John C. Hoynacki v. Jerome Hoynacki, E2015-02084-COA-R3-CV

John Hoynacki (plaintiff) helped his father, Jerome Hoynacki (defendant), wax a 35-foot RV over two days; plaintiff used a 5-foot A-frame ladder on sloped ground near the RV.
Defendant initially held the ladder while plaintiff climbed; at some positions defendant would leave it if he judged it stable; both men agreed defendant sometimes held the ladder when it seemed unsafe.
On the second day, plaintiff worked 2–4 minutes on a section above the windshield; he did not feel instability while working, did not look to see if defendant was holding the ladder before descending, and the ladder fell as he began to climb down, causing serious injury.
There was no evidence of ladder or asphalt defects; the ground sloped away from the RV making one side of the ladder lower than the other; photographs in the record show the slope.
Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, concluding defendant had no legal duty to hold the ladder while plaintiff climbed down; plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant owed a duty to hold/stabilize the ladder	Jerome assumed a duty by voluntarily holding the ladder at times and thus had a duty to continue to secure it	No legal duty to hold the ladder while plaintiff descended once defendant left it; ladder was stable prior to the fall	Court: A duty was assumed; genuine factual issues exist about breach, so summary judgment improper
Whether foreseeability and burden balancing support imposing duty	Foreseeable risk (sloped ground, ladder use) and minimal burden (holding ladder) support a duty	Argued ladder was stable for minutes and no defect existed, so no duty to continue holding	Court: Foreseeability and light burden weigh in favor of duty; question of breach reserved for factfinder
Whether plaintiff’s own conduct (not checking) bars recovery	Plaintiff relied on their working pattern and nonverbal understanding that defendant would stabilize when necessary	Defendant contends plaintiff did not look or signal before descending and ladder had been stable for minutes	Court: Plaintiff’s conduct raises factual questions but does not negate assumed duty; not appropriate for summary judgment
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	SJ improper because material facts about assumption of duty and breach are disputed	SJ proper because undisputed facts showed ladder stable and no ongoing duty	Court: Vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial on disputed facts

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment burden and standards)
Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (duty and summary judgment principles)
Rice v. Sabir, 979 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. 1998) (balancing foreseeability/gravity of risk against burden to defendant)
Giggers v. Memphis Housing Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of negligence; duty analysis)
Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005) (one who gratuitously assumes to act may incur a duty)
White v. Lawrence, 975 S.W.2d 525 (Tenn. 1998) (when undisputed facts support single conclusion, SJ upheld)
Cullum v. McCool, 432 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. 2013) (duty as a question of law)
West v. E. Tenn. Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2005) (duty question for court)
Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005) (foreseeability as central to negligence)
Bennett v. Trevecca Nazarene Univ., 216 S.W.3d 293 (Tenn. 2007) (assumption of duty principle)
Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, 45 S.W.3d 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (gratuitous assumption of duty)