Tennessee’s Recreational Use statute provides the State with immunity for injuries occurring on state property during recreational use. The statute provides an exception in cases where the State acted with willful or wanton conduct or gross negligence. However, the statute is a high burden to meet, and the court has previously concluded that after-the-fact concerns about dangerous conditions are insufficient to establish a conscious indifference.

In this case, the plaintiffs concede that the Recreational Use statute provides immunity but argued that the gross negligence exception should apply.

In support of their argument, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the park rangers performed mere “drive-by” inspections where they would only look at the equipment from a distance. Further, they contend that the inspections were inadequate because photos show that the playground had little to no padding under the equipment. Moreover, the plaintiffs pointed to depositions of a park ranger who agreed that the photos depict a “hazardous” condition.

However, the court reasoned that gross negligence refers to instances where one acts with “utter unconcern” or reckless disregard of the safety of others. Further, the gross negligence exception to the Recreational Use statute only applies in the most egregious cases. Here, they found that the park ranger’s admission that the playground looked dangerous is not enough to establish utter disregard. Additionally, there is no dispute that the State lacked knowledge of the dangerous condition of the playground. As such, the court affirmed the Commission’s findings.

Have You Suffered Injuries at a Park or Playground?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died because of negligence, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The personal injury lawyers at our office provide clients with excellent representation. Attorney Hartsoe has decades of experience successfully resolving cases for those who have suffered injuries stemming from car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, premises liability, defective products, medical malpractice, construction site accidents, and nursing home abuse and neglect. He has recovered significant amounts of compensation on behalf of clients and their loved ones. These cases require the experience and diligence of an attorney who has a solid and in-depth understanding of complex Tennessee injury laws. In addition to that knowledge, Attorney Hartsoe consistently provides clients with respect and compassion during all stages of their claim. Contact the Knoxville accident lawyer Mark Hartsoe at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your case.

Unfortunately, evidence of the proper owner’s negligence can disappear quickly. The accident scene may change when an employee cleans up the spill in which the customer slipped and fell. Video surveillance may be “recorded over” if not preserved. Even information about eyewitnesses may be lost over time.

Because of the compelling need to avoid spoliation of the evidence in a slip and fall case, it is important that the plaintiff seek legal counsel in a timely fashion. This can also help avoid the running of the statute of limitations, which is quite short for such matters in Tennessee.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent appellate court case arising in Shelby County was a woman who slipped in fell in standing water in a restroom on the defendant landowner’s property. The case was originally filed in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County and resulted in judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed the case to the Circuit Court of Shelby County. The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The circuit court had sided with the defendant on its summary judgment motion after finding that the plaintiff had actual notice of the wet floor before she attempted to traverse it and that, therefore, she could not establish the element of duty in her negligence action against the defendant. The appeals court, however, concluded that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the plaintiff had been presented with a reasonable alternative to using the flooded restroom under the circumstances. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiff had asserted that her need to use the restroom was “urgent.” In the court’s view, it was up to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff should have sought out an alternative restroom or whether she was held “captive” by the flooded restroom that she chose to use and in which she slipped and fell, causing injuries to her person.

Speak to a Premises Liability Attorney in Knoxville

Cases alleging that a slip and fall accident was the result of a business owner’s negligence can be difficult to win. This does not mean that such cases are impossible, only that it is very important that the injured individual seek an attorney’s services as soon as possible so that evidence of the landowner’s negligence may be property preserved. Otherwise, the proof needed in order to prevail in the case can easily slip away, making it extremely difficult for the plaintiff to win at trial. For an appointment to discuss a possible trip and fall case with an attorney experienced in such matters, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 or contact us through this website.

Generally, the argument is that the employee in question acted reasonably under the circumstances presented and that the plaintiff was the one at fault. However, this is not always the government’s strategy.

A recent case against a large county school system was the “exception that proves the rule,” so to speak. In this case, the governmental entity insisted that its employee’s conduct was so egregious as to not be considered negligence, thus removing the case from the statute under which the injured party pursued compensation.

Facts of the Case

In an appellate court case appealed from the Circuit Court for Shelby County, the plaintiff was the parent and next friend of a minor child who received significant injuries to his skull and brain as a result of an incident in which a teacher (an employee of the defendant school system) threw a shot put and hit him in the head during track and field tryouts at a middle school. The plaintiff’s lawsuit sought to recover monetary damages for the child’s injuries, including pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, and medical expenses exceeding $60,000. At trial, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2), claiming that the plaintiff’s negligence claim had failed because the proof showed that the teacher’s actions were intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent and that the defendant school system was thus immune from liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

The trial court denied the motion, eventually entering an order finding that the teacher was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and that he had acted negligently in injuring the student. The court also found that the defendant was vicariously liable for the teacher’s negligence under the Act and that the plaintiffs were entitled to $200,000 in compensatory damages. The defendant appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling. While governmental entities such as the defendant generally enjoy immunity from liability, the case at bar fell squarely within the exception to the rule carved out by the Act. Under the Act, a governmental entity’s immunity is removed for injuries that are proximately caused by the negligent act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. While governmental immunity was not removed for intentional torts such as assault and battery, the court disagreed with the defendant’s argument that the teacher had acted intentionally in injuring the student.

The court so held based on the testimony of the teacher, who took responsibility for the accident but insisted that he did not hurt the child on purpose. Rather, he had made several efforts to avoid harm, such as moving the students back from the area in which he was throwing; ultimately, of course, those efforts had failed, and the child had been hurt. Given the teacher’s lack of experience and training in this particular area, the court found that his efforts were not a gross deviation from the standard of care of a person in his circumstances.

Schedule a Legal Consultation with a Personal Injury Lawyer in East Tennessee

The Hartsoe Law Firm is here to help with wrongful death and personal injury cases throughout the Knoxville and Maryville area. If you have been hurt by another’s negligence in Knox or Blount County (or in the surrounding area), call us at (865) 804-1011 for a free case evaluation.

The reality of such accidents, however, is very different. A fall-down accident in a grocery store, restaurant, or other business can leave a shopper with serious injuries which may require extensive medical treatment.

When such an accident occurs as a result of the negligence of the business owner, the injured individual has a right to file a lawsuit seeking compensation for his or her medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. It should be noted that the burden of proof in such a case rests on the plaintiff, who must be able to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case arising in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, the plaintiff was a woman who was shopping at the defendant grocery store when her cart tipped over due to a missing wheel and caused her to fall. The plaintiff suffered numerous injuries as a result of the accident, including a fracture that required surgical repair; her medical expenses were approximately $90,000. She filed suit against the defendant, seeking compensation for her injuries under the legal theories of both ordinary negligence and premises liability. The defendant answered that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a non-party that maintained and serviced the defendant’s shopping carts. The plaintiff was granted leave to add the third-party to her complaint, but, ultimately, this claim was dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment.

The case proceeded to a jury trial on the plaintiff’s negligence claim (she opted to proceed only on this theory, having voluntarily dismissed her premises liability claim). The jury found that the defendant was 100% at fault in the accident and awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $850,000. The defendant appealed, arguing that the third-party defendant should not have been dismissed on summary judgment, that the defendant should have been granted a directed verdict, and/or that the trial court should have either granted a new trial or issued a remittitur of the damages award.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the grocery store had not met its burden to show reversible error. Although the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s case sounded in premises liability rather than simple negligence and that she had failed to meet the burden of proof for a premises liability action, the appellate court opined that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented from which a reasonable juror could have inferred both ordinary negligence by the defendant and the type of actual and/or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its property required to survive a motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict on a traditional premises liability claim.

With regard to the defendant’s argument that the verdict was excessive, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff was a senior citizen and that one of her most significant injuries was her loss of independence following the accident. According the court, such a loss could not be quantified. Because the defendant was unable to meet its burden of showing that there was no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the court of appeals agreed that denial of its motion for a remittitur or new trial was appropriate.

Call a Premises Liability Injury Attorney

If you or your spouse or child has been hurt on someone else’s premises, you may have a claim for money damages if the premises owner’s negligence caused or contributed to your accident. To speak to a seasoned premises liability and grocery store slip and fall attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. We are working during the COVID-19 pandemic and are here to respond to your calls, so please do not delay seeking legal advice about your case, as claims not filed in a timely fashion will be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

During the pretrial phase of the litigation, the trial court is often called upon to decide whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to take the case to trial in front of a jury. Unless there is a genuine issue of material fact appropriate for the consideration of the jury, the case may be dismissed prior to trial.

In many cases, it is the defendant who creates and maintains custody of such evidence – such as video surveillance, witness statements, photographs, and the like. Because this evidence is so vitally important to the plaintiff in building his or her negligence case, there can be serious consequences for a defendant who “loses” such evidence.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently considered on appeal, the plaintiff was a woman who allegedly slipped and fell at a gas station/convenience store in Dandridge. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store’s owner, seeking to recover financial compensation for her medical expenses and other associated damages cause by the fall. In her complaint, the plaintiff asserted that her fall was caused by a gasoline spill in the defendant’s parking lot and that the defendant was aware or should have been aware of the dangerous condition but had failed to properly clean the area. The defendant answered the plaintiff’s complaint by insisting that the plaintiff’s fall was due to nothing but her own negligence.

The Circuit Court for Knox County granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to submit a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had caused, created, and/or should have discovered the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall and resulting personal injuries.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings. In so holding, the court noted that another customer had witnessed the plaintiff’s accident but that this customer’s contact information had been lost by the defendant. Video surveillance of the accident had likewise been lost by the defendant “due to an alleged power surge and hard drive failure.” During the summary judgment proceedings in the lower court, the plaintiff had raised the issue of spoliation and had argued that the defendant should not have been allowed to move forward on its motion for summary judgment due to its actions. The trial court rejected this argument.

On appeal, the plaintiff again argued that the trial court should have imposed an inference of negligence on the defendant due to its spoliation of evidence. While the reviewing court did not disturb the trial court’s ruling regarding inferring negligence against the defendant, it did find that, because the defendant had control of – and lost – two important pieces of evidence, there should be some consequence. In the court’s opinion, the proper course was to allow the plaintiff to testify “broadly” about her interaction with the missing witness, including the content of their conversation. (Under normal circumstances, the hearsay rule would likely have prevented such testimony regarding the witness’s out-of-court statements in front of the jury at trial.)

Contact a Premises Liability Attorney

If you have been hurt due to a store owner’s neglect, you may be entitled to substantial compensation for your medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. To schedule a no-cost, obligation-free consultation with an established Knoxville slip and fall attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. Please be mindful that negligence claims must be filed within a certain time period, or else a plaintiff’s right to seek compensation may be deemed waived.

In such a case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. If this burden is met, the plaintiff may be awarded substantial money damages for his or her pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses.

Premises liability claims must be promptly and thoroughly investigated, preferably by a person with the plaintiff’s best interests in mind. If an investigation is left up to the defendant and its insurance company, it may be difficult for the plaintiff to prove his or her case in court later on. For this reason, it is important to talk to an attorney as soon as possible if you have been hurt on someone else’s property.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who allegedly slipped and fell in antifreeze that had been spilled in the parking lot outside the defendant retail store. Earlier, a different customer had slipped and fallen in the same puddle of antifreeze and had reported the incident to the manager on duty. The manager had walked out to the parking lot, viewed the puddle, and went back into the store with the intent of getting a bag of kitty litter to pour over the spill in an attempt to clean up the antifreeze. Instead of returning to the parking lot, however, the manager stayed inside the store to help an employee complete a transaction. In the meantime, the plaintiff left the store with her purchases, slipped and fell in the antifreeze, and was hurt.

The plaintiff (joined by her husband) filed suit against the store and several other defendants who held property interests in the parking lot, asserting a claim for premises liability. The defendant store filed a motion for summary judgment, insisting that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because it did not owe the plaintiff a duty to correct the spill or to warn her about the dangerous condition because the store neither owned nor operated the parking lot in which the accident occurred. The Circuit Court for Knox County granted the defendant store’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the circuit court’s decision. While acknowledging that the defendant store had a lease agreement with another party in which it was specified that the other party was responsible for maintenance of the parking lot, the reviewing court found that summary judgment to the defendant store was inappropriate given that the defendant had exercised control over the area in which the plaintiff fell by doing thing such as clearing debris and cleaning spills caused by customers. Because the defendant store had exercised this level of control over the area in question without notifying the party whom it alleged was responsible for maintenance of the lot, the court of appeals disagreed with the lower court’s determination that the defendant store was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In the specific situation at bar, the court noted that the defendant store was on notice of the condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall and that it was foreseeable that another customer might slip and fall in the antifreeze puddle that had been reported to the manager. The determination of whether the defendant store’s conduct (specifically, its employee’s decision to attend to other tasks rather than crafting a barrier of the area or otherwise alerting customers of the danger) was best left to the trier of fact, in the appellate court’s view.

To Speak to an Attorney About Your Personal Injury Case

If you have suffered serious personal injuries because of a dangerous condition at a retail store or other business, you should talk to a lawyer about your legal rights. For a free consultation with a knowledgeable Knoxville premises liability attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and set up an appointment. We handle cases through east Tennessee, including Knoxville, Maryville, Sevierville, and Oak Ridge.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate court case originating in the Circuit Court for Hawkins County, Tennessee, the plaintiff was a man who was injured in a fall while helping build a house for the defendant landowner. The plaintiff brought a negligence action against the defendant, seeking compensation for his medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by the fall. In explaining why he did not seek workers’ compensation benefits, the plaintiff averred that the defendant had failed to have a certificate of insurability and had not insured him at the time of the accident; according to the plaintiff, his appropriate remedy was thus in tort, not in workers’ compensation.

The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the defendant attempted to point the blame for the plaintiff’s injuries toward a third-party who was not involved in the lawsuit. According to the defendant, this third party was a handyman who was helping the defendant build the house. The jury found that the plaintiff was the employee of the handyman rather than the defendant, that the handyman was 60% at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries, that the plaintiff was 30% at fault for his injuries, that the defendant was 10% at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any money damages. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Ruling

On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville, the plaintiff argued that jury’s verdict had been contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial, that the defendant was responsible for the safety of those working on the house, and that the defendant was liable for his injuries.

Although the defendant was acting as his own principal contractor in the building of the house, this did not, in and of itself, establish an employee-employer relationship between the parties. In reviewing the evidence, the court found material evidence that supported the jury’s determination that the plaintiff was an employee of the handyman, not the defendant. The handyman was, in turn, an independent contractor hired by the defendant. Thus, the defendant owed the handyman the duty of providing a reasonably safe place to work.

With respect to the jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to any money damages for his injuries, the court found that this decision was not supported by the evidence. Because it was obvious that the plaintiff had suffered a serious injury due to the accident, the jury’s verdict awarding zero damages was improper. On remand, the trial court was to give further consideration to the issue of damages.

Seek Justice Following an East Tennessee Premises Liability Accident

To talk to an experienced premises liability lawyer, please phone the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and ask for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout east Tennessee, including Maryville, Alcoa, Sevierville, and Oak Ridge.

Facts of the Case

In a federal district court case in which a decision was issued earlier this year, the plaintiff was man who was reportedly electrocuted while working at a fair and music festival in Memphis in 2016. The accident happened when a ride that was plugged into the same generator as the ride upon which the plaintiff was working became energized by an overhead powerline, causing electricity to flow through the first ride, through the generator, through the second ride, and into the plaintiff’s body.

The plaintiff brought suit against four different amusement companies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Two of the defendants brought crossclaims against a third defendant, seeking indemnification and a defense. That defendant sought summary judgment on the crossclaims, urging that its contract with one of the two defendants did not obligate it to indemnify the two defendants for their defense costs in the case. The plaintiff and the two defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the crossclaims based on a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, the plaintiff had the right to purchase an annuity; the first two defendants paid $2,075,000 to fund the annuity. The other two defendants did not contribute to the settlement payment.

Decision of the Court

The federal district court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with prejudice based on the settlement but reserved ruling on the remaining issues. The court first noted that one of the defendants had argued that the joint motion to dismiss was inherently deficient because it did not include a certificate of consultation; the court agreed that the motion could be denied on this ground but found that, in the expeditious and economical resolution of the litigation, the best course of action was not to disqualify the motion.

Noting that the plaintiff had represented to the court that he had settled all of his claims and was asking for dismissal, the court agreed to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. As to the motion of two of the defendants to be substituted by their insurance company as the crossclaimant, the court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) had not been met. However, given that these defendants had stated that they were no longer the real parties in interest and that their insurer was now the “sole real party in interest” insomuch as it has fully settled the claims on their behalf, the court found that it was appropriate to give the insurance company some additional time in which to maintain the crossclaim if it so chose.

Talk to an East Tennessee Injury Attorney

At the Hartsoe Law Firm, we handle Tennessee personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, including those resulting in fire and burn injuries. For an appointment to get started on a claim that you have against a negligent individual, business, or governmental entity, call us now at (865) 804-1011. Please be mindful that claims not filed within the statute of limitations are usually dismissed, so it is important that you contact an attorney about your case as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a visitor who reportedly slipped and fell in an icy parking lot at the defendant hospital. The plaintiff had been at the hospital for some 12 hours on the day of her fall (for the birth of a grandchild); at the time of her arrival, the parking lot appeared wet but did not contain snow or ice. As the plaintiff returned her car that evening, she walked between two parked vehicles, slipping on a patch of ice that had apparently refrozen during the evening hours and fracturing her patella.

According to the plaintiff’s allegations in her complaint against the defendant, the defendant was negligent because it failed to remedy the dangerous condition created by accumulated ice in its parking lot, insomuch as it did not take affirmative steps to prevent melted snow from refreezing prior to the time of the plaintiff’s fall. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed in part and reversed in part. According to the appellate court, a premises owner’s duty with regard to natural accumulations of snow and ice is to exercise reasonable care to protect those who are on the legally on the property from unreasonable risks of harm. As with other duties applicable in a premises liability action, this may include either removing or repairing potentially dangerous conditions or helping visitors avoid injury by warning them of conditions that cannot, as a practical matter, be removed or repaired.

While premises owners do not have a duty to keep their premises free of natural accumulations of snow and ice at all times, a duty can arise when the owner has actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition exists due to the accumulation of snow or ice. Typically, this duty arises within a reasonable time after the dangerous condition has formed or accumulated. Here, the patch of ice that caused the plaintiff’s fall was a product of refreezing in the early evening hours, not the original accumulation of snow (which had been cleared by the defendant).

Although the defendant did not the plaintiff a duty to prevent melted snow and ice from refreezing and forming ice on the patient parking lot, the defendant did have a duty to take reasonable steps to remove the ice after it accumulated during the afternoon and evening hours of the day in question. Because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the defendant breached this duty, the court of appeals found that summary judgment was inappropriate on this part of the plaintiff’s claim.

Hire a Helpful East Tennessee Injury Attorney

So-called “slip and fall” accidents can result in serious personal injuries, staggering medical bills, and weeks or even months of lost wages for the accident victim. If you have been hurt because of a business or landowner’s failure to properly maintain their premises, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a negligence claim. Because Tennessee has such a short statute of limitations for personal injury actions, it is important that you consult an attorney as soon as possible if you believe that you may have a claim against a negligent landowner or business operator. For a free consultation regarding your case, please contact east Tennessee premises liability attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm by calling (865) 804-1011 and asking for an appointment.

In some cases, the plaintiff may alternatively allege that the defendant’s conduct rose to the level of recklessness – a more serious allegation that can possibly result in punitive damages. Not surprisingly, most defendants will staunchly resist such an allegation. It is the trial court’s job to determine whether or not the facts of a given case are such that a plaintiff’s recklessness claim may proceed.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant grocery store after he allegedly slipped and fell in water left behind by a floor-cleaning machine. In his complaint for compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was both negligent and reckless. More specifically, he asserted that the defendant had used a machine that left water behind while it operated, that the defendant failed to schedule routine maintenance on its cleaning machines, that the defendant’s conduct created a hazardous condition that was not readily observable by its customers, that the defendant failed to post warnings about the dangers caused by the cleaning machine, that the defendant failed to develop or implement policies to prevent the risk of harm to customers, that the defendant had acted recklessly in failing to properly maintain its fleet of floor cleaners because the defendant routinely failed to replace the “squeegee” parts of the machines (which had a life of two to three months) until they were worn out and leaving water on the floor, and that the defendant was aware of – but consciously disregarded – the risk of injury. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss or strike the plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.

Decision of the Court

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part. According to the court, the defendant’s motion to dismiss or strike the plaintiff’s punitive damages claims should be granted to the extent that the plaintiff had attempted to assert a cause of action for punitive damages; however, the motion was to be denied to the extent that the plaintiff sought a remedy of punitive damages.

Although the defendant argued that, by the plaintiff’s reasoning, every property owner that caused or knew of a slippery condition could be found reckless, the court disagreed. For the purposes of the defendant’s motion, the Court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the defendant had acted recklessly, particularly with regard to the defendant’s failure to properly maintain its fleet of floor cleaners. According to the court, the defendant’s argument “put the analytical cart before the horse” and was better suited for dispositive motion practice or trial. Noting that the time for proving that the defendant acted with the requisite ill intent would come later, the plaintiff’s task at the pleading stage was simply to allege enough facts to make it plausible that the defendant was liable in order to “unlock the doors of discovery.”

Contact a Knoxville Premises Liability Lawyer

To schedule an appointment with an experienced East Tennessee premises liability attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. With offices in downtown Knoxville and on Lamar Alexander Parkway in Maryville, we serve clients throughout East Tennessee. There is no charge for the consultation, and many cases are accepted on a contingency fee contract – we get paid when your case settles or results in a favorable verdict in court, rather than upfront.

However, in some cases, the plaintiff may prefer that his or her claim be filed in federal court, providing that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and that personal jurisdiction exists.

The defendant in a federal case may resist jurisdiction and/or venue for one reason or another. In such an event, the district court in which the action is initially filed must decide whether it does, in fact, have diversity jurisdiction over the case and whether venue is proper in that particular court.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal case was a man who asserted causes of action for negligence and violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s regulations after sustaining an injury while performing industrial cleaning services at the defendant manufacturer’s facility in LaVergne, Tennessee. At the time of his injury, the plaintiff was employed by a third party, who had contracted with the defendant to perform cleaning work at the defendant’s premises.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit was initially filed in federal court in his home state of Ohio, based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. According to the plaintiff, venue was proper in Ohio because the defendant transacted business in that state and was subject to personal jurisdiction under the Ohio long-arm statute. The defendant sought a transfer of venue to the Middle District of Tennessee.

The Outcome of the Defendant’s Motion

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the defendant’s motion to transfer venue to a federal district court in middle Tennessee. The court first noted that the accident in question happened in Tennessee and the plaintiff had been treated for his severe and devastating injuries at a hospital in Tennessee. The court then acknowledged the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s complaint was “completely devoid of facts linking the accident” to the venue in which the suit had been filed, as well as the plaintiff’s assertion that he, several of his potential witnesses, and some of his treating medical personnel were Ohio residents.

According to the court, the factor of convenience of the parties and witnesses did not weigh strongly in favor of a transfer of venue, but the factor of the interest of justice did weigh strongly towards a transfer, insomuch as the accident occurred in Tennessee and the majority of the likely witnesses were located in Tennessee. The court further acknowledged that, were the defendant’s motion to be denied, the federal district court sitting in Ohio would be required to apply Tennessee law to the case (a task best suited to a court in Tennessee, in the court’s opinion).

Overall, the court determined that a federal court in Tennessee would be the more appropriate venue for the action, thus granting the defendant’s motion. It is important to note that, despite being on the losing end of the motion to change venue, the plaintiff’s case will continue – just in a different location than that which he originally chose.

Contact an East Tennessee Personal Injury Attorney

If you have been hurt on someone else’s property, you may have a claim for negligence against the individual, business, or governmental entity that owned the property where the accident happened. To schedule a free case evaluation with an experienced Knoxville premises liability lawyer, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 today and set up an appointment. Please do not delay in talking to a lawyer about your case, as the time in which to file a claim is strictly controlled by the statute of limitations and claims that are not filed within the time set by statute are almost always dismissed on procedural grounds.

If someone else’s negligence caused the fall, the plaintiff should consider speaking to an attorney about filing a lawsuit seeking compensation for what he or she has been through. As with other personal injury cases, time is of the essence.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate court case, the plaintiff was a middle school teacher employed by the defendant school system. In December 2014, she slipped and fell in the hallway outside her classroom. The floor had been mopped by the school’s custodians, but the teacher, who was in her classroom during the time they were mopping, was unaware that the hallway was wet. Although the custodians placed “wet floor” signs in the hallway, they placed them only on the the left side of the hallway, even though they mopped the entire hallway. At trial, the teacher testified that she did not see the signs.

The teacher sought compensation for her injuries pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County found that the custodians were guilty of negligence and assigned 75% of the fault to the defendant and 25% of the fault to the plaintiff. After reducing the overall damages award by 25% to reflect the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, the trial court entered judgment for $180,000.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that it was immune from suit, that it was not negligent, and/or that the plaintiff’s negligence outweighed any negligent attributable to the defendant. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed in part and reversed in part. After carefully reviewing the record, the court of appeals agreed with the trial court that the defendant was not immune from suit insomuch as the decision of where to place the wet-floor signs was operational in nature, rather than a discretionary or planning function as urged by the defendant.

However, the court of appeals disagreed with the lower tribunal with regard to its assignment of fault between the parties. Noting that one of the factors that courts must consider in assessing comparative negligence is the reasonableness of the party’s conduct in confronting a risk, the court of appeals pointed out that the plaintiff fell almost instantaneously upon exiting her classroom. She was not distracted, and she was walking normally and using reasonable care. Thus, the appellate court found that there was no proof in the record to support the finding that the plaintiff in any way caused or contributed to her injuries. Thus, the appellate court reversed the portion of the lower court’s decision that reduced the plaintiff’s damages award by 25% and remanded the case for entry of a judgment for the total amount of damages to which the trial court had found the plaintiff was entitled.

Schedule an Appointment with an Established East Tennessee Injury Lawyer

If you have suffered serious injuries because of a fall on premises belonging to a business or governmental entity, you may be entitled to monetary compensation for your medical expenses, lost earnings, and other damages. However, it is extremely important that you contact an attorney about your fall as soon as possible, as the burden of proof in on the plaintiff in premises liability cases and evidence not preserved after the fall can easily become subject to spoliation. For an appointment to discuss your case with a Knoxville slip-and-fall attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., at (865) 804-1011.

Related Blog Posts School Bus Driver’s Slip and Fall Lawsuit Against City/County Government Survives Summary Judgment, Per Tennessee Court of Appeals Summary Judgment for Homeowners in Caterer’s Slip and Fall Lawsuit Was Wrong, Says Tennessee Appeals Court

This means that the plaintiff must provide evidence that shows that the defendant either knew of, or should have known of, the dangerous condition but did not take reasonable steps to remedy the situation.

Facts of the Case

In a recent premises liability case arising in Tipton County, the plaintiff was a construction worker who fell from scaffolding while working in a factory owned by the defendant. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was working for a sub-contractor of a company that had been hired to renovate the defendant’s warehouse. The plaintiff was using an electric screw gun powered by a 100 foot extension cord. As the plaintiff was working with the screw gun, the defendant’s employees continued to move products around the warehouse using a forklift. The forklift driver apparently did not see the plaintiff or the extension cord and drove the forklift in such a manner that it became entangled with the cord. The plaintiff fell approximately 10 feet, causing him serious injuries.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that it had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and/or warn the plaintiff on the dangerous premises under its care. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the defendant had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition that the plaintiff himself had created and controlled. The plaintiff appealed.

Resolution of the Issues

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson reversed and remanded, holding that there were material factual disputes that precluded the granting of summary judgment. Under Tennessee law, a party is only entitled to summary judgment (also known as “judgment as a matter of law”) if the pleadings and other documents on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact sufficient for the case to proceed to a jury trial. This requires more than a conclusory statement by the party moving for summary judgment.

In a negligence action, the plaintiff must establish five elements in order for his or her case to proceed to a trial on the merits: duty of care, breach of duty, injury or loss, cause in fact, and proximate or legal cause. In a premises liability case, a person or company that is in control of real property has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to persons lawfully on the premises. In cases in which an invitee such as the plaintiff herein is performing work as an independent contractor, the premises owner has a duty to provide a reasonably safe place for the plaintiff to work.

Although the defendant argued that the plaintiff created the dangerous condition that led to his injury, the court noted that the defendant was also well aware of both the extension cord and the plaintiff’s position on the scaffolding. Previous to the incident in which the plaintiff was harmed, the defendant’s employees had asked the plaintiff to move the cord temporarily so that they could move equipment through a doorway. The accident allegedly happened when another of the defendant’s employees drove a forklift backwards through the doorway at a high rate of speed without stopping. Under these circumstances, summary judgment for the defendant was improper.

Need Legal Advise from a Tennessee Injury Attorney

If you have been hurt on someone else’s land or business premises, Knoxville premises liability attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., will be glad to talk to you about your legal rights. For a free consultation, call (865) 804-1011. Please do not delay in seeking legal counsel about your situation, as claims not filed within the statute of limitations are usually dismissed on procedural grounds.

Related Blog Posts Summary Judgment for Homeowners in Caterer’s Slip and Fall Lawsuit Was Wrong, Says Tennessee Appeals Court Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal of Premises Liability Case with Unusually Complicated Procedural History

A seasoned personal injury attorney can help the injured person navigate the difficulties and potential pitfalls of a premises liability case seeking compensation for injuries suffered in a fall or other accident on a landowner or business’ property.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was a woman who allegedly fell as she was leaving the defendant homeowners’ residence following her work as a caterer’s helper at the home. According to the plaintiff, it was dark when she left the homeowners’ kitchen through a side door, and she fell through a break in the railing on a staircase, causing her to land on her face on the concrete below. Her negligence action against the homeowners further alleged that there were no house lights on at the time of her fall and that the motion lights on the steps were not operating. The trial court granted summary judgment to the homeowners, holding that they did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The plaintiff appealed.

Holding of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee

The appellate court reversed, opining that there were material, disputed facts remaining to be resolved in the case and that thus the trial court’s summary judgment to the homeowners had been improper. In so holding, the appeals court noted an apparent inconsistency in the homeowners’ defense of the case. In their answer, the defendants had denied that the area where the plaintiff fell was dark, but, in their responses to the plaintiff’s request for admissions, they had stated that the outside lights were “all on” for the party. In their motion for summary judgment and supporting documents, however, the homeowners had averred that, since the outside stairs were dark and the lights were turned off, the accident was the plaintiff’s fault because she had decided to “traverse the stairs in complete darkness.” Since the operability and effectiveness of the lighting outside the defendants’ home was relevant to the resolution of the plaintiff’s complaint, and since the facts concerning the lighting were in dispute, summary judgment was not appropriate. The appellate court also pointed out that the allegedly broken railing at the defendants’ home may also have been a factor in the plaintiff’s fall, yet the trial court had not addressed the railing in its analysis.

Request a Free Consultation with a Knoxville Slip and Fall Lawyer

If you have been hurt on someone else’s property, you could be entitled to substantial money damages. While such cases can be difficult, and the landowner almost always tries to blame the accident on the victim, getting started on the case early by consulting an experienced Knoxville premises liability lawyer can help increase the chance that the litigation will be successful. In fall-down cases, there is much evidence to be gathered, so it is important to retain counsel sooner rather than later, before the evidence becomes subject to spoliation or disappears altogether. The Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., handles premises liability and slip and fall cases throughout the greater Knoxville area. Call us at (865) 804-1011 for a free consultation.

Related Blog Posts School Bus Driver’s Slip and Fall Lawsuit Against City/County Government Survives Summary Judgment, Per Tennessee Court of Appeals Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment to Tennessee Sporting Goods Store After Customer Falls in Parking Lot

A case recently considered by the Tennessee Court of Appeals definitely did not proceed in the usual fashion. It involved two separation actions in general sessions court, two appeals to circuit court, and yet another appeal to the court of appeals. Perhaps not surprisingly, the case still isn’t over.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case was a man who was allegedly injured on the premises of the defendant’s place of business. He filed a general sessions complaint in November 2013, but a judgment of dismissal without prejudice was entered when the plaintiff did not appear for trial in January 2014. The plaintiff later filed a motion to set aside the dismissal, but the general sessions court did not rule on the motion at that time.

The plaintiff filed a second general sessions claim in February 2015. That case went to trial and ended in a defense verdict. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, which dismissed the second claim based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff then filed a motion to alter or amend the circuit court’s judgment, but the motion was denied. No further action was taken in the second case.

After the second case was dismissed, the plaintiff asked the general sessions court to rule on his still-pending motion to set aside the dismissal in the first case. The general sessions judge denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed the outcome of the first case to the circuit court. That court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis of res judicata. The plaintiff sought further review from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court’s Ruling

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal, holding that one of the essential elements of res judicata had not been met. Specifically, the appellate court found that the underlying judgment cited by the defendant (the judgment in the second case) had not been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. This was because the general sessions court in the second case lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the doctrine of prior suit pending (in the case in which the first case was filed).

It should be noted that, due to an incorrect notation by the court clerk, the plaintiff thought that his first case had actually been dismissed by final order in February 2014. It was not until sometime after the circuit court dismissed the second case in May 2016 that he learned otherwise.

The appellate court’s decision to set aside the dismissal of the first case effectively gives the plaintiff yet another “bite at the apple” in his attempt to hold the defendant liable for injuries from the accident at issue.

Contact an Experienced Personal Injury Attorney

If you have been hurt on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to compensation for your medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other losses. Call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Knoxville premises liability lawyer.

Related Blog Posts: Tennessee Court of Appeals Reversed Trial Court’s Dismissal of Premises Liability Claim Against Defendants Who Had Previously Been Non-Suited Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment to Tennessee Sporting Goods Store After Customer Falls in Parking Lot

When an east Tennessee premises liability lawsuit is filed against multiple defendants, some of those parties may be dismissed, either voluntarily as part of the plaintiff’s litigation strategy or by the trial court on motion of the defendant(s). In cases of a voluntary dismissal, the plaintiff may have the option of refiling the claim within a certain time period.

Additionally, when a defendant asserts fault by a non-party as part of a comparative fault defense, the plaintiff may be able to amend his or her complaint to add those individuals or businesses as party defendants.

Facts of the Case

In a recently decided appellate court case, the plaintiff was a customer who slipped and fell at a grocery store. She brought suit against the owners of the store, asserting claims for ordinary negligence, premises liability, and negligence per se against the store. She also named as defendants the owners of the property upon which the store was located, thereby making claims of premises liability and negligence per se against them. About six months after her complaint was filed, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims against all of the defendants except one.

As the litigation progressed, the remaining defendant asserted a defense of comparative fault against the parties that the plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed from the case earlier. The plaintiff amended her complaint to add the other defendants back into the lawsuit. Those defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s case, and the trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville reversed the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff clearly filed her original lawsuit within the statute of limitations. Her voluntary non-suit against some of the defendants gave her an additional year to refile her complaint against those defendants if she so chose. However, the defendants argued that the plaintiff was constrained by the shorter time frame of T.C.A. § 20-1-119, which states that a plaintiff has 90 days in which to amend his or her complaint when a defendant alleges comparative fault by a non-party.

Since the first time that the remaining defendant identified the dismissed defendants as tortfeasors who should be assigned comparative fault when they were non-parties was when the remaining defendant filed its answer to the plaintiff’s amended complaint, the plaintiff had 90 days in which to file another complaint naming the dismissed defendants as parties. The plaintiff having filed such a complaint within that 90-day window, it was an error for the trial court to dismiss her complaint.

Contact a Knowledgeable Knoxville Injury Attorney

If you’ve been hurt because of the negligence of a store owner or property owner, you may be able to pursue monetary compensation to help with your medical bills, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. If you are ready to talk about your east Tennessee slip and fall case with an experienced and helpful attorney, the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., can help. For an appointment to discuss your case with a member of our legal team, call us now at (865) 804-1011. You should be mindful that the Tennessee statute of limitations for personal injury cases is short, so it is very important to talk to a lawyer about your case as soon as possible.

Related Blog Posts: School Bus Driver’s Slip and Fall Lawsuit Against City/County Government Survives Summary Judgment, Per Tennessee Court of Appeals Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment to Tennessee Sporting Goods Store After Customer Falls in Parking Lot

In an east Tennessee premises liability lawsuit, a person injured on another party’s property may seek compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering caused by the fall.

However, the burden of proof in a slip and fall case is always on the plaintiff – the injured person – to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Often, such cases fail for lack of proof, not because the defendant was not negligent but because the plaintiff was unable to provide competent evidence of the defendant’s breach of the duty of due care.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case, the plaintiff was a school bus driver who slipped and fell on a “buckled and cracked portion of the pavement” in a parking lot owned by the defendant city/county government. The plaintiff had parked her bus in the asphalt parking lot (which also served as a driver training range) at a school so that she could board a shuttle to travel to a training center located across campus. The bus driver filed suit against the government in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, alleging that the parking lot had been in a state of disrepair for a sufficient length of time such that the defendant either knew or should have known of its dangerous condition. She sought monetary compensation for her injuries. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Holding of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville reversed the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. In so holding, the court found that the plaintiff had filed a motion to amend her complaint to include allegations of negligence per se, asserting that the defendant had violated various building codes by failing to maintain the parking lot where the plaintiff fell. However, the circuit court had failed to rule on the plaintiff’s motion before considering the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The appellate court ruled that the circuit court had committed a reversible error in not ruling on the plaintiff’s pending motion prior to awarding summary judgment to the defendant. Accordingly, the court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case back to the trial court judge for consideration of the plaintiff’s motion to amend and for an order presenting a “reasoned explanation” for either granting or denying the amendment sought by the plaintiff.

Have You Been Hurt on Someone Else’s Property?

Experienced Knoxville premises liability attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., can help if you or a loved one has been hurt in a fall in a store parking lot, retail establishment, mall, or other place of business. Talking to an attorney as soon as possible after such an accident is very important, since evidence quickly disappears in these types of cases; if you can’t prove that the landowner was negligent, you are unlikely to recover fair compensation. To schedule an appointment, call us now at (865) 804-1011. We have offices in both Knoxville and Maryville; if necessary, we can also travel to your home to discuss your case.

Related Blog Posts: Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment to Tennessee Sporting Goods Store After Customer Falls in Parking Lot Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment in Tennessee Woman’s Premises Liability Case Against Retail Store

When a defendant files such a motion in a negligence case, including an East Tennessee slip and fall case, the argument is that, even if all of the factual disputes are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendant cannot be held liable. There is judicial economy in motions for summary judgment in that a case is resolved without the need for a jury to determine factual disagreements; however, a motion can only be granted if the opposing party could not win his or her case even if the jury found all of the factual disputes in his or her favor.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiff was a woman who was allegedly injured after falling on a “concrete parking stop” in the defendant sporting goods store’s parking lot in Kodak, Tennessee, on a dark winter night in 2014. The plaintiff’s husband joined in the lawsuit (which was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Sevier County but removed to federal court), presumably to assert a claim for loss of consortium. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

Decision of the Court

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville denied the defendant’s motion. The court first reiterated the familiar rules of summary judgment: such relief is only proper if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the moving party must establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist, and all inferences are to be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

In denying the defendant’s request for summary judgment, the court found that there were material issues of fact with respect to whether the defendant’s parking lot was adequately lit at the time of the plaintiff’s fall. Although the defendant presented evidence to the effect that there was a light pole near the area of the fall, the court noted that the defendant did not show that the lights were actually on at the time of the accident.

In so holding, the court noted that, at trial, the jury may or may not believe the plaintiffs’ assertions that there were no lights on and that it was “pitch black.” The jury could also find that the alleged danger was open and obvious or that the plaintiff was, herself, negligent in traversing the area where she fell. However, the court opined that these issues concerning liability, comparative fault, and apportionment should be decided by the jury as the trier-of-fact, rather than by the magistrate judge.

Speak to an Experienced Knoxville Injury Lawyer

Premises liability cases are extremely fact-specific. Two individuals could suffer the same injury in the same store on the same day, and it is possible that the store could be held liable in one case but not in the other. It all depends on how long the dangerous condition existed, whether the store was reasonable in reacting to the danger, and whether the plaintiff took appropriate care for his or her own safety. The Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., routinely handles Knoxville and Maryville premises liability cases, and we would be glad to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case. Call us at (865) 804-1011 to set up a time to come into our offices, but you should do not delay in seeking legal advice. Claims not filed within the statute of limitations are likely to be dismissed.

Related Blog Posts: Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment in Tennessee Woman’s Premises Liability Case Against Retail Store $250,000 Damages Award Affirmed Against Negligent Grocery Store in Maryville, Tennessee

Two customers who suffer identical injuries could have very difficult outcomes, depending on the particular hazard that caused their accident, how that hazard came to be, how long it had been in existence, and whether any store employee was aware of – or, in the exercise of due diligence, should have been aware of – the dangerous condition that led to the customer’s injuries.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case arising in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, the plaintiff was a woman who slipped and fell in the defendant’s retail store in Franklin, causing injuries that required two surgeries and a lengthy rehabilitation. (The woman’s husband joined in the action to assert a loss of consortium claim.) According to the plaintiff, she and her cousin had been shopping in the grocery section of the store with their small children when the plaintiff slipped in a puddle of applesauce. The plaintiff stated that the applesauce was not noticeable because it was similar in color to the floor.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because there was no evidence that any of its employees spilled the applesauce that caused the plaintiff’s fall or that it had either actual or constructive notice of the spill.

The Federal District Court’s Decision

The district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendant had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the spill “posed an obvious risk to a person exercising reasonable perception, intelligence, and judgment.” The court thus concluded that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the circumstances. The issue of whether the defendant breached that duty was a jury question to be resolved at trial.

In so holding, the court noted that the defendant’s argument that the applesauce was an “open and obvious danger” was in direct tension with its argument that it did not have notice of the spill, even though one of its employees walked through the area where the plaintiff’s fall occurred but did not observe anything on the floor in question.

Talk to a Lawyer

If you or a loved one has been hurt due to the negligence of a retail establishment or another business, experienced Knoxville premises liability attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., will be happy to talk to you about your right to seek compensation for your injuries. To schedule a free consultation, call us at (865) 804-1011 and ask for an appointment to discuss your Knoxville, Maryville, or other East Tennessee slip and fall case.

Related Blog Posts $250,000 Damages Award Affirmed Against Negligent Grocery Store in Maryville, Tennessee Tennessee Court of Appeals Refuses to Enforce Pre-Injury Release Signed by Parent in Suit Brought by Child

The reason, of course, is to attempt to avoid liability in the event that a child is hurt (or, even worse, killed) due to the negligence of the entity asking for the release. The practice is so prevalent that one would be led to think that liability insurance has ceased to be available in this country.

The fact is that liability insurance is widely available and, in most cases, quite affordable. (It’s called “a cost of doing business.”) If no insurance company is willing to assume a particular risk, perhaps this is an indication that the activity in question is too dangerous for minor children anyway.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case decided by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs were a mother and son who had visited the defendant indoor trampoline park on several occasions. In 2012, the mother signed a contract that contained, among other provisions, a release of liability, a forum selection clause stipulating California as the forum for litigation, and a choice of law provision designating California law as the law to be used in the event of a dispute.

The son was allegedly injured during a trampoline dodge ball tournament in 2013. The mother and son filed suit against the defendant in the Davidson County Circuit Court in 2014, seeking various damages as a result of the son’s injury. After the mother voluntarily dismissed her claim, the son moved to amend his complaint to include a claim for past and future medical expenses.

The trial court denied the defendant’s attempts to enforce the forum selection clause, the choice of law provision, or the waiver against the boy, but the court agreed with the defendant that the boy should not be allowed to alter or amend his complaint to include a claim for medical expenses incurred before he reaches the age of 18.

Holding of the Appellate Court

In a 44-page opinion detailing the law and public policy concerning exculpatory agreements in regards to minors, the court of appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that the contract signed by the mother was enforceable against the son. Pointing to previous Tennessee case law, the court observed that a parent cannot bind a minor child to a pre-injury waiver of liability, a release, or an indemnity agreement. The court thus affirmed the circuit court’s ruling as to the issue of the enforceability of the document at issue against the son.

The appellate court rejected a portion of the lower court’s order concerning the son’s proposed amendment to his complaint. According to the court, the son should be allowed to raise a claim for any pre-majority medical expenses that he pays or is obligated to pay. (Due to the release, which the court found was binding against the mother, the mother cannot recover medical expenses paid on the son’s behalf.)

Do You Have a Question About an Injury on Someone Else’s Property?

An experienced premises liability attorney at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., can help you evaluate your case – including the enforceability of any release you may have signed – if you have been hurt on business property or someone else’s land. Call us at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation. If you have difficulty coming into our Knoxville or Maryville offices, we can come to your home.

Reelated Blog Posts $250,000 Damages Award Affirmed Against Negligent Grocery Store in Maryville, Tennessee Tennessee Appeals Court Vacates Verdict for Defendants in Premises Liability Action