Coln v. City of Savannah
966 S.W.2d 34, 1998 WL 139096, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 193 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The fact that a dangerous condition on a premises is open and obvious does not automatically absolve a landowner of the duty of care. A duty to protect against or warn of the condition exists if the foreseeable probability and gravity of harm outweigh the burden on the landowner to take reasonable precautions to prevent the harm.
Facts:
- In Coin v. City of Savannah, the City had decorative brick pavers installed in front of City Hall, creating a height deviation where they met the adjacent concrete sidewalk.
- A city manager for Savannah was aware of the deviation at the time of installation but deemed it acceptable and chose not to have it corrected.
- Hazel Coin, a 68-year-old woman, was walking toward the entrance of City Hall on a clear day when she tripped on the lip of the sidewalk where it met the pavers, fell, and was injured.
- In Vancleave v. Markowski, Debbie Vancleave was a social guest at the Markowski's home.
- The Markowskis had removed a pool skimmer from their deck, leaving an uncovered opening that was eighteen inches wide and three feet long.
- Vancleave was walking and talking with Diane Markowski on the deck when she fell into the uncovered opening and sustained injuries to her knee and ankle.
Procedural Posture:
- In Coin v. Savannah, Coin sued the City in a Tennessee trial court. The trial court found the City 70% negligent and Coin 30% negligent and awarded damages.
- The City of Savannah (appellant) appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which reversed, finding Coin (appellee) was at least 50% at fault as a matter of law, barring recovery.
- In Vancleave v. Markowski, Vancleave sued the Markowskis in a Tennessee trial court. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the deck opening was an open and obvious condition.
- Vancleave (appellant) appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which affirmed the summary judgment for the Markowskis (appellees).
- The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted permission to appeal in both cases and consolidated them to resolve the common legal question.
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 the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition on a landowner's property automatically negate the landowner's duty of care to an injured person under a comparative fault system?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, C.J.
No. The open and obvious nature of a danger does not automatically negate a landowner's duty of care; instead, a duty to act with reasonable care exists if the foreseeability and gravity of harm, even from an open and obvious danger, outweigh the burden on the defendant to engage in alternative conduct to avoid the harm. The court explicitly rejects the traditional rule that an open and obvious danger ipso facto relieves a defendant of a duty of care, finding it inconsistent with Tennessee's adoption of comparative fault in McIntyre v. Balentine. It adopts the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343A, which recognizes that a landowner should sometimes anticipate harm despite a danger's obviousness, such as when an invitee may be distracted or find it necessary to encounter the risk. Once a duty is established under this balancing test, the fact that the danger was obvious is considered as a factor in the comparative fault analysis to apportion liability between the plaintiff and defendant.
Concurring - Holder, J.
Yes, I concur in the result but disagree with the majority's analytical framework regarding duty. The legal determination of 'duty' should be limited to whether a relationship exists that creates an obligation of care (e.g., landowner to guest). Factors like the obviousness of the danger and foreseeability of the specific harm are more properly considered by the trier of fact as part of the analysis of breach and comparative fault, not as part of the court's initial duty determination. The 'open and obvious' doctrine should be completely subsumed into the comparative fault scheme, allowing the jury to consider the obviousness of the danger as one of many factors in apportioning fault between the parties.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters Tennessee premises liability law by moving away from the rigid, traditional 'open and obvious' rule, which served as a complete bar to recovery. By adopting the Restatement's more flexible balancing test for duty, the court aligns Tennessee with the modern trend that incorporates principles of comparative fault. The ruling increases the responsibility of landowners, as they can no longer assume they have no duty regarding a visible hazard if harm is still foreseeable. This precedent ensures that cases involving obvious dangers will receive a more nuanced, fact-specific analysis of both duty and comparative fault, rather than being dismissed at an early stage.
