Case Summaries
of Importance to Counties
2013 Liability
- Doe v. Knox County Board of Education, 2013 WL 1803601 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)—Student’s family brought suit against ROTC instructor and school board after instructor allowed student to become intoxicated and then made sexual advances toward student. Trial court ruled for school board finding that the school board was not liable for the instructor’s actions because he was acting outside the scope of his employment. Family appealed, arguing that the judge should have recused himself and awarded a new trial because the judge’s wife was a former employee of the school board. The Court of Appeals denied this claim, finding that the fact that the judge’s wife was a retired secretary of the school system was not sufficient to call the judge’s impartiality into question. Family also appealed court’s finding that the instructor was acting outside the scope of his employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the instructor was not performing a task for which he was employed when the incident occurred and the school board had no reason to expect such an incident would occur. Finally, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that no other school board employee was negligent in failing to prevent the incident. The school board had no notice of the instructor’s behavior and the instructor admitted he knew what he was doing was wrong, thus, lack of training was not an issue. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s verdict for the school board (April 29, 2013).
- Hardeman County v. McIntyre, 2013 WL 1227034 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)—County ambulance was involved in an auto accident while responding to an emergency call. The other person involved in the accident sued the county. The trial court awarded the driver damages, which were reduced by the percentage of fault of the driver as determined by the court. The county appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court found that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s finding that the ambulance driver breached the duty of care. The trial court based its verdict upon the finding that the ambulance was traveling at an excessive rate of speed prior to the accident. The only evidence introduced to support this finding was pictures of the damage to the vehicles. According to the Court, there are several factors which are necessary to determine speed—skid marks, vehicle weights, tire pressure and type/condition of the road surface at the time of the accident. None of these things were presented at trial. Further, testimony indicated that the ambulance was traveling 15 mph over the speed limit. The Court found this speed was reasonable under the circumstances. The ambulance was responding to a drug overdose call and was using its lights and sirens. In addition, the Court found that the other driver breached his statutory duty by failing to yield to the ambulance. Based on these findings, the Court awarded damages to the county (March 27, 2013).
- Moore v. Correct Care Solutions LLC, 2013 WL 1190821 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)—Inmate sued Shelby County and jail healthcare provider for failing to provide proper care while he was incarcerated. The trial court granted the healthcare provider’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the claim was a medical malpractice claim and the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory notice requirements. The trial court also granted the county’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling for the healthcare provider but reversed the dismissal of the suit against the county. The Court found that the suit against the county was for ordinary negligence relating to the county’s failure to obtain care for the inmate. There was no physician-patient relationship between the inmate and county, thus, the claim was not for medical malpractice. The plaintiff did not have to comply with statutory medical malpractice notice requirements as to the claim against the county. Thus, the plaintiff’s action against the county should not have been dismissed (March 25, 2013).
Return to all Case Summaries Relating to Liability