DALTON REB HUGHES ET AL. v. THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE ET AL. (Tenn. May 24, 2011)
After being injured when he jumped out of the path of a front-end loader owned by a governmental entity and operated by its employee, the plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the employee either was negligent in his operation of the equipment or had acted intentionally and that the governmental entity was liable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the governmental entity and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The governmental entity sought permission to appeal, arguing first that the employee had acted outside the scope of his employment and, secondly, that he had committed an assault against the plaintiff, either of which would preclude liability under the Act. Although we hold that the employee's conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted the intentional tort of assault rather than negligence. The governmental entity cannot, therefore, be held liable under the Act absent proof of its negligent supervision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed as to the governmental entity, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment against the employee.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/hughesd_052411.pdf
The Tennessee Construction Law Blog is published by David Headrick of the Adams Law Firm, a full-service law firm with offices in Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee.
June 29, 2011
June 25, 2011
An ICE Storm of Immigration Audits is Coming
An ICE Storm of Immigration Audits is Coming
Dana Olsen
Corporate Counsel
June 22, 2011
For the second time this year, auditors at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security are cracking down on employers to ensure compliance with workplace eligibility laws. Ian MacDonald, an immigration attorney at Littler Mendelson, says the audits are not going to stop anytime soon.
The government announced last week its intention to audit the hiring records of 1,000 employers of all sizes across the country. ICE says the selection of targeted employers is random, but MacDonald says certain industries are particularly prone to the audits. In February, the agency made a similar announcement and investigated 1,000 employers. Adding in whistleblower tips, the latest action brings the number of I-9 audits for fiscal year 2011 up to 2,300.
See complete article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202498023756
Dana Olsen
Corporate Counsel
June 22, 2011
For the second time this year, auditors at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security are cracking down on employers to ensure compliance with workplace eligibility laws. Ian MacDonald, an immigration attorney at Littler Mendelson, says the audits are not going to stop anytime soon.
The government announced last week its intention to audit the hiring records of 1,000 employers of all sizes across the country. ICE says the selection of targeted employers is random, but MacDonald says certain industries are particularly prone to the audits. In February, the agency made a similar announcement and investigated 1,000 employers. Adding in whistleblower tips, the latest action brings the number of I-9 audits for fiscal year 2011 up to 2,300.
See complete article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202498023756
Labels:
Employees,
ICE,
Immigration,
news
June 15, 2011
Court Reviews a Dismissed Cased Involving a Dispute Arising from the Construction of Two Houses
TERRY LAKE AND LINDA OUSLEY V. LOUIS HAYNES, BARBARA HAYNES AND RUNNING BEAR CONSTRUCTION (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011)
This is a construction case. The plaintiffs hired the defendant construction company to build two residential houses. Disputes arose during construction over completion of the work and the plaintiffs did not make some payments to the construction company. After the plaintiffs terminated the contract, they sued the defendant construction company. The construction company filed a counter-complaint. After a trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and the defendants' counter-complaint. However, the trial court failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/laket_060911.pdf
This is a construction case. The plaintiffs hired the defendant construction company to build two residential houses. Disputes arose during construction over completion of the work and the plaintiffs did not make some payments to the construction company. After the plaintiffs terminated the contract, they sued the defendant construction company. The construction company filed a counter-complaint. After a trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and the defendants' counter-complaint. However, the trial court failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/laket_060911.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)