### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON January 22, 201 0 S es sio n WI LLI AM W. REED v . BIL L MCDANIEL an d AHMAD ELS EBAE D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r M a d ison C o u n ty N o. C 07- 166 D i v. I R oy B . M organ, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 01348- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed F ebruary 23, 2010

T hi s i s a pr emi s es l i abi l i t y cas e. Pl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ant s us t ai ned i nj ur i es aft er a fal l t hr ough t he s econd- s t or yfl oorof a w at er - damaged bui l di ng. T he t r i al cour t gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent i n favorof the D efe ndant s / A ppel l ees , fi ndi ng t hatt he dange rw as open and obvi ous , t hat D ef end ants / A pp el l ees had w arned o f t he d ang er, and t hat Pl ai nti ff/ A pp el l ant w as atl east 5 0 % a t fa u ltfo r his o w n injuries, thu s n eg ati n g h is ne g li g en ce claim u n d er McI nt y r e v. Bale ntine , 8 3 3 S
. W
. 2 d 5 2 ( Te n n . 1 9 9 2 )

. F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3. A ppe al as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J
. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W
. S. , and D AV I D R. F ARMER , J
. , j oi ned. A r tD
. W el l s , J acks on, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , W i l l i am W
. R eed. R o g e r A . S tato n , Ja c k so n , T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llee , B ill M c D a n iel. C hr i s t opherH
. C r ai n, J acks on, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ee, A hm ed El s ebae

. OP I NI ON T h e p ro p e rtyw h e re th e in ju ryo c c u rre d is lo c a ted a t 5 8 6 A irw a y s B o u lev a rd in J acks on, T en n essee ( t he “Pr oper t y ”)

. T he Pr opert y , w hi ch w as pur chas ed byA ppel l ee A hm ed El s ebae s om et i m e ar ound J anuary2004, cons i s t s of appr oxi m at el y 3. 7 acr es of l and w i t h s ever al bui l di ngs on i t
. A t t he t i m e of t he acci dent , i n M ay 2006, one of t he bui l di ngs h o u sed three b u sine sses

– B il l’ s M ini- M art (w h ich w as o w n ed an d o p era ted b yM r. E lseb ae ), a b att eryb u sine ss, and A p p ell ee B il l M cD an iel ’s b illia rd a n d p o o l cue b u sine ss. M r. M cD ani el ’ s bus i nes s w as l ocat ed i n t he ea s t ernm os tpar tof the bui l di ng. I n addi t i on t o t he b u il d ing that h o u sed thes e th ree b u sine sses , there w as a large storag e b u il d ing , w h ich M r.-2-

M c D a n iel u se d to sto re p e rso n a l p ro p e rty
. It a p p e a rs f ro m th e re c o rd th a t M r. M c D a n iel d id n o t, i n f a c t, ren t th e sto ra g e b u ild in g f ro m M r. E ls e b a e ; a n d th e re is s o m e in d ica tio n th a t, p rio r to th e a c c id e n t, M r. E lse b a e h a d a sk e d M r. M c D a n iel to re m o v e h is p e rso n a l p ro p e rty f ro m th e sto ra g e b u ild in g . T h e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t th e sto ra g e b u ild in g w a s in d isre p a ir b ec au se th e ro o f h ad leak ed fo r ap p rox im atelyten ye a rs . P ri o r t o the a cc iden t, M r. M cD ani el , orhi s empl oy ees , had bui l ta met al funnel t o di ver tfal l i ng r ai n w ater outof a s econd s t or y w i ndow

. M r . M cD ani el t es t i fi ed that , s t andi ng on t he fi r s tfl oorof the bui l di ng, o n e c o u l d s e e t h r o u g h t h e s e c o n d

- s t o r yf l o o rt o t h e r o o f

i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s . M r . M c Dan i el cl ai m s t hat i t w as hi s habi t t o w arn every one he es cor t ed i nt o t he bui l di ng, inclu d ing M r. R e e d , a b o u t th e d a n g e ro u s c o n d itio n o f th e s to ra g e b u ild in g ’s s e c o n d f lo o r. T he ac ci dentgi vi ng r i s e t o t hi s appea l occurr ed on M ay23, 2006. A ppel l antW i l l i am W
. R eed ha d pur chas ed s om e per s onal pr oper t yfr om M r . M cD ani el , w hi ch w as kepti n t he s t or age bui l di ng, s om e of w hi ch w as l ocat ed on the s econd fl oor . T he onl yw ayt o acc es s t he s econd fl oor of the s t or age bui l di ng w as t hr ough a dooron t he nor t h s i de of the bui l di ng, and M r. M cD an iel h eld th e o n lyk eyto this do o r. P ri o r t o the a cc iden t, M r. M cD an iel an d M r. R eed ha d gone i nt o t he s t or age bui l d ing to l ook att he per s onal pr oper t yM r . R eed w as in te re s te d in b u y in g . In h is d e p o s itio n , M r. R e e d te s tif ie d th a t h e o b s e rv e d “ b a d f lo o ri n g ,” t hatt he “l i ght i ng w as bad, ” and t hat t he “bui l di ng had l eake d. ” M r . R eed s t at ed thathe had se e n a f iv e -g a llo n b u c k e t th a t w a s p o sitio n e d to c a tch ra in w a ter , a n d th a t th is b u c k e t w a s f u ll. M r. R eed ad m i t t ed thatt he fa rther easthe w ent i nsi de the buil ding’s second fl oo r, t he w orse t he s t ructur e got
. A ft erobs ervi ng t he condi t i ons of t he s econd fl oor , M r . R eed s t at ed thathe knew t o be “r eal car eful beca us e s om ethi ng [w as ] l eaki ng. ” A ft ervi ew i ng t he per s onal p ro p e rty , M r. R e e d lef

t th e P ro p e rty a n d re tu rn e d th e f o llo w in g d a yw ith tw o h e lp e rs, C h a rlie and W i l l i e. M r . M cD ani el had i ndi cat ed t hat , w hat everper s onal pr oper t yM r . R eed di d not w i s h t o pur chas e, he w oul d gi ve t o C har l i e j us tt o have i t cl ear ed fr om t he Pr oper t y . W hen M r . R eed a nd hi s hel per s r etur ned t o t he Pr oper t y , M r . M cD ani el w as notpr es ent
. M r . R eed t es t i fi ed thathe m ade t hr ee or four t r i ps t o haul aw ay t he “stuff” fr om t he upst ai r s ar ea a nd t hat , on one of thos e tr i ps , he dec i ded t o w al k ar ound t he ups t ai r s ar ea t o l ook fors om e bed r ai l s fora bed he had pur chas ed. W hi l e s ear chi ng for t he bed r ai l s , M r . R eed t es t i fi ed that h e w e n t f

a rth e r in to th e ro o m “ b a c k so u th o n th e w e st e n d .” A s h e m a d e h is w a yin to th is are a, M r. R ee d ad m itted that the stru cture w o rsen ed b ec au se “ the b u il d ing h ad leak ed fo r a l ong t i m e. ” M or eover , M r . R eed i ndi cat ed t hat t he “l i ght i ng w as bad” i n t hi s ar ea a nd t hat he had t o us e a f

l as hl i ght t o s ee. M r . R eed, w ho i s 6' 1" t al l and w ei ghed appr oxi m at el y250 p o u n d s, a lleg e d ly f

e ll p a rtiallyth ro u g h th e se c o n d sto ryf lo o r, su sta in in g in

ju rie s to h is s h o u ld e r, a rm , a n d ri b s . O n M ay23, 2007, M r . R eed f i l ed suit agai ns tA hm ad El s ebae , B i l l M cD ani el , and A nn M cD ani el d/b/ a M cD ani el B i l l i ar d Suppl yand C us t om C ues . T he cl ai m s agai ns tA nn M cD an iel w ere v o lun tari lyd ism issed b yO rde r da ted J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 7
. O n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , M r.-3-

R ee d w as a ll o w ed to am en d h is co m p lai n t t o ad d W il li am J. R y a n a s a d ef en d an t. M r. M cD an iel h ad so ld h is bu sine ss to M r. R y an p ri o r t o M ay2 3 , 2 0 0 7
. T h e c lai m s ag ains t M r. R y an w ere a ls o v o lu n tari lyd ism issed w ith o u t prejud ice. B yh is am en d ed co m p lai n t, M r. R eed a l l eged thatt he fl oorof the s t or age bui l di ng w as k ep t in a dange r ous and uns afe condi t i on, t hatM es s r s . E l s ebae and M cD ani el fai l ed t o r eas onabl y i ns pect and m ai nt ai n t he p re m ise s, o r to w a rn o th e rs o f th e d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n o f th e f lo o r, th u s v io latin g a d u ty o w e d to M r. R e e d a n d c a u s in g th e in ju ri e s h e s u s ta in e d

. M es s r s . E l s ebae and M cD ani el eac h fi l ed ans w er s , deny i ng t he m at er i al al l egat i ons of the C om pl ai nt , and al l egi ng compar at i ve fa ul ton t he par tof M r . R eed. Fol l ow i ng w r i t t en d isc o v e ry a n d p a r tyd e p o sitio n s, M r. M c D a n iel m o v e d th e c o u rt f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. M e s s r s . El s e b a e a n d Re e d b o t h s u b mi t t e d r e s p o n s e s t o M r . M c Dan i e l ’ s s t at ement of un dis pu t ed m at eri al fact s. T he cour t hear d t he m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent on J anuary12, 2009. O n M ar ch 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the c o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r, g ra n tin g M r. M c D a n iel’s m o tio n f o r sum m ary

ju d g m e n t. Speci fi cal l y , t he courthel d t hatno r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hatM r . R ee d w as l es s t han 50% atfaul tforhi s ow n i nj ur i es . O n M ar ch 24, 2009, M r . R ee d fil ed a mot i on t o al t eror amend t he or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent t o M r . M cD ani el

. B ot h M es s r s . E l s ebae and M cD ani el fi l ed r es pons es t o t he mot i on t o al t eroramend. O n A pr i l 22, 2009, M r . E l s ebae fi l ed an a m ended ans w er, w hi ch i ncl uded an addi t i onal defe ns e of re s ju d ica ta . O n t he s ame day , M r . E l s ebae fi l ed a mot i on forj udgm ent o n the p lead ing s. M r. R ee d fil ed n o resp o n sive p lead ing s. O n M ay 4 , 2 0 0 9 , the tri al co u rt deni ed M r . R eed’ s m ot i on t o al t eroramend t he j udgm ent
. O n t he s ame day , t he part i es agr eed thatM r . E l s ebae ’ s m ot i on for j udgm ent on t he pl eadi ngs w oul d be t r eat ed as a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent
. T he t r i al cour t ul t i m at el y gr ant ed s um m ary j udgm ent t o M r . E l s ebae o n the sam e gr ounds as i thad gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o M r . M cD ani el –t hatno r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hatM r . R eed w as l es s t han 50% atfaul tforhi s ow n i nj ur i es . T he or dergr ant i ng M r . E l s ebae ’ s m ot i on w as ent er ed on M ay26, 2009. M r . R eed a ppeal s and r ai s es t w o i s s ues forr evi ew as s t at ed i n hi s br i ef:

1. T he tr i al cour t err ed i n fi ndi ng t he condi t i on of the fl ooron t he seco nd st oryof the st orage b uil ding w as “op en an d o bv i ou s” 2. E ven i f the dange r ous condi t i on on t he pr emi s es w as “open a n d o b v io u s,” w h e th e r [M r. R e e d ] w a s 5 0 % o r m o re a t f a u lt i s p r o p e r l y l e f

tt o t h e j u r y. I ti s w el l s et t l ed thata mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entsh o u ld be gr ant ed w hen the-4-

m ovantdemonst r at es t hatt her e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m aterial fa ctand thatt he movi ng p a rt yi s e n t i t l e d t o a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . See T e n n . R . C iv . P . 5 6 .0 4 . T h e p a rty m ovi ng for s um m ary j udgm ent bear s t he bur den of demonst r at i ng t hat no genui ne i s s ue of m a te ri a l f

a c t e x is ts
. S e e B a in v . W e lls , 936 S. W
. 2d 618, 622 ( T enn. 1997)

. O n a mot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , t he courtm us tt ake the s t r onges tl egit im ate v ie w of evi dence i n favor o f th e n o n m o v in g p a rty , allo w a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s in f

a v o r of th a t p a rty , an d d isc a rd a ll c o u n te rv a ilin g e v id e n c e . S e e id . I n B y rdv . H a ll , 8 4 7 S
. W
. 2 d 2 0 8 ( Te n n . 1 9 9 3 ) , o u rS u p r e me C our ts t at ed: O nce i ti s s how n byt he movi ng par t yt hatt her e i s no genui ne

i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , t he nonmovi ng part ym us tt hem dem on strat e, by affidavi t s or dis cov ery m at eri al , t hat t here i s a genui ne, m at er i al fac tdi s put e t o w arr anta tr i al

. I n t hi s r egar d, R u le 5 6 .0 5 p ro v id e s th a t th e n o n m o v in g p a rtyc a n n o t sim p ly r el yupon hi s pl eadi ngs butm us ts etfort h s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng th a t th e re is a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t f o r tria l. Id
. at 21 0 -11 (cit ati o n s o m itted).

S u mm a r yj u d g me n ti s o n l ya p p r o p r i a t e wh e n th e f a c t s a n d th e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d r a wn f ro m th e f a c ts re a s o n a b ly p e rm it o n ly o n e c o n c lu s io n . See C ar vel l v. B ottom s , 900 S. W
. 2d 23, 26 ( T enn . 1995)

. B eca us e onl yques t i ons of l aw ar e i nvol ved, t her e i s no pr es um pt i on o f c o rr e c tn e s s re g a rd in g a tr ia l co u rt ' s g ra n t o r d e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S e e B a in , 936 S .W .2 d a t 6 2 2 . T h e re f

o re , o u r re v iew o f

th e trial c o u rt' s d e c isio n o n su m m a ryju d g m e n t is de novo o n th e re c o rd b e f o re th is C o u rt. S ee W

arren v. E state of

K irk , 954 S. W
. 2d 722, 723 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 ). In order t o b ri ng a successful sui tbased o n a cl ai m of n egli gen ce, t he p l ai nti ff m ust es t abl i s h: ( 1) a duty of car e ow ed byt he def endantt o t he pl ai nt i ff; ( 2) conductfal l i ng bel ow t he appl i cabl e s t andar d of ca r e amount i ng t o a br eac h of t hatdut y ; ( 3) an i nj ur yorl os s ; ( 4) c a u s a tio n in f

a c t; a n d (5 ) p ro x im a te , o r l e g a l c a u s e . B r ads haw v. D ani el , 854 S. W
. 2d 865, 869 ( T enn. 1993) ( ci t i ng McClenahan v. Cooley , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 )); L in dsey v. Miam iD ev. Corp . , 689 S. W
. 2d 856, 858 ( T enn. 1985) )

. D ut y , t he fi r s tel ement of t he c l a i m, i s t h e l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n a d e f e n d a n t o wes t o a p l a i n t i f f t o c o n f

o r m t o t he r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n s t a nd a r d o f c a r e i n o r d e rt o p r o t e c ta g a i n s tu n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k s o f h a r m. McCal l v. W ilder , 9 1 3 S .W .2 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ). W h e th e r a d e f e n d a n t o w e s a d u tyto a p la in tif f in a n yg iv e n s itu a t io n is a q u e s tio n o f la w f o r t h e c o u rt
. B r ads haw , 854 S. W
. 2d at869.-5-

In cases i nv olvi ng prem ise s li abil i t y , t he p rem i ses ow ner has a du t yt o ex erci se r easo n ab l e ca r e undert he ci r cumst ance s t o pr eventi nj ur yt o per s ons l aw ful l yon t he p re m is e s . E a to n v . McL a in , 891 S. W
. 2d 587, 593 94 ( T enn. 1994)

. T hi s dut y i s bas ed upon t he as s um pt i on t hatt he ow nerhas su p eriorknow l edge of anyper i l ous condi t i on t hatm ay e x is t o n th e p ro p e rt y . Se e, e . g. , Kenda l l O il Co. v . Pay ne , 293 S. W
. 2d 40, 42 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1 9 5 5 ). T h e d u tyin c lu d e s th e o b lig a tio n o f th e o w n e r t o m a in tain th e p re m ise s in a re a so n a b ly s afe condi t i on, and t o r emove or w arn agai ns tl at ent or hi dden danger ous condi t i ons of w hi ch th e o w n e r i s a w a re o r s h o u ld b e a w a re th ro u g h th e e x e rc is e o f re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e . E aton , 891 S. W
. 2d at593- 94. H ow ever , ourSupr eme C our thas hel d that a d u t ym ayexi s teven w her e the i nj ur y - caus i ng condi t i on i s al l eged t o be open a nd obvi ous t o t he pl ai nt i ff:

T h a t a d a n g e r to th e p lain ti f f w a s o p e n a n d o b v io u s d o e s n o t, ip so fa c to , re liev e a d e f

e n d a n t o f a d u tyo f

c a re . In ste a d , the d u ty iss u e m u st b e a n a ly z e d w ith re g a rd to f o re se e a b ili tya n d g ra v ity of harm , and the fe as i bi l i t yand avai l abi l i t yof al t ernat i ve co n d u ct t h at w o u ld h av e p rev e n te d the h arm . T h e f ac tors p ro v id e d in th e R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts, § 3 4 3 (A ) re late di r ect l yt o t he for es eea bi l i t yq ues t i on; i n s hor t , i f the f o r e s e e a b i l i t y a n d g r a v i t y o f h a r m p o s e d f

r o m a d e f

e n d a n t 's conduct , even i f open a nd ob v i ous , out w ei ghed the bur den on t h e d e f e n d a n tt o e n g a g e i n a l t e r n a t i v e c o n d u c t t o a v o i d t h e h a r m, t her e i s a dutyt o actw i t h r eas onabl e ca r e. Col n v. Cit y of Savannah , 9 6 6 S
. W
. 2 d 3 4 , 4 3 (T en n . 1 9 9 8 ). I n e s s e n c e , f

o r e s e e a b i l i t yi s t h e g r a v a me n o f n e g l i g e n c e . I f

th e i n j u r yt h a to c c u r r ed coul d nothave be en r eas onabl yfor es een, t he dutyof ca r e does notar i s e, and eve n t hough t he actof the def

endanti n fac tcaus ed t he i nj ur y , t her e i s no negl i gence and no l i abi l i t y . “‘ T he p lain tiff m u st s h o w th a t th e in ju ryw a s a re a so n a b lyf

o re se e a b le p ro b a b ili ty , n o t ju st a re m o te pos s i bi l i t y , and thats om e ac t i on w i t hi n t he [de fenda nt ' s] p o w er more pr obabl yt han not w oul d have pr event ed the i nj ur y . ’ ” D oe v. L inder Con s tr. Co. , 845 S. W
. 2d 173, 178 (Ten n. 19 92 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). F rom ou r r eading of t he r ecord, t here i s evi den ce t o sug gest n e g l i g e n c e o n t h e p a r to f a l l p a r t i e s i n t h i s c a s e . H o w e v e r , s i n c e o u rS u p r e m e C o u r t 's deci s i on i n McI

nt y r e v . Bale ntine , 8 3 3 S
. W
. 2 d 5 2 (T en n . 1 9 9 2 ), the p rox im ate c o n tr ibu tory negl i gence of the pl ai nt i ff i s no l onger a bar t o r ecove r y . R ather , i f t he pl ai nt i ff' s negl i gence i s l es s t han thatof the t or t fea s or , t he pl ai nt i ff m ay r ecove r damages r educe d bya per cent age o f th e p la in tif

f ' s o w n n e g lig e n c e . Id
. at 57. “W hi l e compar at i ve faul t i s t ypi cal l ya ques t i on f o r th e trier o f f

a c t, su m m a ry ju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te in th o se situ a tio n s w h e re re a so n a b le m in d s c o u ld o n lyc o n c lu d e th a t .. . the p lain tiff ' s f a u lt w a s e q u a l to o r g re a ter th a n th e f a u lt of t he def

endant

. ” N

o rr is v . P ru itte , N o. 01A 01- 9709- C V
- 00506, 1998 W L 1988563, at*3-6-

( T enn. C t
. A pp. A ug. 24, 1998) ( ci t i ng J ohn A
. D ay & D onal d C appar el l a, T ennes s ee Law o f C o m p a ra tiv e F a u lt 1 2 -1 8 (1 9 9 7 ))

. T ra d iti o n a lly , li a b ili tyh a s n o t b e e n im p o se d o n a p re m ise s o w n e r b yc o u rts o f th is s t a t e f o r i n j u r i e s t h a t r e s u l t e d f

r o m d e f e c t i v e o r d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n s t h a t wer e “ o p en and obvi ous . ” S ee McCorm i ck v. W aters , 5 9 4 S
. W
. 2 d 3 8 5 (T en n . 1 9 8 0 ); K endal l O il Co. v. Pay ne , 2 9 3 S
. W
. 2 d 4 0 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 5 5 ). In c ase s af ter McI nt y r e v . Bale ntine , 833 S. W
. 2d 52 ( T enn. 1992) , l i abi l i t y i n pr emi s es l i abi l i t y act i ons has been det erm i ned ac cor di ng to th e p rin c ip les o f

c o m p a ra tiv e f

a u lt: W hen an invi t ee i s i njur ed becau se of d ang ers t hat ar e ob vious, re a so n a b lya p p a re n t, or a s w e ll k n o w n to th e in ju re d p a rty a s to t he ow neroroper at orof the pr emi s es , l i abi l i t y , i f any , s houl d be det erm i ned i n acc or dance w it h the pr i nci pl es of compar at i ve faul tanal y s i s and the gene r al negl i gence l aw of thi s s t at e. Cooper w ood v. K

r oger Food Stor es, Inc. , N o. 02A 01- 9308- C V
- 00182, 1994 W L 725217 (T en n . C t. A p p . D ec . 3 0 , 1 9 9 4 ). A s not ed above , ourSupr eme C our thas pr ovi ded furt hergui dance i n det erm i ni ng l i abi l i t y i n t hes e types of ca s es . I n Col n v. Cit y of Savannah , 9 6 6 S
. W
. 2 d 3 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 8 ), th e C o u rt h e ld th a t “th e d u tyiss u e m u st b e a n a ly z e d w ith re g a rd to f o re se e a b ili tya n d g ra v ity of har m , and the fe as i bi l i t yand ava i l abi l i t yof al t ernat i ve conduc tt hatw oul d have pr event ed th e h a rm .” Id
. at43
. M oreove r, ou r Sup rem e C ou rthas held t hat an assum pti on of the ri sk i s s ue s houl d be ana l y zed “ undert he pr i nci pl es of compar at i ve fa ul t
. ” P er ezv. McConkey , 872 S. W
. 2d 897, 905 ( T enn. 1994)

. Speci fi cal l y , t he P er ezC o u rt h e ld th a t “a tten tio n sh o u ld be foc us ed on w hether a re as onabl y prudentper s on i n t he exe r ci s e of due car e knew of the r i s k, o r shoul d have know n of i t , and ther eaf t erconfr ont ed the r i s k; and w hethers uch a per s on w oul d have be haved i n t he manneri n w hi ch the p l ai nt i ff a ct ed i n l i ghtof al l t he s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng t he conf r ont ed r i s k. ” I

d. W e conc ede thatt her e i s a di s put e of fac t as t o w hetherM r . M cD ani el , i n fac t , w arned M r . R eed of

t he dange r ous condi t i on of the bui l di ng. H ow ever , even i f w e gi ve M r . R eed t he bene fi tof doubtand conc l ude that M r . M cD ani el fai l ed t o w arn M r . R eed, t hatfi ndi ng does notend ouranal y s i s conce r ni ng t he tr i al cour t ’ s gr ant of sum m ary j udgm ent
. A ppl y i ng th e a b o v e authori t y , t he g ravam en o f t his case i s w hetherM r. R eed ap preci at ed, or shou ld have a ppr eci at ed, t he r i s k of w al ki ng on t he damaged fl oor ; and w hether , havi ng appr eci at ed th a t r is k , n o n e th e le s s u n d e rt o o k to tr a v e rs e th e f lo o r. P er ezv. McConkey , 872 S. W
. 2d at 9 0 5
.-7-

T ur ni ng to the r ecor d, fr om M r . R eed’ s ow n t es t i m ony , t her e i s no di s put e thathe k n e w a n d a p p re c iate d th e d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n o f th e b u ild in g w h e n h e u n d e rto o k to w a lk o n th e se c o n d f

lo o r, to w it: Q
. D i d anybo dy , M r. M cD aniel or an y of his em ploy ees, adv i se y ou [M r . R eed] of anyt ype of c ondi t i on[] i n t h[i s ]
. . . bui l di ng[] y o u w e n t in h e re [ i.e., th e sto ra g e b u ild in g w h e re M r. R e e d f e ll thro u g h the s ec o n d flo o r]. A
. N o , s ir. W h e n w e [ i.e., M r. R e e d a n d h is h e lp e rs] o p e n e d it, I l ooked. T he fi r s t t hi ng I do i s l ook form y s el f, y ou know , w hat typ e o f th in g I’m w a lk in g in to
. Y o u k n o w w h a t I m e a n ? I ju st– Q . Is th a t y o u r c o m m o n p ra c tice to d o th a t? A
. Y eah, i t ’ s j us t comm on pr act i ce t o l ook w her e y ou’ r e at , y ou k n o w, a n d s e e wh a t ’ s g o i n g o n , y o u k n o w. Q
. A ll ri g h t. A n d y o u said y o u h ad b ee n in the b u il d ing w h ere y o u f e ll th e d a yp rio r to th e f a ll, if I u n d e rsta n d th a t co rre c t. A
. Y es, si r. Q
. A nd y ou’ r e t el l i ng m e now t hat nobody w arned y ou of any t ype of c ondi t i on? A
. N o, I w as n’ tt ol d anyt hi ng, butI l ooked m y self w hen I got h ere, and I s aw s tuff, y ou know

. I knew t o be caut ion [sic]. W hen I l o o k e d f

r o m t h e f

r o n td o o r . . . [ t ] h e l i g h tf

r o m t h e door a n d I’ m lo o k in g

– I lo o k e d d o w n th is w a ll a n d s a w th a t w a te r, I k n e w .. .to b e c a re f

u l.. .an d I sa id , “M a n

– ” T h e r e ’s a b u c k e t I coul d s ee dow n t her e fr om t he l i ghtfr om t h e d o o r , and I s ai d, “Ther e’ s a bucke tof w at er . I t ’ s s l ap ful l ”.
. . . W hen w e got dow n t her e ther e w as a bucket of w at er , and the bucke tw as run o v e r. I t’ d b e e n th e re s o lo n g th a t it w a s ra n [ s ic ] o v e r.... Q . A n d I ta k e it– I th in k in y o u r in ter ro g a to ryre sp o n se s y o u sa id t h a ty o u t h o u g h tt h e r o o f l e a k e d a n d c a u s e d t h e f l o o rp r o b l e m. Is th a t co rre c t?-8- A
. T hatI t houghtt he r oof l eake d? I kne w – Q
. Y es, si r. A
. I tl eake d everyw her e ‘ caus e ther e w as a bucketof w at er s i t t i n g t h e r e h a l f

wa yd o wn . I k n e w t o b e c a r e f u l f o rmy pr ot ect i on, t o pr ot ectm y s el f.

. . t o l ook eas i l y , y o u k now . I s aw th a t b u c k e t o f

w a te r d o w n th e re .... * * * Q
. A nd t hat [i

. e. , t he bucket ful l of w at er ] gave s om e i ndi cat i on to y o u , “ I n e e d to b e a littl e c a re f u l h e re .” A
. B e r eal car eful , y eah. Q
. ‘ C aus e s om ethi ng’ s l eaki ng.
A lth o u g h M r. R e e d c o n ten d s tha t th e p o rtio n o f th e se c o n d -sto ryf

lo o r th a t h e c o u ld see look ed “perfect , ” ou r revi ew of t he dep osi t i on exh i bit s sho w otherw i se. F rom t he p ho t os, i ti s obvi ous , bot h fr om t he fi r s t fl oor l ooki ng up, and fr om t he s econd fl oorl ooki ng dow n, t hatt he fl oor i ng w as r ot t en. C ons i der i ng t hes e phot os al ong w i t h M r . R eed’ s ow n t es t i m ony th a t h e w a s c o g n iza n t o f th e c o n d it io n o f

th e b u ild in g , a re a so n a b le p e rso n c o u ld o n ly c o n c lu d e th a t M r. R e e d w a s a w a re o f th e ri s k a n d th e re a f te r c o n f ro n te d it. A d d itio n a lly, a r eas onabl e per s on coul d onl yconcl ude thatM r . R eed w as i n t he best p o sit i on t o pr ot ect hi m s el f fr om t he dange r , w hi ch he obs erved. M r . R eed c oul d have c hos en not t o w al k on th a t f lo o r, w h ic h h e k n e w w a s p o s s ib ly w a te r d a m a g e d

. Co ln , 9 6 6 S
. W
. 2 d a t 4 3 . A rea so n ab le fa ct find er c o u ld o n lyco n clud e, th at bych o o sing to w alk a c ro s s th e f loo r, know i ng of the dange r , M r . R ee d di d notactr eas onabl y . W e ca n onl ys ur m i s e thatany re a so n a b le f

a c t f in d e r c o u ld o n ly c o n c lu d e th a t M r. R e e d w a s p rim a rilyre sp o n sib le f o r h is o w n injuries, thu s b arring h is ab il ityto rec o v er u n d er McI nt yr e. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof A ppel l ees . C os t of t hi s appea l ar e as s es s ed t o t he A ppel l ant , W i l l i am W
. R eed, and h i s s u r e t y.

_________________________________ J
. S T E VE N S T AF F OR D, J UDGE