Byrd v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1995 |
| Citation | 905 S.W.2d 195 |
| Parties | Naomi BYRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Janette Lay Taylor of Wilson & Taylor, Oneida, for appellant.
Charles W. Burson, Attorney General and Reporter, and Mark A. Hudson, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, for appellee.
The plaintiff below was injured when she accidentally stepped in a hole at Cove Lake State Park (Park), a public park in Campbell County owned and maintained by the State, while attending a State-hosted event. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the State alleging negligent creation and/or maintenance of a hazardous condition at the Park. After a hearing, the Eastern Division Commissioner of the Tennessee Claims Commission determined that the State was not liable to the plaintiff and dismissed her complaint. She appeals, posing one issue, which we take verbatim from her brief:
Is the State liable for failure to protect against a dangerous condition existing on its premises, in a location where there was a lot of pedestrian traffic during an annual event hosted by the state park, when the employees testified that they did not know of the existence of the dangerous condition?
On the evening of December 5, 1988, the plaintiff and her daughter went to the Park to attend an event known as the "Christmas in the Park" celebration. This nighttime event featured a bonfire and the lighting of the Park's Christmas tree. The trails to the tree lighting ceremony were illuminated by candles placed in bags. After the event was over, the plaintiff was walking back to her car along a narrow roadway when cars approached and she "had to move over off the blacktop" and onto the shoulder, as there was no sidewalk. The plaintiff, who was approximately 67 years old at the time, testified that "all of a sudden I just fell" as her left foot went into a deep hole. The hole was located approximately three feet off the roadway, and was about ten inches in diameter and deep enough so that her left leg went into the hole to a point "about three inches above the knee." After struggling to get out of the hole, the plaintiff marked the hole with one of the candle bags to protect others and then walked to her car. As a result of stepping in the hole, the plaintiff injured her Achilles tendon, tore cartilage in her right knee, and later underwent surgery in an effort to repair the damage.
At a hearing before Commissioner Michael S. Lacy, the Park's manager testified that his staff members make routine inspections of the Park's facilities, including the roadways and driveways. He stated that he had never noticed the hole in question and that no member of his staff had dug such a hole or ever reported the existence of such a hole to him. The State also called the Park's safety and security officer, who testified that although she often drove through the area where the plaintiff was injured, she had never noticed any hole nor had she been notified of one by other employees. Finally, the State called the Park's maintenance supervisor, who testified that he had never noticed a hole in that particular location and had not been informed of such a hole by any of the other maintenance workers or rangers. He further stated that although an old fence had been removed from near the road in question around 1975, he did not believe that any of the fence posts were located at the site of the hole.
This is a direct appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission and is governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. T.C.A. § 9-8-403(a)(1). Since this case, like all proceedings before the Commission, was heard without a jury, we review the Commissioner's decision de novo upon the record of the Commission with a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact by the Commissioner, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d).
T.C.A. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) specifies that the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the State arising from "[n]egligently created or maintained dangerous conditions on state controlled real property." The statute further specifies that parties suing under this subsection "must establish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plunk v. National Health Investors, Inc.
...1999) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed) (a drivethrough lane used by pedestrians as an alternate route); Byrd v. State, 905 S.W.2d 195, 196-97 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995) (shoulders of roadway used by pedestrians where there were no sidewalks); Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Lyle, 49 Tenn.App.......
-
Pierce v. State, M2020-00533-COA-R3-CV
...sound. Indeed, although the State is by no means an insurer of the safety of those who enter upon its land, Byrd v. State, 905 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), concerns of sovereign immunity pose no impediment to the Pierces' efforts to raise the allegations that they do. The Supreme ......
-
Pluck v. National Health Investors Inc.
...1999) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) (a drive-through lane used by pedestrians as an alternate route); Byrd v. State, 905 S.W.2d 195, 196-97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (shoulders of roadway used by pedestrians where there were no sidewalks); Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Lyle, 49 Tenn......
-
Smith v. State, No. E2007-00809-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 3/17/2008), E2007-00809-COA-R3-CV.
...perm appeal filed. In Morgan we observed: The State is not the insurer of the safety of persons on its property. Byrd v. State, 905 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). It is, however, liable to these persons to the same extent that private owners and occupiers of land are liable, Sanders......