Articles Posted in Premises Liability

The defendant city was immune from suit under the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute for the plaintiff’s personal injuries incurred while he was playing golf on a city golf course.

In Bates v. City of Chattanooga, No. E2024-00857-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the plaintiff fell down steps while playing golf on a city golf course. He filed this personal injury suit, and the defendant city filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (“TRUS”). The trial court granted the motion, ruling that golf was comparable to the activities listed in the TRUS and that no exception applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

“The TRUS provides an affirmative defense to a landowner when a person is injured while engaging in a recreational activity on the landowner’s property.” (internal citation omitted). Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102(a) includes a list of activities which qualify for immunity under the TRUS, specifically mentioning “hunting, fishing, …water sports, …hiking, sightseeing,…skeet and trap shooting, sporting clay, shooting sports, and target shooting, …off-road vehicle riding” and others. Based on the language of the statute, the Supreme Court has “stated that the list of activities under Section 102 is neither exclusive nor exhaustive,” and activities that are “comparable to those listed” are also included. (internal citation omitted). Various cases have found attending a concert in a park, swimming and diving in a pool, and playing on a playground to fall within the TRUS.

Where a premises liability plaintiff had no proof that a bench outside defendant restaurant was dangerous or defective, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.

In Ellis v. Snookums Steakhouse, LLC, No. W2024-01165-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2025), the plaintiff ate at defendant restaurant before walking outside. When the plaintiff sat on a bench located outside, the bench “flipped or tilted from end to end.” The plaintiff did not look back when she was sitting down.

Based on this incident, the plaintiff filed this premises liability suit against the restaurant. The plaintiff emphasized that the bench had “new bolts in the holes in the metal to which the back would be fastened,” but that there was no back on the bench.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently affirmed a premises liability judgment for the plaintiff based on an apartment complex failing to maintain a pedestrian bridge properly.

In Trentham v. Mid-America Apartments, LP, No. M2021-01511-SC-R11-CV, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. Jan. 8, 2025), the plaintiff was a tenant in the defendant’s apartment building. The plaintiff often used a wooden pedestrian bridge when traveling to and from the apartment fitness center. On the day of the plaintiff’s injury, it had rained the night before and was possibly still drizzling. The plaintiff attempted to cross the bridge after his workout when he slipped and fell. The plaintiff described the slippery substance that caused his fall as “slimy but clear” and “obviously not just water.” The plaintiff could not get up, even with the assistance of a maintenance employee, so an ambulance was called. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries to his left quadriceps tendon. The plaintiff required two surgeries, neither of which was successful, and he was left with permanent disability from the incident.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability suit against the defendant apartment owner, and the trial court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. At trial, the plaintiff offered his own testimony as well as that of an expert. The plaintiff’s expert testified that, because the bridge was built with treated lumber, it would become slick if it was not maintained. Representatives from the defendant testified that there had been no previous issue with the bridge and that the premises had been inspected six days earlier. These representatives also stated that the company policy was to pressure wash communal areas such as the bridge once a year, but that there was no evidence this bridge had been pressure washed in the year preceding the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court found that the plaintiff had proven his negligence case, but it did assign the plaintiff 15% of the fault for the incident. The trial court awarded the plaintiff over $2 million in damages.

Where the decedent was an independent contractor who died when a lifting mechanism in the factory failed, there were questions of fact regarding whether the defendant company owed a duty to the decedent, so summary judgment for the defendant company was reversed.

In Lowe v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, No. M2023-01774-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2024), the decedent was employed by Cumberland Machine Company and worked as a millwright. Cumberland and the defendant were separate entities, but Cumberland had a space inside the defendant’s plant, which is where the decedent worked. The decedent’s job included clearing clogged vent holes in 2,000+ pound tire molds. While flipping a mold pursuant to the defendant’s process, the mold fell onto the decedent, seriously injuring him. The decedent later died of his injuries.

The decedent’s wife filed this premises liability/wrongful death case against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it owed no duty to the decedent and that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation. While the trial court denied summary judgment based on the workers’ compensation argument, it agreed that the defendant owed no duty to the decedent. On appeal, summary judgment based on the lack of duty was reversed.

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.

Summary judgment for a landlord in a premises liability suit was reversed where the landlord had not installed a stair rail (also known as a handrail) up to code.

In Franz v. Funes, No. E2023-01256-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2024), plaintiff leased a residential property from defendant, who owned and built the property. The townhouse had stairs connecting the first and second floor, but the stairs only had a handrail on the bottom portion and “lacked a code-compliant handrail going the length of the stairs.” When going down the stairs one morning, plaintiff fell and injured himself.

Plaintiff filed this premises liability case asserting claims for negligence and negligence per se. The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, relying heavily on the finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious and that defendant thus had no duty. The trial court also found that summary judgment was appropriate based on plaintiff’s comparative fault. On appeal, summary judgment was reversed.

A premises liability plaintiff who had no evidence that defendant construction company controlled the area where she fell did not survive summary judgment.

In Brooks v. Whaley Construction, LLC, No. E2023-00711-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2024), plaintiff walked in a grass median after having car trouble. While walking, he tripped on a signpost that had been cut down to one foot, injuring himself. Defendant construction company was working on a project in the area and had a portion of the median blocked off with a silt fence. The signpost was outside the silt fence.

Plaintiff filed this premises liability suit, and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant presented a declaration from its superintendent stating that the only area at the site that was within defendant’s control was the area within the silt fence, and that defendant’s project did not involve creation or removal of the signpost. Plaintiff responded to the summary judgment by filing his own declaration stating that there appeared to be construction in the area outside the silt fence. He also relied on certain documents, but those documents had not been made part of the record. At oral argument, plaintiff conceded that the relevant documents were not part of the record, and plaintiff did not have them on the day of the hearing. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Where a premises liability plaintiff admitted that she had no evidence regarding how a hole was created, how long it had existed, or that any other person had fallen into it, summary judgment for defendant was affirmed.

In Halterman-Scott v. Tennessee Society of Certified Public Accountants, No. M2024-00373-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2024), plaintiff was catering an event for defendant. While walking, plaintiff left the sidewalk and walked on the grass. She fell in a hole in the grass and was injured, and thereafter filed this premises liability suit.

Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff could not show that defendant caused the allegedly dangerous condition or had notice of it. In response to defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts, plaintiff admitted the following:

After slipping and falling in a retail store, plaintiff had evidence that the store was aware of the spill with enough time to address or warn about it. Summary judgment for the store was therefore reversed.

In Alcantar v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. M2023-01143-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2023), plaintiff slipped on liquid while shopping at defendant Dollar General store. Immediately after the fall, an employee came to check on plaintiff and told plaintiff that there was a large milk spill in the next aisle. Plaintiff took photos showing liquid in the aisle where he fell, as well as liquid in the next aisle accompanied by a mop and bucket. The photo of the next aisle also showed an employee cleaning the spill along with a warning sign.

Plaintiff filed a premises liability claim against the store. During depositions, the store manager stated that the standard procedure for a spill was to put up warning signs and to use gray towels to soak up any liquid. During plaintiff’s deposition, he admitted that he did not know how long the liquid had been in the floor. He testified that no gray towels were in use in the clean up on the next aisle. Instead, the employee was using a mop or squeegee and appeared to be spreading the liquid into the aisle where plaintiff fell.

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.