Case Summaries
of Importance to Counties

2013 Zoning

Rowland v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 2013 WL 784582 (Tenn. Ct. App.)--Two students were injured in a school bus accident and their parents sued Metro alleging negligence. The trial court found the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident to be 75% at fault and Metro to be 25% at fault. The trial court based Metro’s liability partly on the speed of the bus at the time of the accident. Metro appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision finding that there was no evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the speed of the bus was a factor in the accident. The posted speed limit was 35 mph and the bus was traveling 30 mph. The Court noted that there may have been a sign suggesting drivers travel 20 mph around the curve in the road, but even so, there was no evidence showing that excessive speed by the bus was a contributing factor. Also, the Court found there was no evidence to support that the bus driver’s violations of policy, having a soda bottle and a boom box in her seat area, caused the accident or the students’ injuries. Finally, the Court found that the evidence did not support the trial court’s conclusion that the bus driver’s deviation from her approved route was the proximate cause of the accident. The Court found that the actions of the other driver caused the accident, and thus, Metro was not negligent (February 28, 2013).

Patterson v. Convention Center Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville 2013 WL 209051 (Tenn. Ct. App.)—Union filed suit against the Convention Center Authority (the “Authority”) seeking payroll records submitted to the Authority by contractors working on the convention center project. The Authority had produced the records to the Union but the Union argued the Authority failed to produce the complete records because the Authority had redacted the workers’ home addresses and social security numbers. The trial court found that the home addresses were not confidential under the Tennessee Public Records Act and the Authority appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court found that the Authority did not possess the records by virtue of being an employer and that the employees were not “public employees” under the statute. Therefore, the home addresses were not confidential and should not have been redacted. The Court did find that the social security numbers were properly redacted as T.C.A. § 4-4-125 prohibits the disclosure of social security numbers by state agencies. The Court also upheld the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court found that fees and costs were not proper in this case because the Authority produced the redacted records in good faith (January 17, 2013).