Anthony Holder v. Shelby County, Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2017-00609-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; November 3, 2017; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed a governmental tort liability case involving Anthony Holder, whose son, Decardis Holder, committed suicide while incarcerated at the Shelby County Jail. Following a bench trial on remand, the trial court found that an employee of Shelby County was negligent for failing to perform mandated wellness checks on Decardis but did not act with intentional misconduct. Consequently, the court ruled that Shelby County was not immune under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) and entered judgment in favor of Anthony Holder. Shelby County appealed the decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding there were no errors in the judgment. 

The background details indicate that Decardis was arrested following a car accident and underwent a mental evaluation that classified him as mentally unstable, resulting in his placement in a special housing unit for unstable inmates. Under Shelby County policy, safety checks were required every thirty minutes. Deputy Melvin Moore, responsible for the unit during the critical hours, failed to conduct even one safety check during his shift. After shift change, Deputy Lorna Morris found Decardis hanging in his cell. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Arnold B. Goldin, with concurrence from Judges J. Steven Stafford and Brandon O. Gibson.

Deputy Morris assisted in removing a sheet from Decedent’s neck and performed CPR after finding him warm with a pulse but not breathing. Observations noted drool around the Decedent's mouth, suggesting he had been unresponsive for some time. The Decedent was transported to Methodist Hospital–Central, where he later died from asphyxiation. In Holder I, the court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of the case against Shelby County, which claimed immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) based on Deputy Moore not acting within his employment scope. The trial court had dismissed the case, stating the amended complaint lacked allegations of negligence and that Deputy Moore was not engaged in county business when he allegedly falsified logs. The appellate court found that the complaint adequately alleged Deputy Moore’s negligence occurred within his employment scope, thus overturning the dismissal. The court clarified that while the pleadings were sufficient for the motion to dismiss, it did not determine if Deputy Moore's actions were negligent or intentional. Following remand, the trial court concluded that Deputy Moore’s actions were negligent, holding Shelby County liable under the GTLA, resulting in a $300,000 judgment against the county. Shelby County appeals, questioning whether the trial court erred in classifying Moore's conduct as negligent rather than intentional. The standard of review for the appeal involves de novo examination of factual findings, which are presumed correct unless proven otherwise, while legal questions are reviewed without such presumption.

The GTLA establishes exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits against governmental entities only if they have consented. According to Tennessee law, governmental entities are generally immune from suit for injuries arising from their functions, unless specified exceptions apply. The GTLA permits claims for injuries caused by negligent acts of employees within their employment scope, but lists exceptions for certain intentional torts. To hold a governmental entity liable, a court must find that the employee's actions were negligent, within the scope of employment, and that none of the GTLA exceptions apply. In the current case, the primary question is whether any exceptions under Section 29-20-205 apply, particularly regarding Deputy Moore's actions being classified as negligent or intentional. Shelby County contends that Moore's actions were intentional to maintain sovereign immunity, citing the Tennessee Supreme Court case Hughes, which addressed the distinction between negligence and intentional torts. The Hughes court determined that an employee's intent to cause apprehension of harm constituted an intentional tort, thus negating immunity. The Holder I case clarified that the employee's intent is crucial in distinguishing between negligence and intentional torts but noted that Hughes was not directly applicable due to different procedural contexts.

To establish intentional tortious conduct, it is insufficient to merely infer tortious intent; a clear distinction exists between negligent and intentional actions based on the actor's desire for the consequences or their certainty. An intentional actor aims to cause specific outcomes or is substantially certain those outcomes will occur, whereas a negligent actor does not share these intentions or beliefs, only recognizing a risk of such consequences. 

In the case of Deputy Moore, the determination of his conduct as intentional or negligent hinges on his intent regarding the Decedent's death. The trial court found that Deputy Moore did not intend to harm the Decedent nor was he aware that harm would result from his failure to perform wellness checks or from falsifying the logbook. He acknowledged that his negligence led to the Decedent's death but did not have the desire or belief that harm would come to him.

Despite Deputy Moore’s admission of negligence, his testimony indicated he was not aware of any suicidal tendencies in the Decedent, which the court found aligned with its conclusion that he did not intend to cause harm. Although Deputy Moore had a duty to perform wellness checks, his actions were deemed negligent rather than intentional. Consequently, this lack of intent precluded the establishment of Shelby County’s liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and ordered further proceedings consistent with its findings, with costs assessed to Shelby County.