Effective litigators don't just know the law. They know the courts. It's the fundamental philosophy that has guided this firm since day one.

With offices strategically located throughout Alabama and the I-10 Gulf Coast corridor from Gulfport, Mississippi to Tallahassee, Florida, and north to our Chattanooga, Tennessee office, Carr Allison offers the kind of confident legal representation that only comes from firsthand experience. We have accumulated decades of closely cultivated relationships at the local level, wherever our clients' interests lie.

Three Noteworthy Premises Liability Verdicts in Tennessee

Davidson County (Nashville). While walking down an aisle of a retailer, the plaintiff slipped on a wet floor and fell, tearing her meniscus tendon, and requiring surgery. Plaintiff’s primary proof was the store manager had walked the area moments before the plaintiff fell and had not addressed the wet floor. The defendant denied having actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The jury returned a verdict of 90% as to the defendant and 10% to the plaintiff, and awarded plaintiff $525,000. After reducing plaintiff’s comparative fault, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $472,500.

Henry County (near Memphis). The plaintiff, 12 years of age, was playing outside an apartment. As he ran through the grass, he tripped in a hidden hole. The boy broke his hand on a growth plate, as well as three fingers. The boy’s mother sued the apartment, alleging that it failed to inspect and maintain the property. The apartment complex disputed that the hole was even on its property. They also implicated the plaintiff’s comparative fault, as there was proof that the child was racing another child at the time of his fall. The jury found both the boy and the apartment complex equally at fault and, therefore, found in favor of the defendant.

Davidson County (Nashville). The plaintiff entered a convenience store in downtown Nashville. She walked in and proceeded through the aisle to the bathroom. Upon exiting the bathroom a few minutes later, she slipped and fell on a just-mopped floor. Allegedly, the store employee had mopped the floor while she was in the bathroom. Plaintiff sustained a torn rotator cuff that had to be surgically repaired. The plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $46,277.00. Plaintiff alleged that the store was negligent for mopping the floor without placing a warning sign, and that having the floor mopped while she was in the bathroom, she had no reason to anticipate the peril. The convenience store argued that a wet floor sign was placed at the front of the store and that they denied that the employee would have had enough time to mop the floor while the plaintiff was in the bathroom. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but assessed 49% fault to the plaintiff. They awarded damages in the amount of $46,277; plaintiff’s medical bills. After applying the comparative fault percentage, judgment was entered against the defendants in the amount of $23,601.

Sean W. Martin is a shareholder in the Chattanooga, Tennessee office and can be reached at swmartin@carrallison.com and (423) 648-9834.

Carr Allison's Charles F. Carr selected to participate in article on mediation

Charles F. Carr, president of Carr Allison, was recently quoted in an article that appeared in the November issue of The Alabama Lawyer.  The article, “Perspectives on Mediation from Top Attorneys”, provided insights from the State’s top mediators regarding their experiences mediating cases.

Workers are not entitled to pay for security check time

On December 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously, in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk et al, that workers do not have to be paid for time they spend passing through security screenings.  Suit was brought by ex-workers at an Amazon.com warehouse against a staffing agency to be compensated for the time the workers spent waiting for and undergoing post-shift anti-theft screenings.  Justice Thomas wrote, “We hold that an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform — and thus compensable under the FLSA — if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.”  The Court found that the employees’ time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing the staffing agency’s screenings did not meet these criteria, reversing the previous ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Authored by Sean W. Martin and Amanda E. Kelley of Carr Allison’s Chattanooga office