### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ja nuary10, 200 6 S es sio n EMMET T CLI FFORD ET AL 

### . v. CRYE-LE IK E COMMERCI AL, INC.

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 04C-155 Thom as Brothers, Judge

No. M2005- 00376-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on Ju ly 11, 2006

T h is ap p e a l in v o lv e s a b u s in e s s p a tr o n w h o trip p e d o v e r a s n o w - c o v e r e d w h e e lc h a ir ramp during a snowstorm. The patron filed a neg lige nce action in the Circuit Court for Da vidson Countyalleg ing that the landowne r wa s neg lige nt for failing to kee p the ra mp clear of snow or to post warnings of the pre sence of a w heelc hair ramp conce aled by the fallen snow. The landow ner f iled a motion for summary judgme nt asserting that it did not have a dut y to remove the snow or pr ovide warnings of the pre sence of the whe elchair ramp a s long a s the snow was f al ling. The trial court g rante d the su mma ry jud g me nt, a ndthe patr on app e a le d. We h a ve de te rm ine d th a t th e la nd ow ne r i s e nti tle d to a jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l a w b e c aus e it d id n ot o we a du ty to the pu bli c to ke e p th e wh e e lc ha ir ramp clea r of snow during the snowstorm or to warn persons c oming onto the pr operty of the e x istence of the whe elchair ramp that wa s conce aled unde r seve ral inche s of snow. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J J ., joined. Shelley I . Stil es, B rentwood, Te nnessee , for the a ppellants, Emmett Cli ffor d and JudyClifford. Tom Corts, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llee, Cry e-L eike Commerc ial, I nc. OP IN ION I. Nashville experienc ed a he avy snowfall on January

16, 2003. Acc ording to the National Weather Service, the w inter storm beg an ar ound 8:00 a.m. and by 1:45 p.m., the city had re ceive d seven inc hes of snow. The conditions were so sever e that motorists we re stranded in either slowmoving or

non-moving traff

ic. The inter s t at es we re g ridlocked, some ba cked up a s much as five hours. Schools, businesses, and g overnme nt a g encie s closed early

. At one point, six ty school buses wer e strande d in the snow, and many students did not arrive home until 10:00 p.m.A l t ho ugh t here was s o m e d ep o si t i o n t est i m o ny fro m M r. C l i f fo rd t hat t he snow had s t o p p ed by t he t i m e he 1

ar r i ved a t t he off

i ce, t he C l i f

fords ’ r es po ns e t o C r y e- Lei ke’ s mo t i on for s ummary j udgment an d s t at ement of un di s put ed m at eri al f act s agrees t hat i t was undi sput ed t hat t he snow wa s st i l l f al l i ng heavi l y and t ravel co nd i t i o ns were hazard o us w h e n M r. C lif

fo rd visite d the C rye -L e ike o ff ic e . T he C l i f fords l at er vol un t ar i l y di s mi s s ed t hei r cl ai ms a gai ns t al l defendan t s ex cept Cry e- Lei ke. 2 -2- Despite the dang erous weather conditions, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Emmett and J udy Clifford dec ided to drive to the State Fa rm Mutual Auto I nsuranc e Company (State F arm) of

fice on Andre w J ackson Parkway to pay an ins uranc e pre mium. S tate F arm lea sed this office from Cry eL e i k e C o m m e r c i a l , In c . ( C r ye - L e i k e ) , a n d C r ye - L e i k e w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a n a g i n g t h e p r o p e r t y. Although Cry e-L eike ha d reta ined a snow-re moval company , it decided a g ainst asking the company to beg in removing the snow or sa lting the pa rking lot at the State Fa

rm offic e until the snowstorm had passe d.
Be cause of the we ather

conditions, Mr. Clifford was r equire d to t h rea d his way around a number of stranded motorists on his w ay to the State Fa rm offic e. When he a

rrived at the State Fa

rm of fi c e , th e sn ow c on tin ue d to fa ll, a nd the pa rking lot wa s c omp le te ly

c ov e re d w ithsn ow . T he State 1 F arm e mpl oy e e s w e re in the pr oc e ss o f c los ing theof fi c e fo r the day . M r. Clif

fo rdwa lke d f

ro m hi s pa rk e d c ar t o th e of

fi c e wi tho ut inc ide nt. Af

te r he pa id his pr e miu m, anda s h e wa s r e turnin g to h is car , he sl i p p ed o ff

the side of a

whee lchair r amp nea

r the fr ont door to the building that wa s completely

cover ed by

snow. The f

all shattere d his ankle. B eca use of the weather, it took two hours for a n ambulance to arrive at the sce ne. Onc e Mr. Clifford a rrived at the hospital, he was r equire d to w a it f or a no the r h ou r w hil e a

ph y sic ia n ma de his way

thr ou g h th e sn ow to the ho sp ita l. On J anuary

14, 2001, the Cliffords fil ed a co m p l aint ag ainst Cry e-L eike and others in the Circuit Court for Davidson County

. They alleg ed that C ry e-L eike wa s neg lige nt because it failed 2 to exercise re asonable car e and pr udence to d i s co v er an d corr ect the ha zardous condition on the whee lchair r amp and to wa rn Mr. Clifford of the haz ardous condition on the ra mp. Cry e-L eike f iled an answ er de ny ing that it had been ne g lige nt. I t also filed a motion for summary judgme nt asserting that it di d n o t have a

duty to remove the snow on the whe elcha ir ramp a s long a s the snow was falling

. The trial court a g ree d and, base d on the undisputed fac ts, determined that Cry e-L eike wa s entitled to a judg ment as a matter of law . The Cliffords ha ve appe aled. II. The standa

rds for r eviewing summary judgme nts on appea l are well settled. Summary judgme nts are pr oper in virtually any civil case that can be resolved on the basis of leg al issues alone. Fruge v. D oe , 952 S.W. 2d 40 8, 41 0 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pe nd le ton v . Mill s , 73 S.W.3 d 115 , 121 (T e nn . Ct. App . 200 1)

. Th e y are no t, h ow e ve r, app ro pria te when g enuine disputes re g arding materia l fac ts ex ist. Tenn

. R

. Civ. P . 56.04. Thus, a summary judgme nt should be g rante d when the undisputed fac ts, a s well as the infe renc es re asonably draw n from the undisputed fa cts, support only one conc lusion – that the party seeking the summary judgme nt is en t itled to a judgme nt as a matter of law. Pero’s Steak

& Spaghetti House v. Lee , 90W es t v . Eas t Te nn. Pi onee r O i l Co. , 1 7 2 S .W .3 d 5 4 5 , 5 5 0 (T e n n . 2 0 0 5 ); R ai ns v. B end o f t he R i ver , 124 3 S.W

. 3 d 58 0 , 58 8 (T enn. C t
. A p p . 20 0 3 ). -3- S.W. 3d61 4, 62 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) ; W ebber v. S t a t e F

a rm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 49 S.W .3d 265, 269 (Tenn. 2001)

. The pa rty seeking a sum mary judgme nt bear s the burden of demonstrating that no g enuine dispute of material fac t e x ists and that it is entit led to a judg ment as a matter of law

. Go dfrey v . R uiz , 90 S.W. 3d69 2, 69 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) ; Shadrick v . Coker , 963 S.W .2d 72 6 , 7 31 (Tenn. 1998) . When themov in g pa

rty is the de fe nd a nt, it i s e nti tle d to a jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l a w o nly

wh e n it aff ir m ati vely

neg ates a n essential ele ment of the non-moving party ’s claim or e stablishes an aff irmative def

ense that conclusively

defe ats the non-moving party ’s claim. Byr d v . H all , 847 S.W. 2da t 21 5 n .5 ; Cherry v. W illiams , 36 S.W .3d 78, 82-83 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2000). Summary judgme nts enjoy

no presumption of cor

rec tness on appea l. BellSou th Adver. & Publ’g Co. v. Johnson , 1 00 S.W. 3d20 2, 20 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; Scott v. Ashland Healthcare Ctr., Inc. , 49 S.W .3d 281, 285 (Tenn. 2001) . Acc ording ly , appellate courts must make a fre sh determination that the require ments of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Hu nte r v . B ro wn , 955 S.W .2d 49, 50-51 (Te nn. 1997). We must consider the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the non-moving p arty and dra w all re asonable infere nces in the non- moving pa rty ’s fa vor. G o d

f r e y v . R uiz , 90 S.W. 3da t 69 5; Doe v . HCA Health Serv s. of Tenn., Inc. , 46 S.W .3d 191, 196 (Tenn. 2001)

. III . The Cliffords take issue on appea l with the trial court’s conclusion that Cry e-L eike did not ha ve a du ty to r e mov e the sn ow fr om the wh e e lc ha ir ramp o r at le a st t o w arnpasse rs -b y that a whee l ch ai r ramp was conce aled be neath the ne wly fallen snow. E ven thoug h they conce de that questions involving t he ex istence and extent of one’s duty to preve nt harm to others a re que stions of law, they

insist t hat the trial c ourt err ed by concluding that Cry e-L eike did not have a duty either 3 to r e mo v e o r to w ar n o f th e d a n g e r o u s c o n d it io n c au s e d b y s n o w c o v e r in g th e w h e e lc h a ir r a mp . We disag ree . A. Dang e ro us c on dit ion s c re a te d b y the natur a l ac c umu la tio n of sno w or ic e are c on sid e re d to be among the “normal hazards of life .” Grizzell v. Foxx , 48 Tenn. App. 462, 467, 348 S.W.2d 815, 817 (1960). Ac cording ly , landowner s ar e n ot require d to keep their premises fr ee of

natura l acc umul ati o n s o f snow and ic e at a ll tim es. Bo wm an v . S tate , No. M2004-01318-COA- R3-CV, 2006 WL 770454, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2006) perm. app. filed (T e nn . M a y

23 , 2 00 6) ; Ho war

d v. FMS, I nc. , No. 01A01-9709-CV-00479, 1998 WL 195960, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 1998) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P

. 11 app li catio n f ile d) . Ins te a d, the y

aree xpe c te d to take re a so na ble ste ps to remove natura l acc umulations of snow or ice w ithin a rea sonable time. Grizzell v. Foxx , 48 Tenn. Ap p. a t 46 8, 34 8 S. W.2 d at 81 7. Th us , th is c ou rt ha s h eld that it

wo uldno t be fe a sib le or fair toM an y j u r i s di ct i on s h av e h el d t h at a l an down er ’ s du t y t o u s e r ea s on abl e ca r e t o pr ev en t i n j u r y doe s n ot i n cl u de 4 ei t her t he dut y t o re mo ve nat ur al ac cumul at i ons of s now or t o war n i nv i t ees of t he dange r s as s oci at ed wi t h t he nat ur al a c c u m u la tio n o f sn o w a n d ic e . See, e. g. , M un s i l l v. U ni t ed St at es , 1 4 F

. S u p p . 2 d 2 1 4 , 2 2 1 (D .R .I. 1 9 8 8 ); Sm al l i ng v. LaSal l e Nat ’ l Bank , 4 3 3 N .E .2 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 4 -1 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 1 9 8 2 ); Cor bi n M ot or Lodge v . Com bs , 740 S. W

. 2d 944, 946 (K y. 1 9 8 7 ); b u t se e E st ep v . B . F . S a u l R ea l E st a t e In v. T ru st , 8 4 3 S .W .2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 3 -1 4 (K y. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); Br i nkman v. R o ss , 6 2 3 N .E .2 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 7 7 (O h io 1 9 9 3 ); D over v. W

. H

. B r au n, Inc. , 1 1 1 P

. 3 d 2 4 3 , 2 4 5

- 4 6 (O kl a. C t
. A p p . 20 0 3 ); S h e rm a n v . P la tte C o u n ty , 6 4 2 P .2 d 7 8 7 , 7 8 9 (W yo . 1 9 8 2 ).

Col n v . Ci t

y of Sav annah was cl ari f

i ed i n C ro ss v . C ity o

f M e m p h is , 20 S.W

. 3 d 64 2 , 64 3 (T enn. 19 9 8 ) and 5 t hen o verrul ed on o t her gr o und s i n W es t v . Eas t Te nn. Pi onee r O i l Co. , 172 S. W

. 3d a t 550. -4- impose a duty

on a landowner to continuously remove snow or ice in the middle of an ong oing winter storm. Sim mo ns v . R us se ll , N o. 01 A0 1- 97 09 -C V- 00 46 7, 19 98 WL 25 17 51 , at *3 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. May

20, 1998) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)

. It is undisput ed that the snow w as st ill falling whe n the Cliffords ar rived at the State Fa

rm office . Be cause the snowstorm had not y et ended, Cry e-L eike’ s duty to beg in removing the snow had not y et beg un. Acc ording ly , the trial court was corr ect when it determined that Cry e-L eike wa s no t ne g lig e nt b e c aus e it h a d f a ile d to be g in t o r e move the a c c umu la te d s no w w hil e it w a s st ill s n o wi n g. B. Th e Clif fo rd s a lso ins ist

that e ve n if Cry e -L e ike did no t ha ve a du ty to r e mov e the natur a lly a c c umu late d s no w o n its parking lot a nd e ntr a nc e wh ile the sn ow wa s st ill fa lli ng , it ha d a du ty to warn the public of the e x istence o f t h e whee lchair r amp that was c oncea led by the fa llen snow. Cry e-L eike r esponds that the scope of its duty to warn and i t s duty

to remove a

re e ssentially

the same. While we a

re not pre pare d to hold that the scope of the duty to warn is identica l to the scope of the du ty to re mov e , w e ha ve de te rm ine d th a t Cry e -L e ike ha d n o d uty un de r the un dis pu te d f

a c ts of this c ase to wa

rn State F arm’s c ustomers of the pr esenc e of the whee lchair r amp under the snow. 4
The tra ditional “open and obvious” rule ha s not b ee n t o t al l y subsumed by

the doctrine of compar ative fault. Coln v. City of Savannah , 966 S.W

. 2 d 34, 43-44 (Te nn. 1998); W instead v. 5 Goo dl ar k Reg ’lMed. Ctr

. , N o . M 1 9 9 7

- 0 0 2 0 9

- CO A-R3-CV, 2000 WL 343789, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2000) ( No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Whil e a landowner will not be relieve d of its duty t o ex er ci s e re asonable car e to protec t invitees from injury simplybeca

use a dang erous condition is open and obvious, Coln v. City of Savannah , 96 6 S

. W

. 2d at 43, the openne ss and obviousness of an a lleg edly dang erous c ondi t i o n i s a fa ctor for the court to consider whe n de te rm ini ng the e xiste nc e a nd sc op e of the la nd ow ne r’ s du ty
. Th e du ty iss ue mus t be a na ly zedwi th reg ard to the forese eability and gra vity of t he harm, and the fe asibilityand availabilityof alternative conduct that would h av e p re vented the ha rm. W est v. East Tenn. Pionee r Oil Co. , 172 S.W .3d at 55 1; C o ln v. City of Savannah , 9 66 S.W. 2da t 43 ; Fr ie de ns tab v . Sho rt , 1 7 4 S. W. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3

- 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).-5-

I n li g ht o f the natur e of the sn ow sto rm in thi s c a se , w e ha ve c on c lud e d th a t it wa s r e a so na

bly fo re se e ablethat mo st p e rs on s w ou ld a vo id v e ntu ri ng ou t to c on du c t ro uti ne bu sin e ss t rans a c tio ns . Thus, it would have been rea sonable for Cry e-L eike to a ssume that its tenants’ customers would have stay e d at ho me a nda vo ide d u nn e c e ssa ry tr a ve l du ri ng th e sn ow sto rm . T he re fo re , Cry e -L e ike did no t a c t unr e a so na

bly wh e n it de c ide d not to be g in its ef fo rt s to re mov e the a c c umu la te d sno w o r t o survey all of the prope rties it owned or ma nag ed to determine whether the s nowstorm had cr eate d c on dit ion s th a t w ou ld b e abn orma lly da ng e ro us to the pu bli c . T he dif fi c ulty a nde xpe ns e of

the se re me dia l me a su re s o utw e ig he d the p os si bi li ty that a c us tom e r, lik e Mr . Cl if

fo rd , w ho de c ide d to brave the winter weathe r m ight injure himself by slipping on the s ide of a wheelcha ir ramp c oncea led under the fallen snow. Acc ording ly , under the fac ts of this c ase, the trial court c orre ctly conclude d that Cry e-L eike did not have a duty to warn persons doing business at the State F arm off ice of the prese nce of

the whee lchair r amp that was c oncea led by the snow. IV. We affirm the order

g ranting Cry e-L eike’ s m o t ion for summary judgme nt and re mand the c a se to the tria l c ou rt

fo r w hate ve r f

urthe r p ro c e e din g s may

be app ro pria te . We ta x th e c os ts o f this appea l to Emmett Cliffor d and J udy Clifford and their surety for which execution, if nec essary , may issue.

______________________________ WI LL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.