Timothy Lee Malone v. Anthony Viele, E2021-00637-COA-R3-CV

Malone and Viele, both with construction experience, were nailing 2x4s across window openings of Viele’s cabin in October 2017; each stood on a 20-foot extension ladder.
Viele held the lower end of a diagonal 2x4 while Malone worked on the upper end; Malone struck the board with his hammer, it bounced back, hit his head, and he fell, suffering serious injuries.
Malone sued Viele for negligence (Sept. 2018). In his deposition Malone stated he did not know whether Viele did anything that caused the board to come out; Viele testified he was “just holding the board.”
Viele moved for summary judgment with evidence that he held his end of the board; a year after his deposition Malone filed an affidavit asserting Viele’s “failure to stabilize” his end caused the bounce.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Malone’s deposition admissions left no evidence that Viele ceased holding or otherwise caused the board to move; Malone appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: Viele negated an essential element (breach/causation), Malone failed to raise a genuine material factual dispute, and the trial court’s entry of a party-drafted order complied with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 and Smith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment for Viele was proper	Malone: his affidavit shows Viele assumed duty to "stabilize" and breached it, creating a triable issue (relying on Hoynacki)	Viele: he held his end; Malone’s deposition admits he does not know what Viele did; Viele negates breach/causation element	Affirmed — Viele assumed duty but Malone produced no specific evidence that Viele’s conduct caused the board to move; no genuine issue of material fact
Whether entry of a party-prepared order violated Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 / Smith	Malone: the final order (defense-drafted) differed from the bench ruling and did not reflect the court’s independent judgment	Viele: court stated grounds on the record before requesting proposed order; the order tracked the bench ruling and was reviewed/corrected by the court	Affirmed — trial court complied with Rule 56.04 and Smith; order accurately reflected court’s decision

King v. Anderson Cnty., 419 S.W.3d 232 (Tenn. 2013) (sets forth negligence elements and need to prove causation)
Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (negligence elements)
McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. P’ship, 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996) (reasonable-care standard in context)
West v. E. Tenn. Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2005) (application of reasonable-care analysis)
Rains v. Bend of the River, 124 S.W.3d 580 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (breach and causation usually for jury but may be decided on summary judgment if uncontroverted)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary-judgment burden-shifting and nonmoving party obligations)
Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2014) (requirements for party-prepared orders and Rule 56.04 compliance)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt to survive summary judgment)