IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

February 5, 2018 Session

MATTHEW EPPS V. MARY SONJIA THOMPSON ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 16C987 Kelvin D. Jones, Judge

No. M2017-01818-COA-R3-CV

A landowner hired an individual she supervised at work to paint her house outside of 

work. The landowner provided the painter with material and ladders for the job. While 

he was using the folding ladder and painting one of the house’s eaves, the painter fell to 

the ground and injured his wrist. The painter sued the landowner for damages, asserting 

the landowner was negligent for providing him with old ladders that were unsafe. The 

landowner moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted after finding the 

painter was unable to prove cause in fact or proximate cause. The painter appealed, and 

we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ANDY D. BENNETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which RICHARD H. DINKINS 

and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.

Peter M. Olson, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Matthew Epps.

Barbara Jones Perutelli, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Mary Sonjia Thompson.

OPINION

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mary Sonjia Thompson hired Matthew Epps in April 2015 to paint a house she 

owned in Joelton, Tennessee. Ms. Thompson provided Mr. Epps with paint, brushes, 

rollers, and two aluminum ladders. One of the ladders was an extension ladder, and the 

other one was a folding ladder. When Mr. Epps was painting the highest part of the 

house, he fell off the folding ladder and injured his right wrist. Mr. Epps filed a 

03/15/2018
- 2 -

complaint against Ms. Thompson1in which he alleged the ladders she provided were 

“old, loose, and not a safe appliance for the work required.” Mr. Epps claimed Ms. 

Thompson violated her duty to provide Mr. Epps with a reasonably safe place and with 

safe appliances to paint her house. Mr. Epps sought money damages in an amount not to 

exceed $500,000.

The parties engaged in discovery, and both Mr. Epps and Ms. Thompson gave 

their depositions. Mr. Epps testified that Ms. Thompson was his supervisor at Metro and 

that when she offered him a side job outside of work where he could earn extra money, 

he was happy to take it. The job involved painting a shed and the window sills, trim, and 

eaves of a brick house. Mr. Epps explained that Ms. Thompson met him the morning he 

was to start the job and provided him with paint, brushes, rollers, an extension handle for 

the rollers, and two ladders. Mr. Epps worked on Ms. Thompson’s house over the course 

of two or three weekends. He fell as he was painting one of the eaves, which was the 

highest point of the house that needed painting. He described his fall as follows:

Q: Well, why don’t you describe to me how you fell?

. . . .

A: Well, what I had done - - this is exactly what I did. I walked around 

and looked for a position to put the ladder, and so I sat the - - the long 

ladder, the extension ladder, it wasn’t working. It wasn’t working. I tried 

to put it up on the house, and I tested it with my foot and shaked [sic] it, but 

it wasn’t working right.

Q: All right. When you say, it wasn’t working, explain.

A: It’s just the brackets on the bottom of the foot wasn’t working right. 

And then one latch on the . . . right side, it wasn’t catching. It just didn’t 

feel right. It wasn’t catching right. So I was, like, no, I can’t use this 

ladder. So I tried the other ladder. The brackets on the bottom of the foot, 

you know, was sticking. And so, I mean, I used it anyway. Her words - -

her exact words to me - - I asked her about the ladders, and she said, well, 

they’re old ladders, but they will work. So I’m not going to argue, because, 

like I said, that’s my boss. I had no problems with her. So she wanted the 

job done, so my job was to get the job done. I wasn’t there for me to 

question her about nothing.

 

1Mr. Epps also named Michael Thompson, Ms. Thompson’s former husband, as a defendant. Mr. Epps 

agreed to dismiss Mr. Thompson from the case at the trial court level, and Mr. Thompson is not 

participating in this appeal.
- 3 -

Mr. Epps explained that he used the folding ladder to reach the eave of the house

where he fell. Because an air conditioning unit was situated immediately below the 

highest point, he was unable to place the extension ladder in such a way that he could 

reach the top of the eave. The ground next to the house where Mr. Epps fell sloped away 

from the house, and he said he had trouble situating the folding ladder in a way that it 

seemed stable enough to use. Mr. Epps testified:

A: I went up and down [the ladder] a couple of times, shaking the ladder, 

because I couldn’t get it to sit right, you know, and then I kept looking at 

the legs and trying to get the legs right. Couldn’t get it to sit right. Once I 

got it stable to where I thought it was in a position to where I could finish 

this job up, then I went back up and proceeded to finish my work.

Q: And then tell me what happened when you fell.

A: I just started painting. And when I got to - - right at the end - - close to 

the end of . . . the peak [of the house eave] I just looked up at it and thought 

it looked okay. And then, like I said, I don’t know if it was the devil or an 

act of God. The ladder just kicked out. It just kicked out.

Q: When you say, kicked out, does that mean fell over?

A: It just fell over. The ladder just kicked out.

Q: Did anything on the ladder break?

A: I don’t know. When I hit the ground, I wasn’t thinking about no ladder. 

I don’t know if it broke or what. All I know is, when I hit the ground, I 

jumped up, and this part of my hand was facing me, . . . , so I wasn’t 

thinking about no ladder.

Mr. Epps stated that he did not see the ladder after he fell, so he did not know if a 

step broke, a hinge came loose, or if the ladder failed in some other respect. He testified 

that it was “defective to the point where the legs [weren’t] working right.” Mr. Epps 

testified that his conversation with Ms. Thompson about the condition of the ladders 

occurred on his first day at her house, before he used either of the ladders. He was not 

sure whether he said anything to Ms. Thompson about the ladders’ not being “up to par” 

after he started using them.

Ms. Thompson testified during her deposition that she did not stay at the house in 

Joelton to observe Mr. Epps while he painted her house. She stated that she met him 

there on the first morning of the job and then did not return until she heard that he had 
- 4 -

fallen. Ms. Thompson said that when she spoke with Mr. Epps about his fall, he told her 

something different than what he said during his deposition.

I asked him how he got hurt, and he told me he was painting, and the little 

girl next door had hollered at him, and was asking him if my granddaughter 

was home to where she could play,

[2]

and he turned around to talk to her, 

and he said when he turned back around to start painting, that he just - - he 

didn’t know what had happened. He just fell off the ladder.

In response to a question regarding instructions she gave Mr. Epps about painting the 

house, Ms. Thompson testified as follows:

A: I didn’t really give him any instructions. We talked about the house. I

asked him again if he was sure he could do the job. He said yes. The only 

instruction I really gave him was to start on the front of the house, because 

that’s where you could see the house first from the street.

Q: Curb appeal?

A: Yes. And that’s basically the only instruction was to paint the house

and to paint the shed.

Q: Did you supervise any of his work?

A: No, I did not. 

Q: Was anybody there to assist him?

A: No.

Ms. Thompson testified that she purchased the folding ladder “somewhere around 

2004, maybe.” She denied having any conversation with Mr. Epps about the safety of the 

ladders before he began painting. She believed that Mr. Epps fell because he was 

distracted by the child next door, not because there was anything wrong with the folding 

ladder he was using.

Ms. Thompson filed a motion seeking summary judgment. She argued that Mr. 

Epps had insufficient evidence to establish either the legal cause of his injury or to show 

that she breached any duty she owed him. The trial court agreed and granted Ms. 

Thompson’s motion, dismissing Mr. Epps’ complaint with prejudice. It wrote:

 

2Either Ms. Thompson’s son or daughter was living in the house in Joelton that Mr. Epps was painting.
- 5 -

The undisputed facts in this cause show that the Plaintiff was 

employed to paint the Defendants’ house. Mary Sonjia Thompson, as the 

Plaintiff’s employer did not breach any duty to the Plaintiff either under the 

theory that the employment was as an independent contractor or under the 

theory that the employment was a master servant relationship.

The Plaintiff alleged that the ladders provided to him by Ms. 

Thompson to paint the house were defective. However, the Court finds it 

to be undisputed, as deemed by the Plaintiff, that if the ladders were 

defective, then Ms. Thompson had no knowledge of any defects.

The Court holds that the Plaintiff was not aware of why the ladder 

fell, and had no facts to show causation. Therefore the Court finds that the 

Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to establish the essential elements of his 

claim.

Mr. Epps filed a motion for additional findings of fact and to alter or amend the 

summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Mr. Epps then filed a notice of appeal. 

On appeal, Mr. Epps argues that the trial court erred in granting Ms. Thompson’s motion 

for summary judgment.

II. ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.” TENN. R. CIV. P. 56.04; see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. 

of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 261-62 (Tenn. 2015) (quoting TENN. R. CIV. P.

56.04). Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary 

judgment de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 250 (citing 

Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997)). A court ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment is required to construe the evidence “in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party” and to “resolve all inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Rains 

v. Bend of the River, 124 S.W.3d 580, 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Godfrey v. Ruiz, 

90 S.W.3d 692, 695 (Tenn. 2002); Johnson v. LeBonheur Children’s Med. Ctr., 74 

S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tenn. 2002)).

If the party moving for summary judgment does not bear the burden of proof at 

trial, the movant will be entitled to succeed on the motion if he or she:

(1) Submits affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the 

nonmoving party’s claim; or
- 6 -

(2) Demonstrates to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is 

insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s 

claim.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101; see Eden W. ex rel. Evans v. Tarr, 517 S.W.3d 691, 695

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (stating that defendant moving for summary judgment must either 

negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim or prove an affirmative defense that 

defeats the plaintiff’s claim) (citing Doyle v. Town of Oakland, No. W2013-02078-COAR3-CV, 2014 WL 3734971, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2014)). Once the moving 

party satisfies these requirements, the nonmoving party “must demonstrate how these 

requirements have not been satisfied.” Rains, 124 S.W.3d at 587 (citing Bain, 936 

S.W.2d at 622). “[T]he nonmoving party ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or 

denials of [its] pleading,’ but must respond, and by affidavits or one of the other means 

provided in Tennessee Rule 56, ‘set forth specific facts’ at the summary judgment stage

‘showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265 (quoting TENN.

R. CIV. P. 56.06).

The basis of Mr. Epps’ claim is that Ms. Thompson was negligent by providing 

him with old ladders that were not suitable for his use in painting her house. Our 

Supreme Court has addressed the elements a plaintiff must prove to establish a prima 

facie case of negligence:

In order to establish a prima facie claim of negligence, basically defined as 

the failure to exercise reasonable care, a plaintiff must establish the 

following essential elements: “(1) a duty of care owed by defendant to 

plaintiff; (2) conduct below the applicable standard of care that amounts to 

a breach of that duty; (3) an injury or loss; (4) cause in fact; and (5) 

proximate, or legal, cause.” 

Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting McCall v. 

Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995)). ‘“Causation [in fact] and proximate cause 

are distinct elements of negligence, and both must be proven by the plaintiff by a 

preponderance of the evidence.”’ Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tenn. 2005) 

(quoting Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 868 S.W.2d 594, 598 (Tenn. 1993)). A defendant’s 

conduct constitutes the “cause in fact” of a plaintiff’s injury if the injury would not have 

occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct. Id. When determining whether proximate 

cause exists, a court considers whether the injury that occurred was reasonably 

foreseeable by the defendant. Id. at 719. The Hale Court explained that a three-pronged 

test is used to determine whether proximate cause exists:

“(1) the tortfeasor’s conduct must have been a “substantial factor” in 

bringing about the harm being complained of; and (2) there is no rule or 

policy that should relieve the wrongdoer from liability because of the 
- 7 -

manner in which the negligence has resulted in the harm; and (3) the harm 

giving rise to the action could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated 

by a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence.”

Id. at 719 (quoting Haynes v. Hamilton Cnty., 883 S.W.2d 606, 612 (Tenn. 1994)).

The Supreme Court in Rice v. Sabir, 979 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. 1998), explained that 

‘“[f]oreseeability is the test of negligence.”’ Rice, 979 S.W.2d at 309 (quoting Doe v. 

Linder Const. Co., 845 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1992)). ‘“If the injury which occurred 

could not have been reasonably foreseen, the duty of care does not arise, and even though 

the act of the defendant in fact caused the injury, there is no negligence and no liability.”’ 

Id. (quoting Doe, 845 S.W.2d at 178).

The trial court held that Mr. Epps “was not aware of why the ladder fell, and had 

no facts to show causation.” Indeed, Mr. Epps testified during his deposition that he did 

not know what caused him to fall off the ladder. He said the ladder “just kicked out,” but 

he did not know if he simply lost his balance, if the ladder itself failed, or if something 

else caused him to fall. 

The facts here are not unlike the facts of Lurks v. City of Newbern, No. W2016-

01532-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 384429 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2017), where the 

plaintiff fell while walking on a sidewalk and sued the city for negligence. Lurks, 2017 

WL 384429, at *1. The plaintiff asserted that the sidewalk was defective, and she 

introduced photographs showing the sidewalk’s poor condition, but she did not know if 

she fell because of the sidewalk’s condition. Id. She testified that she did not stumble

before she fell, and she did not know if her foot hit anything that led to her fall. Id. The 

trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the city was negligent because she 

could not connect her injury to the defective condition of the sidewalk. Id. at *3. The 

Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining “we will not presume

negligence simply because an accident occurred. A plaintiff must be able to prove 

causation.” Id.; see also Hickman v. Jordan, 87 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) 

(“[N]egligence is not presumed from the mere fact of an accident or injury.”). The Lurks

court went on to say:

“Negligence shall not be presumed absent an affirmative demonstration 

from the evidence. Therefore, in the context of injuries to plaintiffs 

resulting from a fall, mere speculation about the cause of an injury is 

insufficient to establish liability on a negligence claim. As such, a plaintiff 

will be prevented from establishing negligence when he, either personally 

or with the use of outside witnesses, is unable to identify what caused the 

fall. In other words, a plaintiff must know what caused him to slip and fall. 

A plaintiff cannot speculate as to what caused the fall.”
- 8 -

Lurks, 2017 WL 384429, at *3 (quoting Pittinger v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. M2006-

00266-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 935713, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2007)); see also 

Mullins v. Nash, No. 01A01-9403-CV-00138, 1994 WL 485581, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

Sept. 9, 1994) (affirming trial court’s decision granting defendant summary judgment 

where record did not reveal cause of plaintiff’s fall). Thus, Mr. Epps could not carry his 

burden on an essential element of his case, the condition of the ladder was a cause in fact 

of his fall and injury.

Turning to proximate cause, the trial court found that it was undisputed that if the 

ladders were defective, Ms. Thompson was not aware of the defects. This finding by the 

trial court is supported by the record. When Ms. Thompson filed her motion for 

summary judgment, she submitted a statement of undisputed material facts. In paragraph 

26, she stated: “Ms. Thompson does not believe that either ladder was dangerous or 

defective. If they were defective, she had no knowledge of any defect.” Mr. Epps 

responded to this paragraph by stating: “Admitted for the purpose of Summary 

Judgment.” In his motion to alter or amend, Mr. Epps asked the trial court to reconsider 

his response, explaining that he had told Ms. Thompson that the ladders were “old,” and 

that this statement by him should be interpreted as proof that Ms. Thompson was aware 

of the ladders’ defective condition. The trial court denied Mr. Epps’ motion to alter or 

amend, writing that the findings of fact it set forth in its earlier order granting the motion 

“were appropriate.”

We agree with the trial court that Mr. Epps failed to put forth evidence 

establishing a genuine issue for trial concerning proximate cause. Mr. Epps has not 

pointed to any evidence showing that it was foreseeable to Ms. Thompson that Mr. Epps 

would suffer an injury as a result of the ladders’ conditions. In support of his opposition 

to Ms. Thompson’s motion for summary judgment, Mr. Epps submitted an affidavit by an 

engineer that he retained to inspect the ladders and give his opinion of the ladders’ safety. 

The expert did not identify in his report the date when he inspected the ladders. His 

report is dated April 28, 2017, which is more than two years after Mr. Epps fell off the 

folding ladder. In addition, the expert focused on the condition of the extension ladder, 

not the folding ladder, and he did not link the folding ladder’s condition to Mr. Epps’ fall. 

Ms. Thompson moved to strike the expert’s affidavit because it did not meet the 

requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. The record does not reflect whether the trial 

court ruled on Ms. Thompson’s motion to strike. The trial court did not appear to rely on 

the expert’s affidavit in granting Ms. Thompson’s motion for summary judgment, and

Ms. Thompson’s motion to strike Mr. Epps’ expert’s affidavit is not an issue on appeal. 

In any event, we do not find that the expert’s affidavit assists Mr. Epps because it fails to 

provide evidence establishing causation or proximate cause. 

In a similar case where the plaintiff fell while walking on a piece of roofing 

material that the defendant used as a sidewalk, the plaintiff’s expert did not inspect the 
- 9 -

area where the plaintiff fell until close to a year after the fall. Mullins, 1994 WL 485581, 

at *2. Based on this lapse of time, we concluded that the plaintiff had “failed to present 

any evidence regarding the condition of the accident scene at the time she fell.” Id. We 

also noted that ‘“[t]he mere possibility of a causal relationship, without more, is 

insufficient to qualify as admissible expert opinion.’” Id. (quoting Lindsey v. Miami Dev. 

Corp., 689 S.W.2d 856, 862 (Tenn. 1985)). Here, Mr. Epps did not provide proof that 

Ms. Thompson’s conduct was ‘“a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,’” or that 

‘“the harm giving rise to the action”’ was reasonably foreseeable ‘“by a person of 

ordinary intelligence and prudence.”’ Hale, 166 S.W.3d at 719 (quoting Haynes, 883 

S.W.2d at 612). Thus, Mr. Epps did not prove proximate cause.

Mr. Epps asserts that his relationship with Ms. Thompson was that of employeremployee, whereas Ms. Thompson asserts Mr. Epps was an independent contractor. See, 

e.g., Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 

(Tenn. 1991) (discussing factors courts consider in determining whether worker is 

employee or independent contractor). Regardless of whether Mr. Epps was an employee 

or an independent contractor, Mr. Epps is not entitled to continue his action where he is 

unable to establish cause in fact or proximate cause, two elements of his claim for 

negligence.

III. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The costs of this appeal shall be 

assessed against the appellant, Matthew Epps, for which execution shall issue if 

necessary.

________________________________

 ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE