Hale v. Ostrow
166 S.W.3d 713 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner owes a duty of reasonable care to pedestrians on an abutting public sidewalk and may be liable for injuries that occur off the owner's property if a hazardous condition on the property is a factual and proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Max, Erwin, and Rose Ostrow owned a vacant lot located at 1073 Mississippi Boulevard.
- Bushes originating from the Ostrows' property had overgrown the public sidewalk, completely obstructing the path.
- Shirley Hale was walking on the sidewalk and saw the overgrown bushes blocking her path ahead.
- Hale determined that she had to leave the sidewalk and enter the street to bypass the obstruction.
- As she moved to step off the sidewalk, but before reaching the bushes or the Ostrows' property line, Hale looked up to check for traffic.
- While looking up, Hale tripped on a chunk of broken concrete on the sidewalk in front of the adjacent property, 1063 Mississippi Boulevard.
- Hale fell into the street and suffered a crushed hip as a result of the fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirley Hale filed suit against the Ostrows in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, alleging negligence and public nuisance.
- The Ostrows moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Hale because her injury occurred on property they did not own.
- The trial court granted the Ostrows' motion for summary judgment.
- Hale, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the bushes were not a proximate cause of Hale's injury.
- Hale, as the appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for review.
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 landowner owe a duty of care to a pedestrian who is injured on an adjacent property after being forced to take a detour to avoid an obstruction on the sidewalk originating from the landowner's property?
Opinions:
Majority - E. Riley Anderson
Yes. A property owner owes a duty of care to pedestrians to ensure that an adjacent public sidewalk is not obstructed by hazards originating from their property. The court determined this duty exists by balancing the foreseeability and gravity of potential harm against the feasibility of preventing it. It was highly foreseeable that overgrown bushes would force a pedestrian to detour and potentially suffer an injury, while the burden on the landowner to trim the bushes was minimal. The court rejected the common-law distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' conditions as ill-suited to an urban environment. Furthermore, the court held that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the bushes were both a cause-in-fact and a proximate cause of Hale's injury, making summary judgment inappropriate and requiring the questions to be decided by a jury.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Janice M. Holder
Yes. While agreeing that the defendants owed a duty of care and that the case should proceed to a jury, this opinion objects to the majority's analytical framework for establishing duty. The concurrence argues that the majority's balancing of foreseeability and burden improperly conflates the legal question of duty (for the judge) with the factual questions of breach and proximate cause (for the jury). The proper approach, according to this opinion, is for the court to hold as a matter of law that a property owner has a broad duty of reasonable care, and then allow the jury to determine whether the defendant's actions were a breach of that duty and a reasonably foreseeable cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and arguably expands landowner liability in Tennessee by confirming that a duty of care can extend beyond the owner's property lines when an on-premises hazard causes an off-premises injury. By explicitly rejecting the traditional common-law immunity for 'natural conditions,' the court aligned state law with a more modern, foreseeability-based approach to negligence. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to win on summary judgment by arguing the injury's location absolves them of responsibility, instead shifting the focus to causation, which is typically a question of fact for a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Hale v. Ostrow