Source: https://www.dayontorts.com/category/cat-premises-liability
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:40:14+00:00

Document:
Premises Liability Category Archives — Day on Torts Published by Day on Torts — Tennessee Personal Injury Attorney — The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Where plaintiff failed to present any proof that the stairs owned by defendant were defective, the trial court’s finding for defendant was affirmed.
In James v. City of Dyersburg, No. W2018-00614-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2019), plaintiff filed a GTLA premises liability suit after falling on stairs outside of a city building. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that she fell due to the city’s negligence in “failing to provide a handrail on the steps, and in failing to correct a defect…being a separation between step and a metal strip[.]” At trial, plaintiff testified that she “stepped down from the top step with her right foot onto the second-step, but as she tried to step down with her left foot, the two-inch heel of her left shoe got caught on the metal strip on the stairs[.]” She also testified that she was unable to catch herself due to the absence of a handrail. Despite her allegation that the stairs were defective, plaintiff offered “no measurements…and no proof…of any code violations or applicable code requirements for the steps, stairway, or handrails,” nor did she present expert testimony.
Where a plaintiff who fell in a grocery store presented no evidence in her premises liability case beyond the fact that there was a pallet in the aisle over which she tripped, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant grocery store.
In Hunter v. Kroger Limited Partnership, No. W2017-01789-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2018), plaintiff was shopping in defendant grocery store when she tripped on a pallet and fell. Plaintiff had been bent over in a freezer searching for an item. As she straightened up, she stepped backwards 3-4 steps to allow another customer to pass, and in doing so she “tripped on a wooden pallet that was left on the floor in the center of the aisle.” Evidence showed that the pallet was wooden and had been used for stocking the shelves, and that nothing was blocking plaintiff’s view of the pallet.
Plaintiff filed this premises liability action asserting that defendant “owed her an affirmative duty of care to protect her from the dangerous condition created by the pallet.” The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
In its memorandum supporting the motion for summary judgment, defendant argued that the pallet was not a dangerous condition and that plaintiff’s “allegation that this pallet was a dangerous condition is not based on anything other than the fact that she tripped.” Defendant filed a statement of undisputed facts, which included the facts that plaintiff was walking backwards and had taken around 4 steps before she hit the pallet and fell, and that there was nothing blocking the pallet from view. Plaintiff admitted all of these facts and “proffered no additional material facts, and submitted no additional evidence.” On appeal, this lack of evidence proved fatal to plaintiff’s case.
A premises owner’s duty generally does not include the duty to protect “from criminal acts occurring off [the] defendant premises owner’s property.” In Collier v. Legends Park LP, No. W2017-02313-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018), plaintiff was a resident at defendant’s apartment building. Plaintiff was sitting in his car, which was parked on a public street, with a female companion. Another car pulled next to plaintiff’s car, and the female companion got into that car. When plaintiff then exited the vehicle, he was approached from behind by a second female holding a gun and demanding money. Plaintiff had several thousand dollars on him, but told the robber that the money was in his car. Plaintiff was eventually shot in both legs, and the robber got into the car with the other two people and drove away.
Where there were facts in dispute about whether a warehouse warned its workers about independent contractors working and using extension cords in the facility, summary judgment in a premises liability case was inappropriate.
In Miranda v. CSC Sugar, LLC, No. W2017-01986-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018), plaintiff was a construction worker who was working at defendant’s warehouse as a contractor. Plaintiff and his brother were working on scaffolding and using an electric screw gun, which he plugged in with a one-hundred-foot extension cord to an outlet in a different part of the facility. The cord ran across a doorway at the warehouse, and on the third day that plaintiff was working, one of defendant’s employees drove a forklift in reverse across the cord, which entangled the cord and pulled on the scaffolding, causing plaintiff to fall and injure himself.
Plaintiff filed this premises liability suit against defendant, and the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that defendant “had no duty to warn [plaintiff] of the allegedly dangerous condition which [plaintiff] or his co-employee created and knew about.” The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling.
Where a school custodian had placed wet floor signs on a small area of one side of a hallway but mopped the entire hallway, the trial court’s finding that the school was liable to a teacher who slipped and fell outside her classroom was affirmed on appeal.
In Robertson v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, No. M2017-02492-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018), plaintiff was a teacher at defendant school. Plaintiff filed suit after she injured herself when she left her classroom to attend a staff meeting and almost immediately slipped on the wet floor in the hall. According to plaintiff, there were two wet floor signs on the opposite side of the hallway in close proximity to one another, but she did not see them before falling. Plaintiff further asserted that even if she had seen them, she would have believed that they indicated that the area between the signs was wet, not the entire hallway.
Evidence of an accident or injury alone is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment in a premises liability case.
In Jobe v. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc., No. M2017-02299-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2018), plaintiff was a shopper at a Goodwill store. When she “attempted to sit in a plastic chair that was displayed for sale,” the chair collapsed, causing plaintiff to fall and injure herself. Plaintiff filed this premises liability action, and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
In a premises liability case, a plaintiff must be able to prove the elements of a negligence claim, and also that “the condition was caused or created by the owner, operator, or agent or that the owner or operator had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident.” (internal citation omitted). While business owners must keep their properties reasonably safe, they are “not responsible for removing or warning against conditions from which no unreasonable risk was to be anticipated.” (internal citation omitted).
Where a defendant has changed its story regarding relevant facts, leaving material facts in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Where a drainage cut in a concrete platform was visible but not open and obvious, a finding that the plaintiff was only twenty percent at fault for his fall was affirmed on appeal.
In Osborne v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, No. M2017-01090-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2018), plaintiff fell while visiting a city-owned facility for trash that was too large for regular trash trucks. The center had two levels, with the upper level being about five feet off the ground. On the edge of the upper platform there was a 26-inch-wide concrete barrier, and this barrier had 15-inch-long drainage cuts. There were signs stating “Please Use Care When You Unload Items” and telling children to stay in the vehicle, but there were no signs about the drainage cuts, no verbal warnings, and no markings or paint to draw attention to the cuts. Plaintiff had been to this center many times, but he had never been directed to this particular area. When he got out of his truck, he stepped onto the barrier and sidestepped toward the back of his truck without looking down at the barrier. As he was walking, not holding onto his truck, he stepped into the drainage cut and fell five feet, injuring his arm.
A door that opened into a lobby area and had no warning signs has been held to not be a dangerous condition under certain circumstances.
In Wimmer v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health System, No. E2017-00352-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2018), plaintiff had just finished a doctor’s appointment and was waiting for a van from her assisted living facility to pick her up. So that she could see the van approaching, she was standing just inside the building near the glass sliding entry doors, but she was not in the vestibule area between two sets of sliding doors. While she was waiting, a man in scrubs opened a door from a fire stairwell that opened into the lobby, and the door hit plaintiff, knocking her over and injuring her. The door was a “wooden door with a black metal frame surrounded by red brick.” Plaintiff testified that she “did not see the door until after she was hit,” and that she “didn’t even realize there was a door at that time because I wasn’t paying any attention to the fact that there might be a door there.” The door did not have any warning that it opened into the lobby, and it did not have a window panel, so people coming through the door could not see whether there was anyone on the other side.
At trial, both sides presented expert testimony. When asked whether the door was a dangerous condition, plaintiff’s expert testified that “as you learn more about what occurred, you can see why things could become hazardous, if certain sets of circumstances were to prevail…” He also testified that it would have been appropriate for the door to have a warning, and that if there had been a panel of glass in the door, it “may not stop it from happening, but they’ll at least have some idea that it’s getting ready to happen.” Plaintiff also called as a witness one of defendant’s former security employees, who testified that the door in question was “an odd door,” and that there were a few doors at defendant’s facility “that you can be standing there and someone may push that door out and you may not be—they may not know someone is standing on the other side.” He stated that he had taken reports of people being injured by doors during his employment with defendant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.