 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jennings v. Sewell-Allen11/20/2003
Facts and Procedural History
This action arises from injuries allegedly sustained when Marie Jennings ("Ms. Jennings") had a slip and fall accident in Defendant's store. On December 3, 1999, Ms. Jennings was shopping in Defendant's store when she claims to have slipped on a tan, liquid substance a quarter in size. Ms. Jennings does not know what the liquid was, how it got there, or how long it had been there.
Ms. Jennings broke her hip as a result of this fall, requiring surgery and months of physical therapy. As a result of this incident, Ms. Jennings claims that she sustained approximately $70,000 in medical expenses. Ms. Jennings filed suit on September 19, 2000, alleging that the Defendant store was responsible for her injuries because it had not maintained a safe store environment.
On April 8, 2002, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. However, the Defendant did not file any affidavits in support of its motion for summary judgment, but did file a statement of uncontroverted facts. Defendant primarily relied on the following deposition testimony of Ms. Jennings:
1. Prior to the date of the incident, Ms. Jennings had never before seen any type of liquid on the floor of Defendant's store;
2. Ms. Jennings was running late, was walking fast and did not see the liquid that allegedly caused her fall; and
3. Ms. Jennings did not know what the liquid substance was, how it got on the floor or how long it had been there.
The trial court, finding that there were no genuine issues of material facts, granted this motion on July 10, 2002. Ms. Jennings filed her notice of appeal and raises the following issues for our review.
Issues
1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment which failed to allege that there were no material facts in dispute concerning Ms. Jennings' cause of action based on the "Method of Operation" theory of liability.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment implicitly holding that there was no pattern of conduct, a recurring incident and/or a general or continuing condition indicating that the Defendant's self-service method of operation created a dangerous condition.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it ruled on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment prior to the Defense turning over certain documents that it had in its possession, related to Ms. Jennings' theory of liability, making discovery incomplete.
4. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it denied Ms. Jennings' Motion to Compel Discovery, denying relevant evidence related to the "Method of Operation" theory of liability, and thus prejudicing her case.
Standard of Review
The standard of review to be applied when assessing a motion for summary judgment was set forth by our Supreme Court in Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83 (Tenn. 2000):
The standards governing an appellate court's review of a motion for summary judgment are well settled. Since our inquiry involves purely a question of law, no presumption of correctness attaches to the lower court's judgment, and our task is confined to reviewing the record to determine whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have bee
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|