Day on Torts
Where a premises liability plaintiff had no proof that a bench outside defendant restaurant was dangerous or defective, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
In Ellis v. Snookums Steakhouse, LLC, No. W2024-01165-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2025), the plaintiff ate at defendant restaurant before walking outside. When the plaintiff sat on a bench located outside, the bench “flipped or tilted from end to end.” The plaintiff did not look back when she was sitting down.
Based on this incident, the plaintiff filed this premises liability suit against the restaurant. The plaintiff emphasized that the bench had “new bolts in the holes in the metal to which the back would be fastened,” but that there was no back on the bench.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff “could not produce evidence to establish that she was injured as a result of a dangerous or defective condition on [the restaurant’s] property.” The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A premises liability plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence “as well as that the premises owner or operator either caused or created the dangerous condition or had notice of the condition prior to the accident.” (internal citation omitted). The plaintiff must have “some evidence that a dangerous condition actually existed on the premises.” (internal citation omitted). The fact that the plaintiff was injured is not enough, alone, to show that a dangerous condition existed. “Liability is only imposed when a condition constituted a danger from which injury might be reasonably anticipated.” (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff relied heavily on the bolts on the bench that showed that a back could be attached, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that this was not enough to show a dangerous condition. The Court reasoned:
But Appellants have failed to show any weakness or malfunction in the bench that caused or contributed to Ms. Ellis’s injuries. Instead, they merely point to the missing backrest of the bench and the fact that there were new bolts that, according to Mr. Ellis, “[s]hould have been holding the back” of the bench; Appellants failed, however, to present proof either that the missing backrest had any impact on, or was the catalyst for, the bench tipping over “end to end.” Thus, they failed to demonstrate that the missing backrest was “why the malfunction occurred” that resulted in Ms. Ellis’s injuries. Nor did they present any evidence that it was unreasonable or even unusual to maintain [a bench] in this condition. Indeed, benches without backrests are not uncommon and Appellants have presented no proof or legal authority to suggest that benches of this type are, without more, unreasonably dangerous.
(internal citations and quotation omitted).
The Court wrote that the plaintiff’s “argument amounts to little more than a plea that we infer negligence from the fact that the bench did not operate as [the plaintiff] anticipated when she sat on it.” But because the plaintiff offered no evidence to support such an inference, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
It is well established in Tennessee that premises liability plaintiffs must have some proof that the condition was dangerous and not simply rely on the fact that they were injured. Here, the plaintiff presented nothing to show that the bench with no back was dangerous or defective, so summary judgment was affirmed.
This opinion was released one month after oral arguments.