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.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Johnson County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.

BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.

Click on the link for more information on the Johnson County court system.

Where plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence of notice of the washout and sinkhole on a road, summary judgment for the county was affirmed.

In Roberts v. Carter, No. W2023-01316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2024) (memorandum opinion), plaintiff filed suit after having a car accident on a county road due to a sinkhole and washout. Although the Court of Appeals had overturned an earlier grant of summary judgment, in this memorandum opinion it affirmed the ruling that plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to notice.

Plaintiff’s complaint cited three sections of the GTLA, but on this appeal, only the claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 was addressed in plaintiff’s brief. Pursuant to that section of the GTLA, immunity for a governmental entity may be removed “for an injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street…owned and controlled by such governmental entity,” but only if the governmental entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here, plaintiff admitted that the county did not have actual notice of the washout, so the issue was whether plaintiff had enough evidence to show constructive notice.

Where plaintiff was injured by a dangerous condition on state property created by the gross negligence of a state employee, the Claims Commission Act did not provide a cause of action.

In Gordon v. State of Tennessee, No. W2023-01012-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2024), plaintiff child was injured when she cut her foot on a broken metal pipe under the surface of a state-owned lake. Plaintiff and her mom filed an action with the Claims Commission pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C), which “relat[es] to negligently created or maintained dangerous conditions on state property.”

The Claims Commission initially ruled for plaintiff, finding that the pipe remnant was left in the lake when the pipe was replaced, and that “the child’s injury was foreseeable and proximately caused by the State’s negligence.” The State filed a motion to alter or amend, arguing that the Recreational Use Statute provided immunity here. The Claims Commission agreed that the Recreational Use Statute applied, but it ruled that the facts of this case constituted gross negligence, which is an exception to immunity under the Recreational Use Statute. The Claims Commission affirmed the damages award to plaintiff, and defendant State appealed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed that the filing of a TPPA petition to dismiss by a defendant does not bar a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing a case.

In Flade v. City of Shelbyville, — S.W.3d —, No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2024), plaintiff filed suit against several defendants asserting claims for libel, intentional interference with business, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims were based on statements allegedly made by defendants about plaintiff on social medial and through text messages.

In addition to motions to dismiss, two defendants filed petitions to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”). Before the scheduled hearing for these petitions, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The trial court dismissed the matter without prejudice pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01, and it denied defendants’ “Notice of Intent to Proceed” with their TPPA petitions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the allowance of the nonsuit and the refusal to consider defendants’ TPPA petitions thereafter, and in this opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed this ruling.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Unicoi County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.

BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.

Click on the link for more information on the Unicoi County court system.

Where there was a question of fact regarding when the plaintiff should have discovered her injury in a health care liability case, as the pain she experienced was a potential side effect of her dental procedures, summary judgment for the defendant dentist was reversed.

In Price v. The Center for Family and Implant Dentistry, PLLC, No. E2023-01100-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024), plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against defendant dentist after being told by another dentist that dentures could not be made to fit the implants installed by defendant. Plaintiff began her treatment with defendant in April 2019, which involved extracting all her teeth and installing implants in preparation for dentures. After procedures in June, August and October 2019, plaintiff experienced pain, but she was told these were normal side effects. Plaintiff also noticed that her temporary dentures would slip out of her mouth. According to plaintiff, she received wax rims on December 9, 2019, but adjustments needed to be made. Plaintiff returned in February 2020 to try the new set of teeth. According to plaintiff, defendant was rude at the appointment, so plaintiff met with a different dentist thereafter. That dentist, as well as another dentist, informed her that teeth could not be made that would fit the existing implants.

Plaintiff gave pre-suit notice under the HCLA on December 8, 2020, then subsequently filed this malpractice action. Defendant moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing that plaintiff experienced pain, bleeding and other symptoms after her June 2019 procedure; that she experienced complications after her October 2019 procedure; and that her temporary dentures did not fit in 2019. Based on these facts, defendant argued that plaintiff should have discovered her injury well before December 9, 2019, making her suit untimely. The trial court agreed and granted defendant summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Fentress County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.

BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.

Click on the link for more information on the Fentress County court system.

Where the trial court found plaintiff credible, and defendant city presented no material countervailing evidence, a GTLA verdict for plaintiff was affirmed.

In a memorandum opinion in Clay v. Memphis Sanitation Division, No. W2023-00519-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024) (memorandum opinion), plaintiff filed suit under the GTLA based on an injury he received while standing near a garbage truck. Plaintiff was a contractor completing a home improvement project at a client’s home. The project included replacing a door. Plaintiff placed the old door on the curb next to a garbage can, but later remembered that the door had an alarm sensor. When he went outside to retrieve the sensor, the garbage truck came by.

According to plaintiff, one of the workers engaged him in a conversation about a potential project. Plaintiff testified that he had his back to the truck, and a second worker put the door into the truck and started the compactor. When the compactor started, the door rose and struck plaintiff in the head.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Humphreys County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.

BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.

Click on the link for more information on the Humphreys County court system.

Contact Information