Recently in Premise Liability Category

July 9, 2014

Tennessee Federal Court Discusses Elements of Premises Liability Claim: Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores East. LP

800px-Walmart_at_5152_Canoga_Park must attribute wikimedia commons.jpgThe Eastern District of Tennessee has refused to amend a verdict that was rendered against a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case. In Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores East. LP, a 76-year-old woman was allegedly injured when she fell inside a department store located in Eastern Tennessee. Following her injury, the woman filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store. Although the area where the woman fell was apparently dry, an employee who was tasked with cleaning up a previous spill in the area testified at trial that the floor was slippery.

After the trial court ruled in favor of the department store because the business lacked sufficient notice of the allegedly hazardous condition, the injured woman filed a motion to alter or amend the verdict under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In general, such a motion may only be granted if the court made a clear legal error, if new evidence was discovered, if the law changed, or in order to prevent a "manifest injustice" from occurring. According to the injured woman, the court's holding was erroneous because the department store had actual or constructive notice of the supposedly dangerous condition in the store. The Eastern District of Tennessee stated that surveillance video of the area where the woman fell demonstrated no circumstantial or other evidence the department store was aware of the purportedly slippery floor.

The federal court also dismissed the elderly woman's claim that the department store had constructive notice of the alleged slip-and-fall hazard because conflicting evidence was presented at trial. The court stated the woman failed to offer evidence regarding the source of the slippery surface despite that a store worker testified the floor she fell on was slick. The federal court added that the video surveillance did not show a spill occurred prior to the elderly woman's fall. Since the slippery film on the floor was apparently invisible, and the video footage offered at trial showed other shoppers walking over the same area without incident, the Eastern District of Tennessee held that the department store did not have constructive notice of the supposedly hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff's fall.

Continue reading "Tennessee Federal Court Discusses Elements of Premises Liability Claim: Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores East. LP" »

June 18, 2014

Knoxville Case Outlines Property Owner's Duty in Premises Liability Case: Goumas v. Mayse

file0001771584086 morguefile gracey.jpgIn Goumas v. Mayse, a 21-year-old man was visiting the home of his fiancée's parents for an extended period of time. During his visit, the man allegedly tripped and fell over a rock while assisting the property owners with some yard work. As a result of his purported slip and fall, the man sustained two broken bones in his right arm. About one year after he was injured, the man filed a premises liability case against the property owners. In his complaint, the man alleged the owners were aware of an unreasonably dangerous condition and failed to correct it or warn him of the hazard. In response, the property owners filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging they owed the man no legal duty.

According to evidence offered to the trial court, the man was aware of the location of the rock because he performed similar yard work on numerous previous extended visits to the property. In addition, the man offered no evidence to support his claim that the property owners knew or should have known the rock posed a danger or that it existed in any way. The trial court stated there was no proof the man's injury was foreseeable and granted the property owners' motion for summary judgment. The man then appealed his case to the Knoxville court.

In Tennessee, a property owner has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care and remove hazards or warn visitors and invitees about dangerous conditions the owner is or should be aware of. A property owner is also required to exercise reasonable diligence regarding the existence of a potentially hazardous condition. This duty does not extend to a dangerous condition the owner was unaware of or could not reasonably have discovered.

Continue reading "Knoxville Case Outlines Property Owner's Duty in Premises Liability Case: Goumas v. Mayse" »

June 4, 2014

Modified Comparative Fault is Question for Jury in Knoxville Appellate Case: Wilson v. TMBC

file2871310296124 morguefile wallyir.jpgThe Knoxville, Tennessee Court of Appeals has stated that the facts of a disputed premises liability case should be considered by a jury. In Wilson v. TMBC, LLC, a man returned his fishing boat to the company he purchased it from for repairs. Following the repair, he purportedly climbed onto his boat at the request of one of the store's technicians to inspect the installation of a new part. While exiting the vessel, the man was apparently injured when he tripped and fell out of the fishing boat. According to the man, he stumbled over a piece of the boat that was discarded by a boat company employee during the repair. After the incident, the man filed a premises liability lawsuit against the business.

At trial, the boat company asked the district court to issue a directed verdict in its favor. According to the business, the man failed to prove the company breached a duty to him, and the man was at least 50 percent responsible for his injuries. In general, a directed verdict is only ordered after a court determines that no reasonable jury could return any other verdict. The court agreed with the business and entered a directed verdict in favor of the boat company. In response, the man filed an appeal with the Knoxville court.

The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's decision to issue a directed verdict in favor of the boat company. According to the appellate court, the injured man submitted sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding that the boat company's worker negligently caused his injury. Additionally, the Knoxville court stated the percentage of fault attributable to the man was a question of fact for jurors to decide. Since the trial court should not have issued a directed verdict in favor of the boat company based upon the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.

Continue reading "Modified Comparative Fault is Question for Jury in Knoxville Appellate Case: Wilson v. TMBC" »

May 21, 2014

Knoxville Court Finds Property Owners Owed No Duty to Injured Woman in Premises Liability Case

BuckeyeLake_12 morguefile click.jpgThe Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville has affirmed a summary judgment verdict issued in favor of two property owners in a premises liability lawsuit. In Smith v. Stanley, a woman sued the owners of a cabin after she purportedly suffered injuries when she fell down a set of stairs. According to the complaint, the Knoxville woman visited the cabin for the first time at night with the property owners' adult children. As the plaintiff entered the cabin, she reportedly neglected to turn on a light switch located near the front door. Instead of asking her companions where the light switch was, she apparently walked into a room in the dark and tripped down a flight of stairs. As a result of her fall, the woman allegedly lost consciousness and suffered numerous injuries.

After the incident, the woman filed a premises liability lawsuit against the owners of the cabin. In order to recover for a premises liability claim in Tennessee, a plaintiff must prove that the property owner had a duty to protect the plaintiff, the owner breached that duty, and the breach resulted in an injury to the plaintiff. Additionally, a premises liability plaintiff must demonstrate that the dangerous condition which resulted in his or her injury was caused or created by the owner, or the owner had actual or constructive notice that the unsafe condition existed.

In response to the woman's complaint, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, the party is asking the court to rule that no genuine issue of material fact that would warrant a trial exists and any undisputed facts require judgment to be entered in his or her favor. According to the defendants, they did not owe the woman a duty because her actions were not reasonably foreseeable.

Continue reading "Knoxville Court Finds Property Owners Owed No Duty to Injured Woman in Premises Liability Case" »

April 23, 2014

Knoxville Court Reverses Premises Liability Dismissal Because Inadequate Lighting Could Be Actual Or Constructive Notice -- Christian v. Ayers

streetlamp.jpgIn a recent Knoxville, Tennessee case, the appellate court reversed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing a premises liability case. The court based its decision upon the possibility of a property owner's actual or constructive notice of poor lighting. Summary judgment is a procedural device that a party involved in a case may use to dismiss claims or issues. If a court rules in favor of the party requesting a dismissal, the other party is not allowed to present the issue or claim to the the judge or jury.

Winning a motion for dismissal can save our clients considerable time and money by not having to defend claims that are not disputable. However, losing the motion, could mean our client loses their case. At Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., we take every level and stage of a trial seriously, and we are committed to providing compassionate and aggressive representation in our premises liability cases in order get our clients the compensation they deserve.

A party moving for a summary judgment must prove that there are no issues of material fact. An issue of material fact is what a judge or jury decides on. Basically, by bringing a motion to dismiss, the party is arguing that there is no dispute, and it would be a waste of time and money for a judge or jury to weigh the evidence.

Continue reading "Knoxville Court Reverses Premises Liability Dismissal Because Inadequate Lighting Could Be Actual Or Constructive Notice -- Christian v. Ayers" »

March 12, 2014

Knoxville Appellate Court Looks at Tennessee's Recreational Defense to Premises Liability -- Wilson v. Dossett

dogwoodDaylight savings has once again crept up on Knoxville and Maryville residents. Warmer weather is just around the corner, and before we know it, we will be pulling out and dusting off our summer gear.

With the increase of outdoor activities comes the potential of suffering injuries from recreational activities. These recreational activities can include boating, biking, motorcycling, or other outdoor sports. Frequently, these activities take place away from home and on the property of others.

We have been discussing, in recent posts, a number of newer premises liability cases. Owners have a duty to keep their property free of hazards that may harm another person. Premises liability cases can be fact specific, and it is critical to have an experienced personal injury attorney that understands the laws and can gather the essential facts to get you the compensation you deserve.

Continue reading "Knoxville Appellate Court Looks at Tennessee's Recreational Defense to Premises Liability -- Wilson v. Dossett" »

March 5, 2014

Slip and Fall Cases Under Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act -- Traylor v. Shelby County Board of Education

slipperyIn Tennessee slip and fall cases, knowing the various laws that apply can be crucial to winning a premises liability case. Knoxville and Maryville property owners owe a duty of care to protect lawful entrants on their property from unreasonable risk of harm. However, the type of owner - businesses , private , or government - can invoke different Tennessee laws. If you have been injured by a fall on the property of another, it is important to speak with an experienced local premises liability attorney.

Previous Private Property Case
Previously, we discussed a slip and fall case, Barbaglia v. Nonconnah Holdings, where a lawful entrant slipped on a patch of ice on business property. In order to determine the element of duty, the plaintiff had to show that the property owner caused the hazard, had actual knowledge of the hazard, or had constructive knowledge of the hazard. The court held that news reports of patterns of precipitation and freezing temperatures could provide a property owner with constructive notice of dangerous conditions. However, the same case on government property will invoke others statutes.

Current Case on Government Property
Recently, the Tennessee court of appeals decided on a similar case on government property. In Traylor v. Shelby County Board of Education, news reports had warned of precipitation and freezing temperatures causing a public high school to close for two days, a Monday and Tuesday. During this period, the high school principal and staff worked to clear all walkways of ice. On Wednesday, the school resumed without incident, but on Thursday a student slipped on a patch of ice, breaking his ankle. The student filed a lawsuit against the school for failing to remove the hazardous ice patch.

Continue reading "Slip and Fall Cases Under Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act -- Traylor v. Shelby County Board of Education" »

February 19, 2014

Duty of Care for Slip and Fall Injuries after Maryville's Biggest Snow Storm Since '93 -- Barbaglia v. Nonconnah Holdings, LLC.

snowshovelWe have survived the snow. According to the Maryville Daily Times, last week's snow dump was the largest in over twenty years. With snow comes an increased risk of sustaining an injury from a slip and fall.

If you have been injured due to the negligence of another, it is recommended that you speak with a local slip and fall lawyer to help you get the compensation you need to recover from your injuries.

With the snow, many Maryville and Knoxville property owners and residents are thinking about the responsibility of keeping their properties free of snow and ice. We can look at Tennessee court rulings on the standard of care as it concerns property owners to shed some light.

Continue reading "Duty of Care for Slip and Fall Injuries after Maryville's Biggest Snow Storm Since '93 -- Barbaglia v. Nonconnah Holdings, LLC." »

January 3, 2014

Tennessee Supreme Court Rules Business Owner May Have a Duty to Protect Patrons from Intoxicated Person on Their Property -- Cullum v. McCool

ParkingLot.jpgIn Tennessee, the legal theory of premises liability holds property owners liable for injuries that occur on their property. Property owners have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition.

Business owners have the highest level of care and have an affirmative duty to protect their patrons on their property. If you have been injured because of the unsafe conditions of a property, you are advised to contact an experienced premises liability attorney who can get you the compensation you deserve.

On December 18, 2013, the Supreme Court of Tennessee published Cullum v. McCool, a ruling that held that a store owner may be liable for injuries to patrons caused by an intoxicated person. In Cullum, a patron tried to purchase medication from the pharmacy at a Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart employees refused to fill the prescription because she was intoxicated and acting belligerently. The Wal-Mart employees kicked her out of the store. While pulling out of her parking space, she backed into a the plaintiff while she was putting groceries in her trunk. The plaintiff began screaming loudly, but the defendant continued to back into her.

Continue reading "Tennessee Supreme Court Rules Business Owner May Have a Duty to Protect Patrons from Intoxicated Person on Their Property -- Cullum v. McCool" »

November 6, 2013

The City of Knoxville Not Liable for Tree Falling on Public Street


According to a Knoxville News Sentinel report, the city of Knoxville is not liable for a falling branch from a tree planted on the real property of a private landowner that fell onto a Knoxville street and killed a motorist. The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that, pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act ("GTLA"), Knoxville is immune from the lawsuit.

Family members brought lawsuits on behalf of the motorist against both the property owner of the tree and against the city. The suit against the property owner was allowed to go forward on a premises liability basis. Under premises liability, a property owner has a duty maintain trees on their property to make sure they are reasonably safe. If you or a loved one has been injured by a falling tree branch or other unsafe condition, you are encouraged to immediately contact a local attorney with experience handling premises liability cases.

However, when the death or injury from a falling tree branch happens on public property, as in the Knoxville death, bringing a premises liability case may be more complicated since governments enjoy protection by what is called "sovereign immunity." Under sovereign immunity, certain kinds of lawsuits cannot be brought against a governmental entity unless the sovereign immunity has been waived. This may be a surprise to some people; nevertheless, there are strong justifications for sovereign immunity that help protect innocent citizens. For example, when a city is sued, the city may have to raise taxes on its residents, who were not directly involved, to pay for the lawsuit. This doesn't happen with corporations because corporations enjoy limited liability. If the street had been owned by a corporation, the victim can only claim corporate assets and cannot force the corporate shareholders to pay more. Lawsuits against municipalities can create an onerous burden on the city and the taxpayers having to continually fend off these kind of lawsuits.

Continue reading "The City of Knoxville Not Liable for Tree Falling on Public Street" »

August 28, 2013

Tennessee Tourism Firms Must be Accountable for Deadly Outings

Two women recently set out for a heart-thumping whitewater adventure on Grumpy's Rapid in the Ocoee River, at the southern tip of the Great Smoky Mountains.

The two were on separate commercial tourism trips in this popular rafting location. Both lost their lives.
Our Knoxville premises liability attorneys know Tennessee's heart-stopping beauty is an autumn draw for tourists nationwide.

While we must never underestimate the vast power that nature can wield or the way it can dramatically change course in a matter of seconds, the reality is, these incidents probably should never have happened.

Investigators are still piecing together all the details, but here is what we know so far:

Continue reading "Tennessee Tourism Firms Must be Accountable for Deadly Outings" »

July 3, 2013

Knoxville Nursing Homes Liable for Fall Injuries to Patients

Adult portable bed rails - the kind used in so many nursing homes, hospitals and home health care facilities throughout Tennessee - will soon be under an updated set of voluntary safety standards, per a joint directive from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
Our Knoxville premise liability lawyers know that while the rails themselves have come under heightened scrutiny in recent years, it is ultimately the responsibility of administrators and staffers caring for the infirm to ensure the health and safety of their patients. Because the dangers of these devices have been well-established, particularly among individuals who suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia, nursing homes should already have safety measures in place to prevent serious injury or death resulting from the use of the devices.

Adult bed rails are typically made of metal and are set up along both sides of the bed with the intention of helping persons to either pull themselves up or prevent them from falling.

The latter is a particularly important goal, considering recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noting that while about 5 percent of those over the age of 65 reside in a nursing home, this group accounts for about 20 percent of all deaths from falls. Patients often fall more than once, with the average falling about 2.6 times per year and about 35 percent of those unable to walk.

About 20 percent of falls at nursing homes cause serious injuries and about 6 percent are fatal.

So yes, it's important for facilities to do all they can to prevent falls from occurring among elderly residents. At the same time, these bed rails have been known to also cause serious injuries and deaths, since at least as far back as 1995. That's when the FDA received an extensive report on the matter.

Unfortunately patients, especially those with forms of dementia, become confused and end up becoming trapped in between the bed rail and the mattress. Since 1995, there have been at least 550 bed-rail-related deaths in the country. Of those, about 155 occurred between January 2003 through September 2012. The vast majority of those who were killed were over the age of 60.

Additionally, there were about 37,000 people from 2003 through 2011 who were seriously injured in bed rail accidents and had to be rushed to a nearby hospital emergency room. That's about 4,000 people each year.

In the past, the FDA and the CPSC attempted to pass the buck on regulations for these devices, as the agencies couldn't agree whether they were a consumer product or a medical device. At one point, the FDA tried to require warning labels on the products, but received such backlash that agency officials back down.

In the end, the compromise was a list of voluntary manufacturing standards, introduced in 2006. However since then, we have continued to see people killed and seriously injured using these adult bed rails.

So now, both federal agencies say they are dedicated to updating that list of guidelines. But again, they will be voluntary, so it remains to be seen whether the new standards will have much impact.

Nursing homes should be vigilant in either finding alternatives to keep elderly patients safe or in checking on them frequently enough that if an incident were to occur, they would catch it in time to avert a serious or fatal accident.

Continue reading "Knoxville Nursing Homes Liable for Fall Injuries to Patients" »

June 19, 2013

Tennessee Premise Liability Lawsuit Goes to High Court

Could businesses be responsible for removing intoxicated patrons from a facility if that patron then harms someone else on the premises?
Our Knoxville injury attorneys understand that is the question before the Tennessee Supreme Court in Jolyn Cullum v. Jan McCool. If the high court sides with the plaintiff in this case, that could mean we could see an influx of negligence cases against businesses that fail to protect customers from the actions of a person expelled from their property.

Lower courts have come down on different sides of this issue, and now the state high court has agreed to take it on.

To understand more about the issue, let's explore a bit of background regarding the case at hand.

In February 2011, the plaintiff went to a Wal-Mart store to buy groceries. She finished her grocery shopping, went to the parking lot, located her vehicle and began to place her purchased items into the trunk of her car.

What she didn't know was around this same time, another woman had also just left the store and was entering her vehicle in that same parking lot. The other woman had attempted to purchase prescription medications at the pharmacy department of the store. However, she was denied service by workers who deemed her to be intoxicated. Infuriated with her inability to obtain her medicine, this woman reportedly became belligerent with store workers. The employees responded by ordering her to leave the store.

She complied. She also located her vehicle and got inside.

It was at this point that the two women's lives intersected. The allegedly intoxicated woman backed out of her parking space without locking behind her. In doing so, the suit says, she backed directly into the plaintiff. The plaintiff was knocked to the grown, crushed by the shopping cart and pinned between the two cars. The plaintiff screamed, but the intoxicated woman reportedly did not hear her. It was not until bystanders stopped her. She then got out of her vehicle and, in apparent attempt to help the injured women, moved her and caused her further pain and injury.

In addition to filing a negligence claim against the inebriated driver, the plaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart, alleging negligence and gross negligence on the part of Wal-Mart staffers. The reason was that the staffers failed to call police, despite the woman's clearly intoxicated state and the fact that they knew she was alone and would have to drive herself off the premises in order to comply with employee requests to leave. Employees were reportedly familiar with the intoxicated woman, as this was not the first time this sort of thing had occurred. This failure to take further steps to protect other patrons, the plaintiff alleges, was negligent.

Initially, a country trial court dismissed the claim against Wal-Mart, saying the store couldn't be held responsible for the actions of a drunk patron. However, the Tennessee Court of Appeals found that because the intoxicated woman was invited onto the property as a customer, the store had a responsibility to protect other customers from harm.

Should the state supreme court side with the plaintiff, many businesses across the state - bars in particular - should pay close attention and adjust their policies accordingly.

Continue reading "Tennessee Premise Liability Lawsuit Goes to High Court " »

March 28, 2013

Tennessee Rafting and Canoe Accidents Present Spring & Summer Dangers

In Tennessee, spring and summer time are celebrated because they provide an opportunity to be outside and to do outdoor activities. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, along with the Tennessee-North Carolina border, attract people from all over the world to partake in hiking, canoeing and whitewater rafting. These activities can be great adventures and can be a lot of fun, but unfortunately they can also sometimes turn deadly. 1304208_another_day_at_the_cottage.jpg

Our Knoxville injury lawyers know that the warmer weather season significantly increases the number of people coming to Tennessee to canoe or raft. Unfortunately, both visitors and locals are in danger of getting hurt when they are out on the water, unless appropriate safety precautions are taken.

Accident at Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Tragically, on March 12, 2013, the News Observer indicated that a casualty had already occurred this year as a result of canoeing in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The death involved a 65-year-old man visiting from Bridgenorth, Ontario. The man was with a group of fellow Canadians, all of whom were enthusiasts of white water rafting and who had come to visit Little River for an outdoor canoeing excursion.

Unfortunately, while running the Little River, the 65-year-old man's canoe overturned. As a result, he was swept downstream and was unable to get out of the water or back into his canoe. For approximately 30 minutes, he was trapped under the surface.

His fellow canoeists tried to rescue him, working to pull him out of the water and to give him CPR. Emergency personnel were contacted and came to the scene, finding the older man with a heartbeat and breathing at the time. The older man was put into an ambulance and taken to a hospital, but unfortunately he died as a result of the accident.

Who is Responsible When an Accident Happens?
This tragic canoeing accident raises many important questions, especially as people start to plan their spring and summer trips and consider going whitewater rafting or canoeing.

One of the biggest and most important issues is the extent of responsibility that the whitewater rafting or canoeing company has to visitors. For example, a company may set up whitewater rafting or canoeing excursions or may simply provide canoes or rafts for rental. In any case, once a company is involved, they have some duty to their guests or patrons to look out for their safety.

Canoeing and whitewater rafting companies will usually have customers sign a liability release absolving them of liability in the event of injury. Even when a liability release is in place, however, this does not mean that victims of accidents cannot sue whitewater rafting or canoeing companies. Liability releases only help the company to avoid being responsible for customary and expected risks; releases don't absolve them of all liability.

If a canoeing or white water rafting company is unreasonably negligent or careless in their acts or policies, then they can generally be held legally liable, even with a signed liability release. For example, a company that rents a canoe or allows a whitewater rafting excursion when they know the weather is bad and conditions are dangerous, or a company that uses equipment that is not properly maintained, can be held legally responsible for any damages caused by their actions.

The injured victim will need to show that the company was responsible in some way that is not covered by any liability release. If he or she succeeds, the victim can obtain compensation including payment of medical bills and lost income as well as damages for pain and suffering and other loss.

Continue reading "Tennessee Rafting and Canoe Accidents Present Spring & Summer Dangers" »

November 23, 2012

Holiday Shopping & Knoxville Premises Liability Claims

It seems as though the holiday shopping season gets crazier with each passing year. Bigger sales. Bigger discounts. Bigger crowds.

premises liability lawyers in Knoxville frequently see cases stemming from injuries sustained during the holiday shopping season. Whether it's traffic accidents, injuries at home or accidents that occur in shopping malls, restaurants or on business property, the holidays can be a dangerous time. 1198678_hide_and_seek.jpg

Tennessee premises liability claims may include:

-Elevator and escalator accidents

-Crowd injuries

-Slip and fall accidents

-Dog bites

-Parking lot injuries

-Sidewalk or stairwell accidents

-Theater injuries

-Assault/negligent security

-Evacuation injuries

-Merchandise falling from shelves

The Knoxville News Sentinel reports more than $52 billion was spent during last year's holiday shopping season. And, as retailers continue to try to outdo each other, serious and even fatal injuries have been reported.

For the past several years, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration has issued a bulletin warning employers of the risks.

Business owners incur a special obligation for the safety of employees and customers when promoting outrageous bargains that are likely to draw intense public interest. In such cases, barricades, rope lines and other crowd-control measures should be implemented. Emergency plans should be in place and security guards may even need to be hired.

"Crowd control and proper planning are critical to preventing injuries and deaths," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "OSHA urges retailers to adopt a crowd management plan during the holiday shopping season that includes a few simple guidelines."

Likewise, store owners, mall managers and property owners have an obligation to provide safe passage for customers and guests. Those who are injured may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and other damages.

The determining factor in a premises liability claim is whether a defendant enterprise was negligent in not properly managing the risk. Collection of damages is likely when an injury victim can prove a property owner knew, or should have known, about the presence of a dangerous condition. Business owners face a higher burden than private property owners, where a victim's ability to collect depends on their status as an "invitee," "licensee" or "trespasser."

Critical in such cases is contacting an experienced Knoxville premises liability attorney as soon as possible in the wake of an injury accident. Typically, property and business owners move quickly to make repairs once an injury accident has occurred. Documenting the location of your accident, talking to witnesses and determining the availability of surveillance footage or other evidence can have a dramatic impact on the outcome of your case.

As we reported recently on our Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog about fall accidents, comparative negligence law in Tennessee allows a victim to collect damages even if he or she was partially at fault.

Continue reading "Holiday Shopping & Knoxville Premises Liability Claims " »