Summary Judgment for the Defense Affirmed on Appeal: Trial Court's Determination that No Duty of Care Existed Stands

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Tino v. Walker, No. M2021-01230-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this premises liability case, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by determining that the divot in the brick step that caused her to trip and fall amounted to a minor aberration and that, as a result, the defendants did not owe her a duty of care. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/kathy.tino_.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion does a good job setting forth the current state of summary judgment jurisprudence in Tennessee as well as the law on duty of care in a premises liability case. I would submit that this is a must-read decision for any lawyer handling premises liability cases in Tennessee.  

New Laws Effective in Tennessee on July 1, 2022

Here is an abstract of the new laws that went into effect in Tennessee on July 1, 2022, to wit:

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Archives/Joint/publications/EffectiveDate_2022-07.pdf

Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims (Sounding in Tort) Reversed on Appeal Because They Were Permissive Counterclaims and Not Barred by Res Judicata

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Albers v. Powers, No. M2021-00577-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal requires us to consider the defense of res judicata in the context of two separate lawsuits filed by parties who were in a car accident. Following the car accident, the first lawsuit was filed and settled by agreement of the parties. An agreed judgment was entered dismissing the first lawsuit. Subsequently, the defendant from the initial lawsuit and her husband filed suit against the former plaintiff, alleging various causes of action sounding in tort. The trial court dismissed the second case, finding that all of the claims were barred by res judicata. The defendant in the initial suit and her husband—the plaintiffs in the second suit—appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit. We find that the tort claims alleged in the second suit were not compulsory counterclaims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 13.01, and were not claims that would nullify the initial action or impair rights established in the initial action; therefore, we hold that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar those claims. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the case is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/lori.albers.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This is a very interesting read for any civil procedure nerd like me. It offers up a great discussion of the tort exception under Rule 13 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (which does not exist under its federal counterpart) and how tort claims are not barred under res judicata because they are generally permissive and not compulsory counterclaims.