Summary judgment for a landlord in a premises liability suit was reversed where the landlord had not installed a stair rail (also known as a handrail) up to code.
In Franz v. Funes, No. E2023-01256-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2024), plaintiff leased a residential property from defendant, who owned and built the property. The townhouse had stairs connecting the first and second floor, but the stairs only had a handrail on the bottom portion and “lacked a code-compliant handrail going the length of the stairs.” When going down the stairs one morning, plaintiff fell and injured himself.
Plaintiff filed this premises liability case asserting claims for negligence and negligence per se. The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, relying heavily on the finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious and that defendant thus had no duty. The trial court also found that summary judgment was appropriate based on plaintiff’s comparative fault. On appeal, summary judgment was reversed.
In addition to proof regarding the existence of a dangerous condition and notice, a premises liability plaintiff must establish the elements of negligence, including that defendant had a duty. “In a premises liability case, an owner or occupier of premises has a duty to exercise reasonable care with regard to social guests or business invitees on the premises.” (internal citation omitted). This duty may exist even when the allegedly dangerous condition is open and obvious. With an open and obvious dangerous condition, “the duty issue must be analyzed with regard to foreseeability and gravity of harm, and the feasibility and availability of alternative conduct that would have prevented the harm.” (internal citation omitted).
Defendant emphasized that plaintiff had lived in the townhome for several months, plaintiff testified that he did not reach for the non-existent handrail when falling, and plaintiff stated that he was not sure what caused him to fall. The Court noted, though, that the open and obvious nature of the missing handrail did not “automatically insulate a premises owner from a duty of care or liability[.]” (internal citation omitted). The Court found that the foreseeability and gravity of potential harm was great, while the burden on defendant to extend the handrail was “comparatively light.” The Court noted that defendant was the one who built and rented out the townhome, and it was his responsibility to abide by building codes. Although plaintiff used the stairs for five months without falling, that did not absolve defendant of his duty under an ordinary negligence claim.
Plaintiff also made a claim for negligence per se based on the stairs’ noncompliance with building code, which required the handrail to extend the full length of the stairway. Defendant did not dispute the noncompliance. The Court wrote that plaintiff belonged to the class of persons meant to be protected by the code, and his injury was the type that was meant to be prevented. In addition to having a duty under ordinary negligence, the Court therefore ruled that a duty also existed pursuant to the negligence per se claim.
After finding that defendant owed a duty, the Court analyzed the issues of causation and comparative fault. Defendant argued that the cause of plaintiff’s fall was speculative, but the Court found that plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff had testimony from a structural engineer stating that a handrail prevents people from losing their balance on stairs and that the lack of a handrail was a substantial, contributing factor in plaintiff’s fall. While defendant could argue to the jury that plaintiff’s failure to reach for a nonexistent handrail shows that the missing handrail did not contribute to the fall, such an argument was not enough to prevail on summary judgment.
Finally, the Court rejected the trial court’s finding that a rational trier of fact must find plaintiff at least 50% at fault. The Court noted that defendant could have engaged in the alternative conduct of completing the handrail up the stairs, which could have prevented this fall. The Court therefore found that genuine issues of material fact existed in relation to comparative fault, and it reversed summary judgment on that basis.
Summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court.
The Court of Appeals analyzed this case correctly, and this is a good opinion to review if you are litigating an open and obvious danger premises liability case.