Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff James Crowley obtained a judgment in the amount of $14,500 against defendant Wendy Thomas in the general sessions court. Thomas appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court, Crowley amended his complaint to add his wife as an additional plaintiff and an additional cause of action and to seek additional damages in the amount of $125,000. Shortly before trial, Thomas filed a notice dismissing her appeal. The circuit court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court. The Crowleys moved the circuit court to vacate, alter, or amend its dismissal of Thomas's appeal, which the circuit court denied. The Crowleys appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court properly dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the general sessions court judgment. To preserve the plaintiff's original cause of action after such dismissal, the plaintiff must perfect an appeal to the circuit court as prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. 27-5-108. Affirmed.

In 2004, Plaintiffs Dalton and Sandra Hughes sued the city of Nashville and one of its employees under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Mr. Hughes worked for the local fire department. He alleged that Defendant Frank Archey negligently revved the engine to a front-end loader. The loader dropped its bucket to the pavement and made a loud, scraping noise. Mr. Hughes jumped awkwardly over some guardrail to get out of the way of the loader. Mr. Hughes injured both shoulders and both knees in the fall, and ultimately had rotator-cuff surgery and a double knee replacement. Mr. Hughes incurred significant medical bills and missed work. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Mr. Hughes, and the city appealed, arguing that Mr. Archey acted outside the scope of his employment. Furthermore, the city characterized Mr. Archey's act as an "intentional tort", which absolved it from liability under the GTLA. The Supreme Court found that although Mr. Archey's conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted an intentional tort. The city could not be held liable under the GTLA. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court to enter a judgment against Mr. Archey.