Blair v. Campbell
1996 Tenn. LEXIS 318, 924 S.W. 2d 75 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A premises owner does not owe a duty to an independent contractor to provide a reasonably safe workplace when the contractor is injured by the specific defect or dangerous condition they were hired to repair.
Facts:
- Sarah Campbell owned a duplex that was in a general state of disrepair.
- Campbell hired Jack H. Blair, an independent contractor, to perform several repairs on the property.
- Campbell specifically requested that Blair repair or replace the porch roof because it was leaking.
- Blair agreed to perform the work and was given full control over the repair methods.
- On August 3, 1991, while Blair was on a ladder inspecting the roof his employee had started to dismantle, the rotten wood supporting the gutter collapsed.
- The collapse of the rotten wood caused the ladder to turn, throwing Blair to the ground and causing serious personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack H. Blair brought a negligence action against Sarah Campbell in the trial court.
- Campbell filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing she owed no duty to Blair.
- The trial court granted Campbell's motion for summary judgment.
- Blair, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Campbell, the appellee.
- Blair sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a premises owner have a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work for an independent contractor who is injured by the very defect on the premises that the contractor was hired to repair?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Justice
No. A premises owner does not have a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work for an independent contractor who is injured by the specific defect they were hired to repair. The court recognized a long-standing exception to the general rule that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to contractors. This exception applies when the risks arise from, or are intimately connected with, the defects the contractor was hired to fix. The court reasoned that the repair contract itself serves as notice to the contractor of a defect, and it is the contractor's responsibility, as an expert, to discover the full extent of that defect. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the adoption of comparative fault altered this analysis, clarifying that the 'repair exception' is a question of 'no duty,' which is a legal determination for the court, not a matter of a plaintiff's assumption of risk for a jury. Public policy supports placing the risk on the contractor, who holds themselves out as an expert, rather than on the 'untutored owner' who hired them to address the problem.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the 'repair exception' in premises liability, solidifying that a landowner's duty to provide a safe workplace does not extend to the very hazard an independent contractor is hired to remedy. It is significant for holding that Tennessee's adoption of comparative fault did not change the fundamental common-law analysis of duty, which remains a question of law for the court. The ruling insulates property owners from liability when an expert contractor is injured by the known dangers inherent in their specialized work, reinforcing that such risks are to be managed by the contractor and priced into the contract.
Unlock the full brief for Blair v. Campbell