Robert L. Trentham v. Mid-America Apartments, LP et al. (dissenting)

SARAH K. CAMPBELL, J., dissenting.
Premises owners “are not insurers of their patrons’ safety.” Blair v. W. Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004). That refrain has been part of Tennessee’s tort law for nearly a century. See, e.g., Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Nichols, 118 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tenn. 1938). Accordingly, to impose a duty on a premises owner to remedy or warn against unsafe conditions created by others, a plaintiff must establish that the premises owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe condition. Until today, constructive knowledge required proof either that (1) the unsafe condition had existed long enough for a reasonable premises owner to discover it, or (2) a similar condition had occurred in the past, making it reasonably foreseeable that it would occur again. See Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 765–66. The majority opinion creates a third category that has no footing in our existing precedents. It holds that premises owners also owe entrants a duty to protect against an unsafe condition on the property when it is “reasonably foreseeable that an unsafe condition [will] arise” on the premises “without proper maintenance.” The majority’s holding is contrary to Blair and other binding precedents, creates confusion for premises owners and lower courts, and exposes premises owners to expansive new liability. I respectfully dissent.