NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0886n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 7, 2006 No. 06-5024 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

KEV IN SM ITH and hi s wife JEA NN IE SM ITH , Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. WI LL IA M MARK F RAN K d /b /a FRANKS TRUCK ING , and H OME-MAR T, INC. , De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEFORE: GIBBONS and McK EAGU E, Circuit Ju dges, and TARNOW, Distric t Judge. * P ER CURIAM . Plaintiff-appe llant Kevin Smith was injured while helpinga truc k i ng company deliver a mobile home he and his wife had just purcha sed. Smith allege s his injury was proxi mately

cause d by

the neg lige nce of

the t ru ck i n g company

and/or the ne g lige nce of

the seller of the mobile home. The district court aw arde d summary judgme nt to both def

endants, c oncluding that ne ith e r h a d b re a c he d a duty ow e d to Smith that cou ld be fo un d to have pr oximate ly c a us e d h is injury . On appe al, we a ffirm.

_________________________ * The Honor able Arthur J

. Tarnow , United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation.No. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

A ltho u g h d e fen d a n t’s na m e is re c o rd e d in the c a p tio n a s “W ill ia m M a rk F ra n k ,” a n d he ha s n o t s o u g h t t o 1 amend t he capt i on, i t i s appare nt f r om t he r ecor d t hat hi s na me i s ac t ual l y “ Fra nk s . ” H e i s t her ef ore r ef er r ed t o as W ill ia m M a rk F ra n k s in th e b o d y o f t h is o p inio n . - 2 - I On De c e mbe r 6 , 2 00 2, Ke vin Smit h an d his wif

e Jeann ie Smit

h pur c ha se d a mobi le ho me from Home- Mart, Inc. Pursuant to the sale s ag ree ment, it was Home-Ma rt’s oblig ation to deliver the mobile home to the Smiths ’ prope rty i n Ha rdi n County , Tenne ssee. Home -Mar t hired F ranks Truckingto deliver a

nd set -up t he Smiths’ mobil e home. On D ece mber 11, 2002, Willi am Mark Fr anks, owne r of F ranks Trucking , and his brother J immy Fr anks broug ht the mobile home to the S m i thp r o p e rty. 1 Wil liam Ma

rk Fr anks had been to the proper ty ear lier to sur

vey t h e s i t u at i o n with Steve Richardson, c o-owne r of Ho m e- M ar t. He proc eede d to direct the de livery and plac ement of the

m o b i l e h o m e i n a c c o r d an c e w i th th e un d e r s t an d i n g h e an d R i c h ar d s o nh a d

c o m e t o . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, he dire cted the dr iver of the truck towingthe trailer to pull st raig ht up the 75-foot drivewa y and make

a ri g ht t ur n at th e e nd of the dr ive wa y , p ull ingint o a

fa rm fi e ld, so a s to the n b a c k th e mob ile ho me into a clea

ring on the left side of the drivewa y . Fr anks had observe d that the field was wet and soft and anticipated t he truck would g et s tuck and would ne ed “a pull” by a bulldozer, bac khoe or tra ctor. Richardson ha d rea ssu re d h i m , howeve r, say ing that Kevin Smith had whatever equipment might be nee ded. Kevin S mith insists this understanding was e rrone ous. He re membere d telling Richa rdson that th e fi e ld on the ri g ht be lon g e d to his fathe r. He ha d not tol d Ri c ha rd so n it wo uld be a ll r ig ht t oNo. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

- 3 - dr ive int o th e fi e ld, be c a

us e he tho ug ht t

he re wo uld

be no ne e d to us e the fi e ld. He did no t r e c a ll any discussion about using a dditional equipment, if neede d. J eannie Smit h rec alled that her husband sp e c if ic a lly ins tr uc te d F ra nk s o n D e c e mbe r 1 1 to sta y out of the fi e ld be c a

us e it wa s mu dd

y and we t. Nonethele ss, the truck was driven into the field and g ot stuc k. Kevin Smith was asked about pulling it out. He did not he sitate: “I f you need he lp, I ’ll pull y ou out.” He mounted his tra ctor a nd beg an to help. Dur ing the next three to f our hours, the Fr anks brothers, Smith and Smit h’s frie nd, J i mC u m m i n gs , al l wo rk edt o get h er t o o v er co m e t h e m u d

. S m i thdro v e o n e t ra ct o r, C u m m i n gs another , and, with the aid of log c hains, they

att em p t ed v ar iously

to pull the truck, and then the trailer, a nd then the truck ag ain, out of the field. Finally , on one such attempt, afte r their e ffor ts had yielded only partial succe ss, a chain broke and rec oiled forc efully , striking Smit h in the h ea dand causing serious injury

. J immy Fr anks rec alled that, just prior to the ac cident, Smith was ag g ravated and gunned the t ra ct o r wh i l e ther e wa s still slack in the c hain, ca using it to jerk a

nd then snap. Wil liam Mark F ranks’ s rec ollection is simi lar. Smith, on the ot her hand, rec alled that he ea sed the trac tor forw ard, slowly

taking the slack out of the chain befor e he started the final pull that c aused the cha in to break. This action followed. The Smit hs alleg e Willi am Mark F ranks, d/b/a Fr anks Trucking , was neg lige nt in various wa

y s that proxi mately

cause d their injuries, e.g. , failing to properly inspect the proper ty , failingto heed Smith’s warningnot to drive in t o t h e m u d d y field, and e nlisti ng Smit h’s

a ssi sta nc e in a n a c tiv ity tha t w a s n ot o nly

his so le re sp onsi bi li ty , bu t th a t w a s a lso inh e re ntl yNo. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

J e a n n ie S m ith’s c la im is f o r lo ss o f co n so rtium ste m m ing fro m he r h u sb a n d ’s inj u ry. 2 - 4 - dang erous. The Smiths allege Home-Ma rt, too, was neg lige nt, in failing to pro p er ly inspect the 2 home site and ne g lige ntly direc ting Fra

nks Trucking to turn rig ht at the end of their drivew ay

instead of left. Both de fenda

nts moved for summary judgme nt and their motions wer e gra nted by the district

c ourt . The dis tr ic t court pr op e rl y vie we d the re c or d in the lig ht mos t favo ra ble to t he no nmo va

nts , the Smiths , a

nd de te rm ine d th a t th e fa c tua l di ff e re nc e s b e tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s w e re imm ate ria l to dis po sit ion

of the mot ion s. In s ho rt , the dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d that ne ith e r t he ill -a dv ise d tu

rn int o the wet f ield nor the re quest for a ssistance fr om Smi th was a br eac h of a duty owed to plaintiffs or

a pr oximate c a

us e of pla int if fs ’ i nju ri e s. On a pp e a l, t he Smiths c ha lle ng e the se c on c lus ion s, ins ist ingthat th e re c or d p re se nts tr ia ble iss ue s o f f

a c t. II A. Negligence of H om e-M art The district cou rt construed the Smit hs’ complaint ag ainst Home-Ma rt as alleg ing two the or ie s o f n e g lig e nc e : (1 ) that Home -M art wa s n e g lig e nt i n a dv isi ngF ra nk s T ru c kin g to d

ri ve int o the wet f ield; and (2) that Home-Ma rt was neg lige nt in failing to hire a third party to pull the truck and mobile home out of the f ield. The district court held t hat bot h theories f ailed as a matter of la

w for lac k of evide nce of

duty and proximate causation. There is no dispute reg ardingthe essential e lements of a ne g lige nce c laim under Te nnessee law. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly summa ri zed the re le va

nt s tand ard s a s f

oll ow s:No. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

- 5 -

A cla i m b as ed on neg lige nce require s proof of the foll owing elements: (1) a duty of ca re ow ed by

the def endant to the plaintiff; ( 2) c o n d u ct by the def endant fallingbelow the standa

rd of c are amounting to a brea ch of that duty ; (3) a n injury or loss; (4) causation in fac t; a nd (5) proxi mate or leg al ca use. Turner v. Jordan , 957 S.W .2d 815, 818 (Tenn. 1997) . Duty is the leg al obligation a defe ndant owes to a plaintiff to exercise rea sonable car e in or der to protect a g ainst unrea sonable risks of harm. See M

cCal l v. W

ilder , 913 S.W .2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995) . The duty of rea sonable care must be considered in relation to all the relevant circ umstances, a nd the deg ree of for esee ability neede d to establish a duty of ca re de cre ases in propor

tion to incre ases in the m ag nitude of the for esee able ha rm. See Pittman v . Upjohn Co. , 89 0 S.W.2 d 425 , 433 (T e nn . 1 99 4) ; Doe v . Linder Const r. Co., Inc. , 845 S.W .2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1992) . An ac t or om ission will not be considered a proxi mate ca use of ani n j ur y i f a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d

n o th av e f

o r e s e e no r

an t i c i p a t e d

th e i n j ur y. McClenahan v . Cooley , 806 S.W .2d 767 (Tenn. 1991)

. Dist. ct. order

pp. 5-6, JA 42-43. Under the s ales a g ree ment, Home-Ma rt assumed re sponsibili ty

for de livery

and set-up of

the mobile home . In discharg ing this re sponsibili ty , Home-Ma rt hired F ranks Tr

uckingto perfor

m the delivery and set-up. N o repr esentative or ag ent of Home -Mar t was pre sent at t he home site on the date of delivery . The district cour t found, and it is undisputed, that Fr an k s T rucking wa s an independe nt contrac tor. Th e d i s t ri ct cour t corre ctly

noted that one who hir es an inde pendent contra ctor is ordina ri l y n o t l iable under Tenne ssee law , as principa l, for dama g es ca used by the

c o n tr a c to r ’ s n e g li g ence . S ee Givens v . Mullikin ex re l. Estate of McElwaney , 75 S.W .3d 383, 394 (Tenn. 2002) . The district c ourt thus he ld that, sinc e Home-Ma rt did not reta in a

ny rig ht to c ontrol the methods of F ranks Tr ucking ’s per formanc e, it owed the Smiths no duty of care in conne ction with the delivery – either in r eg ard to advising F ranks how to plac e the home on the lot or in reg ard to whether

the aid of a

third party

should have be en enlisted to pull the truck and mobile home out of the fie ld.No. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

A pri nci p al can b e hel d l i ab l e f o r harm caused b y i t s i nd ep end ent co nt ract o r i f t he co nt ract o r act ed pursuant 3 to a n o rd e r o r d ire c tio n s n e g lige n tly g ive n b y the p rin c ip a l. G i ve ns , 75 S. W

. 3d at 394

- 95

. W hi l e t he pres ent r ecor d do es a rg u a b ly su p p o rt a fin d ing th a t W ill ia m M a rk F ra n k s, in g u id ing th e tr u c k o n to th e w e t field , a c te d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith St eve Ri cha r dson’ s di r ect i ons , t her e i s no ev i dence t hat H om e- M ar t cont r ol l ed Fra nk s T r uck i ng ’ s per f ormanc e or t hat Franks T rucki ng l acked d i scr et i o n t o d ep art f rom R i chard son’ s d i rect i o ns i f co nd i t i o ns warrant ed i t

. R at her, t he reco rd i nd i cat es t hat R i chard son’ s d i rect i o ns were no t a n “o rder” at al l , but m o re i n t he nat ure of a “ sugges t i o n, ” and t hat Franks r et ai ned t he prer ogat i ve t o del i ver and i ns t al l t he mo bi l e home as he s aw f i t i n l i gh t of

t he condi t i ons he f

ace d on t he day o f de l i very . H o m e- M art ’ s m i ni m al i nvo l vem ent i n t he d el i very of t he m o b i l e ho m e was cl earl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o warrant a fi n d ing tha t i t o w e d the S m iths a d u ty o f re a so n a b le c a re . - 6 - The Smiths have not challeng ed this holding on the duty element. They focus solely on the district court’s proximate cause deter minat i o n , addre ssed below. Ye t, duty rema ins an essential element of

the Smiths ’ n e g li g e n c e c la im, irrespec tive of ca usation. Absent evidenc e that Home- Mart owed th e m a d

u ty th a t w a s b r e a c h e d , th e c la im mu s t f a il

. We f in d n o e r r o r in th e d istric t court’s assessment that Home- Mart owed the S miths no duty in relation to the m anner of delivery

. Entry 3 of summary

judgme nt in favor of

Home-Ma

rt was ther efor e prope r on this basis alone. The distric t c ourt also conc luded that, eve n if Home-Ma rt brea ched a

duty owed to the Smiths – either by

err oneously

advising Fr anks Truc king to dr ive into the field or by failing to hir e a third pa rt y to pr ov ide the pu ll wh ic h F ra nk s ha d anti c ipate d n e e din g – n e ith e r m isf e a sa nc e pr oximate ly

c a us e d th e Smiths ’ i nju

ri e s. Th e Smiths ob

je c t, a rguin g that, but

fo r s uc h a c ts o f n e g lig e nc e , th e ir injuries would not have oc curr ed. To ca rry their burde n of establishingproxi mate ca usation, the S miths must prove that “(1) the tortfea sor’s conduc t [ was] a ‘substantial fa ctor’ in br ingingabout t he har m being complained of

; and (2) the r e is n o r

u le o r p o li c y th a t s h o u ld r e li e v e th e w r o n g d o e r f r o m li a b il it y b e c a u s e of the

mann e r i n w hic h the ne g lig e nc e ha d r e su lte d in ha rm ; and (3 ) t he ha rm g ivi ngri se to t

he a c tio n c ou ld have rea sonably been fore seen or anticipated by a person of ordinary intelligenc e an dp rudenc e.”No. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

- 7 - Kellner v. Budge t Car and T ruck Re ntal, Inc. , 35 9 F.3d 399, 406 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (quoting McClenahan v . Cooley , 806 S.W .2d 767, 775 (Tenn. 1991) ). “[P] roxi mat e causation is a jury question unless the uncontrove rted fa cts and infe renc es to be dra wn from them make it so clea r that all rea sonable persons must ag ree on the prope r outcome.” Id . (quoting McClenahan , 806 S.W .2d at 775). Under

the fa cts of this case , no rea sonable juror could conclude t hat Richardson’ s directions to F ra nk s a da y or mor e be fo re the a c tua l de liv e ry , e ve n if e rr on e ou s, we re a su bs tan ti al fac tor in br ing inga bo ut t he Smit hs ’ i nju ri e s o r t hat su c h in

jur ie s sh ou ld h ave be e n a

nti c ipate d a s a

re a so na bly fore seea ble conse quence of the e rrone ous directions. As the district court conclude d, the link is too tenuous. Nor c ould any

rea sonable juror

conclude that Home-Ma

rt should have r easona

bly fore seen that its fa ilure to pr ohibit Ke vin Smith f rom offe ring equipment and a ssistance to the de livery eff ort

was a substantial contributing f actor in the causation of the Smit hs’ injuries. Vi e wi ngthe re c or d in

the lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to the Smit

hs , it a pp e ars to have be e n a

rgua bly fore seea ble to Home-Ma

rt (1) that Fra

nks woul d follow Richardson’ s sugg estion; (2) that driving the tr uc k into t he we t f ie ld w ou ld c a

us e it t o be c ome stu c k; (3 ) that Ke vin Smit h w ou ld o ff

e r t he us e of his equipment, if nee ded, to extricate the truc k; and (4) that Smi th, being famil i arwith the equipment offe red, w ould volunteer to operate i t. Stil l, the record is devoid of evidenc e to s upport a findingthat Smit h’s voluntary participation, thoug h fore seea ble, posed any

probability

of per sonal i n j ur y. Th e re c or d in c lud e s n o e vid e nc e that Ho me -M art ha d r e a so n to kn owthe e qu ipm e nt l ike ly to b e us e d b y

Smith to pu ll the tr

uc k w a s in a de qu a te or

that he avy

e qu ipm e nt t ow ingis i nh e re ntl yNo. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

- 8 - d an gerous. The only

evidenc e re levant to the point sug g ests that the bre akingof the c hain and resultant inj ury to Smit h was an unusual occur renc e. Willi am Mark F ranks, who ha d been de livering and installing mobile homes f or nea rly ten y ear s, had neve r see n a “3/8's log chain” break. Nor had his brother Jim my

Fr anks. The Smiths maintain that the risk of harm wa s manifest by virtue of the she er c omb i n ed weig ht of the vehic les t h at h ad t o be pulled – estimated to be approximately 28,000 to 32,000 po un ds . Y e t, t

he y do no t e xpla in why thi s fa c t sh ou ld have re a so na bly be e n de e me d to po rt e nd ri sk of pe rs on a l in

jur y , r a the r t

ha n s imp ly dif fi c ult y or even fai lure . F ur

the r, the argume nt f

a ils to

rec og nize that despite the weig ht of the vehic les involved, Smit h did, over the c ourse of three to four ho ur s, a c hie ve so me me a sure of su c c e ss. He and Cummin g s, wi th the us e of tw o tra c tor s and c ha ins , we re a ble to mov e the tr

uc k aw ay fr om the mob ile ho me and mov e the mob ile ho me to w ith in t we nty fee t of the home site bef

ore the acc ident occur

red. The re is no eviden ce that any risk of per sonal injury had bec ome manife st during the course of the e ffor t. No re p re s en tative of Home -Mar t was pre sent at the time of de livery or eve n awa

re of the difficulties that ensue d

. Both W illiam Mark Fr anks and K evin Smith were pre sent and be tter positioned, during three to four hours of effort, to assess the g round conditions and the c apabilities and safe ty of the equipment available

. Eac h of them had discretion to c ontinue or discontinue the eff ort in the fac e of any appar ent dange rs. Home-Ma rt’s role in the de livery

of the mobile home wa s minimal and did not, as a matter of law, constitute a substantial contributingfac tor in the ca usation of the Smit hs ’ i nju ri e s.No. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

W h e the r F ra n k s o w e d the S m iths a d u ty i s a q u e stio n o f l a w . M c C lu n g v . D e lta S q u a re L td . P a rtn e rsh ip , 937 4 S. W

. 2d 8 9 1 , 8 9 4 (T enn . 199 6). “ St at ed s ucc i nct l y , a dut y of r eas onabl e c ar e e xi s t s i f def endan t ’ s conduc t poses an un r eas onabl e a nd f

ores eea bl e r i s k of

ha r m t o pers ons or propert y . ” M cCa l l v. Wi l der , 9 1 3 S.W

. 2 d 15 0 , 1 5 3 (T enn. 19 9 5 ). T he reco rd i s d evo i d of evi d ence t o s up p o rt a f i nd i ng t hat Franks’ s m ere request f o r hel p p o se d a n u n re a so nab l e and f o rese ea b l e risk o f

ha rm . T he rec o rd p rese nts no rea so n to b eli ev e th e l a w o f T en ne ssee wo uld , un d er these c irc u m sta n c e s, im p o se a d u ty up o n a tru c k ing c o m p a n y to im p e d e a p u rc h a se r’s o p p o rtu n ity to us e his e q u ip m e n t t o he lp w ith the insta llatio n o f his m o b ile h o m e o n his p ro p e rty. - 9 - Acc ording ly , the district court’s r uling that the Smiths failed to adduce evidenc e esta blishing that any neg lige nce by

Home-Ma

rt was a proxi mate ca

use of the Smiths’ injuries must be upheld. B. N e gli ge nc e of F r anks The ne g lige nce the ories asse rted a g ainst Wil liam Mark Fra nks are simil ar to those asser ted ag ainst Home-Ma

rt, i.e. , th a t F ra

nk s w a s n e g lig e nt i n d ir e c tin g his dr ive r t o d ri ve int o the we t f

ie ld

and in r e qu e sti ngSmith’ s a ss is tanc e wh e n th e tr uc k g ot s tuc k. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt re je c te d b oth theories f or lac k of evide nce of

proxi mate ca

usat i o n . I n ad d ition, reg ardingthe latter the ory , the court he ld that Fr anks had no duty to ref rain from asking for help. For the re asons discussed a

bove in relation to the claim ag ainst Home-Ma rt, we find no fault in the district court’ s analy sis. First, as explained above, the c ausal c onnection betwe en the d ecision t o drive into the we t field and the Smit hs’ eve ntual injuries is too tenuous to be considere d “substantial.” Th e se c on d th e or

y po se s an a

rgua bly c los e r q ue sti on of c a us a tio n. Ye t, ag a in, c a

us a tio n is

re le va nt onl y if F ra

nk s’ s con du c t that alle g e dly c a us e d the Smit

hs ’ inj ur ie s wa s in bre a c h of a d uty

ow e d to the m. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld t hat Fra nk s had no du ty

to r e fr a in f

ro m a sk ingfo r h e lp i n pulling the truc k out of the field. The Smit hs have not c halleng ed this ruling and we find no err or in i t. 4No. 06-5024

Smith v. Frank

- 10 - F ur the r, the di st ri ct court

c on c lud e d th e re qu e st t o h e lp w ithpu lli ngthe tr uc k w a s n ot a proxi mate ca

use of the Smiths’ injuries becaus e Ke v i n Smit h voluntarily ag ree d to help out. The conclusion is not challeng ed on appea l. Fr anks’s reque st for help wa s theref ore pr operly

deeme d not to be a substantial contr ibuting fa ctor. Even if the r equest for h elp was a fac tor that led to Kevin Smith’s participation in the extrication eff

ort, no rea sonable juror could conclude t hat t he request i tself was a substantial fac tor in bring ing a

bout the Smit hs’ i njuries. The re quest was just that, a re quest. Ther e is no evidenc e that Kevin Smith’s ag ree ment to he lp w as other than a volitional ac t, a n exercise of fre e will, moti vated at least in pa

rt by his de sire to spa

re himself additional expenses. As the district co u rt o b serve d, Smith h a d e xpe ri e nc e op e ratin g the tr a c tor to p ull out pie c e s of eq

uip me nt a nd wa s c on fi de nt i n h is ability to help. In light of his appare nt familiarity with the demands of the task at hand, the re w as

no re a so n f

or F ra nk s to re a so na

bly anti c ipate t

h a t S m i t h ’ s v o l un tary

pa rt ic ipatio n p os e d a

fo re se e a ble risk of har

m. Entry of summary

judgme nt in favor of

Fr anks wa s theref

ore a ppropriate

. III Th e Smiths we re the vic tim s of unu su a l and un fo rt un a te c ir c ums tanc e s. Th e re c or d p re se nts

n o b a s is un d e r

th e la wo f T e n n e s s e e , h o w e v e r , to im p o s e li a b il it y o ne it h e r o f th e d e f e ndants. Ac c ord ing ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s awa rd of summa ry jud g me nt t o b oth

de fe nd ants is AF F IRM ED

.