Rogers v. Adventure House LLC
| Decision Date | 24 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. E2019-01422-COA-R3-CV,E2019-01422-COA-R3-CV |
| Citation | 617 S.W.3d 542 |
| Parties | Tina ROGERS et al. v. ADVENTURE HOUSE LLC et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Everett L. Hixson, Jr. ; Christopher T. Varner ; and Everett L. Hixson, III, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, M.E. Pearson, Timothy Hargiss, Joan Broome, Tina Rogers, Eric Rogers, David Broome, Barry Condra, Amanda Hargiss, Perry Hixson, Stacye Hixson, J.M. Pearson, Britt Self, and Timothy Barnett.
Ronald D. Wells, Stacy Lynn Archer, and Philip Aaron Wells, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellees, Adventure House LLC d/b/a River Drifters Restaurant and River Drifters Adventure Center.
N. Mark Kinsman and Matthew R. Courtner, Hixson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Robert L. Newman.
This negligence action arose from approximately 102 events of food poisoning or illness purportedly related to numerous patrons (collectively, "Plaintiffs") who dined at or visited Adventure House, LLC d/b/a River Drifters Restaurant and River Drifters Adventure Center ("the Restaurant"), located on real property owned by Robert L. Newman ("the Premises"). Plaintiffs filed suit against the Restaurant; Mr. Newman; and Charles and Renee Eich, the owners of the Restaurant. Upon Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the action as a class action, the Hamilton County Circuit Court ("trial court") denied Plaintiffs’ motion upon a determination that Plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden to prove the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation elements required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23.01. The trial court further determined that if those elements were met, the class could maintain its certification pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23.02(1)(b). However, based on its determination that the class did not satisfy the threshold certification requirements under Rule 23.01, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the litigation as a class action. Plaintiffs have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.
Tina Rogers filed a complaint in the trial court on August 15, 2018, naming as defendants the Restaurant, Mr. Newman, and the Eichs (collectively, "Defendants"), after becoming ill subsequent to dining at the Restaurant on August 4, 2018. Ms. Rogers averred, inter alia , that the Restaurant made use of a contaminated private well, as opposed to a public water source, as its source for providing drinking water to its customers and that as a result of drinking the well water, Ms. Rogers became ill, was hospitalized, incurred medical expenses, and had been out of work since the incident. Ms. Rogers further alleged that (1) Defendants created a dangerous and defective condition that caused her to suffer injuries; (2) Defendants had a duty not to create or utilize a dangerous and defective condition on the Premises; (3) it was foreseeable that Defendants’ invitees, including Ms. Rogers, would be injured if they consumed the contaminated water; and (4) Ms. Rogers suffered serious and debilitating injuries when she consumed the contaminated water. Ms. Rogers argued that Defendants were negligent when they served contaminated water to their invitees and that such negligence was the proximate and legal cause of Ms. Rogers's injuries. In addition, Ms. Rogers alleged that there were other injured patrons who were dining at the Restaurant who had experienced similar symptoms after they had also consumed the well water.
Prior to the filing of Defendants’ respective answers, Ms. Rogers amended her complaint on August 24, 2018, to add several plaintiffs to the action. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were liable under the theories of negligence and negligence per se. Plaintiffs further sought class action certification, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and included additional "class allegations." On November 19, 2018, the Restaurant and the Eichs collectively filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint, wherein they denied liability and further contested Plaintiffs’ eligibility for class certification, pursuant to Rule 23, and demanded a jury trial. Mr. Newman filed a separate answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint on December 7, 2018, denying liability and contesting Plaintiffs’ eligibility for class action certification.
On December 14, 2018, Plaintiffs issued subpoenas to the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Health Department ("the County Health Department") and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources ("TDEC") (collectively, "the Departments"), wherein Plaintiffs requested, inter alia , the Departments’ files related to any investigation of the Restaurant and any correspondence between the Departments and the Restaurant, the Eichs, or Mr. Newman. By agreement of the parties, the trial court entered an order on January 4, 2019, dismissing the Eichs in their individual capacities.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to amend on January 11, 2019, wherein they sought leave to file a second amended complaint to include additional facts related to Plaintiffs’ illnesses and to add the theory of res ipsa loquitur. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that during the relevant time period, the Restaurant did not prevent its employees from working while they were symptomatic with illnesses, contributing to Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
On January 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action, wherein they sought permission to represent a putative class of similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia , that the proposed class of persons satisfied the requirements of Rule 23.01 because the class would consist of over one hundred individuals, questions of law or fact common to the class existed, and Plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the proposed class's claims in that all persons dined at the Restaurant. Plaintiffs further claimed that they would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that a class action would be appropriate, pursuant to Rule 23.02(1)(a) and Rule 23.02(3), for the following reasons: (1) the filing of separate lawsuits could create a risk of inconsistent or varying outcomes; (2) questions of fact or law common to the proposed class would predominate over questions affecting only individual class members; and (3) a class action would be superior to other available methods for fair adjudication of the controversy. Concerning Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action, the trial court subsequently set a hearing for May 16, 2019.
Meanwhile, the trial court entered an order allowing Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which Plaintiffs subsequently filed on February 20, 2019. Mr. Newman filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on March 5, 2019, denying any liability for Plaintiffs’ injuries and averring that if the private well had been contaminated, its contaminated status was the fault of James Mills Well Drilling, Inc. ("the Drilling Company"), which had recently performed service on the well. Mr. Newman additionally contended that Plaintiffs’ proposed class should not be certified pursuant to Rule 23. Following competing motions to compel discovery filed by Plaintiffs and Mr. Newman, the trial court entered an agreed order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and directing that the Restaurant answer Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
In its answer to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, the Restaurant opposed class certification and asserted that the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Restaurant reiterated its opposition to Plaintiffs’ proposed class certification via its April 30, 2019 response to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action, wherein the Restaurant posited that Plaintiffs had not met their burden under Rules 23.01 and 23.02. As an exhibit to its response, the Restaurant attached the County Health Department's investigative report concerning the gastrointestinal illnesses reported at the Restaurant. In its report, the County Health Department concluded that "[t]here were likely various modes of transmission in this outbreak including person-to-person, fomite, foodborne and waterborne."
On May 2, 2019, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena requesting the production of documentary evidence from the Drilling Company. Mr. Newman filed his response objecting to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action on May 6, 2019.
On June 19 and 20, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing concerning Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court requested that counsel submit post-hearing briefs. The trial court held a hearing on July 11, 2019, to issue its ruling. Thereupon, the trial court announced that Plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden to certify a class action under Rule 23.01, specifically determining that three of the four elements of Rule 23.01–commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation–had not been satisfied. The court further indicated that it would issue its ruling in the form of a subsequent written order.
On July 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their second amended complaint by, inter alia , naming three additional plaintiffs, adding a claim for punitive damages, and modifying the class definition. On July 31, 2019, Defendants each filed responses to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, respectively asserting that Plaintiffs’ motion was futile by reason of the trial judge's adverse oral ruling at the July 11, 2019 hearing.
The trial court entered an order on July 31, 2019, denying class action certification. The trial court expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Highlands Physicians, Inc. v. Wellmont Health Sys.
...court's factual conclusions under the preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. (citations omitted). Rogers v. Adventure House LLC , 617 S.W.3d 542, 549–550 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). Concerning review of a jury verdict, our Supreme Court has stated that "[a]ppellate courts are limited to det......
-
All Access Coach Leasing, LLC v. McCord
... ... mandated its result, unlike the case-at-bar). But see ... Rogers v. Adventure House LLC , 617 S.W.3d 542, 550 ... (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (citations omitted) ... ...