### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 5, 200 4 S es sio n

KENNET H E. BRASW ELL v. LO WE’ S HOM E CENTERS , INC.

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 01C-2445 Walte r K urtz, Judge

No. M2003- 02082-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 27, 2005

Th is ap pe a l invo lve s a cus tom e r wh o tri pp e d ove r a flo or ma t whil e wa iti ng in a ca sh ie r’ s line a t a home improvement store . The c ustomer filed suit ag ainst the store in the Circuit Court for D avidson County , and a jury

returne d a verdict for the store after determining that the custom er w as six ty -five perc ent at fault for his injuries. The customer asserts on this appeal that the e v i dence does not

su pp ort th e jury ’s ve rd ic t. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Da vidS. G ard ne r, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ke nn e th E . B ra sw e ll.

Reid D. L eitner, N ashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, L owe’ s Home Center s, I nc.

OP IN ION

Ke nn e th B ra sw e ll wa s sh op pin g a t a L ow e ’s Ho me I mpr ov e me nt Wa re ho us e (“ L ow e ’s ” ) i n Nashville on De cembe r 15
, 2 0 0 0 wh en he slipped and f ell. Acc ording to Mr. Br aswe ll, he was standing in a ca shier’s line waiting for the c ustomer in front of him to che ck out. When he dec ided
to ste p ou t of lin e to a sk a ne arb y e mpl oy e e a qu e sti on , he sli pp e d on a “ ha rdpla sti c ma t” a nd fe ll to the floor. He asserts that he injured himself whe n his head struc k the floor.

I n Aug ust 2001, Mr. Br aswe ll filed suit aga inst L owe’ s in the Circuit Court for Davidson Cou nty a sse rt ing that L ow e ’s ha d be e n ne g lig e nt in the pla c e me nt o r m a int e na nc e of the fl oo r m a t. At trial, sever al L owe’ s employ ees te stified that Mr. B raswe ll had slipped on office mats that had fallen f rom the shopping cart of the customer in front of him, and Mr. Br aswe ll conce ded that he was

un su re wh e the r h e sli pp e d o n a supp ort mat use d b y the L ow e ’s c a sh ie r o r o n th e c le ar o ff ic e ma ts that had fallen from the other customer’ s cart. Howeve r, he insisted that even if he had fa llen on the-2-

of f ic e mats , th e L o w e ’ s e mp lo y e e s w e r e n e g li g e n t f o r n o t p ic k in g u p th e f

a ll e n mats s ooner or
war ning him that they

had fa llen.

The jury deter mined that Mr. Br aswe ll wa s six ty -five perc ent at fault and tha t L owe’ s was thirty -five pe rce nt at fault. Ther eaf ter, the trial court enter ed a judgme nt f or L owe’ s and denie d Mr. Br aswe ll’s motion for a n ew t ri al. M r. B raswe ll asserts on this appea l that the evidenc e does not support the jury ’s ver dict and that the trial court erre d by declining to use his special jury ins truc tio ns

.

We tur n f ir st t o M r. B ra sw e ll’ s c omp la int that th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d b y re fu sin g to i nc lud e his specia l instructions in i ts charg e to the jury . He a rg ues that without his requested instructions, which consisted of fr ag ments from various appellate co u rt opinions, the jury did not have a c lear understanding of his duty of ca re a s a customer

and L owe’ s duty

as the ope rator of

a self- ser v i ce business open to the public.

Trial courts may

appropriately

decline to g ive a reque sted instruction (1) if it is not supported by the evidenc e, (2) if its substance is alre ady cove re d i n t h e cha

rg e, and ( 3) if it is incorre ct or incomplete in any

respe ct. Ingram v. E

arthman , 9 93 S.W. 2d61 1, 63 6 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 8) . T hu s, wh e n a pa rt y take s is su e wi th a

tr ia l c ou rt ’s re fu sa l to g ive a re qu e ste d in str

uc tio n, ou r tas k is to revie w the instructions a ctually g iven in their entirety
, see O tis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 850 S.W. 2d43 9, 44 6 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) ; Abbott v. Americ an Honda Motor Co.
, 682 S.W .2d 206, 209 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 19 84 ), a nd to de te rm ine wh e the r the y fa ir ly a nd a c c ur a te ly e mbo dy the pa rt ie s’ th eorie s. Se e Go rm an v . E

ar ha rt , 876 S.W .2d 832, 836 (Tenn. 1994)

.

The trial c ourt’s instructions i n t h i s case trac ked the Te nnessee Pattern JuryI nstructions specific ally

prepa red f or ca ses of thi s sort. We have c oncluded that the instruc tions the trial court

us e d f a ir ly e mbo die d th e pa

rt ie s’ c la ims a nd de fe ns e s a ndpr ov ide d th e jury wi th the app ro pr ia te leg al principles ne eded to de cide the c ase. A ccor dingly , the trial court did not er r i n d en y i n g Mr. Br aswe ll’s reque st for spec ial jury instructions.

Mr. B raswe ll’s second c omplaint is t h at t h e evidenc e does not support the jury ’s d et er m i n at i o n t h at h e w as s i x t y -f i v e p er ce n tat fa u l t

. A s ev er y t ri al l aw y erk n o ws , ch al l en gi n g a jury ’s alloca tion of fault is the leg al equivale n t o f a “H ail Mary ” pass. The compar ison and allocation of f

ault is f or the jury
, Brown v. W

al-Mart Discount Cities , 12 S.W .3d 785, 789 (Tenn. 2000), and this co u rt will not second-g uess a jury ’s alloca tion of fault if it is supported by any materia l evidence

. Henley v. Amac her , No. M1999-02799-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 100402, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2002) (No Te nn. R. App. P. 1 1 ap p l i ca t i on filed). The proce ss of

asce rtaining the evidentiary support for a jury ’s ver dict is very defe rential towa

rd the ve rdict. The

re vie wi ng c ou rt s mu st ( 1) take the str on g e st le g iti ma te vie w of the e vid e nc e that f

a vo rs the ve rd ic t, (2 ) a ssu me the truth of

a ll the e vid e nc e th at supp orts the ve rd ic t, a nd(3 ) a llo w a ll r e a so na ble infere nces tha t sustain the verdict. Kelley v . Johns , 96 S.W .3d 189, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).-3-

Mr. B raswe ll could not testify with any certainty ab o u t t he natur e of the mat he fe ll on. Howeve r, L owe’ s prese nted cr edible evide nce tha t Mr. Br aswe ll fell on clea r off ice mats that ha d fa lle n f ro m th e sh op pin g c art

of the c us tom e r i n fro nt of hi m a ndthat Mr . B ra sw e ll f e ll b e fo re its employ ees ha d a re asonable opportunity to help the customer pic k up the mats. This evidenc e, wi tho ut m or e , p ro vid e s a

le g a lly su ff ic ie nt f ou nd a tio n f

or the jury ’s ve rd ic t.

We affir m the judgme nt and re mand t he ca se to the trial court for wha tever further pr oc e e din g s ma y

be re qu ir e d. We ta x the c os ts of thi s app e a l to Ke nn e th E. B ra sw e ll a ndhis su re ty for whic h execution, if nece ssary , may issue.

______________________________

WI LL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.