Day on Torts
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.
On appeal, plaintiff first argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider its expert affidavit. The Court noted that expert affidavits are governed by Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, and that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.06 requires that “affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence…”
In this case, the only testimony from the driver came from his written statement to police on the day of the accident. He stated that he slowed almost to a stop, did not see any traffic coming, and proceeded to turn. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, however, discussed the driver being “confused by the lack of directions” and “not able to perceive the danger of the traffic situation.” Because these assertions were not supported by the only statement the driver gave, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the expert affidavit.
Next, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff had presented no evidence to prove the elements of duty or causation. The Court of Appeals focused first on duty, stating that “[t]he determination of whether a duty is owed requires a balancing of the foreseeability and gravity of the potential harm against the burden imposed in preventing that harm.” (internal citation omitted). In this case, plaintiff argued that defendant truck stop had created a dangerous condition, although the driver at issue and decedent never actually entered defendant’s property. The Court looked to a similar car accident case, ultimately ruling that “to determine whether the TA Defendants owed [decedent] a duty of care, we must employ the balancing approach…and decide whether a condition on the TA Defendants’ property, specifically the sign marking the entrance to the trucks only entrance, created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff despite this lack of contact [with the property].” (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff argued that the truck entrance sign was confusing, but the Court noted that there was no evidence that the driver had been confused. There was also nothing in the record to support the contention that the grade of the hill would require defendant to post additional signage on its property. The Court pointed out that the existing signs complied with all ordinances, that the city was responsible for traffic control, and that there had been no previous accidents in this spot. The Court stated that “imposing a duty on the TA Defendants to prevent a motorist from failing to yield to oncoming traffic on Long Lane would be an onerous burden.” The Court ruled that defendant “could not prevent [the driver] from failing to yield to oncoming traffic,” and that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to show a duty of care. Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
This opinion was released one month after oral arguments.