Tennessee Supreme Court Rules Preemption Rule Not Compatible with Comparative Fault
The “preemption rule,” which has been adopted in a number of jurisdictions around the country, limits injured plaintiffs’ ability to prove wrongdoing against employers because, so long as an employer admits that it is vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence, the employer’s own potential acts of misconduct for negligent supervision, hiring, training, or entrustment are not disclosed to the trier-of-fact.
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellee, Melissa Binns, in the case of Melissa Binns v. Trader Joe’s East, Inc., M2022-01033-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. April 8, 2024), stating, “We hold that the preemption rule is incompatible with Tennessee’s system of comparative fault and decline to adopt it.” In a unanimous decision, the Court held that:
-
- an employer can be held both directly liable for its own negligent conduct as well as vicariously liable for the negligent conduct of its employees (declining to adopt the preemption rule); and
- a plaintiff may pursue direct negligence claims against an employer concurrently with a premises liability theory.
The Binns ruling means that plaintiffs can simultaneously pursue claims against an employer for both its own direct negligence and its vicarious liability for an employee’s negligence. This ruling is a significant development in Tennessee, protecting rights of Plaintiffs to hold employers accountable for their actions or inactions that lead to a person’s injuries.
Representing Appellee Melissa Binns in this case were Donald Capparella, as lead appellate counsel, assisted by Tyler Chance Yarbro and Jacob A. Vanzin, from Dodson, Parker, Behm, and Capparella P.C., as well as John L. Griffith and Jonathan D. Lawrence of Griffith Law.
You can view the oral argument video here or read the Opinion here.
Court of Appeals Reverses Multiple Summary Judgments and Allows Plaintiff to Move Forward in Mesothelioma Suit.
Plaintiff worked as a mechanic at the Tennessee Eastman chemical plant for nearly 30 years. While employed there, he was responsible for repairing and maintaining the equipment. Due to the corrosive nature of the chemicals at the plant, the equipment required daily repairs and maintenance. When he made repairs to the equipment in carrying out his job duties, and when worn components on the equipment were replaced, Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos. Following his diagnosis of Mesothelioma, Plaintiff filed suit against multiple Defendants including those who manufactured and supplied the equipment and replacement parts containing asbestos.
Amazon Can Be Liable for Negligent Assumption of Duty to Warn for Website Sale of Dangerous Product
In 2015, online retailer Amazon, Inc. sold more than 250,000 hoverboards through its website. By November 2015, Amazon knew that these products presented a risk of explosion. Amazon stopped selling the hoverboards and emailed customers with an “Important Product Safety Notification” that mentioned news reports of safety issues and offered information on how to return the product, Amazon did not, however, inform customers of the risk of explosion or fire. Amazon intentionally sent a “non-alarmist” email so as to avoid “headline news.”
In 2016, over half a million “hoverboards” were recalled because of the tendency to combust. The damages caused by these “exploding” hoverboards resulted in lawsuits around the country. The nature of the online business and the importation of products meant that plaintiffs were often unsuccessful in locating the actual manufacturer of the products. So, they sued online retailer Amazon, seeking to hold it liable for selling such a dangerous product on its website.
The Fox family of Nashville was among those seeking to hold Amazon responsible selling the dangerous hoverboards. In 2016, the Fox family of Nashville lost their home to a fire when a hover board sold by Amazon, Inc. exploded. The children, who were trapped on the second floor of the home, had to jump from windows to escape. The Fox family sued Amazon for negligent failure to warn of the dangers of the hoverboard product.
Throughout the country, Amazon’s repeated response to these lawsuits was that it was merely a “marketplace” that connected sellers with customers directly. In this way, Amazon argued, it was unlike a “big box” store like Wal-Mart that actually sold the products to customers. This legal theory prevailed in many jurisdictions. And, in the Fox family’s suit, Amazon once again won at the trial court via “summary judgment,” with a legal ruling that Amazon was not responsible because it could not be considered a seller of the product under Tennessee law.
The Foxes appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that Amazon assumed a duty to warn of the dangers posed by the hoverboards, and there remained material issues of fact as to whether Amazon was negligent in their failure to adequately warn of those dangers. It remanded the case for a jury trial on the theory of negligent failure to warn.
DPBC’s Donald Capparella was appellate counsel for the Fox family on appeal, along with co-appellate counsel, Steven Anderson.
Fall at Convenience Center Not From “Open and Obvious” Cause; Plaintiff Entitled to Recover Damages
Getting a case reversed on appeal is difficult under any circumstances. Where negligence cases are concerned, it is particularly difficult. Negligence cases in Tennessee are governed by the principle of “comparative fault.” This means that, where premises liability cases are concerned, in order for a plaintiff to recover damages a court must find the plaintiff’s own negligence, if any, to be less than 50% of the “proximate cause” of the injuries. Fault is a “question of fact,” and reviewing courts give great deference to the “fact-finder,” which is often a jury and sometimes the trial judge. That deference to the fact-finder means that allocations of fault are rarely disturbed on appeal. The opinion from the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Osborne v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Co. shows once more how difficult it is to change the outcome of a case once fault has been determined at the trial court level.
On February 28, 2015, Ronald Osborne was dropping off some garbage at the East Nashville Convenience Center, a facility operated by the local government. The trash bin was elevated approximately five feet off the ground. When Mr. Osborne headed to the back of his truck to unload the garbage, he stepped into a 15-inch drainage cut that had been placed at the back of the concrete barrier surrounding the platform. He fell and was hurt.
Mr. Osborne sued the city for negligence, alleging that the city had failed to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition and had failed to comply with safety standards and local codes. The trial court concluded that the city was 80% at fault for Mr. Osborne’s injuries and that Mr. Osborne was 20% at fault for failing to notice the drainage cut. Metro appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding Mr. Osborne only 20% at fault.
Metro made a number of arguments that Mr. Osborne was at least 50% responsible for his fall. For instance, Metro argued that Mr. Osborne should have exercised heightened care for his own safety because of the nature of the facility, i.e,. a place where residents dispose of heavy appliances and other dangerous materials. The Court, however, noted that the drainage cut causing Mr. Osborne’s fall was not “open and obvious,” and no signs or other warnings were in place to warn patrons of the danger. Therefore, the Court found that “Metro was in the best position to remedy the danger,” and Mr. Osborne’s failure to notice it was not “the overriding cause of his injuries.” This, in addition to the fact that Mr. Osborne’s prior visits to the Center had led him to reasonably expect there were no holes, led the Court to find that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s finding of 20% fault.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and Metro was deemed liable for its part in Mr. Osborne’s injuries.
Dance Party Results in Injuries But No Liability
The Court of Appeals recently examined potential liability from a deck collapse during a party attended by “a ridiculous amount” of high school students. The upshot? It seems like a determination that having lots of people jumping and dancing on a deck doesn’t make it forseeable that the deck could break and hurt people… read more
Employer Not Responsible For Injuries to Employee Who Was Sent Home For Suspicion of Drug Use
In a negligent entrustment action, the employer’s ability to control the employee when he leaves the premises is the essential issue. Knowledge of the employee’s incompetency is also important. Here, the facts didn’t establish that the employer was at fault. read more
Tort Law Blog: Is the Common Knowledge Exception Obsolete?
Last month we wrote about the common knowledge exception, and it crops up again this month. Lawyers, be warned: Even if the common knowledge exception applies in a health care liability case so that expert testimony is not required, the failure to file a certificate of good faith may still be fatal… read more
Court Rules on Parent Liability for Acts of Adult Son Living at Home
Parents of “boomerang kids” take note: the Tennessee Court of Appeals has noticed that the number of young adults ages 18 to 34 living with their parents climbed to over 32% in 2014. Read on to see what the Court determined in Riggs v. Wright and what this means for your potential liability for their actions.
New Case Law on the “Sudden Emergency Doctrine”
The recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case Boshears v. Brooks provides practitioners with a good framework for the application of the “Sudden Emergency Doctrine” in negligence actions. read more
Sometimes a slip and fall is really just a slip and fall…
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence intended to assist the plaintiff who has no direct evidence of negligence by providing a way to have circumstantial evidence considered when a plaintiff is trying to proof negligence. The doctrine won’t save a case where there is simply no evidence of negligence, though. read more