Wolfe v. Felts

• Decision Date: 29 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. W2013-01995-COA-R3-CV,W2013-01995-COA-R3-CV
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals
• Parties: ARCHIE WOLFE v. WILLIAM C. FELTS, JR. ET AL.

ARCHIE WOLFE v. WILLIAM C. FELTS, JR. ET AL.

No. W2013-01995-COA-R3-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON

April 23, 2014 Session

Filed May 29, 2014

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County

No. CT00538211

Robert L. Childers, Judge

In this premises liability action, Plaintiff/Appellant was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell on the subject property. The trial court granted a directed verdict to the Appellees, who are the property owners/occupiers. The basis for the directed verdict was that Appellant failed to submit evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude either that the Appellees knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the property, or that Appellees caused or created a dangerous condition on the property. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S., and DAVID R. FARMER, J., joined.

Al H. Thomas and Joshua D. Thomas, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Archie Wolfe.

James E. Conley Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, William C. Felts, Jr., and Linda M. Felts.

John H. Dotson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Richard Johnson, Rebecca Lynn Johnson, and Empire Hair Studios, L.L.C.

OPINION

Background

On January 9, 2011, Archie Wolfe ("Plaintiff," or "Appellant") was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell on an icy street located outside property owned by William C. Felts, Jr. and Linda M. Felts (together, the "Feltses"). The Feltses rent the subject property to Richard Johnson and Rebecca Lynn Johnson (together, the "Johnsons"), who operate Empire Hair Studios, L.L.C. ("Empire," and together with the Johnsons and the Feltses, "Defendants," or "Appellees") at that location.

On November 30, 2011, Mr. Wolfe filed a complaint against the Appellees, wherein he alleged that a sprinkler system on the Appellees' property had created a dangerous condition on Appellees' property. Specifically, Mr. Wolfe alleged that the sprinkler system had begun operation despite the freezing temperatures and had caused ice to form on the sidewalk in front of Appellees' property. Because of the ice accumulation, Mr. Wolfe was forced to bypass the sidewalk and walk in the street. However, ice had also accumulated on the street, allegedly causing Mr. Wolfe to fall and sustain serious injuries. According to the complaint, "[Mr. Wolfe's] injuries were caused by negligent failure to properly manage the sprinkler system."

The case was tried to a jury on July 29, 2013. Although our record does not contain a verbatim transcript of the hearing, it does contain portions of the deposition testimony of Mr. Felts and Mr. Johnson. Although Mr. Felts testified at the trial, his testimony is not contained in the record.

Mr. Felts testified that the sprinkler system required "winterization," but he did not elaborate concerning what "winterization" would entail. Mr. Felts further testified that he was unaware that the sprinkler system was spraying water onto the property on the day of Mr. Wolfe's accident and, in fact, did not learn of the incident until he was served with the lawsuit at issue in this appeal.

Mr. Johnson testified that although he was aware of the sprinkler system on the property, he could not recall ever being informed that winterization of the system was required. In addition, Mr. Johnson testified that he had never used the sprinkler system during his tenancy on the property. Mr. Johnson also testified that from the time he rented the property in the summer of 2010 to the date of the incident, he never observed the sprinkler in operation other than on the date of the incident. Mr. Johnson testified that, [] on the morning of January 9, 2011, he received a call that there had been an accident on the property. The caller also opined that there appeared to be a burst water pipe on the property. When Mr. Johnson arrived at the property, he discovered that the sprinkler system, and not a burst pipe, was the cause of the water that had caused ice to form. According to Mr. Johnson, he first turned the water off to the entire property. Mr. Johnson then proceeded to the sprinkler system control box to investigate. He found the door of the box "ajar," and thevalve inside in the "open" position. Mr. Johnson used a wrench to turn the valve to the closed position, which stopped the flow of water to the sprinkler head.

At the close of Mr. Wolfe's proof, Appellees moved for a directed verdict. As grounds for the motion, Appellees asserted that Mr. Wolfe had failed to introduce any evidence concerning what would constitute proper sprinkler management or maintenance so as to establish that improper management or maintenance had caused the sprinkler to malfunction. The Appellees further argued that there was no proof that the Appellees knew or should have known of the hazardous condition, i.e., the ice, on the property at the time of the accident. The Appellees asserted that no evidence showed any prior problems with the sprinkler system that would put the Appellees on notice that it could malfunction. The trial court took the matter under advisement and directed the parties to return to court to argue the motion the following morning.

On July 30, 2013, the trial court orally granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the Appellees. On August 2, 2013, the trial court entered a written order granting the Appellees' motion for a directed verdict and incorporating by reference its previous oral ruling. According to the Court:

I have considered the evidence that the Plaintiff has introduced in this case that consists of the testimony of the Plaintiff and Mr. [] Felts [] and Mr. [] Johnson.

In a motion for [a] directed verdict, the Court is required to indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the Plaintiff's theory and disregard or ignore any opposing inferences.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Wolfe, testified that he was out walking early one morning and he saw the sprinkler system on at the [Appellees'] premises.

Mr. Johnson's testimony was that he has no experience with an underground sprinkler system. He never set the clock or did anything with the sprinkler system. He knew where the controls were located in the corner of the yard. He never took the top off the control box. And on January the 9th, 2011 was the first time that he looked at the control box.

After he went to the premises on the morning of January 9th, 2011, he went to the sprinkler control box to try to figure out why the sprinkler was going off. He discovered that the cover was already off one of the control boxes and was laying in the vicinity of the control box.

There is no proof in the record how the cover came off ofthe box and no proof that the [Appellees] had notice or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have had notice that the cover was off of the box before the sprinkler inadvertently came on.

Mr. Felts testified that he knew the system had to be winterized. He did not testify or explain what winterizing means or what is involved in winterizing. There is no proof that winterizing includes turning the water supply off to the sprinkler system.

Mr. Felts never testified that the water supply was turned off when it had to be winterized. The jury would have to speculate that winterizing means turning off the water supply to the system.

Based on Plaintiff's proof, the inference that the failure to winterize, which I think I understand the Plaintiff's theory to be, there's the inference that the failure to winterize caused the system to turn on inadvertently is not a reasonable inference absent proof of what winterizing means.

Absent that proof, the Plaintiff's only proof is that when he approached the premises, the sprinkler system was on.

The jury would have to speculate about the cause of the sprinkler system inadvertently coming on. There's no proof of the cause of the sprinkler system coming on and no proof that the [Appellees] had or reasonably should have had notice that the sprinkler system had inadvertently come on on the morning of January 9th, 2011.

The motion for [a] directed verdict is granted. . . .

Mr. Wolfe now appeals.¹

Issues Presented

Mr. Wolfe raises one issue, which is taken, and slightly altered, from his brief:

Did the Circuit Court err in granting Appellees' motion for a directed verdict on the basis that there was no "proof that winterizing includes turning the water supply off to the sprinkler system" and that, therefore, the "jury would have to speculate that winterizing means turning off the water supply to the system."

Standard of Review

According to the Tennessee Supreme Court,

This Court reviews the trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict de novo, applying the same standards as the trial court. Gaston v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 120 S.W.3d 815, 819 (Tenn. 2003). We will affirm a directed verdict "only when the evidence in the case is susceptible to but one conclusion." Childress v. Currie, 74 S.W.3d 324, 328 (Tenn. 2002) (citing Eaton [v. McLain], 891 S.W.2d [587,] 590 [(Tenn. 1994)]). We must "take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence favoring the opponent of the motion," and must accept all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. [Childress, 74 S.W.3d at 328.] We may affirm the motion "only if, after assessing the evidence according to the foregoing standards, [we] determine[ ] that reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence." Id.; see also Cecil v. Hardin, 575 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tenn.1978).

Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462, 470 (Tenn. 2005).

Analysis

The issue in this case concerns whether Mr. Wolfe submitted evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the Appellees were negligent. The specific issue in this case concerns premises liability. This Court recently explained the prima facie elements of a premises liability action:

To establish a prima

...