Factual Background and Procedure of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff visited Tennessee as a tourist in 2005. During her stay, she jogged along the side of a highway. She decided to cross the highway, and while she was crossing, she was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a negligence claim. Following a trial, the jury found that the plaintiff was 80% at fault, and the defendant was 20% at fault for the accident. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion, after which she appealed.

The Standard for Setting Aside a Jury Verdict

Under Tennessee law, a court will only set aside a jury’s findings of fact if there is no material evidence in support of the jury’s verdict. A trial judge is tasked with acting as the thirteenth juror and independently weighing the evidence to determine if it is in favor of the jury verdict. If the trial judge finds the verdict to be dissatisfactory, he or she must grant a new trial or set aside the  verdict.

In turn, an appellate court will not overturn the trial court’s decision to deny a motion for a new trial, unless the appellate court finds that the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, the appellate court must determine whether the evidence is sufficient, by taking the strongest reasonable view of the evidence in favor of the verdict, allowing any reasonable inferences that will sustain the verdict, and disposing of any contrary evidence. If the material evidence supports the verdict, the verdict must be sustained.

In the subject case, the appellate court noted that evidence was presented at trial that showed the plaintiff was jogging in the dark on a highway without a pedestrian lane, on the wrong side of the road, and that the defendant was driving at or below the speed limit. Thus, the appellate court found the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion.

Meet with a Trusted Car Accident Attorney

If you suffered harm due to a motor vehicle collision, it is critical to engage an attorney who will zealously advocate on your behalf. Attorney Eric Beasley is a Tennessee car accident attorney with the skills and experience needed to help you seek a just result. Mr. Beasley can be contacted through the form online or at 615-859-2223 to set up a confidential and complimentary meeting to discuss your case.

A recent Tennessee premises liability case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at a question of complicated negligence and evaluates how fault should be assigned to the various parties involved. R.O. was a builder in Tennessee who visited the East Nashville Convenience Center to dispose of building materials. The Convenience Center was a place where local residents could go to dispose of trash too big for normal pickup. The Convenience Center had two levels, one with trash bins below and one above where individuals could park their cars to throw their trash down into the lower bins. To avoid cars falling off the upper level, it was surrounded by a concrete barrier that had several holes, or cuts, used for drainage purposes.

R.O. drove his truck up to a parking spot on the upper level and got out of his car to dispose of his trash. He stood on the concrete barrier to make it easier to throw trash down below and walked back and forth from his car to the bin. While attempting to dump his trash, he stepped into one of the cuts used for drainage purposes and fell five feet below to the lower level, breaking his arm. Shortly thereafter, he sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville for maintaining a dangerous condition at the Convenience Center and failing to properly warn citizens.

In this Tennessee premises liability case, L.W. sued the Chattanooga-Hamilton Hospital Authority after she was severely injured while visiting one of their hospitals, Erlanger, for an appointment. At the time, L.W. was recovering from a broken arm and had an appointment to visit her orthopedic doctor. When she arrived at Erlanger, she stepped into the hospital waiting room to wait for her appointment. Unbeknownst to her at the time, she was standing next to an emergency exit door that had no signage or distinguishing features. When an Erlanger employee suddenly exited the door, the door rammed into L.W., causing her to fly across the room and land on her back.

At the time of the accident, she could no longer feel anything below her neck and believed that she was paralyzed. It was later discovered that she had fractured her hip. As a result of the accident, L.W. lost significant mobility, was required to use a walker, and lived with constant pain.

In Goodwin v. Al J. Schneider Co., Mr. Goodwin was attending a convention at Galt House, owned by the defendant.  On the second day of the convention, Mr. Goodwin slipped and fell while getting into the bathtub and injured his knee.  The bathtub in his room did not have a bathmat, and the floor of the bathtub was quite slick.  After his fall, the Galt House provided Mr. Goodwin with a bathmat, and he later learned that many of the other rooms at the Galt House already had bathmats. In response, Mr. Goodwin sued, arguing that the slick surface of his bathtub was a dangerous condition and that the Galt House knew it was dangerous because it provided other rooms with bathmats. By failing to put a bathmat in his room, Mr. Goodwin alleged that the Galt House knowingly failed to exercise reasonable care for his safety. In response, the Galt House moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Goodwin was equally aware of the slick surface of the bathtub and should have exercised care himself. Since he did not do so, he was liable.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that it was not clear that the Galt House had a duty to provide bathmats for every bathroom and that, while hotels must be cognizant of their guests’ safety, they do not have an obligation to prevent every injury that might occur. Mr. Goodwin appealed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky turned to its history of precedent when dealing with situations in which a dangerous condition is known both by an owner and by an invitee. It noted the long line of cases holding that just because a danger is obvious does not mean that an invitee should be denied recovery. Landowners still owe duties to invitees to address unreasonably dangerous conditions on their property or to warn about them, even if it seems like such conditions should be obvious to the invitees. The Supreme Court held that such a duty exists even if the invitee is aware of the condition already. Thus, in this case, the Supreme Court held that the Galt House did have a duty to Mr. Goodwin to protect him from unreasonably dangerous conditions, regardless of his knowledge. The question was whether it breached that duty by failing to provide him with a bathmat. Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the Galt House was not liable because the condition was open and obvious, and it remanded the case for further proceedings on whether teh Galt House had breached a duty that it owed to Mr. Goodwin.

If you have been injured by a condition or defect that you did not notice at the time but that now seems quite obvious, you may be concerned that a court will reject your claim and find that you should have been more careful in your own actions.  However, as this case makes clear, just because you could have noticed a danger yourself does not mean that a landowner does not still have a duty to protect you against it. Experienced premises liability attorney Eric Beasley can assist you in evaluating whether you may still be owed a duty even if the condition that caused your injury was open and obvious. If you have recently been in an accident and are uncertain about your rights, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Tennessee Court Finds Lack of Knowledge of Dangerous Condition Sufficient For Summary Judgment, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, July 7, 2016

What Constitutes a Known Dangerous Condition in Tennessee?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, June 7, 2016

Evaluating Dangerous Road Conditions in Tennessee – When is Notice of Risk Enough?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, November 19, 2015

In Peters-Asbury v. Knoxville Area Transit, Ms. Peters-Asbury sued for injuries she incurred while riding Knoxville Area Transit (KAT) buses.  Ms. Peters-Asbury was a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville at the time of the accident, and she had received a pass from the University to utilize KAT’s disability bus services. She had a lingering knee injury that gave her significant mobility restrictions.  On Ms. Peters-Asbury’s first day of classes, she requested transport from KAT to get her from one of her classes, at Bueller Hall, to the Disability Services office on campus, which was at Dunford Hall.  The KAT bus, driven by Michael Chigano, picked her up and transported her to Dunford. However, rather than using the main entrance, the bus dropped her off at a side entrance. As she was exiting the bus, Ms. Peters-Asbury tripped, fell, and fractured her ankle. She ended up in a wheelchair and ultimately had to withdraw for the semester, due to lingering complications from the injury.

Several months later, Ms. Asbury-Peters sued KAT for negligence. She alleged two theories:  (1) KAT had been negligent in dropping her off at the side entrance to Dunford Hall rather than the main entrance, and this contributed to her fall; and (2) the bus failed to stop while dropping her off, causing her to trip and fall. At trial, Ms. Asbury-Peters testified that the bus was moving when she stepped off, while the driver, Mr. Chigano, testified that it was not.  As a result, the trial court relied heavily on its evaluation of video footage taken by bus security cameras at the time of the accident.  The footage was exceptionally difficult to view, but the trial court ultimately determined that it showed that the bus was moving when Ms. Asbury-Peters stepped off, and the court awarded her medical damages, lost tuition, and pain and suffering.  In response, KAT appealed.

On appeal, the court noted that when a trial court hears and sees witness testimony, considerable deference is afforded to the trial court’s determination of facts. However, when documentary evidence is at the heart of a trial court’s determination, the appellate court noted that such deference is not necessary, and the appellate court may review the evidence de novo.  Here, the appellate court reviewed the video evidence of the bus and reached a contrary conclusion. It found that there was no evidence from the tape that the bus was moving at the time of the accident. Because of the narrow point of view of the video, the court determined that it was impossible to use any stationary objects as reference for movement, and therefore it could not be determined that the bus was in motion.  On that basis, it reversed the trial court’s decision and the judgment in favor of Ms. Asbury-Peters.

Plaintiffs may use many different forms of evidence at their disposal when attempting to prove negligence claims. Some may be deemed more credible than others, and some may be more thoroughly re-reviewed by appellate courts.  If you are a plaintiff who is considering bringing a personal injury lawsuit, it is worth your time and effort to carefully evaluate the evidence available to you and make strategic decisions about how to present it. Knowledgeable Tennessee auto accident attorney Eric Beasley can help you identify and compile evidence to support your claim. For more information or to discuss the circumstances of your case, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Implied Negligence Claims In Tennessee – Dennis v. Donelson Corporate Centre , Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, July 21, 2016

Premise Liability for Unmarked Drop Offs In Tennessee, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, June 28, 2016

Limiting the Scope of Duties Tennessee Universities Owe to Their Students, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, June 21, 2016.

In Mooney v. Genuine Parts Company, Ms. Mooney entered the NAPA auto parts store in Alamo, Tennessee to apply for a job.  After she was told that the position had been filled, she exited the store, walking out through the front entrance. The front entrance had a step down of approximately three inches, which Ms. Mooney did not see as she left. She lost her balance coming down from the step, fell, and was injured.  She sued the store and its owner for damages amounting to $750,000.

Genuine Parts Company immediately filed a motion for summary judgment after discovery was complete, arguing that there was no duty to warn Ms. Mooney of the step because they could not have known that it would cause her injuries.  The store manager testified that in 26 years of working with the store, no one had ever fallen or injured themselves on the step.  Likewise, they noted that Ms. Mooney had herself entered the store, walking over the step, just prior to her accident.  In response, Ms. Mooney argued that genuine issues in dispute existed as to whether Genuine Parts had a duty to warn her because employees of the store had acknowledged that it was possible someone could fall off the step, and the store manager himself had admitted he stumbled on occasion.  After reviewing the briefing and the evidence, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in Genuine Parts’ favor.  Ms. Mooney appealed.

Relying on the fact that no individual had ever been injured as a result of the step at the store, and that Ms. Mooney had herself observed the step when she entered the business and did not think it was a problem upon her exit, the court of appeals held that the trial court was correct in granting the motion for summary judgment. The court held that Genuine Parts had satisfied its burden to demonstrate that Ms. Mooney’s evidence was insufficient to state a claim for negligence. The evidence presented by Ms. Mooney did not create a triable issue of fact that would allow a jury to reasonably conclude that Genuine Parts could have been negligent. Accordingly, Ms. Mooney’s appeal was denied.

If you believe that the failures or errors of a property owner may have contributed to an injury you recently experienced, experienced premises liability attorney Eric Beasley can help you evaluate whether a duty of care was breached.  For more information or to discuss the circumstances of your case, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

What Constitutes a Known Dangerous Condition in Tennessee?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, June 7, 2016.

Personal Injuries and Dirty Bathrooms: Edwards v. CSX Transp., Inc., Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, May 11, 2016.

Do Curbs For Wheelchair Ramps Constitute Dangerous Conditions In Tennessee?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, January 27, 2016.

In Jones v. Windham, et al., Ms. Windham was driving a vehicle for a daycare when she struck and killed a child.  Shortly thereafter, the mother sued Ms. Windham and her employers. The mother claimed that the employers were vicariously liable for Ms. Windham’s actions because they occurred in the course of her employment, and that they were directly liable because they themselves were negligent in their hiring of Ms. Windham and their retention of her.  In their answer, the employers conceded that, to the extent Ms. Windham was negligent, they were vicariously liable for such negligence as her employers. They then moved for summary judgment on the direct liability claims, arguing that if they were found vicariously liable for the child’s death, they could not also be directly liable.  The mother disagreed, arguing that her two claims were based on different theories of liability and different actions by the employers.  The trial court sided with the employers and dismissed the direct liability claims.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals granted the mother a special appeal to consider the question of whether Tennessee law allowed employers to be held both directly liable for negligent hiring and retention and vicariously liable for the acts of employees, a question never before considered by the Tennessee courts. The court noted that there were two prevailing approaches to this issue:  the preemption rule and the non-preemption rule.  Under the preemption rule, an employer’s admission of vicarious liability preempts any claims of direct liability against the employer and prevents such claims from moving forward. The primary justification for the preemption rule is that claims of direct liability for negligent hiring are often used to attempt to bring into evidence “bad facts” about an employee that may color the jury’s perception of the employee. Moreover, once an employer admits vicarious liability, there are often no additional damages to be obtained through direct liability claims.

Conversely, under the nonpreemption rule, a claim of vicarious liability does not preempt a claim of direct liability because the two claims are based on independent legal theories and, often, on independent sets of facts. As in this case, an employer’s failure to adequately investigate an employee’s background is a theory of liability based on the employer’s own acts, rather than the employer-employee relationship.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals determined that the nonpreemption rule should apply in Tennessee because Tennessee is a comparative fault state, rather than a contributory negligence state. In contributory negligence states, a defendant is either completely at fault for an accident, or not at fault. Conversely, under comparative fault, multiple individuals or entities may be at fault for an accident. As long as the plaintiff’s fault is less than that of other tortfeasors, including the defendants, the defendants may still be liable. Thus, under this system, it would make sense to allow claims against an employer for the actions of the employee and for the employer’s actions themselves.

If you have recently been the victim of an accident or crash and believe the offender was “on the clock” at the time of the accident, knowledgeable auto accident attorney Eric Beasley can help you in determining whether you have both direct and vicarious liability claims against an employer. For more information or to discuss the circumstances of your case, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Government Liability in Tennessee for Automobile Accidents Involving Police Officers, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, April 13, 2016.

Can Tennessee Emergency Vehicles Be Held Liable for Accidents That Occur While On Emergency Calls?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, February 10, 2016

Tennessee Courts Find Presumption of Comparative Fault for Drivers Running a Light, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, January 6, 2016

Recently, Republican Senator Dolores Gresham introduced Senate Bill 1736. The bill provides that business owners who operate gun-free areas can be held liable for any injury that occurs to a concealed permit holder who is on their property but is not carrying a gun because of the gun-free restrictions.

Business owners and others who own and operate in public spaces typically can be held liable under Tennessee law for known dangerous conditions on their property that they fail to address and that cause harm to an “invitee,” or someone who accesses the public space.  Thus, for instance, if a business owner has been informed that his stairs are broken but fails to fix the stairs, and a customer falls and is injured while on the stairs, the business owner may be liable.  Senator Gresham’s bill would extend this concept of premises liability to hold business owners responsible for any harm to the well-being of “invitees” who are gun permit holders but who are unarmed while on the business property because the business forbids them from carrying guns. If the business failed to protect the gun permit holder from violence by another invitee, employee, or vicious animal, by virtue of not allowing the gun permit holder to carry a gun, the business could be liable for any injury that results.

Gresham’s bill would apply to only a limited category of individuals. Specifically, those wanting to bring suit under the bill would have to show that:  (1) they were authorized to carry a gun at the time the incident occurred; (2) they were prohibited from carrying such a gun on the premises because of the existence of a gun-free sign; and (3) the property owner was not required by state or federal law to post such a sign but posted the sign out of personal choice. Thus, only individuals with existing gun permits would be able to utilize the bill.

While the bill has only recently been introduced and is unlikely to become a law in the very near future, it has already raised considerable debate as to the rights of individuals to carry guns for self-defense in public spaces and the rights of business owners to set forth the terms of entry onto their property.  If adopted, the bill would considerably expand the scope of premises liability for business owners, an issue of concern that the business community has been quick to point out.

While the question of property owner liability for injuries suffered by gun owners remains open for debate, businesses can be, and often are, held liable for those dangers on their property that they have willfully failed to address, or negligently ignored. If you have been injured as a result of a failure to address hazardous conditions, personal injury attorney Eric Beasley can assist you in evaluating your potential premises liability claim. For more information on seeking redress and compensation for your injuries, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Do Curbs For Wheelchair Ramps Constitute Dangerous Conditions in Tennessee?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, January 27, 2016

Personal Injury Claims Resulting From Home Construction Defects – Who is Liable?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, December 18, 2015

The Role of Personal Injury Attorneys in Helping Slip and Fall Victims, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, February 15, 2013

How a Nashville Accident Attorney Can Help

You might not know what to expect the first time you visit a lawyer’s office. To start with, you’ll be asked to describe the situation you’re concerned about. This interview will take place before any papers are signed so you won’t be held to any obligation if the Nashville Accident Lawyer is unable to assist. You’ll also be informed of steps involved in filing a car accident claim. This will give you an idea of how quickly your case can be resolved. If everything is agreeable to you, a contract will be available for you to sign. You’ll receive a copy of the document for your own records; it is part of your attorney’s legal responsibility to provide you with a copy of the contract so you can refer back to it in the future.

Unfortunately, cyclists and pedestrians involved in motor vehicle accidents often suffer serious or fatal injuries. Many of these accidents are caused by negligent or reckless conduct on the part of motor vehicle drivers. If you have been injured in an accident that resulted from the negligence of another, you deserve to be compensated for your injuries. An experienced Murfreesboro auto accident attorney can help you get the compensation you deserve.

Free Consultation with a Murfreesboro Auto Accident Attorney