Day on Torts
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.
A plaintiff making a premises liability claim must prove the elements of negligence, including causation, as well as the existence of a dangerous condition. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals wrote that considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a jury could have found that the booth created a dangerous condition and that the restaurant breached its duty to plaintiff by filing to modify the booth configuration. The Court also found, however, that the plaintiff could not prove causation.
In a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must prove both cause in fact and proximate cause. In this case, the plaintiff admitted that she knew the booth was raised. The video evidence from the restaurant showed that while exiting the booth, the plaintiff never looked at the floor, but instead looked straight ahead. The Court wrote that the video negated the element of causation, as the cause of the plaintiff’s fall was her failure to look down at the floor when exiting the booth.
While the failure to prove causation was sufficient to affirm the summary judgment ruling, the Court also considered and affirmed the ruling that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by her own comparative fault. The Court explained that “given [the plaintiff’s] knowledge of the step…, and in view of the undisputed fact that she did not look down when exiting the booth,” it agreed that the plaintiff’s “duty was not only to think as she exited the booth but to look down and ensure her footing was secure as she stepped down.” Because she failed to do so, the comparative fault ruling was affirmed.
Because the plaintiff could not prove causation and because she was 50% or more at fault for her injury, summary judgment for the defendant restaurant was affirmed.
This case was decided almost solely based on the video evidence provided by the defendant restaurant. While video evidence is sometimes too unclear to make a difference in a case, there are times when it can be dispositive of an issue. It is rare that a case is dismissed on a finding of 50% fault as a matter of law.
This opinion was released 1.5 months after oral arguments in this case.