̀ `     h      p ________________________________ `     h      p RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE  CONCUR:     0 +0        Birch,     J    Reid,Sp.J.          DISSENT:    4.4      h   Holder,J.seeseparateDissentingOpinion     Drowota,  J.,not  participating      F7j17 Ї