Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County
2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Hughes sued Metro and employee Archey under the GTLA for injuries from an October 17, 2003 incident.
- Archey was operating a Metro front-end loader returning to a Public Works facility when the incident occurred.
- Plaintiff, walking with his back to Archey, jumped over a guardrail after hearing a loud revving noise and seeing the loader's bucket scrape the pavement.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent operation or intentional assault; Metro paid medical costs and wages, seeking subrogation and setoffs.
- Trial court found Archey acted within the scope of employment, and Metro was liable under GTLA with a cap and set-off; found no negligent supervision.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court reversed on the scope/intent analysis, ultimately holding the act was an assault, which does not remove immunity absent negligent supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Archey acting within the scope of employment? | Hughes: within Metro's course of duties; scope supported by turnover and vehicle use. | Metro: Terrett factors show outside scope due to horseplay-like conduct. | Act within scope of employment. |
| Did Archey's act constitute negligence or the intentional tort of assault? | Hughes: horseplay may be negligent; GTLA removal of immunity for negligent acts. | Metro: assault not a negligent act; immunities apply unless negligent supervision shown. | The act was an intentional assault. |
| Does assault fit within GTLA exemptions or immunity framework for governmental entities? | Hughes: assault could remove immunity if within scope and negligent supervision shown; GTLA exceptions apply to negligent acts. | Metro: Limbaugh excludes assault from enumerated exceptions; immunity remains if no negligent supervision proved. | Assault does not waive immunity; Metro remains immune absent negligent supervision evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Limbaugh v. Coffee Memorial Hospital, 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001) (immunity not waived for intentional torts unless negligent supervision shown)
- Russell v. City of Memphis, 106 S.W.3d 655 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002) (prima facie scope and rebuttal evidence for agency vehicle use)
- Terrett v. Wray, 105 S.W.2d 93 (Tenn.1957) (scope of employment; extraordinary acts may depart from master’s business)
- Huffman v. State, 292 S.W.2d 738 (Tenn.1956) (assault requires intent to harm rather than fright alone (historical standard))
- Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn.1995) (GTLA strictly construed and confined to express terms)
- White v. Revco Disc. Drug Ctrs., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn.2000) (respondeat superior framework and scope considerations in employment)