Day on Torts

March 10, 2026

Summary judgment for Kroger store in Tennessee snow and ice case reversed

A low-quality security camera video that failed to show the plaintiff walking anywhere obviously covered with snow, or show that the parking lot was definitively safe, was not enough to support the trial court’s grant of summary judgment or finding of comparative fault by plaintiff in this snow and ice premises liability case.

In Jones v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, No. M2024-01417-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2026), the plaintiff slipped and fell in the parking lot at defendant grocery store after a snow storm. The area had received heavy accumulations of snow and ice a couple of days prior to the incident, but no snow or ice had fallen on the morning of the plaintiff’s injury. Portions of the parking lot and sidewalk had been cleared, but areas of snow and ice remained. Plaintiff entered the store without incident, but when returning to his car by a slightly different route, he fell and was injured. This premises liability suit followed.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not prove that they breached a duty because the “parking lot had been scraped to provide a safe path to enter and exit the store.” In support of this motion, they submitted a low-quality security video that showed the plaintiff walking from his car into the store without issue. They also argued that the plaintiff was 50% or more at fault for his injuries because, rather than taking the exact same route back to his car, the plaintiff walked a different route when exiting the store. The plaintiff responded with expert testimony regarding how much de-icing material should have been used on the parking lot, which was significantly more than was actually used by the defendants.

March 9, 2026

Jury verdict awarding car accident plaintiff only part of medical expenses affirmed

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a jury awarded a car accident plaintiff damages related to the first portion of her medical treatment only, the award was withing the range of reasonableness and was affirmed.

In Adams v. Fields, No. W2025-00311-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2026), the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff on an interstate entrance ramp. The plaintiff claimed she was stopped on a single lane ramp waiting for traffic to clear when she was struck. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff suddenly stopped on a two-lane ramp for no reason. Google maps confirmed that the ramp consisted of two lanes.

During a jury trial, the plaintiff presented evidence regarding lengthy medical treatment, including a back surgery that occurred approximately eighteen months after the accident. The plaintiff relied on testimony from both her treating physician and an expert witness. The testimony showed that the plaintiff received initial treatment in the few months following the accident with a cost of around $8,000, and then additional treatment some months later with a cost of around $40,000.

March 8, 2026

Tennessee Medical Malpractice Trial Statistics – 2024-2025

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts has released data on HCLA (medical malpractice) cases in Tennessee for the one-year period ending June 30, 2025. Data for other torts is summarized here.

Here are the highlights:

There were 324 HCLA cases filed in the year.

March 8, 2026

Tennessee Tort Statistics 2024-25

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts has released data on tort cases in Tennessee for the one-year period ending June 30, 2025. Medical malpractice (HCLA) data is reported separately.

Some highlights:

There were 10,980 tort claims filed for the entire year. The number of filings have been basically flat for the last eight years (although they dropped slightly during the pandemic).

March 8, 2026

Is Evidence of Remarriage Admissible in A Tennessee Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Under Tennessee law, most wrongful death lawsuits are filed by the decedent’s surviving spouse. Sometimes, several years pass before the wrongful death lawsuit comes to trial and, in the meantime, the surviving spouse who filed the wrongful death lawsuit remarries. Is evidence of the re-marriage admissible at the trial of the wrongful death lawsuit?

A recent decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals indicates that the answer to this question may be “yes.” In Davis v. Ellis, 2025 WL 3296175 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2025), the late Ms. Sylvia Davis of West Tennessee died in January 2011, allegedly because of the medical errors of Dr. Ellis. The case did not go to trial until the Spring of 2024 and the wrongful death case filed by her husband was rejected by a jury.

Husband appealed the jury result to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, alleging multiple errors by the trial court. One of the alleged errors was that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to learn (and the defendant doctor to comment on) the fact that the plaintiff husband remarried one year after Sylvia Davis’s death.

September 23, 2025

Summary judgment on HCLA claim based on overtreatment of cancer affirmed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a patient signed a consent form for a double mastectomy after being told about multiple options for treating her breast cancer, summary judgment on her HCLA claim against the surgeon based on surgical overtreatment and lack of informed consent was affirmed.

In Oakes v. Fox, No. E2024-00453-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2025), the plaintiff patient was diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and met with defendant surgeon to discuss treatment options. According to the defendant and the notes in the plaintiff’s file, the defendant discussed multiple options with the plaintiff, including a lumpectomy and a double mastectomy. The parties agreed that the plaintiff asked the surgeon what he would choose for his wife, and he responded that he would choose the double mastectomy. The plaintiff expressed a desire to avoid radiation treatment, which the doctor informed her could likely be avoided with the mastectomy. The plaintiff chose to move forward with the double mastectomy.

On the day of the surgery, the plaintiff signed a consent form stating that she expressly consented to the double mastectomy and the removal of lymph nodes. A few months after the surgery, the plaintiff experienced lymphedema. She opted to undergo an elective revision surgery with a different doctor.

September 18, 2025

Promissory fraud based on promise to pay future costs.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a town asserted that an individual member of an LLC had promised that the LLC would pay a certain amount towards a road improvement project, but that the LLC never intended to pay that amount, the town had stated a cause of action for promissory fraud against the individual.

In CCD Oldsmith Henry, LLC v. Town of Nolensville, No. M2024-01102-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2025), Plaintiff LLC asked Defendant town to rezone property so that the LLC could develop residential units. Plaintiff LLC had two members—Smith and Olderman. Both Smith and Olderman attended the rezoning hearing, but Olderman did not speak during the hearing. When the discussion turned to improvements to a nearby intersection that would be required by the rezoning, Smith stated that “we can contribute the difference” in reference to the amount remaining after the state contributed. After additional discussion, the board approved the rezoning and “limited [the LLC’s] contribution to no more than 50% of the costs.”

At some point following the meeting, the town sent a bill to the LLC, and the LLC refused to pay the amount requested. The town then refused to issue building permits, and the LLC filed suit. The town filed a counterclaim against the LLC, as well as a motion to join Smith and Olderman individually, alleging that Smith and Olderman “fraudulently and negligently misrepresented what Oldsmith was willing to pay.” The trial court denied the motion to add Smith and Olderman as individuals, ruling that there was no personal liability on their parts. On appeal, that ruling was overturned as to Smith.

September 5, 2025

Pre-suit notice to former employees not sufficient under Tennessee law.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

An HCLA pre-suit notice that was sent to two former employees of a rehabilitation center, rather than to the appropriate address or agent for the rehabilitation center, was not sufficient under the statute.

In Anderson v. Alexian Village of Tennessee, No. E2024-00977-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2025), the plaintiff filed a health care liability suit against the defendant rehabilitation center. Before filing suit, the plaintiff sent two copies of pre-suit notice—one addressed to the CEO of the center and one addressed to the president of the center. Neither of these individuals were named as defendants.

The defendant moved to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of the HCLA. The defendant asserted that the pre-suit notice had only been sent to two former employees, neither of whom had worked for the defendant for at least five years. The trial court agreed that the pre-suit notice was deficient and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

September 3, 2025

Alleged fraudulent invoice sent from Florida to Tennessee resulted in personal jurisdiction over tort claim.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a Florida general contractor allegedly used a fraudulent invoice to defraud a Tennessee company, the Court of Appeals ruled that Tennessee could exercise personal jurisdiction over the general contractor for the plaintiffs’ tort claims.

In Hannah Development, LLC v. Maverick General Contractors, LLC, No. M2024-01592-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2025), the plaintiff, a Tennessee company, had worked with the defendants, a Florida general contractor and its principal, on two homebuilding projects. The homes were built in Florida. During the construction of the homes, the defendants sent an invoice to the plaintiff that included a charge for the painting of the defendant principal’s residential fence. The expense was “fraudulently disguised…as a legitimate business expense” for the home building project. The invoice was sent to the Tennessee company, and it was paid with a Tennessee account.

When the plaintiff later learned of the fraudulent expense, it brought this tort action in Tennessee. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, the plaintiff responded with voluminous exhibits including emails, invoices, text messages, money transfers, and other documents purportedly showing that the defendants “knowingly and intentionally engaged in tortious conduct aimed at Tennessee and that they injured a Tennessee domiciliary in the State of Tennessee.” The circuit court granted dismissal, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

August 27, 2025

No duty to remove ice and snow from steps during an ongoing storm.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

A restaurant did not have a duty to clear ice and snow from its steps while a winter storm was ongoing.

In Broyles v. Herrin, No. M2024-00592-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2025), the plaintiff visited defendant restaurant during a winter storm. Snow and ice had been falling for approximately ten to thirty minutes before the plaintiff arrived at the restaurant, and snow and ice had accumulated on the steps. The plaintiff could see the accumulated precipitation, so he used the handrail as he climbed the restaurant steps, but he slipped and fell on an ice patch. This suit followed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant restaurant “caused his injuries by failing to remove snow and ice from the premises or by failing to follow proper procedures to protect him from the dangerous and unsafe condition.” The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed no duty to “remove snow and ice from the premises during an ongoing winter storm.” The trial court agreed with the defendant, granting summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.