Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Where the decedent was an independent contractor who died when a lifting mechanism in the factory failed, there were questions of fact regarding whether the defendant company owed a duty to the decedent, so summary judgment for the defendant company was reversed.

In Lowe v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, No. M2023-01774-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2024), the decedent was employed by Cumberland Machine Company and worked as a millwright. Cumberland and the defendant were separate entities, but Cumberland had a space inside the defendant’s plant, which is where the decedent worked. The decedent’s job included clearing clogged vent holes in 2,000+ pound tire molds. While flipping a mold pursuant to the defendant’s process, the mold fell onto the decedent, seriously injuring him. The decedent later died of his injuries.

The decedent’s wife filed this premises liability/wrongful death case against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it owed no duty to the decedent and that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation. While the trial court denied summary judgment based on the workers’ compensation argument, it agreed that the defendant owed no duty to the decedent. On appeal, summary judgment based on the lack of duty was reversed.

Where decedent was killed in a car accident that occurred when a driver on a city-controlled street was turning into defendant truck stop, the truck stop did not owe a duty of care to the decedent.

In Mershon v. HPT TA Properties Trust, No. M2023-01334-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2024), plaintiff filed a wrongful death negligence action after her husband was killed in an accident. The decedent was driving a motorcycle when the driver of an SUV turned across the decedent’s lane to attempt to enter defendant truck stop’s parking lot. The entry in question was marked as being for semi-trucks, not passenger vehicles, and there was limited visibility due to a hill on the road.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant truck stop “created a hazardous condition by failing to display clearly visible signage at the ‘trucks only’ entrance of the TA truck stop directing passenger vehicles to the proper entrance located a short distance down Long Lane.” After an earlier dismissal was reversed on appeal, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff could not show that defendant owed a duty. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

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.

A premises liability plaintiff who had no evidence that defendant construction company controlled the area where she fell did not survive summary judgment.

In Brooks v. Whaley Construction, LLC, No. E2023-00711-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2024), plaintiff walked in a grass median after having car trouble. While walking, he tripped on a signpost that had been cut down to one foot, injuring himself. Defendant construction company was working on a project in the area and had a portion of the median blocked off with a silt fence. The signpost was outside the silt fence.

Plaintiff filed this premises liability suit, and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant presented a declaration from its superintendent stating that the only area at the site that was within defendant’s control was the area within the silt fence, and that defendant’s project did not involve creation or removal of the signpost. Plaintiff responded to the summary judgment by filing his own declaration stating that there appeared to be construction in the area outside the silt fence. He also relied on certain documents, but those documents had not been made part of the record. At oral argument, plaintiff conceded that the relevant documents were not part of the record, and plaintiff did not have them on the day of the hearing. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Where a premises liability plaintiff admitted that she had no evidence regarding how a hole was created, how long it had existed, or that any other person had fallen into it, summary judgment for defendant was affirmed.

In Halterman-Scott v. Tennessee Society of Certified Public Accountants, No. M2024-00373-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2024), plaintiff was catering an event for defendant. While walking, plaintiff left the sidewalk and walked on the grass. She fell in a hole in the grass and was injured, and thereafter filed this premises liability suit.

Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff could not show that defendant caused the allegedly dangerous condition or had notice of it. In response to defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts, plaintiff admitted the following:

After slipping and falling in a retail store, plaintiff had evidence that the store was aware of the spill with enough time to address or warn about it. Summary judgment for the store was therefore reversed.

In Alcantar v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. M2023-01143-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2023), plaintiff slipped on liquid while shopping at defendant Dollar General store. Immediately after the fall, an employee came to check on plaintiff and told plaintiff that there was a large milk spill in the next aisle. Plaintiff took photos showing liquid in the aisle where he fell, as well as liquid in the next aisle accompanied by a mop and bucket. The photo of the next aisle also showed an employee cleaning the spill along with a warning sign.

Plaintiff filed a premises liability claim against the store. During depositions, the store manager stated that the standard procedure for a spill was to put up warning signs and to use gray towels to soak up any liquid. During plaintiff’s deposition, he admitted that he did not know how long the liquid had been in the floor. He testified that no gray towels were in use in the clean up on the next aisle. Instead, the employee was using a mop or squeegee and appeared to be spreading the liquid into the aisle where plaintiff fell.

A premises liability plaintiff must have evidence that a dangerous condition existed and that defendant had notice (actual or constructive) of the condition to survive summary judgment.

In Farmer v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. W2023-00468-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2024), plaintiff slipped and fell while getting a shopping cart in defendant store. Plaintiff wore sandals, and she asserted that “her slip-on sandal caught on a floor mat.”

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff could not prove her case. In its statement of undisputed material facts, defendant asserted that plaintiff believed the edge of the mat was not flat, but that plaintiff did not see the mat until after her fall. Plaintiff did not dispute these assertions. Plaintiff admitted that she did not know if anyone from defendant store did anything to the mat or knew about the alleged dangerous condition of the mat before her fall. She also admitted that she did not know how long the alleged dangerous condition had existed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a personal injury case because the defendant qualified as a statutory employer of plaintiff under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation laws.  Under the “exclusivity doctrine” in worker’s compensation law, an employee cannot sue his or her employer under  tort law.  Instead,  the exclusive remedy for the employee is under worker’s compensation law.

In Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company, No. M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2024), plaintiff worked as a sales representative for a hardware company. The hardware company supplied certain products to defendant retail store. Plaintiff’s job therefore included visiting defendant store, along with many other stores, to check its inventory. While at the store, plaintiff would determine whether additional inventory from his hardware company should be sent, stock any new product, and generally straighten the area where his company’s products were displayed. Plaintiff typically visited defendant store every four to six weeks.

During one visit, a large barn door fell off its track and hit plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation case against the hardware company he worked for, which was settled. He also filed this personal injury case against defendant retail store. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was a statutory employer under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation laws, and that workers’ compensation was therefore plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment to defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Where the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant store in a premises liability case based on the finding that there was no dangerous condition, but the plaintiff’s appellate brief only addressed the issue of notice, summary judgment for defendant was affirmed.

In Williams v. Dollar General Corporations, LLC, No. E2023-00702-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024) (memorandum opinion), plaintiff entered a Dollar General store operated by defendant while it was lightly raining. Plaintiff was wearing slides, and the store had a mat at the front and a wet floor sign. Plaintiff’s shoe got caught on the mat and plaintiff fell, injuring herself.

Plaintiff filed this premises liability claim against defendant, and defendant moved for summary judgment on several grounds. In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted a seven-minute video containing excerpts of security camera footage, as well as a longer, unedited version of the footage. At the motion hearing, the trial court stated that it was unable to view the longer version of the video due to technical issues, and it offered plaintiff the opportunity to play the longer version, which plaintiff declined.

Where plaintiff was an employee of the company that leased a building, and she brought a negligence and negligence per se claim against the owner of the building after she fell off a staircase that allegedly was not up to code, summary judgment for the building owner was affirmed; plaintiff, plaintiff’s employer, and defendant landlord had co-extensive knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition.

In Lewis v. Fletcher, No. W2022-00939-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2023), plaintiff was going down a set of stairs at the entrance of the building leased by her employer when she fell off the stairs and was injured. The stairs had a handrail on only one side.

Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting negligence and negligence per se against the building owners, who were not the original builders of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant building owners “based on the rule of non-liability of a landlord to its tenant or third parties when the landlord and tenant have coextensive knowledge of the condition of the property[.]” (internal citation omitted). On appeal, summary judgment was affirmed.