LEONARD PORTER, JR. ET AL. v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 25, 2010)
This action arises from the issuance of stop work orders that prevented the plaintiffs from completing the construction of their new residence. The plaintiffs brought this action against the City of Clarksville and the Clarksville Building and Codes Department under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) asserting numerous and varied claims, including claims for false statements, fraud, deception, conspiracy, discrimination, malicious harassment, coercion, and violation of due process, and requested financial damages, emotional damages, and punitive damages. The defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the action was a de facto appeal of the administrative hearing on the stop work orders and that the defendants were immune under the GTLA. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/porterl_012610.pdf
Showing posts with label GTLA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GTLA. Show all posts
January 25, 2010
December 09, 2009
Court of Appeals confirms judgment against city for damages
BOBBY STEVE SIMMONS and JEANNIE L. SIMMONS v. CITY OF MURFREESBORO, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 9, 2009)
Appellants granted a sewer line easement to the City. The City hired a sub-contractor to install the sewer line and to restore the property following construction. Appellants, who were dissatisfied with the sub-contractor's restoration, filed suit against the City and the sub-contractor. The sub-contractor subsequently went out of business, and the trial court entered a judgment against the City for $13,070.00, representing the value of Appellants' land plus the cost to repair a fence. Appellants appeal, claiming the proper measure of damages is the cost to restore their property -- $137,779.62. On appeal, the City contends that Appellants may not sue the City, that Appellants breached the contract by refusing the sub-contractor access to their property, and that the trial court's award should be reduced by $132.00.
The proper measure of damages in this case is the lesser of the cost to restore Appellants' property or the difference in reasonable market value of the premises immediately prior to and immediately after the injury. Although neither party presented evidence regarding the property's diminished value, we find that the trial court considered the appropriate factors in setting the amount of damages. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/simmonsb_121009.pdf
Appellants granted a sewer line easement to the City. The City hired a sub-contractor to install the sewer line and to restore the property following construction. Appellants, who were dissatisfied with the sub-contractor's restoration, filed suit against the City and the sub-contractor. The sub-contractor subsequently went out of business, and the trial court entered a judgment against the City for $13,070.00, representing the value of Appellants' land plus the cost to repair a fence. Appellants appeal, claiming the proper measure of damages is the cost to restore their property -- $137,779.62. On appeal, the City contends that Appellants may not sue the City, that Appellants breached the contract by refusing the sub-contractor access to their property, and that the trial court's award should be reduced by $132.00.
The proper measure of damages in this case is the lesser of the cost to restore Appellants' property or the difference in reasonable market value of the premises immediately prior to and immediately after the injury. Although neither party presented evidence regarding the property's diminished value, we find that the trial court considered the appropriate factors in setting the amount of damages. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/simmonsb_121009.pdf
January 17, 2008
Simple tool doctrine is abolished because it is essentially a variation of the assumption of risk defense
CHARLES ROBERT BAGGETT v. BEDFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE (Tenn.Ct.App. January 16, 2008).
This is a comparative negligence case. The plaintiff prisoner was incarcerated at the defendant county's jail. The inmates were given an opportunity to earn a reduction in their sentences by performing construction work to expand the jail's workhouse facility. The plaintiff volunteered for this program and was assigned the task of hanging cement board on the walls of the workhouse; the jail provided the plaintiff with a scaffold and a step ladder. The plaintiff was told to hang one of the boards at a height that could not be reached by standing on the scaffold alone. To perform the task, the plaintiff put the ladder on top of the scaffold and climbed the ladder. In doing so, he lost his balance, the scaffold collapsed, and he fell to the floor, sustaining serious injuries.
The plaintiff prisoner sued the county under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, seeking damages for his injuries. The county moved for summary judgment, asserting the simple tool doctrine and comparative negligence. The trial court granted the motion on both grounds. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse, finding, inter alia, that the simple tool doctrine is a form of assumption of the risk and, as such, has been abolished in favor of comparative negligence.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/baggettc_011608.pdf
"The simple tool doctrine is clearly grounded in the principle of implied assumption of risk, unequivocally abolished in Perez. Because the simple tool doctrine is a variation of assumption of risk, we hold that it too must be considered abolished in favor of comparative negligence." Id.
This is a comparative negligence case. The plaintiff prisoner was incarcerated at the defendant county's jail. The inmates were given an opportunity to earn a reduction in their sentences by performing construction work to expand the jail's workhouse facility. The plaintiff volunteered for this program and was assigned the task of hanging cement board on the walls of the workhouse; the jail provided the plaintiff with a scaffold and a step ladder. The plaintiff was told to hang one of the boards at a height that could not be reached by standing on the scaffold alone. To perform the task, the plaintiff put the ladder on top of the scaffold and climbed the ladder. In doing so, he lost his balance, the scaffold collapsed, and he fell to the floor, sustaining serious injuries.
The plaintiff prisoner sued the county under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, seeking damages for his injuries. The county moved for summary judgment, asserting the simple tool doctrine and comparative negligence. The trial court granted the motion on both grounds. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse, finding, inter alia, that the simple tool doctrine is a form of assumption of the risk and, as such, has been abolished in favor of comparative negligence.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/baggettc_011608.pdf
"The simple tool doctrine is clearly grounded in the principle of implied assumption of risk, unequivocally abolished in Perez. Because the simple tool doctrine is a variation of assumption of risk, we hold that it too must be considered abolished in favor of comparative negligence." Id.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)