.png)
The Tennessee Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Margaret Daniel et al. v. Rick’s Barbeque, Inc., et al. serves as a reminder that some premises liability claims can, and should, be resolved as a matter of law. In affirming summary judgment for the restaurant, the court emphasized two points:
For carriers, premises owners, defense counsel, and trial judges, Daniel offers a practical framework for evaluating claims involving steps, elevation changes, and alleged “camouflaged” hazards — particularly when video evidence captures the incident.
The Incident and the Lawsuit
The case stems from a 2018 fall at a restaurant in Lawrence County. The plaintiff’s party was seated in an elevated booth that required patrons to step up to enter and step down to exit. The record included multiple warnings, such as “Watch Your Step” placards on the booth supports and a “Step Down” sign on the table.
After the meal, the plaintiff stood to leave and fell forward, breaking her hip. Surveillance video captured the incident. Moments earlier, three companions — including a person with a prosthetic leg, another using a cane, and a child — safely stepped down from the booth without issue.
The plaintiff sued the restaurant and its owners, alleging the single step was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked adequate visual cues, blended into the surrounding tile, and was effectively unmarked or “camouflaged.”
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including lack of causation and comparative fault exceeding 50%. The trial court assumed, without deciding, that the booth configuration could constitute a dangerous condition, but nevertheless held that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation. Based on the surveillance video and Mrs. Daniel’s testimony, the court concluded that the fall occurred because she did not look down while exiting the booth.
Independently, the trial court determined that reasonable minds could not differ as to Mrs. Daniel’s comparative fault. Her inattention, the court found, made her at least 50% responsible for the incident, thereby barring recovery under Tennessee’s modified comparative fault rule.
Affirmance on Appeal Through Causation and Comparative Fault
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the summary judgment standard, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence that the step and surrounding surfaces could arguably be considered hazardous. Even so, it held that the claim failed because the record did not support causation. That distinction is significant. The court did not hold that uniform tile, limited contrast, or booth design can never constitute negligence. Rather, it concluded that negligence is not actionable absent evidence that the alleged condition actually caused the fall.
Video Evidence as a Causation Killer
The surveillance video proved decisive. The court described the footage as uncontroverted and showing Mrs. Daniel stepping forward without looking down, with her gaze remaining straight ahead. During her deposition, she acknowledged that she knew the booth was elevated when she entered, but had “forgotten” about the step when exiting.
Based on that record, the court held that causation was negated as a matter of law. Regardless of any criticism of the booth’s design, the court concluded that the fall occurred because Mrs. Daniel failed to look where she was stepping. The case illustrates a broader point: when video evidence conclusively contradicts a plaintiff’s theory of causation, courts are not required to rely on speculation to send the matter to a jury.
This portion of the opinion reflects a growing judicial willingness to treat objective video evidence as dispositive. When a recording directly undermines a plaintiff’s causation theory, courts need not indulge speculative inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
Summary Judgment on Comparative Fault Sends a Clear Signal
Although the causation ruling alone supported affirmance, the court also addressed comparative fault. The opinion reiterates that, although comparative fault issues are frequently left to the jury, courts may resolve them as a matter of law when the material facts are undisputed and lead to only one reasonable conclusion.
Daniel reinforces that principle. Citing cases such as Berry v. Houchens Market of Tennessee, Smid v. St. Thomas Hospital, and Young v. First Bank of Tennessee, the court emphasized a recurring Tennessee rule: plaintiffs must exercise reasonable attention to see and avoid hazards that are in plain view.
Mrs. Daniel knew the booth was elevated, had safely stepped up into it, and watched three companions step down moments earlier without incident. The surveillance video further confirmed that she could have protected herself “simply by looking where she was about to step.” Under those circumstances, the court held that reasonable minds could not differ that she bore at least 50% of the fault.
In short, Daniel signals that a plaintiff’s admitted or recorded inattention may justify summary judgment under Tennessee’s comparative fault framework.
The Broader Impact of Daniel
The significance of Daniel extends beyond the specific facts of the case and provides guidance for premises liability litigation more broadly:
The decision also illustrates the increasing importance of video evidence in modern litigation. As businesses continue to rely on surveillance systems, litigants should expect courts to treat such footage as highly persuasive when it clearly depicts the circumstances surrounding an accident.
Daniel further emphasizes Tennessee courts’ continued willingness to grant summary judgment on comparative fault. Where a plaintiff admits awareness of a condition and the record demonstrates a complete failure to exercise reasonable attention, comparative fault need not be left to the jury.
Finally, the opinion provides clarity for premises owners and insurers. Tennessee law does not impose strict liability simply because a condition could have been safer. Liability requires proof that the condition actually caused the injury, rather than the patron’s own inattention.
A Clear Message from the Court of Appeals
By affirming summary judgment on both causation and comparative fault grounds, the Court of Appeals reinforced a practical point for litigants: when the record conclusively demonstrates that a plaintiff failed to look where she was stepping, Tennessee courts may treat that inattention as dispositive and bar recovery as a matter of law.
For more information about the implications of Margaret Daniel et al. v. Rick’s Barbeque, Inc., et al. or to discuss Tennessee premises liability and comparative fault issues, please contact Chartwell’s Premises Liability team.
