Worsham v. Pilot Oil Corp., 1077
| Decision Date | 16 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1077,1077 |
| Citation | 728 S.W.2d 19 |
| Parties | William and Ruth WORSHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PILOT OIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Jess D. Campbell, Knoxville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Douglas L. Dutton and Julia S. Howard, Hodges, Doughty & Carson, Knoxville, for defendant-appellee.
In this slip and fall action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff's proof. Plaintiff has appealed, insisting that since he fell inside of a self-service store on ice and water in the vicinity of a vending machine, he should not be required to establish the proprietor had either actual or constructive notice of the existence of ice and water on the floor in order to avoid a directed verdict on the issue of defendant's negligence.
The general rule in this jurisdiction was expressed in Jones v. Zayre, Inc., 600 S.W.2d 730 (Tenn.App.1980), where the court observed:
If liability is to be predicated on constructive knowledge by the Defendant, the proof must show the dangerous or defective condition existed for such length of time that the Defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of its existence. Allison v. Blount National Bank, 54 Tenn.App. 359, 390 S.W.2d 716 (1965). 600 S.W.2d., at 732.
Plaintiff, in effect, urges us to eliminate plaintiff's burden of proving notice by arguing it is reasonably foreseeable that ice would be spilled from the self-service vending machines and, therefore, it may be reasonably concluded that the risk of invitees slipping on the ice is a risk within the reasonable foresight of the owner. Cases from other jurisdictions tending to support this theory are collated in Annot., 85 A.L.R.3d 1000, Slip and Fall--Notice.
Our Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the notice or constructive notice requirement in slip and fall cases. Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640 (Tenn.1986). We believe, however, that the requirements of constructive notice may be met where a dangerous condition inside a self-service business is not an isolated one but is reasonably foreseeable to the owner because the condition is established by a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition and an invitee suffers injuries as a result of the condition. The evidence in this case, however, does not meet this requirement.
On May 28, 1984, plaintiff had gone inside defendant's store, located on Sevier...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
...use the mode of operation approach. See Mahoney v. J.C. Penney Co., 71 N.M. 244, 259-260, 377 P.2d 663 (1962); Worsham v. Pilot Oil Corp., 728 S.W.2d 19 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987); Buttrey Food Stores Div. v. Coulson, 620 P.2d 549, 553 (Wyo. 1980). Adopting this new approach to premises liability d......
-
Maans v. Giant of Md., LLC
...P.2d 663, 673 (1962); Oklahoma, Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., 645 P.2d 485, 489 (Okla.1982); Tennessee, Worsham v. Pilot Oil Corp., 728 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987); Texas, Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 298 (Tex.1983); Utah, Canfield v. Albertsons, Inc., 841 P.......
-
Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc.
...time that the Defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of its existence." See also, Worsham v. Pilot Oil Corp., 728 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tenn.App.1987); Allison v. Blount Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn.App. 359, 390 S.W.2d 716 (1965). Mrs. Hardesty testified at trial regarding ......
-
Vaughn v. DMC-Memphis, LLC
...WL 109479, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 1989) (describing the appeal as involving a "slip and fall case"); Worsham v. Pilot Oil Corp., 728 S.W.2d 19 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (describing the case as a "slip -and-fall action"). We certainly do not hold that a duty and foreseeability are to be......