Eaton v. McLain
891 S.W. 2d 587 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A premises owner's duty of reasonable care to a social guest does not extend to protecting the guest from harm when that harm results from the guest's own unforeseeable and unreasonable conduct, such as proceeding into a dark, unfamiliar area without using available lighting.
Facts:
- Pauline Eaton went to spend the night at the home of her daughter and son-in-law, James and Tammy McLain.
- Eaton was advised to sleep in her granddaughter's bedroom, which was located across a hallway from two identical, adjacent doors: one to a bathroom and the other to a basement stairwell.
- The lock on the basement door was not functional at the time of Eaton's stay.
- Before going to bed, Tammy McLain closed both the bathroom and basement doors and turned off the lights in the hallway and bathroom.
- Around 5:00 a.m., Eaton awoke needing to use the bathroom.
- Despite the complete darkness, Eaton did not turn on the light in her bedroom or the hallway as she attempted to find the bathroom.
- Eaton opened the basement door, believing it was the bathroom, stepped inside, and fell down the stairs, sustaining injuries.
- Although Eaton had visited the home before and knew it had a basement, she was not completely familiar with the layout of the home.
Procedural Posture:
- Pauline Eaton filed a negligence action against James and Tammy McLain in a Tennessee trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict finding both parties negligent.
- The jury allocated 60% of the fault to the McLains and 40% to Eaton.
- The trial court denied the McLains' motion for a directed verdict and later their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The McLains, as appellants, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the action, finding the evidence of Eaton's fault was overwhelming and that the McLains owed no duty to Eaton under the circumstances.
- Pauline Eaton, as appellant, was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
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 homeowner owe a duty of care to a social guest to leave lights on, lock a basement door, or warn of the stairs' location when the guest is injured after proceeding into a dark, unfamiliar area without using available lighting?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Drowota
No. A homeowner's duty of care to a social guest does not extend to protecting against harm that is not reasonably foreseeable. The court reasoned that a premises owner's general duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition for a social guest (an invitee in Tennessee) is tested by foreseeability. Eaton's decision to get out of bed in total darkness and proceed into an unfamiliar area without turning on any available lights was a 'radical departure from reasonable conduct' that the McLains could not have reasonably foreseen. Therefore, the McLains had no duty to leave lights on or lock the basement door to prevent such an unforeseeable occurrence. Furthermore, the court held there was no duty to warn about the stairs because they are a common feature of homes, not a latent or hidden danger, especially when the danger would have been obvious had the guest exercised ordinary care by using available lighting.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a homeowner's duty to social guests in Tennessee, establishing that the duty of reasonable care is limited by the foreseeability of the guest's actions. It prevents the homeowner from becoming an absolute insurer of a guest's safety, balancing the owner's duty with the guest's responsibility to exercise ordinary care for their own protection. While the court established a significant multi-factor test for apportioning fault in comparative negligence cases, it ultimately decided this case on the threshold issue of duty, demonstrating that a defendant cannot be found negligent if no duty was owed to the plaintiff in the first place, regardless of fault allocation.
