The case arose when the plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor of a contractor hired to renovate an LLC’s warehouse. When he fell, the plaintiff was using a screw gun to install sheetrock on an inner wall. The screw gun was plugged into a 100-foot extension cord. He said the use of the extension cord was needed because the only source of electricity was in another place in the warehouse. As the sheetrock was being installed the defendant’s employee had moved product through the door with a forklift.

The plaintiff and his brother had hung sheetrock in that same spot for three days before the accident. On the accident date, the factory employee drove a forklift in reverse through the door and didn’t see the extension cord or the plaintiff. The cord got tangled up in the forklift and triggered the plaintiff’s fall 10 feet down to the concrete floor.

The plaintiff’s suit claimed that the defendant factory owed a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition and hadn’t met that duty. The lawsuit claimed the factory owner hadn’t properly maintained the premises, failed to properly inspect the premises for dangerous conditions, and failed to put in warning signs at the right locations to warn of the dangerous condition of the premises.

The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing it had no duty to warn. The court granted the motion stating that the undisputed facts revealed that the plaintiff or his coworker had created the dangerous condition. Therefore the defendant didn’t have a duty to warn about the dangerous condition created by the plaintiff or coworker.

The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court explained that duty is an obligation owed by the defendant to a plaintiff to abide by a reasonable person standard of care so as to guard against unreasonable risk of harm. In a premises liability lawsuit, someone in control of real property must use reasonable care under the circumstances to stop injury people lawfully on the premises. The employee of an independent contractor has the status of an invitee while doing work on the property of the owner. The premises owner must use reasonable care to make sure the employee has a reasonably safe place to work.

The appellate court explained that in this case, there was a factual dispute about whether the plaintiff was in control of the environment in which they were working. The plaintiff or his brother had put the extension cord on the floor, but didn’t have control over the factory owner’s equipment or workers that drove the forklift over the cord.

The court explained that those seeking to win on a premises liability claim need to establish elements of the negligence claim and must show that (1) the condition was created by the owner, agent or operator or (2) if the condition was created by somebody other than the owner, there was actual or constructive notice to the owner. In this case, the plaintiff disputed whether the forklift driver acted with reasonable care and whether he was following the appropriate protocol at the time of the accident. The appellate court explained this was relevant to the issue of whether the factory owner had used reasonable care. The summary judgment was reversed and the case was sent back down.

Personal injury attorney Eric Beasley can help you evaluate the likelihood of success with your claim. If you have recently been injured and are uncertain about your rights, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Sixth Circuit Upholds Claim for Black Lung Benefits, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, May 30, 2018.

Tennessee Court Finds Homeowner Not Responsible for Worker’s Fall, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, March 20, 2018.

Tennessee Court Holds That Plaintiff Can Add Comparative Fault Defendants To Case, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, February 9, 2018.

In this Tennessee personal injury case, F.T. was a prison inmate who was working on a work detail building a bridge. He was pouring concrete for the bridge when some of the concrete spilled into his boots. This lead to chemical burns on F.T.’s feet and permanent scarring. F.T. sued Wayne County, where he was incarcerated, for his injuries, asserting they had been negligent in allowing workers to use concrete without necessary protections. Wayne County immediately moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that F.T. was not allowed to sue for injuries that occurred during work detail under Tennessee law. Specifically, it argued that counties operating prisons and work details were immune from liability under Tennessee statute. The lower court reviewed the statute and agreed, and dismissed the lawsuit.

On appeal, F.T. argued with the lower court’s interpretation of the statute. Tennessee’s statute sets forth two categories of individuals who may be placed on work detail: (1) all prisoners sentenced to the county workhouse and (2) any prisoner sentenced for a period of less than a year to the workhouse or to county jail.  The statute further stated that not state or municipal agency or official should be liable to any prisoner who is injured on a work detail.  F.T. argued that the immunity provision of the statute should be interpreted only to apply to categories (1) and (2) of prisoners and not all prisoners on work detail. Because he was not one of these two categories, F.T. argued that Wayne County was not immune from liability for his injuries.

In this construction accident case, E.M. brought claims against CSC Sugar, LLC after he was injured while working at their warehouse. E.M. was a subcontractor employee who had been hired to renovate CSC’s warehouse. At the time of the accident he was up on scaffolding using a screw gun to secure sheetrock to an interior wall. Because the warehouse had limited electricity available, E.M.’s screw gun was connected to a one hundred foot extension cord that ran to the nearest outlet. Based on where E.M. was working at the time, the extension cord crossed an open doorway that was being used by CSC employees. At the time of the accident, one CSC employee drove a forklift over the doorway, the forklift became entangled with the extension cord and the snare pulled the screw gun and the scaffolding that E.M was located on, causing E.M. to fall ten feet to the concrete below. E.M. sued CSC for damages, arguing that CSC failed to maintain its property in a a reasonably safe condition.

At the motion for summary judgment state, CSC argued that E.M. had in fact caused the dangerous condition because he arranged the extension cord across the doorway, and he was aware of this condition, and on this basis there was no failure of CSC to exercise reasonable care or warn E.M. of the dangerous situation. Accordingly, the lower court granted CSC’s motion for summary judgment and E.M. appealed.

In this administrative appeal case, R.D. filed a claim for black lung benefits after he was rendered fully disabled due to black lung disease and a lifetime spent working in the coal mines. During the pendency of his claims, he passed away, and his wife brought a claim for survivor’s benefits. R.D.’s claim was granted by the administrative law judge who heard the case and was appealed by the defense insurer, who requested a full hearing. After the full hearing, R.D.’s claim was again granted. The insurer appealed again to the administrative board, which also affirmed the grant of benefits. Finally, the insurer appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Under the Black Lung Benefits Act, a claimant can qualify for benefits if he or she shows that (1) he or she is a miner (2) who suffers from black lung disease (3) arising out of coal mining employment (4) if it contributed to a partial or total disability. If a claimant shows that he or she worked in a coal mine for at least 15 years, and the work was in an underground mine or conditions substantially similar to an underground mine, there is a rebuttable presumption that the miner was disabled, or killed, by black lung disease. An employer or insurer may rebut the presumption by showing that the miner did not have black lung disease, or that any respiratory illness suffered by the miner did not arise from coal mine employment.

In this negligence case, M.E. was hired by his boss, M.T. to perform a side job at her home for her after hours. She needed various parts of the exterior of her home repainted and M.E. agreed to do so. On the first day he arrives, M.T. provided M.E. with paint, tools, and ladders to access the house. Shortly thereafter, M.T. left and did not return to the home for the next few days.

While working on the home, M.E. claimed to have experienced problems with the ladders he was provided and believed them to be faulty. Nonetheless, he wanted to finish the job so he continued to use them. On the third day, after climbing up the ladder to paint the eaves, the ladder fell out from underneath him and he tumbled to the ground, injuring his wrist.  M.E. then sued M.T. for failing to provide him with safe equipment and protect him while on her property.

In this recent Tennessee car accident case, C.W. and J.B. were carpooling to work when they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. After the accident occurred, C.W. filed for workers’ compensation benefits from his employer at the time, Progression. Progression did not dispute that the accident and C.W.’s injuries had occurred on the job and paid C.W.’s benefits. Shortly thereafter, C.W. also filed suit against J.B., arguing that J.B.’s negligence in driving the vehicle had caused his injuries. J.B. moved for summary judgment on the claim, arguing that since C.W. had previously asserted that his injuries occurred in the course of his employment, his exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation, and he was precluded from bringing tort claims against J.B. The court granted the motion, finding that C.W. had previously represented that the accident occurred as part of his employment, and, as a result, Tennessee law provided that workers’ compensation was his exclusive remedy. It therefore dismissed the case, and C.W. appealed.

On appeal, C.W. argued that the court erred in concluding that just because he sought workers’ compensation benefits he was precluded from filing separate tort claims. Under Tennessee law, the right to receive workers’ compensation benefits excludes a plaintiff from other claims for injury. However, Tennessee law also provides that when a worker recovers against a third party, an employer may recover for costs paid through workers’ compensation. Reviewing the case law, the Court of Appeals noted that workers may sometimes be permitted to recover against entirely separate third parties for their injuries, but employers may be reimbursed for expenses they have paid. However, these third parties do not include other employees, who are, in fact, a part of the “employment” and fall within the scope of workers’ compensation. If a co-employee caused the accident, it is the employer that will be liable, but the employer is already liable under the workers’ compensation scheme. Thus, the dual claims against the employer cannot succeed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently issued an opinion stemming from a workplace car accident that caused a carpenter to suffer numerous serious injuries. The accident fractured the C3 and C4 vertebrae in his neck and herniated discs in his lower back. The injured carpenter underwent surgery to alleviate his neck pain, but he still experienced back pain whenever he bent forward or backward. After reviewing the carpenter’s complaints, the surgeon recommended additional surgery to help heal the residual pain. The insurance company denied the coverage for surgery, due to the peer review performed by three other physicians, who did not think surgery was necessary. The additional request for epidural steroid injections was also denied. To manage the pain, the carpenter took opiates. When the pain became too great, he took a greater amount of medicine than prescribed and consumed alcohol. The injured carpenter admitted this to a pain management specialist, and he agreed to take his medication as directed and call before adjusting his dose.

The injured carpenter’s family testified that he suffered depression after the accident, due to the pain and the inability to work and provide for his family. The family related that he had been a happy, outgoing father before the accident. The carpenter’s wife advised that he increased his drinking, despite admonitions to avoid drinking alcohol while taking medication. The injured carpenter’s wife described finding him unresponsive after he died from a combination of oxycodone toxicity, alcohol use, tobacco use, and hypertension. The injured worker’s family filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, alleging the carpenter died as a result of the drugs and alcohol the carpenter used to compensate for the pain stemming from his workplace injury. The trial court agreed with the carpenter’s wife and awarded the requested benefits. The employer appealed.

The Supreme Court narrowed the question down to whether or not the injured worker’s behavior broke the causal link between his death and the workplace injury. The court looked at a prior Supreme Court ruling in which they concluded an injured worker was ineligible for benefits once he quit taking his medication as prescribed for a workplace injury. The court distinguished this from a case cited by the widow, which overturned a summary judgment. The court said that while the facts are similar, the case at hand was one that went through a trial determined on its merits. The court also differentiated the case at hand from another prior ruling that required the intervening action to be willful or deliberate conduct. The Supreme Court concluded the carpenter’s overdose, while not intentional, broke the causal link between his death and the workplace accident. The lower court’s ruling was overturned and the case remanded for a new trial.

If you or a family member has been seriously injured in a car accident, contact Tennessee car accident attorney Eric Beasley to see which types of damages or benefits you may be eligible to receive. To learn more information or set up an initial consultation, contact the Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Tennessee Court Rules that Affidavit is Not Conclusive Evidence of Lack of Material Fact, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, April 25, 2017.

Managing Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings in Personal Injury Claims, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, February 24, 2016

Tennessee Accident Tips, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, March 16, 2016

In Hoynacki v. Hoynacki, the plaintiff, Hoynacki Jr., was helping his father, Hoynacki Sr., wax his father’s RV. Since the RV was so tall, they used a five-foot ladder to reach the upper portions of the RV. When Hoynacki Jr. would get on the ladder, his father would hold the ladder for him until he determined that it was stable, and then Hoynacki Jr. would proceed to wax.  At one point, toward the end of their work, Hoynacki Jr. climbed the ladder while it was on sloped ground. Although the four feet of the ladder touched the ground, when Hoynacki Jr. went to descend the ladder, it tipped over, and he fell, resulting in serious injuries. He sued his father, alleging that his father had failed to exercise reasonable care by not holding onto the ladder while Hoynacki Jr. was working, or assisting him when he descended. Hoynacki Sr. moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it, finding that he did not owe a duty of care to his son. Hoynacki Jr. appealed.

In Tennessee, a claim of negligence requires that a plaintiff show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, breached that duty, and caused an injury to the plaintiff.  When a duty of care is not set forth by law, it can arise when the possibility of harm arising from the defendant’s actions outweighs the burden placed on the defendant to engage in alternative conduct that would avoid the harm. In this case, Hoynacki Jr. argued that Hoynacki Sr. did have a duty to act with reasonable care in ensuring that the ladder was placed in the correct location and remained safe while Hoynacki Jr. was on it. In support of this argument, he presented evidence at deposition that each party stayed close to the ladder while the other was working on it, and both knew that ladders could be dangerous. If Hoynacki Sr. felt the ladder might be unstable, he would hold onto it while Hoynacki Jr. worked, except in the incident in which the fall occurred.

Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Hoynacki Sr. did have a duty to stabilize and secure the ladder because he knew that the risk existed for Hoynacki Jr. to fall and hurt himself. Additionally, the court determined that the burden on Hoynacki Sr. to prevent the harm that Hoynacki Jr. experienced was minor, given that all he had to do was hold the ladder while Hoynacki Jr. was on it. Accordingly, since a duty of care existed, the court of appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for a determination of whether the duty of care was breached.

If you are injured while working in a risky or potentially dangerous situation, and you believe that one of your colleagues failed to act with reasonable care in contributing to your injury, you may have a claim of negligence. Experienced Tennessee personal injury attorney Eric Beasley can help you evaluate whether you have a strong claim that someone else violated their duty of care to you. 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:

Tennessee Courts Consider When a Party Can Be Held Liable for an Agent’s Negligence, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, October 12, 2016.

Sixth Circuit Denies Negligence Claim For Lack of Physical Injury, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, September 21, 2016.

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

In Reynolds v. Rich, the defendants in the case were in the process of building a new home.  They asked Mr. Reynolds to assist them with the roofing on the new home. Mr. Reynolds agreed to assist, along with a group of volunteers from a local church. During the process of installing the roof, Mr. Reynolds fell, breaking numerous bones and suffering serious nerve damage.  No one observed the fall, and Mr. Reynolds did not remember it, so it was unclear exactly how, or why, the fall occurred.  Nonetheless, Mr. Reynolds sued the Rich family for negligence, alleging that they failed to provide property safety precautions and equipment for working on a metal roof.

The Rich family immediately moved for summary judgment.  In support of their motion, they provided an affidavit stating that Mr. Reynolds was a volunteer worker, that he entirely determined how he was going to work on the roof, that they urged him several times to be more careful on the roof, and that Mr. Reynolds was aware of the dangers of working on a metal roof, but he did not take any precautions. They also noted that no one knew how or why Mr. Reynolds fell off the roof.  In response, Mr. Reynolds provided an affidavit from a occupational safety expert explaining that there are numerous safety restrictions required for metal roof working, that Mr. Reynolds became a contractor for the Rich family when they asked him to work on the roof, and that the Rich family was obligated but failed to provide such safety requirements for Mr. Reynolds. The trial court, after reviewing the affidavits, granted summary judgment for the Rich family, finding that the Rich family did not owe a duty to Mr. Reynolds and that Mr. Reynolds owed a duty of reasonable care to himself, which he had failed to abide by.

On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals noted that property owners owe a duty of care to social guests and business owners to warn guests, or remove from the property, dangerous conditions of which they are aware or should be aware. This duty applies even when the dangers are “open and obvious” and thus should be clear to the guests themselves. By contrast, property owners have no duty to warn guests of dangers that are unknown to them, or of things they do not realize are dangerous. Here, the Court held that while it should have been clear to all volunteers that working on a metal roof could be dangerous and required safety precautions, this did not prevent the defendants from also having a duty to warn Mr. Reynolds and the other volunteers of such risks. Accordingly, the Court determined that the Rich family did owe a duty to Mr. Reynolds.  Moreover, it noted that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Rich family breached this duty, or whether Mr. Reynolds’ injuries were caused by his own actions or inactions.  Therefore, it concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings and reversed.

When you invite others onto your property, whether for social or business purposes, you will often owe them a duty to protect them from known risks. If they are later hurt, you may be held liable. Experienced Tennessee premises liability attorney Eric Beasley can help you evaluate whether you have a strong claim for negligence against a property owner. 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:

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

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

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

In Black v. Dixie, Mr. Black was a driver for Western Trucks, which delivered paper goods for Dixie Consumer Products.  On the day in question, Mr. Black delivered several thousand pounds of pulpboard to be processed at a Dixie factory. When he arrived, he assisted the factory employees with unloading and moving the pulpboard. During the process, his foot was run over by a forklift, and he required an amputation below the knee.  Although Mr. Black received workers’ compensation benefits from Western, he also filed a negligence claim against Dixie for his injuries and medical expenses. Black argued that while workers’ compensation laws did not allow him to sue Western, they did not apply to Dixie because it was not his employer. Dixie argued, in response, that it was immune from liability under the workers’ compensation laws because it was contracting with Western. The trial court agreed, and Black appealed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit noted that, under most state’s workers’ compensation laws, contractors are also immune from personal injury lawsuits when a worker is injured while performing work that is a regular or recurrent part of the trade or occupation of the owner. This is known as “up-the-ladder” immunity, and it is offered to contractors in exchange for agreeing to provide backup workers’ compensation benefits when a primary employer does not provide them. The question of whether such immunity prevented Black from suing Dixie for his injuries depended on (1) whether Western was hired to perform work for Dixie; (2) whether the work was a regular and customary part of Dixie’s business; and (3) whether it was work that Dixie or similar businesses would normally perform.

Here, the Sixth Circuit noted that discovery had showed that Western was hired to perform work for Dixie and that the delivery work it, and Mr. Black, performed was a normal part of Dixie’s business, which required it to deliver paper products to factories across the country. Unloading such materials upon delivery was also found to be a regular part of Dixie’s business and a role that Dixie employees would regularly perform.  Accordingly, it determined that Dixie was a contractor with Western and was immune from liability for personal injuries under workers’ compensation laws.  The Sixth Circuit further noted that while its holding was disadvantageous for personal injury plaintiffs seeking redress for their injuries, it would ensure that employees injured while performing work for contractors were entitled to workers’ compensation from such contractors, in exchange for the immunity that the Sixth Circuit recognized in its decision.

If you are an individual considering a lawsuit against third parties for an injury you experienced related to your work, it is important to carefully consider whether your lawsuit may be precluded by existing workers’ compensation laws. Tennessee personal injury attorney Eric Beasley is available to assist you in evaluating your legal options and drafting a strong claim for relief. 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:

Preemption of Personal Injury Claims By ERISA, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, May 26, 2016.

Immunity from Personal Injury for Tennessee Ski Resorts, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, April 27, 2016.

The Complexities of Bringing Personal Injury Claims Against Large Corporations in Tennessee, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, March 10, 2016