Articles Posted in Premises Liability

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.

Where claimant tripped on a laptop cord while participating in a class activity, but she had no evidence showing how long the cord had been there or who put the cord there, the Claims Commission’s finding that the professor of the class was not negligent was affirmed.

In Bryant v. State, No. W2022-00968-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2023), claimant was a student in an occupational therapy class at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. During one class, the teacher set up an activity which required the students to walk to different areas of the room to fill out papers. The professor testified that she checked the area for hazards while setting up the activity and that she asked all the students to move their personal belongings so that they would not be in the way. The professor further stated that both before and during the activity, she did not see a cord in the floor. The evidence showed that the other students in the class had already walked in the area of the fall without issue. In addition, the professor had done this activity three other times and never had an issue.

Claimant testified that she did not see the cord before she fell, but instead saw it several minutes after she fell. Some of her deposition testimony conflicted slightly with her trial testimony, but she testified that no other classmates reported that they had seen the cord or had an issue with the cord.

Where plaintiff set up his own ladders on cardboard at defendant’s home, and defendant had no control over the set-up, summary judgment for defendant was affirmed on plaintiff’s premises liability claim arising from injuries sustained when the ladders slipped.

In Fulghum v. Notestine, No. M2022-00420-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2023), plaintiff and defendant were close friends. Plaintiff was a carpenter, defendant was a truck driver who was knowledgeable about car repairs, and plaintiff and defendant would often help each other with projects using their own expertise.

Defendant was remodeling his home, and plaintiff was installing shiplap around defendant’s fireplace. On the day of the injury, plaintiff let himself into defendant’s house, set up two of his own ladders, and decided to put cardboard under the ladders to protect defendant’s new floors. Plaintiff set up the two ladders next to each other on the cardboard in an attempt to work more efficiently. Defendant did not assist with or direct the set up. At some point while plaintiff was working, defendant arrived home and briefly chatted with plaintiff. Sometime thereafter, the ladders slipped, causing plaintiff to fall, and plaintiff was seriously injured.

Where a roofer was injured when he fell from a homeowner’s roof and bounced over the nearby scaffolding, but the homeowner had rented the scaffolding himself and chosen to erect it himself rather than paying the scaffolding company to install it, summary judgment for the scaffolding company on both the premises liability and general negligence claims was affirmed because the scaffolding company owed no duty to either the roofer or the homeowner.

In Lynch v. Poe, No. M2021-00867-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4112706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022), plaintiff was a roofer who was injured while working on a homeowner’s roof. While replacing shingles on the roof, plaintiff slipped and fell, bounced over the scaffolding, and fell to the ground. According to plaintiff, he was unable to stop himself on the scaffolding because guardrails had not been installed thereon.

The homeowner who had hired the roofing company had entered into a separate contract with DSS, an equipment company, and rented scaffolding from them. Although DSS offered scaffolding installation for a fee, the homeowner chose to install the scaffolding himself. While the homeowner had some experience with smaller projects, he admitted that this “scaffolding project was more involved than any project he had undertaken.” Although DSS employees visited the home a few times to bring scaffolding pieces and one DSS employee warned against using cinder blocks to level the scaffolding based on what he observed at the home, “at no point did [the homeowner] request or indicate to DSS that he would like an inspection of the scaffolding he had installed or that he would like to purchase the scaffolding installation service.”

Continue reading

Where a premises liability plaintiff tripped when her shoe heel went into a small divot in an outdoor stairway that was “mere centimeters thick,” summary judgment for defendant was affirmed on the basis that the divot “amounted to a minor aberration and…the defendants did not owe her a duty of care.”

In Tino v. Walker, No. M2021-01230-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2794096 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2022), plaintiff was shopping at a shopping center area in Nashville. After leaving one store, she exited down a set of outdoor brick stairs, and the heel of her shoe caught in a small divot in the brick on the second-to-last step, causing her to fall.

Plaintiff filed this premises liability suit, and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that “because the defects complained of were small aberrations, the foreseeability and gravity of harm considerations [did] not support a finding of liability on the part of Defendants,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed.