Ogle v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc.
1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 796, 919 S.W.2d 45 (1995)
Rule of Law:
To establish a premises owner's constructive notice of a dangerous condition, a plaintiff must present evidence that the specific condition causing the injury existed for a sufficient length of time for the owner to have discovered it. Evidence of general untidiness unrelated to the specific hazard is insufficient to create a jury question on the issue of notice.
Facts:
- Mary A. Ogle entered the women's restroom in a store operated by Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc.
- Ogle observed that the restroom was very untidy, with paper towels piled approximately two feet high over the trash can and scattered across the floor.
- Ogle described the restroom's condition as the "nastiest" she had seen it in the five years she had patronized the store.
- While in the restroom, Ogle slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor, which caused her clothes to become damp.
- Ogle did not know what the substance was, how it got on the floor, or the duration it had been there prior to her fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary A. Ogle filed a premises liability lawsuit against Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc. in a Tennessee trial court.
- The defendant, Winn-Dixie, filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- The plaintiff, Ogle, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
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 evidence of a generally messy condition in a store's restroom, such as an overflowing trash can, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the store owner had constructive notice of a separate, specific hazardous condition like a wet spot on the floor?
Opinions:
Majority - McMurray, Judge
No. Evidence of a general state of untidiness is insufficient to establish that a property owner had constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused an injury. To survive a motion for summary judgment in a premises liability case based on constructive notice, the plaintiff must provide some evidence showing the specific hazard existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of its existence. The plaintiff, Ogle, offered no evidence regarding how long the wet substance was on the floor. Her testimony about the overflowing paper towels is irrelevant to the issue of notice for the wet spot, as the towels were not involved in the accident. To allow a jury to infer from general messiness that the specific hazard existed for a substantial period would be to permit impermissible speculation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs in premises liability cases to prove constructive notice. It clarifies that circumstantial evidence must be directly relevant to the specific hazard that caused the injury, not just to the general condition of the premises. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment without direct evidence (like a witness or video) or strong circumstantial evidence (like footprints through a spill) indicating the duration of the specific dangerous condition. This protects property owners from liability based on speculation or general allegations of poor maintenance.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Ogle v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc. (1995)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"