Slip and Fall Injury

Tennessee Appeals Court Reviews Video Evidence of Negligence – Peters-Asbury v. KAT

August 25, 2016 | Eric Beasley

Negligence in a personal injury lawsuit can be proven by a variety of means. A witness may testify to observing negligent behavior, or the negligent actions may be documented in writing. Alternatively, there may be independent objective evidence of negligence, or, in rare instances, negligence may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. When evidence of negligence is presented in a manner that the trial court is in the best position to observe, such as through witness testimony, appellate courts will generally give significant deference to the observations and conclusions of the trial court. However, when the evidence of negligence can be independently evaluated by the appellate court (such as in the case of a writing), the appellate court may, in some circumstances, re-evaluate that evidence on its own and reach an independent conclusion. In a recent case before the Court of Appeals in Knoxville, the Court took it upon itself to review video evidence previously provided to a trial court and ultimately reversed the trial court’s decision.

In Peters-Asbury v. Knoxville Area Transit, Ms. Peters-Asbury sued for injuries she incurred while riding Knoxville Area Transit (KAT) buses. Ms. Peters-Asbury was a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville at the time of the accident, and she had received a pass from the University to utilize KAT’s disability bus services. She had a lingering knee injury that gave her significant mobility restrictions. On Ms. Peters-Asbury’s first day of classes, she requested transport from KAT to get her from one of her classes, at Bueller Hall, to the Disability Services office on campus, which was at Dunford Hall. The KAT bus, driven by Michael Chigano, picked her up and transported her to Dunford. However, rather than using the main entrance, the bus dropped her off at a side entrance. As she was exiting the bus, Ms. Peters-Asbury tripped, fell, and fractured her ankle. She ended up in a wheelchair and ultimately had to withdraw for the semester, due to lingering complications from the injury.

Implied Negligence Claims in Tennessee – Dennis v. Donelson Corporate Centre

July 27, 2016 | Eric Beasley

Typically, when a plaintiff alleges a claim of negligence in Tennessee courts, the plaintiff must prove all the necessary elements of a negligence claim, including duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Without establishing each of these elements, a negligence lawsuit cannot succeed. However, in certain circumstances, a plaintiff may bring a negligence claim under a doctrine know as res ipsa loquitur, or implied negligence. This is a doctrine that can be invoked when a plaintiff believes that negligence has occurred but is without access to all the facts necessary to prove each element of negligence. Instead, the plaintiff must show that the circumstances of an injury are such that negligence can instead be implied under the law. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals looks at the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and when it can be successfully invoked.

Releases and Liability in Tennessee

July 14, 2016 | Eric Beasley

Claims for negligence and premises liability can arise in many situations. A visitor may fall and break a bone while walking around a piece of property. A participant in a sports game may tweak a knee while playing. A passenger on an amusement park ride may fail to read all the safety instructions and be bruised or injured during the experience. Since it can be difficult for a property owner to anticipate all of these types of possible situations, many property and facility owners require visitors and guests to sign waivers, releasing them from liability for any injury that may occur on their property. Interpreting these waivers and how they may be applied is a source of much discussion in court opinions. While some states interpret these releases to strictly preclude claims of injury, others view them more flexibly. A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals illustrates Tennessee’s approach to the issue of releases and waivers.

In Gibson v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee, Sandra Gibson was injured while entering the YMCA. She tripped on a crack in the sidewalk and fell, leading to injuries. Prior to that visit, Ms. Gibson had signed an application and membership form to become a member of the YMCA. As part of the application, Ms. Gibson signed a paragraph stating that she waived and released the YMCA from any claims arising from injuries she might incur while using the YMCA’s facilities or programs. Despite signing this release, Ms. Gibson filed a claim for negligence against the YMCA.

What Constitutes a Known Dangerous Condition in Tennessee?

June 7, 2016 | Eric Beasley

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Things that may not be obvious at first glance often become painfully clear after the fact. Such is the case for many of the dangerous conditions that present themselves in personal injury and premises liability cases. While a broken stair or a slick sidewalk may seem innocuous at first, after a life-changing accident, it can become all too obvious that the circumstances constituted a dangerous condition that should have been addressed. However, not all injuries arise from dangerous conditions. Some are simply the consequence of bad luck or unfortunate circumstances. How do courts tell the difference? A recent case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses this issue.

In Singletary v. Gatlinburlier, a seemingly impossible set of circumstances gave rise to a tragic accident. While inside the Gatlinburlier Tobaccoist, Carol Singletary became suddenly light-headed and fainted into an antique glass display case. Her fall onto the glass caused the glass to shatter, and a single piece of glass pierced Ms. Singletary’s skin, piercing her heart. She died almost instantly.

Premises Liability for Landlords in Tennessee – Defect at Time of Lease

April 6, 2016 | Eric Beasley

It is a basic premise of liability that landlords may be liable for known dangerous conditions that exist on their property and that harm tenants or guests. However, this liability is not unlimited, and landlords cannot be exposed to overly broad and endless requests for payments and reimbursements for injuries incurred. Instead, Tennessee law limits liability so that landlords may only be held liable for those conditions that they have truly negligently failed to address. A recent case in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee illustrates how not all injuries and falls that occur on rented properties are ultimately the responsibility of the landlord.

In Fuller v. Banks, et al., Ms. Fuller, an 84-year-old tenant, sued her landlord for injuries she incurred after she fell while walking up the steps outside her apartment. Ms. Fuller was ascending the steps when a post that held the guardrail up gave way, causing Ms. Fuller to fall backward and break her arm. According to Ms. Fuller, bricks that formed the foundation holding the post also came loose and fell around her. However, when the landlord, Mr. Banks, called a repairman to address the issue, he did not see any loose bricks. Instead, it appeared to him that the post had come loose after being hit by a vehicle. Ms. Fuller filed a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit shortly thereafter, alleging that Mr. Banks had been negligent in failing to maintain the guardrail and had failed to conduct reasonable inspections of the guardrail. In response, Mr. Banks alleged that the guardrail had not been damaged at the time the lease was signed and that Ms. Fuller had successfully ascended and descended the steps on many occasions without issue. Had there been any signs that the guardrail was faulty and needed to be repaired, Ms. Fuller had failed to notify Mr. Banks of this fact, and he could not otherwise have known about the issue.

Tennessee Courts Limit Liability for Property Owners With Minimal Control Over Day To Day Activities

March 17, 2016 | Eric Beasley

Premise liability is a common issue of concern for many property owners. By allowing tenants, guests, or customers onto one’s property, property owners inherently take on a degree of liability for injuries or accidents that may befall these third parties. However, the doctrine of premise liability must have limits – property owners cannot be held legally responsible for every bad act that might occur, especially when such incidents happen to be unpredictable. This is particularly true in the case of landlords or property owners who may not be physically present on the property and have entrusted much of its care and use to tenants or other parties. A recent case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered whether tort actions could be maintained against property owners who had only minimal control over the actions leading up to the tort claims.

In Choate v. Vanderbilt University, an ex-wife brought a wrongful death claim against several parties in relation to the death of her former husband. Mr. Cox was a patient receiving dialysis treatments for end-stage renal disease at the Vanderbilt Dialysis Clinic. Although Vanderbilt technically owned the property where the clinic was located, a separate company, Bio-Medical Applications of Tennessee, Inc, operated the clinic and it was Bio-Medical employees who assisted Mr. Cox when he visited. While at the clinic in June 2009, Mr. Cox was set to have his weight taken with the assistance of Bio-Medical employees. Mr. Cox was in a wheelchair due to an amputated leg and had been instructed to seek employee assistance while moving around the clinic. After going to the bathroom, Mr. Cox proceeded to the scale to weight himself without notifying employees of his need for help. While attempting to get on the scale, Mr. Cox fell backward and suffered severe head injuries. Despite surgery, he remained unresponsive and died several weeks later.

Pushing the Limits of Premise Liability and Gun Safety – SB 1736

February 3, 2016 | Eric Beasley

Gun control and gun rights are a hot topic of political debate in cities and communities throughout the country, and Tennessee is not immune to such controversy. In the wake of increasing gun violence and a rise in gun-related deaths, proponents on both sides dispute whether the route to improved public safety involves stricter gun controls or greater gun freedom. In Tennessee, at least one legislator proposes that all individuals should be entitled to protect themselves through the purchase and use of a gun, and those who would act to impede such freedoms should be held liable for any death or injury that may result.

Recently, Republican Senator Dolores Gresham introduced Senate Bill 1736. The bill provides that business owners who operate gun-free areas can be held liable for any injury that occurs to a concealed permit holder who is on their property but is not carrying a gun because of the gun-free restrictions.

Do Curbs for Wheelchair Ramps Constitute Dangerous Conditions in Tennessee?

January 27, 2016 | Eric Beasley

Individuals and companies that own land or buildings owe a duty to the public to exercise due care in order to prevent the general public from being injured on their property. This often means that property owners must address known dangerous conditions on their land or in their buildings, or must make the public aware of such dangerous conditions by reasonably warning them of the risks. Property owners are not, however, required to prevent any and all injuries that might occur to an individual while on their property. This is simply impossible. Instead, landowners must only protect against those dangers or injuries that can be reasonably anticipated. A question that recently arose in the Tennessee courts is what to do when it is unclear whether the condition is one that should have been recognized as dangerous by the landowner.

Tennesse Injury Lawyers Protect Victims Of Slip And Fall Accidents

December 21, 2015 | Eric Beasley

Slip and fall accidents are one of the most common injuries suffered. You’re walking around, thinking about what you’ve got to do and, suddenly, you find yourself on the ground. Most times it’s just an embarrassing incident and you can simply get up and go about your business, but other times you find yourself seriously injured.

When Does Liability Emerge?

If the reason you fell could have been prevented by simple maintenance on the part of the property owner where you fell, premises liability emerges. A Tennessee injury lawyer knows that many of these injuries are a result of negligence on the part of property owners.

Preventing Falls In The Workplace

October 9, 2015 | Eric Beasley

Falls can happen easily and unexpectedly doing simple tasks like walking or climbing up a ladder. Sometimes, however, they a slip and fall accident will affect a worker perched 100 feet above ground. This can be serious and deadly. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that more than a tenth of all workplace fatalities are results from falling. Additionally, a little less than one fifth of all days spent away from work are related to fall injury recovery. If you’ve been injured during a fall at work you should contact slip and fall attorneys in Nashville to see if you are eligible to receive compensation.

Slip and fall accidents in the work place are most commonly the result of slippery floors, cluttered work areas, unstable walking surfaces, unsafe ladder positions and unprotected edges. Federal regulations are in place to provide specific prevention measures against unsafe work environments. Even with these regulations, however, many industries continue to happen and the number of slip and fall injuries continue to rise. Slip and fall attorneys in Nashville understand the law and will help protect your rights if you have been injured at your workplace.

Guidelines for safer working environments, include: