Where a public school failed to read the information it was provided about a student with a long history of psychological and behavioral problems, and the student jumped from a second story window when left in a classroom unattended by any adult, the finding of negligence under the GTLA against the city was affirmed.
In Dodson-Stephens v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, No. M2024-01006-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2025), the plaintiff mother filed suit individually and on behalf of her daughter, who was paralyzed after she jumped from a second story window at a public school operated by defendant city. The daughter had a life-long history of behavioral and psychological problems, many stemming from abuse she experienced before being adopted by the plaintiff mother. The daughter’s past issues included violence, self-harm, and running away.
At the time of the incident underlying this case, the daughter was a teenager in state care, but the mother was still actively involved in the daughter’s life. Against the mother’s recommendations, the daughter was transferred from a facility in Memphis to a facility in Nashville that would involve stepped-down supervision. As part of this transition, the daughter would begin classes at a new school. This new school was focused largely on assisting formerly incarcerated teens transition back into a school setting. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took charge of this transition.
When the daughter was enrolled in the new school, a psychological report was attached to an email to the new school, but the school was not provided the daughter’s prior IEP. The new school failed to read the report, failed to set up a meeting for a new IEP, and essentially provided no services for the daughter. After the daughter had been at the school almost two months, she was in a classroom on the second floor, and the teacher left the class unattended for approximately ten minutes. The classroom had a large window that was unlocked, opened like a door, and was large enough to step through. In an attempt to run away, the daughter opened the window and jumped, and she was paralyzed by the fall.
The trial court found that the incident was foreseeable, and it ruled that the State and the city were both 50% liable. The trial court awarded significant damages, which were reduced to the $300,000 cap per defendant under the GTLA. Only the city appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a fifty-plus page opinion.
On appeal, the city first argued that the trial court erred by finding that the school had a duty to supervise the daughter under the facts of this case. The city argued that finding a duty here “essentially change[d] Tennessee law” and “makes schools insurers of student safety.” The Court of Appeals explained that, pursuant to Tennessee caselaw, “the extent to which a teacher must supervise the activities of his or her students must be determined with reference to the age and inexperience of the students, their maturity, and the dangers to which they may be exposed.” (internal citation omitted). The Court noted that “the level of supervision required of school teachers under the standard of ordinary care varies with the circumstances of each case.” (internal citations omitted). Here, the school administrators admitted that higher levels of supervision were required for all students at this school. This was not a “typical high school.” Further, the school had information putting them on notice that the daughter had additional needs. The trial court’s finding that it was foreseeable a student would try to run away when able to access a large, unlocked window was not an error. The Court wrote that the “trial court’s decision [did] not represent a radical departure from Tennessee caselaw,” and it concluded that a duty to supervise existed in this case.
The city also made several arguments regarding the daughter’s IEP and any duty allegedly connected to it. The Court of Appeals called these arguments “numerous and a bit difficult to follow,” but it nonetheless addressed and rejected them in turn. First, the city argued that it only had to update a student’s IEP annually, so its failure to update the IEP when the daughter was transferred to its school did not constitute a breach of duty. The city also argued that, while the school had an internal policy to update a new student’s IEP within thirty days, that internal policy could not be the basis of a duty. The Court wrote that it found no evidence that the trial court based a duty of care on this internal thirty-day policy, and that it rejected the argument that the federal statute only obligated the school to update an IEP annually.
Next, the city argued that it was improper to consider the failure to create an IEP, as an IEP is not a safety document. The Court found that the record failed to support the argument that the IEP had no connection to the daughter’s safety. It explained that witness testimony and the daughter’s previous IEP illustrated that a current IEP would have revealed that the daughter’s primary disability was emotional disturbance, thus alerting the school of potential safety issues.
Third, the city argued that that any claims related to the IEP could not be brought under the GTLA, but instead were enforceable only under the IDEA. The Court quickly rejected this argument, noting that this was not a claim for a failure to provide a free and appropriate public education, but was instead a tort claim seeking monetary damages for injuries to the daughter.
The city also argued that the trial court incorrectly ruled that the school had a duty to investigate whether the daughter was enrolled in the wrong program. The city based this argument on a single sentence within the trial court’s 51-page order. The Court of Appeals agreed that the school did not have a duty to investigate whether enrollment was proper, but it concluded that the single sentence in the very long opinion was harmless error, and that the Court could not say that this single reference “more probably than not affected the judgment.” (internal citation omitted).
Finally, the city argued that the daughter jumping out the second story window was not foreseeable, and therefore there was no duty. The Court wrote that the “pertinent question is whether there was any showing from which it can be said that the defendants reasonably knew or should have known of the probability of an occurrence such as the one which caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” (internal citation omitted). The Court reviewed the evidence in this case, and it ruled that the incident was foreseeable. The Court wrote that if the school had “simply read the information in [the daughter’s] psychological evaluation and conducted the necessary behavioral assessment and IEP meeting for her,” the harm would have been reasonably foreseeable. “The fact that an accident may be freakish does not per se make it unpredictable or unforeseen.” (internal citation omitted). Because the incident could have been reasonably foreseen “through the exercise of reasonable diligence,” the trial court’s ruling was affirmed in whole.
The facts in this case are specific and extreme. Nonetheless, the lengthy opinion contains a thorough summary of Tennessee law addressing a teacher and/or school’s duty to supervise students. Litigants involved in tort cases that occurred at schools would be wise to review this opinion.
This opinion was released nine months after oral arguments.