Chapter 28: Governmental Tort Liability Act
1. Sammy L. Halliburton v. Town of Halls, No. W2007-02505-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This case requires us to inquire whether the Town of Halls was immune under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) for maintaining a baseball field that the plaintiff alleges is a nuisance because one of many balls that flew over the field’s fence into a residential neighborhood injured him. The trial court held that the Town of Halls was immune from liability because it had engaged in a discretionary function and that the baseball field did not constitute a nuisance. On appeal, we find that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Town of Halls had notice of any dangerous condition of the baseball field in Kevan Ward Park, and, thus, we affirm the trial court on the basis that the Town of Halls was immune from liability pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act."
NEW SECTION: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
1. J.R. Boling, et al. vs. City of Pigeon Forge, et al., No. E2007-01652-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"J.R. Boling (“Plaintiff”) sued the City of Pigeon Forge, the Pigeon Forge Police Department, Officer Randy Holbrook, and Detective Tim Trentham. Plaintiff claims that his vehicle was illegally searched by Officer Holbrook and illegally impounded by Detective Trentham. Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham, both of whom were sued in their individual capacities, filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the undisputed material facts established that they were immune and the claims against them should be dismissed. The Trial Court denied the motion for summary judgment as well as Officer Holbrook’s and Detective Trentham’s request for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Thereafter, Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 request for an extraordinary appeal, which this Court granted. The sole issue on appeal is whether the Trial Court erred when it denied Officer Holbrook’s and Detective Trentham’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We conclude that the undisputed material facts establish that Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham are entitled to immunity from the claims asserted by Plaintiff. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and enter an order dismissing the claims against Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham."
2. F. Chris Cawood V. Linda Booth, No. E2007-02537-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff, F. Chris Cawood, is an attorney. He represented Tammy Clark (“the Client”) in a divorce case. During the post-judgment phase of that representation, the plaintiff and the Client engaged in a sexual relationship. On occasion, while in the plaintiff’s office, the plaintiff would masturbate in the presence of the Client, following which he would give her a credit on her bill. After she complained to local authorities, the Roane County Sheriff’s Department equipped the Client with concealed audio and video equipment. Thereafter, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, she videotaped him while he was masturbating. During this event, the Client hit him on the buttocks and pinched his nipples. Following this event, the videotape was placed under the control of Linda Booth of the Sheriff’s Department. Booth gave the video to another investigator, Dennis Worley, who happens to be the Client’s uncle. Worley was not involved in the investigation but wanted to see the videotape to ascertain if his niece had done anything illegal. Worley viewed the videotape in an office shared by officers Randy Scarbrough and Jon French. During the viewing, the door to the office was open. The video was viewed not only by Worley, but also by Scarbrough and French, a bail bondsman who was passing by the office, and others. The plaintiff filed suit against Booth, Worley, Scarbrough and French alleging (1) a violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994, (2) invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, and (3) outrageous conduct. The trial court granted all defendants summary judgment as to all claims. Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the grant of summary judgment to Booth and Worley on the plaintiff’s outrageous conduct claim. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed."
NEW SECTION: LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT ACTS OF EMPLOYEES
1. Christina R. Britt, by next friend and mother, Caroline J. Dale, and Caroline J. Dale, individually v. Maury County Board of Education and Maury County, Tennessee, No. M2006-01921-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The trial court granted the Board of Education’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing a cheerleader’s two claims for personal injury under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 et seq. We affirm the judgment as to the claim that the Board negligently hired the sponsor of the cheerleading squad. Finding, however, that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the cheerleading squad sponsor’s negligence, we reverse that portion of the judgment."
The Court's Summary:
"This case requires us to inquire whether the Town of Halls was immune under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) for maintaining a baseball field that the plaintiff alleges is a nuisance because one of many balls that flew over the field’s fence into a residential neighborhood injured him. The trial court held that the Town of Halls was immune from liability because it had engaged in a discretionary function and that the baseball field did not constitute a nuisance. On appeal, we find that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Town of Halls had notice of any dangerous condition of the baseball field in Kevan Ward Park, and, thus, we affirm the trial court on the basis that the Town of Halls was immune from liability pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act."
2. Sherrill Johnson, Individually and as next friend and mother of Victoria Johnson, a minor v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, No. - M2008-00551-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
The Court's Summary:
"A bystander in a parking lot was injured by a ricocheting bullet fired by a police officer. The officer and a fellow officer had been confronted in the parking lot by an armed assailant who fired his handgun at or towards the officers. The bystander, contending that one of the officers was negligent when he fired his weapon in self-defense, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment. We find that the police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances confronting him, and we therefore affirm the trial judge."
3. Ricky Lee Wilson and Kimberly Wilson, as guardians and next friends of Brandon Wilson, a minor v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tom Maddox, Timothy John McKnight, and Justin Lejuan Dunnigan, No. M2008-00327-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
The minor plaintiff and his parents sued for damages for serious bodily injury resulting from an assault, and at the conclusion of the trial the trial judge held the defendants liable for the injuries and awarded damages. The defendants have appealed, insisting the assault was not foreseeable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
3. Ricky Lee Wilson and Kimberly Wilson, as guardians and next friends of Brandon Wilson, a minor v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tom Maddox, Timothy John McKnight, and Justin Lejuan Dunnigan, No. M2008-00327-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
The minor plaintiff and his parents sued for damages for serious bodily injury resulting from an assault, and at the conclusion of the trial the trial judge held the defendants liable for the injuries and awarded damages. The defendants have appealed, insisting the assault was not foreseeable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
4. Tracy Lynn Autry, by and through her next friend and mother, Carol Hood, and Carol Hood, in her individual capacity v. Phil Hooker, Teacher at Milan High School; James Towater, in his official capacity as Director of Schools of the Milan Special School District; Tim Warren, as Principal of Milan High School; Jerry Johnson, Federal Rights Coordinator of the Milan Special School District; and Board of Directors of the Milan Special School District, No. W2008-01027-COA-R3-CV (May 15, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This appeal involves a sexual harassment claim by a student against a school district. The plaintiff was a student at a high school located in the defendant school district. In her senior year, the plaintiff enrolled in a class taught by the defendant teacher. Several times during class, the teacher made inappropriate comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported the teacher’s behavior, an investigation was conducted, and ultimately the teacher received a letter of reprimand. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against the teacher, the school district, and other school district employees in their official capacities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and its employees, and it denied summary judgment to the teacher. The plaintiff student now appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district and its employees. We affirm, concluding that the student’s claims essentially alleged civil rights violations and, therefore, these defendants are immune from suit under the GTLA.
The Court's Summary:
This appeal involves a sexual harassment claim by a student against a school district. The plaintiff was a student at a high school located in the defendant school district. In her senior year, the plaintiff enrolled in a class taught by the defendant teacher. Several times during class, the teacher made inappropriate comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported the teacher’s behavior, an investigation was conducted, and ultimately the teacher received a letter of reprimand. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against the teacher, the school district, and other school district employees in their official capacities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and its employees, and it denied summary judgment to the teacher. The plaintiff student now appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district and its employees. We affirm, concluding that the student’s claims essentially alleged civil rights violations and, therefore, these defendants are immune from suit under the GTLA.
5. Gary L. Watts and Janet Watts, Parents and Next Friends of Clinton D. Watts, Deceased v. Earnestine J. Morris, et al., No. W2008-00896-COA-R3-CV (May 6, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This case arises from the death of a graduate student near the University of Memphis. While crossing the street, decedent was struck by a vehicle. Decedent’s parents, on his behalf, have sued the City of Memphis, pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging that the City negligently maintained the defective, unsafe, or dangerous street that decedent was crossing. The trial court held that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Governmental Tort Liability Act waived the City of Memphis’ immunity from suit or that the City of Memphis was negligent. In addition, the court found that both decedent and the driver of the automobile that struck decedent were negligent and were each 50% at fault of the accident. We affirm on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the street was a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition for which the City’s immunity was waived
The Court's Summary:
This case arises from the death of a graduate student near the University of Memphis. While crossing the street, decedent was struck by a vehicle. Decedent’s parents, on his behalf, have sued the City of Memphis, pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging that the City negligently maintained the defective, unsafe, or dangerous street that decedent was crossing. The trial court held that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Governmental Tort Liability Act waived the City of Memphis’ immunity from suit or that the City of Memphis was negligent. In addition, the court found that both decedent and the driver of the automobile that struck decedent were negligent and were each 50% at fault of the accident. We affirm on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the street was a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition for which the City’s immunity was waived
6. Sherrill Johnson, Individually and as next friend of Victoria Johnson v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, No. M2009-01243-COA-RM-CV (Sept. 2, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This matter is before us on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Martin v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) and Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008). After reconsideration, we are of the opinion that the appellee should still prevail. A bystander in a parking lot was injured by a ricocheting bullet fired by a police officer. The officer and a fellow officer had been confronted in the parking lot by an armed assailant who fired his handgun at or towards the officers. The bystander, contending that one of the officers was negligent when he fired his weapon in self-defense, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment. We find that the police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances confronting him, and we therefore affirm the trial judge.
The Court's Summary:
This matter is before us on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Martin v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) and Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008). After reconsideration, we are of the opinion that the appellee should still prevail. A bystander in a parking lot was injured by a ricocheting bullet fired by a police officer. The officer and a fellow officer had been confronted in the parking lot by an armed assailant who fired his handgun at or towards the officers. The bystander, contending that one of the officers was negligent when he fired his weapon in self-defense, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment. We find that the police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances confronting him, and we therefore affirm the trial judge.
7. Christopher Jones v. Bedford County, Tennessee, No. M2009-01108-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This is an appeal from a Governmental Tort Liability action against Bedford County by a former inmate in the Bedford County Jail. Plaintiff alleged that the County was liable to him for its negligent supervision of a corrections officer who allegedly sexually assaulted Plaintiff while incarcerated in the jail. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim following a bench trial upon the implicit finding that there was no evidence that any person with supervisory authority was on notice of information that would lead them to suspect a future sexual assault. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims finding that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings.
The Court's Summary:
This is an appeal from a Governmental Tort Liability action against Bedford County by a former inmate in the Bedford County Jail. Plaintiff alleged that the County was liable to him for its negligent supervision of a corrections officer who allegedly sexually assaulted Plaintiff while incarcerated in the jail. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim following a bench trial upon the implicit finding that there was no evidence that any person with supervisory authority was on notice of information that would lead them to suspect a future sexual assault. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims finding that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings.
8. Sean Lanier, Individually and as Mother and Next of Kin of Jane Doe, A Minor v. City of Dyersburg, et al., No. W2009-00162-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This is a negligence case filed by a student’s mother against the city, as operator of the city school system, due to an alleged assault on the student by another student. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding the assault unforeseeable as a matter of law. The mother appeals. We affirm.
The Court's Summary:
This is a negligence case filed by a student’s mother against the city, as operator of the city school system, due to an alleged assault on the student by another student. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding the assault unforeseeable as a matter of law. The mother appeals. We affirm.
1. J.R. Boling, et al. vs. City of Pigeon Forge, et al., No. E2007-01652-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"J.R. Boling (“Plaintiff”) sued the City of Pigeon Forge, the Pigeon Forge Police Department, Officer Randy Holbrook, and Detective Tim Trentham. Plaintiff claims that his vehicle was illegally searched by Officer Holbrook and illegally impounded by Detective Trentham. Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham, both of whom were sued in their individual capacities, filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the undisputed material facts established that they were immune and the claims against them should be dismissed. The Trial Court denied the motion for summary judgment as well as Officer Holbrook’s and Detective Trentham’s request for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Thereafter, Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 request for an extraordinary appeal, which this Court granted. The sole issue on appeal is whether the Trial Court erred when it denied Officer Holbrook’s and Detective Trentham’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We conclude that the undisputed material facts establish that Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham are entitled to immunity from the claims asserted by Plaintiff. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and enter an order dismissing the claims against Officer Holbrook and Detective Trentham."
2. F. Chris Cawood V. Linda Booth, No. E2007-02537-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The plaintiff, F. Chris Cawood, is an attorney. He represented Tammy Clark (“the Client”) in a divorce case. During the post-judgment phase of that representation, the plaintiff and the Client engaged in a sexual relationship. On occasion, while in the plaintiff’s office, the plaintiff would masturbate in the presence of the Client, following which he would give her a credit on her bill. After she complained to local authorities, the Roane County Sheriff’s Department equipped the Client with concealed audio and video equipment. Thereafter, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, she videotaped him while he was masturbating. During this event, the Client hit him on the buttocks and pinched his nipples. Following this event, the videotape was placed under the control of Linda Booth of the Sheriff’s Department. Booth gave the video to another investigator, Dennis Worley, who happens to be the Client’s uncle. Worley was not involved in the investigation but wanted to see the videotape to ascertain if his niece had done anything illegal. Worley viewed the videotape in an office shared by officers Randy Scarbrough and Jon French. During the viewing, the door to the office was open. The video was viewed not only by Worley, but also by Scarbrough and French, a bail bondsman who was passing by the office, and others. The plaintiff filed suit against Booth, Worley, Scarbrough and French alleging (1) a violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994, (2) invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, and (3) outrageous conduct. The trial court granted all defendants summary judgment as to all claims. Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the grant of summary judgment to Booth and Worley on the plaintiff’s outrageous conduct claim. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed."
NEW SECTION: LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT ACTS OF EMPLOYEES
1. Christina R. Britt, by next friend and mother, Caroline J. Dale, and Caroline J. Dale, individually v. Maury County Board of Education and Maury County, Tennessee, No. M2006-01921-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2008).
The Court's Summary: