Kelly Turner v. WW Steeplechase, LLC., E2020-00579-COA-R3-CV

In Feb. 2018 Kelly Turner fell when a removable floor HVAC vent in the master bedroom collapsed through a larger subfloor opening that was concealed by carpet; an engineering report concluded the carpet alone supported the register.
Plaintiffs sued the owner (WW Steeplechase, LLC) and the manager (SRA Management, LLC) for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment to the owner (no actual or constructive notice) and that ruling was not appealed.
The trial court later granted summary judgment to SRA on the negligence claim, finding the defect was concealed and SRA had no duty to test the vent’s structural integrity.
Plaintiffs amended to add a negligence-per-se claim alleging violation of local building codes requiring a 40 PSF minimum live load and identified Knox County ordinance adoption authorities.
The trial court dismissed the negligence-per-se claim, concluding the cited codes regulate designers/builders (not a management company) and that the court could consider the ordinances without converting the motion to summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SRA’s summary judgment was improper for lack of constructive notice	Coones affidavit (and later Manos depo) show a reasonable landlord/manager would have discovered the unsupported vent in routine maintenance	The defect was concealed by carpet; discovering it would require measures beyond ordinary inspection and testing not required by property managers	Affirmed — defect was concealed; discovery would require intrusive measures beyond manager's duty, so summary judgment proper
Whether the Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss should have been treated as a Rule 56 motion (conversion) for the negligence-per-se claim	The motion required consideration of ordinances and other materials outside the pleadings, so court should have converted to summary judgment	Court may take judicial notice of duly enacted ordinances and resolve a 12.02 motion without conversion when doing so	Affirmed — trial court permissibly relied on judicial notice of ordinances and properly dismissed under Rule 12.02

Parker v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 341 (Tenn. 2014) (concealed construction defect; discovery measures beyond landowner's duty)
Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment burdens and Rule 56.07 continuance authority)
Pagliara v. Moses, 605 S.W.3d 619 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (de novo review of Rule 12.02 dismissals)
Stephens v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 529 S.W.3d 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (courts may judicially notice ordinances without converting a 12.02 motion)
Burris v. Burris, 512 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (standards for relief based on newly discovered evidence after judgment)