Day on Torts
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.
A plaintiff making a premises liability claim must prove the five elements of negligence, as well as that the owner either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Here, the plaintiffs pointed to the slope of the parking lot, the alleged narrowness of the parking spot, the landscaping as it related to the drain, and the placement of the drain to support their argument that a dangerous condition existed. For each of these allegations, the plaintiffs relied on their own testimony alone. The plaintiffs presented no expert testimony and pointed to no provisions of the ADA that were violated. The Court of Appeals wrote that the plaintiffs’ arguments “rest heavily on speculation,” and that “[a]lleged technical deficiencies in the handicap parking space are not amenable to common knowledge.” The Court called the plaintiffs’ allegations “generic.”
The Court further pointed out that the issues of material fact that the plaintiffs attempted to create to defeat summary judgment were all disputes about the interpretation of plaintiffs’ deposition testimony. None of the alleged disputes went to whether the parking space was a dangerous condition.
The plaintiffs argued that res ipsa loquitur applied here, asserting that “a slip-and-fall in pooled water adjacent to a handicapped space is not an occurrence absent negligence.” The Court disagreed, explaining that “a slip-and-fall in a parking lot on a rainy day absolutely can occur in the absence of negligence,” and that it was “far from obvious that Mr. Copeland’s fall was caused by negligence.”
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed that the plaintiffs did not have the necessary evidence to defeat summary judgment. Because the plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence to show that a dangerous condition existed, summary judgment was affirmed.
This case is a reminder that many times, a plaintiff’s testimony alone will not be enough to prove a premises liability case. More evidence may be necessary to show that a dangerous condition existed on the premises.
This opinion was released three months after the case was assigned on briefs.