TN COA REVERSES DISMISSAL OF SLIP AND FALL CASE INVOLVING INADEQUATE LIGHTING

On November 30, 2010, Plaintiff Cynthia Christian was an invited guest for a function at Ms. Lassie's Lodge in Campbell County, Tennessee.  The Lodge was regularly rented for parties and other functions via the nearby Hampton Inn.  Ms. Christian arrived when it was still daylight, and the function ended after dark.

Before or during the function, an owner of The Lodge in charge of the event turned on some exterior lights.  However, the lights installed and  intended to illuminate the parking area and walkway leading to The Lodge were not operative.  As Ms. Christian walked from The Lodge to her car she stepped into a hole in the parking area which could not be seen in the dark.  She suffered personal injuries which resulted in more than $50,000 in medical expenses.  She later sued The Lodge for its negligence in failing to provide adequate lighting on the walkway and parking area for guests.

The Lodge asked the Circuit Court for Campbell County to dismiss the case claiming that: (1) it had no notice that the lights in question were out and (2) despite the lack of lighting Ms. Christian was more than 50 percent at fault for her fall and injuries.  In other words, the company who operated The Lodge for profit claimed that it had no idea its lights did not work and that if Ms. Christian could not see in the dark that was her problem.  The Lodge maintained this disingenuous defense even after The Lodge staff testified that: 1) the owner was in fact aware that the lights for the walkway and parking area were inoperative before the evening function; 2) they had no procedure for the inspection and maintenance of the exterior lights; and 3) the day after the fall and injury The Lodge staff inspected the lights and found as many as 14 exterior flood lights inoperative including those for the walkway and parking area.

Despite The Lodge's clear and actual notice of its inoperable lights, its failure to inspect or replace the lights, and the danger created by the lack of lighting, the Circuit Court inexplicably dismissed the case.  The Circuit Court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that The Lodge had notice of the lighting issue prior to Ms. Christian's fall - despite The Lodge's own apparent admission to the contrary.

Ms. Christian appealed, and on March 28, 2014, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Circuit Court properly finding that a jury could reasonably find that : 1) The Lodge had actual notice of the inoperative lights, the associated danger and a duty to act reasonably to remedy the issue; and/or 2) the lighting problem existed long enough that The Lodge through reasonable care and diligence should have discovered the danger and replaced the lights.  The case was remanded for trial by jury on all issues. Read the full opinion here.

Tennessee Supreme Court reviews whether the trial court properly excluded an expert's hearsay evidence in a premises liability case

JAMES Q. HOLDER ET AL. v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD. (Tenn. December 12, 2011)

During a trial of the plaintiffs' premises liability claim, the trial court excluded as hearsay a portion of the testimony of the defendant's expert. The expert would have testified that he consulted an authoritative source whose interpretation of the applicable building code was consistent with that of the testifying expert. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred because the expert's testimony was admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's error was harmless, however, and affirmed the judgment.

We hold that the Court of Appeals improperly applied an amended version of Rule 703 that was not in effect at the time of trial. We hold that the trial court properly excluded as hearsay portions of the proffered testimony of the testifying expert. We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/holderj_121211.pdf

Court reviews whether defendant owed a legal duty to a plaintiff in a premises liability case

MARGARET A. NORFLEET v. PULTE HOMES TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Tenn. Ct. App. November 10, 2011)

While touring a model home in a new residential home development, the plaintiff fell when she failed to see a four-inch step as she walked from the foyer into the sunken living room. This premises liability action followed. The defendant constructed, owned, and managed the model home in which the plaintiff fell. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint upon two findings: that the defendant did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault. We affirm upon the finding that the plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was owed to her by the defendant.

Full opinion is available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/norfleetm_111011.pdf

Court Reviews a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in a Case Involving a Hospital

MCCALL BRISTER v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF TENNESSEE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011)



This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of a hospital's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court determined that plaintiff's claim sounded in medical malpractice and dismissed plaintiff's claim for failure to comply with the written notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. Finding that Plaintiff's complaint states claim for ordinary negligence and premises liability, we reverse the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bristerm_060911.pdf

Court Reviews a Summary Judgment Ruling in a Slip and Fall Case

DAVID MACKLIN v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL STORE #2311 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2011)



This is a premises liability case. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a clear liquid at the defendant's store. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing it did not have a reasonable opportunity to clean the floor, warn the customer of the clear liquid, or take adequate precautionary measures upon receiving notice of the dangerous condition.

The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. Having determined the defendant effectively moved for and received only partial summary judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 


Opinion may be found at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/macklind_050411.pdf

Court reviews finding of comparative fault in premises liability case.

WILLIAM W. REED v. BILL MCDANIEL and AHMAD ELSEBAE (Tenn. Ct. App. February 23, 2010)

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant sustained injuries after a fall through the second-story floor of a water-damaged building. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants/Appellees, finding that the danger was open and obvious, that Defendants/Appellees had warned of the danger, and that Plaintiff/Appellant was at least 50% at fault for his own injuries, thus negating his negligence claim under McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn.1992). Finding no error, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/reedw_022310.pdf