ÿWPC  ÊŠs¡+˜ s¦9„£ ;ªi“´ëÚ4Ýa³ŒzˆíÝ“rÐÓú„èìöÕD…ÎôQƒ%6 º€Ü$1*V¿ÖÒ‘(7Ö“{ÏŒ‰¹WÒJg>A]†=3ð;@4Bs¾h'Å‹ýé‹â§¤”HɵÁ¹® ó(ÛÙBŽzÁ¨q{}=RJW8Jì^ì[â‡üxíáù8~4Pßµai@ÝŽLV¹Ê@ðæè›ý²Y%Ïe›y|•¢¤_J€¯Nıѡ³3¬ä–D@S­.îùjål%+â’qV—ðþpëDôöåþÀ†½Zi¡J“#²NV[ቈhÁ]lYoÅYýÞúÈÒQæ !Ê6zˆR}†ð”“CCŽ ü»k)нlѳS@ë*þ ø^ˆÂ9à s• }ÄË}n—!ÉHí¤ )õ¼È”wß(ni&ì÷b=]P/ÏAWï¡§ Ú™§ËÏJ 0™4ÈÄC#€É(ëËg,ÅL°W µ ܶñ>ˆáÐÄÿ<.ËÊ^²€Ç,›0 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWatson,€Hollow€&€Reeves,€PLCÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ŸŸ$ìàÔ€X¦ÏXXX†:ÔÔ€ ½a XX¦ÏÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ €Æ   ½aÔÔ€X†:X  €ÆÔˆÐ š1J'/ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌVACATED€IN€PARTÌñÇ ñÑ!P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ!P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑñÇ ñREMANDEDà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àSusano,€J.Ð ^:09 ÐÑ!P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑñÇ ñÑ!P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑñÇ ñÓÓà  àà ` àThis€action€was€brought€against€the€City€of€MaryvilleÏ(ð ðthe€Cityðð)€by€plaintiffs€Olympia€Child€Development€Center,€Inc.Ï(ð ðOlympiaðð),€Deborah€Dunn€(ð ðDunnðð),€Mary€Everhart€(ð ðEverhartðð),Ïand€Lisa€Murphy€(ð ðMurphyðð),€seeking€damages€arising€out€of€anÏautomobile€accident.€€The€collision€occurred€when€a€van€owned€byÏOlympia€and€driven€by€Murphy€was€struck€by€a€vehicle€driven€byÏRodney€Parton,€an€off„duty€Maryville€police€officer.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€City€as€to€allÏclaims,€and€the€plaintiffs€appealed,€raising€the€following€issue:ÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€granting€summaryÏjudgment€where€disputed€factual€issues€remain,€andÏwhere€the€Defendant,€who€moved€for€summaryÏjudgment,€failed€to€address€all€issues€in€itsÏmotion€for€summary€judgment?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌThe€City,€meanwhile,€formulates€the€issues€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€correctly€grant€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€City€since€plaintiffs€failed€toÏpresent€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€to€refuteÏthe€evidence€that€Rodney€Parton€was€not€actingÏwithin€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€atÏthe€time€of€the€accident?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€correctly€grant€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€City€since€the€plaintiffs€did€notÏstate€a€cause€of€action€for€negligence€againstÏJames€Carico€that€would€impose€liability€on€theÏCity?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€correctly€grant€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€City€since€plaintiffs€MaryÏEverhart€and€Debora€Dunn€were€not€within€the€zoneÏof€danger,€and€suffered€no€property€damage€as€aÏresult€of€the€accident?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à4.€€Did€the€trial€court€correctly€grant€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€City€since€plaintiffs€failed€toÏallege€a€due€process€violation,€given€that€allÏfederal€claims€against€the€City€were€voluntarilyÏnon„suited€in€federal€court€to€allow€the€stateÏclaims€to€be€returned€to€state€court?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓQÓÐ ö9¦/9 Їà@tt)ìàI.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àOn€November€13,€1995,€Murphy€was€driving€a€van€owned€byÏher€employer,€Olympia,€a€Maryville€œday„care›€facility.€€œThere€wereÏseveral›€children€œin›€the€van.€€After€stopping€œfor€a€stop€sign€at›Ïan€intersection€and€observing€a€brown€car€pass€in€front€of€her€atÏa€high€œrate€of€speed,›€Murphy€proceeded€into€the€intersection,€atÏwhich€œtime›€the€van€was€struck€by€a€vehicle€driven€by€RodneyÏParton,€an€off„duty€Maryville€police€officer.€€Another€off„dutyÏofficer,€Tony€Parton,€was€a€passenger€in€Rodney€Partonððs€car.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€collision,€Rodney€Parton€and€Tony€Parton€œwere€notÏin€uniform›€and€œwere€traveling›€in€the€formerððs€private€vehicle;Ïhowever,€they€were€in€pursuit€of€the€brown€car€that€had€passed€inÏfront€of€Murphy€immediately€prior€to€the€accident.€€EachÏtestified€in€their€œrespective€depositions›€that€they€had€observedÏthe€œbrown€vehicle›€traveling€on€the€wrong€side€of€the€road,€andÏhad€followed€it€to€obtain€its€license€plate€number.€€RodneyÏParton€acknowledged€that€he€was€traveling€at€a€speed€of€at€leastÏ50€miles€per€hour€while€in€pursuit€of€the€other€œvehicle.€€HeÏtestified€that€he›€had€not€activated€the€œportable€blue›€policeÏlight€œthat€was€located€under€the€seat€of›€his€car.ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€accident€resulted€in€injuries€to€Murphy€and€atÏleast€two€of€the€children€in€the€van,€as€well€as€damage€to€theÏvan€itself.€€Rodney€Parton€and€Tony€Parton€were€also€injured.€ÏAnother€Maryville€police€officer,€James€Carico,€prepared€anÏaccident€report€in€which€he€œstated›€that€both€Rodney€Parton€andÏMurphy€had€been€at€fault€in€the€accident.€€In€addition,€Lt.€MikeÏJohnston€of€the€Maryville€Police€Department€conducted€an€internalÏaffairs€investigation€œof›€the€accident.€€In€his€report,€JohnstonÐ X:0: Ðestimated€the€speed€of€the€Parton€vehicle€just€prior€to€theÏcollision€œat€a€minimum€of›€60€miles€per€hour,€or€double€the€postedÏspeed€œlimit.ÌÌà  àà ` àThe›€complaint,€as€subsequently€amended,€alleges€thatÏthe€CityÔ‡X©[XXX©[Ô׃#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X©[XXX©[ì#Ô€is€liable€for€various€damages€precipitated€by€theÐ ˜H  Ðactions€of€its€agent,€Rodney€Parton.€€It€also€alleges,€amongÏother€things,€that€Murphy,€Everhart€and€œDunnÔ‡X©[XXX©[Ô׃%ð×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X©[XXX©[2#Ô›€suffered€emotionalÐ è˜  Ðand€psychological€harm€as€a€result€of€the€accident;€that€MurphyÏsuffered€physical€œinjuries;›€that€the€City€failed€to€follow€itsÏown€policy€œwhich€required€that€accidents›€œof€this€nature€beÏinvestigated€by›€an€outside€law€enforcement€agency;€that€the€CityÏengaged€in€an€attempt€to€conceal€the€wrongful€conduct€of€itsÏofficer;€that€Olympia€suffered€damage€to€its€reputation€andÏeconomic€loss€due€to€the€Cityððs€failure€to€correct€œthe›€policeÏreport€assigning€part€of€the€œfault€for€the€accident€to›€Murphy;Ïand€that€the€City€was€guilty€of€ð ðnegligent€supervision€andÏdeliberate€indifferenceðð€in€the€hiring,€training€and€supervisionÏof€its€officers.€€The€plaintiffs€also€asserted€certain€civilÏrights€claims€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983,€œwhich€federal€claimsÏprompted€the€removal€of€this€case€to›€federal€court;€however,€theÏplaintiffs€subsequently€took€a€voluntarily€non„suit€as€to€theÏfederal€claims,€and€the€case€was€remanded€to€œstate€court.›ÌÌà  àà ` àFollowing€œthe€resolution€of€pre„trial›€matters€notÏrelevant€to€this€appeal,€the€City€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ ¸3h)2 Ðjudgment.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€City€was€immune€in€allÏrespects€under€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(ð ðGTLAðð),ÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„20„101,€òòet€seq.óó€€The€GTLA€provides,€in€pertinentÐ   P Ðpart,€as€œfollows:ÌÌà@$ìà29„20„201(a)›ˆÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àœExcept›€as€may€be€otherwise€œprovided›€in€thisÏchapter,€all€governmental€entities€shall€be€immuneÏfrom€suit€for€any€injury€which€may€result€from€theÏactivities€of€such€governmental€entities€whereinÏsuch€governmental€entities€are€engaged€in€theÏexercise€and€discharge€of€any€of€their€functions,Ïgovernmental€or€œproprietary.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÌà@$ìà29„20„202(a)›ˆÌÌà  àà8 ` àœImmunity›€from€suit€of€all€governmental€entities€isÏremoved€for€injuries€resulting€from€the€negligentÏoperation€by€any€employee€of€a€motor€vehicle€orÏother€equipment€while€in€the€scope€of€hisÏemployment.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓX#ÓÌPresumably€finding€that€Rodney€Parton€had€not€been€acting€withinÏœð ðthe›€scope€of€his€œemploymentðð›€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€theÏtrial€court€granted€the€Cityððs€motion€and€dismissed€theÏplaintiffsðð€case€in€its€entirety.ÌÌà@88)ìàII.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgmentÏunder€the€standard€of€Rule€56.04,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.,€which€providesÏthat€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€whereÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àthe€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€toÏinterrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€togetherÏwith€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€noÏâ âgenuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€theÐ È8x.8 Ðmoving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÏof€law.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðâ âÌÓÓÌWhen€reviewing€a€grant€of€summary€judgment,€an€appellate€courtÏmust€decide€anew€if€judgment€in€summary€fashion€is€appropriate.€Ïò òòòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southó óóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.Ð Ät  Ð1991);€ò òòòGonzalez€v.€Alman€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44„45Ð Œ<  Ð(Tenn.App.€1993).€€Since€this€determination€involves€a€questionÏof€law,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment.€€ò òòòHembree€v.€Stateóóó ó,€925€S.W.2d€513,€515€(Tenn.Ð ¤T Ð1996)ò òòò;€Gonzalezó óóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€44.Ð l ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€nonmovant€is€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€any€doubt.€Ïò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtÐ „4 Ðmust€ð ðtake€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favorÏof€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favorÏof€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòId.€óóó óatÐ œ$L Ð210„11.€€All€facts€supporting€the€nonmovantððs€position€must€beÏaccepted€as€true.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€212.€€It€is€only€when€the€materialÐ  (¼# Ðfacts€are€not€in€dispute€and€conclusively€show€that€the€movant€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment€that€a€trial€court€is€justified€inÏdepriving€a€claimant€of€its€right€to€a€plenary€trial.€€In€allÏother€instances,€a€trial€on€the€merits€is€necessary.€€SummaryÏjudgment€ð ðis€clearly€not€designed€to€serve€as€a€substitute€forÏthe€trial€of€genuine€and€material€factual€matters.ðð€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€210.Ð 2Ì'/ Ð̜Р Œ5<+3 Лà@üü(ìàIII.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àœð ðGenerally,€whether€an€employee€is€acting€within€theÏscope€of€his€or€her€employment€is€a€question€of€fact...ðð€Ïò òòòTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€American€Mut.€Liability€Ins.Ð ð  ÐCoó óóó.,€840€S.W.2d€933,€937€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€The›€œquestion›€beforeÐ ¸h  Ðus€œregarding›€the€claim€against€the€City€arising€out€of€RodneyÏPartonððs€negligent€driving€is€œthis:€Is€there€a€factual€dispute€inÏthe€record€as€to€whether,›€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€Parton€wasÏoperating€his€vehicle€ð ðwhile€in€the€scope€of€his€employment,ðð€asÏthat€language€is€used€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ29„20„202?›€€If€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€œñà ñofñà ññÄ ñas€toñÄ ñ›€material€fact€œñÅ ñas€toñÅ ññÆ ñonñÆ ñ›€this€concept,€the€City€isÏnot€entitled€to€summary€judgment.€€Rule€56.04,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€InÏorder€to€determine€this€issue,€we€must€first€address€a€specificÏunderlying€question:€Can€a€police€officer,€who€is€not€ð ðon€theÏclock,ðð€still€act€ð ðin€the€scope€of€his€employmentðð€under€T.C.A.€Ô‡X©[XXX©[ÔððÐ h# Ð29„20„202?Ô#†X©[XXX©[Ç3#Ô€€Or,€put€another€way,€must€a€police€officer€be€on€anÐ %À  Ðofficial€duty€shift€in€order€to€be€considered€as€acting€ð ðin€theÏscope€of€his€employmentðð?€€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ `($ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€careful€consideration€of€these€questions,€we€areÏof€the€opinion€that€an€officer€does€not€œnecessarily€have›€to€be€onÏan€official€shift€œor€ð ðon€the€clockðð€to›€act€within€the€scope€ofÏhis€or€her€employment.€€œòòCfóó.€€ò òòòHassell€v.€Metropolitan€GovernmentÐ È0x&. Ðof€Nashville€and€Davidson€Countyó óóó,€1994€WL€374515€(Tenn.App.Ð 2@(0 Ð1994).€€According›€to€œthe€noted€tort€authorities,€Prosser›€andÏKeeton,€the€phrase€ð ðscope€of€the€employmentððÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àrefers€to€those€acts€which€are€so€closelyÏconnected€with€what€the€servant€is€employed€to€do,Ð $:Ô/9 Ðand€so€fairly€and€reasonably€incidental€to€it,Ïthat€they€may€be€regarded€as€methods,€even€thoughÏquite€improper€ones,€of€carrying€out€theÏobjectives€of€the€employment....€It€has€been€saidÏthat€in€general€the€servantððs€conduct€is€withinÏthe€scope€of€his€employment€if€it€is€of€the€kindÏwhich€he€is€employed€to€perform,€occursÏsubstantially€within€the€authorized€limits€of€timeÏand€space,€and€is€actuated,€at€least€in€part,€by€aÏpurpose€to€serve€the€master.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌòòW.€Page€Keeton€et€al.,€Prosser€and€Keeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€70€(5th€ed.Ð Ä  Ð1984).€€Under€this€definition,€we€believe€that€œa€jury€couldÏreasonably€conclude€that€Rodney›€Parton€œwas€acting›€within€theÏscope€of€his€employment€when€he€pursued€the€brown€vehicle.€ÏTypically,€the€pursuit€and€detention€of€a€traffic€violator€by€aÏlaw€enforcement€officer€„„€regardless€of€whether€that€officer€isÏon€duty€„„€œis€an€activity€that€is€arguably€ð ðclosely›€connectedÏwithðð,€or€at€least€ð ðfairly€and€reasonably€incidental€to,ðð€his€orÏher€job€duties.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óIn€this€instance,€Rodney€Partonððs€actionsÐ T" Ðin€pursuing€the€brown€car€were€arguably€taken€œfor›€the€purpose€ofÏfurthering€the€objectives€of€his€employment;€œin€addition,›€theÏpursuit€appears€to€have€been€ð ðactuated,€at€least€in€part,€by€aÏpurpose€to€serve€the€master.ðð€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThis€may€be€the€caseÐ )Ä% Ðirrespective€of€the€fact€that€he€was€not€ð ðon€the€clockðð€orÏdriving€an€official€police€vehicle.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,€under€the€factsÐ „,4") Ðof€this€case,€we€find€that€a€material€factual€issue€exists€as€toÏwhether€Rodney€Parton€was€acting€within€the€scope€of€hisÏâ âemployment€at€the€time€of€the€œaccident.€€Accordingly,›€we€holdÐ |1,'/ Ðthat€summary€judgment€œas€to€this€aspect€of€the€plaintiffsðð€claimÏwas›€œinappropriate.›×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ø ¨ Ðâ âÌœñ¹ ñÐ  Hø Ðñ¹ ñ›à@88)ìàIV.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àWe€next€œconsider€the›€plaintiffsðð€claim€of€œnegligentÏconduct€by›€James€Carico,€the€Maryville€officer€who€investigatedÏthe€accident.€€As€indicated€earlier,€the€plaintiffs€allege€thatÏthe€City€is€liable€for€œallowing›€one€of€its€own€officers€toÏinvestigate€the€accident.€€They€also€contend€that€the€City€shouldÏbe€held€liable€for€Caricoððs€negligence€in€preparing€the€accidentÏreport,€and€for€concealing€Rodney€Partonððs€wrongful€conduct€byÏfailing€to€correct€the€errors€contained€in€the€report.€€AccordingÏto€the€plaintiffs,€the€report€resulted€in€adverse€publicity€andÏeconomic€harm€to€Olympia€after€it€was€cited€in€an€article€in€aÏlocal€newspaper€article.ÌÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€Cityððs€assertion€that€the€plaintiffsÏhave€failed€to€establish€the€existence€of€any€duty€owed€them€byÏthe€City€in€this€regard.€€Generally€speaking,€the€existence€of€aÏdutyÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àis€a€question€of€law€for€the€court€which€requiresÏconsideration€of€whether€ð ðsuch€a€relation€existsÏbetween€the€parties€that€the€community€will€imposeÏa€legal€obligation€upon€one€for€the€benefit€ofÐ <1ì&/ Ðothers€„„€or,€more€simply,€whether€the€interest€ofÏthe€plaintiff€which€has€suffered€invasion€wasÏentitled€to€legal€protection€at€the€hands€of€theÏdefendant.ððÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌò òòòColn€v.€City€of€Savannahó óóó,€966€S.W.2d€34,€39€(Tenn.€1998)(citingÐ Ì Ðòòò òBradshaw€v.€Danieló óóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993)).€€In€thisÐ ä”  Ðinstance,€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€investigation€of€theÏaccident€do€not€give€rise€to€any€duty€which€œinures›€to€the€benefitÏof€the€plaintiffs€or€which,€if€breached€by€the€City,€wouldÏwarrant€an€award€of€damages.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР¤T ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€a€negligence€action€where€the€dispositive€issue€is€aÏquestion€of€law€„„€such€as€the€existence€or€non„existence€of€aÏduty€„„€an€award€of€summary€judgment€is€proper.€€ò òòòMarr€v.Ð Dô ÐMontgomery€Elevator€Co.óóó ó,€922€S.W.2d€526,€529€(Tenn.App.€1995).€Ð  !¼ ÐHaving€determined€that€œthere€is€no›€duty€œð ðrunningðð€to€theÏplaintiffs,›€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€correctly€grantedÏsummary€judgment€as€to€this€portion€of€the€plaintiffsðð€cause€ofÏœaction.ñ» ñÌñ» ñ›Ìœñº ñÌñº ñ›œñ¼ ñÐ  +Ì ' Ðñ¼ ñ›à@tt)ìàV.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àAs€noted€above,€the€trial€court€also€dismissed€theÏindividual€claims€of€plaintiffs€Dunn€and€Everhart,€who€soughtÏdamages€for€their€alleged€emotional€distress,€psychological€harm,Ïand€economic€loss.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€recently€held€that€inÏorder€to€recover€for€emotional€injuries€sustained€as€a€result€ofÏinjury€to€a€third€person,€a€plaintiff€must€establish,€among€otherÏthings,€that€his€or€her€emotional€injury€was€a€proximate€andÏforeseeable€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligence.€€ò òòòRamsey€v.Ð 8è ÐBeaversóóó ó,€931€S.W.2d€527,€531€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€Court€furtherÐ ° Ðheld€that,€with€regard€to€establishing€foreseeability,ÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` à[t]he€plaintiffððs€physical€location€at€the€time€ofÏthe€event€or€accident€and€awareness€of€theÏaccident€are€essential€factors.€€Obviously,€it€isÏmore€foreseeable€that€one€witnessing€or€having€aÏsensory€observation€of€the€event€will€sufferÏeffects€from€it....€Thus,€[a]€plaintiff€mustÏestablish€sufficient€proximity€to€the€injury„¼producing€event€to€allow€sensory€observation€byÏ[the]€plaintiff.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌœò òòòId.€€ó óóó(Footnote€omitted).›€€In€this€case,€both€Dunn€and€EverhartÐ *¸& Ðtestified€in€their€depositions€that€they€had€not€witnessed€orÏbeen€present€during€the€accident.€€Under€these€circumstances,Ïthey€cannot€ð ðestablish€sufficient€proximityðð€to€the€event€thatÏallegedly€caused€their€injuries.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÐ È0x&. Ðcorrectly€granted€summary€judgment€as€to€their€œclaims›€forÏemotional€and€psychological€damages€arising€out€of€the€accident.ÌÌà  àà ` àDunn€and€Everhart€argue€in€their€brief€that€in€additionÏto€emotional€and€psychological€injuries,€they€œñ½ ñalso›€ñ½ ñsuffered›€ð ðphysicalÐ 09à.8 Ðmanifestations€of€stress„related€and€anxiety„related€injuries€asÏa€result€of€the€accident,€the€police€report€and€media€coverageÏand€the€subsequent€actions€of€the€Maryville€Police€Department.ðð€ÏSpecifically,€Dunn€and€Everhart€attribute€the€damages€allegedlyÏsustained€by€the€corporation€to€adverse€publicity€resulting€fromÏthe€publication€of€a€newspaper€article€based€on€James€CaricoððsÏaccident€report.€€We€find€this€argument€to€be€without€merit.€€AsÏwe€have€previously€explained,€the€plaintiffs€have€not€establishedÏthe€existence€of€any€duty€owed€them€by€Carico.€€Furthermore,€anyÏclaims€based€on€alleged€economic€damage€to€Olympia€arising€out€ofÏnegative€publicity€are€the€claims€of€the€corporation,€not€ofÏœshareholders€Dunn›€and€Everhart€individually.ÌÌà  àà ` àWe€therefore€find€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏgranted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€City€as€to€theÏindividual€claims€of€Dunn€and€Everhart.ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€also€dismissed€the€claims€of€plaintiffÏMurphy,€who€sought€recovery€for€her€physical€injuries€sustainedÏin€the€accident,€as€well€as€for€ð ðemotional€and€psychologicalÏharm.ðð€€As€to€these€claims,€we€find€that€the€City€was€notÏentitled€to€summary€judgment.€€Unlike€Dunn€and€Everhart,€œMurphyÌ„„›€the€driver€of€the€œvan›€„„€was€directly€involved€in€theÏcollision€and€suffered€physical€injuries€as€a€result.€€We€haveÏpreviously€found€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€asÏto€whether€Rodney€Parton€was€acting€within€the€scope€of€hisÏemployment€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Therefore,€summaryÏjudgment€on€Murphyððs€individual€claim€that€the€City€is€liable€forÏRodney€Partonððs€actions€is€inappropriate.ÌÐ X:0: Ðà@88)ìàVI.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àThe€plaintiffs€further€allege€that€the€City€wasÏnegligent€in€the€hiring,€training€and€supervision€of€Carico€andÏRodney€Parton.€€However,€the€plaintiffs€do€not€support€thisÏposition€with€any€authority,€as€required€by€Rule€27(a),€T.R.A.P.€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€waived.€€ò òòòIdóó.ó ó;€òòsee€ò òRampy€v.€ICIÐ @ð  ÐAcrylics,€Inc.óóó ó,€898€S.W.2d€196,€210€(Tenn.App.€1994).€€Even€if€weÐ ¸  Ðwere€to€consider€this€argument,€we€have€already€found€that€theÏplaintiffs€failed€to€establish€any€duty€œto€the€plaintiffs€on›€theÏpart€of€the€City€with€regard€to€the€actions€of€Carico;Ïfurthermore,€with€regard€to€Parton,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthe€record€does€not€make€out€a€cause€of€action€for€negligentÏhiring,€training€or€supervision.ÌÌà@üü(ìàVII.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€City€violatedÏtheir€due€process€rights€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€byÏdenying€their€ð ðright€of€access€to€the€court€system.ðð€€In€thisÏcontext,€they€contend€that€the€City€ð ðeither€recklessly€orÏdeliberately€concealed€information€regarding€their€own€employee,ÏRod€Parton,€and€also€concealed€the€identity€of€the€driver€of€theÏpursued€car.ðð€€Specifically,€the€plaintiffs€argue€that€MaryvilleÏChief€of€Police€Terry€Nichols€failed€to€disclose€the€identity€ofÏthe€driver€of€the€brown€car,€and€that€the€City€improperly€erasedÏcertain€videotapes€made€during€the€investigation€of€the€accident.Ìâ âÐ H7ø,6 Ðà  àà ` àAs€noted€earlier,€the€plaintiffs€œdismissed›€theirÏâ âfederal€civil€rights€œclaims€when€this€matter€was€pending€inÏfederal€court.€€The€agreed€order€dismissing€this€case€in€thatÏvenue€contains€the€following€statement:ÌÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àThe€parties€agree€that€any€federal€claims€haveÏbeen€dismissed€by€Amending€the€Complaint€in€thisÏaction.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓThe€federal€court€remanded€this€action€back€to€state€court€basedÏupon€its€determination€that€the€plaintiffs€had€abandoned€theirÏfederal€claims.€€We€find€and€hold€that€the€plaintiffs€gave€upÏthese€federal€claims,€with€prejudice,€in€order€to€avoidÏlitigating€these€matters€in€federal€court.€€Pursuit€of€thoseÏclaims€now€in€this€state€court€action€is€totally€at€variance€withÏthe€action€taken€by€them€in€federal€court.€€Those€claims€are€noÏlonger€viable.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àThe›€plaintiffs€œargue›€that€they€subsequently€amendedÏtheir€complaint€to€assert€a€separate€cause€of€action€under€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€However,€a€review€of€the€record€revealsÏthat€neither€the€motion€to€amend€nor€the€amended€complaint€œare€inÏthe€record€certified€to€this€court.Ô‡X©[XXX©[Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€By€the€same€token,€theÐ -È"* Ðrecord€does€not€contain€an€order€allowing€an€amendment€to€assertÏa€claim€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ô#†X©[XXX©[Gb#Ô€€The€record€simply€doesÐ h0&. Ðnot€substantiate€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€an€alleged€violationÏof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€was€eveñ¾ ñrñ¾ ññ¿ ñnñ¿ ñ€a€part€of€this€lawsuit.›€ÏAccordingly,€we€œfind€no€basis€for€holding€that€such€a€claimÐ `5+4 Ðsurvives€the€Cityððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€City€cannotÏbe€faulted€for€not€negating€what€was€not€there€to€be€negated.€€AÏclaim€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€was€not€before€the€trialÏcourt€and€is€not€now€before€us.ñÀ ñ€€hold›€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€City€as€toÏthis€portion€of€the€plaintiffsðð€claim.ñÀ ñÌÌñÁ ñÐ  ˜H  ÐñÁ ñ›à@ÀÀ(ìàVIII.ˆÌÌà  àà ` àIt€results€that€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€as€to€Olympiaððs€and€Murphyððs€claims€that€the€City€isÏliable€for€Rodney€Partonððs€actions€is€vacated.€€The€trial€courtððsÏgrant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€City€œas€to›€allÏremaining€claims€of€the€plaintiffs€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€taxed€to€the€appellee.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary,€consistentÏwith€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à__________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€œJ.ñ ñÌñ ñ›