Court reviews whether a municipality's 911 operator negligently failed to summon emergency personnel from a neighboring county

LORI GREGORY, IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES BALLENTINE v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY (Tenn. Ct. App. October 29, 2012)

This is a negligence claim under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act. The decedent was involved in a serious vehicular accident. A witness called the defendant municipality’s 911 emergency communications center for help. The 911 responders went to the accident scene and transported the decedent to a local hospital, where he died.

The decedent’s mother filed this lawsuit against the municipality, alleging that the 911 operator was negligent in failing to summon emergency personnel from a neighboring county, because those responders were closer to the scene of the accident and could have provided aid to the decedent sooner. The municipality filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing inter alia that it owed no duty to summon aid outside of its jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gregoryl_102912.pdf

Court reviews a case against the city of Memphis involving the Public Duty Doctrine

SANDRA BELLANTI and ALBERT BELLANTI v. CITY OF MEMPHIS (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2012)

Plaintiff was severely injured when a padlock, which was allegedly thrown from a City of Memphis mower, broke through her vehicle window. Plaintiff and her husband successfully sued the City. On appeal, the City argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying its motion to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Public Duty Doctrine.

Because the trial court’s order denying the City’s motion to amend fails to explain the basis for its denial, we are constrained to remand the case to the trial court for entry of a reasoned explanation of its actions regarding the City’s motion to amend its answer.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bellantis_060412.pdf

Court reviews the limitation of liability in an insurance policy in a case involving a city volunteer

PAUL VINCENT GIANNINI v. AMANDA PROFFITT (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2012)

This appeal involves a limitation of liability in an insurance policy. The plaintiff was working in a volunteer capacity for the city. While doing so, the plaintiff sustained injuries in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff’s medical expenses were paid through the city’s on-the-job-injury program. The plaintiff had uninsured motorist coverage under his insurance policy with the appellee insurance company.

The appellee insurance company denied the plaintiff’s claim based on language in the policy reducing the insurance company’s liability by sums paid under laws similar to workers’ compensation laws. The insurance company asserted that the city’s on-the-job-injury program was similar to workers’ compensation.

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, and the plaintiff and the insurance company filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, finding that the plaintiff’s benefits under the city’s on-the-job-injury program were similar to workers’ compensation. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm the grant of summary judgment, for the reason stated by the trial court.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gianninip_042712.pdf

Court reviews whether the city of Murfreesboro had notice of unsafe road conditions based on records of previous accidents

JENNIFER BIVINS, as next of kin and natural parent of BRANDON BIVINS, deceased v. CITY OF MURFREESBORO (Tenn. Ct. App. December 29, 2011)

Plaintiff filed an action against the City of Murfreesboro pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, claiming a dangerous and unsafe roadway caused an automobile accident in which her son was killed. The trial court determined the City had no notice of an unsafe or dangerous condition, and entered judgment in favor of the City.

Upon appeal, we reversed on the issue of notice, holding that previous accidents on adjacent areas of the roadway provided sufficient notice to the City of a potentially dangerous condition. Upon remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and assessed 60% fault to the City. We vacate and remand for further findings consistent with Rule 52 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bivinsj_122911.pdf

Court reviews the denial of a firefighter's on-the-job injury benefits for his hypertension and heart disease

PAUL PITTMAN v. CITY OF MEMPHIS (Tenn. Ct. App. August 18, 2011)

Petitioner firefighter appeals denial of on-the-job injury benefits by the City of Memphis. We affirm.

Background:
This dispute involves the application of the presumption contained in Tennessee Code Annotated § 7-51-201 that hypertension and injury to the heart and/or lungs sustained by a police officer or firefighter is job-related.

Before joining the Memphis Fire Department in February 1995, Mr. Pittman underwent a preemployment physical examination that did not reveal signs of hypertension or heart disease. In 1996, he was diagnosed with hypertension and in April 1996 the City admitted Mr. Pittman into the Heart, Hypertension, Lung Program, which entitled him to benefits under the City’s On-the-Job-Injury (“OJI”) policy. He has been receiving OJI benefits for hypertension since April 25, 1996.

In July 2005, Mr. Pittman was hospitalized for chest pain afterfeeling fatigued at work. On July 15, 2005, he underwent a coronary angiography which revealed a 90 percent blockage of Mr. Pittman’s left anterior artery. Mr. Pittman was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and underwent surgery.

On July 22, 2005, Mr. Pittman filed an OJI report seeking admission into the HHL Program for heart disease. Pursuant to City policy, Mr. Pittman’s medical records were reviewed by three physicians. One of the physicians, Jesse. T. Davis, Jr., M.D. (Dr. Davis), stated that he found no causal connection between Mr. Pittman’s occupation as a firefighter and his coronary artery disease. Based on Dr. Davis’ statement, the City denied Mr. Pittman’s claim. Mr. Pittman appealed denial of his claim.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pittmanp_081811.pdf

Court reviews a negligence case involving multiple continuances and a subsequent ruling against the Plaintiff based on comparative fault

FREDDIE DAVIS v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2011)

This is a negligence action. Plaintiff/Appellant asserts that Defendant/Appellee is liable for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell while walking down the steps at the Shelby County courthouse. Due to Appellant's incarceration, the trial court granted three continuances; however, Appellant's request for a fourth continuance was denied.

Following a hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had failed to meet his burden to show negligence on the part of the Appellee, and further concluded that, if there was negligence in the case, Appellant was at least fifty percent at fault so as to bar recovery. Appellant appeals both the denial of his fourth motion for a continuance and the trial court's ruling in favor of Appellee. Finding no error, we affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/davisf_072911.pdf

Court Reviews Whether a Drainage Grate Created a Dangerous Condition on a Highway

BETH L. WINELAND v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2011)

Beth L. Wineland, the sole plaintiff, sustained serious injuries when the front wheel of her bicycle fell into the open slots of a metal drainage grate ("the subject grate" or "the old style grate") situated near a curb of State Highway 60. The slots on the subject grate run parallel with the direction of traffic. The subject grate is inside the municipal boundaries of the City of Cleveland. The plaintiff made a claim against the State of Tennessee in the Claims Commission and filed this action against the City of Cleveland in the trial court. The claim against the State was consolidated with this action for trial. The plaintiff alleges that the old style grate constitutes a dangerous condition on the highway and that both the City of Cleveland and the State were negligent in maintaining the highway. The trial court determined that neither defendant had a duty to change the grate and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appeals only as to the State. We reverse the judgment and remand for a determination of damages.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/winelandb_072811.pdf

TN Supreme Court Reviews Whether a Construction-Related Injury was Negligence Subject to the Governmental Tort Liability Act

DALTON REB HUGHES ET AL. v. THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE ET AL. (Tenn. May 24, 2011)

After being injured when he jumped out of the path of a front-end loader owned by a governmental entity and operated by its employee, the plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the employee either was negligent in his operation of the equipment or had acted intentionally and that the governmental entity was liable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the governmental entity and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The governmental entity sought permission to appeal, arguing first that the employee had acted outside the scope of his employment and, secondly, that he had committed an assault against the plaintiff, either of which would preclude liability under the Act. Although we hold that the employee's conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted the intentional tort of assault rather than negligence. The governmental entity cannot, therefore, be held liable under the Act absent proof of its negligent supervision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed as to the governmental entity, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment against the employee.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/hughesd_052411.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Sufficiently Stated Her Claims Against Jackson County Defendants

TERESA LYNN JACKSON v. AARON THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CIRCUIT COURT CLERK OF JACKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 24, 2011)

Plaintiff appeals the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 dismissal of her claims against two defendants, the Circuit Court Clerk of Jackson County, individually and in his official capacity, and Jackson County, Tennessee for a violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and numerous intentional torts. The trial court dismissed all claims against these defendants finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/jacksont_032411.pdf

Court Reviews a Wrongful Death Suit Against a City Involving an Unsafe Condition Claim

GUY ALEXANDER, JR., AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF JULIE ANNE ALEXANDER, DECEASED v. CITY OF MURFREESBORO (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2011)

Julie Alexander died in an automobile accident on South Rutherford Boulevard in Murfreesboro. Her husband sued the city, claiming that the road was unsafe or dangerous and that the city had notice of the condition of the road. After a trial, the trial court found that the city did not have notice and that the road was not unsafe or dangerous. Ms. Alexander's husband appealed. We affirm the trial court's decision that the city had no notice of the condition.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/alexanderg_031511.pdf

Court reviews whether defendant City had notice of an unsafe road condition in an automobile accident case

JENNIFER BIVINS ET AL. v. CITY OF MURFREESBORO (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2010)

Brandon Bivins died in an automobile accident on South Rutherford Boulevard in Murfreesboro. His mother sued the city, claiming that the road was unsafe or dangerous and that the city had notice of the condition of the road. The trial court held that the city did not have notice of an unsafe or dangerous condition at the spot of the accident. Because the city had notice of prior accidents along that segment of the road and had a consultant's report stating that the road did not meet design guidelines, we reverse the trial court and remand for a determination of whether the road was unsafe or dangerous.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/bivinsj_071210.pdf