Gordon v. By-Lo Markets, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

    No. 11-2035-STA (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012)

    In one case, the Tennessee Court of Appeals concluded that a photograph of what appeared to be a stain on the pavement outside a grocery store was insufficient to prove that a dangerous condition existed on the premises. Gordon v. By-Lo Mkts., Inc., No. E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3895541, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2010). The Court of Appeals found that "there is no proof beyond speculation that these indiscernible stains somehow contributed to [the plaintiff's] accident."

  2. Crisp v. U.S.

    No. 1:10-cv-01025-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn. Jul. 1, 2011)

    (Ex. A to Bishop Decl., D.E. No. 14-4.) At most the photographs evidence that there could be something mounted below each of the four corners to the square metal base. Without any proof in the record to establish that the sign was actually defective, no reasonable trier of fact could hold the Defendant liable under this theory. See Gordon v. By-Lo Mkts., Inc., No. E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3895541, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2010) (affirming grant of summary judgment where photographs of accident scene did not show dangerous or defective condition), appeal denied, (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2011); Barron v. Stephenson, No. W2004-02906-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 16310, at *4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2006) (summary judgment appropriate where evidence failed to show dangerous or defective condition). The only photographic evidence in the record is attached as an exhibit to Bishop's declaration. (Ex. A to Bishop Decl., D.E. No. 14-4.) No separate photographs were submitted as a part of his deposition.

  3. Elliott v. Apple Inv'rs Grp. LLC

    No. W2017-02385-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2018)

    This Court has reached similar results in many other cases involving allegedly dangerous conditions. See, e.g., Christian, 2013 WL 3808210, at *5 (affirming summary judgment on a claim that windowless double doors were a dangerous condition, where the defendant showed that the doors were properly installed and functioning, they complied with applicable codes and were periodically inspected, and there were no other reports of incidents or injuries regarding the doors); Gordon v. By-Lo Markets, Inc., No. E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3895541, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2011) (affirming summary judgment to a grocery store where the plaintiff relied on a photograph of the stained parking lot and her testimony that a slick spot caused her fall but failed to offer any evidence demonstrating that the stained parking lot constituted a dangerous condition); Barron v. Stephenson, No. W2004-02906-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 16310, at *4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2006) (affirming summary judgment in a case alleging that a wet handicap ramp constituted a dangerous condition, where the plaintiff failed to offer proof tending to show the ramp was dangerous). Returning to the instant case, we conclude that the defendants made a properly supported motion for summary judgment by submitting a statement of undisputed material facts, deposition testimony of Elliott and the restaurant manager, and an affidavit of a licensed plumber.

  4. Mooney v. Genuine Parts Co.

    No. W2015-02080-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 11, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Stating the defendant's acknowledgement of the remote possibility of an injury is insufficient to show it was dangerous; instead, it must be "probable" that injury will occur

    4107285, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013) (no perm. app. filed) (affirming summary judgment to a defendant restaurant, finding the entrance ramp did not constitute a dangerous condition where there were no other reports of injuries at the walkway, it did not violate any applicable building codes, and it was cleaned regularly); Christian v. Ebenezer Homes of Tenn., Inc., No. M2012-01986-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3808210, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 26, 2013) (affirming summary judgment on a claim that windowless double doors were a dangerous condition, where the defendant showed that the doors were properly installed and functioning, they complied with applicable codes and were periodically inspected, and there were no other reports of incidents or injuries regarding the doors); Gordon v. By-Lo Markets, Inc., No. E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3895541, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2011) (affirming summary judgment to a grocery store where the plaintiff relied on a photograph of the stained parking lot and her testimony that a slick spot caused her fall but failed to offer any evidence demonstrating that the stained parking lot constituted a dangerous condition); Barron v. Stephenson, No. W2004-02906-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 16310, at *4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2006) (affirming summary judgment in a case alleging that a handicap ramp constituted a dangerous condition, where the plaintiff alleged the ramp was slippery but admitted the owner was not required by law to cover the ramp's wooden surface, there was nothing obstructing her view of the ramp, and there were no foreign objects on the ramp); Nee, 106 S.W.3d at 654 (affirming a directed verdict for the defendant, explaining that a jury could not be permitted to infer that steps were dangerous from merely examining photos).Steele, 2015 WL 9311846, at *7-8.

  5. Steele v. PrimeHealth Med. Ctr., P.C.

    No. W2015-00056-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2015)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that expert testimony was unnecessary to determine whether a sidewalk or wheelchair ramp was unreasonably dangerous

    We have reached similar results in several other cases. See, e.g., Grady v. Summit Food Corp., No. M2012-02493-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 4107285, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013) (no perm. app. filed) (affirming summary judgment to a defendant restaurant, finding the entrance ramp did not constitute a dangerous condition where there were no other reports of injuries at the walkway, it did not violate any applicable building codes, and it was cleaned regularly); Christian v. Ebenezer Homes of Tenn., Inc., No. M2012-01986-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3808210, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 26, 2013) (affirming summary judgment on a claim that windowless double doors were a dangerous condition, where the defendant showed that the doors were properly installed and functioning, they complied with applicable codes and were periodically inspected, and there were no other reports of incidents or injuries regarding the doors); Gordon v. By-Lo Markets, Inc., No. E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3895541, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2011) (affirming summary judgment to a grocery store where the plaintiff relied on a photograph of the stained parking lot and her testimony that a slick spot caused her fall but failed to offer any evidence demonstrating that the stained parking lot constituted a dangerous condition); Barron v. Stephenson, No. W2004-02906-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 16310, at *4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2006) (affirming summary judgment in a case alleging that a handicap ramp constituted a dangerous condition, where the plaintiff alleged the ramp was slippery but admitted the owner was not required by law to cover the ramp's wooden surface, there was nothing obstructing her view of the ramp, and there were no foreign objects on the ramp); Nee, 106 S.W.3d at 654 (affirming a directed verdict for the defendant, explaining that a jury could not be permitted to infer that steps were dangerous from merely examining photos). Again, in the case before us, Defendants asserted in