TBA Law Blog


Posted by: Kreis White on Sep 16, 2014

BEVERLY MEADOW v. D & G LIMITED ASSORTMENTS, INC.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Luvell L. Glanton and Timothy T. Ishii, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Beverly Meadow.

C. Benton Patton, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, D & G Limited Assortment, Inc.
Judge: CLEMENT

The trial court granted a directed verdict pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 in favor of the defendant in a premises liability action. The court found the defendant did not have constructive notice of the defective condition stating, “the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof of more likely than not that this unsafe condition existed for a period of time in order to be corrected or warned about[.]” The plaintiff, who sustained a broken femur when the automatic sliding glass door at the front of the grocery store closed on her, presented an expert witness who testified that “the immediate cause of the accident was the failure of the presence sensing capability” of the automatic door. The expert testified that had the defendant conducted daily safety checks of the sensors in the proper manner, the defendant would have known that they were not functioning properly, and the likelihood the sensors first failed on the day of the incident “was extremely small.” Whether the defendant conducted daily safety checks in the appropriate manner was disputed. Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff while discarding all evidence to the contrary as Rule 50.01 requires, we have concluded the evidence is sufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide whether the defendant had constructive notice in time to remedy or warn customers of the defective condition of the door. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on this Article