The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed an appeal concerning a premises liability case involving Myron Gentry, an employee of Centennial Medical Center, who sustained injuries from a slip and fall incident on July 29, 1999. Gentry was responding to a patient emergency when he slipped on wet carpet at the hospital while transitioning from a linoleum area to the elevator. He claimed the lack of warning signs about the wet carpet contributed to his fall. Following the incident, Gentry filed suit against Hospital Housekeeping Systems of Houston, Inc. on July 31, 2000.
The trial court granted HHS's motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2001, asserting that there were no genuine issues of material fact. However, the appellate court found that a material factual dispute existed regarding the conditions leading to Gentry's fall, leading to the reversal of the trial court’s decision and a remand for further proceedings. The court emphasized that summary judgments are inappropriate when genuine disputes about material facts are present, in line with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04.
Summary judgments do not carry a presumption of correctness on appeal, requiring appellate courts to independently assess compliance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56. In doing so, courts must view evidence favorably towards the non-moving party and resolve all inferences in their favor. The initial step is identifying any factual disputes and determining if they are material to the case. For premises liability in negligence claims, the claimant must demonstrate that a dangerous condition was either created by the property owner or that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to the incident. The duty of the property owner includes removing or warning against latent dangers they are aware of or should be aware of through due diligence.
In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the wet carpet posed a danger requiring a warning. The contested issue is the cause of the wet carpet, with Mr. Gentry alleging it was due to recent shampooing by HHS employees. Although no direct evidence was presented showing the carpet was shampooed that night, circumstantial evidence supports Mr. Gentry's claim, including observations made by him and another witness regarding the carpet's condition. HHS countered with testimony stating they do not shampoo carpets during the third shift, but this was contradicted by affidavits from Mr. Gentry and Ms. Elrod, who claimed to have seen such activity. The conflicting evidence on whether the carpet was shampooed created a material issue of fact, leading to the conclusion that summary judgment was inappropriate. Consequently, the trial court's decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, with costs on appeal assigned to HHS.
