Holly Rader v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
E2016-01677-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Holly Rader), a pharmaceutical sales rep, slipped and fell on water that dripped from a carry-out bag of ice while picking up a pre-ordered catering order from Ruby Tuesday on June 24, 2011.
- Ruby Tuesday employees had set the order (including bagged ice) out before pickup; manager Gordon testified the order, including ice, had sat out "for quite a while." Plaintiff testified there was no water on the floor when she entered and that the bag was wet when she picked it up.
- Plaintiff alleged Ruby Tuesday was negligent for allowing a partially melted/condensing bag of ice to be available for pickup and failing to warn or prevent the hazard; Ruby Tuesday moved for summary judgment arguing it lacked superior, actual, or constructive knowledge of the hazard and that Plaintiff was at least 50% at fault.
- Plaintiff submitted testimony from a Ruby Tuesday operating partner that ice left at room temperature will condense/melt and an expert affidavit that industry practice is to keep ice in a freezer until pickup.
- The Trial Court granted summary judgment for Ruby Tuesday, finding the injury-causing condition was water on the floor that did not exist until Plaintiff lifted the bag, so Ruby Tuesday lacked prior knowledge and duty. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the dangerous condition included the partially melted/condensing bag of ice and that Ruby Tuesday had superior knowledge and a duty to prevent or warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ruby Tuesday owed a duty to plaintiff for the hazard | Ruby Tuesday had superior knowledge that the ice had been sitting at room temperature and could drip; it had a duty to prevent or warn | No duty because the hazardous water formed only when plaintiff lifted the bag; condition was open and equally observable | Court: Duty existed; dangerous condition included the partially melted/condensing bag and Ruby Tuesday had superior knowledge |
| Whether Ruby Tuesday had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard before the fall | Testimony shows ice had sat out "for quite a while" and would condense/melt at room temp; staff placed the ice | Hazard did not exist on floor until plaintiff picked up bag; Ruby Tuesday lacked prior knowledge of water on floor | Court: Ruby Tuesday had superior/constructive knowledge of the condition of the bag and its propensity to drip |
| Whether plaintiff was more than 50% at fault barring recovery | Plaintiff expected ice, not water, and reasonably relied on restaurant to supply ice intact | Plaintiff knew ice melts and timed pickup early; she created the hazard by lifting the bag | Court: Genuine issue of material fact exists on comparative fault; cannot conclude as a matter of law plaintiff was ≥50% at fault |
| Whether recognizing duty would create unworkable public policy or unreasonable burdens | Duty limited to situations where defendant had superior knowledge that ice was at risk of melting; reasonable, not sweeping rule | Finding duty would force restaurants to ignore customer pickup requests or warn customers that ice melts — impractical rule | Court: No broad policy problem; duty confined to Ruby Tuesday's superior knowledge here and to reasonable preventive measures (freezer or warning) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1997) (summary judgment review de novo)
- Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare–Memphis Hosp., 325 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. 2010) (summary judgment standards)
- Estate of Brown v. [unavailable], 402 S.W.3d 193 (Tenn. 2013) (fresh Rule 56 determination guidance)
- Hughes v. New Life Dev. Corp., 387 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 2012) (summary judgment principles)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Cntr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (moving party strategies at summary judgment)
- Bradshaw v. Daniel, 854 S.W.2d 865 (Tenn. 1993) (elements of negligence; duty as question of law)
- McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership, 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996) (duty balancing foreseeability and burden)
- McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (unreasonable risk and duty analysis)
- Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998) (open-and-obvious danger does not automatically negate duty)
- Doe v. Linder Const. Co., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992) (foreseeability as test of negligence)
- Rice v. Sabir, 979 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. 1998) (foreseeability and duty)
- Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83 (Tenn. 2000) (comparative fault and summary judgment)