WPC# # VUNa % 0 (UPw@- 4m  0l 0D 0J@ 0P 0T 0^. B 0h 0@ Q 0rY 0| 0G A 0L 1u 0dQ D3U >U6&B)\DC AMU*?M7v~v] AO0"" 0DE# D/# B#HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular E  E  E  D U U Ӏf|$3|x ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  ((3/Q$ !   d 2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23   d26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ("$    2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  !y  <<= 8C2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   #$%' ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd!4C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#1  66   YYY FILED6X August17,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.6AppellateCourtClerk  !#d#1   $       22T.C.A.2920101,etseq.  !#d#1   $       22NationstestimonyindicatesthattheonlydatewithintherelevanttimeframeonwhichthebackhoeswerenotbeingusedbyothercrewswasMarch18,1994.Odomtestified,however,thathedidnotworkonthatdate. !#d#1   $       22SeeT.C.A.503101,etseq. !#d#1   $       22SeeChattanooga,Tenn.,Code2271,etseq.  !#d#1   $       22T.C.A.503105(1)providesthat [e]achemployershallfurnishtoeachoftheiremployeesconditionsofemploymentandaplaceofemploymentfreefromrecognizedhazardsthatarecausingorarelikelytocausedeathorseriousinjuryorharmtotheiremployees.TheCitysCodecontainsasimilarprovisionregarding knownorrecognizedhazardsbutallowstheemployer areasonableperiodoftimetocorrectanysuchhazardsonceitbecomesawareofthem.SeeChattanooga,Tenn.,Code22741.  !#d#1   $       22OccupationalSafetyandHealthActof1970,29U.S.C.651,etseq.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva !C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . 1  P 27,XXdd7\RA'\R574A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@ ATKNOXVILLEJAMESODOM,SR.,   )C/ANO.03A019710CV00480      ) PlaintiffAppellant, )      )      )v.      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      )      )      )CITYOFCHATTANOOGA,TENNESSEE,)      )HONORABLEL.MARIEWILLIAMS, DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGEForAppellant     ForAppelleeROBERTD.BRADSHAW    LAWRENCEW.KELLYJenkins&Bradshaw,P.C.   PHILLIPA.NOBLETTChattanooga,Tennessee   Chattanooga,Tennessee@  OPINIONX2AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.    Theplaintiff,JamesOdom,Sr.( Odom),suedtheCityofChattanooga( theCity)undertheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct( GTLA), 8   ׀seekingdamagesforinjuriessufferedinthecourseofhisemploymentwiththeCitysDepartmentofPublicWorks.Odomallegesthathesufferedabackandwristinjuryasaresultofhisextendeduseofajackhammerandtheperformanceofotherstrenuouslaborwithouttheaidofproperequipment.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtfoundinfavoroftheϜCityanddismissedthecase.Odomappealed,raisingissuesthatpresentthefollowingquestionsforourreview: 8 1.DoestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthattheplaintifffailedtoprovethattheCityviolatedvarioustrainingprovisionsandthegeneraldutyclauseoftheTennesseeOccupationalSafetyandHealthActof1972? 8 2.DoestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthattheplaintifffailedtoprovethattheCityviolateditsPersonnelOrdinances? 8 3.WastheCitysdecisiontoplaceitslimitednumberofbackhoesoncertainprojectstotheexclusionofothersadiscretionaryfunctionsoastopreservetheCitysimmunityfromsuitbasedontheplaintiffsclaimthathewasinjuredbecausehewasdoingworkthatshouldhavebeenperformedbyabackhoe?̜ӛ@ I.StandardofReview  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id.;UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993); OldFarmBakery,Inc.v.MaxwellAssoc. ,872S.W.2d682,684(Tenn.App.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaccordedthesamedeference. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).  Ourdenovoreviewistemperedbythewellestablishedprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).@ II.Facts  AtthetimeoftheeventsinquestionMarch11through24,1994OdomwasemployedbytheCityasa LaborerIIIonastreetmaintenancecrew.Amongotherthings,Odomscrewwasassignedtocleanupbehindamillingmachine,whichwasusedtocutupoldasphaltinareasdesignatedforrepaving.Inadditiontobrokenpiecesofpavement,themillingmachineϜgenerallywouldleaveasmallmarginofasphaltnexttotheconcretecurbsattheedgeofthestreet.Therecordindicatesthatabackhoewithafrontendloader( backhoe)wasusually,butnotalways,availabletoassistinscrapinguptheasphaltleftbehindbythemillingmachine.ThecrewwouldthenuseaϜjackhammertoloosenanyremainingpiecesofasphaltthathadnotbeenscrapedupbythebackhoeandtoremovethemarginofasphaltalongthecurb.Finally,aworkerwouldshoveltheasphaltintothebackhoe,whichwouldthenbeusedtoloadthedebrisontoatruck.  FromMarch14throughMarch24,1994,Odomscrewdidnothavetheuseofabackhoe.Thus,Odomandhiscoworkerswereforcedtousejackhammerstoloosenmostoftheasphalt,andshovelstoloadthebrokenasphaltintothetruck.ItwasandisOdomscontentionthathiscrewwasdeprivedofabackhoeaspunishmentfortheirslowworkontheprecedingFriday,March11.OdomcontendsthatGeorgeMaffett,ageneralforemanintheCitysstreetmaintenancedepartment,haddecidedthatthemenwereengagedina workslowdown𛀜onthatdate.Odomtestifiedthathisdirectsupervisor,GeraldJohnson,informedthecrewthattheywerebeingpunishedbecauseoftheirslowwork.JohnsontestifiedthatMaffetthadstatedonMarch11thatthecrewwasnotworkingϜfastenough.Inaddition,JohnsontestifiedthatMaffetttoldhimthatabackhoewasnotavailableforOdomscrew.MaffettalsosupposedlytoldJohnsonthatthecrewdidnotneedabackhoe.JohnsonalsotestifiedthatMaffettmayhavemadeastatementtotheeffectthatifthemencouldnotworkwithoutabackhoe, thattheyjustwonthaveoneatall.  Maffett,meanwhile,deniedthathehadpunishedthecrewbydeprivingitofabackhoe.Maffetttestifiedthatsuchequipmentwasnotalwaysavailableforeachjob,andthatdecisionsregardingtheallocationofequipment,althoughsometimeslefttohim,weregenerallymadebyhisownsupervisor,PaulNation.Nation,theassistantsuperintendentinchargeofstreetmaintenancefortheCity,testifiedthatOdomscrewhadnotbeenprovidedabackhoeeitherbecausenonewereavailable,orbecausenoonewasavailabletooperateit.HetestifiedthattheCityownedthreebackhoes;thereisevidenceintherecordindicatingthatonmostifnotallofthedatesinquestion,oneofthebackhoeswasintheshop,andtheothertwowerebeingusedbyothercrews. 9   כ  OdominitiallytestifiedthathehadbeenrequiredtouseajackhammerforapproximatelyeighthoursadayonMarch14,15,16,17,18,21,22,23,and24.Oncrossexamination,however,headmittedthathehadnotworkedonMarch18,andthatϜhisworkonMarch14and15hadnotrequiredtheuseofajackhammer.HealsostatedthathehadonlyworkedaboutanhourandahalfonMarch24beforereportingtheinjurytohisback.  Duringtreatmentforhisbackinjury,Odomwasalsodiagnosedwithcarpaltunnelsyndrome.Theseconditionsnecessitatedextensivetreatment,includinganoperationandphysicaltherapy.AccordingtoOdom,hecontinuestohaveextensivelimitationsontheuseofhishandandback,andisunabletoperformhisnormaljobduties.OdomfiledthisactionfordamagesagainsttheCity,allegingthattheCitysnegligenceinfailingtoprovidehimasafeplacetoworkandtheproperequipmenttocarryouthisdutieshadproximatelycausedhisinjuries.Thecaseproceededtotrialwithoutajury.Followingthecloseofalltheproof,thetrialcourtfound,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 NumerousrepavingjobsandstreetrepairoperationswerebeingperformedbytheCityofChattanoogainvariouslocationsinMarchof1994. 8 Thepersonneloneachjobdonotnecessarilyhaveabackhoe/frontendloaderavailabletothemforuseoneachjob. 8 DecisionsconcerningwhatequipmentwillbeusedbywhatcrewweremadebyGeraldJohnson,GeorgeMaffetorPaulNation,allofwhomwereinthesupervisorychainaboveMr.Odom. 8 Atthetimecomplainedof,themachineryMr.OdomcontendsshouldhavebeenavailableforthecrewheworkedonwasbeingusedonotherjobsorinmaintenanceandwasnotavailabletothecrewonwhichMr.Odomwasworking. 8 Theplaintiffhasnotcarriedtheburdenofproofthatanyabsenceofavailabilityofequipmenttohiscrewwasbecauseofpunishmentforaworkslowdown. 8 TheplaintiffhasnotcarriedtheburdenofprooftoshowthejackhammerusebyMr.OdomwasinviolationofOSHAorTOSHA. 8 Theplaintiffhasnotprovedfaultonthepartofthedefendant.@ *** 8 TheCourtfindstheallocationoftheequipmentforusebycrewsatvariousspotsinChattanoogafortherepavingorrepairofroadswasadiscretionaryfunctionand,accordingly,thedefendantisimmunefromsuit. 8 Theplaintiffhasnotproventhereisanybasisforremovalofimmunityinthiscase....Thetrialcourtthusdismissedthecase,andOdomappealed.Odomsummarizeshisargumentonappealasfollows: 8 BecausetheCityofChattanoogaviolateditsownCityCodeinnottrainingitsafetyofficersandemployeesinOSHA/TOSHArequirementsandtherisksassociatedwithjackhammeruse,innottakingmeasurestoabatetheriskofseriouspersonalinjuryassociatedwithMr.OdomsjackhammeruseasanemployeeoftheCityofChattanooga,andindiscipliningthecrewonwhichMr.Odomwasworkingthroughsubjectingthemtoabusiveworkingconditions,ratherthanfollowingtheCityCodesprovisionsfordiscipline,theCityofChattanoogamustbefoundtohavecommittedthreeomissions/actsthatconstitutefaultforwhichthereisnoimmunityundertheGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct....@ III.Analysis  WefirstturntoOdomsdualcontentionsthattheCitywasnegligentinfailingtoproperlytrainitssupervisorsandϜlaborers,andinfailingtoabateaknownhazard,i.e.,theriskofinjuryfromtheuseofajackhammer.Inthiscontext,OdomreliesuponvariousprovisionsofTennesseesOccupationalSafetyandHealthActof1972( TOSHA) :   ׀regardingsafetytrainingthathavebeenincorporatedintotheCitysCode. ;   ׀HealsocitesTOSHAs generaldutyclause𛀜codifiedatT.C.A.503105(1) <   τwhichhasalsobeenincorporatedintotheCode.Insupportofhisposition,Odomintroduced,amongotherthings,thetestimonyofDr.TylerKress,whoopinedthattheCityhadnotcompliedwithOSHAs =   כtrainingrequirementswithregardtothesafeoperationofjackhammersandtherecognitionofcarpaltunnelsyndrome.Dr.KressalsotestifiedthatOdomsworkpatternwasinviolationofthegeneraldutyclause.  WenotethatitwasapparentlyDr.KressunderstandingthatOdomhadessentiallyoperatedajackhammercontinuouslyforsevenworkdaysanassumptionthatisinconflictwithOdomsowntestimony,aspointedoutabove.Dr.KressalsoadmittedthatOSHAhadyettopromulgateanyregulationsorguidelinesregardingrepetitivemotioninjuriesortherelationshipbetweentheuseofvibratingtoolsandcarpaltunnelsyndrome.Furthermore,TracyClark,anemployeeoftheCityresponsibleforOSHA/TOSHAcompliance,testifiedthatasofMarchof1994,noOHSA/TOSHAstandardsregardingjackhammerusehadbeenputintoeffect.ClarkstestimonywasreinforcedbythatofJamesAlsobrook,whoworksfortheTennesseeDepartmentofLaborintheareaofTOSHAcompliance.Alsobrookalsotestifiedthathehadneverappliedthegeneraldutyclausetotheuseofajackhammer.  WithregardtoOdomsargumentsconcerningtheCitysallegedviolationsofvarioustrainingprovisionsandthegeneraldutyclause,itisclearthatthetrialcourtfoundthatOdomhadfailedtoproveessentialelementsofhisclaim,i.e.,thatthejackhammerhadinfactbeenusedimproperlyand/orthatimproperusewasthecauseofOdomsinjuries.Insofinding,thetrialcourtaccreditedtestimonyelicitedbytheCitytotheeffectthatnoapplicablestandardsorregulationsexisted,andthattheCitythushadnotfailedtocomplywithOSHA/TOSHAoritsownCode.Withdeferencetothetrialcourtscredibilitydeterminations, Massengale ,915S.W.2dat819,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstitsfindingthatOdomfailedtoproveitscauseofactionpredicatedonthetrainingprovisionsandthegeneraldutyclause.  WereachasimilarconclusionregardingOdomscontentionthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtofindnegligenceintheCitysallegedviolationofvarious PersonnelOrdinancescontainedwithinitsCode.Inthisconnection,OdomarguesthattheCityignoredapplicabledisciplinaryproceduresandinsteadsubjectedOdomscrewtoabusiveworkingconditionsasaformofpunishment.However,thetrialcourtspecificallyfoundthatOdomhad notcarriedtheburdenofproofthatanyabsenceofavailabilityofequipmenttohiscrewwasbecauseofpunishmentforaworkslowdown.𛀀Insoholding,thetrialcourtobviouslyaccreditedthetestimonyofMaffettandNation,whomaintainedthattheunavailabilityoftheequipmentwasnotintendedaspunishment,butwassimplybecausetheequipmenthadbeenassignedtoother,higherpriorityjobsorwasundergoingmaintenanceatthetime.Weagainnotethatthetrialcourtwasinthebestpositiontomakesuchcredibilitydeterminations, Massengale, 915S.W.2dat819;inlightofthisconsideration,andthesubstantialevidenceintherecordwhichsupportsthetrialcourtsfindings,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.̜  SincethetrialcourtfoundnonegligencewithrespecttotheCitysdutiesunderTOSHA,OSHA,oritsPersonnelOrdinances,itdidnotaddresswhethersuchnegligence,ifproven,wouldresultinaremovalofimmunityundertheGTLA;nordowe.̛  WithrespecttoOdomsthirdissue,thetrialcourtconcludedthat theallocationoftheequipmentforusebycrewsatvariousspotsinChattanoogafortherepavingorrepairofroadswasadiscretionaryfunctionand,accordingly,thedefendantisimmunefromsuit.T.C.A.2920205,foundwithintheGTLA,provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 Immunityfromsuitofallgovernmentalentitiesisremovedforinjuryproximatelycausedbyanegligentactoromissionofanyemployeewithinthescopeofhisemploymentexceptiftheinjury: 8 (1)Arisesoutoftheexerciseorperformanceorthefailuretoexerciseorperformadiscretionaryfunction,whetherornotthediscretionisabused....ӀAsstatedbytheSupremeCourt, 8 ...decisionsthatrisetothelevelofplanningorpolicymakingareconsidereddiscretionaryactswhichdonotgiverisetotortliability,whiledecisionsthataremerelyoperationalarenotconsidereddiscretionaryactsand,therefore,donotgiverisetoimmunity.@ *** 8 Aconsiderationofthedecisionmakingprocess,aswellasthefactorsinfluencingaparticulardecision,willoftenrevealwhetherthatdecisionistobeviewedasplanningoroperational....[Planning,i.e.,discretionary]decisionsoftenresultfromassessingpriorities;allocatingresources;developingpolicies;orestablishingplans,specifications,orschedules. BowersbyBowersv.CityofChattanooga ,826S.W.2d427,43031(Tenn.1992).(EmphasisAdded).Bythesametoken,theSupremeCourtrecentlynotedinanotheropinionthat [d]ecisionsthatincludetheallocationoflimitedresourcesamongcompetingneedsdonotneedinterferencefromthecourts,absentclearguidancefromthelegislaturetothecontrary. Heltonv.KnoxCounty,Tennessee ,922S.W.2d877,887(Tenn.1996).  Uponreviewoftheevidenceinthiscase,weareoftheopinionthatthedecisionregardingwhetherabackhoewouldbeprovidedtoOdomscrewwasadiscretionaryone.Itnecessarilyinvolved theallocationofresourcesamongcompetingjobsofvariouspriorities.See Helton ,922S.W.2dat887,and Bowers ,826S.W.2dat431.Thus,theCitydidnotloseitsimmunityforinjuriessufferedbyOdomasaresultofthefactthathiscrewdidnothaveabackhoetoperformtheirassignedtasks.@ IV.Conclusion  Insummary,weholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsregardingtheplaintiffsfailuretocarryhisburdenofproof.WealsoholdthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthattheCityisimmunefromliabilityarisingoutofitsdiscretionarydecisionsregardingtheallocationoftheequipmentinquestion.Accordingly,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Ӝ       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:_________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.̜_________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.