§59.2 Acts or Omission of State Employees
1. Jessica L. Smith, et al vs. State of Tennessee, E2007-00809-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In November of 2002, Ms. Jessica Smith was savagely beaten on the head with a brick after she exited the Lake Avenue Parking Garage on the University of Tennessee campus on her way to her dorm. Ms. Smith and her parents brought this lawsuit against the University of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C), claiming that the University negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition on state controlled real property. Following a trial, the Claims Commission determined that due to improper lighting at the site of the attack, the State was liable pursuant to that statutory provision. The State requested and was granted an en banc review by the full Claims Commission. Following the en banc review, a majority of the Commissioners affirmed the judgment in favor of Ms. Smith. The State appeals. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the Commission’s findings and ultimate conclusions that, among others, the State negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition on state controlled real property, that the attack on Ms. Smith was foreseeable, and that the State had adequate notice of the dangerous condition. We, therefore, affirm the en banc majority decision of the Claims Commission." View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"In November of 2002, Ms. Jessica Smith was savagely beaten on the head with a brick after she exited the Lake Avenue Parking Garage on the University of Tennessee campus on her way to her dorm. Ms. Smith and her parents brought this lawsuit against the University of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C), claiming that the University negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition on state controlled real property. Following a trial, the Claims Commission determined that due to improper lighting at the site of the attack, the State was liable pursuant to that statutory provision. The State requested and was granted an en banc review by the full Claims Commission. Following the en banc review, a majority of the Commissioners affirmed the judgment in favor of Ms. Smith. The State appeals. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the Commission’s findings and ultimate conclusions that, among others, the State negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition on state controlled real property, that the attack on Ms. Smith was foreseeable, and that the State had adequate notice of the dangerous condition. We, therefore, affirm the en banc majority decision of the Claims Commission." View opinion.