GIGGERS v. Memphis Housing Authority
363 S.W.3d 500
Tenn.2012Background
- Plaintiffs, survivors of a tenant killed by a fellow tenant, sued Memphis Housing Authority (MHA) alleging negligent failure to evict the dangerous tenant.
- Decedent was killed March 7, 2002 by a stray bullet fired by L.C. Miller, a fellow tenant at an MHA housing project.
- Plaintiffs alleged MHA failed to evict Miller or properly assess Miller’s risk after prior incidents, breaching the lease duty of care.
- MHA sought summary judgment arguing federal preemption under 42 U.S.C. § 1437d and GTLA discretionary-function immunity; trial court denied.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding preemption and immunity; Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to resolve preemption and immunity questions.
- On remand, plaintiffs alleged MHA violated a 1998 “one-strike” policy by not evicting Miller after an aggravated assault; MHA contested the policy’s applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1437d preempt the negligence claim? | Giggers argues preemption blocks state-law negligence claims against MHA. | MHA contends federal law preempts the claim due to § 1437d objectives. | Not preempted; claim can proceed. |
| Is MHA immune under the GTLA discretionary-function exception? | Giggers contends eviction decisions are not protected by immunity and are actionable operational acts. | MHA argues eviction decisions are discretionary planning/policy immunity. | Eviction decision is operational, not entitled to discretionary-function immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (preemption analysis under Supremacy Clause)
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (implied preemption when conflict with federal statute)
- Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 (1982) (purpose of legislation governs pre-emption analysis)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (statutory purpose as touchstone in preemption)
- N.Y. State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (strong presumption against preemption; regulation vs. tort claims)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (state tort law generally not preempted absent clear congressional directives)
- Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002) (HUD regulations interpret § 1437d; preemption context)
- King v. Hous. Auth. of Huntsville, 670 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1982) (HUD guidance and eviction discretion in housing authorities)