Benefield v. Vance

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

This appeal arises from a premises liability claim filed by Michael Harold Vance 1 against Johnny Benefield after Vance sustained injuries when he fell at Benefield’s home. Benefield filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the undisputed facts established that Vance was aware of the alleged hazardous condition before the fall, but the trial court denied the motion based on the distraction doctrine. This Court granted Benefield’s petition for interlocutory review, and for the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues…