1999) (quoting Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 211). This Court discussed the relevant law in slip and fall cases in Martin v. Washmaster Auto Center, U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996). In Martin, the plaintiff was outside when she slipped and fell on asphalt at the defendant's business.

Additionally, to hold an owner or operator of premises liable in negligence for a dangerous or defective condition on its premises, the plaintiff must show either (1) that the premises owner or operator caused the condition, or (2) if not, "that the owner or operator had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident." Blair v. West Town Mall 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996)); see also Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 159 Fed.Appx. 626, 627-28 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). "[C]onstructive notice can be established by proof that the dangerous or defective condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of the condition."

In this appeal, the Caires contend that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the Defendants because the Caires presented evidence from which the jury could have found that the Defendants' method of operation created a hazardous situation which was foreseeably harmful to others. Specifically, the Caires contend that this evidence showed that the Defendants chose to conduct the propane canister exchange as a self-service operation and did not take reasonable precautions to protect their customers from the foreseeable dangers caused or created by such an operation. The theory advanced by the Caires in this case has been recognized by the courts of this state as the "method of operation" theory of premises liability. Martin v. WashmasterAuto Ctr., 946 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tenn.App. 1996). Under this theory, a proprietor may be held liable for injuries to a customer if the proprietor's chosen method of operation creates a hazardous condition which causes foreseeable harm to the customer.

Law and Analysis This Court, in Martin v. Washmasters Auto Center, U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996), discussed the relevant law in slip and fall cases as follows: While business proprietors . . . are not insurers of their patrons' safety, they are required to use due care under all circumstances. Smith v. Inman Realty Co., 846 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992).

On the other hand, the jury is not permitted to engage in conjecture, speculation, or guesswork as to which of two equally probable inferences is applicable. Stringer v. Cooper, 486 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1972). Martin v. Washmaster, 946 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996) perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1997).

Additionally, to hold an owner or operator of premises liable in negligence for a dangerous or defective condition on its premises, the plaintiff must show either (1) that the premises owner or operator caused the condition, or (2) if not, "that the owner or operator had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident." Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). "[C]onstructive notice can be established by proof that the dangerous or defective condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of the condition."

However, they are required to use due care under all the circumstances. Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A, 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). "Liability in premises liability cases stems from superior knowledge of the condition of the premises."

Nonetheless, "they are required to use due care under all the circumstances." Id. (citing Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). In addition to the essential elements of negligence, plaintiffs bringing a premises liability claim must also prove that the alleged hazardous condition "was caused or created by the owner, operator, or his agent," or "if the condition was created by someone other than the owner, operator, or his agent, that the owner or operator had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident."

" Morris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 330 F.3d 854, 858 (6th Cir. 2003); see alsoBlair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). Plaintiff does not argue that Defendants created the dangerous condition, but rather that Defendants had at least constructive notice of the splintered board and breached their duty of care by failing to remedy or warn others of it. "[C]onstructive notice can be established by proof that the dangerous or defective condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of the condition."

"The recurring conduct or continuing condition must be specific to the location where the incident at issue occurred . . . notice of a general or continuing condition in one area of the premises does not necessarily support a finding of constructive notice as to another area." Id. at 467-68 (citing Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 767; Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. Appl. 1996); Tinsley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 155 F. App'x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2005)). "When there is a complete absence of proof as to when and how the dangerous condition came about, it would be improper to permit [a] jury to speculate on these vital elements."