Kenneth E. King v. Anderson County, Tennessee, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 989

Mr. King, a Tennessee inmate, sues Anderson County for negligence arising from an assault by a cellmate while in custody.
King was classified as medium security and housed with inmates who had violent offenses; eight hours in a prior night had passed without incident.
A three-hour-plus delay occurred before King’s pretrial release paperwork was processed by Officer Terri McCloud, who arrived at the jail well after the court-ordered release time.
King was returned to the same cell after the delay and subsequently assaulted by Brandon Paul, suffering a fractured nose and severe damage to his right eye, with accompanying alleged sexual assault claims.
Plaintiff alleged negligence in classification, housing, and timely release; trial court found no liability for classification/housing but did fault timely release, awarding damages and apportioning fault between King and the County.
Appellate courts affirmed the liability on timely release; the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed in part, holding no proximate cause for the timely release delay, and remanding for dismissal, while affirming the statutory obligation to pay medical bills.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proximate cause via foreseeability in jail delay.	King argues foreseeability links county delay to injuries.	Anderson County argues injuries were not reasonably foreseeable as to the delay.	Foreseeability insufficient; no proximate cause.
Substantial factor and policy limits on liability.	King contends County's delay was a substantial factor in causing harm and not barred by public policy.	County contends jail policy/public policy limits liability for inmate injuries.	County’s delay not a proximate cause due to policy considerations.
Public policy governing inmate safety liability in jails.	King asserts no public policy bars recovery for foreseeable injuries.	County argues jails are not insurers of safety and public policy limits liability.	Jails are not insurers of safety; foreseeability limited liability; no proximate cause.

Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005) (three-prong proximate cause test and foreseeability framework)
Haynes v. Hamilton Cnty., 883 S.W.2d 606 (Tenn. 1994) (proximate cause foreseeability principle in torts)
Doe v. Linder Const. Co., Inc., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992) (foreseeability as time-of-action determiner)
McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767 (Tenn. 1991) (causation in proximate cause analysis; 'but-for' concept)
West v. E. Tenn. Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2005) (foreseeability and duty considerations in torts)
Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (proximate cause and causation requirements in public entities)
Gillespie v. Metro. Gov't, 1992 WL 9441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (not included due to WL reporter status; cited for principle that jail liability requires notice)
Downs ex rel. Downs v. Bush, 263 S.W.3d 812 (Tenn. 2008) (foreseeability standard in torts)
West v. E. Tenn. Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2005) (foreseeability and duty considerations in torts)
Doe v. Linder Const. Co., Inc., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992) (foreseeability as time-of-action determiner)
McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767 (Tenn. 1991) (causation elements and proximate cause framework)