# FILED December 7, 1995 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk 1 I N THECOUR

TOFAPPEALS

BENNY E. SHOPEa n dwi f e , ) BRA D LEY CI RCU I T BETTY S . SH O PE, ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9508- C

V - 00288 ) ) Pl a i ntif f s - A pp e lla nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. EAR LEG. M

UR PHY ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) R ADI O SHAC

K, a di v i s i o no f ) AFFI R M ED AND R

EM ANDED TANDY C

OR POR ATI ON, a n dR

ADI O ) SH A CK , I N C. , a c or por a t i on doi ng) bus i ne s s i n Br a dl e y C ount y, ) Te nn e s s ee, ) ) D

e f e nd a nt s - A

pp e l l ees )

CONR AD FI NNELL, C

l e v e l a n d , f or App e l l a nt s . D A N I ELJ . R

I PPER , C ha t t a nooga , f or a ppe l l e e s .

O PI N I O N

Mc Mur r a y , J .2

Thi s is a pr e m

i s e s lia b ilitya c tio n . The c a s e w a 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 . A t t he c onc l us i onof t h e pl a i nt i f f s ’ pr oof , t he de f e nda nt s m ove d f or a di r ect e dve r di c t w hi c h w a s gr a nt e d. J udgm e nt w a 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. W e a f f i r m

t he j udgm

e nt o f the tr i a l c o ur 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 w

a s a bus i ne s s i nvi t e e i n a R a di o Sha c k s t or e i n C l e ve - l a nd. H

e w a s a r e gu l a r cu s t o m e r anda f r i e nd of t he s t or e m a n a g e r , Chr i s R

obe r t s . O

n t he da y of t he a c c i de nt he ha d gone i nt oth e 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. A f 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 M

r . R obe r t s . A

s he t ur ne d t o l e a ve , he t r i ppe d ove r a di s pl a yc ount e r t ha t w a s l oc a t e d s om

e 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 w a 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 w e nt y- f our i nc he s hi gh, e xc l us i ve of t he m e 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 kw a 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 v e r a l di s p l a y s w e r e al i g n e ds ot h a t ai s l e s w e r e cr eat e d fro m 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 know

l e dge d t ha t he kne w t ha t t he di s pl a ys w e r e t he r e . Now a r ni ng of a ny ki nd w a 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 m

pl 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 yc ount e r s w e 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 m e C our t ’ s de c i s i ons i n M c 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 . M c C o nke y , 872 S . W

. 2d 897 ( Te nn 1994) , ge ne r a l l y s t a t e d , w

a s a s f o llo w

s :

The l i a b i 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 w

hi c h t he publ i c i s i nvi t e d i s ba s e d upon t he dut yt o ke e p hi s pr e m i s e s i na r eas o n a b l ys a f e c ondi t i on f or a l l pe r s ons w ho a r e l a w

f ul l y on hi s pr e m i s e s a nd i n t he ex e r c i s e o f du e car e f or t he i r ow n s a f e t y. Li a b ility i s s us t a i ne d on t he gr ound of t he ow ne r ' s s upe r i or know l e dge of a pe r i l ous c ondi t i on onhi s pr e m i s e s a n dhe i s n o t lia b l e f or inj ur i e s su s 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 w e l l know

n t othe i nvi t e e a s t o t he ow ne r . The i nvi t e e a s s um e s a l l nor m

a l or obvi ous r i s ks a t t e nda nt on t he us e of t he pr e m i s e s . K e nda l l O

i l C o . v . Pa y n e , 41 Te nn. A pp. 201, 293 S . W . 2d 40, 42 ( Te nn. A

pp. 1955) . The ef f ect , i f any , o f M c I nt yr e ( a dopt i on of c om pa r a t i ve f a u lt) a nd Pe r e z ( hol di ng t ha t i m pl i e d a s s um

pt i on of r i s k i s no l onge r a b a r t or e c ove r y) , on t he ope n a ndobvi 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 m e C our t . Si nc e M

c I nt yr e , h o w e v e r , t hi s cour t h a s addr e s s e dt he r u l e i nat l eas t t w ocas e s , i.e . , C

oope r w ood v. K

r oge r Food St or e s , I nc . , op i ni o nf ile d D ecem b e r 30, 1994, a nd Br oyl e s v. C i t y of K

noxvi l l e , opi ni on f i l e d4

A ugus t 30, 1995. ( The Supr e m e C our t gr a nt e d pe r m i s s i on t o a ppe a l i n C oope r w ood , h o w

e v e r , t he case w

a s s e t t l e db e f or e ar g um e nt . A

n a pp lic a tio nf or pe r m i 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 nbot hopi ni ons of t hi s c our t , i t w a 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 w a s a ppl i e d pr i or t o M c I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z w

a 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 m us t be r e s t a t e d t o c om por t w i t h t he c om

pa r a t i ve f a ul t doc t r i ne a nd t he a b o litionof t he doc t r i ne of i m pl i e d a s s um

pt i on of r i s k a s a ba r t o r eco v e r y . I n Br oyl e s , w

e s t a t e d : “W

e adhe r e t ot he con cept t h a 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 m i s e s i f a p e r s o nl a w

f u l l yt he r e o nf a i l s t oex e r c i s e r eas o n a b l e car e f or hi s or he r ow

n 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 pp a r e nt , or a s w e l l know

n t o t he i nj ur e d pa r t y a s t o t he ow ne r , ope r a t or or pe r s on i n c ont r ol of t he pr e m i s e s , s o l ong a s t he p l a i ntif f ' s ne gl i ge nc e i s e qua l t o or gr eat e r t h a nt he de f e nd a nt ' s ne gl i ge nc e , or i ncas e s of m u ltip l e tor t f e a s or s , th e p l a i ntif f ' s ne gl i ge nc e i s m

or e t ha n t he c om bi 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 , w e ar e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he dut y of t he p l 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 m e e t he r5

dut ym us t be c om

pa 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 tothe pr i nc i p l e s t a t e din Br oyl e s a nd t he r e s u l t t he r e i nr eache db ut b ecau s e w e f eel t h a t t he s t a t e m e nt s i n Br oyl e s ar e n o t co m p l e t e s t a t e m

e nt s o f pr e v a i l i n gl a w , w e 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 m pt 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 m

e C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Ea t on v. M c C l 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 un d e r ci r c um s t a nces w

he r e t he app l i

- cat i o no f t he r u l e r e l i e v e s t he de f e nd a nt f r om a ny dut y t ow

a r d t he p l a i ntif f . Si m

pl y s t a t e d, i f t he de f e nda nt ow e 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 om pa r e . I n Ea t o n , t he Supr e m e C our t m a de t he f ol l ow

i ng obs e r va t i on:

A l t houghTe nne s s e e l a w pr ovi de s t ha t pr e m i s e s ow ne r s ow e i nvi t e e s t he dut y t o w a 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 V a l l e y A

ut hor i t y , 413 F. Supp. 1050, 1056 ( M . D . Te nn. 1976) . Ea t o n , a t pa ge 595.

I t is c l e a r th a t in Ea t o n , th e Supr e m e C our t a ppl i e d t he r ul e a s it e xi s t e db e f or e M c I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z . W e b e l i e v e , how

e ve r , t ha t6

t he r ul e a ppl i e s onl y i n t hos e i ns t a nc e s w he r e t he r e i s a dut y ow e d byt he de f e nda nt t o t he pl a i nt i f f , w hi c h i f not m

e t , w oul d c o n s titut e n e g l i g e nce. W e t a ke n o t e t h a t t he r e w e r e except i o n s 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 om pa r a t i ve f a u l t by t he Supr e m e C our t . By w

a y of ex a m

p l e , anex cept i o ntothe ope na nd obvi ous r ul e i s t he “ m om e nt a r y f or ge t f ul ne s s ” r ul e . Se e C ityof K

noxvi l l e v. C

ox , 103 Te nn. 368, 53 S . W . 734 ( 1899) ; M

a yor a ndA l de r m e n v. Ca i n , 128 Te nn. 250, 159 S . W . 10 84 ( 1913) and Pe t e r s v . Te nn e s s ee C e nt . R y . , 167 S . W

. 2d 973 ( Te nn. 1943) . U nde r t he “ m om e 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 p s e o f m

e m or yr e s u l t e df r o m r eas o n a b l e cau s e . W e p e r cei v e n o r e a s on w

hy t he s a m

e 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 o m p a r a tive f a u lt. It w o u l dlo g i c a llyf o llo w th a t if the de f e nda nt w

a s a s ubs t a nt i a l f a c t or i n c a us i ng t he m om e 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 w i t h ne gl i ge nc e w

hi c h w oul d r e qui r e a c om

pa r i s on of t he pl a i nt i f f ’ s ne gl i g e n c e a g a i n s t the de f e nda nt ’ s n e g l i g e nce i naccor d a n c e w i t h t he r ul e s a dopt e d i n M c 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 M c 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 um s t a nces w

he 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 yw

ith t he n e g lig e n c e o f the p l a i ntif f or , s t a t e d ot he r w i s e , un de r ci r c um s t a nces w

he r e a dut y i s ow e d by t he7

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 om pa r i s on of ne gl i ge nc e i s r e qui r e d.

I nt hi s cas e , w

e ar e o f t he op i 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 M c I nt yr e and Pe r e z . The r e w

a s no s how

i 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 mo me nt a r yf 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 w a s no s how i ngt ha t t he de f e nda nt or i t s e m pl oye e s or a ge nt s pos s e s s e d a ny s upe r i or know

l e dge t ot ha t pos s e s s e d bythe p l a i nt i f f . The r e f or e , t he r e w

a s no dut y on t he pa r t of t he de f e nda nt s t o w a 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 . A bs e nt a dut y, t he r e c a n be no ne gl i ge nc e . I nour f i n a l a n a l y s i s , w e h o l dth a t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e i s una f f e c t e d by M c I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z ex cept un de r ci r c um s t a nc e s whe r e a pl a i nt i f f w a s not ba r r e d by t he r ul e unde r t h e l a w as i t e xi s t e dbe f or e t he de c i s i ons i n M c I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z . I n t hos e ra r e i n s t a nces , t he ne gl i ge nc e of t he r e s p ect i v e p a r t i e s or t or t f eas or s m us t be c om

pa r e d.

W he r e , a s he r e , t he f a c t s a r e undi s put e d, w he t he r a dut y t o wa r nexi s t s i s de t e r m i n e das a m

a t t e r o f l a w

. Se e R

eece exr e l R eece v. Low

e ' s of Boone I nc . , 754 S . W . 2d 67 ( Te nn. A

pp. 1988) a nd cas e s ci t e dt he r e i n .8

The c i r c um

s 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 . A c c or di ngl y, w

e a f f i r m

t he j udgm

e nt of t he t r i a l c our t . C

os t s of t hi s c a us e a r e as s e s s e dt ot he app e l l a nt s a ndthi s c a s e is r e m a n de dtothe tr i a l c o ur t f or c o lle c tio n t he r e o f .

__________________________________ D on T. M

c M ur r a y, J . CONC UR:

___________________________________ H ous t on M

. G odda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge

___________________________________ C h a r l e s D

. Su s a n o , J r ., J .I N THECOUR TOFAPPEALS

BENNY E. SHOPEa n dwi f e , ) BRA D LEY CI RCU I T BETTY S . SH O PE, ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9508- C

V - 00288 ) ) Pl a i ntif f s - A pp e lla nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. EAR LEG. M

UR PHY ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) R ADI O SHAC

K, a di v i s i o no f ) AFFI R M ED AND R

EM ANDED TANDY C

OR POR ATI ON, a n dR

ADI O ) SH A CK , I N C. , a c or por a t i on doi ng) bus i ne s s i n Br a dl e y C ount y, ) Te nn e s s ee, ) ) D

e f e nd a nt s - A

pp e l l ees )

O RDE R Thi s app eal cam

e o nt ob e hear d upon t h e re c or dfro m t he C i r c ui t C

our t of Br a dl e yCount y, br i e f s a nd a r gum e nt of c ouns e l . U ponc ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s C our t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e w a 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 . A c c or di ngl y, w

e a f f i r m

the ju dg m

e nt o f the tr i a l c o ur t. Co s t s of thi s c a u s e ar e as s e s s e dt ot he app e l l a nt s andt hi s cas e i s r e m a 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 CU RI A M