Court Opinion

ID: 9644754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:04:11.53071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:17.846876
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Inman Realty Co. has filed a timely petition for rehearing in accordance with Tenn. R.App.P. 39(a) requesting this court to reconsider its September 4, 1992 opinion in light of Belote v. Memphis Dev. Co., 51 Tenn.App. 423, 369 S.W.2d 97 (1962). In-man cited this case in its brief and expresses concern that we overlooked the case because we did not discuss it in our opinion. We did not discuss the Belote case in our original opinion because it was inapposite, not because we overlooked it.
The evidence in this case demonstrates that Inman was in control of the property when Ms. Smith was injured. Inman, therefore, had a duty to its invitees either to remove or to warn them of dangerous conditions it discovered or should have discovered. Unlike, Inman, the realtors in Belote were not possessors of the property when Miss Belote fell through the hole in the attic floor. Because of this factual difference, the Belote decision provided us with little guidance concerning the proper resolution of this case.
We deny the petition for rehearing and tax the costs of the petition to Inman Realty Company for which execution, if necessary, may issue.
[[Image here]]
/s/ Ben H. Cantrell BEN H. CANTRELL, Judge
/s/ William C. Koch, Jr. WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., Judge