Skip to main content
· 4/8/2024

Melissa Binns v. Trader Joe's East, Inc.

Syllabus

This interlocutory appeal involves an alleged slip and fall incident that occurred at the defendant's grocery store. The plaintiff's amended complaint included allegations of vicarious liability, premises liability, negligent training, and negligent supervision against the defendant. In an attempt to dismiss the plaintiff's negligent training and supervision claims, the defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and asserted two alternative arguments, both of which the trial court rejected. First, the trial court rejected the defendant's argument that courts must dismiss \negligent activity\ claims, such as claims for negligent training and supervision, when asserted concurrently with a premises liability theory of recovery. Second, the trial court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's direct negligence claims were no longer legally viable due to the defendant admitting it was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employee, commonly referred to as the \preemption rule.\ After denying the defendant's motion, the trial court granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant's application. The defendant then appealed to this Court, and we granted review. We hold that the preemption rule is incompatible with Tennessee's system of comparative fault and decline to adopt it. In addition, we decline to adopt the rule proposed by the defendant pertaining to \negligent activity\ claims asserted alongside premises liability claims. As a result, we affirm the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that 201(c), which penalizes an individual for giving anything of value in exchange for testimony, does not apply to the United States government
  • holding that 201(c)(2) does not preclude the government from offering leniency to a defendant's accomplice in exchange for truthful testimony against the defendant
  • holding that § 201(c)(2) does not preclude the government from offering leniency to a defendant’s accomplice in exchange for truthful testimony against the defendant
  • holding that § 201(c)(3) does not apply to the view, § 201(c)(3) is just such a statute – it does not government
  • concluding that more recently enacted statutes than section 201(c)(2) \specifically allow what [Singleton's original] broad interpretation of the more gener- ally applicable s 201(c)(2) would prohibit\
  • concluding that more recently enacted statutes than section 201(c)(2) \specifically allow what [Singleton's original] broad interpretation of the more gener- ally applicable s 201(c)(2) would prohibit\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.