## Facts

- Shirley Hale walked home from a bus stop along Mississippi Boulevard in Memphis on a route she did not usually take.
- Bushes from a vacant lot at 1073 Mississippi Boulevard, owned by Erwin, Rose, and Max Ostrow, had overgrown into the public sidewalk and blocked passage near a telephone pole.
- To bypass the obstruction, Hale left the sidewalk and stepped toward the street after checking for traffic.
- The sidewalk in the area was crumbled; Hale tripped over a chunk of concrete and fell into the street, crushing her left hip and requiring extensive medical care.
- The crumbled sidewalk and the spot where Hale fell were in front of 1063 Mississippi Boulevard, a property not owned by the Ostrows.

## Issues

1. Whether owners of property adjoining a public sidewalk owe a duty of care to pedestrians injured off the owners’ property when an on-property condition obstructs the sidewalk.
2. Whether, viewing the evidence favorably to the pedestrian, the sidewalk obstruction could be found a cause in fact and proximate cause of the injury, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the Ostrows and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the Ostrows owed a duty to keep the sidewalk unblocked by overgrown bushes and passable for pedestrians.
- The court held genuine disputes of material fact existed on causation, including whether the obstruction forced Hale into the street area where she fell and whether the resulting harm was reasonably foreseeable.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence requires duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, and damages.
- Cause in fact is satisfied under Tennessee’s but-for test when the defendant’s conduct directly contributed to the injury and the injury would not have occurred but for that conduct; the conduct need only be a cause, not the sole cause.
- A landowner’s duty may extend to conditions on the land that foreseeably create hazards for persons using adjacent public ways, even if the injury occurs off the landowner’s property.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor; fact questions on causation and foreseeability generally belong to the trier of fact when reasonable jurors could differ.

## Conclusion

The court held that adjoining landowners can be liable when on-property vegetation obstructs a public sidewalk and foreseeably forces pedestrians into danger, and that disputed questions about but-for causation and foreseeability can require a trial rather than summary judgment.


Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005)