Main Street Market, LLC v. Emily v. Weinberg
432 S.W.3d 329
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Six adjoining South Main Street buildings were damaged by a fire in 1997 after a prior collapse, with Weinberg owning 102 South Main between the Callaways’ 100 South Main and MSM’s four buildings; safety orders restricted access to the buildings.
- A trespasser entered Weinberg’s building, after which a fire spread to all six buildings, causing substantial damage to each.
- Plaintiffs obtained a consolidation and proceeded to a bench trial; Weinberg moved for a directed verdict after the neighbors’ proof.
- The trial court granted the directed verdict, finding no duty by Weinberg to protect neighbors from a third-party arson.
- Appellate review treated the motion as an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02(2) and employed de novo review of the trial court’s findings under applicable law.
- Court held Weinberg owed no duty to protect neighboring properties from the third-party criminal act and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weinberg owed a duty to protect adjoining owners from a third-party arson | Weinberg had a special relationship or foreseeability of harm to neighbors | No duty; landowners owe no duty to prevent third-party criminal acts against neighbors | No duty; no affirmative duty to protect neighbors |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008) (duty analysis and foreseeability in tort)
- Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005) (foreseeability and public policy in duty determinations)
- McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (negligence elements and duty considerations)
- Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1997) (no duty to act absent special relationship; public policy)
- Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (foreseeability and special relationships in duty analysis)
- Bradshaw v. Daniel, 854 S.W.2d 865 (Tenn. 1993) (special relationships and duty considerations)
- McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. P'ship., 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996) (special relationship for duty when protecting customers/tenants)
- Doe v. Linder Const. Co., Inc., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992) (foreseeability standard in duty analysis)
- Corbitt v. Ringley-Crockett, Inc., 496 S.W.2d 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973) (no clairvoyant duty; foreseeability limits)
- Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 1999) (avoid imposing duty to prevent crime on landowners)
- XI Props. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 443 (Tenn. 2004) (duty to avoid foreseeable, negligent damage to adjoining land)