Shirley M. Lurks v. The City of Newbern, Tennessee, W2016-01532-COA-R3-CV

Plaintiff Shirley M. Lurks fell on a sidewalk in Newbern, Tennessee, on August 2012 and later underwent knee surgery; she and her husband sued the City under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for negligent maintenance of the sidewalk.
Plaintiffs alleged the sidewalk was defective, that they had previously complained to city officials, and that the defect caused Mrs. Lurks’ fall and injuries.
Photographs showing poor sidewalk condition were introduced; neither Mrs. Lurks nor any witness could identify what caused the fall—Mrs. Lurks testified she did not know what made her fall.
Dyer County and the mayor were dismissed; the City of Newbern remained the sole defendant at trial.
The bench trial court found the sidewalk was defective and within the City’s maintenance responsibility but concluded plaintiffs failed to prove the defect caused the fall, and dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the court affirmed: duty and breach were established, but causation (cause-in-fact and proximate cause) was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved causation between the sidewalk defect and Mrs. Lurks’ fall	Lurks: the defective sidewalk caused the fall; prior complaints show City's responsibility	City: no evidence identifying what caused the fall; accident alone doesn't show negligence	Held: No causal connection proven; dismissal affirmed
Whether the City’s condition was cause-in-fact and proximate cause	Lurks: defect was the factual and legal cause of injury	City: plaintiffs failed to prove cause-in-fact and proximate cause	Held: causation not established; plaintiffs failed on these elements
Whether the condition was open and obvious / known to plaintiff	Lurks: sidewalk was defective and known to plaintiffs	City: contested relevance; even if known, causation still lacking	Held: not reached—pretermitted after causation failure
Comparative fault of plaintiff if causation found	Lurks: sought full recovery (husband sought consortium damages)	City: argued plaintiff may be partly at fault	Held: court noted hypothetical apportionment (20% plaintiff / 80% City) only as alternative finding; not applied due to no causation

Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of negligence described)
McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (negligence elements authority)
King v. Anderson Cnty., 419 S.W.3d 232 (Tenn. 2013) (duty, breach, and proof of causation required)
Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005) (plaintiff must prove cause-in-fact and proximate cause)
Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 868 S.W.2d 594 (Tenn. 1993) (causation distinct elements of negligence)
Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642 (Tenn. 2000) (appellate standard of review for bench trial findings)
S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2001) (de novo review of conclusions of law)