The Tennessee Court docket of Appeals has dominated that the place a vegetation administration firm contracted by the county electrical service was solely contractually chargeable for a sustaining a sure space, and the diseased tree that allegedly fell and precipitated a hearth was outdoors that space, the vegetation administration firm “owed no responsibility to prune” the tree and was not chargeable for the fireplace or the damages precipitated thereby.
In Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance coverage Firm v. Sevier County Electrical System, No. E2021-01085-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 3589838 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2022), a number of insurance coverage firms filed swimsuit in opposition to the Metropolis of Sevierville, Sevier County Electrical System (SCES), and Wolf Tree, who was SCES’s vegetation administration contractor (the instances filed by the insurance coverage firms had been consolidated). Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, nuisance and trespass based mostly on injury to property they insured brought on by a hearth which was allegedly began when a diseased tree fell on {an electrical} service conductor.
Defendant Wolf Tree (Wolf) filed a movement for abstract judgment arguing that it owed no responsibility to plaintiffs as a result of “its contract with SCES explicitly acknowledged that it was to not prune service drops,” as a result of “it had no statutory or widespread legislation responsibility,” and since “Plaintiffs might present no proof of a negligent or intentional trespass or nuisance.” The trial courtroom finally granted the movement for abstract judgment, agreeing that defendant owed no responsibility right here, and the Court docket of Appeals affirmed.
The Court docket started its negligence evaluation by contemplating whether or not defendant owed an obligation beneath the contract. After quoting extensively from defendant’s contract with SCES, the Court docket famous that plaintiffs argued that the tree in query “made contact with an energized service drop conductor,” and that the contract “expressly offered that Wolf was to not prune service drops.” As a result of there have been distribution traces offering energy to this drop, although, defendant conceded that the contract required it to clear a 10-foot space. The proof confirmed, nevertheless, that the tree that fell was positioned past the 10-foot space to be cleared by defendant. The contract integrated the phrases of the SCES Guide, and taking a look at these two paperwork plus the deposition testimony from witnesses, the Court docket discovered that bushes of a sure dimension and bushes positioned past the 10-foot proper of method had been to be eliminated “on the sole discretion of SCES or SCES Challenge Consultant.” The Court docket discovered that “neither the Contract nor the SCES Guide articulate[d] any requirement that Wolf examine bushes outdoors the appropriate of strategy to decide whether or not they’re hazardous or ought to be eliminated.”
Plaintiff tried to depend on extra paperwork referred to within the SCES guide to help a discovering of responsibility, however the Court docket famous that the Guide particularly referred to those extra paperwork in an try to supply correct pruning strategies, to not add to defendant’s contractual responsibility. The Court docket dominated that the contract was clear and that defendant had no contractual responsibility to examine or take away bushes positioned past the 10-foot proper of method.
The Court docket subsequent thought-about plaintiff’s argument that defendant Wolf owed a statutory responsibility to take away the tree as a result of Tennessee has adopted the Nationwide Electrical Security Code, with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-101-104 offering for the pruning or elimination of bushes posing a hazard to utilities. The Court docket of Appeals, nevertheless, agreed with the trial courtroom’s discovering that this provision “doesn’t particularly bind contractors.” The Court docket wrote that “any responsibility to prune or take away vegetation that would influence electrical provide traces would lie in the beginning with SCES.” Whereas there’s an argument that such an obligation might be delegated, the Court docket had already dominated that the contract between SCES and defendant didn’t cowl the tree in query, so the Court docket concluded that no statutory responsibility existed right here.
Plaintiffs additionally argued that defendant voluntarily assumed an obligation to carry out inspections past the scope of the contract by sometimes performing visible inspections of bushes outdoors the appropriate of method. Whereas a celebration might assume an obligation, the Court docket discovered that defendant didn’t achieve this on this case. Witnesses testified that defendant might level out doubtlessly questionable bushes to SCES throughout inspections, however that the total discretion for whether or not to take away any bushes outdoors the 10-foot space and duty for any such elimination rested with SCES. As a result of the contract made it clear that defendant had no responsibility to examine or take away bushes past the appropriate of method, and that responsibility lied solely with SCES regardless of the occasional suggestion from defendant, the Court docket dominated that defendant “didn’t voluntarily assume a standard legislation responsibility to examine for hazardous bushes positioned outdoors the appropriate of method.”
Plaintiffs asserted that defendant was chargeable for negligence pursuant to a “widespread legislation responsibility,” with plaintiffs’ emphasizing the Satterfield components for balancing the foreseeability and gravity of hurt in reference to analyzing the aspect of responsibility. The Court docket famous, although, that “in cases the place the defendant has made the plaintiff’s scenario no worse (nonfeasance), there’s usually no responsibility to behave,” and that the balancing check has usually not been utilized in instances of nonfeasance. (inside citations omitted). The Court docket dominated that the details alleged by plaintiff constituted nonfeasance, and it discovered that defendant thus “maintained no widespread legislation responsibility to behave.” (inside quotation omitted).
Having dominated that defendant “owed no responsibility to Plaintiffs…by advantage of Wolf’s contract with SCES, Tennessee widespread legislation, public coverage, statute, or relevant rules,” the Court docket moved on to consideration of plaintiffs’ claims for trespass and nuisance. The Court docket wrote that the trespass by hearth declare was “premised upon their allegation that Wolf negligently precipitated the property…to be invaded by hearth,” and that since plaintiffs couldn’t show negligence on this case or that defendant “acted recklessly or engaged in an abnormally harmful exercise,” the trespass declare should fail. As well as, the Court docket discovered that defendant might “solely be chargeable for nuisance if Plaintiffs had been capable of set up that Wolf’s acts constituted misfeasance slightly than nonfeasance—in different phrases, if Wolf had been the creator of the harmful situation.” As a result of no such displaying may very well be made, the nuisance declare additionally failed.
The Court docket of Appeals subsequently affirmed abstract judgment for defendant Wolf on all claims. This opinion is an fascinating instance of how a contract can form the evaluation of who owes an obligation in a negligence case.
This opinion was launched three months after oral arguments on this case.
Notice: Chapter 30, Part 1 and Chapter 82, Part 1 of Day on Torts: Main Instances in Tennessee Tort Legislation has been up to date to incorporate this resolution.
Day on Torts: Main Instances in Tennessee Tort Legislation accommodates summaries of main instances on over 500 matters and citations to greater than 1500 extra instances. The five hundred,000+ phrase guide (and two others, Tennessee Legislation of Civil Trial and Compendium of Tennessee Tort Reform Instances) is offered by subscription at www.birddoglaw.com and is regularly up to date as new selections and statutes influence Tennessee legislation. Click on on the hyperlink to see the guide’s Desk of Contents.
BirdDog Legislation additionally offers Tennessee legal professionals with free entry to user-friendly variations of the Tennessee guidelines of proof and process and many different free assets, together with a database for every of Tennessee’s 95 counties that may assist discover out details about courtroom clerks, judges, submitting charges, native guidelines, native varieties, the presence (or absence) of digital submitting, case filings, and tort trial statistics.
