Jeffrey Lynn Miller filed a personal injury lawsuit against John D. and Verda Suttles, the owners of the L. M Lounge, and others, following an assault he suffered while on the premises. The Circuit Court of Campbell County dismissed the case against the Suttles, ruling that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). Miller claimed the Suttles, as property owners who leased to the Slovers, had a duty to ensure the safety of patrons by removing dangerous individuals and preventing harmful activities on the premises. He alleged negligence on the part of both the Suttles and the Slovers, asserting violations of specific Tennessee statutes related to the right to exclude individuals from public places and the management of lodging establishments. The court affirmed the dismissal of the action against the Suttles, concluding that the complaint did not adequately support a claim for relief.
Defendants had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Lynn Miller, while on their premises. This included the obligation to remove individuals known, or reasonably should have been known, to pose a risk or bring weapons onto the property. The Defendants failed in several areas of negligence: they did not exclude Jerry Ellison, whom they knew or should have known was dangerous; they failed to protect the Plaintiff from Ellison’s misconduct; and they neglected to warn about the dangers posed by allowing Ellison to remain on the premises. As a direct result of these failures, the Plaintiff sustained serious and disabling injuries.
The appeal is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness regarding the lower court’s legal conclusions. The court’s motion to dismiss examines only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, accepting the truth of all relevant allegations while not necessarily taking the legal conclusions as true. To establish a successful negligence claim, the Plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty of care owed by the Defendants; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury or loss suffered; (4) causation in fact; and (5) proximate causation. The determination of duty involves a fairness-based assessment of whether the risk to the Plaintiff was unreasonable. The central issue is whether the trial court correctly dismissed the claim against the premises' owners and lessors for failing to state a valid claim for relief.
A risk is deemed unreasonable and imposes a duty of care if the likelihood and severity of potential harm from a defendant's actions outweigh the burden of alternative conduct that could prevent the harm. In McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership, the court established that a premises owner generally has no duty to protect customers from third-party criminal acts unless they are aware or should be aware of a foreseeable risk of such acts. The complaint against the defendants, the Suttles, contained broad allegations regarding their duty to ensure the safety of the plaintiff, including a duty to exercise ordinary care, exclude dangerous individuals, and protect guests from misconduct. However, the court noted that there were no specific factual allegations to establish a duty of care, particularly since the Slovers were identified as the managers and controllers of the premises while the Suttles were merely the owners. Without a properly pled duty of care, there can be no breach of duty. The allegations of breach by the Suttles were also deemed general and conclusory, and the alleged statutory violations did not apply to them. As a result, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action against the Suttles, with costs of appeal awarded against the plaintiff, Jeffrey Lynn Miller, and his surety.
