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 trial court found the plaintiff more credible in a bench trial surrounding a pedestrian accident, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion overturning a finding for the plaintiff on her negligence claim. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the negligence ruling, but it vacated the allocation of fault and award of damages for recalculation.

In a memorandum opinion in Easley v. City of Memphis, No. W2023-00437-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2025) (memorandum opinion), the Court of Appeals affirmed a negligence ruling it had previously overturned. The case involved a pedestrian injury, where the plaintiff was hit by a truck while crossing the street in the middle of the block. The truck was owned by the city and driven by a city employee. The nearest intersection had a crosswalk and was about forty feet away, but the plaintiff did not use the crosswalk.

During a bench trial, the plaintiff testified that the driver had stopped to allow a group of pedestrians to pass, but when she got to the middle of the truck, the truck moved forward and hit her. She also stated that the driver was on the phone and distracted. The driver, on the other hand, testified that he was stopped behind two other cars at an intersection. According to the driver, he began moving forward when the car in front of him moved forward, and the plaintiff stepped suddenly into his path.

Where the seller of real property was found not liable for negligent misrepresentation, the trial court’s finding of liability for negligence was reversed, as “a seller’s liability for the failure to disclose such material facts in a real estate transaction is coextensive with a party’s liability for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.” (internal citation omitted).

In Baker v. Baskin, No. M2023-00433-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024), the plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendants, who were husband and wife. The defendants had lived in the home for thirty-two years. Seven months before the sale, defendant husband noticed a dip in the ground while mowing. He investigated and found a small hole near a bush. The husband believed this hole was likely caused by the decayed roots of a tree he had previously removed. The husband filled the hole with two four-by-four posts, placed topsoil and a topsoil bag on top of it, then covered the area with soil and grass. In the months between finding the hole and closing the sale, the husband did not notice any additional problems despite riding his heavy lawn mower over the area many times. It was undisputed that the husband did not tell his wife about the hole.

The defendants did not disclose this hole in the documents related to the real estate sale. They also marked no on questions related to sinkholes or other soil problems. The contract the parties negotiated included an “as is” provision, and the plaintiff buyers signed a disclosure recommending a geotechnical engineer.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Pickett 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 Pickett County court system.

In a Tennessee health care liability (HCLA)d case based on the defendants’ failure to disclose CT scan results to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs could not rely on fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of repose where the defendants were unaware of the undisclosed test results.

The plaintiff patient in Estate of Rowe v. Wellmont Health System, No. E2024-00431-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2024) presented at the emergency room in May 2010 for pain in his left flank and back. Defendant doctor ordered a CT scan without contrast. When the doctor reviewed the scan, he saw a kidney stone, which aligned with the symptoms the plaintiff was experiencing. The plaintiff passed the kidney stone the next day and received no further treatment at the time.

The radiology report for the CT scan noted two masses on the kidney and recommended a CT with contrast as a follow up. While the radiology report was available for the defendant doctor to read by clicking a pop up or looking at the chart after the report was added, he testified that he did not review the report at that time.

Where the defendant in a car accident case received several citations for violations of city traffic laws, the statute of limitations was not extended to two years because the citations were civil in nature, not criminal.

In Sandridge v. Henderson, No. W2024-00242-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024), the plaintiff and defendant were involved in a car accident. In connection with the wreck, the defendant received citations for violating municipal traffic ordinances. These citations included “no driver’s license, failure to maintain proper control, and failure to show financial responsibility.”

The plaintiff filed this personal injury action more than one year after the accident. Although the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is typically one year, the plaintiff asserted that the limitations period here was extended to two years under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(2)(A) due to the traffic citations. The trial court agreed, ruling that the citations were criminal in nature and therefore triggered the extended statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Van Buren 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 Van Buren County court system.

A finding of fraudulent misrepresentation against a homebuilder was affirmed based on the builder’s misrepresentations about his qualifications.

In Ferguson v. M. Brown Construction, Inc., No. M2022-01637-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2024) the plaintiff hired defendant Timothy Brown to build a custom home.  The defendant assured the plaintiff he had considerable experience and was qualified to do the job. The parties agreed that the house would be built for a specific price.

According to the plaintiff, he and his wife made payments and purchases at the direction of the defendant. The defendant unilaterally made changes to the building plan that altered the quality of the home. At some point, the defendant requested $30,000, which the plaintiff refused because he had paid/spent the full contract amount. The defendant then stopped working on the home.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Moore 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 Moore County court system.

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Hancock 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 Hancock County court system.

Contact Information