Law Professor John Sampson (Sampson v. UT) tripped on an electric cord put in place by UT for a UT Law School tailgate. A bad holding followed concerning the lack of a premises defect.
Justice Lehrmann states in dissent:
It existed as soon as the cord was placed at shin level instead of being affixed or secured; no further movement or action was necessary to create a tripping hazard.
Apparently she is almost the only SCOT Justice who has much experience in walking or the use of electricity; the majority held:
The injury did not result from the use of tangible personal property because a UT employee was not putting or bringing the cord into action or service at the time of the injury…
If it was not being ‘used’ then why was it plugged in?
Governmental entities are basically immune unless they hurt you while they are stringing their lights. Can that be right?