SCOTN Rejects "Preemption Rule" That Would Prohibit Direct Negligent Claims Against a Principal When Vicarious Liability as to an Agent Has Been Admitted by Principal; SCOTN Also Holds That Claims for Negligent Activities May Be Pleaded in the Same Action Along with Premises Liability Claims

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Binns v. Trader Joe's East, Inc., No. M2022-01033-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Apr. 8, 2024). The syllabus form the slip opinion reads: 

This interlocutory appeal involves an alleged slip and fall incident that occurred at the defendant’s grocery store. The plaintiff’s amended complaint included allegations of vicarious liability, premises liability, negligent training, and negligent supervision against the defendant. In an attempt to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligent training and supervision claims, the defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and asserted two alternative arguments, both of which the trial court rejected. First, the trial court rejected the defendant’s argument that courts must dismiss “negligent activity” claims, such as claims for negligent training and supervision, when asserted concurrently with a premises liability theory of recovery. Second, the trial court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s direct negligence claims were no longer legally viable due to the defendant admitting it was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employee, commonly referred to as the “preemption rule.” After denying the defendant’s motion, the trial court granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application. The defendant then appealed to this Court, and we granted review. We hold that the preemption rule is incompatible with Tennessee’s system of comparative fault and decline to adopt it. In addition, we decline to adopt the rule proposed by the defendant pertaining to “negligent activity” claims asserted alongside premises liability claims. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Here is a link to that opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%20M2022-01033-SC-R11-CV.pdf

NOTE: This is a must-read case for any lawyer who handles tort cases governed by Tennessee substantive law that have to do with agency and premises liability. 

New SCOTN Case: Trial Court's Decision Denying Arbitration in a Nursing Home Case Reversed on Appeal Because the Attorney-in-Fact Was Authorized to Sign Arbitration Agreement

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Williams v. Smyrna Residential, LLC, No. M2021-00927-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2024). The syllabus from the majority opinion reads: 

Granville Williams, Jr., died while residing at an assisted-living facility. The central question in this appeal is whether his son’s ensuing wrongful-death action against the facility must be arbitrated. To answer that question, we must resolve two subsidiary issues—first, whether the attorney-in-fact who signed the arbitration agreement as Williams’s representative had authority to do so and, second, whether Williams’s son and other wrongful-death beneficiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement nevertheless are bound by it. We hold that signing an optional arbitration agreement—that is, one that is not a condition of admission to a health care facility—is not a “health care decision” within the meaning of the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Act. The durable power of attorney that gave Williams’s attorney-in-fact authority to act for him in “all claims and litigation matters” thus provided authority to enter the optional arbitration agreement even though it did not specifically grant authority to make health care decisions. We further hold that Williams’s son is bound by the arbitration agreement because his wrongful-death claims are derivative of his father’s claims. Because we conclude that the claims in this action are subject to arbitration, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary decision and remand to the trial court.

Here is a link to that opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%20M2021-00927-SC-R11-CV.pdf.

Here is a link to Justice Lee's dissent:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Separate%20Opinion-%20M2021-00927-SC-R11-CV.pdf.

Here is Chief Justice Kirby's opinion joining Justice Lee's dissent:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Separate%20Opinion%20%282%29%20-M2021-00927-SC-R11-CV.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion reverses the one from the Tennessee Court of Appeals in this same case that was released on April 8, 2022, which is the subject of my blog post from April 9, 2022, to wit:

http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2022/04/trial-courts-denial-of-defendants.html.

Grant of Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal Because the Issue It Was Based on Was Not Raised in the Motion

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Bakker v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, No. E2022-00872-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2024). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads: 

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital in this premises liability case, finding that the defendant had no notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition on its premises. The plaintiff has appealed. Following our review, we determine that the plaintiff was not provided notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to all issues to be considered by the trial court at the summary judgment stage. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

Here is the link to the opinion: 

Bakker, M.D. v. Chattanooga Hamilton Hospital Authority.pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: This is an excellent opinion that addresses when a trial court grants summary judgment on an issue not raised in the motion seeking same and why that is error. This is a must-read opinin for any lawyer who handles civil actions in Tennessee state courts. 

New Health Care Liability Action: Trial Court's Imposition of Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Upheld on Appeal but Case Is Remanded to Calculate Amount of Sanctions under Applicable Law

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Salas v. Rosdeutscher, Nos. M2021-00449-COA-R3-CV; M2022-00130-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2024). The syllabus reads:

Plaintiff’s attorneys appeal the trial court’s imposition of sanctions against them in the amount of $68,617.28 and the denial of their second motion to disqualify the trial court judge. We affirm the trial court’s discretionary decision to impose sanctions, but we vacate the amount of sanctions awarded and remand for the trial court to calculate the reasonable amount of monetary sanctions in keeping with the procedures and considerations outlined in this opinion. We have determined that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ issue regarding the trial court’s denial of their second motion to recuse is moot. Finally, we decline to award attorney’s fees on appeal.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: Majority Opinion - M2021-00449-COA-R3-CV.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion is a good reminder why a lawyer should never misrepresent matters to a court. 

New Case on Pretrial Discovery Abuse and Sanctions: Trial Court's Dismissal of Action Upheld on Appeal.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Plofchan v. Hughey, No. M2021-00853-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2023). The syllabus from the opinion reads:

A man sued his arresting officers and others. He claimed he was neither drunk nor violent when he was arrested and charged with public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assault on an officer. During discovery, the man claimed to have no communications between him and a companion that were not protected by attorney-client privilege or as work product. When such communications were uncovered, the defendants moved for sanctions and attorney’s fees. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants and the companion. And it dismissed the case as a sanction. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: E-SIGNED-M2021-0853- COA-PLOFCHAN.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion offers a great discussion of discovery sanctions for pretrial discovery abuses, etc. It also notes that Tennessee does not recognize "motions to reconsider," slip. op. at 8. This is a must-read opinion for any Tennessee trial lawyer. 

New Premises Liability Case: Summary Judgment for the Defense Upheld on Appeal; Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence Not Warranted

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Beasley v. Jae Nails Bar, LLC, No. M2022-01330-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a premises liability action in which the plaintiff slipped and fell while she was walking to a pedicure station in a nail salon. Two principal issues are presented. First, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by denying her Tenn. R. Civ. P. 34A.02 motion for spoliation of evidence by finding that the defendant was not put on notice that a video recording from a surveillance camera in the nail salon was relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Second, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing her complaint on the basis that there was no proof that the defendant had created the allegedly hazardous condition in the nail salon or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. We affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: UNSIGNED-M2022-1330-COA-BEASLEY.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: In reverse order to that addressed by the court, this opinion offers a great analysis of the elements of a premises liability case and of what constitutes spoliation of evidence worthy of sanctions. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Complaint Upheld in Part and Reversed in Part Due to the Application of the Healthcare Operations Exception to the General Requirement That a HIPAA-compliant Authorization for the Release of Medical Records Be Included with the Presuit Notices Served on Potential Defendants

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Christie v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, No. W2022-01296-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15. 2023). 

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their health care liability claims against a hospital and two doctors who treated their daughter on the day of her birth and tragic death. The trial court reluctantly ruled that the plaintiffs failed to substantially comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) and dismissed the claims as untimely. We conclude that the plaintiffs met their burden to show substantial compliance with section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) as to the defendant hospital, but not the defendant doctors. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: ChristieLauraSOPN.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion does a good job of explaining the healthcare operations exception to the general requirement that presuit notice be accompanied by a HIPAA-complaint medical records authorization under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121. That exception is what saved the claim against the hospital because it allowed the Tennessee Court of Appeals to find that there had been substantial complaint with section 29-16-121(a)(2)(E).