### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON MA Y 18, 200 4 S es sio n DONNIE WAYNE J OHNS ON, JR. v . CITY ROO FING CO MPANY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Obi on Coun ty No. 7-714 William B. Acre e, Jr., Judge

No. W2003-01852-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Augu st 25, 2004

This case is an appe al from an order g ranting Appellee ’s m otion for summ ary judgme nt. Appellant arg ues, as he did at t rial, t hat t his case involves g enuine issues of material fa ct, re ndering summary jud g me nt i na

pp ro priate fo r this a c tio n. F or thefo llo wi ng re a so ns , w e a ff irm.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
J oseph R. Tag g art, Jackson, TN, for Appellant Stephen W. Vescovo, Cra ig C. Conley , Memphis, TN, for A ppellee
OP IN ION
F acts and P roce dural Hi story
Do n n i e W ayne J ohnson, J r. (“A ppellant”) was an employ ee of J .E. Campbell, I nc., a mechanical subcontra ctor for the construc tion of buildings. On Aug ust 9, 1996, while working on thero of of a bu ild ing ow ne d by Ty so n F oo ds , Ap pe llant su staine d pe rs on a l inj ury wh e n h e a lle g e dly sli pp e d o n a

pie c e of bla c k p la sti c a ndfe ll thr ou g h an op e nin g in the ro of of thebu ild ing . Prior to the ac cident, only two employ ees of City Roofing Company (“A ppellee” ), Ed Catchot (“ Catchot”) a ndKe nn e th C art e r ( “ Ca

rt e r” ), ha d wor

ke d on the pr oje c t for Ap pe lle e
. Ap pe llant f ile d s uit a g a ins t F or c u mL a n n o m , I n c
. , C e n t e x F o r c u mL a n n o m , I n c
. , C o r e s l ab S tru c t u r e s , I n c
. , T y s o n F oo ds , Inc.,and la ter ad d ed C as eyE l ec tri c C o m p an y , an d Ap p el l ee
. Ap p el l an t ’s am en d ed co m p l ai n tall eg ed the def endants (1) neg lige ntly

failed to sec ure the p l y wo o d covering in the r oof, (2) violated the Occ upational Safe ty

and He alth Act involving the covering, s ec u ri n g, and g uarding of a r oof opening , and (3) cre ated a

hazard by leaving buckets, mops, black pla stic, roofing materia ls and other debris in the wor

k are a obscuring A ppellant’s view of the opening throug h which he f ell.T ho ugh A p p el l ant ci t es t o vari o us d ep o si t i o ns i n hi s res p o nse t o A p p el l ee’ s m o t i o n fo r s um m ary 1 ju d g m e n t an d b rie f o n a p p e a l, n o s u c h d e p o sitio n s w e re filed a s p a rt o f th e a p p e llate r e c o rd

. W e a re m ind ful tha t i t i s the a p p e llan t’s re sp o n sib ili ty to p re p a re a p ro p e r re c o rd o n a p p e a l a n d file it w ith this C o u rt. S e e H o p m a y e r v . A la d d in Indus

. , LLC , N o . M 2 0 0 3

- 0 1 5 8 3

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 20 0 4 W L 1 2 8 3 9 8 4 , at * 2 (T enn. C t

. A p p
. June 9 , 20 0 4 ) ( q uo t i ng M cDonal d v

. O noh , 77 2 S.W

. 2 d 91 3 , 91 4 (T enn. C t

. A p p
. 19 8 9 ))

.

App e l l e e r a i s e s t h e a dd i t i on a l i s s u e s of wh e t h e r Ap pe l l a n t ’ s br i e f me e t s t h e r e qu i r e me n t s of T e n n
. R. 2 A p p
. P

. 27 and t hat A p p el l ant ’ s p repa rat i o n of t he reco rd f ai l s t o co m p l y wi t h T enn. R

. A p p
. P

. 24

. G i ve n our d i sp o si t i o n o f

A p p ell an t ’ s i ssue o n a p p ea l , w e n ee d no t ad d ress these i ssue s. -2- On Novembe r 16, 2001, Appe llee filed a motion for summary judgme nt, acc ompanied by a supporting memorandum of la w, asserting that ther e wa s no g enuine issue of materia l fac t upon which liability

may be imputed to Appellee . Appellant filed a response to the motion citing various depositions of witnesses, a rg uing that a genuine issue of m aterial fac t exi sted rende ring summary 1 judgme nt inappropriate . I n an orde r filed on J uly 10, 2003, the trial court g rante d Appellee ’s motion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt anddis mis se d A pp e llant’s claim w ithpr e jud ic e . A pp e llant s ub se qu e ntl y filed his notice of a

ppeal and prese nts the following issue for our review : whether g enuine issues 2 of material fac t exi st renderin g summary judgme nt inappropriate . For the following rea sons, we a ff irm th e or de r o f the tria l c ou rt

. Stand ard of Review
When this C ourt re v i ew s a g rant of summary judgme nt, we must determine if the require ments of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been me t. Be cause this inqui ry involves a question of law , ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d is de novo without a presumption of cor rec tness. Robinson v. Ome r , 952 S

. W

. 2 d 4 2 3 , 4 2 6 (T en n
. 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t i n g McCarley v. W . Quality Food Serv. , 948 S.W .2d 477 (Tenn. 19 97 ); Ba in v . W

e lls , 93 6 S.W. 2d 61 8, 62 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Mc Clu ng v . De lta Sq ua re Ltd . P ’s hip , 937 S.W. 2d89 1, 89 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 6) ; By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993) ).
Law a nd A nal ys is Appellant ar g ues that the trial court err ed when it found that no g enuine issues of material fac t exi st and g rante d Appellee ’s mot i o n fo r s u m mary judgme nt. I n By rd

v . H all , the Tenne ssee Supreme Court set forth an ana ly sis for courts to follow to determine w hether a g rant of summary judgme nt is appropriate :

I n determining whe ther or not a g enuine issue of

material fa ct ex ists for purposes of summary

judgme nt, courts in this state have indicated that the question should be consider ed in the same manner as a motion for

direc ted ver dict made at the clo se of theplaint if

f' s p ro of , i. e ., thetria l c ou rt

mus t ta ke thestr on g e st l e g iti mate view of the evidenc e in fa vor of the nonm oving party , allow all rea sonable infe renc es in favor of

that party , and disca

rd all counte rv ai ling e vidence

. Do wne n v . A lls tate Ins. Co. , 8 11 S.W. 2d52 3, 52 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) ; Poore, 6 6 6 S

. W

. 2 d a t4 9; Du nn , 833 S.W. 2da t 80 ; W

yatt v. W innebago Industries, Inc

. , 566 S.W .2d 276, 279 (Tenn. A pp.-3-

19 77 ); Taylor , 573 S.W .2d at 480. Then, if there is a dis pute as to any material fac t or any doubt as t o t h e conclusions to be drawn f rom that fac t, the motion mus t be denied. Po ore , 666 S.W .2d at 49 (“ I f the mind of the c ourt entertains any doubt wh e the r o r n ot a g e nu ine iss ue e xists a s to any mate ri a l f a c t it is i ts d uty

to o ve rr ule themot ion .” ); Do ole

y v . E v e re tt , 805 S.W .2d 380, 383 (Tenn. A pp. 1990). The c ourt is not to “weig h” the e vidence when e valuating a motion for summary judgme nt. See Hamrick v. Spring Cit

y Motor Co. , 708 S.W .2d 383, 389 (Tenn. 1986) (“Summary jud g me nt i s n ot o rd ina

ri ly thepr op e r p ro c e du refo r det erm ining wh e the r a prima fa c ie c a se ha s o r h a s n ot b een ov erco me by c ou nte rv a ili ng e vid e nc e .” ); Rollins v. W inn Di x ie , 7 80 S.W. 2d76 5, 76 7 ( Te nn . A pp . 1 98 9) . T he c ou rt is simply to o ve rr ule the motion where a g enuine dispute exis ts a s to any materia l fac t. Dunn , 833 S.W .2d a t 80 ; Dooley , 8 05 S.W. 2da t 38 3. Th e ph ra se “ g enu in e is sue” c on ta ine d inRul e 56.03 ref ers to g enuine f

actua l issues and does not include i s s u es i nvolving leg al conclusions to be draw n from the fac ts. Price v . Merc ury Supply Co. , 682 S.W .2d 924, 929 (Tenn. A pp. 1984). The c ritical foc us is limit ed to fac ts deemed “ materia l,” Evc o , 528 S.W .2d at 24-25, which is to say those fac ts that must be decided in orde r to resolve the substantive claim or defe nse at which the motion is direc ted. Kno x v ill e Tra c tio n Co . v. Br

own , 1 15 Te nn . 3 23 , 3 31 , 8 9 S. W. 3 19 , 3 21 (1 90 5) ; Rollins v. W inn Di x ie , 78 0 S.W. 2d 76 5, 76 7 (T e nn
. Ap p. 19 89 ); Schwarzer , 139 F.R.D. at 476.
Moreove r, the cas es m ake c lear that the party

seeking summary

judgme nt must carry

the burde n of per suading the court that no ge nuine and mate rial fa ctual issues exi st and that it is, therefor e, entitled to j udg ment as a matter of law

. See, e .g. , Downen, 81 1 S.W. 2d a t 52 4; Jones v . Home I ndem. I ns. Co. , 651 S.W .2d 213, 214 (T e nn . 1 98 3) ; W

illiamson Cty. Broadcasting v. W . Cty. Bd. of Ed. , 549 S.W .2d 371, 37 2 ( Te nn . 1 97 7) ; Ta

ylor , 57 3 S.W.2 d at 48 0; Lucas Brothers v. Cudahy Co. , 533 S.W .2d 313, 316 (Tenn. A pp. 1975). Once it is shown by the moving pa

rty that there is no ge nuine issue of material fact, the nonm oving party must then demonstrate, by a ff ida vit s o r d isc ov e ry

mater ia ls, that th e reis a g e nu ine , mate ri a l f

a c t di sp uteto wa rr an t a t rial. Fo wle r v . H ap py Go od ma n F am ily , 575 S.W .2d 496, 498 (Tenn. 19 78 ); Me rri tt v . W

ils on Cty . B d. of Z

on ing Ap pe als , 656 S.W .2d 846, 859 (Tenn. App. 1983). In this reg ard, Rule 56.05 p ro vides that the nonmoving party cannot simply re ly up on his ple a din g s but mus t set fo rth s pe c if ic fa c ts s ho wi ng that th e reis a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t for tr i al

. “I f he doe s not so respond, summary judgme nt . . . shall be enter ed ag ainst him.” Rule 56.05. I f the motion is denied, the moving pa

rty “has simply

lost a preliminary

s k i rmish and must procee d to trial.” W illiamson , 549 S.W .2d at 372. By rd , 847 S.W .2d at 210-11. After our review of the s cant recor d in this case , we c annot say that the trial court erre d when it gr anted summary

judgme nt in favor of

Appellee . I n this case, Ap p el l an t alleg ed that Appe llee neg lige ntly

failed to sec ure the ply wood cove ring which cr eate d an opening in the roof, violated the Oc c up a tio na l S a fe ty

a ndHe a lthAc t r e g ard ing thec ov e ri ng , s e c uring , a ndg ua rd ing of ro of op e nin g s,-4-

a ndc re a te d a

ha zar d b y

le a vin g plas ti c bu c ke ts, mop s, bla c k p la sti c , a ndoth e r r oo fi ng mate ri a ls arou n d t h e u n s ec ured ope ning in the r oof which obsc ured A ppellant’s view. In its statement of materia l fac ts, Appellee a rticulates the following: (1) Catchot and Carter last wor ked on the pr oject on the W ednesday afte rnoon before the acc ident which occurre d on Friday and did not resume wor k until the nex t Mond ay ; (2) Catc hot and Carter had complete d their work in the a rea wher e the acc ident occur

red at some time prior to the ac cident; (3) the are a on which C atchot and Ca rter w ere working at t he time of the a ccide nt was appr ox imately 200 to 300 fee t away

from the a

rea of the acc ident; (4 ) C atchot and Ca rter did not re move any

of the ply wood cove rs from the r oof; (5) the only tools used by

Catchot and Carter we re paint rollers, paint brushes, and ceme nt trowels; (6) the only materia ls use d by Catchot and Carte r we re c oncre te primer, r ubber ta pe, and ma stic ceme nt; (7) Catchot’s and Carter’s materials were alway s within 100 fee t of where they wer e working; and (8) Ca tc ho t a ndCart e r did no t use bla c k pla sti c or a mop prior

to thea c c ide nt. I n h is m e mor a nd um i n su pp ort of

his re sp on se to A pp e lle e ’s mot ionfo r s umm ary jud g me nt, Ap pe llant s tate s th a t “ if City Roofing Company

subsequently

remove d a r o o f opening cover and failed to properly

g uard the openi ng or pr op e rl y

re se c ur e theop e nin g , th e n Ci ty Roo fi ng Compa ny

br e a c he d it s’ [sic ] duty

to prot e c t th e s a f

e ty o f D o n n ieJo h n s o n , Jr

. ” ( e mp h a s is o u r s )

. A f te r s tati n g th is , A p p e ll a n t a d duces no specific fac ts to show in any way that Appelle e’s employ ees w ere the ones that unsec ured the ply wood cove r on the roof . Rather, Appe llant merely states that Ap p e llee’s e mploy ees w ere working in the g e ne ra l vi c ini ty of

wh e rethea c c ide nt o c c ur re d. Ad dit ion a lly , A pp e llant d oe s n ot s e e m to dis pu te Ap pe lle e ’s state me nt o f the too ls andmate ri a ls A pp e lle e ’s e mpl oy e e s u se d o n th e pr oje c t. I nstead, Appe llant merely states that the items which obscur ed Appe llant’s view of the roof, the mop and bucke ts, were available to Appellee’ s employ ees. Appellant also states that the fa ct of whe ther Appellee used blac k plastic is in disput e but offe rs no spec ific fa cts to rebut Appe llee’s c laim that its employ ees use d it before the acc ident. I nstead, Appe llant quotes portions of depositions which establish: (1) a g ener al statement that a plastic was used to cover the materials for “ the roofe rs”; and (2) other than Appellant’s testimony , witnesses st ate there may have been black pl astic i n the ar ea of the a ccide nt. Finally , Appellant does not dispute A ppellee’ s statement that its employ ees w ere wo rking in an a

rea app roximate ly

20 0 to 30 0 f

e e t a way fr om the a c c ide nt a

re a bu t in ste a d me re ly disputes the reliability

of the witness that made this statement. After revie wing the sca nt rec ord be fo reus , w e c a nn ot say th at th e tria l c ou rt e rr e d w he n it

g rante d A pp e lle e su mma ry jud g me nt. Nothing in the r ecor d sug g ests that Appellant adduce d specific fac ts showing that ther e is a g enuine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t f or tria l. T he re fo re , w e a ff

irm th e de c isi on of

thetria l c ou rt

.

Conclusion-5-

F or thefo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff irm the g rant of su mma

ry jud g me nt f

or theAp pe lle e . Co sts of this appea l are taxed to Appellant, Donnie W. J ohnson, J r., and his surety , for whic h execution m a y i s s u e i f

n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE