Marla H. filed a lawsuit against Knox County, the Knox County Board of Education, and the City of Knoxville for negligent infliction of emotional distress after her daughter, Moriah H., a seventh-grade student, viewed graphic photographs of her deceased father during a school presentation on drunk driving. The trial court found the City of Knoxville liable, determining that the school resource officer's intent to provoke an emotional response constituted a breach of duty. The appellate court acknowledged that it was foreseeable that showing graphic images to seventh graders, particularly those related to the victims, could inflict serious emotional harm. However, it concluded that the evidence did not support the trial court's finding of a lack of reasonable care by the school resource officer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision.
In the background, Moriah's father, William Cabbage, had a history of sexual abuse that led to the termination of his parental rights and Moriah's placement in foster care until her mother regained custody. Moriah had no contact with her father after her removal and learned of his death years later, prompting her mother to file for divorce. Moriah returned to her mother at age six and described her subsequent life as "pretty normal."
Moriah exhibited no emotional issues or signs of post-traumatic stress disorder after returning to her mother, who later married Donnie H. and adopted Moriah. Their life was described by Mother as a "fairytale ending," indicating stability and well-being without the need for counseling. However, on August 28, 2005, Moriah's emotional state was negatively affected during a health class presentation by Officer Roger White on the dangers of alcohol. This presentation, which included discussions on the legal and physical consequences of alcohol use and graphic accident scene photographs, inadvertently included images of Moriah's biological father, William Cabbage, who had died in an alcohol-related accident.
Despite efforts by Officer White and health teacher Kay Green to screen students for potential distress, neither was aware of Moriah’s connection to the deceased. Moriah realized her last name was once Cabbage but did not inform the presenters of her relationship to William Cabbage. She chose to stay in class and view the photographs, describing her reaction as disturbed but showing no outward signs of trauma or distress afterward.
Moriah remained unaffected throughout her day until she learned that William Cabbage was her biological father, which shocked and upset her. During a car ride home, she inquired about Cabbage after seeing graphic images of him at school, which depicted him in a pool of blood. Moriah's mother, upon discovering this, demanded to see the images and expressed her distress, stating she would have prevented Moriah from viewing such content. Following the incident, Moriah became very upset and began crying, later experiencing hallucinations.
On August 30, 2005, Moriah attended her first appointment with Dr. Patricia Lees, a licensed psychologist, who found her to be 'in shock, confused, and disoriented' and diagnosed her with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Moriah was referred to Dr. Dovile Paulauskas, a child psychiatrist, who confirmed the PTSD diagnosis and prescribed Lexapro and Trazodone to manage her symptoms, which included insomnia, nightmares, flashbacks, and fear of darkness. Dr. Paulauskas eventually determined that ongoing medication management was unnecessary but recommended continued therapy. There was some indication that Moriah’s symptoms may have resolved by the end of their treatment, although the details were unclear.
In December 2005, Moriah's mother filed a lawsuit against Knox County, the Knox County Board of Education, and the City of Knoxville, claiming liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for the injuries Moriah suffered due to the negligent actions of the defendants. The amended complaint alleged several points of negligence, including the foreseeability of a student knowing someone involved in an alcohol-related fatality, failure by Officer White to assess Moriah's relationship to the individuals in the photographs, negligence in training and supervising Officer White regarding the dissemination of graphic images to students, and failure to investigate the relevance of the photographs to Moriah. The complaint stated that these actions resulted in an invasion of privacy and severe physical, psychological, and emotional injuries to Moriah.
The complaint seeks at least $300,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages from each defendant, along with attorney’s fees, court costs, and discretionary costs. The City claims immunity from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), asserting it cannot be held liable for punitive damages, and contends that the plaintiffs’ damages, if any, stem from their own negligent or intentional actions, which should reduce their recovery under comparative fault principles. The Board raised similar defenses. The case proceeded to a bench trial in April 2010, featuring witnesses such as Mother, Moriah, Officer White, Ms. Green, and Thomas Brown, as well as depositions from Drs. Lees and Paulauskas. The trial court noted a lack of evidence regarding the educational appropriateness of Officer White’s presentation. The court emphasized that negligence involves failing to exercise ordinary care, which requires establishing what a reasonable and prudent person—specifically in the context of resource officers or teachers—would do. The court expressed concern over the absence of expert testimony to define standards for educational appropriateness, particularly regarding the content delivered to sixth graders. It recognized the ongoing issue of underage alcohol use but questioned whether the methods employed were suitable for the students' age and maturity.
The trial court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against Officer White, who used graphic images in a presentation intended to shock students into awareness about alcohol-related dangers. The court noted that the purpose of the images was to evoke emotional reactions, and recognized that some students may respond more severely than others due to their individual circumstances. It concluded that Officer White acted negligently by not considering the potential emotional impact on each student. Consequently, the court awarded $16,891.36 to cover Moriah's medical expenses and an additional $50,000 in compensatory damages to be held in trust until she turns eighteen.
Importantly, the court did not hold Ms. Green or any other County employee liable for Moriah’s injuries. The plaintiffs argued that Ms. Green and Officer White's failure to present the alcohol awareness program to the appropriate school administrators for screening constituted grounds for liability for both the City and the County. The City acknowledged that neither Officer White nor Ms. Green sought necessary reviews or approvals for the presentation, nor did they inform parents about the graphic content in advance. However, the City maintained that the precautions taken by Officer White were reasonable. The trial court sided with the City, stating that the Knox County policy requiring administrative approval did not establish the standard of care for Ms. Green, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the adequacy of the policy compared to other standards.
The court found the City liable for Officer White's negligence in distributing graphic photographs to students, without considering Officer White's alleged breach of Knox County policy regarding outside speakers. The City appealed the trial court's decision after its motion to amend was denied. Key issues on appeal include whether the Tennessee Supreme Court erred in Sallee v. Barrett by concluding that governmental entities do not retain immunity from suits for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-205(2), and whether the trial court erred in determining that the plaintiffs proved their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The City does not contest the trial court's findings regarding Knox County or the Board's liability. The appellate review will be de novo, respecting the trial court's factual findings unless evidence strongly supports a different conclusion. Citing Sallee, the court emphasized that governmental immunity applies only to intentional, not negligent, infliction of emotional distress, confirming that the City can be held liable under these circumstances. The court ultimately affirms the trial court's decision.
The trial court's finding of the City’s liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress is under scrutiny. In Tennessee, the concept of a 'stand-alone' claim for this type of emotional distress is relatively new. Historically, Tennessee courts employed a 'physical manifestation' rule, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate physical injuries or consequences alongside emotional distress to recover damages. This approach was criticized for being inflexible and inadequate, as it overlooked valid emotional injuries that might not have accompanying physical manifestations, leading to harsh outcomes. Over time, courts began to create exceptions and apply the rule more leniently, resulting in a confusing legal landscape.
The Tennessee Supreme Court, in Camper v. Minor, recognized the limitations of the rigid 'physical manifestation' rule and sought to balance the need to compensate emotional injuries with the necessity to prevent trivial or fraudulent claims. The court advocated for a 'general negligence approach,' treating negligent infliction of emotional distress cases similarly to other negligence cases. In doing so, the Camper court established a three-part test for plaintiffs: (1) they must meet the five elements of ordinary negligence (duty, breach, injury, causation in fact, and proximate cause); (2) demonstrate a 'serious' or 'severe' emotional injury; and (3) support their claim with expert medical or scientific evidence. A 'serious' or 'severe' emotional injury is defined as one that a reasonable person would find difficult to cope with given the circumstances.
The plaintiffs' case hinges on whether they established the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress as outlined in *Camper*. The City argues that Officer White did not owe a duty of care to the students in Ms. Green’s health class, asserting that he neither breached any duty nor caused Moriah's emotional injuries. The City emphasizes the unforeseeability of the traumatic events in Moriah's past, including her early separation from her mother, lack of recognition of her biological father, and subsequent adoption. It claims that the plaintiffs failed to provide credible expert testimony to demonstrate that Moriah suffered a significant emotional injury.
The primary legal question is whether Officer White had a duty of care to the students, including Moriah. The City maintains that this duty resided solely with Knox County Schools and not with Officer White or the City, arguing that Moriah's injuries were unforeseeable. Alternatively, the City contends that the trial court improperly held Officer White to a higher standard of care than Ms. Green. In response, the plaintiffs assert that Officer White owed a reasonable duty of care akin to that of a teacher, which he breached by failing to screen the presentation content and by including graphic images of a relative's death. The Court concluded that Officer White did owe a duty of care to protect students from foreseeable serious harm caused by viewing such disturbing images. The City’s arguments about foreseeability were deemed insufficient, as it failed to clearly differentiate between duty-related and causation-related foreseeability, an area of law that remains complex and evolving in Tennessee.
The case of Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008), features a concurrence and dissent by Justice Holder, who argues that the interconnectedness of questions regarding the probability or foreseeability of harm complicates legal inquiries, potentially undermining the jury's role. The City failed to provide legal or policy justification for the assertion that only "Knox County Schools" owed a duty of care to students in Ms. Green’s health class, relying on an unsupported claim that was inadequate for appeal preservation. A duty of care is defined as the obligation of a defendant to adhere to a reasonable standard of care to prevent unreasonable risks of harm to a plaintiff. Courts in Tennessee generally recognize that individuals must avoid actions that could foreseeably cause injury to others, reflecting societal standards and policies for protection against harm. When determining the existence of a duty, courts may refer to public policy, especially when established precedents do not apply. A balancing approach is employed to assess whether a risk warrants a duty of reasonable care, considering factors such as the foreseeability of harm, potential severity of injury, social value of the defendant's conduct, feasibility and costs of safer alternatives, and the relative safety of those alternatives. Among these factors, foreseeability is emphasized as particularly significant in Tennessee.
Justice Holder has expressed significant criticism regarding the incorporation of foreseeability into the duty analysis, arguing that it undermines the role of the fact-finder, specifically the jury. Citing multiple cases, including Giggers v. Memphis Housing Authority and Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., Holder contends that general foreseeability is a threshold requirement for establishing duty. Courts must first assess whether the risk is foreseeable and then apply a fairness-based balancing test to evaluate the reasonableness of the risk. If an injury could not have been reasonably foreseen, no duty arises, even if causation-in-fact is present.
Holder highlights that foreseeability in the context of duty should focus on the general likelihood of harm rather than the specific harm suffered by the plaintiff. She underscores that a duty exists only if the defendant's conduct creates a recognizable risk to the plaintiff or a group of individuals, aligning with the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Holder advocates for a complete removal of foreseeability from the duty analysis, suggesting that a duty of reasonable care should be presumed whenever a defendant’s actions pose a risk of harm. This perspective is in line with the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Nevertheless, she acknowledges that courts may still have the discretion to rule out a duty in exceptional circumstances, even if a risk is created.
An articulated countervailing principle or policy may justify limiting or denying liability in specific cases. Although the current test for duty may compel trial judges to make distinctions that are slight, critics argue that it risks exposing defendants to unpredictable jury decisions in cases lacking clear negligence. Such complexities regarding the roles of judges and juries in negligence cases are for the supreme court to address. Until the court alters the precedent, it remains binding.
For determining the existence of duty, foreseeability is key, focusing on the likelihood of serious harm that would prompt a reasonable person to take precautions. This assessment does not consider the overall reasonableness of the defendant’s actions but rather whether the defendant should have been vigilant regarding potential harm to the plaintiff. Courts may evaluate prior similar incidents to gauge foreseeability. If the plaintiff shows that a risk of injury was foreseeable, courts will then weigh public policy factors to ascertain if an enforceable duty existed at the time of the alleged breach.
A duty of reasonable care is typically found when the foreseeability of risk and the potential severity of harm outweigh the burden on the defendant to avert that harm. The relationship between foreseeability and the gravity of harm is inversely proportional; higher risk requires lower foreseeability to establish duty. Tennessee courts have determined that educators have a duty to exercise reasonable care for student safety, though this duty may not extend to unforeseeable risks. The court referenced a prior case emphasizing this evolving understanding of duty.
School officials have a significant responsibility to ensure a safe environment for students, but they are not considered insurers of student safety. In Tennessee, teachers are not required to predict every unexpected behavior from students. The trial court acknowledged that teachers must exercise reasonable care in the classroom, and similarly, a school resource officer is expected to act reasonably, particularly when discussing sensitive topics. The legal question at hand is whether the duty of care imposed on the school resource officer is appropriate in this context. The court will evaluate if there was a "probability or likelihood of harm" significant enough to warrant precautions. Tennessee courts recognize that individuals closely related to an injured party often experience severe emotional distress upon witnessing harm to their loved ones. Officer White's past actions indicate he understood the risks of showing graphic photographs to students related to accident victims, as he took steps to avoid potential distress. Expert testimony indicated that showing graphic images to twelve-year-olds, especially those related to victims, poses a credible risk of psychological harm. The precedent suggests that teachers and local school systems are obligated to protect students from reasonably foreseeable dangers.
The decision to implement precautionary measures does not inherently create a duty of care. The case involves Moriah, who experienced PTSD after viewing graphic photographs of her deceased father, which Dr. Paulauskas confirmed as the trauma's source. The City did not present expert testimony to counter this. It was deemed foreseeable that a student could suffer significant emotional harm from unexpectedly viewing such images, prompting a reasonable person, like Officer White, to take preventive actions. However, it was not determined that the mere act of viewing graphic images would predictably cause similar harm, as there was insufficient evidence indicating that a typical seventh grader would sustain serious mental injury from such exposure. The trial court suggested that Moriah’s emotional distress was more closely linked to her history of sexual abuse than to the photographs themselves. Experts noted that her past trauma might have intensified her reaction to seeing her father’s body, but they could not establish a precise connection between this trauma and her PTSD symptoms. Ultimately, the court concluded that a duty of care should be recognized due to the significant risk of emotional harm associated with unexpectedly viewing images of deceased relatives.
Expert testimony raises doubts about the effectiveness of displaying graphic photographs of alcohol-related fatalities to students, suggesting that less harmful alternatives exist for conveying the dangers of alcohol use. The costs of implementing these alternatives are minimal, and their safety is significantly improved compared to the current approach. Officer White is deemed to have a duty to exercise reasonable care in presenting such images to students, particularly given the rising importance of educating youth about drunk driving and alcohol abuse.
Officer White's experience indicates that children as young as twelve engage in drinking and driving, corroborated by a survey of Knox County high school students, which revealed concerning statistics about alcohol-related behaviors among adolescents. Although expert testimonies and the City’s admission indicate a lack of studies supporting the effectiveness of graphic imagery as a deterrent, Ms. Green, a health teacher, believes it is an effective teaching method. The court does not need to determine whether a school resource officer typically has a duty of care similar to that of a teacher, but references a prior ruling that such an officer may take on an educational role. The report highlights alarming statistics about adolescent drinking behaviors, particularly among ninth graders, emphasizing the critical need for early education on the risks of alcohol consumption.
The City failed to provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of showing graphic photographs of alcohol-related fatalities to seventh graders, leading to the conclusion that the potential harm outweighs the policy justification. Officer White was found to owe a limited duty of care to students in Ms. Green’s health class during the distribution of these photographs. The trial court's determination of duty of care for Officer White and the City compared to Ms. Green and the County is deemed irrelevant, as neither party challenged the court's decision regarding the County's non-liability. The court imposed a similar duty of care on Ms. Green but concluded she did not breach her duty of reasonable care towards her students. It found no negligence in either Officer White or Ms. Green's actions regarding the lack of approval for the presentation. The court also ruled out the County's liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress since Ms. Green did not personally distribute the photographs. The question of whether Ms. Green breached her duty by allowing Officer White to conduct the presentation is not part of the current appeal. The next issue concerns whether Officer White breached his duty of care, which requires assessing if he failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, as defined by established legal standards for negligence. Reasonable care is measured against the risks presented in the context, with a focus on preventing unreasonable harm.
Risk is defined as an apparent danger, understood through existing facts and a reasonable belief that harm may follow. The evaluation of an actor's conduct should be based on what was apparent at the time, not retrospectively with the benefit of hindsight. A breach of duty occurs only when a defendant fails to exercise reasonable or ordinary care, with the determination of such a breach being a factual issue. In this case, Officer White was found negligent by the trial court for sharing photographs without knowing the potential emotional reactions from students. However, the court noted that this imposed an unreasonable burden on him, especially considering the age of the affected student, Moriah, who was twelve. The legal standard for care must take into account the age, experience, and maturity of the students involved.
Despite the negligence finding, it was concluded that Officer White exercised reasonable care to mitigate potential emotional harm. He took several proactive steps, including consulting with Ms. Green about the students' backgrounds, reviewing the class roll for related surnames, informing students of the deceased's names and accident details, labeling envelopes containing photographs, and ensuring students could avoid more graphic images.
Officer White instructed students to view graphic photographs only if they wished, and while seeking parental consent could have been an option, his actions were deemed reasonable given the circumstances. The potential emotional harm to a student who might not recognize a deceased relative in the photographs was not considered an apparent risk. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s finding of a breach of duty. Officer White had a responsibility to protect Moriah from foreseeable harm but took adequate precautions to mitigate any potential emotional distress from viewing the images. Therefore, no breach of duty was found, and the plaintiffs failed to prove their negligence claim. The court did not need to address causation or the necessity of expert evidence regarding mental injuries. The trial court's decision was reversed, and costs were assigned to the appellee, Marla H., as the next friend of Moriah H.
