Day on Torts
Where the plaintiff fell when exiting a bus, and she stated at the time of the fall that the driver had not properly lowered the ramp and that her lower extremities might be injured, the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the fall.
In Jordan v. East Tennessee Human Resources Agency, Inc., No. E2025-00445-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2025), the plaintiff, who used a wheelchair, frequently used the defendant’s transportation services. On July 13, 2023, the plaintiff was exiting a van in her wheelchair when she fell forward onto her face. The wheelchair allegedly fell onto her legs. Video of the incident captured the plaintiff and a bystander stating that the ramp was not lowered properly, and plaintiff saying that she might have hurt her lower extremities but was not certain due to her paralysis. Later in July, the plaintiff visited the doctor and discovered that she had been injured in the fall.
On July 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed this negligence suit under the GTLA. The defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations, which the trial court granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A personal injury claim under the GTLA is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The limitations period begins to run with the plaintiff has “actual knowledge of a claim,” or “when the plaintiff has actual knowledge of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he or she has suffered an injury as a result of wrongful conduct.” (internal citation omitted). The discovery rule does not toll the limitations period until the plaintiff knows “the full extent of their damages, the exact nature of their legal claims, or all the facts affecting the merit of their claim.” (internal citation omitted).
Here, the evidence and the defendant’s statement of material facts showed that the fall occurred on July 13, 2023. The plaintiff failed to respond to the statement of facts, and failed to introduce any medical records, affidavits, or other evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment. Instead, she asserted that she “could not have discovered her injury prior to her visit to the doctor…because she has no feeling in her lower extremities.” Based on the evidence, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the discovery rule tolled the limitations period in this case. The Court wrote:
[T]he video footage of the accident and the driver’s contemporaneous report match Plaintiff’s allegations that she fell directly onto her face when exiting the van, her wheelchair fell on top of her, her “leg was bent all the way in,” she was immediately concerned about something in her lower body being “broke,” and she accused ETHRA’s driver of “not put[t]ing [the lift] all the way on the ground.” This amounts to inquiry notice of an injury on Plaintiff’s part.
(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, because the complaint was filed more than one year after the incident, summary judgment was affirmed.
This opinion is a reminder that filing your claim even a few days past the statutory limitation period can be fatal to your case. It is also a reminder of the need to file a response to a Rule 56.03 statement of undisputed material facts (although the case was doomed anyway).
Plaintiff is lucky that she did not get tagged with damages for a frivolous appeal in this case.
This opinion was released one month after oral arguments.