Wanda Katz v. The Sports Authority Of The Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, TN
M2016-01874-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- On Sept. 4, 2012, Wanda Katz slipped on a pool of liquid on the Bridgestone Arena 100 Concourse and injured her left knee, requiring two surgeries.
- Katz sued the arena owner (Sports Authority) and manager (Powers Management) for premises liability, alleging they failed to maintain the premises and warn of the hazard.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive notice of the spill; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants for lack of notice evidence.
- Katz relied principally on the arena’s event log showing numerous wet-spill reports that night (33 spills total; 9 on the 100 Concourse) and two earlier slip-and-fall incidents in the concourse area.
- Katz also observed three people near the spill (one with broom/dustpan) and submitted an affidavit alleging some cleaning crews were instructed not to clean until after the concert.
- The trial and appellate courts focused on whether Katz established constructive notice by proof of duration or a ‘‘pattern of conduct, recurring incident, or general/continuing condition.’’
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive notice of the specific spill | Katz: multiple wet spills arena-wide plus two nearby slips that night show a recurring condition putting defendants on constructive notice | Defendants: no evidence how long the spill existed or that spills occurred with regularity at the precise location; event log entries scattered and not dispositive | Court: Katz failed to show duration or a sufficiently regular pattern localized to the area; summary judgment affirmed |
| Actual notice | Katz: observed three people (one with broom) near spill suggesting staff awareness | Defendants: patrons not identified as employees; other cleaning crews monitored the arena; no evidence staff were alerted to that spill | Court: Katz conceded no actual notice; observation insufficient to prove actual notice at summary judgment stage |
| Whether evidence created jury question on breach absent notice | Katz: crew-cleaning instructions and observed persons raise questions about defendants’ cleaning practices | Defendants: without establishing constructive or actual notice, no duty to warn or remedy existed here | Court: Because notice was not established, court did not reach breach or fault questions |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Katz: disputed material facts exist (event log, prior incidents) precluding summary judgment | Defendants: moved properly and negated essential element (notice); plaintiff’s evidence insufficient | Held: Summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of constructive notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004) (articulates common-occurrence theory for constructive notice)
- Parker v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 341 (Tenn. 2014) (explains methods to prove owner-created condition or notice when third party creates hazard)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment burden-shifting rules and movant’s methods to negate claim)
- Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998) (elements of negligence claim)
- Beske v. Opryland USA, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (example where recurring spills at a specific location supported constructive notice)