 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pendleton v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville9/1/2005
Factual Background and Procedural History
On November 18, 2001, Plaintiff Rickey Pendleton ("Pendleton") visited an acquaintance, Pamela Scott ("Scott"), at the Homestead Suites located on McGavock Pike in Nashville, Tennessee. Upon arrival, Pendleton discovered Scott "going berserk" and tearing up her hotel room. Pendleton suspected Scott of drug use and noticed syringes in the room. As a result of Scott's behavior, the hotel manager called the Nashville Metro Police and Sergeant Swisher, Officer Christy, and Officer Henshaw (cumulatively referred to as "the officers") responded to the scene. When Ms. Scott ignored the police officers' request that she come out of her hotel room, the officers grabbed her by the arm and escorted her outside.
Due to Scott's resistance, the officers placed Scott face down on the ground and attempted to handcuff her. Believing that the officers were using unnecessary force in Scott's arrest, Pendleton tried to intervene, but was instead escorted away by Sergeant Swisher. During this encounter, Pendleton told Sergeant Swisher that he had a gun. In response, Swisher pushed Pendleton into the wall and Pendleton fell to the ground, injuring his head. Pendleton also claims that the officers hit him with nightsticks, stomped on his back, and kicked him in the ribs. After handcuffing Pendleton, the officers found a loaded gun in his back pocket.
Pendleton filed suit against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metropolitan Government") on November 8, 2002, asserting liability for assault and battery under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act ("GTLA"). Pendleton later amended his complaint to further allege liability against the Metropolitan Government because his injuries were proximately caused by the negligent actions of the police officers, who acted within the scope of their employment. None of Pendleton's pleadings set forth any claim of negligence against the Metropolitan Government.
On April 30, 2004, the Metropolitan Government filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Pendleton's assault and battery claim failed under the GTLA because Pendleton could not show that the Metropolitan Government acted negligently in failing to prevent the alleged harm. In support of its motion, the Metropolitan Government provided affidavit proof that the officers were extensively trained and had received no prior complaints for excessive force. In response, Pendleton again failed to assert that the Metropolitan Government acted negligently, but rather argued that the Metropolitan Government was vicariously liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Metropolitan Government, holding that a specific claim of negligence must be asserted against a municipality in order for a waiver of governmental immunity to occur under the GTLA. Pendleton appeals from the trial court's ruling raising the issue of whether, under the GTLA, the Metropolitan Government can be held vicariously liable for the intentional actions of its employees solely under the doctrine of respondeat superior. For the reasons contained herein, we hold that Pendleton cannot proceed against the Metropolitan Government under a claim of respondeat superior and affirm the trial court.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party can demonstrate that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04; Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993). Specifically, the moving party must affirmatively negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|