Vicki Matherne v. Jerry West, E2015-02061-COA-R3-CV

In Dec. 2011 Vicki and Rodney Matherne (Louisiana residents) rented a Pigeon Forge cabin owned by Jerry and Carolyn West and managed by American Patriot Getaways (APG). Mrs. Matherne fell from an elevated upper parking level to the lower level while exiting a parked Yukon and injured her arm.
The upper parking area had a black wrought-iron railing that did not extend the full length of the drop-off; photographs and the parties’ testimony show the railing stopped several feet short of the end.
Mrs. Matherne knew of the dual-level parking and the incomplete railing before the fall, had warned children not to play on the upper pad, and had her husband park the Yukon on the upper pad.
Plaintiffs sued the owners and manager for premises liability; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was open and obvious and Mrs. Matherne was at least 50% at fault.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding (as undisputed) Mrs. Matherne had actual knowledge of the danger, the condition was open and obvious, and she was at least 50% at fault, barring recovery.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding genuine disputes of material fact exist about whether the defendants owed and breached a duty (e.g., feasibility of extending the railing) and about comparative fault, so summary judgment was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants owed a duty despite an open-and-obvious hazard	Wests/APG still had a duty because the foreseeable probability/gravity of harm outweighed the burden to mitigate (e.g., extend railing)	No duty because hazard was open and obvious and plaintiff had actual knowledge	Duty exists as a matter for the jury — open-and-obvious does not automatically eliminate duty; summary judgment improper on duty
Whether defendants breached any duty by not taking additional precautions	Breach: defendants could have feasibly extended railing a few feet to prevent fall; photographs support feasibility	No evidence plaintiffs produced that extending railing was feasible or required	Breach is a genuine factual issue for trial — summary judgment improper
Whether plaintiff’s comparative fault was ≥50% as a matter of law	Plaintiff: she knew risk but reasonable minds could find her fault <50%	Defendants: plaintiff had actual knowledge and acted despite it; at least 50% at fault as a matter of law	Comparative fault is a jury question here; cannot rule ≥50% as matter of law at summary judgment
Whether summary judgment was proper under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56	Plaintiffs: disputed material facts exist on duty, breach, and comparative fault	Defendants: submitted deposition and facts showing no duty/breach and plaintiff’s equal knowledge	Summary judgment reversed — genuine disputes of material fact preclude judgment as a matter of law

Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998) (open-and-obvious hazards do not automatically negate duty; analyze foreseeability and burden of prevention)
McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership, 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996) (balancing foreseeability/gravity of harm against burden to prevent informs duty)
Rye v. Women’s Care Cntr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment standards and burdens when movant lacks trial burden)
Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83 (Tenn. 2000) (comparative fault applies only after duty is established; plaintiff’s reasonableness assessed under comparative fault)
Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1997) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)