Parris Keane v. John P. Campbell, III
M2016-00367-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- On Sept. 27, 2008 the Campbells hosted a high-school party; about 40–70 minors were on an elevated wooden deck when it suddenly collapsed, injuring Parris Keane (age 14).
- Plaintiffs (Parris and her parents) sued the Campbells for negligence, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to warn, and allowing kids to dance/jump causing deck deflection and collapse.
- Defendants denied negligence, asserted prior safe use of the deck (hosting larger parties without incident), and noted multiple inspections that revealed no problems.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Plaintiffs could not establish duty/foreseeability or proximate cause; trial court granted summary judgment, finding harm was not reasonably foreseeable and thus no duty.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed the summary-judgment ruling de novo and affirmed, holding no duty existed because the collapse was not a reasonably foreseeable probability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hosts owe a duty to control/supervise minor guests at a party | Keane: hosts knew or should have known deck was overloaded, flexing, and dangerous; proper supervision/warnings would have prevented injury | Campbells: no notice of any deck problems; prior larger parties and inspections showed no instability; exercised reasonable care | Held: No duty—injury was not reasonably foreseeable; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether a special relationship created heightened duty | Keane: presence of minors at a hosted party created a special relationship and duty to protect | Campbells: no evidence of assumptions of custody/responsibility that would create special relationship | Held: Court found no duty on foreseeability grounds; special-relationship claim not sustained |
| Whether dancing/jumping and deck flexing made collapse a foreseeable probability | Keane: dynamic action plus crowding and observable flexing made collapse foreseeable | Campbells: occupants had no prior indication of instability; witnesses (Campbells) did not observe problematic flexing | Held: Court found lay witness premonition insufficient; collapse was not a reasonably foreseeable probability |
| Whether Plaintiffs created a genuine factual dispute to avoid summary judgment | Keane: affidavit of attendee (Bellet) describing perceived overload/flexing created triable issue | Campbells: undisputed evidence of safe prior use and inspections negated notice; Bellet’s subjective premonition insufficient | Held: No genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability/notice; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008) (duty is an element of negligence and a question of law for courts)
- Doe v. Linder Constr. Co., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992) (no duty when injury was not reasonably foreseeable)
- Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005) (duty requires foreseeability of harm)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary-judgment burdens for movant and nonmovant explained)
- Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of negligence outlined)