WPC, CaKH-HvI|y+b˒쿫 t?/ÚM}H0`qYk0o@xETBw4A78 *,xzgi~T gC=3$y{_JgKcE &Ik]F6Rh1(YB"JDEN 09Uݺ5JLg_9K }-muDe&\n}l}$o1l=2VP*t'+[/BGB!!?F)ɀb#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4   0D  v<N mEb 0'''' B 0/ D5 D- 0K55 AS 0 0D= AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularlT)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptsM):i+00  RO$      1    _ԀTotheextenttheAppellantreliesontheexceptionforcivilrightsviolationscontainedin_T.C.A._Ԁ2920  205(2),wenotethatthecomplaintonlystatesaclaimfornegligence.Thecomplaintdoesnotallegeacivilrights t _violation._3|x(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U- -(|G2O$ !.8Pdd8         0   d(|3Ǒ$ !.8Pdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ǒ$ !.8Pdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Pdd8     _  P8XXdd8  @ SlPINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#PSl #Ԉ &   JUNE14,2000Session L XXP #PXX#HERMAN_NEELY_v.DAVID_McDONALD_ԀandANDREW_KOOSHIAN_XXP  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.99C2558TheHonorableThomasW.Brothers,Judge,  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000099_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober20,_2000_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXThisappealinvolvesanegligenceclaimassertedagainsttwomembersoftheNashvilleMetropolitan x  PoliceDepartment.TheDavidsonCountyCircuitCourtdismissedthecaseonthegroundsthe d actionwasprecludedbytheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct.#XXXX=##PXX#XXP P 1 Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  (x   #PX#XX.PAlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., P andHollyKirbyLillard,J.,joined. < PhillipL.Davidson,fortheAppellant  FrancisH.Young,fortheAppellees   OPINION #PXX#XXP t #PXXB #XXP  XXXXHerman_Neely_ԀappealsfromthejudgmentoftheDavidsonCountyCircuitCourt,whichdismissed L  hisnegligenceclaimagainsttheDefendants.Forthereasonsstatedherein,weaffirmthetrialcourt 8!  decision. `     h  $"t!     I.FactsandProceduralHistory #L#     DavidMcDonaldandAndrew_Kooshian_Ԁ( Appellees)were,atalltimesrelevanttothe %$!% presentappeal,policeofficersemployedbytheNashvilleMetropolitanPoliceDepartment.On &"& October12,1996,atapproximately2:30A.M.,theappelleesweredispatchedtothePilotgasstation '"' onWestTrinityLaneinNashville.Whentheyarrived,theywereinformedbyasecurityguardthat (#( anindividualwhowasactingdisorderlyandappearedtobeintoxicatedhadjustdepartedinacab. )$) WhiletheAppelleeswerespeakingwiththesecurityguard,thecabreturnedtothegasstation.The p*%* driverofthecabtoldtheAppelleesthatthepassengerhadbeenverballyandphysicallyabusive. \+&+   H,',   AsthecabdriverwasspeakingwiththeAppellees,thepassenger,Ray_ONeal_Ԁ_Neely_   ( Decedent),exitedthecab.TheAppelleestoldtheDecedenttheyweregoingtofriskhimand  transporthimawayfromthescene.TheDecedentapparentlybecameupsetandreachedforthe  Appellees.TheAppelleesthenallegedlygrabbedtheDecedentandputhimtotheground, t handcuffedhim,andplacedhiminapatrolcar. `   TheAppelleestooktheDecedenttoahomelessshelter.Whentheyarrived,theAppellees 8  noticedthatthedecedentwashavingtroublebreathing,andtheysummonedanambulance. $ t ParamedicsweresuccessfulinrevivingtheDecedent,buthediedshortlyafterbeingtransportedto  ` thehospital.  L    Herman_Neely_Ԁ( Appellant),theDecedentsnextofkin,filedacomplaintintheUnited $  StatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseeonFebruary10,1997,allegingcivilrights   violations.TheAppellantfiledanamendedcomplaintonAugust31,1998asserting,forthefirst   time,negligenceclaimsagainsttheAppellees.TheFederalDistrictCourtultimatelydismissedthe   Appellantscivilrightsclaimwithprejudiceanddismissedthenegligenceclaimwithoutprejudice.   OnSeptember15,1999,theAppellantfiledanegligenceactionagainsttheAppelleesinstatecourt. p TheAppelleesfiledamotiontodismiss,arguingthattheactioncouldonlybebroughtagainstthe \ MetropolitanGovernmentpursuanttotheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct( _TGTLA_), H _T.C.A._Ԁ2920101,etseq.Theyfurtherarguedthattheclaimwastimebarredunderthe_TGTLA_s 4 statuteoflimitation.ThetrialcourtgrantedtheAppelleesmotion,andthecasewasdismissed.  p Thisappealfollowed.  \   II.LawandAnalysis  4     ThedispositivequestioninthisappealiswhethertheAppellantscauseofactionshouldhave   beenbroughtagainsttheMetropolitanGovernmentasopposedtotheindividualofficers.The  Appellantclaimsthathiscomplaintstatedaclaimfor commonlawnegligenceandwasnot  broughtpursuanttothe_TGTLA_.However,regardlessofhowtheAppellantattemptstocharacterize  hiscauseofaction,webelieveitisclearthatthissuitisprecludedbythe_TGTLA_.Assuch,we l affirmthetrialcourtsdismissal. X    _T.C.A._Ԁ2920310(b)statesthat [_n]o_Ԁclaimmaybebroughtagainstanemployeeor 0"  judgmententeredagainstanemployeefordamagesforwhichtheimmunityofthegovernmental #l! entityisremovedbythischapterunlesstheclaimisoneformedicalmalpracticebroughtagainsta $X" healthcarepractitioner.Obviously,thepresentcasedoesnotinvolvemedicalmalpractice. $D # Therefore,thequestioniswhethertheimmunityoftheMetropolitanGovernmentwasremoved.If %0!$ theanswertothatquestionisyes,thenthepresentcasecannotbesustainedagainsttheAppellees. &"% ЀSeeErwinv.Rose,980S.W.2d203,206(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(notingthatthelegislaturewished '#& tolimittheexposureofmunicipalemployeesbygivingtheemployeeabsoluteimmunityincases (#' wherethemunicipality'simmunityisremoved). )$(   |*%)   Relevanttothepresentappeal,_T.C.A._Ԁ2920205providesthatagovernmentalentitys   immunityisremoved forinjuryproximatelycausedbyanegligentactoromissionofanyemployee  withinthescopeofhisemploymentexceptincertainspecificcircumstances.Noneofthe  exceptionscontainedin_T.C.A._Ԁ2920205areapplicableinthepresentcase.   #  1      ׀TheAppellants t complaintclearlystatesacauseofactionfornegligenceonthepartoftheAppelleeswhiletheywere ` inthecourseandscopeoftheiremployment. L    Theapplicabilityofthe_TGTLA_Ԁtothefactsofthiscasecouldnotbeclearer.Theimmunity $ t oftheMetropolitanGovernmentisremoved,therebyrenderingtheAppelleesabsolutelyimmune  ` fromsuit.See_Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.2920205,2920310(b).Thus,thepresentsuitcannotbe  L  maintainedagainsttheindividuallynamedDefendants.  8    Bothpartieshavepresentedargumentsregardingthe_TGTLA_sstatuteoflimitation.Wedo   notbelievethisissuehasanybearingonthedispositionofthiscasesincetheclaimcannotbe   sustainedagainstthenamedDefendants.However,wenotethattheAppellantappearstoconcede   thetwelvemonthlimitationfoundat_T.C.A._Ԁ2920305(b)isan allornothingproposition.In   otherwords,ifthiscasefallsunderthe_TGTLA_,theredoesnotappeartobeasavingsstatutewhich p wouldtolltherunningofthelimitationperiod.SeeWilliamsv.MemphisLight,Gas,andWater \ Division,773S.W.2d522(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)(holdingthat12-monthlimitationprovidedin H TennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityActwasconditionprecedenttobringingsuitagainst 4 governmentalentityandthatperiodcouldnotbeextendedbysavingsstatute);Seealso_Nance_Ԁv.City  p ofKnoxville,883S.W.2d629(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).  \   Conclusion 4     Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtgrantingtheDefendantsmotion   todismissisherebyaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,Herman_Neely_,for  whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXXX ##PXX #XXP     `       `     h     ___________________________________ D!    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE