### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE May 8, 200 8 S es sio n
BOB BY J. B URGESS v. KO NE, INC.
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 06C-797 Thom as W. Brothers, Judge

No. M2007- 02529-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Jul y 18, 2008

A state maintena

nce worke r was injured while clea ning w ater

out of an e levator pit in the L eg islative Plaza. The worke r sued the c ontrac tor that provided e levator ma intenance and re pair ser vices to the state. He claimed that the contractor was responsible for his injuries beca use the c ontrac tor violated its contract with the state by ref using to re move the water from the elevator pit a nd beca use it was neg lige nt in not locking down the e levator when its employ ee knew people would be wor king in the pit. The trial cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt in favor of t h e co ntrac tor. The wor ker a ppeale d. We affir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

ANDY D. B E NN E TT , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , P.J ., M.S., and R I C HAR D H. D I NK I NS , J ., joined.

He nr y S. Q ue e ne r, I I I , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, B ob by J. B ur g e ss.
J ohn W. C ampbell, Atlanta, Ge org ia, and Amy D. Hampton, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, Kone, Inc.

OP IN ION The plaintiff, B obby

Bur g ess, is, and wa s at all times rele vant t o this case , an employ ee of the Te nn e sse e De pa

rtme nt o f Ge ne ra l Ser

vic e s. Hi s job is cla ssi fi e d as HV AC 1, wh ic h is e sse nti a lly a building ma intenance man for th e War Memorial Complex, i ncluding the L eg islative Plaz a. At
on e e n d o f th e L e g is lati v e Pl a za

is a s e t o f e s c a lato r s an d

tw o e le v a to r s th a t l e a d

to th e Motlow Tunnel, which in turn lea ds either outside to Charlo t t e Av enue or furthe r under the ca pitol to t wo elevators that take pa sseng ers upwa rd into the capitol building. The two e levators in the L eg islative Pla za a re su bje c t to wate r se epage whe n it ra ins and the wate r c oll e c ts i n th e e le vator pit s. Sum

p pumps were installed at some point to address this problem.M r. R o senbo ro was t he f aci l i t y ad m i ni st rat o r. 1

T he el eva t or s er vi ced t wo s t ori es an d was hy drau l i c. 2

C ous i ns s t at ed t hat t he l adder h ad been cr us hed by t he el eva t or. Ro ge r R o l l i ns s ai d t hat t he l adder h ad 3 d am aged t he t ravel i ng cab l e b y pull i ng out 2 5 of i t s 5 3 wi res f rom t he junct i o n bo x. -2- Ko ne , Inc . is a

c omp any that c on tr a c te d wi th the State of Te nn e sse e to m a int a in a nd re pa ir its elevators in t he L eg islative Plaza. A few day s prior to the incident g iving r ise to this li tigation, Rog e r Roll ins , an e mpl oy e e of Ko ne , noti c e d wa te r in the pit of on e of the e le vator s and “ le t Pe te [R osenboro ] know t hat t he sum p pump wasn’t working and he had about 3 f oot [ sic] of water in the 1 pit.” Acc ording to comments made duringRosenboro’s de pos ition, R osenboro’ s administrative
a ssi sta nt, Mis s G re g g , a

pp are ntl y re lay e d Rolli ns ’s or a l re po rt of wate r i n th e pit to H a le y Cou sin s, a fa c ili ty su pe rv iso r. Ros e nb or o d id n ot r e c a ll k no wi nga bo ut t he re po rt

. Cousins was no strang er to this problem, not ing in his deposition that the maintenanc e staff had bee n in the pits “numerous times.” He testified that Rog er Rollins “wasn’ t g oing to work on that
e le vator un til it g ot c le ane d up .” He pa sse d on the inf or matio n a bo ut t he wate r i n th e pit

to D arr e ll Ma ze a nd B ob by B ur g e ss. Ma ze h a d w or ke d in e le vator pit s se ve ra l ti me s, but B ur g e ss h a d n ot. Bur g ess testified in his deposition that there we re about 18 inches of water a nd 6 inches of “ g unk” in the pit. He and Ma ze spent Marc h 29, 2005, g etting the water out of the pit a

nd the morning of Marc h 30, 2005, g etting the “gunk” out.

The e levator ha d been parke d one floor above. No one seems to know who par ked it there 2 or what safety

prec autions were taken. There seems to be g ener al ag ree ment that the safe st option, havin g Rog e r R oll ins dis a ble the e le vator , w a s n ot u se d. Cou sin s and Ma ze state d that the y wo uld ty pically place an “out of order” sign on the elevator doors, flip a togg le s witch i n the ca r, and the n prop open the doors with something. I f the doors w ere n’t propped ope n, they would cl o s e. The do or s w e re pr op pe d w itha la dd e r, wh ic h w a s u se d to c lim b into a nd out of the pit

. On the morningof Mar ch 30, 2005, B urg ess was in the pit scooping“gunk” into a bucket a nd handing it up to Maz e, who would t h en go dump it. When Maze left to dispose of some of the “gunk,” B urg ess t o o ka bre ak and c limbed out of the pit. Burg ess said that whe n Maze “star ted coming back,” he we nt back into the pit

. W h en h e was re achingfor his bucke t and shovel, he

“ no tic e d th e e le vator c omi ng – the e le vator do or shutt ing .” He tr ie d to ope n the do or s, be c a us e “ if the door don’t shut, the elevator won’t g o.” At the s ame tim e, Maz e was trying to ope n the doors from the outside. As the elevator came down, Bur g ess’s arm was cut and he wa s appar ently hit on the hea d. The doors w ere opened a nd Bur g ess was pulled f

rom the pit. He was taken to a hospital 3

and e xami ne d b ut w a s n ot a dmi tte d to the ho sp ita l.

Ev e ntu a lly , B ur g e ss ha d to have ro tator c uf f surg e ry and re ha

bil itatio n. Af

te r t he a c c ide nt, B ur g e ss d e ve lop e d h ig h b loo d p re ssu re . H e als o com pl ain ed o f f e e lin g a s if

he “ ha d th e zomb ie head,” and of f

reque nt lig ht-hea dedness. I n the fa ll of 2006, he had a stroke which ha d no lasting eff ects. B urg ess sued Kone for br eac h of contra ct and n egl i gence . Kone moved f or summary-3-

judgme nt, which was gran t ed

. Bur g ess appe als, claiming that the summary judgme nt order w as ina de qu a te , th a t K on e br e a c he d its c on tr a c tua l duty , that g e nu ine iss ue s of mate ri a l f a c t e xist a s to Kone’ s contrac tual duties and neg lige nce, a nd that Kone br eac hed its duty of ca re.
Standard of Re view

The standa

rd of r eview f

or a g rant of summar

y judgme nt is well-established:

The st an d ar d

f o r r e v ie w o f

a g r an t o f s u mm ar y ju d g me n t b y

th e tr ia l c o u rt i s , of
course , de novo. Se e Blair v . W . To wn M all , 130 S.W .3d 761, 763 (Tenn.2004). Be cause the question i s one of la w, no pre sumption of corre ctness attac hes to the g rant of a summary judgme nt. He mb re e v . S

tate , 925 S.W .2d 513, 515 (Tenn.1996)

. A s umm ary

jud g me nt, wh e n b a se d upo n a sta te me nt o f u nd isp ute d f

a c ts, ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to i nte rr og a tor ie s, a dmi ssi o n s , a n d a f f i d a v i t s , i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n ly when ( 1) there is no ge nuine issue with reg ard to the material fa cts rele vant to the claim or defense contained in the motion, and (2) base d on the undisputed fac ts, the moving pa

rty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law. Te nn. R. Civ. P . 56.04; Bl air , 130 S. W.3 d at 76 4. F ur the r, the a

pp e llate c ourt s “ mus t take the str on g e st le g iti mate vie w o f t

he e vid e nc e in f

a vo r o f t he non- mov ingpa rt y , a llo w a ll
rea sonable infe renc es in favor of that par

ty , and disca

rd all counter

vailing e vidence .” By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 210-11 (Te nn.1993).

Cha tta no og

a-Ha mi lton Count

yHo sp . A uth . v . B ra dle

yCou nty , 249 S.W .3d 361, 364-65 (Te nn. 2008). Adequa cy of the Summary

J udg ment Orde r

I nit ia lly , B ur g e ss take s iss ue wi th the ba re -b on e s natur e of the or de r, c la imi ngit r e nd e rs thi s court una ble to deter

mine the basis for the trial court’s judgme nt. No rea sons a re provided for the ruling ; the order

mere ly states t hat “the Court finds that KONE, Inc.’s Motion is due to be g rante d.” I t is the t y pe of order this court has criticized in the past since it offe rs little aid in determining the basis for the tr ial court’s decision. See Church v . Perales , 39 S.W .3d 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 was amended in 2007 to alleviate this problem: “The trial court sha ll state the le g a l g ro un ds up on

wh ic h th e c ourt

de nie s o r gra

nts the mot ion

[fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt], wh ic h s ha ll be included in the order ref lecting the court’s ruling .” For tunately , the basis of the tria l court’s ruling
can be rea dily asce rtained since the re cord inc ludes a CD ROM of the he aring , including the court’s ruling from the be nch. Consequently , the technic al prob l em with the order ’s fa ilure to reve al the basis of the rulingdoes not prese nt an insurmountable obstac le to this court’s ability to understand the re asons for the trial court’ s ruling a nd to undertake appellate revie w.T his princ i p l e is co m m o nly kno w n a s n o sc itu r a so c iis, meani ng “ i t i s kn own by i t s as s oci at es

. ” 4

-4- Con tr a c tua l D uty The interpr etation of a

contra ct is a question of lawand, there fore , require s a de novo revie w on appea l w ith no presumption of corr ectne ss give n to the lower c ourt’s conc lusions of law. Sta te
ex r el

. Pope v . U.S. Fire Ins. Co. , 145 S.W .3d 529, 533 (Tenn. 2004) . “The car dinal rule for interpre tation of contra cts is to ascer tain the intention of the par ties and to g ive ef

fec t to that intention, consistent with lega l principles.” Bob Pearsall Motors, Inc, v. Regal Chrysler-Ply mouth, Inc. , 5 21 S.W. 2d

57 8, 58 0 ( Te nn. 19 75 ). Th e wo rd s o f t he c on tr a c t sh ou ld b e g ive n th e ir us ua l, natura l and ordinar

y meaning

. Galleria Assocs., L.P. v. Mogk, 34 S.W .3d 874, 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). F urther e vidence of intent may be found in the p ra ct i ca l const ruction of the c ontrac t as indicated by

the par ties’ ac tions subsequent to its ex ecution. Id

.

Bur g ess maintains that Kone br eac hed it s contra ctual duty to the state to clea

n the elevator pit , th e re by

c a us ingB ur g e ss’ s in

jur y

. He po int s to se ve ra l se c tio ns of the c on tr a c t in

su pp or t of his claim.

Scope of Ser

vices. The contra ct states: “This solicitation is for a full maintenanc e contr act with unlimi ted ca llbacks included f or work spe cified unde r m onthly maintenanc e.” This provision
a lon e g ive s n o in dic a tio n th a t th e re is a c on tr a c tua l duty

to c le an th e e le va

tor pit s.

Monthly Maintenanc e Require ments A.2

. T h e co n t rac t states: “The c ontrac tor shall be
re sp on sib le fo r f

ur nis hin g a ll mate ri a ls, too ls, te st e qu ipm e nt, la bo r a nd , r e pa ir /r e pla c e me nt p art s, and ser vices ne eded to complete all testing, inspections, and/or r epair s using se rvice technicia ns who shall regularly

and sy stematically

examine, test, clean, lubric ate a nd adjust, and whe n conditions
war rant, c onduct nec e s s a

r y maintenanc e and r epair s.” B urg ess emphasizes the oblig ation to “clea n.” I n our view, how ever , the word is taken out of context. W ords, like people, a re known by

the company they keep. N. C

. &St. L. R ail

way an d L. & N. R ail

ro ad Co. v . Ca rro ll Co un ty , 12 Tenn. App. 380 (1930). Thus, the meaning of an unc lear word in a written instrument may be asc erta ined by the wo rd s su

rr ound ingit. By nu m v . M c Do we ll , 3 Tenn. App. 340 ( 1926). This provision, when 4
re a d a s a wh ole , is cle arl y a ime d at the e le vator c ar an d its att e nd ant me c ha nis ms. No thi ngin t

his provision sugg ests that the clea ning of the elevator pit is envisioned.

Monthly Maintenanc e Require ments A.9. The c ontr act states: “Elevators a nd esca lators
c ov e re d b y th is con tr a c t, s ha ll b e ma int a ine d in a satis fa c tor

y and sa fe op e ratin g c on dit ion in
acc ordan ce wi th the require ments of these spe cifications and the manufa cture r’s orig inal specific ations.” B urg ess sug g ests that the ver y exis tence of the water in the elevator pit shows that the elevator was not beingmaintained in ac corda nce w ith this provision. His positi on would make Ko ne re sp on sib le fo r any c on dit ion of the str uc tur e surr ound ing the e le vator that c ou ld i nte rf

e re wi thT h is c o n c lus io n re n d e rs it un n e c e ssa ry fo r u s to a d d re ss B u rg e sse s’ third p a rty b e n e ficia ry a rg u m e n t. 5

-5- the oper ation of the e levator. Whateve r Kone did barg ain for, a fair r eadingof t he contract doe s not
s u p p o rtt h e n o t i o nt h a tK o n e t o o k o ns u c hr e s p o n s i b i l i t y.

Mo nth ly Main ten ance Re qu ir e me nts A. 13 . T he c ontr a c t st a te s: “ Th e c on tr a c tor sh a ll
re g ula rl y & sy ste matic a lly

e xami ne , a dju st, c le an, lub ri c a te , f ur nis h p ro pe r l ub ri c ants and hydr a uli c oil, and wh en conditions war rant, re pair or r eplac e par ts for the followingacc ording to specified intervals: . . . Hydraulic el ev at o rs

. . . clean pit bi-monthl y .” This is the only mention of any
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f

o r K o n e t o c l e ant h e h ydr a

u l i c e l e v a t o r

p i t s

. It i s d e s i g n a t e d t o b e d o n e b i

- m o n t h l y. The c ontr a c t is s il e n t a s to w h a t is to b e d o n e b y K o n e w h e n c le an in g th e p it

. T h is is w h ere the parties’ course of conduc t sheds light upon their intent.

Rosenboro, the fa cility

administrator, maintained that “under no circ umstances do we work in pit s , . . . . ” He did, howe ver, note that, “I f it was a sump pump issue, we probably would have took [ sic] care of it.” The state would contra ct out projec ts such as painting the pits or attempting to s e a l th e pit s so that wa te r wo uld no t ent e r. Cou sin s sai d that sta te wo rk e rs we re no t su pp os e d to
wo rk on the e le vator s th e mse lve s, but “ we ha d a ll b e e n in the pit s to g e t w a te r o ut whe n th e sump pump w a sn ’t

wo rk ing .” State wo rk e rs ha d b e e n a sk e d o n s e veral occasi on s to c le an o ut t he pit s wh e n th e y

fi lle d w ithwate r; Cou sin s st a te d th a t “ we ’v e do ne it a lot .” Th e y

a lso we nt i nto the pit s to r etrieve items such as ca r key s when pe ople droppe d them throug h the cr ack be tween the elevator and the sha ft. Rollins indicated that on pr ior occ asions his superv i s o r told him t o let the building manag ement know there was water in the pits so they could take c are of it. He testified it wa s the
re sp on sib ili ty

of “ the bu ild ing ” to g e t th e wate r o ut o f t he pit

.

I t appea rs that the parties plac ed a pr actica l construction on the contr act that Kone handled mecha nical issues and the state or other contra ctors handle d other phy sical and struc tural issues relating to the e levator sha fts. Thus, the state wa s responsible for removing water

from the e levator pit s. Th is i nte rp re tatio n is c on sis te nt w iththe a c tio ns the state ’s e mpl oy e e s to ok le a din g up to B u r g e s s ’ s i n

j u r y.

We are not awar e of a

ny g enuine is s u es o f materia l fac t as to the duty of Kone under the
c on tr a c t to c le an w a te r f

ro m the e le vator pit s. I n lig ht of the c on tr a c t’ s pro vis ion s and the pa rt ie s’
course of dea ling, we find that Kone di d not violate the contra ct with the state of T ennesse e and 5 aff irm the trial cour

t’s ruling in this reg ard.S o m e tim e s m o ra l an d leg a l d u ties d ive rg e . A s the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls o f N e w Y o rk ha s sa id : 6

In ho ld ing tha t the re is n o d u ty h e re , it m u st b e stre sse d tha t n o t a ll re la tio n sh ip s g ive rise to a d u ty. O n e sh o u ld no t b e he ld leg a lly re sp o n sib le fo r th e c o n d u c t o f o the rs m e re ly b e c a u se the y a re w ithin

o ur sight o r en viro ns. N eit he r sho u ld o n e b e a nsw era b l e m ere l y be ca use t he re a re o t he rs wh o se
ac t i vit i es a re suc h a s t o ca use o ne to e nv i si o n d am ag es o r inju ries a s a c o nse q ue nc e o f t ho se a cti vit i es. I n t h i s re s pec t , a m or al dut y s h ou l d al s o be di s t i n g u i s h ed f r om a l eg al dut y

. T h e f or mer i s de f

i n ed by t he l i m i t s o f

co nsci ence; t he l at t er by t he l i m i t s o f l aw. A pe rs o n m ay have a m o ral duty t o prevent inj u ry to a n o the r, b u t no leg a l d u ty. (c o n tinu e d ...)
-6- Neg lige nce

The e lements that must be proved to establish a claim for neg lige nce are “(1) a duty of ca re owed by the def endant to the plaintiff; ( 2) conduc t by the def endan t fa l l i n g b el ow the standa rd of
c are a mou

nti ngto a br e a c h o f t

hat duty ; (3 ) an in

jur y or los s; ( 4) c a

us a tio n in fa c t; a nd (5 ) p ro xima te or leg al ca use.” Bi sc an v . B ro wn , 160 S.W .3d 462, 478 (Tenn. 2005)

. Bur g ess claims that summary judgme nt is inappropriate beca use g enuine issues of materia l f act exis t a s to K one’s neg lige nce. He further states that “[t] he existence of the duty upon the Def endant via Rog er Rollins to shut down the elevator and the brea ch of said duty is a classic c ontest of testimony to be weig hted by

the trier of fa ct . . . .” This is not an ac curate statement of the law. Whether a particula r per son owed a

nother person a duty of ca re is a que stion of law, which this court revie ws de novo . D ra pe r v . W este rfi e ld , 1 8 1 S

. W

. 3 d

2 8 3 , 2 9 1 (T en n

. 2 0 0 5 )( ci t i n g Biscan , 160 S.W .3d at 478).

I n sear ching for a

duty , courts have looked at ac tion and at inaction. As to ac tion, the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court ha s sai d that a “‘ ri sk is unr e a so na ble and g ive s ris e to a duty to a c t w ith due car e if the fore seea

ble proba bility and g ravity

of har m posed by

de fe nd an t’ s c on du c t o u t we i gh the burde n upon defe ndant to e ng ag e in a lternative conduct that would have preve nted the har m.’” Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc ., 15 S.W .3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000) (q u o t i n g Mc Ca l l v. W ilder, 913 S.W. 2d 15 0, 15 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 5) ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d)

. I n this c a se , as the tr ia l cou rt ob se rv e d, the re is no evidenc e that Rollins, acting on be half of Kone, did a ny thing to c reate the dang erous situation that g a v e r i s e t o B u r g e s s ’ s i n

j u r y.

As to inaction, persons “do not or dinarily have a duty to a ct aff irmatively to pr otect other s from conduc t other than their own.” Nic ho ls v . A tni p , 844 S.W .2d 655, 661 (Tenn. Ct. App.1992). Th e e xce pti on

to t his ru le ari se s “‘ wh e n ce rt a in s oc ia lly re c og nize d r e latio ns e xist w hic h c on sti tut e the basis for suc h leg al duty .’” Id

. at 661 (quoti ng Fowle r V. Ha rper and Posey

M. Kime, TheDu ty to Con t r o l the Conduct of Another , 4 3 Y a le L .J. 8 86 , 8 87 (1 93 4) ). No su c h r e latio ns hip e xists be tw e e n K on e and

B ur g e ss. Ko ne wa s a

n in de pe nd e nt c on tr a c tor

wh o h a d n o c on tr a c tua l duty to
un de rt a ke the a c tiv ity wh ic h s tate e mpl oy e e B ur g e ss h a d b e e n in str uc te d b y his su pe ri or s to pe rf

or m. So, e ven if Rolli ns, Kone’s e mploy ee, kne w that state e mploy ees w ould be clea ning out the e levator pit, Kone was unde r no leg al duty to take any

action to make the ir work sa fer

. 6(

. . . con t i n u ed) 6 Pul ka v. Edel m an , 35 8 N

. E

. 2 d 10 1 9 , 10 2 2 (N

. Y

. 19 7 6 ).

-7- “The essential inquiry

in any neg lige nce case is whether the particular defenda nt is under a leg ally rec og nized duty

to a par ticular plaintiff.” Id

. at 662. Since we find that Kone ha d no leg al du ty to B ur g e ss, we a ff

ir m th e summa

ry jud g me nt o n th e ne g lig e nc e c la im.

Costs of a p p e a l a r e a s s e s s e d

a g a inst Appellant Bobby

Bur g ess, for which execution may issue i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ ANDY D . BEN

NETT, JUDGE