Day on Torts
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 trial court granted defendant summary judgment. The trial court ruled that plaintiff failed to show that she could establish the existence of a dangerous condition or notice of such condition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A premises liability claim requires proof of all the elements of negligence, as well as proof that a dangerous condition existed and that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here, plaintiff offered no proof that the mat in question was dangerous. She admitted that she did not see it before she fell, so she did not know if it was flat on the floor. The Court noted that “a floor mat on the ground is not, ipso facto, a dangerous condition, and the mere fact that [plaintiff] fell when she was standing on or near the floor mat is not proof that [defendant] was negligent.” (internal citation omitted). Further, plaintiff presented no proof regarding who created the dangerous condition or how long it had existed, so she had no evidence of notice in this case.
Plaintiff’s appellate brief pointed to additional evidence regarding an iron piece on the floor and store policies, but that evidence was not properly made part of the record. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the additional pieces of evidence plaintiff attempted to introduce “were unrelated to the substantive issue.”
Because plaintiff could not establish the elements of her claim, summary judgment was affirmed.
The Court of Appeals released this opinion two months after the case was assigned on briefs.