Judge to Rule After Lawyers Debate Lighting, Foreseeability in Staircase Fall Case

A Dixon County judge said he will rule after taking under advisement competing arguments over whether poor lighting on a wooden staircase caused a March 1, 2022 fall that injured Marcia Patrick.

Plaintiff Marcia Patrick is suing M and S, LLC, the owner of the Spring Street Center, over injuries she says she suffered leaving a fitness class. Defense attorney Chad Hogue argued at the May docket call that the fall occurred at 6:32 p.m., about 20 minutes after full dark, and that Patrick had used the staircase repeatedly and therefore had as much knowledge of the condition as the owner. Hogue told the court that there is lighting at the upper and lower levels of the building but “there is no lighting independent on the staircase.”

The defense urged dismissal on summary judgment, saying there is no evidence of a structural defect and that a person who “steps into darkness” assumes the risk. Hogue cited cases and argued the plaintiff could have used well‑lit concrete stairs, waited for a lighted escort or stayed in the lower‑level parking area. He also said no expert testimony supports a claim of a construction defect.

Plaintiff counsel, identified in the record as Hendrickson, told the court there are disputed, material facts that should go to a jury, principally whether the staircase was in fact “dusky and shadowy” rather than wholly dark, how often Patrick used the staircase (the parties' briefs disagree whether she used it 12–36 times), and whether reasonable patrons commonly used the wooden stairs. Hendrickson pointed to an affidavit from Annette White and other witness statements that the mounted artificial lights on the building cast light toward the staircase and supported an inference that the owner knew or should have known the lighting posed a hazard.

Hendrickson also argued Tennessee’s comparative‑fault regime means assumption‑of‑risk defenses do not automatically bar recovery and urged denial of summary judgment because reasonable jurors could differ on foreseeability and duty.

Presiding Judge David D. Wolfe said he had to make specific findings and would take the memoranda under advisement and issue a ruling later. The parties submitted competing authorities and asked the court for case‑law guidance; the judge did not issue a final ruling at the docket call.

The court’s action leaves the case active; a formal written ruling on the summary‑judgment motion will determine whether the matter proceeds to trial.