§52.1 Generally
1. Pittenger v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 2007 WL 935713 (Tenn. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"Restaurant patron and wife filed negligence and negligence per se action against restaurant for injuries patron received to his ankle while attempting to open restaurant door for wife. Restaurant filed motion for summary judgment, which trial court granted dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court, finding that (1) Plaintiffs failed to show that restaurant breached any duty to patron; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish that the building code imposed an obligation on Defendant." View opinion.
2. Curry v. City of Howenwald, 223 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"Landowner filed action against city for injuries sustained when he stepped backwards onto defective water meter cover located in his front yard. Trial court dismissed the action having apportioned fault equally between parties as a result of landowner’s admitted knowledge of dangerous condition. We reverse the allocation of fault and remand the matter for the determination of damages." View opinion.
3. Tate v. Burley Chanpion, 2007 WL 1259208 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"Mr. Champion (the “Landlord”) had several trenches dug in his tenant’s yard to repair a leaking water pipe. After repairing the pipe, the Landlord did not cover the trenches, and Ms. Tate (the “Tenant”) complained repeatedly. Over time, grass grew over the trenches. Three months after the trenches were dug, the Tenant, after returning from a shopping trip and carrying two bags, fell in one of the trenches and was injured. The Tenant sued the Landlord for negligence. The trial court granted the Landlord’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the uncovered trench was open and obvious and therefore, it was not foreseeable to the Landlord that the Tenant would step into a known hazard. After careful review, we find that the Landlord owed a duty of reasonable care to the Tenant; that the Landlord did not affirmatively negate an essential element of the Tenant’s proof, i.e., the Landlord’s duty of care to the Tenant; and, as a result, summary judgment was inappropriate. We vacate and remand." View opinion.
4. Carter v. Bell, 2007 WL 2323396 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This personal injury case arose after a licensed pharmacist initiated a romantic relationship with the plaintiff, one of his customers. The pharmacist assured the plaintiff that he was not married, but this was not true. On one occasion, when the plaintiff was at his house, the pharmacist’s wife came home unexpectedly, discovered the plaintiff reclining on the guest bed, and assaulted her by repeatedly beating her head against the floor. The plaintiff sued the pharmacist and his wife for damages. A jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages for injuries and medical expenses she sustained as a result of the assault. On appeal, the pharmacist contends that he owed the plaintiff no duty of care, that he breached no duty, and that the plaintiff failed to establish that her expenses and condition were caused by the actions of his wife. We affirm the judgment of the trial court based upon the jury’s verdict because we determine that the pharmacist owed the plaintiff a duty of ordinary care as the owner or occupier of premises, that there was material evidence that the pharmacist breached this duty, and that there was material evidence that the negligence of the pharmacist and the actions of his wife caused the expenses and injuries for which the plaintiff was awarded compensation." View opinion.
5. Oliver v. Prologis Trust, 2006 WL 3731211 (Tenn. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2006).
The Court's Summary:
"In this premises liability case, the minor plaintiff received a severe foot injury while assisting an independent contractor straighten concrete poles with a forklift on defendant premises owner’s property. The plaintiff’s father sued the independent contractor and the premises owner on his minor son’s behalf, alleging negligence and workers’ compensation liability. The trial court tried the workers’ compensation claim first and entered a judgment for the plaintiff. The Special Workers’ Compensation Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed as to the premises owner, finding that the premises owner was not the statutory employer of the plaintiff. The case returned to the trial court for trial of the negligence claim. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the independent contractor from the action, leaving the premises owner as the only defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner, finding that the premises owner owed no duty to prevent the independent contractor from hiring the plaintiff, and finding that the facts of the case did not fall into any exception to the general rule that a premises owner is not liable for the negligence of its independent contractor. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, alleging that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment. We affirm." View opinion.
6. Collins v. Arnold, No. M2004-02513-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by a car driven by an impaired driver who was killed in the collision. The plaintiff’s suit named as defendants the estate of the deceased driver, the nightclub from which the driver departed immediately before the accident, and the company which provided security services to the bar. The jury declined to find the nightclub liable for serving alcoholic beverages, thereby making the only available basis for liability negligence in controlling the conduct of the deceased driver so as to prevent harm to others. The
jury heard evidence that employees of the club and the security company had made efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the driver from leaving the premises in an intoxicated state. The jury found the plaintiff’s damages resulted from negligence and amounted to over $1,162,000. They allocated 30% of the fault to the deceased driver, 30% to the security company, and 40% to the club’s owner. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million against the club’s owner and $500,000
against the security company. The club owner appealed. Because the jury was not instructed as to the conditions for liability under an assumed, rather than imposed, duty of care as established in Section 324A of the Restatement of Torts, we must reverse the verdict and judgment thereon. For separate and independent reasons, we reverse the award of punitive damages, because the conduct of the bar’s personnel in attempting to prevent its adult customer from driving while impaired did not reach the level of recklessness necessary to sustain a punitive award. Additionally, we find no
error in evidentiary rulings or other procedures in the trial court that justify reversal."
View opinion.
7. Walker v. Collegetown Mobile Estates, Inc., E2007-01153-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan 28, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Plaintiff who fell in a mobile home sued the lessor owner for damages for injuries. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to defendant. On appeal, we vacate the summary judgment and remand." Read the opinion.
8.Stewart v. Seaton Corporation, No. M2007-00715-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is a premises liability case stemming from a fall by Amelia Stewart over an unpainted curb near one of the entrances to the defendant’s hospital. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the curb over which the plaintiff fell was unsafe, dangerous and defective. The hospital moved for summary judgment arguing that (1) there was no evidence of an unsafe, dangerous, or defective condition, (2) the condition of the curb was “open and obvious,” and (3) that plaintiff could not establish that her injury was foreseeable or the feasibility of alternative conduct. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm." View opinion.
9. Elrod v. Continental Apartments, No. M2007-01117-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The unsuccessful plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her slip and fall claim against an apartment complex and its owner. During the second day of a winter storm, the plaintiff traveled along icy roads to make a security deposit at the apartment complex. Although she had carefully exited her vehicle and walked to the office to make the deposit, she chose to “trot” back along the same path to her car. While trotting to her car, she slipped on the icy parking lot, breaking her ankle. The trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that reasonable minds could not differ that the plaintiff’s fault was greater than that of the defendants. We, therefore, affirm." View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"Restaurant patron and wife filed negligence and negligence per se action against restaurant for injuries patron received to his ankle while attempting to open restaurant door for wife. Restaurant filed motion for summary judgment, which trial court granted dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court, finding that (1) Plaintiffs failed to show that restaurant breached any duty to patron; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish that the building code imposed an obligation on Defendant." View opinion.
2. Curry v. City of Howenwald, 223 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"Landowner filed action against city for injuries sustained when he stepped backwards onto defective water meter cover located in his front yard. Trial court dismissed the action having apportioned fault equally between parties as a result of landowner’s admitted knowledge of dangerous condition. We reverse the allocation of fault and remand the matter for the determination of damages." View opinion.
3. Tate v. Burley Chanpion, 2007 WL 1259208 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"Mr. Champion (the “Landlord”) had several trenches dug in his tenant’s yard to repair a leaking water pipe. After repairing the pipe, the Landlord did not cover the trenches, and Ms. Tate (the “Tenant”) complained repeatedly. Over time, grass grew over the trenches. Three months after the trenches were dug, the Tenant, after returning from a shopping trip and carrying two bags, fell in one of the trenches and was injured. The Tenant sued the Landlord for negligence. The trial court granted the Landlord’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the uncovered trench was open and obvious and therefore, it was not foreseeable to the Landlord that the Tenant would step into a known hazard. After careful review, we find that the Landlord owed a duty of reasonable care to the Tenant; that the Landlord did not affirmatively negate an essential element of the Tenant’s proof, i.e., the Landlord’s duty of care to the Tenant; and, as a result, summary judgment was inappropriate. We vacate and remand." View opinion.
4. Carter v. Bell, 2007 WL 2323396 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This personal injury case arose after a licensed pharmacist initiated a romantic relationship with the plaintiff, one of his customers. The pharmacist assured the plaintiff that he was not married, but this was not true. On one occasion, when the plaintiff was at his house, the pharmacist’s wife came home unexpectedly, discovered the plaintiff reclining on the guest bed, and assaulted her by repeatedly beating her head against the floor. The plaintiff sued the pharmacist and his wife for damages. A jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages for injuries and medical expenses she sustained as a result of the assault. On appeal, the pharmacist contends that he owed the plaintiff no duty of care, that he breached no duty, and that the plaintiff failed to establish that her expenses and condition were caused by the actions of his wife. We affirm the judgment of the trial court based upon the jury’s verdict because we determine that the pharmacist owed the plaintiff a duty of ordinary care as the owner or occupier of premises, that there was material evidence that the pharmacist breached this duty, and that there was material evidence that the negligence of the pharmacist and the actions of his wife caused the expenses and injuries for which the plaintiff was awarded compensation." View opinion.
5. Oliver v. Prologis Trust, 2006 WL 3731211 (Tenn. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2006).
The Court's Summary:
"In this premises liability case, the minor plaintiff received a severe foot injury while assisting an independent contractor straighten concrete poles with a forklift on defendant premises owner’s property. The plaintiff’s father sued the independent contractor and the premises owner on his minor son’s behalf, alleging negligence and workers’ compensation liability. The trial court tried the workers’ compensation claim first and entered a judgment for the plaintiff. The Special Workers’ Compensation Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed as to the premises owner, finding that the premises owner was not the statutory employer of the plaintiff. The case returned to the trial court for trial of the negligence claim. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the independent contractor from the action, leaving the premises owner as the only defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner, finding that the premises owner owed no duty to prevent the independent contractor from hiring the plaintiff, and finding that the facts of the case did not fall into any exception to the general rule that a premises owner is not liable for the negligence of its independent contractor. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, alleging that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment. We affirm." View opinion.
6. Collins v. Arnold, No. M2004-02513-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by a car driven by an impaired driver who was killed in the collision. The plaintiff’s suit named as defendants the estate of the deceased driver, the nightclub from which the driver departed immediately before the accident, and the company which provided security services to the bar. The jury declined to find the nightclub liable for serving alcoholic beverages, thereby making the only available basis for liability negligence in controlling the conduct of the deceased driver so as to prevent harm to others. The
jury heard evidence that employees of the club and the security company had made efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the driver from leaving the premises in an intoxicated state. The jury found the plaintiff’s damages resulted from negligence and amounted to over $1,162,000. They allocated 30% of the fault to the deceased driver, 30% to the security company, and 40% to the club’s owner. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million against the club’s owner and $500,000
against the security company. The club owner appealed. Because the jury was not instructed as to the conditions for liability under an assumed, rather than imposed, duty of care as established in Section 324A of the Restatement of Torts, we must reverse the verdict and judgment thereon. For separate and independent reasons, we reverse the award of punitive damages, because the conduct of the bar’s personnel in attempting to prevent its adult customer from driving while impaired did not reach the level of recklessness necessary to sustain a punitive award. Additionally, we find no
error in evidentiary rulings or other procedures in the trial court that justify reversal."
View opinion.
7. Walker v. Collegetown Mobile Estates, Inc., E2007-01153-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan 28, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Plaintiff who fell in a mobile home sued the lessor owner for damages for injuries. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to defendant. On appeal, we vacate the summary judgment and remand." Read the opinion.
8.Stewart v. Seaton Corporation, No. M2007-00715-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is a premises liability case stemming from a fall by Amelia Stewart over an unpainted curb near one of the entrances to the defendant’s hospital. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the curb over which the plaintiff fell was unsafe, dangerous and defective. The hospital moved for summary judgment arguing that (1) there was no evidence of an unsafe, dangerous, or defective condition, (2) the condition of the curb was “open and obvious,” and (3) that plaintiff could not establish that her injury was foreseeable or the feasibility of alternative conduct. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm." View opinion.
9. Elrod v. Continental Apartments, No. M2007-01117-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The unsuccessful plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her slip and fall claim against an apartment complex and its owner. During the second day of a winter storm, the plaintiff traveled along icy roads to make a security deposit at the apartment complex. Although she had carefully exited her vehicle and walked to the office to make the deposit, she chose to “trot” back along the same path to her car. While trotting to her car, she slipped on the icy parking lot, breaking her ankle. The trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that reasonable minds could not differ that the plaintiff’s fault was greater than that of the defendants. We, therefore, affirm." View opinion.