### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON FE BR U A RY 20, 200 4 S es sio n SHIR LEY HA LE v. ER WIN OS TRO W, R OSE O STR OW, MA X O STR OW

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. 302252 T.D. Rita L. Stotts, Judge

No. W2003-01256-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jul y 13, 2004

This is a premises liability and nuisance case that arose when Plaintiff f ell on a public s i d ew alk. Plaintiff ’s fa l l occur

red on a patch of broken c oncre te locate d on the portion of sidewa lk abutting Ne ig hb or’ s pro perty , w hic h is loc a te d im me diate ly to the no rth o f the lot

ow ne d b y

De fe nd a nts

. Pla int if f f ile d s uit a lle g ing that he r f

a ll w a s caus ed, in pa

rt , b y ov e rg ro wn bu sh e s o n D e fe nd a nts ’ pr op e rt y that ob str

uc te d p a ssa g e on the sid e wa lk. De fe nd a nts mo ved fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, arg uing that, because the fall took pla ce on broken concr ete in f ront of Neig hbor’s property , Plaintiff cannot e stablish dutyor causation. The trial c ourt g rante d Def endants’ motion, and, f

or the fo llo wi ng re a so ns , w e a ff ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., dissented. Stephen R. L eff

ler, Memphis, TN, f

or Appe llant Matthew S. Russell, Gary R. W ilkinson, Att orney s for Appe llees Erw in Ostrow & Rose Ostrow
Minton P . May er, Me mphis, TN, for Appe llee Max Ostrow
OP IN ION
F acts and P roce dural Hi story
The fa cts of t his case are fairly straig htforwa rd. On May

27, 1998, Shirley

Hale ( “Plaintiff”) was wa lking southbound on the s idewalk of Missis sippi Boulevar d in Memphis, Tennessee . As she c a me to the po rt ion of

the sid e wa lk that a

bu tte d 1 06 3 M iss iss ipp i B ou le va rd , o wn e d b y

Ed wi n Brittenum (“Ne ighbor ”), she spotted some overg rown bushes emanating from the next lot a head of her, loc ated t o the south of Neig hbor’s prope rty . The lot containing the bushes, 1073 Mississippi-2-

B ou le va rd , w a s o wn e d at th e tim e by Er wi n O str ow , Ro se Os tr ow , a ndMa x Ostro w ( c oll e c tiv e ly “De fenda nts”). Fe eling that the bushes eff ectively blocked her path on the sidewalk , P l ai n tiff decide d to enter the street to cir cumvent the bushe s. Plaint i ff t hen turne d her he ad to che ck for tr a ff ic a nd , in so do ing , lost he r ba la nc e a nd fe ll, br e akin g he r hip

. Pla int if f sub se qu e ntl y fi le d s uit on May 10, 1999, seeking damag es fr om Defe ndants, Neig hbor, and the Cityof M em p h i s. She premised he r ac tion ag ai n s t De fe ndants on the theorie s of public nuisance and pre mises liabilit y
. On Dec ember 4, 2000, Max Ostrow moved for summary judgme nt, followed by

Erwin and Rose Ostrow on F ebrua

ry 16, 2001. Def

endants ba sed their motions on testimony p ro v i d ed by Plainti ff in her de position of J uly 30, 1999. Specifica lly , Def endants foc used on Plaintiff’s testimonythat the fa ll occurr ed on the porti on of si dewa lk in front of Ne ighbor ’s prope rty and that Plaintiff fell bec ause she tripped on uneven, broken c oncre te on the sidewa lk. Defe ndants arg ued that these fa cts indicate that they owed no duty as proper

ty owner s to Plaintiff and, further , that the bushes g rowing from their property wer e not the prox imate cause of Plaintiff’s injury . On April 5, 2001, the trial court g rante d the Def endants’ motions for the rea sons stated there in. Plainti ff then timely filed the instant appe al, ra ising the f ollowing issue f

or our c onsideration:
Whether the tr i al court erre d in gr anting summary judgme nt to Defe ndants wher e P l a i n t i f f ’ s i n j u r y w a s c a u s e d b y a

c o n d i t i o n e x i s t i n g o n D e f e n d a n t s ’ p r o p e r t y. Stand ard of Review
I n Pero’s Steak

and Spaghetti House v. Lee , 90 S.W .3d 614 (Tenn. 2002), the Tenne ssee Sup re me Cou rt

se t f orth the sta nd ardof

app e llate re vie w f

or a g rant o f s umm ary

jud g me nt:
An ap p e ll a te c o u r t r e v ie w s a g r a n t o f s u mm ar y ju d g me n t d e n o v o w ith no presumption that the trial court’s conclusions wer e cor rec t. See M

ooney v . Sneed , 30 S.W

. 3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 6 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 0 )

. Su mm ar y ju d g me n t is ap p r o p r iate o n ly when the moving pa

rty demonstrates that there a re no g enuine issues of m aterial fac t and that he or sh e is e nti tlt e d to jud g me nt a s a me tte r of la w. Te nn . R. Civ . P. 56 .0 4; se e als o W ebber v . State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. , 4 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 1 )

. In revie wing the re cord, c ourts must view the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the nonmoving pa

rty and must also draw all rea sonable infe rences in t he nonmoving party ’s fa vor. Staples v. CBL & Assocs. Inc

. , 15 S.W.3 d 83, 89 (T e nn . 200 0) . I f b oth the fa cts and c onclusions to be draw n there from permit a rea sonable pe rson to rea ch only one conclusion, then summary judgme nt is appropriate

. Se av e rs v . M e tho dis t Med. Ctr. of Oak Ridge , 9 S.W .3d 86, 91 (Tenn. 1999)

. Id . at 620.-3- Law a nd A nal ys is
Pla int if f b a se s h e r c la im ag a ins t De fe nd a nts on the the orie s of p re mis e s li abil ity a ndpu bli c nuisance . To succe ed on either cause of ac tion, Pl aintiff must b e ab l e t o establish the eleme nt of causation. A premises liabilityclaim is analy zed under c ommon law principles of ne g lige nce. See Ru th v . R uth , 3 72 S.W. 2d28 5, 28 7 ( Te nn . 1 96 3) . A c c or din g ly , to e sta bli sh a prim a fa c ie c la im, Plaintiff must prove “1. [a] duty of car e owed by the defe ndant to the plaintiff [,] 2. [a] failure on the part of the defe ndant to perf orm that duty

[, and] 3. an injury to the plaintiff re su lti ng prox im ate ly from the defe ndant’s brea ch of that duty of ca re.” Id

. (c i t i n g Mu lle n v . R us swo rm , 90 S.W .2d 530 (T e nn . 1 93 5) ; De Gloppe r v. Nashville Ry. & Light C o. , 1 34 S.W. 60 9 ( Te nn . 1 91 0) ; Nichols v. Sm ith , 111 S.W .2d 911 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937)) (empha sis added). A p ub lic nu isa nc e c la im a lso re qu ir e s p ro of of c a us a tio n. L ia

bil ity fo r pu bli c nu isa nc e “ is based on inter fer ence with the publ ic’s use and enjoy ment of a public place or with other c ommon rig hts of the public.” Me tro . G ov ’t of N as hv ill e & Da v ids on Cou ntyv . Co un ts , 541 S.W .2d 133, 138 (Tenn. 1976) . Howeve r, i t is fundamental that an individual cannot maintain an ac tion based on public nuisance unless that individual ha s sustained some specia l injury as a r esult of the nuisanc e. 66 C.J .S. Nuisances § 6 5 (1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g Scruggs v. B eason , 2 0 So .2 d 7 74 (A la . 1 94 5) ; Engle v. Cla rk , 9 0 P. 2d99 4 ( Ariz. 1 93 9) ; Akau v . Olohana Corp. , 652 P.2 d 113 0 (H a w. 19 82 ); Ir v ing -A us tin Bl dg

. Cor p. v
. Vi lla ge Homeb ui ld ers , 3 7 N .E .2 d 9 27 (Ill. Ct. Ap p. 19 41 ); Blair v. Anderson , 570 N. E. 2d 13 37 (Ind

. Ct. Ap p. 19 91 ); Farmers Co-op. Ass’n v . Quake r Oats Co. , 7 N.W.2d 906 (I owa 19 43 ); Eve rts v. The W

ine Cellar, Inc. , 3 2 N.E .2 d 2 44 (M a ss. 19 41 ); Morse v . Liquor C ontrol Comm’n , 2 9 N .W. 2d31 6 ( Mic h. 19 47 ); N e w v . S . D av ie ss Cou ntyDr ain ag e Di st. of D av ie ss Cou nty , 22 0 S. W.2 d 7 9 ( Mo . Ct . A pp . 1 94 9) ; Hark v . Mountain Fork Lumber Co. , 34 S.E.2d 348 (W. Va. 1945)). It is, li kewise, w ell-ac cepte d that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the nuisance was the proxi mate ca

use of this specia l injury

. Se e Me mp his Lig ht, Ga s & W ate r D iv . v . G os s , 494 S.W .2d 76 6 (Tenn. 1 97 3) ; see also City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. , 2 2 7 F

. 3 d 4 1 5 ( 3rd Cir. 20 02 ); County of W

estche ster v. Town of Greenwich , 7 6 F .3 d 4 2 ( 2n d Ci r. 19 96 ); As soc. of W ashington Pub. Hosp. Dists. v. Philli p Morris, Inc. , 79 F.Supp. 2d 1219 (E.D. Wash. 1999); Pestey v. Cushman , 788 A.2d 496 (Conn. 2002).
I n th e pr e se nt c a se , the tr ia l c ou rt re lie d, in p art , o n Pl a int if f’ s in abil ity

to p ro ve pr oximate c a us e wh e n it g rante d su mma ry jud g me nt t o D e fe nd a nts . In d e te rm ini ng wh e the r p ro xima te c a us e e xists , c ou rt s o f this state e mpl oy a thr e e -p ro ng e d te st: (1) the tortfea sor’s conduct must ha ve been a “substantial fa ctor” in bring ing a bout the harm complained of ; an d (2 ) there is no rule or policy that should relieve the wrong doer from liability beca use of the m anner in which the ne g lige nce ha s resulted in the harm; an d (3) the ha rm g iving rise to the ac tion could have r easona bly been fore seen or

anticipated by

a per son of ordinary

intelligenc e and pr

udence

. Ha y ne s v
. Ha mi lto n Co un ty , 8 83 S.W. 2d60 6, 61 1- 12 (T e nn . 1 99 4) . A ft e r r e vie wi ng the re c or d in light of this test, we a g ree with the lower c ourt’s dete rmination. I n her deposition, Plaintiff a dmitted-4-

that the cause of he r fa ll was an une ven sec tion of sidewalk in front of Neig hbor’s property that was “all cr umbled up” and that she broke her hip on a slab of conc rete resting ag ainst the curb in f ront of Ne ighbor ’s house. At no point did she actually encounte r the bushes bloc king the sidewalk, nor had she e ven steppe d into the street to avoid the bushe s. Considering this testimony , we find that the bushes ema nating from De fenda nts’ p ro p er t y are not the proxi mate ca use of Plaintiff’s injury beca use they do not c onstitut e a “substantial fac tor” in c ausing Plaintiff’s injury

. Acc ording ly , we a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s g rant o f s umm ary jud g me nt t o D e fe nd a nts

. Conclusion
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the ruling of the trial court. Costs of this appeal ar e t a x e d t o t h e A p p e l l a n t , S h i r l e y H a l e , a n d h e r s u r e t y f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE