FILED

December 7, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

1

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

BENNY E. SHOPE a nd wi f e , ) BRADLEY CI RCUI T

BETTY S. SHOPE, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9508- CV- 00288

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. EARLE G. MURPHY

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

RADI O SHACK, a di vi s i on of ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

TANDY CORPORATI ON, a nd RADI O )

SHACK, I NC. , a c or por a t i on doi ng)

bus i ne s s i n Br a dl e y Count y, )

Te nne s s ee, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

CONRAD FI NNELL, Cl e ve l a nd, f or Appe l l a nt s .

DANI EL J . RI PPER, Cha t t a nooga , f or a ppe l l e e s .

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J .
2

Thi s is a pr e mi s e s lia bility a c tion. The c a s e wa s tr i e d

be f or e a j ur y t o t he c onc l us i on of t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ pr oof . At t he

c onc l us i on of t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ pr oof , t he de f e nda nt s move d f or a

di r ect e d ve r di c t whi c h wa s gr a nt e d. J udgme nt wa s e nt e r e d i n f a vor

of t he de f e nda nt s . Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d. We a f f i r m t he j udgme nt

of the tr i a l c our t .

The r e l e va nt f a c t s a r e not i n di s put e . The pl a i nt i f f , Be nny

E. Shope wa s a bus i ne s s i nvi t e e i n a Ra di o Sha c k s t or e i n Cl e ve -

l a nd. He wa s a r e gul a r cus t ome r and a f r i e nd of t he s t or e ma na ge r ,

Chr i s Robe r t s . On t he da y of t he a c c i de nt he ha d gone i nt o the

de f e nda nt s ’ s t or e f or t he pur pos e of pi c ki ng up a ba t t e r y. Af t e r

he c onc l ude d hi s bus i ne s s he wa s s t a ndi ng a t t he c he c k- out c ount e r

t a l ki ng t o Mr . Robe r t s . As he t ur ne d t o l e a ve , he t r i ppe d ove r a

di s pl a y c ount e r t ha t wa s l oc a t e d s ome f our a nd one - ha l f t o f i ve

f eet f r om t he c he c k- out c ount e r . The di s pl a y c ount e r wa s e i ght e e n

i nc he s s qua r e a t t he ba s e a nd t we nt y- f our i nc he s hi gh, e xc l us i ve of

t he me r c ha ndi s e l oc a t e d on t he c ount e r . The pl a i nt i f f s t a t e s t ha t

he t ook onl y one s t e p ba c kwa r ds a nd t r i ppe d ove r t he c or ne r of t he

di s pl a y. Se ve r a l di s pl a ys we r e al i gne d s o t ha t ai s l e s we r e cr eat e d

from t he f r ont of t he s t or e t o t he r e a r a nd f r om s i de t o s i de . The

pl a i nt i f f a c knowl e dge d t ha t he kne w t ha t t he di s pl a ys we r e t he r e .

No wa r ni ng of a ny ki nd wa s gi ve n t o t he pl a i nt i f f by t he de f e nda nt s

or a ny e mpl oye e or a ge nt of t he de f e nda nt s .
3

The t r i a l c our t di r e c t e d a ve r di c t on t he gr ounds t ha t t he

di s pl a y c ount e r s we r e ope n a nd obvi ous a nd t ha t no dut y on t he pa r t

of t he de f e nda nt s e xi s t e d.

The “ ope n a nd obvi ous ” r ul e a s a ppl i e d pr i or t o t he Supr e me

Cour t ’ s de c i s i ons i n Mc I nt yr e v. Ba l e nt i ne , 833 S. W. 2d 52 ( Te nn.

1992) a nd Pe r ez v. Mc Conke y, 872 S. W. 2d 897 ( Te nn 1994) , ge ne r a l l y

s t a t e d, wa s a s f ollows :

The l i a bi l i t y of t he pr opr i e t or of a pl a c e of

bus i ne s s t o whi c h t he publ i c i s i nvi t e d i s ba s e d upon t he

dut y t o ke e p hi s pr e mi s e s i n a r eas ona bl y s a f e c ondi t i on

f or a l l pe r s ons who a r e l a wf ul l y on hi s pr e mi s e s a nd i n

t he exe r c i s e of due car e f or t he i r own s a f e t y. Li a bility

i s s us t a i ne d on t he gr ound of t he owne r ' s s upe r i or

knowl e dge of a pe r i l ous c ondi t i on on hi s pr e mi s e s a nd he

i s not lia bl e f or inj ur i e s sus t a i ne d f r om da nge r s t ha t

a r e obvi ous , r e a s ona bl y a ppa r e nt or a s we l l known t o the

i nvi t e e a s t o t he owne r . The i nvi t e e a s s ume s a l l nor ma l

or obvi ous r i s ks a t t e nda nt on t he us e of t he pr e mi s e s .

Ke nda l l Oi l Co. v. Pa yne , 41 Te nn. App. 201, 293 S. W. 2d 40, 42

( Te nn. App. 1955) .

The ef f ect , i f any, of Mc I nt yr e ( a dopt i on of c ompa r a t i ve

f a ult) a nd Pe r e z ( hol di ng t ha t i mpl i e d a s s umpt i on of r i s k i s no

l onge r a ba r t o r e c ove r y) , on t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e ha s not a s

ye t be e n f ul l y e xpl a i ne d by t he Supr e me Cour t . Si nc e Mc I nt yr e ,

howe ve r , t hi s cour t ha s addr e s s e d t he r ul e i n at l eas t t wo cas e s ,

i.e . , Coope r wood v. Kr oge r Food St or e s , I nc . , opi ni on f ile d

Decembe r 30, 1994, a nd Br oyl e s v. Ci t y of Knoxvi l l e , opi ni on f i l e d
4

Augus t 30, 1995. ( The Supr e me Cour t gr a nt e d pe r mi s s i on t o a ppe a l

i n Coope r wood, howe ve r , t he case wa s s e t t l e d be f or e ar gume nt . An

a pplic a tion f or pe r mi s s i on t o a ppe a l ha s not be e n f ile d i n

Br oyl e s . )

I n bot h opi ni ons of t hi s c our t , i t wa s de c i de d t ha t t he “ ope n

a nd obvi ous ” r ul e a s i t e xi s t e d a nd wa s a ppl i e d pr i or t o Mc I nt yr e

a nd Pe r e z wa s no l onge r t he l a w i n t hi s j ur i s di c t i on. The

r e s pe c t i ve opi ni ons c onc l ude d t ha t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e mus t

be r e s t a t e d t o c ompor t wi t h t he c ompa r a t i ve f a ul t doc t r i ne a nd t he

a bolition of t he doc t r i ne of i mpl i e d a s s umpt i on of r i s k a s a ba r t o

r ecove r y.

I n Br oyl e s , we s t a t e d: “We adhe r e t o t he concept t ha t t he r e

i s no l i a bi l i t y on t he pe r s on or e nt i t y i n c ont r ol of pr e mi s e s i f

a pe r s on l a wf ul l y t he r e on f a i l s t o exe r c i s e r eas ona bl e car e f or hi s

or he r own s a f e t y or f or da nge r s t ha t a r e obvi ous , r e a s ona bl y

a ppa r e nt , or a s we l l known t o t he i nj ur e d pa r t y a s t o t he owne r ,

ope r a t or or pe r s on i n c ont r ol of t he pr e mi s e s , s o l ong a s t he

pl a i ntif f ' s ne gl i ge nc e i s e qua l t o or gr eat e r t ha n t he de f e nda nt ' s

ne gl i ge nc e , or i n cas e s of multipl e tor t f e a s or s , the pl a i ntif f ' s

ne gl i ge nc e i s mor e t ha n t he c ombi ne d f a ul t of a l l t or t f e a s or s .

Ot he r wi s e s t a t e d, we ar e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he dut y of t he

pl a i ntif f ha s not be e n c ha nge d but pl a i nt i f f ' s f a i l ur e t o me e t he r
5

dut y mus t be c ompa r e d t o t he ne gl i ge nc e of t he t or t f e a s or or

t or t f e a s or s . ”

We s till a dhe r e to the pr i nc i pl e s t a t e d in Br oyl e s a nd t he

r e s ul t t he r e i n r eache d but becaus e we f eel t ha t t he s t a t e me nt s i n

Br oyl e s ar e not compl e t e s t a t e me nt s of pr e va i l i ng l a w, we t a ke t hi s

oppor t uni t y t o r e vi s i t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e i n a n a t t e mpt t o

c l a r i f y t he pr i nc i pl e a nd a voi d c onf us i on.

I t i s c l e a r f r om t he Supr e me Cour t ’ s opi ni on i n Ea t on v.

Mc Cl a i n, 891 S. W. 2d 587 ( Te nn. 1994) , t ha t t he ope n a nd obvi ous

r ul e ha s not be e n a br oga t e d unde r ci r c ums t a nces whe r e t he appl i -

cat i on of t he r ul e r e l i e ve s t he de f e nda nt f r om a ny dut y t owa r d t he

pl a i ntif f . Si mpl y s t a t e d, i f t he de f e nda nt owe s no dut y t o t he

pl a i nt i f f , t he r e i s no ne gl i ge nc e t o c ompa r e .

 

I n Ea t on, t he Supr e me Cour t ma de t he f ol l owi ng obs e r va t i on:

Al t hough Te nne s s e e l a w pr ovi de s t ha t pr e mi s e s owne r s

owe i nvi t e e s t he dut y t o wa r n of l a t e nt or hi dde n

da nge r s , t hi s dut y doe s not a r i s e i f t he da nge r i s ope n

a nd obvi ous . J a c ks on v. Te nne s s e e Va l l e y Aut hor i t y , 413

F. Supp. 1050, 1056 ( M. D. Te nn. 1976) .

Ea t on, a t pa ge 595.

I t is c l e a r tha t in Ea t on, the Supr e me Cour t a ppl i e d t he r ul e

a s it e xi s t e d be f or e Mc I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z . We be l i e ve , howe ve r , t ha t
6

t he r ul e a ppl i e s onl y i n t hos e i ns t a nc e s whe r e t he r e i s a dut y owe d

by t he de f e nda nt t o t he pl a i nt i f f , whi c h i f not me t , woul d

c ons titut e ne gl i ge nce. We t a ke not e t ha t t he r e we r e except i ons t o

t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e l ong be f or e t he a dopt i on of c ompa r a t i ve

f a ul t by t he Supr e me Cour t . By wa y of exa mpl e , an except i on to the

ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e i s t he “ mome nt a r y f or ge t f ul ne s s ” r ul e . Se e

City of Knoxvi l l e v. Cox, 103 Te nn. 368, 53 S. W. 734 ( 1899) ; Ma yor

a nd Al de r me n v. Ca i n, 128 Te nn. 250, 159 S. W. 1084 ( 1913) and

Pe t e r s v. Te nne s s ee Ce nt . Ry. , 167 S. W. 2d 973 ( Te nn. 1943) . Unde r

t he “ mome nt a r y f or ge t f ul ne s s ” r ul e , a pl a i nt i f f c oul d a voi d t he ba r

of c ont r i but or y ne gl i ge nc e pr ovi de d he c oul d e s t a bl i s h t ha t t he

l a ps e of me mor y r e s ul t e d f r om r eas ona bl e caus e . We pe r cei ve no

r e a s on why t he s a me r e a s oni ng c a nnot be a ppl i e d unde r t he c onc e pt

of c ompa r a tive f a ult. It woul d logi c a lly f ollow tha t if the

de f e nda nt wa s a s ubs t a nt i a l f a c t or i n c a us i ng t he mome nt a r y

f or ge t f ul ne s s , he c oul d be c ha r ge a bl e wi t h ne gl i ge nc e whi c h woul d

r e qui r e a c ompa r i s on of t he pl a i nt i f f ’ s ne gl i ge nc e a ga i ns t the

de f e nda nt ’ s ne gl i ge nce i n accor da nc e wi t h t he r ul e s a dopt e d i n

Mc I nt yr e .

I t i s our c ons i de r e d opi ni on t ha t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e

ha s not be e n a f f e c t e d by Mc I nt yr e or Pe r e z e xc e pt i n t hos e unus ua l

c i r c ums t a nces whe r e ne gl i ge nc e on t he pa r t of t he de f e nda nt e xi s t s

c onc ur r e nt l y with t he ne glige nc e of the pl a i ntif f or , s t a t e d

ot he r wi s e , unde r ci r c ums t a nces whe r e a dut y i s owe d by t he
7

de f e nda nt t o t he pl a i nt i f f . I n s uc h c a s e s , a c ompa r i s on of

ne gl i ge nc e i s r e qui r e d.

I n t hi s cas e , we ar e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he “ ope n a nd

obvi ous ” r ul e s houl d be a ppl i e d a s i t e xi s t e d be f or e Mc I nt yr e and

Pe r e z . The r e wa s no s howi ng t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s uf f e r e d f r om a ny

mome nt a r y f or ge t f ul ne s s a s a r e s ul t of a ny a c t i on or i na c t i on on

t he pa r t of t he de f e nda nt s or t he i r a ge nt s . Fur t he r , t he r e wa s no

s howi ng t ha t t he de f e nda nt or i t s e mpl oye e s or a ge nt s pos s e s s e d a ny

s upe r i or knowl e dge t o t ha t pos s e s s e d by the pl a i nt i f f . The r e f or e ,

t he r e wa s no dut y on t he pa r t of t he de f e nda nt s t o wa r n t he

pl a i nt i f f of t he e xi s t e nc e of t he di s pl a y c ount e r s l oc a t e d be hi nd

hi m. Abs e nt a dut y, t he r e c a n be no ne gl i ge nc e .

I n our f i na l a na l ys i s , we hol d tha t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e

i s una f f e c t e d by Mc I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z except unde r ci r c ums t a nc e s

whe r e a pl a i nt i f f wa s not ba r r e d by t he r ul e unde r t he l a w as i t

e xi s t e d be f or e t he de c i s i ons i n Mc I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z . I n t hos e ra r e

i ns t a nces , t he ne gl i ge nc e of t he r e s pect i ve pa r t i e s or t or t f eas or s

mus t be c ompa r e d.

Whe r e , a s he r e , t he f a c t s a r e undi s put e d, whe t he r a dut y t o

wa r n exi s t s i s de t e r mi ne d as a ma t t e r of l a w. Se e Reece ex r e l

Reece v. Lowe ' s of Boone I nc . , 754 S. W. 2d 67 ( Te nn. App. 1988) a nd

cas e s ci t e d t he r e i n. 
8

The c i r c ums t a nc e s t o a voi d t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e a r e not

pr e s e nt i n t hi s c a s e . Ac c or di ngl y, we a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he

t r i a l c our t . Cos t s of t hi s c a us e a r e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt s

a nd thi s c a s e is r e ma nde d to the tr i a l c our t f or c olle c tion

t he r e of .

 __________________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

CONCUR:

___________________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge

___________________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

BENNY E. SHOPE a nd wi f e , ) BRADLEY CI RCUI T

BETTY S. SHOPE, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9508- CV- 00288

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. EARLE G. MURPHY

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

RADI O SHACK, a di vi s i on of ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

TANDY CORPORATI ON, a nd RADI O )

SHACK, I NC. , a c or por a t i on doi ng)

bus i ne s s i n Br a dl e y Count y, )

Te nne s s ee, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

ORDER

Thi s appeal came on t o be hear d upon t he re c or d from t he

Ci r c ui t Cour t of Br a dl e y Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .

Upon c ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e

wa s no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

Ac c or di ngl y, we a f f i r m the judgme nt of the tr i a l c our t. Cos t s

of thi s c a us e ar e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt s and t hi s cas e i s

r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or c ol l e c t i on t he r e of .
10

 PER CURI AM