Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center
2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756, 59 S.W.3d 73 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), a governmental entity is not immune from liability for its own negligence that proximately causes a foreseeable injury from an employee's intentional tort if that tort, such as assault and battery, is not specifically enumerated in the statute's list of immunity exceptions.
Facts:
- Emma Ruth Limbaugh, a ninety-year-old resident with Alzheimer's disease, was under the care of Coffee Medical Center (CMC), a nursing home.
- Ms. Limbaugh was mentally and physically infirm, requiring restraints and complete dependence on her caretakers.
- On January 1, 1997, CMC nursing assistant Louise Ray engaged in a physical altercation with a visitor, Jennie Cox, grabbing and twisting her finger, which caused injury and left scars.
- Ms. Cox reported Ray's aggressive behavior to the Director of Nursing, who filed a formal complaint with the CMC Administrator, including statements from Ray's colleagues that she was harsh and impatient with residents.
- CMC administration was aware of the complaint but took no disciplinary action against Ray before the incident with Ms. Limbaugh.
- On January 19, 1997, eighteen days after the incident with the visitor, Louise Ray physically assaulted and seriously injured Emma Ruth Limbaugh.
Procedural Posture:
- Eddie Brown Limbaugh, on behalf of his mother, sued Louise Ray for assault and battery and Coffee Medical Center (CMC) for negligence in the Circuit Court for Coffee County (trial court).
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Ray liable for $25,000 and CMC liable for $40,000.
- CMC appealed the judgment against it to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court); Limbaugh also appealed the apportionment of damages.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Ray but reversed the judgment against CMC, holding that as a governmental entity, it was immune from suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA).
- Limbaugh then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which granted the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intentional tort exception of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) immunize a governmental entity from liability for its own negligence when that negligence proximately causes a foreseeable assault and battery by its employee, given that assault and battery are not explicitly listed in the exception?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, J.
No. The intentional tort exception of the GTLA does not immunize a governmental entity from liability for its own negligence that leads to a foreseeable assault and battery by an employee, because assault and battery are not enumerated in the statute's list of excepted torts. The court reasoned that the GTLA waives immunity for negligence but preserves it only for injuries arising out of a specific, enumerated list of intentional torts. Because assault and battery are conspicuously absent from this list, the court applied the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' to conclude the legislature did not intend to provide immunity for them. The court explicitly overruled its prior decision in Potter v. City of Chattanooga, which had interpreted the exception broadly to cover non-enumerated intentional torts. Furthermore, the court held that where a negligent defendant's breach of duty creates the foreseeable risk of an intentional tort, and both wrongdoers are parties to the suit, they are jointly and severally liable for the total damages, and principles of comparative fault do not apply to reduce the negligent party's liability.
Concurring - Holder, J.
No. The author agrees with the majority's result but writes separately to argue that Potter v. City of Chattanooga should be overruled in its entirety, not just in part. The concurrence argues that the reasoning in Potter was fundamentally flawed because it prevented a plaintiff from pursuing a valid, separate claim for negligent employment practices simply because the ultimate injury stemmed from an employee's intentional act. A governmental entity should be liable for its own negligence in hiring and supervision regardless of the nature of the employee's subsequent tortious act, as the claim arises from the entity's negligence, not the employee's intentional tort.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of governmental immunity in Tennessee by rejecting a broad interpretation of the GTLA's intentional tort exception. By overruling the precedent set in Potter v. City of Chattanooga, the court established that governmental immunity is waived for negligence leading to any intentional tort not explicitly listed in the statute, such as assault and battery. This holding increases the accountability of government entities for their own negligence in hiring, training, and supervising employees. The ruling on joint and several liability also ensures that a negligent party cannot diminish its own responsibility by pointing to the foreseeable intentional misconduct it had a duty to prevent.
