Linda K. Guthrie v. Rutherford County, Tennessee
M2015-01718-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Dec 15, 2016Background
- On Nov. 3, 2010, Linda Guthrie, a special-education assistant at Smyrna Middle School, was struck by a student who was roughhousing, fell, and sustained serious injuries (hip and wrist fractures).
- Guthrie sued Rutherford County under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), alleging the County negligently failed to supervise students and enforce school rules; she also sued the students (later nonsuited parents).
- The County asserted governmental immunity under the TGTLA, relying on the discretionary-function exception; the trial court denied summary judgment initially but, after a bench trial, found for the defendants.
- The trial court concluded: (1) students could not be held negligent; (2) the policy requiring teachers to monitor doorways/hallways was a discretionary planning-level decision protected by immunity; and (3) Guthrie failed to prove a violation of policy or County negligence.
- Guthrie appealed, challenging the pleading of immunity, the discretionary characterization of the monitoring policy, whether the policy was violated (operational act), and whether the County was negligent or the proximate cause of her injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was governmental immunity properly pled? | Guthrie: discretionary-function is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proved by County. | County: TGTLA immunity is a threshold issue and was denied in the complaint and raised in the answer/defenses. | Court: Immunity need not be specially pled; County sufficiently put plaintiff on notice and raised the defense. |
| Is the hallway-monitoring policy a discretionary (planning) function? | Guthrie: formulation and application were subject to review; policy should not automatically shield County. | County: policy formulation and allocation of supervisory resources are discretionary planning-level decisions. | Court: Monitoring policy is a discretionary planning decision protected by the TGTLA exception. |
| Did County agents fail to follow policy (operational act) so immunity is removed? | Guthrie: evidence preponderates that teachers (PE teachers) were absent from posts and policy was not followed. | County: testimony showed policy permitted certain absences; plaintiff failed to prove any mandatory rule was breached or that employees acted unreasonably. | Court: Evidence insufficient to show violation of mandatory policy; absence permitted by policy, so immunity not abrogated. |
| Did Guthrie prove County negligence and proximate cause? | Guthrie: County breached duty to provide a safe workplace (Overstreet principles) by not adequately supervising; breach caused injuries. | County: no breach shown; policies existed and were reasonable; actions did not fall below standard of care. | Court: Plaintiff failed to prove elements of negligence (breach and causation); judgment for defendants affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427 (Tenn. 1992) (adopts planning-operational test for discretionary-function analysis)
- Chudasama v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 914 S.W.2d 922 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (assignment of teachers to supervise is discretionary)
- Limbaugh v. Coffee Cty. Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001) (operational acts implementing policy must be reasonable; violation of mandatory policy can remove immunity)
- Chase v. City of Memphis, 971 S.W.2d 380 (Tenn. 1998) (compliance with mandatory regulations preserves immunity; violation may remove it)
- King v. Anderson Cty., 419 S.W.3d 232 (Tenn. 2013) (elements of negligence summarized)