Day on Torts
Summary judgment for the defendant store in a premises liability case was vacated where the trial court did not “engage in an analysis of foreseeability and the gravity of harm to determine whether a duty was owed.”
In Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company, No. M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2026), the plaintiff worked for a retailer who sold products in the defendant store. The plaintiff’s job included visiting various stores where his employer’s product was sold, and he typically visited each store every four to six weeks. While at a store, the plaintiff would look for any issues with the display and stock the product, among other responsibilities.
The display at defendant store was a track and hanger rack with barn door tracks. These displays had fallen and caused injuries in other stores, and the plaintiff’s employer had accordingly implemented a safety bar design to be added to the displays by the store chain. While the plaintiff was visiting the defendant store and standing near the display, a track fell on him, causing a head injury. Two store employees responded to the incident, and neither of them saw a safety bar on the floor.
The plaintiff filed this premises liability case against the store, and the store filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the grounds that the store was a principal contractor and thus immune from tort liability for the plaintiff’s injury, and based on its ruling that the plaintiff could not establish the elements of his premises liability claim. The Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the principal contractor ruling, and it remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the premises liability claim. In this opinion, the Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment, ruling that there were issues of material fact regarding the defendant’s notice of a dangerous condition and the existence of a duty of care.
A plaintiff asserting a premises liability claim must prove five essential elements, including that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. In order to prove a duty, the plaintiff must show that the defendant created the dangerous condition, or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant store had notice of the dangerous condition of the barn door display, but the Court of Appeals disagreed.
The Court noted that an employee of the store testified during depositions that she considered the barn door display “precarious,” that if she tried to straighten the display it would fall, that she did not see the provided safety bar on the day of the accident, and that she had not seen the safety bar during her employment at the store. While the defendant argued that her testimony contradicted some of the plaintiff’s testimony, the Court wrote that the testimony did not necessarily conflict, and that assessing the credibility of witnesses is not appropriate at the summary judgment stage. Taking the employee’s testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court ruled that granting summary judgment based on notice was an error.
The Court of Appeals next analyzed the trial court’s ruling that because it was part of the plaintiff’s job “to inspect the condition of the display, including the safety bar, when he was in the store…, he had superior knowledge of the alleged danger.” The Court found that the trial court erred by “relying solely upon [the plaintiff’s] superior knowledge and failing to consider all of the factors relevant to the determination of whether [the store] had a duty of care to [the plaintiff].”
The Court reviewed Tennessee caselaw interpreting the application of the open and obvious rule, noting that “the open and obvious rule [does] not automatically relieve the defendant of a duty of care.” (internal citation omitted). Instead, “a court must analyze the duty issue as in any other premises liability case, balancing of the foreseeability and gravity of the potential harm against the burden imposed in preventing that harm.” (internal citation and quotation omitted). The trial court did not engage in this analysis, and the Court of Appeals found that there was evidence supporting the plaintiff’s assertion that the danger was foreseeable to the store:
In the present case, the trial court did not engage in an analysis of foreseeability and the gravity of harm to determine whether a duty was owed. The court determined that, under the undisputed facts, “Plaintiff’s knowledge of the alleged danger was likely greater than anyone else’s, given his job duties and the number of times he inspected National’s track and hanger displays.” Under the Coln teachings, a court must first determine duty by considering foreseeability and the gravity of harm, even where the plaintiff has knowledge of the danger at issue. We agree with Plaintiffs that the trial court jumped to a comparative fault analysis in comparing the fault of Mr. Coblentz with that of Tractor Supply. As Tractor Supply emphasizes, it was part of Mr. Coblentz’s job responsibilities to inspect the safety bar when he was in the store. At the same time, it is undisputed that Mr. Coblentz visited the store every six to eight weeks and that it was the responsibility of Tractor Supply to restock the National display. In order to restock the barn door rails, it was necessary to open the safety bar and then replace it. Further, as stated above, there is evidence that the safety bar may not have been in place prior to Mr. Coblentz’s arrival at the store on the day of the accident.
(footnote omitted).
The Court ultimately wrote that the defendant store “did not provide undisputed proof that the harm was unforeseeable or to address the gravity of harm or the burden of engaging in alternative conduct.” Accordingly, summary judgment for the defendant was vacated.
This case has an extended analysis of the open and obvious rule in premises liability cases, as well as a long footnote analyzing Tennessee premises liability law related to independent contractors. Litigants with cases touching on either of these issues should review this opinion.
This opinion was released about four months after remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court.