Marla H., Individually and as Next Best Friend to her Daughter Moriah F. H. v. Knox County
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This Tennessee Court of Appeals case concerns negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from graphic accident photographs shown to a seventh-grade class.
- Moriah H. viewed photos of her biological father among other accident victims during a presentation by Officer White and health teacher Kay Green at Holston Middle School.
- Moriah has a complex custody and abuse history, including prior sexual abuse by her biological father and placement in foster care, with later adoption by her mother’s husband.
- The trial court found the City of Knoxville liable for Moriah’s emotional injuries, ruling Officer White’s display of photos was negligent and intended to evoke an emotional response.
- The trial court did not hold Ms. Green or County employees liable, and the City appealed, challenging both the duty and the damages issues.
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining Officer White owed a duty to exercise reasonable care but found no breach in handling the photographs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity under the TGTLA for NIED claims | Sallee allows recovery against government actors for NIED. | Immunity remains for certain torts; disputes Sallee’s reach. | Sallee controls; no immunity to NIED under TGTLA. |
| Whether Officer White owed a duty of care to the students | Officer White’s display created foreseeable harm; duty to protect students. | Duty is limited to the Knox County Schools policy; no special duty on White. | Officer White owed a limited duty to exercise reasonable care to students potentially related to victims. |
| Whether Officer White breached the duty | Displaying potentially harmful photos without adequate screening breached duty. | Officer White took precautionary steps; screening was not required to establish breach. | No breach; White reasonably safeguarded students and used precautions appropriate to the risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822 (Tenn. 2005) (governmental entities do not retain immunity for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims)
- Eskin v. Bartee, 262 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2008) (stand-alone NIED claims and bystander rules; expert proof requirements)
- Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996) (rejected rigid physical manifestation rule; adoption of general negligence approach)
- Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008) (foreseeability and duty analysis; balancing factors and public policy considerations)
- Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (foreseeability in duty analysis; public policy balancing)
- Mason ex rel. Mason v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 189 S.W.3d 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (duty of care owed by schools; safeguarding reasonably foreseeable dangers)