Bonnie Shaw v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee
M2016-02455-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Bonnie Shaw, a Metro school bus driver, tripped on a buckled/cracked area of an asphalt parking lot at Antioch Middle School on Feb 21, 2013 and sued Metro for negligence in maintenance of the lot.
- Shaw alleged Metro knew or should have known of the dangerous condition and failed to repair or warn; Metro denied negligence and raised GTLA defenses and comparative fault.
- Metro moved for summary judgment; after that motion was filed Shaw moved to amend her complaint to add a negligence-per-se claim alleging Metro violated building codes; she attached an engineer’s affidavit supporting code violations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Metro without ruling on Shaw’s pending motion to amend; the court found the defect was open and obvious, a minor elevation change (up to 1.5 inches), and therefore Metro owed no duty.
- On appeal Metro conceded the trial court never acted on the motion to amend. The Court of Appeals held the failure to consider the amendment mandate required vacatur and remand for the trial court to rule on the motion to amend with a reasoned explanation before considering summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper when a motion to amend to add negligence per se was pending | Shaw: summary judgment improper because Metro did not negate essential elements and court ignored expert affidavit and pending amendment | Metro: code-violation claims not properly before court because amendment was not granted; alternatively, no code violations exist | Vacated summary judgment; remanded for trial court to consider motion to amend and enter a reasoned ruling before addressing summary judgment |
| Whether Metro met its Rule 56 burden to negate Shaw’s claim or show insufficiency of her evidence | Shaw: Metro failed to demonstrate insufficiency and court failed to view facts in her favor | Metro: relied on open-and-obvious defect and precedent to show no duty; argued evidence insufficient | Court did not decide merits because failure to rule on amendment required remand; guidance requires ruling on amendment first |
| Whether the trial court properly applied open-and-obvious / duty analysis to the parking-lot defect | Shaw: expert evidence raises factual dispute about dangerous condition and code violations | Metro: defect was minor, visible, and not unreasonably dangerous; no duty under precedents | Court vacated without resolving this substantive dispute; remand required for proper consideration after amendment ruling |
| Whether trial court complied with Rule 15 policy (leave to amend freely given) and precedent requiring reasoned rulings on motions to amend | Shaw: court should have considered motion under Rule 15 factors and allowed amendment | Metro: (conceded trial court did not rule) argued amendment not before court on appeal and contested merits | Court held trial court failed to exercise discretion or provide a reasoned explanation; remand to consider motion to amend consistent with Henderson and related precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998) (open-and-obvious condition and duty analysis in premises-liability cases)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary-judgment standard and view evidence favorably to nonmovant)
- Batts v. City of Nashville, 123 S.W.2d 1099 (Tenn. 1938) (minor surface deviations not actionable defects)
- City of Memphis v. McCrady, 124 S.W.2d 248 (Tenn. 1938) (slight sidewalk deviations do not impose duty to correct)
- Henderson v. Bush Bros. & Co., 868 S.W.2d 236 (Tenn. 1993) (trial court must rule on pending motion to amend and give reasoned explanation if denied)
- Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007) (amendment should be considered before summary judgment)
- Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2014) (trial courts must state legal grounds for granting or denying summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must present specific facts showing genuine issue for trial to survive summary judgment)