it please the court we'd like to reserve two minutes of our time for a bust the plaintiff in the defend this case had met online had a online life in ship he lived in knoxville tennessee or near knoxville if she lived in indiana and she was visiting him he had bought her a horse which he kept at a farm where he lived near knoxville the plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of a horseback riding incident trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon the tennessee recreational use statute we think that was incorrect because this case is not a premises liability case it's go to the statute and give us your best argument for why it's limited to premises liability so we understand the facts and thank you briefs were effective in that regard but i'd like to can't i don't think you need to look at just that statue for perfect jude is obviously seventy there seven dash one hundred and three and the key why don't you start with that and then move on as you pointed in your briefs to some of the other sections but let's start with one of the thirty one of the three i think the key phrase in one of three is the very last portion was worth a paragraph ford says it does not by giving such  permission i think that is the key phrase does not give me such permission and it goes further in this is for things that to me implies that the three has been an effect for over three decades let me let me i'm sorry to interrupt you again let me give you your friends on the other side's view and then why don't you read body which is that  instances yes why aren't they saying look if you invite someone on to the land you are responsible on last you  unless you commit gross negligence or one of those things does that make sense well i understand that argument but there there is no reason for that sentence by giving permission i think what the legislature was trying to do to clarify the interaction between one of two and one of the three dissent just because the landowner gives you permission does not give you any additional rights but don't we have to give effect to every portion of the statute and get at i'm still struggling to understand your reconciliation those various points in your response to church part well i agree with that you do have to effect all the statues and that's one of the reasons why we don't think one of the three has a broad reading that the trial court gave it if one of the three has the effect that the defendant claims and one o is not that he gave permission to use the land but the things he did with the bridle and i suppose you're arguing that she is also an invite t v she's not she's not just a mere permit says by giving such permission doesn't make her an invite t that implies that there are other ways to make her an invite t and similarly if giving permission doesn't create liability there might be other ways to create liability i agree with the court's reasoning here we certainly agree with that and again life and when you look at the entire that you have one of one through one hundred and five the purpose of the tennessee recreational use statute is to protect landowners for person was injured as a result of meat drowning where it was caused by a horse fly all the lake belonging to the defend that the statue was raised and the court held that the statue did not apply because there was no defect in the caused by a wake created by tugboat operated by t b a and the district court followed the wilkerson case and determined that the tennessee recreational statute did not apply it must be related to defects in the land i know of no case it was specifically held that the statute applies to the facts that are not related to the land the defendant has not decided any such case we also waive that the exception and one of four concerning gross negligence applies the defendant brought the bottle bridle there's evidence in the record he was an expert for slim is own son testified extensively about that in contrast the plan was classified as a beginning writer by the plaintiff's expert the defendant knew the writer was missing a piece he still told a  who was ok to ride a horse under those circumstances now the defendant testified that he didn't know anything about hackamore briles but if that's the case he should not have reassured the plaintiff that it was ok to ride with this defective bridle secondly there is a strong efforts to be drawn about his contact where he basically attempted to defraud the court as to the actual bridle that was being used yes the district court didn't rule one way or the other on all of the gross negligence part are we in any position to make good determination ourselves or at worst would we defendant indicating this court can make a determination about it we point out that the defendant falsely claim three times they know the bridle was the one the plaintiff was judgment we're entitled to the benefit of any inferences as far as the tennessee equine activities act which the defendant has also raised again we believe that gross negligence is an exception plus another exception to that act if furnishing defective tack to the rider knowing or should have known that the attack was the fact of and dangerous question about common all duties of blind defective equipment there's no tennessee case on that issue but there is a restatement of towards which there isn't one who supplies a challenge another knowing or have reason because he would have potential liability because he supplied the dangerous instrumentality the same thing happened in a california case involving a ski rep which turned out to be defective and the court held that was not a fans just say at the outset you know we talked to mr levy about one of three that section which reads by giving such permission you assume responsibility for the girl ability for an injury to such person and i want to know your interpretation the bat in your presentation and whether you believe that limits the s and three speaks for itself and nowhere in the statute does it limit does it limit the case the the use of the recreational use statute to injuries that arise out of hazardous conditions on the land the statute simply adds the section that says if you give permission to force someone to come on your land mr landowner here are the here are the rules of law that apply mr johnson can you get your while the language of the law like your friend did and if you look at the language he relies on by giving such permission if you drop that off right get rid of by giving such permission you agree with the premise that you have in tennessee you have to give every word a fact if you can in a law drop off by giving such permission then i think it reads the way you want to own upon such land or premises does not assume responsibility for occur live to my ability for any injury besides person to whom permission is granted obviously goes with the giving side permission so that st clause would read that way but when you add by giving such permission it seems to me the permits shinde itself can't be the source of the liability is that does my question make sense if yes you're out of there i'm not familiar with it with any principle of law in tennessee that says simply by giving permission for someone to enter your land that you're automatically labral if a person is injured well read it would read this if you read the statute by giving such permission and read number one extend any surance that the premises are safe for such purpose that makes sense by giving such a permission read to it big giving permission does not change your legal status right that's growing by t and by giving such permission you don't assume responsibility for or incur any liability for any injury the such person to whom permission has been granted it seems to me the key is the permission which relates to be use of the lan that's the limitation what am i missing it's it's the permission to come onto the land for recreational purposes it's simply trying to make clear that a land owner even if that land owner gi permission that the person who is injured is not treated as an invite to eat it simply make it clear that there is a munity for that land owner in it until there's  immunity and not making them an invite t d you deny that in this case miss wholes is an invite to leave because of the relationship between them not because she came on the land but because she was invited to come down and ride the horse well she would have been alive and invitee absent the effect of the statute established the statute the statute doesn't say no one who comes on your land can ever be an invitee does it it says does not by giving such permission that is seems to me you're trying to read it as judge the parr indicated as a hypothetical if you strike the words does not by giving such permission then yes you would have complete immunity it would say any landowner who gives permission to another person is not liable the person can't be an invite  but it still has those words so i take it you are trying to say that miss holes d is not an invite he that no one that you invite can be an invitee not if that person is entering the premises for recreational purposes as stated in the statute in other words the statute provides that the person may have been an invite only if i if i specifically invite you not just give permission but i invite you to come and climb rocks with me you're not an invitee no matter what happens this statute just say is that you don't have the legal duty that you would  immunity in sense that you don't know that duty of care to the persons whom you've given permission well but again you use switched off from being an invitee to simply giving permission i mean obviously one of the things that this statute is designed to are one of them is you know people in the country you what you hunt on my land you hunt in the next guy's land you say fine go ahead it's you are permitted to hunt on my land that's different in some concept from saying i invite you to come down to my gun club you and the banker and the lawyer and all the people i'm trying to give business for i invite you on to my land aren't those two different concepts normally they know you are one reading of the statute is it abolishes liability in one case subject to one hundred and four but it otherwise why would you say it doesn't constitute you an invitee by giving permission it would say if you are recreational you can't have any liability except for one o four that would be the way to write a sensible statute that was as broad as you want it you wouldn't have to say sub one sub to you all you would say is except for one over four that there's nothing in the statute not going that far that's your adversary's position i'm pointing to the language by giving such per mission which is certainly isn't the statute it's something that says why does it limit the exception to what happens by giving such permission not because as i said invitee status and i take it you are now saying that this of boller shiz miss holes  rights as an invitee because she's doing recreation the the words of the statute remove that ok remove that status if if the plaintiff position is correct in this case that the statute as a whole applies only to increase in iraq out of hazardous conditions or uses on the property that the most recent tennessee appellate court case addressing the recreational use statute was decided wrongly by a court of appeals that was the case of mackay versus with more in that case and it was decided in two thousand and sixteen in that case there were two types of allegations that were made by the plaintiff one was a set of allegations made that indeed had to do with some alleged defective condition of the premises however there were a nd set of allegations where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant landowner had not properly instructed this person as to the appropriate way or the proper right to operate an upheld the grant of the motion for summary judgment even though there were allegations that had nothing to do with the condition of the land which is a clear implication that our courts do not consider  of the statute when it's talking about the landowner not having to give warnings says the land owner nor shall such landowner be required to give any warning of hazardous conditions uses of structures or activities on such land or premises to enter to any person entering the land i thought in that case the court proceeded adone assuming there was an unsafe condition on the unsafe condition that those were allegations but on appeal and the plaintiff had made two sets of allegations one did relate exclusively to the condition of the land but part of the allegations did they were unrelated to the condition the premises they were related to the failure of that landowner to give proper instructions and to  tell this a t v operator how he or she should operate the a t v that is a general negligence type allegation and that brand of summary judgment should not have happened if this mentioned in a couple of cases but it was the courts did indicate that it is part of the statutory scheme and as part of the statutory scheme it's our position that it should be it should be applied that it should be given meaning and it should be given the exact meaning as it as the legislature stated it in the statute in that that in the in this particular case that means that did not have the legal status of an invitee and secondly martin davis didn't assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to such person in the  interesting interesting way in the mackay case that court relied on the case of parent versus state which was at tennessee supreme court case and in that case the court said there it's a two analysis when you're considering cases under the tennessee recreational use statute number one was the person who was injured was that person there for a recreational purpose and if the answer  yes the nd question is do any of these exceptions one hundred and four apply but i thought the district court took parent too far the st steps to determine whether the defense whatever its scope applies to the factual circumstances of the case and the nd step is to determine the limitations on the staff on the defense but neither step expanded the scope of the defense beyond the text of the statute and so you go back to the language of the expanded the language of the statute be on what it is and so we go back to the very beginning of your argument which is going back to the questions judge barnes was asking you about the use by giving such permission it seems to me no one's discussed that language and that language was added to the statute somewhat recently correct it replaced the word there by yes ok go ahead yes do you know why that language is added no your honor i do not i will not say that any of these sections are a model of clarity  they are what they are and one of three in this plain language protects mr davis in this case it's our view it is true that there's an old tennessee case which held otherwise but we believe it's been undercut by the decision in the cake furthermore we also believe that one hundred and two is not limited to cases arising this particular case there was nothing about the land itself that gave rise to any of this and so i guess i'm when you look at the statute and you look at the language that i think both repeatedly taken you back to i don't i don't see how you get to where you get to mike sending this language in the way and construing in the way that you do it sometimes i just say to you and this is not a question that it's really but i'm guessing have a problem with that because it seems like regardless of whether this accident occurred on mr davis's land or whether it occur at someplace else  is limited two injuries occurring because of the hazardous conditions the premises of the premises there's there's nothing in the ether statute that that makes that argument makes that distinction  discussed the trial the court of appeal obviously treated as a premises liability case in fact the very st sentence in the opinion is this is a premises why build a case and that's how they treat you they never discuss thing but clearly the court of that case never specifically said fiction want to free applies and counsel if i could ask one side question we have we have a pending joint motion from  you to certify now that we've gotten to this point in the brief in an argument are you both still on that same page that the motion that was filed the motion here the year ago your honor we'd like to get the matter remained and go back to trial but we would like ok in two other one of well two other points we do not we neglected to say in our brief that the bishop versus butler case oh that is not necessary for us to plead the seventy dash seven thousand one hundred and four in regard to the various the fences to the recreational liability act and finally i think the court is correct if a key phrase in th will issue an opinion in due course thank you