benny-r-shope-and-wife-betty-s-shope-v-radio-shack-a-division-of-tandy ( 1995 )

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
December 7, 1995
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
BENNY E. SHOPE a nd wi f e , ) BRADLEY CI RCUI T
BETTY S. SHOPE, ) 1
C. A. NO. 03A01- 9508- CV- 00288
)
)
Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s )
)
)
)
)
)
vs . ) HON. EARLE G. MURPHY
) J UDGE
)
)
)
)
)
RADI O SHACK, a d i vi s i on o f ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED
TANDY CORPORATI ON, a nd RADI O )
SHACK, I NC. , a c or por a t i on doi ng)
b u s i n e s s i n Br a dl e y Count y , )
Te nn e s s e e , )
)
De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s )
CONRAD FI NNELL, Cl e ve l a nd, f or Appe l l a nt s .
DANI EL J . RI PPER, Cha t t a nooga , f or a ppe l l e e s .
O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J .
c ur
Thi s is a pr e mi s e s l i a bi l i t y a c t i on. The c a s e wa s t r i ed
b e f o r 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 . At t h e
c o n c l u s i on of t h e pl a i nt i f f s ’ pr oof , t he de f e nda nt s move d f or a
d i r e c t e d ve r di c t whi c h wa s gr a nt e d. J udgme nt wa s e nt e r e d i n f a v o r
o f t h e de f e nda nt s . Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d. W a f f i r m t he j udgme n t
e
o f t he t r i a l c our t .
Th e 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 n n y
E. Sh o p e wa s a bus i ne s s i n vi t e e i n a Ra di o Sha c k s t or e i n Cl e v e -
l a nd. He wa s a r e gul a r c us t ome r a nd a f r i e nd of t he s t or e ma na ge r ,
Chr i s Robe r t s . On t he da y of t he a c c i de nt he ha d gone i nt o t h e
d e f e n d a 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. Af t e r
he c o n c 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 oun t e r
t a l k i n g t o M . Robe r t s .
r As he t ur ne d t o l e a ve , he t r i ppe d ove r a
d i s p l a y c ount e r t ha t wa s l oc a t e d s ome f our a nd one - ha l f t o f i v e
f e e t f r o m t he c he c k- out c o unt e r . The di s pl a y c ount e r wa s e i ght e e n
i n c h e s s qua r e a t t he ba s e a nd t we nt y- f our i nc he s hi gh, e xc l us i v e o f
t h e me 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 h a t
h e t o o k onl y one s t e p ba c k wa r ds a nd t r i ppe d ove r t he c or ne r of t h e
di s pl a y. Se ve r a l d i s pl a ys we r e a l i gne d s o t ha t a i s l e s we r e c r e a t e d
f r om t h e 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 . Th e
p l a i n t i f f a c knowl e dge d t ha t he kne w t ha t t he di s pl a ys we r e t he r e .
No wa r n i ng of a ny ki nd wa s gi ve n t o t he pl a i nt i f f by t he de f e nda n t s
o r a n y e mpl oye e or a ge nt of t he de f e nda nt s .
2
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
d i s p l a y c ount e r s we r e ope n a nd obvi ous a nd t ha t no dut y on t he p a r t
o f t h e 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 me
Co u r t ’ s de c i s i ons i n M I nt yr e v.
c Ba l e n t i ne , 833 S. W 2d 52 ( Te n n .
.
1 9 9 2 ) a nd Pe r e z v. M Conke y, 872 S. W 2d 897 ( Te nn 1994) , ge ne r a l l y
c .
s t a t e d , wa s a s f ol l ows :
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
b u s i ne s s t o whi c h t he publ i c i s i nvi t e d i s ba s e d upon t he
d u t y t o ke e p hi s pr e mi s e s i n a r e a s ona bl y s a f e c ondi t i on
f o r a l l pe r s ons who a r e l a wf ul l y on hi s pr e mi s e s a nd i n
t he e xe r c i s e of d ue c a r e f or t he i r own s a f e t y. Li a bi l i t y
i s s us t a i ne d on t he gr ound of t he owne r ' s s upe r i or
k n owl e dge of a pe r i l o us c ondi t i on on hi s pr e mi s e s a nd he
i s n ot l i a bl e f or i nj ur i e s s u 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 we l l known t o t he
i n vi t e e a s t o t he owne r . The i nvi t e e a s s ume s a l l nor ma l
o r obvi ous r i s ks a t t e nda nt on t he us e of t he pr e mi s e s .
Ke n d a l l Oi l Co. v . Pa yne , 41 Te nn. App. 201, 293 S. W 2d 40,
. 42
( Te n n . App. 1955) .
The ef f ect , if a ny, of M I nt yr e
c ( a dopt i on of c ompa r a t i v e
f a u l t ) a nd Pe r e z ( hol di ng t ha t i mpl i e d a s s umpt i on of r i s k i s n o
l o n g e r a ba r t o r e c ove r y) , on t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e ha s not a s
ye t b e e n f ul l y e xpl a i ne d by t he Supr e me Cour t . Si nc e M I nt y r e ,
c
h o we ve r , t hi s c our t h a s a ddr e s s e d t he r ul e i n a t l e a s t t wo c a s e s ,
i . e. , Coope r wood v. Kr oge r Food St or e s , I nc . , opi ni on f i l ed
De c e mb e r 30, 1994, a nd Br o yl e s v. Ci t y of Knoxvi l l e , opi ni on f i l e d
3
Au g u s t 30, 1995. ( The Sup r e me Cour t gr a nt e d pe r mi s s i on t o a pp e a l
i n Co o p e r wood, h owe ve r , t he c a s e wa s s e t t l e d be f or e a r gume nt . An
a p p l i c a t i on f or pe r mi s s i o n to a ppe a l ha s not be e n f i l ed in
Br o y l e s . )
I n bot h opi ni ons of t hi s c our t , i t wa s de c i de d t ha t t he “ o p e n
a n d o b v i ous ” r ul e a s i t e xi s t e d a nd wa s a ppl i e d pr i or t o M I nt y r e
c
a nd Pe r e z wa s no l onge r t he l aw i n t hi s j ur i s di c t i on. Th e
r e s p e c t i ve opi ni ons c onc l u de d t ha t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e mu s t
b e r e s t a t e d t o c ompor t wi t h t he c ompa r a t i ve f a ul t doc t r i ne a nd t h e
a b o l i t i on of t he doc t r i ne of i mpl i e d a s s umpt i on of r i s k a s a ba r t o
r e c ov e r y.
I n Br oyl e s , we s t a t e d: “We a dhe r e t o t he c onc e pt t ha t t h e r e
i s n o 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 mi s e s i f
a pe r s o n l a wf ul l y t he r e on f a i l s t o e xe r c i s e r e a s ona bl e c a r e f or h i s
or he r own 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 b l y
a pp a r e nt , or a s we l l known t o t he i nj ur e d pa r t y a s t o t he own e r ,
ope r a t or or pe r s on i n c o nt r ol of t he pr e mi s e s , s o l ong a s t he
p l a i nt i f f ' s ne gl i ge nc e i s e qua l t o or gr e a t e r t ha n t he de f e nda nt ' s
n e g l i g e nc e , o r i n c a s e s o f mul t i pl e t or t f e a s or s , t h e pl a i nt i f f ' s
n e g l i g e nc e i s mor e t ha n t he c ombi ne d f a ul t of al l t or t f e a s o r s .
Ot h e r wi s e s t a t e d, we ar e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he dut y of t he
p l a i nt i f 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 me e t h e r
4
dut y mu s t be c ompa r e d to t he ne gl i ge nc e of t he t or t f e a s or or
t o r t f e a s or s . ”
W st i l l
e a dhe r e t o t he pr i nc i pl e s t a t e d i n Br oyl e s a nd t h e
r e s u l t t he r e i n r e a c he d b ut be c a us e we f e e l t ha t t he s t a t e me nt s i n
Br o y l e s a r e not c ompl e t e s t a t e me nt s of pr e va i l i ng l a w, we t a ke t h i s
o p p o r t u ni 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 mpt 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.
It is cl ear f r om t h e Supr e me Cour t ’ s opi ni on i n Ea t on v .
M Cl a i n,
c 891 S. W 2d 587 ( Te nn.
. 1994) , t ha t t he ope n a nd obvi o u s
r ul e h a s not be e n a br oga t e d und e r c i r c ums t a nc e s whe r e t he a pp l i -
c a t i o n o f t he r ul e r e l i e ve s t he de f e nda nt f r om a ny dut y t owa r d t h e
p l a i nt i f f . Si mpl y s t a t e d, i f t he de f e nda nt owe s no dut y t o t h e
p l a i n t i f f , t he r e i s no ne gl i ge nc e t o c ompa r e .
I n Ea t on, t he Supr e me Cour t ma de t he f ol l owi ng obs e r va t i o n :
Al t hough Te nne s s e e l a w pr ovi de s t ha t pr e mi s e s owne r s
o we i nvi t e e s t he dut y t o wa r n of l a t e nt or hi dde n
d a 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 n d obvi ous . J a c ks on v. Te nne s s e e Va l l e y Aut 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 i s c l e a r t ha t i n Ea t on , t h e Supr e me Cour t a ppl i e d t he r u l e
a s i t e x i s t e d b e f or e M I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z .
c W be l i e ve , howe ve r , t h a t
e
5
t he r u l e a ppl i e s onl y i n t hos e i ns t a nc e s whe r e t he r e i s a dut y o we d
by t he de f e nda nt to t he pl a i nt i f f , whi c h if not me t , wo u l d
c o n s t i t ut e n e gl i ge nc e . W t a ke not e t ha t t he r e we r e e xc e pt i ons t o
e
t h e o p e n a nd obvi ous r ul e l ong be f or e t he a dopt i on of c ompa r a t i v e
f a u l t b y t he Supr e me Cour t . By wa y of e xa mpl e , a n e xc e pt i on t o t he
o p e n a n d obvi ous r ul e i s t he “ mome n t a r y f or ge t f ul ne s s ” r ul e . Se e
Ci t y o f Knoxvi l l e v. Cox , 103 Te nn. 368, 53 S. W 734 ( 1899) ; M y o r
. a
a nd Al d e r me n v. Ca i n , 128 Te nn. 250, 159 S.W. 108 4 ( 1 9 1 3 ) a nd
Pe t e r s v. Te nne s s e e Ce nt . Ry. , 167 S. W 2d 973 ( Te nn. 1943) . Un d e r
.
t he “ mo me 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 b a r
of c o n t 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 me mor y r e s ul t e d f r om r e a s ona bl e c a us e . W pe r c e i ve no
e
r e a s o n why t he s a me r e a s oni ng c a nnot be a ppl i e d unde r t he c onc e p t
of c o mp a r a t i ve f a ul t . It woul d l ogi c a l l y f ol l ow t ha t if t he
d e f e n d a nt wa s a s ubs t a nt i a l f a c t or in c a us i ng t he mome nt a r y
f o r g e t f ul ne s s , he c oul d be c ha r ge a bl e wi t h ne gl i ge nc e whi c h wo u l d
r e q u i r e a c ompa r i s on of t he pl a i nt i f f ’ s ne gl i ge n c e a ga i ns t t he
d e f e n d a nt ’ s ne gl i ge nc e i n a c c or da n c e wi t h t he r ul e s a dopt e d i n
M I nt yr e .
c
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 u l e
h a s n o t be e n a f f e c t e d by M I nt yr e or Pe r e z e xc e pt i n t hos e unus u a l
c
c i r c ums t a nc e s whe 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 o n c u r r e nt l y wi t h t he n e gl i ge nc e of t he pl a i nt i f f or , s t at ed
o t h e r wi s e , unde r c i r c ums t a nc e s whe r e a dut y is owe d by t he
6
d e f e n d a nt to t he pl a i nt i f f . In s uc h cas es , a c ompa r i s on of
n e g l i g e nc e i s r e qui r e d.
In t hi s case, we ar e of t he opi ni o n t ha t t he “ ope n a nd
o b v i o u s ” r ul e s houl d be a p pl i e d a s i t e xi s t e d be f or e M I nt yr e a nd
c
Pe r e z . The r e wa s no s howi ng t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s uf f e r e d f r om a n y
mome n t a r y f 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 o n
t he p a 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 wa s n o
s h o wi n g t ha t t he de f e nda nt or i t s e mpl oye e s or a ge nt s pos s e s s e d a n y
s u p e r i o r knowl e dge t o t ha t pos s e s s e d by t he pl a i nt i f f . The r e f o r e ,
t he r e wa s no dut y on t he pa r t of t he de f e nda nt s to wa r n t he
p l a i n t 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 n d
h i m. Abs e nt a dut y, t he r e c a n be no ne gl i ge nc e .
I n our f i na l a na l ys i s , we hol d t ha t t he ope n a nd obvi ous r u l e
is u n a f f e c t e d by M I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z e xc e pt
c u nde r c i r c ums t a nc e s
whe r e a pl a i nt i f f wa s not ba r r e d by t he r ul e unde r t h e l a w a s i t
e x i s t e d be f or e t he de c i s i ons i n M I nt yr e a nd Pe r e z .
c I n t hos e r a r e
i n s t a nc e s , t he ne gl i ge nc e of t he r e s pe c t i ve pa r t i e s or t or t f e a s o r s
mu s t b e c ompa r e d.
W er e,
h a s he r e , t he f a c t s a r e undi s put e d, whe t he r a dut y t o
wa r n e xi s t s i s de t e r mi ne d a s a ma t t e r of l a w. Se e Re e c e e x r e l
Re e c e v . Lowe ' s of Boone I nc . , 754 S. W 2d 67 ( Te nn. App. 1988) a n d
.
c a s e s c i t e d t he r e i n.
7
Th e c i r c ums t a nc e s t o a voi d t he ope n a nd obvi ous r ul e a r e n o t
p r e s e n t i n t hi s c a s e . Ac c or di ngl y, we a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t h e
t r i a l c o ur t . Cos t s of t hi s c a us e a r e a s s e s s e d t o t he a ppe l l a nt s
a nd t hi s cas e is r e ma nde d to t he t r i al c our t f or c ol l e c t i on
t h e r e of .
_______________________________ _ _ _
Don T. M M r a y, J .
c ur
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________
Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________
Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J .
8
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
BENNY E. SHOPE a nd wi f e , ) BRADLEY CI RCUI T
BETTY S. SHOPE, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9508- CV- 00288
)
)
Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s )
)
)
)
)
)
vs . ) HON. EARLE G. MURPHY
) J UDGE
)
)
)
)
)
RADI O SHACK, a d i vi s i on o f ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED
TANDY CORPORATI ON, a nd RADI O )
SHACK, I NC. , a c or por a t i on doi ng)
b u s i n e s s i n Br a dl e y Count y , )
Te nn e s s e e , )
)
De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s )
ORDER
Thi s a ppe a l c a me on t o b e he a r d u p o n t h e r e c or d f r om t h e
Ci r c u i t Cour t of Br a dl e y Co u n t y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .
Up o n c o n s i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t h e r e
wa s n o r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .
Ac c or di ngl y, we a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t . Co s t s
of t hi s c a us e a r e a s s e s s e d t o t he a ppe l l a nt s a nd t hi s case i s
r e ma n d e 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 .
PER CURI AM
10