 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County11/9/2005
pouses' Intentional Tort Claims
Despite their insistence in the trial court that their claims sounded in contract rather than tort, all five surviving spouses take issue with the trial court's decision to grant the summary judgment dismissing their intentional tort claims on the ground that they were barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(6). They assert that the trial court erred because their complaints contain claims based on intentional torts other than misrepresentation and that these claims are permitted under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-310(c) (Supp. 2004). We have concluded that the trial court properly dismissed these intentional tort claims.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity, embedded in Tenn. Const. art. I, § 17, provides that suits for money damages may not be brought against the State of Tennessee or other governmental entities without their consent. Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tenn. 2001); Hawks v. City of Westmoreland, 960 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Tenn. 1997). When the Tennessee General Assembly enacted the Governmental Tort Liability Act in 1973, it consented to suits for money damages being filed against counties, municipalities, and other local government entities. The Governmental Tort Liability Act must be construed strictly because it is in derogation of the common law. Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 79 (Tenn. 2001). Where immunity from suit has been waived, the government entity is the proper defendant, not the government employee whose conduct caused the injury . Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20- 310(b) (Supp. 2004); Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 826 (Tenn. 2005).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205 expressly removes immunity from suit "for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his [or her] employment." However, the statute contains exceptions to waiver. While it had been believed for decades that the Governmental Tort Liability Act did not authorize suits for damages caused by a local government employee's intentional tort, the Tennessee Supreme Court has now held that the Act does not embody a blanket prohibition against suits seeking damages for all intentional torts. Rather, the Court has limited the immunity to the intentional torts enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205. Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d at 84.
The Governmental Tort Liability Act explicitly provides that local governments retain immunity for injuries caused by their employees "deceit," Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(2), and for injuries caused by "misrepresentation by an employee whether or not such is negligent or intentional," Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(6). The issue we must decide is whether the tort claims of the five surviving spouses fall within the scope of these two provisions. We are guided in our analysis of this question by the customary rules of statutory construction, as well as our understanding of the state of the law when the Governmental Tort Liability Act was enacted. Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d at 826-29; Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d at 83.
Substantial overlapping exists in modern tort law with regard to the concepts of deceit and misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is the keystone in the architecture of the tort law of fraud and deceit. 9 Stuart M. Speiser, The American Law of Torts § 32:11, at 228 (1992); see also Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423, 426-27 (Tenn. 1997) (recognizing three separate torts based on misrepresentation, including fraud or deceit); Holt v. Am. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 731 S.W.2d 923, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). For the most part, the common-law tort of deceit is limited to cases where there was an intent to mislead. 2 Fowler V. Harper, The Law of T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|