Donna Maria Vetrano v. State of Tennessee
M2015-02474-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Donna Vetrano, a former inmate, and her husband sued the State after a prison guard, Officer Scott Mepham, allegedly sexually assaulted Vetrano while she was housed at the Tennessee Prison for Women.
- Claimants alleged the Department of Correction employees negligently supervised and retained Mepham despite prior reports and investigations indicating he posed a risk to inmates.
- Claimants filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission (and a separate suit against Mepham in circuit court); the Commission must first decide whether the employee acted within the scope of employment before the circuit action may proceed.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the Claims Commission lacks jurisdiction over negligent-supervision claims and (2) the Act bars recovery for willful, malicious, or criminal acts of employees.
- The Claims Commission dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding Mepham acted outside the scope of employment; Claimants appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the negligence claim fits the Claims Commission category for "negligent care, custody and control of persons," and that the Act does not bar negligent claims merely because an employee committed a criminal act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim fits a Claims Commission category | Vetrano: claim is negligent care/custody/control of an inmate | State: claim is really negligent supervision of an employee and outside listed categories | Held: claim falls within "negligent care, custody and control of persons" category |
| Whether the Claims Commission is barred from hearing negligence claims because the underlying harm was a criminal/intentional act of an employee | Vetrano: State can be liable for its own negligence in failing to prevent a foreseeable intentional act | State: Act bars liability for willful, malicious, or criminal acts — Claimants seek to circumvent immunity | Held: Act does not categorically bar negligence claims merely because an employee committed a criminal act; liability may attach for the employer's negligent conduct if proximate cause is established |
| Whether Limbaugh/GTLA precedent forecloses recovery here | Vetrano: Claims Commission Act differs from GTLA and must be liberally construed to waive immunity in specified categories | State: Limbaugh (GTLA) shows governmental entities remain immune where the injury stems from an intentional tort of an employee | Held: Limbaugh (GTLA) is distinguishable; Claims Commission Act uses different language and remedial purpose supports jurisdiction |
| Whether the Claims Commission should transfer claim to circuit court after finding Mepham acted outside scope | Vetrano: asked transfer so they could continue against Mepham in circuit court | State: Commission denied transfer as moot after dismissal | Held: Case remanded to determine transfer question consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010) (standard of review for Claims Commission jurisdiction)
- Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000) (limits on creating new jurisdictional categories)
- Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (Claims Commission Act broadly abrogates sovereign immunity within its categories)
- Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000) (liberal construction of Claims Commission jurisdiction but not to create new categories)
- Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001) (GTLA interpretation distinguishing negligent employer liability and intentional-tort exceptions)
- Cockrum v. State, 843 S.W.2d 433 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (duty of prison officials to exercise reasonable care for inmates)
- McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. P’ship, 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996) (duty to protect from foreseeable criminal attacks)
- McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767 (Tenn. 1991) (liability for failure to prevent foreseeable intentional criminal acts)
- Brown v. Christian Bros. Univ., 428 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of negligent supervision claim)
- Autry v. Hooker, 304 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (GTLA precedent regarding foreseeability and intentional misconduct)