### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE May 31, 200 7 S es sio n
CHARLES JO NES, ET AL 

### . v. KITE/C UP P L EGEN DS GOLF

DEVELO PMENT CO., ET AL 

### . Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty No. 05120 Russ Heldman, Circ uit Jud ge

No. M2006- 01988-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Septem ber 21, 2007

I n this case, the plaintiff, Charles J ones, stepped onto a wooden be nch while play ing a round of g olf a t Va

nd e rb ilt L e g e nd s Clu

b of Te nn e sse e (L e g e nd s) , a g olf c ours e ow ne d b y

the de fe nd ant, Ki te /Cu pp L eg e nd s G olf

De ve lop me nt C o. (K ite ). Th e be nc h o ve rt ur ne d a nd Mr . Jon e s f

e ll
su sta ini ngsig nif

ic ant i nju ri e s. Mr . Jon e s b ro ug ht a pr e mis e s li a

bil ity su it a g a ins t th e g olf

c ours e a lle g ing that it wa s ne g lig e nt b y fa ili ngto h ave se c ur e d th e be nc h to the c on c re te sla b o n w hic h it was sitting or

by fail i n g t o have w arne d play ers it was not so sec ured. K ite filed a motion for summary judgme nt which was g rante d by the trial cour

t. W e fi n d t h er e are g enuine issues of materia l fac t, and so we r ever se. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Reve rsed

D ONAL D P. H A R R IS , S R .J ., delivere d the opinion of the co u rt , in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

Br ian P atrick Duniga

n, Timothy L . Bow den, Goodlettsville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Charles Jone s.

Wen dy L y nn e L on g mir e , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lle e , K ite /Cu

pp L e g e nd s G olf Deve lopment Co.

OP IN ION

On De c e mb e r

8 , 2 0 0 4 , C h ar l e s Jo n e s , w a s p l ayi n g a r o un d o f g o l f a tth e L e g e n d s , a

g o lf
course loca

te d in F ranklin, Will iamson County , Tenne ssee. He approa ched the thirteenth hole whic h had a c ree k that twice c ro s s ed t he fa irway and lay beyond some shrubber

y . There was a

bench loc a te d n e ar t

he thi rt e e nth

te e . It w a s ma de of

wo od and ha d f our le g s mad e of

fo ur -b y -f our t imb e rs

. The be nch s at o n a concre te slab to which it was not sec ured. In order to ge t a better

view of the fairw ay and approa ch to the g ree n, Mr. J ones attempted to step onto the be nch. He testified, by way of de po sit ion , th a t he tho ug ht t he be nc h w a s se c ur e d to the c on c re te sla b. As he ste pp e d u

p wi th h is-2-

left foot, the be nch flipped f orwa rd and Mr . J ones fe ll onto the concre te s lab, l anding on his face and arms. He broke his nose a nd both wrists and also suffe red substantial blee ding f rom his fac e. Duringdiscovery , the attorne y for Kite de posed a number of witnesses with knowledg e of the fa c ts i nv olv e d in

the c a se . O ne of

tho se wi tne sse s, B e nny Da le Rand olp h, wh o ha d p lay e d g olf for ove r thirty

y ear s, testified he had seen a number of people stand on benche s at g olf course s. He him s el f h ad stood on benche s in order to see if g olfers w ere off the gree n or thing s of that nature

. Both Mr. Randolph a

nd another

non-par ty witness, Robert Andrew Templeton, state d their opinions that the benches were dang erous because the were not bolted down or secur ed to the conc rete slab.

Kite filed a motion for summ ary judgme nt. In its motion, Kite alleg ed Mr. Jones had fa iled t o o ff er ev i d en ce t h at t h e b en ch i n qu es t i o n wa s d an ger o u s o r u n s af e b ec au s e i twa s s af

e f o r s i t t i n g. K i t e h a d n o d u t y t o w ar

ni t s p a t r o n s a

b o u tc o n d i t i o n s t h a tw e r e n o t d a n g e r o u s o r un s a f e

. F i n a l l y, Kite ar g ued that the f

acts c lear ly

show ed M r. J o n es was more than fifty perc ent at fa

ult and, the re fo re , it

sh ou ld b e g ra

nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt.

The trial c ourt g rante d Kite’s motion for summary judgme nt. The orde r g rantingsummary jud g me nt s tate s:
The Court ruled that as a matter of fa ct the Plaintiff wa s u s i n g t he benc h for a n unint en d ed purpose, a

nd that as a matter of law , Def endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt was appr opriate a nd should be g rante d.

Mr. J ones has a

ppeale d.

Sum mary ju dg me nt i s a pp ro pr iate on ly

wh e n th e ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , demonstrate that there are no g enuine issues of material fa ct and the moving party is e ntitled to judgme nt a s a matter of la w. Te nn . R. Civ . P. 56 .0 4; Pen le y v. Ho nd a Mo tor Co. , 3 1 S. W.3 d 1 81 , 1 83 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; B y rd v. Ha ll, 847 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993) . Si n ce o u r i n q uiry involves purely

a question of law , no pr e sumpt ion

of c or re c tne ss atta c he s to the lo wer cou rt ' s ju dg me nt, and

our t a sk is c on fi ne d to revie wing the re cord to deter mine whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil Proced u re h av e b ee n met. Penley , 31 S.W .3d at 183; Staples v. CBL & A ssocs., Inc., 15 S.W .3d 83, 88 (Tenn. 2000) ; Seaver s v

. M et h o dist Med. Ctr., 9 S.W .3d 86, 90-91 (Te nn. 1999). Courts should "g rant a

summary judgme nt only when both the facts and the infe renc es to be dra wn from the fac ts pe rmit a rea sonable person to r eac h only one conc lusion." Staples, 15 S.W.3d at 89; Ba in v. Wel ls , 9 3 6 S. W. 2 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 2 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 7 )

. Inr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d to d e te r mi n e w h e ther
summa ry jud g me nt r e qu ir e me nts have be e n me t, w e mu st vie w a ll the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the non- moving party

. Penley , 31 S.W .3d at 183; Ey ring v. For

t Sanders Parkw est Med. Ctr., 991 S.W .2d 230, 236 (Tenn. 1999) ; By rd, 847 S.W.2d at 210-11.
Summary judgme nt pr ocee dings are clea rly not de signe d to serve a s a substitute for the trial of g enuine a

nd materia l fac tual matters. B y rd, 847 S.W.2d at 210; see a lso Blocke r v. Reg ional Med.-3-

Ctr, 722 S.W .2d 660, 663 (Tenn. 1987) . The trial c ourt should overrule the motion where a g enuine dispute exi sts as to any

materia l fac t. By

rd , 8 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d at 211. A fa ct is material if it must be decide d in order to r esolve the substantive c laim or defe nse at whic h the motion is di rec ted. I d. To establish neg lige nce, one must prove: (1) a duty of ca re ow ed by defe ndant to plaintiff; (2) c onduct fa lling below the applicable standard of car e that amounts to a breac h of that duty ; (3) an injury or loss; (4) cause in f

act; and (5) proxi mate, or leg al, cause

. Cohn v. City of Savanna

h, 966 S.W .2d 34, 39 (Tenn. 1998); McCall v. Wil der, 913 S.W .2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995) . The for mulation of a duty of ca re is a que stion of law for the court. McClung v. De lta Square Ltd. Pshp., 937 S .W.2d 891, 894 (Tenn. 1996)

.
I n a pr e mis e s li a

bil ity c a se , a n o wn e r o r occup ier

of pr e mis e s h a s a

duty to e xer c ise
rea sonable c are with reg ard to socia l gue sts or business invitees on the pre mises. Rice v. Sabir, 979 S.W .2d 305, 308 (Tenn. 1998). The duty includes t he re sponsibili ty to remove or

war n ag ainst latent or hidden da

ng erous conditions on the premises of which one wa s awa re or should have be en aw are throug h the ex erc ise of reasonable diligenc e. I d., Eaton v. McL ain, 891 S.W .2d 587, 593-94 (Te nn. 1 9 9 4 ). Al t h o u ght h e t ra d i t i o n al ra t i o n al e fo r i mp o s i n g th i s d u ty wa s th e ow n er 's s u

p er i o r kn o wl ed ge of conditions on the pre mises, a duty may exis t even whe re the injury -ca using c ondition is "ope n and obvious" to the plaintiff. Cohn, 966 S.W.2d 34, 43 (Tenn. 1998).

A co n dition of property

is unreasona

bly dang erous a

nd imposes a duty

of ca re if the fo re se e a ble pr ob a bil ity and g ra

vit y of ha rm po se d by

it o utw e ig h th e burd e n u

po n th e de fe nd ant t o eng ag e in cor

rec tive measure s that would preve nt the harm. Cohn, 966 S.W.2d a t 3 7 ; McCall v. Wild e r, 91 3 S. W.2 d 1 50 , 15 3 (T e nn

. 19 95 ). Ap ply ing thi s ana ly sis , if the fo re se e a bil ity and g ra vit y of ha rm po se d by the c on dit ion of de fe nd ant' s pr op e rt y outw e ig h th e burd e n u

po n th e de fe nd ant t o re mov e or

c or re c t th e c on dit ion

or wa rn of its e xiste nc e , th e de fe nd ant h a s a duty to a c t w ith
rea sonable c are and compa rative f ault principles apply under Mc Inty re v. B alentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) . Cohn, 966 S.W .2d at 37.

I n our view, the trial court e rrone ously focuse d its de termination on the misuse of the benc h f o r s ta n d in g r a th e r th an w h e th e r s u c h u s e o f th e b e n c h w a s f o r e s e e a b le

. Wh e r e th e misuse of an object o n t h e owne r’s pre mises is foresee able, the owner ha s an oblig ation to balance the dang ers associate d with such m isuse ag ainst the burden of preventing the m isuse or m aking it safe for that
u s e

. T h u s , in

T u r n e r v

. T e n n e s s e e T e x. E xp r e s s , In c

. , N o

. 0 2 A 0 1

- 9 3 1 0

- CV

- 0 0 2 2 6 , 1 9 9 4 WL 482135 (T en n . Ct. App. September 2, 1994), this cour t approve d a jury

verdic t in favor of

the plaintiff in a ca se involving the misuse of a wooden pallet. In that case , a truc k driver, dispatched to pick up fre ight, ba cked his truc k up to the owner ’s loadingdock. He en t er ed t h e b uilding by walkingup a woode n pallet leaningag ainst the loading dock in order to pick up his fr eig ht and pape r wo rk . H e the n a tte mpt e d to e xit by wa y of the pa lle t but it

sli pp e d o ut f

ro m un de r h im a

nd he fe ll to the g round injuring his back a nd neck. T he truc k driver obse rved other drivers usingthe pallet for e ntry and stated there wer e about thre e such pa llets around the doc k. There wer e also steps by which one c ould asce nd and desce nd from the loading dock. This c ourt held those circ umstances prese nted a pr oper c ase to submit to the jury on the principles of

compar ative fa

ult. I d. at *3-4.W hi l e M r

. Rando l ph an d M r

. T emp l et on wer e r egu l ar gol f i ng part ner s wi t h M r

. Jones , our s t andar d of r evi ew 1
i n eval uat i ng a t ri al co urt ’ s act i o n wi t h regard t o a m o t i o n f o r s um m ary jud gm ent requi res t hat we acce p t t hei r t est i m o ny
as t r ue, an d we ca nn ot di s count t hei r t es t i mo ny on t hat bas i s , as s ug ges t ed by K i t e.
-4- I n the pre sent ca se, a non- party witness, Be nny

Dal e R an d o l p h , testified, by way of deposition, that in his t hirty y ear s of g olfing , he had se en a numbe r of pe ople standing on benche s at g olf course s and had stood upon them him self in orde r to deter mine whether

there wer e other play ers on the course ahead. He and another non-par ty witness, Robert Andre w Templeton, testified that the benches were dang erous because they wer e not anchor ed or bolted down. This testimony 1 alongwith that of Mr. Jones, in our view, cre ates a g enuine i s s u e as t o wh ether such use of the benche s was or should have been f orese eable by

the o wn er s o f t h e golf c ourse a nd whether

they prese nted a r isk of harm whe n used i n that fashion. These issues are materia l to a deter mination of this case unde r the princ iples of compar ative fa ult, as outlined above. Kite also urg es that summary judgme nt w as appropr iate bec ause r easona ble minds could not differ that Mr. J ones was more than fifty perc ent at fa ult. The trial cour

t did not ex pressly

make that deter mination and we decline to do so based upon the record be fore us. I n our view, the issue of who
was more at fa

ult in thi s case will depend upon whe ther the trier of fac t finds Kite had a duty of ca re based up o n i t s d et er m i nation of the for esee ability issues, set forth above . I f a duty is found, a de te rm inatio n w ou ld t

he n h ave to b e ma de a s to wh e the r K ite br e a c he d th a t duty of c are . I f K ite is found to have violated its duty of ca re, the extent of that violation could t hen be c ompare d with any neg lige nce of

Mr. J ones. Whether Mr. J ones was neg lige nt or the deg ree of such ne g lige nce, mig ht depend, in pa

rt, upon a c onsideration of the rea sonab l en es s o f h is assumption t he benc h was
anc ho re d in

so me fa sh ion

. B a se d upo n the re c or d b e fo re us , th e iss ue of wh o w a s mo re a t f

a ult is susceptible of more than one c onclusion.

We r e ve rs e the jud g me nt of the tr ia l c ourt g ra nti ngpa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt t o K ite . T his
matte r i s r e mand e d to the tr ia l court fo r furt he r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s o pin ion . T he c os ts of this appea l are assessed to the K ite/Cupp L eg ends Golf De velopment Co.



### ____ ________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ DONALD P. HARRIS, SENIOR J UDGE