Where the defendant governmental entity admitted in its answer that it owned the vehicle involved in the accident, and that the driver involved was its employee and was “acting within the course and scope of his employment” at the time of the accident, the plaintiff did not have to offer evidence on this issue.
In Butcher v. Shelby County Board of Education, No. W2024-01202-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2025), the plaintiff was injured in a car accident where the other driver was 100% at fault. The other vehicle was owned by the defendant board of education. In its answer, the defendant admitted that it owned the vehicle, that the driver was its employee, and that the driver was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
At the close of the trial, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal on the basis that the plaintiffs “failed to prove that [the driver] was an employee” of the defendant, which was a prerequisite to removing immunity under the GTLA. The trial court denied the motion and entered a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant argued that immunity was not removed under the GTLA because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the negligent driver was an employee of defendant and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. Like the trial court, however, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the defendant had admitted these facts in its answer. In fact, the defendant admitted these facts again in its response to the plaintiff’s motion in limine. The trial court wrote that it would be “contrary to the administration of justice that a motion for involuntary dismissal be granted regarding a fact admitted throughout the journey of this case,” and the Court of Appeals agreed. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was required to prove that the driver was the “right type” of employee under the GTLA, but the Court wrote that the defendant had admitted that he was. The Court explained that “if the Board believed that [the driver] was not the ‘right type’ of employee, and/or that the [plaintiffs] were required to provide more proof concerning the nature of [the driver’s] employment, the Board’s answer should have reflected those concerns, but it did not.” The ruling that immunity was removed under the GTLA was accordingly affirmed.
The defendant also took issue with certain evidentiary rulings. First, the defendant argued that one of the plaintiff’s treating physicians should not have been allowed to testify regarding the necessary of services and charges from multiple other physicians. The Court pointed out that the plaintiff had disclosed in her interrogatory responses that this physician would be testifying on these issues. Moreover, when the trial court clarified that there was “no objection to the tendering as an expert,” the defendant’s attorney responded “right.” Based on this exchange, the Court of Appeals found that any objection to this physician testifying as an expert was waived.
Second, the defendant asserted that a second treating physician’s deposition testimony was inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to disclose this physician as an expert, but the Court found that because the doctor’s “opinions and testimony were based on her treatment of [the plaintiff],” the doctor was testifying as a treating physician and there was no requirement that she be disclosed as an expert. The defendant also argued that this doctor failed to state that her opinions were “made to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.” Because the physician had stated at the beginning and end of the deposition that all her opinions were made to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, this argument was rejected.
Third, the defendant objected to plaintiff’s expert treating physician testifying as to the reasonableness and necessity of the plaintiff’s medical bills. The Court reviewed the relevant factors, including the doctor’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s condition, knowledge of the plaintiff’s treatment and customary treatments in the area, and knowledge of customary charges for the treatment, and it found that the trial court did not err by allowing the testimony.
After finding other evidentiary arguments waived and denying an award of attorney’s fees based on a frivolous appeal, the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.
This opinion was released four months after oral arguments.