 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center5/31/2000
wever, the GTLA did not remove governmental immunity where the injury arose out of "false imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus from a court, false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional trespass, abuse of process, libel, slander, deceit, interference with contract rights, infliction of mental anguish, invasion of right of privacy, or civil rights." Id. (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3311(2)). Citing this provision, the court held that
he injuries for which recovery is sought in this case arose out of the false arrest and battery described in the complaint and are within the exceptions to municipal liability set forth in [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 23-3311. It follows that the trial judge correctly dismissed the action against the City.
Potter, 556 S.W.2d at 546.
Following the Potter decision, the appellate courts of this state have repeatedly affirmed the principle that the GTLA does not permit plaintiffs to recover against governmental entities for injuries caused by the intentional torts of governmental employees. See, e.g., Tipton County Bd. of Educ. v. Dennis, 561 S.W.2d 148, 152 (Tenn. 1978) ("Like many other statutes permitting recovery from governmental entities for tortious injuries, the [GTLA] contains several exceptions. It does not authorize any recovery at all for most willful or intentional torts."); Belk v. Obion County, 7 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) ("The GTLA allows suit against county and municipal governments for negligent acts of its employees; however, neither intentional torts nor violations of civil rights are covered under the GTLA."); Gifford v. City of Gatlinburg, 900 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (" here is no waiver of immunity under the [GTLA] for intentional tort."); see also Cuzick v. Bass, No. 02A01-9809-CV-00244, 1999 WL 145209, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 1999) (no perm. app. filed) ("Claims involving allegedly intentional acts fall within the purview of the [GTLA] and are barred."). As our supreme court explained in one such case,
he GTLA codified the general common law rule that "all governmental entities immune from suit for any injury which may result from the activities of said governmental entities," [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 29-20-201, . . . . After stating the general rule of immunity, removal of immunity is provided in specific instances. See, e.g., [Tenn. Code Ann.] §§ 29-20-202 (negligent operation of vehicles but continuing certain statutory exceptions), 29-20-203 (unsafe streets and highways), 29-20-204 (dangerous structures). A general waiver of immunity from suit is then provided by [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 29-20-205 "for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment," but an extensive list of exceptions to this removal of immunity is appended to this section, including any injury that " rises out of false imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus from a court, false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional trespass, abuse of process, libel, slander, deceit, interference with contract rights, infliction of mental anguish, invasion of right of privacy, or civil rights. . . ." [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 29-20-205(2). These exceptions and the others contained in this provision make it evident that, while the Legislature did envision a comprehensive scheme, the scope of the GTLA is generally intended to exclude intentional torts as well as certain other torts involving intervening events (riots, etc.) or discretionary or necessary governmental activities.
Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 608 (Tenn. 1987) (emphasis added) (citing Potter v. City of Chattanooga, 556 S.W.2d 543, 544-46 (Tenn. 1977)); accord Montgomery v. M
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|