Tennessee Injury Lawyer Blog

The great thing about being a homeowner on Halloween is that you merely have to stock up on sweets and turn on an outside light in to be bombarded by hundreds of costumed candy-seekers. Likewise, the bad thing about being a homeowner on Halloween is that you owe a duty to everyone who legally steps foot onto your property to keep it free from defects or conditions that might cause injury, or else you face the risk of a premises liability lawsuit. Learning more about premises liability law in Tennessee may be a valuable idea, especially as Halloween approaches.

One common type of injury that give rise to Halloween-related premises liability lawsuits is injury from burns or exposure to heat or fire. Homeowners should be careful to make sure decorations on their property, both in-home and on the yard outside, do not expose small children to dangerously hot lights, surfaces, or to open flames. Also be sure the walkway or any other heavily trafficked area is free from obstacles like jack-o-lanterns that could potentially tip over and set fire to costumes or other materials that are highly flammable. Likewise, it would be advisable to check other possible fire hazards, such as electrical outlets to make sure everything is in an adequate and safe condition.

Continue reading "Halloween Increases Risk of Premises Liability Lawsuits" »

Recognizing the need to balance the leeway that governmental entities need in order to properly serve the public interest against the fact that governmental entities may occasionally act in ways that are unacceptable and cause harm to citizens, Tennessee adopted the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA) to define when governmental entities are immune from tort liability.

The TGTLA basically says that governmental entities are immune from suit for injuries that arise from the carrying out of a governmental function. However, there are several statutory exceptions to governmental immunity, including where the entity has caused injury through negligence. The Tennessee Attorneys Memo highlights a case recently decided by the Tennessee Court of Appeals where a plaintiff asserted that the County of Marion had been negligent in failing to post a police officer outside the juvenile court and thus the County was liable for damages the plaintiff sustained as a result of being assaulted outside the court.

The primary issue before the Court was whether or not posting a police officer outside the court was considered a “discretionary function” under the TGTLA. While the TGTLA generally removes immunity for governmental entities where their negligence proximately causes personal injury in Tennessee, it allows such entities to retain immunity from suit if the injury arises out of “the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function, whether or not the discretion is abused.” Thus, if the decision about where to post a police officer was a discretionary function, Marion County would be immune from liability for any injuries caused by the making of that decision.

The Court of Appeals turned to a prior decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Bowers v. City of Chattanooga to determine whether or not the injury in this case arose from the exercise of a discretionary function. Bowers established a “planning-operational” test for determining whether a governmental action or decision would be considered a discretionary function. To summarize this test, the Bowers court stated: “[d]ecisions that rise to the level of planning or policy-making are considered discretionary acts […] while decisions that are merely operational are not considered discretionary acts[…]” To determine whether a decision is a planning or operational one, the court will look to the actual decision-making process itself, not the identity of the decision-maker.

Continue reading "County Not Liable Under TGTLA for Decisions Regarding Placement of Police Officers" »

A recent case published in the Tennessee Attorney’s Memo, provides a very good explanation of a city’s liability for dangerous conditions found on property that it owns and controls. The case, Petty v. City of White House, involved a plaintiff falling into a hole located on city property and breaking her ankle.

One of the main obstacles the plaintiff had to overcome was the city’s governmental immunity under TCA 29-20-204, which provides: “all governmental entities shall be immune from suit for any injury which may result from [governmental activities] wherein [they] are engaged in the exercise and discharge of any of their [governmental functions].” To get around the city’s immunity, the plaintiff had to prove facts qualifying her case under one of the exceptions provided for under Tennessee’s GTLA statutes. The statute applicable in Petty was TCA 29-20-204, and essentially states that a city can be liable for injuries caused by “dangerous or defective conditions” found on public improvements provided that the city was on either actual or constructive notice of the defective conditions.

Finding that the hole located in the field wherein the plaintiff fell was a “public improvement,” the court assessed whether the city was on constructive notice of a defective condition. Proving constructive notice requires a showing that either the dangerous condition was created by the government, or that the condition should have been discovered by the city’s employees or agents through the exercise of “due diligence or “ordinary care”.

Continue reading "Tennessee City Responsible for Injuries Sustained on City Property Despite Lack of Evidence of Prior Accidents: Petty v. City of White House" »

A Tennessee appeals court recently held that a security company can be civilly liable if it fails in its voluntarily assumed duty to reasonably protect patrons and employees from foreseeable risks of harm.

In a suit against Old Hickory Mall in Jackson, Tennessee, the plaintiff employee alleged that she was abducted by two juveniles in a mall parking lot and forced into the backseat. The juveniles took a joy ride, and, several hours and one wreck later, decided to ditch the stolen vehicle. The plaintiff and her husband then brought suit against the Mall and the Mall’s contracted security company.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the security company was “responsible for providing security and protection to the general public and employees of the mall” and that it failed, among other things, to provide sufficient security to protect her from harm. The defendant security company then motioned the court for a dismissal, arguing that it owed no duty to the plaintiff under any circumstances. The trial court agreed.

The appeals court, however, remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the trial court erred in its dismissal. The court held that the security company could be subject to liability if it assumed the duties the Mall owed to the public—that is, to protect the public from foreseeable criminal acts that could reasonably be prevented by providing adequate security. The court qualified the holding, however, by indicating that the security company’s duty would be no greater than that assumed. In other words, the Mall and the security company could contractually limit the duty the security company owed to the public and mall personnel.

Continue reading "Mall Security in Tennessee Parking Lot: Can a Security Company Be Civilly Liable for the Criminal Activities of Others?" »

A Knoxville wrongful death accident befell an apartment community when a 4-year-old boy drowned after falling into a pool owned and maintained by a nearby apartment complex.

According to KnoxNews.com, the 4-year old and his 7-year old cousin and another 9-year old boy trekked about a mile to get from their neighborhood to the pool. When they got there, they noticed that the gate was unlocked and so they entered. It is unclear whether the pool was yet ready for summer use.

Sometime later, the 4-year old became submerged. The other boys called for help, but it was too late by the time nearby residents were able to assist.

Due to the age of the children and the fact that the gate was unlocked, the landlord may liable under Tennessee premises liability laws. First, local regulations applicable to public pools typically require that pool gates be locked when not in use. If the landlord violated a similar regulation applicable to pools in the area, then the landlord or owners may be liable for (per se) negligence.

The landlord may also be liable under the Tennessee attractive nuisance doctrine, which basically states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children who trespass on the land of others if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children—typically under 12—who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

The five conditions that must be satisfied to make out a case of attractive nuisance are:

• the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and


• the condition is one which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to such children, and


• the children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and


• the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and


• the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

In addition to swimming pools, the attractive nuisance is used to hold landowners liable for abandoned cars, piles of lumber and trampolines.If your child or a child you know has been injured because of an attractive nuisance, call the skilled and experienced Knoxville personal injury attorneys at Baker Associates. Dial 866-853-2888 for a free consultation.

In Moore v. City of Manchester, an employee of the City of Manchester received a message that her sister had fallen and injured herself. She decided to leave in order to check on her sister. It seemed luck was not on her side that day when, as she reached her car, she tripped and broke her wrist on the pavement.

The City denied her Tennessee workers’ compensation claim on the grounds that she was on a personal errand. The trial court ruled in the employee’s favor and on appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Panel (“Panel”) affirmed.

In making this decision, the Panel relied on a rule stated in Lollar v. Wal-Mart. In Lollar, the Supreme Court examined a number of parking lot cases and adopted the following rule: “We hold today that a worker who is on the employer’s premises coming to or going from the actual work place is acting in the course of employment. We further hold that if the employer has provided a parking area for its employees, that parking area is part of the employer’s premises.”

Despite what would seem to be a “bright line” rule, the employer argued that the Lollar rule was not applicable because Employee was embarking upon a purely personal errand—to see her injured sister.

Rejecting this argument, the Panel stated, that “[w]hile it is true that Employee was leaving Employer’s premises for a strictly personal reason, the same would be true of any employee who had completed her work day, and was in the process of going home, or going shopping or going to a restaurant.” Naturally, the Panel held against the Employer and levied a fine of $2,500 for bringing a frivolous appeal.

Score one for employees across Tennessee.

If you’ve been injured while at work and face a belligerent employer like the City of Manchester willing to go the distance (i.e., trial) to deny your claim, you will want an experienced workers’ compensation attorney who is also willing to go the distance for you. Call 866-853-2888 today to speak with a skilled Pigeon Forge workers’ compensation attorney at Baker Associates.

A substantial number of Tennessee personal injuries caused by slip-and-fall accidents occur each year as a result of slick floors in grocery stores and restaurants. Many of these accidents could have been prevented if the store employee or manager would have paid more attention to the condition of the floors or simply exercised a little common sense.

To prevent serious personal injuries to customers, Tennessee courts have imposed certain duties upon store keepers because of their superior knowledge of the premises. The breach of these duties exposes the store keeper to liability.

To prove a Tennessee premises liability case involving a slip-and-fall , the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed the customer (“invitee”) a duty recognized by law. Duties owed to customers include inspecting the premises for slippery substances, placing warning signs where a walking surface is known to be slick, and correcting any slippery condition created by employees or customers.

In addition to establishing a duty owed, the plaintiff must also prove that a hazardous condition existed and that it caused the fall. A hazardous condition may involve a foreign substance on the floor such as vegetable matter, grease, or spilled liquids. Accumulations of water due to rain or product displays are also hazardous conditions commonly resulting in Tennessee slip-and-fall accidents. Store slip-and-fall accidents also frequently result from hazardous conditions due to improper cleaning or waxing of floor surfaces.

The plaintiff must also show either that the defendant—through its employees—created the condition or, if a third party created the condition, that the owner had notice of the hazardous condition. Notice can be proved by considerations of the obviousness of the condition and the length of time the floor was slick.

Proving Tennessee slip-and-fall cases can be a tricky business. Evidentiary issues are complex, and facts can be hard to prove. What you need in these cases are experienced and skilled personal injury attorneys in Tennessee with the necessary ability to be successful in a Tennessee premises liability action. If you have been injured, call the top personal injury attorneys at Baker Associates at 866-853-2888 for a free consultation.

The idea that persons may be civilly liable simply for the violation of a statute or regulation is commonly referred to as “negligence per se” or “categorical negligence.”

Negligence per se is most often used in Tennessee motor vehicle accidents. In cases where the defendant has violated a Tennessee Rule of the Road, courts routinely find negligence on the part of the defendant because the rules were enacted 1) to prevent accidents and 2) to prevent personal injuries to drivers.

While negligence per se generally applies to violations of statutes, a person or entity may also be liable for the violation of regulations and ordinances. Here are two examples:

• The Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has been used as evidence of the standard of care owed by the state of Tennessee to drivers. Under the MUTCD, the state may be liable for deviating from standards pertaining to signs, signals, markings, and other devices used to regulate, warn or guide traffic.

• The Standard Southern Building Code (SBC) has been used as evidence in Tennessee premises liability actions of the standard of care builders and landowners owed to homeowners, customers, and invitees. For example, in a Tennessee slip and fall case, the SBC’s provisions on the proper height and depth of risers (steps) was used as evidence of the standard of care a shop-owner owed to its customer.

If you have been injured you will want a diligent and hard-working Tennessee personal injury attorney willing to scour the numerous and complex statutes and regulations that define and protect your rights. The top Tennessee personal injury attorneys at Baker Associates can help. Call today for a free consultation.