Day on Torts

October 12, 2026

Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims against the State.

The Claims Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s tort and contract claims related to the State’s alleged mishandling of his charitable donation, so dismissal of the complaint filed in circuit court was affirmed.

In Blaylock v. University of Tennessee Martin, No. W2025-00212-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2026) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff made a donation to the defendant university for a building project that was supposed to include inspirational plaques. Months after the project was completed, the plaintiff visited the area and saw that the plaques had been removed. The plaintiff filed this suit in circuit court alleging breach of contract and various tort claims, including defamation and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The University filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the claims commission had exclusive jurisdiction of this claim against the State. The trial court granted the motion, and in this memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 removes immunity for specified claims against the State, and “expressly provides that the [Claims] Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of state employees” falling within the listed categories. (internal citation and quotation omitted). Notably, “[o]utside of these categories, no jurisdiction exists for claims against the State.” (internal citation omitted).

October 9, 2026

Premises liability summary judgment affirmed based on video evidence.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a plaintiff fell while leaving a raised booth in a restaurant, but video evidence showed that the plaintiff did not look down when exiting the booth, summary judgment based on causation and the plaintiff’s comparative fault was affirmed.

In Daniel v. Rick’s Barbeque, Inc., No. M2025-01009-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 6, 2026), the plaintiff dined at the defendant restaurant with members of her family. The booths at the restaurant were raised above the floor, and while there were warning signs visible when entering the booth, the tile was the same on both floor levels. In her deposition, the plaintiff admitted that she knew the booth was raised when she got into the booth. Upon exiting, however, she fell and broke her hip. She then filed this premises liability case, alleging that the raised booth with the same tiling at both levels was a dangerous condition that caused her to fall.

The defendant restaurant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff could not prove causation, and that the comparative fault of the plaintiff was 50% or more. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed summary judgment.

October 7, 2026

Summary judgment based on YMCA Liability waiver affirmed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

A liability waiver signed by the plaintiff when joining a fitness center applied to her claim that she was injured when a shower seat in the center came off the wall.

In Torres v. YMCA Foundation of Middle Tennessee, No. M2024-00720-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2026), the plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the defendant YMCA when she was injured while using a shower seat that fell off the wall. The YMCA moved for summary judgment based on a liability waiver signed by the plaintiff as part of her YMCA membership application. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that the liability waiver applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

On appeal, the plaintiff first argued that the waiver did not apply because it waived injury resulting from use of the “facilities, equipment, or machinery,” and that facilities would not include the showers. The Court disagreed. The Court found that the language in this waiver was unambiguous, and that it “encompass[ed] any buildings or rooms where [the plaintiff] might participate in the activities and programs of the YMCA or that she might use as a member.” The Court wrote that this “would certainly include the showers.”

October 5, 2026

Plaintiffs failed to prove parking spot was a dangerous condition in premises liability case.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the plaintiffs had no evidence to support their claim that a parking space was negligently designed, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.

In Copeland v. SCG IV-Karch’s Crossing, LLC, No. E2025-01018-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 14, 2026), the plaintiffs were husband and wife. The wife drove the couple to a restaurant in a shopping center and parked in a handicapped parking spot, because the husband was disabled. While inside, the husband had one or two beers. It began to rain while the plaintiffs were inside. When the husband was getting back into the car, he fell and injured his ankle. According to the husband, there was significant water pooling in the parking space.

The plaintiffs filed this premises liability case against the owner of the shopping center, asserting that the handicap parking space was negligently designed because it was in a low spot in the parking lot, had insufficient drainage, and failed to comply with the ADA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not establish that a dangerous condition existed, and that any alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious such that the husband was more at fault than the defendant. The evidence showed that the husband was 72-years old, and that he had fallen approximately five other times before the fall at issue. The testimony regarding when the rain began and ended was inconsistent, and while the husband stated that he drank one beer in the restaurant, the wife testified that he had two beers. The plaintiffs testified that at different times they saw a drain in the parking lot that appeared to be backed up. Based on this evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

October 2, 2026

Legal malpractice case dismissed based on statute of limitations.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The legal malpractice statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that he or she has suffered an injury due to the attorney’s alleged negligence.

In Reese v. Hill, No. E2025-01783-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2026), the plaintiff filed a pro se legal malpractice complaint based on the defendant attorney’s representation of the plaintiff in a criminal case and the related sentencing. On January 21, 2022, the plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting Correction of Illegal Sentence” in the underlying criminal case, asserting that he had been improperly sentenced. Later, In June 2022, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief. In February 2023, the post-conviction court found that the plaintiff had “shown ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the sentencing issue.” After this ruling, on April 11, 2023, the plaintiff filed this pro se legal malpractice claim.

The defendant attorney moved to dismiss the legal malpractice claim based on the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed that the plaintiff was on notice of the alleged negligence on January 21, 2022, when he filed his first post-sentencing motion, and dismissed the claim as time-barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

October 1, 2026

Promissory fraud summary judgment affirmed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the plaintiff’s only proof supporting his promissory fraud claim related to the defendant’s conduct months after the alleged misrepresentation was made, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.

In Johnson v. LeFeve, No. M2024-01484-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2026), the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant based on an oral promise that the defendant would pay the plaintiff ten percent of the profits from two companies owned by the defendant for work done by the plaintiff. This promise was allegedly made in June 2021. Following this promise, the plaintiff was involved in the sale of certain property owned by the businesses, which closed in November 2021. After closing, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff the promised ten percent of profits, and the plaintiff filed this case asserting promissory fraud and various contract claims.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. Regarding the fraud claim, the trial court ruled that the alleged promise lacked definiteness and that “there was no proof that Defendants intended not to pay Plaintiff.” On appeal, the ruling was affirmed based only on the lack of proof of intent.

September 30, 2026

Tennessee savings statute begins to run when order of voluntary dismissal is entered.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee savings statute runs from the date the order of voluntary dismissal is entered, even if the court retains jurisdiction over the case for remaining issues.

In Salas v. Rosdeutscher, No. M2025-00244-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2026), the plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against the defendant. The defendant responded by filing a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel. The plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, and the trial court entered an order of voluntary dismissal in March 2020. The trial court retained jurisdiction of the case to determine the sanctions issued, and entered an order awarding sanctions in April 2021.

In January 2021, the plaintiff served the defendant a second pre-suit notice under the HCLA, and she filed this second suit in May 2021. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the claim was time-barred because the savings statute had expired. The trial court ultimately ruled for the plaintiff, holding that the savings statute did not begin to run until the sanctions order was entered, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

September 22, 2026

No negligent misrepresentation without proof of causation.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a plaintiff could not show that she justifiably relied on alleged negligent misrepresentations from a financial advisor, the trial court’s award of damages to the plaintiff was reversed.

In Bartholomew v. Southard, No. W2024-01494-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2026) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff represented a client in a wrongful death action, helping to obtain a large settlement for the client with a present value of $2,250,000. The plaintiff’s attorney’s fees totaled $750,000, but rather than paying the full fee immediately, the client asked to pay the fee over time as the settlement was paid. The plaintiff attorney and the client entered into an assignment agreement, whereby the plaintiff was to receive over $2.1 million over a 30-year period. The plaintiff asked the defendant, a financial advisor, to calculate the annual amounts to be paid by the client, and the plaintiff paid the defendant $250 for this work.

In 2011, the client stopped making annual payments under the assignment agreement. By this time, the client had paid $600,752.72 to the plaintiff attorney. The plaintiff attorney filed a complaint against the client, and shortly thereafter the client filed an ethics complaint against the attorney. The client alleged that the plaintiff did not counsel him to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to the assignment agreement, and that the assignment agreement was not in his best interest. Before the plaintiff and client mediated their fee dispute, the plaintiff’s counsel realized that some of the calculations suggested by the defendant had not been reduced to their present value, which would have resulted in an overpayment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff ultimately settled with the former client for an additional payment of $100,000.

September 14, 2026

Ruling that TPPA did not apply reversed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the plaintiffs’ tort claims related to a state court case filed by the defendants in California, the TPPA applied. The fact that an amended complaint added facts about statements that were made before the California filing did not change that analysis.

In Patel v. Patel, No. M2024-01371-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2026), Plaintiff Jay Patel was a businessman and entrepreneur. In 2018 he solicited investments for a business, but none of the investors ever received any distributions from that business. Defendant Kar served as CEO of that business, until he was later terminated. Defendant Kar filed a wrongful termination suit in California (with another defendant acting as his attorney), alleging among other things that Plaintiff Jay Patel “was engaged in an ongoing Ponzi scheme.” Defendant Kar also emailed investors and stakeholders in Jay Patel’s business asserting that Jay Patel had engaged in wire fraud and securities law violations. The defendants repeated these allegations against Plaintiff Jay Patel to members of business communities in which Jay Patel was involved.

In 2023, the defendants sent a settlement demand letter to the plaintiffs. When the demand was rejected, the defendants filed an amended complaint in California state court. The plaintiffs thereafter filed this tort action in Tennessee, asserting claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process.

September 11, 2026

Dog bite claim filed under GTLA dismissed on summary judgment.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

An animal shelter that had not witnessed any aggressive behavior from a dog did not have a duty to warn the person who adopted the dog of its alleged dangerous propensities.

In Hall v. Robertson County, Tennessee, No. M2025-00163-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2026), the plaintiffs filed a negligence claim under the GTLA against a county after the wife was bitten by the dog her husband had adopted from the county shelter. The dog came into county custody when a woman called animal control to report a stray dog. The woman said that she was afraid that if she left her home, the dog would attack, but the woman did not see the dog bite anyone. The dog was retrieved without incident and was observed by the employees at the shelter for 26 days. During that time, no employees noticed any aggressive behavior. The dog was allowed to lay by the front desk and interact with a child during its stay.

After the dog was approved for adoption, the plaintiff husband adopted the dob. The dog began coughing up clear liquid after leaving the shelter, and it was diagnosed by a vet with kennel cough and congestive heart failure. When the plaintiff husband returned to the shelter to retrieve certain items, a worker allegedly replied to the news that the dog had heart failure by saying “you should have seen her when we first got her…she was holy hell.”