Claims Against Local Governments

January 31, 2025

Court of Appeals reverses its overturning of bench verdict in pedestrian knock down case.

Where the trial court found the plaintiff more credible in a bench trial surrounding a pedestrian accident, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion overturning a finding for the plaintiff on her negligence claim. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the negligence ruling, but it vacated the allocation of fault and award of damages for recalculation.

In a memorandum opinion in Easley v. City of Memphis, No. W2023-00437-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2025) (memorandum opinion), the Court of Appeals affirmed a negligence ruling it had previously overturned. The case involved a pedestrian injury, where the plaintiff was hit by a truck while crossing the street in the middle of the block. The truck was owned by the city and driven by a city employee. The nearest intersection had a crosswalk and was about forty feet away, but the plaintiff did not use the crosswalk.

During a bench trial, the plaintiff testified that the driver had stopped to allow a group of pedestrians to pass, but when she got to the middle of the truck, the truck moved forward and hit her. She also stated that the driver was on the phone and distracted. The driver, on the other hand, testified that he was stopped behind two other cars at an intersection. According to the driver, he began moving forward when the car in front of him moved forward, and the plaintiff stepped suddenly into his path.

November 4, 2024

Summary judgment affirmed in car wreck caused by road washout and sinkhole

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence of notice of the washout and sinkhole on a road, summary judgment for the county was affirmed.

In Roberts v. Carter, No. W2023-01316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2024) (memorandum opinion), plaintiff filed suit after having a car accident on a county road due to a sinkhole and washout. Although the Court of Appeals had overturned an earlier grant of summary judgment, in this memorandum opinion it affirmed the ruling that plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to notice.

Plaintiff’s complaint cited three sections of the GTLA, but on this appeal, only the claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 was addressed in plaintiff’s brief. Pursuant to that section of the GTLA, immunity for a governmental entity may be removed “for an injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street…owned and controlled by such governmental entity,” but only if the governmental entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here, plaintiff admitted that the county did not have actual notice of the washout, so the issue was whether plaintiff had enough evidence to show constructive notice.

October 28, 2024

GTLA Plaintiff Verdict Affirmed in Garbage Truck / Pedestrian Case

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the trial court found plaintiff credible, and defendant city presented no material countervailing evidence, a GTLA verdict for plaintiff was affirmed.

In a memorandum opinion in Clay v. Memphis Sanitation Division, No. W2023-00519-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024) (memorandum opinion), plaintiff filed suit under the GTLA based on an injury he received while standing near a garbage truck. Plaintiff was a contractor completing a home improvement project at a client’s home. The project included replacing a door. Plaintiff placed the old door on the curb next to a garbage can, but later remembered that the door had an alarm sensor. When he went outside to retrieve the sensor, the garbage truck came by.

According to plaintiff, one of the workers engaged him in a conversation about a potential project. Plaintiff testified that he had his back to the truck, and a second worker put the door into the truck and started the compactor. When the compactor started, the door rose and struck plaintiff in the head.

April 3, 2024

Assault and battery summary judgment reversed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where video footage involving an altercation between a high school basketball coach and a student from another school was open to more than one interpretation, summary judgment for the coach on the student’s assault and battery claims was reversed.

In Kelley v. Root, No. W2022-01625-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2024), plaintiffs were a high school student and his mother, and plaintiff student had been involved in a multi-person altercation between two opposing high school basketball teams. Video of the altercation showed defendant coach making contact with the student, and the student then losing his balance, falling, and injuring himself. While the coach maintained that he was separating plaintiff student from one of his own players and used no more force than necessary, the student argued that the coach “became an active participant in this fight and forcefully punched [the student].”

Plaintiff filed this case asserting various claims against both the coach and the board of education. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling as to the claims for assault and battery against the coach.

March 27, 2024

Summary judgment required based on public duty doctrine in GTLA case.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiffs alleged that defendant town negligently provided traffic control at a public festival, but the duty to provide safe traffic control was owed to the public at large, the public duty doctrine shielded the town from liability.

In King v. Town of Selmer, Tennessee, No. W2023-00390-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2024), plaintiffs filed suit after their two relatives were hit by a car and killed during a public festival in defendant town. The town had helped organize the event in partnership with several other entities. The town developed a traffic-control plan, which included using barrels and sawhorses to block certain streets and create a pedestrian-only zone. During the festival, a 91-year-old man drove through the barricades and hit the plaintiffs’ relatives, killing them.

Plaintiffs filed this GTLA suit against the town, alleging that it was negligent in developing the traffic control plan. Plaintiffs also asserted a joint-venture claim against the town. Defendant town moved for summary judgment based on the public duty doctrine, which the trial court denied, but the Court of Appeals reversed that denial.

February 23, 2024

Gross negligence GTLA claim against 911 board can proceed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff filed suit against several governmental entities, including an emergency 911 board, based on the failure of the multiple entities to respond to and close a road that suffered a mudslide in a timely manner, the public duty doctrine barred plaintiff’s claims against two of those entities. For the claim against the 911 board, however, immunity was removed by plaintiff’s claim of gross negligence pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-108, and the claim fell within an exception to the public duty doctrine, allowing plaintiff to proceed against that defendant only.

In Lawson v. Hawkins County, No. E2020-01529-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2023), plaintiff filed a GTLA claim after her husband was killed when his car rolled down a mountain after a portion of highway on the mountain was washed away by a mudslide. On the night of the accident, a driver called 911 to warn that the road was washed away at 12:58 a.m. A sheriff’s deputy arrived at the scene at 1:13 a.m., who then called 911 again to discuss the situation. Neither the deputy nor the dispatcher suggested closing the road. The 911 dispatcher placed several calls to various agencies, but at around 1:46 am, the deputy called 911 again reporting that plaintiff’s husband’s car had flipped down the mountain. Shortly thereafter, the deputy stated that a second car had gone down the mountain, at which time the dispatcher stated that she would ask a neighboring county to block the road.

The trial court granted defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the GTLA “gave defendants immunity from claims alleging recklessness and that the public-duty doctrine independently barred any claims based on negligence.” In its first opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the GTLA “did not provide immunity for claims based on gross negligence or recklessness.” On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that “when the GTLA removes immunity for negligence, it does so for ordinary negligence only.” The case was then remanded back to the Court of Appeals.

December 20, 2023

GTLA Did Not Remove City’s Immunity for Failure to Inspect Claim.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a plaintiff’s negligence claim against a city was based on a Tennessee city’s failure to inspect the LED lights on a crosswalk sign, the city retained immunity under the GTLA and summary judgment was affirmed.

In Packard v. Bentley, No. E2022-00982-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oc.t 23, 2023), plaintiff filed suit against several defendants, including the city of Gatlinburg, after he was hit by a car while using a crosswalk in Gatlinburg. The crosswalk and road were owned by the State, but the city owned a crosswalk sign on the side of the road. After a similar incident many years prior, the city had added LED lights to the sign, but the lights were not operational at the time of plaintiff’s accident.

The city filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on three grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, ruling that the city retained its immunity under the GTLA in this case.

October 6, 2023

County retained immunity under GTLA where plaintiff’s claims fell within civil rights exception

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff filed suit against a county based on an alleged sexual assault by a county employee that occurred when minor plaintiff was detained at the county’s juvenile detention center, the trial court’s ruling that the county “retained immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act because the claims against the county arose out of civil rights claims” was affirmed.

In Betty H. v. Williamson County, No. M2022-00300-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023), plaintiff filed suit asserting multiple claims against the county and county employees. Plaintiff alleged that while she was detained at the county’s juvenile detention center, a county employee sexually assaulted her two times. Plaintiff eventually voluntarily dismissed the claims against the county employees but moved forward with her claims against the county.

After discovery, the county filed a motion for summary judgment based on several grounds. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that plaintiff’s claims arose out of civil rights claims and that the county therefore retained immunity under the GTLA. The trial court made additional findings as well, but the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment based solely on the immunity provided by the GTLA.

July 14, 2023

Judgment for defendant in GTLA negligence case affirmed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a defense verdict in a GTLA bench trial was based largely on credibility, the verdict was affirmed on appeal.

In Ware v. Metro Water Services, a Division/Agency of Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, No. M2022-01114-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2023), plaintiff filed a GTLA case after she fell “due to an unsecure water meter valve cover” in her sister’s yard. During a bench trial, the evidence focused largely on the practice and habit of Metro employees in closing a water meter valve cover when they finished working on it. The evidence showed that the water meter plaintiff fell into had been serviced in July before plaintiff’s fall in September, and plaintiff asserted that said employee had been negligent by not properly recovering the meter.

The employee who performed that work in July testified that he had worked for Metro for over 19 years and typically worked on about 4,000 work orders per year. He testified that he always secured the cover before leaving a job, and that he always put his foot on the lid, stomped on it, and walked away by stepping on it. He testified that there was no doubt in his mind that he had secured the cover in question.

May 31, 2023

Amended Complaint Removed Defendants From Suit.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff originally filed a health care liability suit under the GTLA against multiple defendants, but before any responsive pleading was filed plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming only the physician as a defendant, a subsequent notice and order of voluntary dismissal entered as to the defendants not named in the amended complaint were “of no legal effect.” The original defendants other than the physician were removed from the action through the filing of the amended complaint.

In Ingram v. Gallagher, — S.W.3d —, No. E2020-01222-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 17, 2023), plaintiff filed an HCLA suit against multiple defendants, including the physician and the hospital at which the physician worked. Because the hospital was a governmental entity, the GTLA applied to this case. After filing his original complaint but before any responsive pleading had been filed, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming only the physician as a defendant. Five minutes after the amended complaint was filed, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to the hospital and other defendants, and an order of voluntary dismissal was entered the following day.

When defendant physician filed his answer to the amended complaint, he raised as a defense that the complaint should be dismissed under the GTLA, as Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-310(b) required that since the physician was an employee of a governmental entity, the governmental entity must also be a party to the action. Subsequently, plaintiff “filed a motion to amend his complaint in an effort to reinstate [the hospital] as a defendant.” Plaintiff also “filed a motion to alter or amend the order dismissing [the hospital] as a defendant on the grounds that ‘[the hospital] was inadvertently dismissed in light of the affirmative defense assertation by a co-defendant…that [the hospital] is a necessary party to this action.’” The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend the dismissal order, but it eventually allowed plaintiff to amend his complaint after a second motion to amend was filed.