Lyon v. Castle Retail Grp., LLC, W2019-00405-COA-R3-CV
| Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. W2019-00405-COA-R3-CV,W2019-00405-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | CHARLENE LYON v. CASTLE RETAIL GROUP, LLC |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
This appeal involves a trip and fall premises liability case filed against a supermarket by one of its customers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff's evidence did not tend to show the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition that would give rise to a duty to either warn the plaintiff of the condition or remove the condition. For the following reasons, we agree that the defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition in its store, and affirm the trial court's award of summary judgment.
CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., joined.
Charlene Lyon, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Tracy Aaron Overstreet and Jeffrey E. Nicoson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Castle Retail Group, LLC.
OPINIONPlaintiff Charlene Lyon filed this lawsuit on July 2, 2015, against Castle Retail Group, LLC ("Defendant" or "CRG"), a limited liability company, with its principal place of business located in Memphis, Tennessee; and "John Doe."1 Defendant filed itsanswer on August 10, 2015. Plaintiff tripped and fell at Defendant's grocery store at 1620 Madison Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee on July 2, 2014, giving rise to this suit.
On the date in question, Plaintiff entered Defendant's store to shop for grocery items, accompanied by Muhammed Madyun. While in the checkout aisle, Plaintiff reached down to retrieve an item and tripped and fell. As a result, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries to her back, hips, and knees. She was admitted to a local emergency room shortly after the accident, and also incurred other medical expenses. Plaintiff claims her right foot was caught on a piece of metal which she did not see protruding from the base of a magazine display rack in the checkout area. To Defendant's knowledge, this was the first trip and fall in its store allegedly caused by a magazine rack.
Plaintiff's fall was recorded in an accident report completed by an employee of the store. Subsequent investigation of the scene showed the floor was dry and revealed no other item in the aisleway that may have caused Plaintiff's fall. Mark Gatlin, Vice President of CRG and the store's manager, stated that the magazine display rack is one of many placed at checkout areas of the store. Mr. Gatlin also stated that the racks are "virtually immobile," weighing between 500 and 600 pounds, and act as fixtures in the store. Mr. Gatlin further stated that Defendant's employees inspected the magazine rack after Plaintiff's fall and found no dangerous or defective conditions.
After Plaintiff was discharged from the emergency room (and on the same day of the injury), Mr. Madyun returned to the store and photographed the base of the display rack where Plaintiff fell. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Madyun's photograph shows the metal protruding into the aisle as a trip hazard. At various times in the years following Plaintiff's accident, Mr. Madyun took additional photographs of the same display rack and others inside the store. Plaintiff claims the photographs collectively show that Defendant conducted its business in a manner that was likely to cause injury due to the "hazardous condition" of the various display racks throughout the years.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on December 18, 2018, claiming it had no actual or constructive notice of the magazine display rack's potential to cause injury. Defendant claimed Plaintiff's injury was not foreseeable, and her claim, therefore, failed as a matter of law. Plaintiff responded on January 15, 2019, submitting her own affidavit, an affidavit of Mr. Madyun, and nine photographs taken by Mr. Madyun to support her claim. The trial court heard the motion on January 18, 2019. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the court granted Defendant's motion for summaryjudgment and dismissed Plaintiff's claim. The court found that Defendant had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition near the magazine display rack, negating an essential element of Plaintiff's claim. On January 31, 2019, the trial court entered a written order memorializing its oral ruling. Plaintiff timely appealed.
Plaintiff raises one issue on appeal, which we summarize as: whether the trial court improperly granted summary judgment for Defendant due to Defendant having had constructive notice of a dangerous condition where Plaintiff tripped and fell.
A trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Kershaw v. Levy, 583 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Tenn. 2019) (citing Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487, 494-95 (Tenn. 2017)). On appeal, we must "make a fresh determination about whether the requirements of Rule 56 have been met." TWB Architects, Inc. v. Braxton, LLC, 578 S.W.3d 879, 887 (Tenn. 2019) (citing Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015)). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04.
A moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial can meet its burden of production "either (1) by affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party's evidence at the summary judgment stage is insufficient to establish the nonmoving party's claim or defense." TWB Architects, Inc., 578 S.W.3d at 887 (quoting Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264). Then, "[t]he nonmoving party must demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. at 889 (quoting Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265). We accept the evidence presented by the nonmoving party as true, allow all reasonable inferences in its favor, and resolve any doubts about the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in its favor. Id. at 887.
Additionally, Plaintiff has been a pro se litigant for the entirety of this case. Tennessee courts afford pro se litigants a certain amount of leeway in trying their cases while maintaining fairness to the opposing party. Accordingly:
Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment by the courts. The courts should take into account that many pro se litigants have no legal training and little familiarity with the judicial system. However, the courts must also be mindful of the boundarybetween fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant's adversary. Thus, the courts must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe.
Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 62-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted). See also Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Finley, No. W2019-00143-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 5067195, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019); Vandergriff v. ParkRidge E. Hosp., 482 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
A premises liability claim is one of negligence, requiring the plaintiff to prove five essential elements: "(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) conduct by the defendant falling below the standard of care amounting to a breach of the duty; (3) an injury or loss; (4) causation in fact; and (5) proximate causation." Rice v. Sabir, 979 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Tenn. 1998) (citing Bradshaw v. Daniel, 854 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Tenn. 1993)). Additionally, in a slip or trip and fall case, the plaintiff must show the dangerous condition was created by the defendant or its agent or "if the condition was created by someone other than the owner, operator, or [its] agent, that the owner or operator had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident." Parker v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 341, 350 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting Blair v. W. Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004)).
A defendant has a duty to licensees and invitees on its premises to exercise reasonable care to remove or warn against dangerous conditions on the premises "of which [the defendant] was aware or should have been aware through the exercise of reasonable diligence." Rice, 979 S.W.2d at 308 (citing Blair v. Campbell, 924 S.W.2d 75, 76 (Tenn. 1996); Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 593-94 (Tenn. 1994)). However, "[b]usiness proprietors are not insurers of their patrons' safety." Blair v. W. Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d at 764; see also Hunter v. Kroger Ltd. P'ship I, No. W2017-01789-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 5793562, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2018). Meaning, "[t]he duty imposed on the premises owner or occupier . . . does not include the responsibility to remove or warn against 'conditions from which no unreasonable risk was to be anticipated, or from those which the occupier neither knew about nor could have discovered with reasonable care.'" Rice, 979 S.W.2d at 309 (quoting W. Page Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts, § 61 at 426 (5th ed. 1984)). Unless the defendant has actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises, it does not owe a duty to warn of or remove the dangerous condition. See Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 764.
Actual notice is defined as "knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficiently pertinent in character to enable reasonably cautious and prudent persons to investigate and ascertain as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial