WPC LQﺐc%)}$ЪIdӈS庒ckBл{VU!_ͳ JP?Di&onRX,l@0"z9Y|"ESޤEXdz6jlo 4ANJH_ˈO!p͊7{];9f}o e`#[P:?xI7׬/hq"ASi41 s37>%[B.i&0+F i~+R>id$" ^̎xn!png̶-c`)Gk0`/|b^H<$F|W+,1ը9Hk{tc$t{]WFb%C3dHn,n6A&DKj؉4pðBplJCݏy78t$ͥ`gdst(,4y z4`bUkb %\UNb 0UN8^ w4 z$  N  m    r #8 NEb 0     B 0 D5 D- 0K ASf 0 0D# Ag(@ Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularc81 Eb001s03 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0- -(|G2$ !.8dXXd8         0   d(|3AT$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3AT$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8BqXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# #Ԉ &   August5,2004Session L XBqX #XXBq#THOMAS_SALLEE_v.TYLERBARRETTXBqX  J @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCounty  J @@No.50300248TheHonorableRossH.Hicks,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301893_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember24,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XBqXXXBq8BqXXdXXd8  Plaintiff/AppellantsuedDefendant/Appellee,apoliceofficerwiththeCityofClarksville, x  fornegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress,stemmingfromDefendant/Appelleesnegligent d dischargeofhisfirearm.PursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.2920205(2),thetrialcourtgranted P theDefendant/AppelleesTenn.R.Civ.P.12MotiontoDismiss.Plaintiff/Appellantappeals.We < reverseandremand. (x #XBqXXXBq##XXBq#XBqX Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversedand < Remanded  (   #XBq#XBqX.W.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers,  J.andHollyM.Kirby,J.,joined.  PhillipL.DavidsonofNashvilleforAppellant,Thomas_Sallee_ t DavidHainesofClarksvilleforAppellee,TylerBarrett L  R OPINION #XXBq#XBqX $"t! #XXBqX #XBqX    OnApril3,2002,Thomas_Sallee_Ԁ( _Sallee_, Plaintiff,or Appellant)wasstandingatthe #L# counteroftheAmocostationlocatedat601RiversideDriveinClarksville,Tennessee.Tyler $8 $ Barrett( Barrett, Defendant,or Appellee),apoliceofficeremployedbytheCityofClarksville, %$!% wasalsoinsidetheAmoco,standingseveralfeetbehind_Sallee_.As_Sallee_Ԁwastalkingtothe &"& stationsclerk,Barrettplacedhishandonhisweapon,whichwasstilllocatedinitsholster.The '"' weapondischargedandthebulletstruckthefloornearBarrettsrightfoot. (#(   OnMarch25,2003,_Sallee_ԀfiledsuitagainstBarrett.TheComplaintreadsasfollows: )$)   8 @ 8@`    COMPLAINT \+&+      8  8`   #H,',` x` x\ #_8  8`    Comestheplaintiffcomplainingofthedefendantandwouldshow   untotheCourt.` x` x 8  8`   1.Parties.t` x` x 8  8`   1.1.Plaintiff.Theplaintiff,ThomasSallee[Sallee]isaresidentof L  MontgomeryCounty,Tennessee.Atalltimesmentionedinthis 8  complaintSalleewasactinginanonnegligentmanner.$ t` x` x 8  8`   1.2.Defendant.Thedefendant,TylerBarrett[Barrett]atalltimes  L  mentionedinthiscomplaintwasapoliceofficeremployedbythe  8  CityofClarksville,Tennesseeandwasactingwithinthescopeofhis $  employment. ` x` x 8  8`   2.Facts.OnApril3,2002,SalleewasinsidetheAmocostationat   601RiversideDriveinClarksville.Salleewaslocatedatthecounter.   BarrettwasseveralfeetbehindSallee.p` x` x 8  8`   2.1.AsSalleewastalkingtothestationsclerkwhowasbehindthe H counter,Barrett[s]handwenttohisweaponsholster.Barretts 4 weaponimmediatelydischargeditsbulletstrikingthefloornear  p Barrettsrightfoot. \` x` x 8  8`   2.2.Thegunsdischargewasloud,startlingandunexpected.4` x` x 8  8`   3.Negligence.Barrettwasnegligentinthathefailedtomaintainhis   weaponinitsholsterinasafe,securemannerastonothaveit  dischargeinpublic.` x` x 8  8`   3.1.Barrettsactionsconstitutednegligentinflictionofemotional l distress.X ` x` x 8  8`   4.Injuries.Asadirectandproximatecauseofthenegligenceof 0"  Barrettheretoforedescribed,Salleesufferedsevereandpermanent #l! emotionaldistressandnowhasposttraumaticstressdisorder.$X"` x` x 8  8`    WHEREFORE,theplaintiffprays:%0!$` x` x 8  8`   1.Thathebeawardedcompensatorydamagesinthestatutory '#& amountforshock,fright,greatemotionaldistressandmedical (#' expenses.)$(` x` x 8  8`   2.Thathebegrantedthecostofthiscase.h+&*` x` x Ї8  8`   3.ThathebegrantedsuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtmay  deemproper.` x` x <  OnApril8,2003,BarrettfiledaMotiontoDismissforfailuretostateaclaimonwhich t reliefcanbegranted.TheMotiontoDismisswassupportedbyaMemorandumofLaw,which ` specificallyallegesthatBarrettisimmunefromliabilityinthismatter,pursuanttoT.C.A.2930 L  310(b).OnMay29,2003,Salleefiled PlaintiffsResponsetotheDefendantsMotionto 8  DismissorintheAlternativeMotiontoAmend,whichreads,inpertinentpart,asfollows: $ t   8  8`   1.Thatsuitisproperagainstthedefendant,TylerBarrettbecause  L  T.C.A.2920205(2)specificallystatesthataCitymaybesuedfor  8  negligentactsofitsemployeeswhicharebaseduponinflictionof $  mentalanguish,and; ` x` x 8  8`   2.T.C.A.2920310(b)summarizesemployeesofthe   governmentalentitycanbesued;and ` x` x 8  8`   3.Negligentinflictionofemotionaldistressisnotanintentionaltort. \ Itisanactofnegligence.H` x` x 8  8`    Inthealternative,iftheCourtfindsthatBarrettiscriminal,  p theplaintiffsrequest[sic]tobeallowedtoamendhiscomplaintto  \ bringtheCityofClarksvilleasadefendant.H` x` x OnJune3,2003,Barrettfileda ReplytoPlaintiffsResponsetoDefendantsMotionto   Dismiss,whichassertsthat anamendmentaddingtheCityofClarksvilleasaDefendantwill   notrelatebacktothedateoffilingoftheoriginalComplaint,andsuchanactionwillbebarred  bytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.TheMotiontoDismisswasheardbythetrialcourton  June5,2003andan OrderofDismissal(the Order)wasenteredonJune30,2003.The  Orderreads,inrelevantpart,asfollows: l   8  8`   ...theCourtisoftheopinionthatPlaintiffsComplaintagainst D! DefendantTylerBarrettfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbe 0"  granted,pursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.2920205. #l! Additionally,PlaintiffsrequesttoamendhisComplainttosubstitute $X" theCityofClarksvilleasapartydefendantwouldbefutile,assuch $D # a[n]amendmentwouldnotrelatebacktotheoriginaldateofthe %0!$ filingofPlaintiffsComplaint.&"%` x` x 8  8`    PlaintiffsclaimagainstDefendantTylerBarrettishereby (#' dismissedwithprejudice.Additionally,PlaintiffsMotiontoAmend )$( hisComplaintinthismatterisdenied.|*%)` x` x $ h+&*   OnJuly3,2003,SalleefiledaTenn.R.Civ.P.59.04MotiontoAlterJudgment.Barrett  filedaResponsetothisMotiononSeptember3,2003.Thetrialcourtheardargumentsonthe  MotiontoAlterJudgmentonSeptember12,2003anddeniedtheMotionby Memorandum  Opinion,enteredonSeptember29,2003. t   Salleeappealsandraisestwoissuesforreviewasstatedinhisbrief: `   8  8`   I.DoesTenn.CodeAnn.2920205(2)includebothnegligentand 8  intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistresssoastograntimmunityto $ t theCityofClarksvillefromsuit? `` x` x 8  8`   II.Shouldthetrialcourt,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,have  8  grantedthePlaintiffleavetoamenditsComplainttoaddtheCityof $  ClarksvilleasDefendantinthissuit? ` x` x O*  Itiswellsettledthatamotiontodismissacomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimupon   whichreliefcanbegrantedteststhelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint.Itadmitsthetruthofall   relevantandmaterialallegationsbutassertsthatsuchallegationsdonotconstituteacauseof p actionasamatteroflaw. SeeRiggsv.Burson ,941S.W.2d44(Tenn.1997).Obviously,when \ consideringamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,we H arelimitedtotheexaminationofthecomplaintalone. SeeWolcottsFin.Serv.,Inc.v. 4 McReynolds ,807S.W.2d708(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Thebasisforthemotionisthatthe  p allegationsinthecomplaintconsideredaloneandtakenastrueareinsufficienttostateaclaimas  \ amatteroflaw. SeeCornpropstv.Sloan ,528S.W.2d188(Tenn.1975).Inconsideringsucha H motion,thecourtshouldconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff,takingallthe 4 allegationsoffactthereinastrue. SeeCookUtihovenv.Spinnaker'sofRivergate,Inc. ,878   S.W.2d934(Tenn.1994).     Employeesofgovernmentalentitiesareimmunefromliabilityforwhichtheimmunityof  thegovernmentalentityisremovedexceptinthecaseofmedicalmalpractice,towit:    8  8`   Noclaimmaybebroughtagainstanemployeeorjudgmententered X  againstanemployeefordamagesforwhichtheimmunityofthe D! governmentalentityisremovedbythischapterunlesstheclaimisone 0"  formedicalmalpracticebroughtagainstahealthcarepractitioner.... #l!     ` x` x 2T.C.A.2920310(b)(2000). %0!$     Inotherwords,ifthegovernmentalentity,inthiscasetheCityofClarksville,isamenable '#& tosuit(i.e.itsimmunityhasbeenremovedbyT.C.A.2920205),thenBarrettisimmunefrom (#' suitunder2920310(b).Ontheotherhand,iftheCityofClarksville,isimmunefromsuit(i.e. )$( itsimmunityhasnotbeenremovedbyT.C.A.2920205),thenBarrettisaproperpartytothis |*%) action. h+&* Ї  Immunityofgovernmentalentitiesforinjuriesresultingfromthenegligentactsor  omissionsofemployeeswhileinthescopeofemploymenthasbeenremoved,withcertain  exceptions,byT.C.A.2920205,towit:    8  8`   Immunityfromsuitofallgovernmentalentitiesisremovedforinjury t proximatelycausedbyanegligentactoromissionofanyemployee ` withinthescopeofhisemploymentexceptiftheinjuryarisesoutof:L ` x` x 8  8`   ***$ t` x` x 8  8`   (2)falseimprisonmentpursuanttoamittimusfromacourt,false  L  arrest,maliciousprosecution,intentionaltrespass,abuseofprocess,  8  libel,slander,deceit,interferencewithcontractrights, inflictionof $  mentalanguish ,invasionofrightofprivacy,orcivilrights. ` x` x 7T.C.A.2920205(2000)(emphasisadded).     Salleescauseofactionisnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistressassertedonlyagainst p theCityofClarksvillesemployee,Barrett.Barrettassertsthatthetrialcourtwascorrectin \ dismissingthecasebecause,underT.C.A.2920205(2)andourSupremeCourtsrulingin H  Limbaughv.CoffeeMedicalCenter  etal. ,59S.W.3d73(Tenn.2001),theCityofClarksvilles 4 immunityisremovedand,consequently,BarrettisnotaproperpartytothissuitunderT.C.A.  p 2920310(b).Althoughthe Limbaugh CourtreferstoT.C.A.2920205(2)asthe intentional  \ tortexception,wecannotgosofarastheAppelleetosaythat Limbaugh standsforthe H propositionthat inflictionofmentalanguishmusthavearisenfromanintentionalactofits 4 employeeinordertomaketheCityofClarksvilleimmunetosuitinthiscase.Rather,the    Limbaugh CourtmerelydeclinedtoexpandthestatutorylistoftortsinT.C.A.2920205(2)to   includetheintentionaltortsofassaultandbattery,towit:    8  8`   Accordingly,weholdthatsection29-20-205oftheGTLAremoves  immunityforinjuriesproximatelycausedbythenegligentactor l omissionofagovernmentalemployeeexceptwhentheinjuryarises X  outofonlythosespecifiedtortsenumeratedinsubsection(2).To D! immunizeallintentionaltortswouldresultinanoverlybroad 0"  interpretationofthestatute,andthereisnoindicationthatthe #l! legislatureintendedsucharesult.Indeed,wefinditnoteworthythat $X" thelegislatureexcludedthetwointentionaltortsmostlikelytogive $D # risetoinjury.Underthemaxim"expressiouniusestexclusio %0!$ alterius,"whichstatestheprinciplethattheexpressionofonething &"% impliestheexclusionofallthingsnotexpresslymentioned, Cityof '#& Knoxvillev.Brown ,195Tenn.501,260S.W.2d264,268(1953),we (#' areunabletoexpandtheintentionaltortsexceptiontoincludeassault )$(  andbattery.Todosowouldbetojudiciallycreatetwoadditional |*%) exceptionsgivingrisetoanentity'simmunity.Totheextentthat  Potterandothercasesholdotherwise,theyareoverruled.` x` x  Id. at84(footnotesomitted). t @  In Elmorev.Cruz ,No.E200103136COAR3CV,2003WL239169,at*5(Tenn.Ct. L  App.Feb.4,2003),theEasternSectionofthisCourtfoundthattheCourtin Limbaugh  8   recognizedthatthissection[T.C.A.2920205(2)]appliestointentionaltorts andreferredto $ t thissectionasthe intentionaltortexception.Wecannotagreewiththe Elmore Courtthat  `  Limbaugh requiresthatthesectionisapplicableonlytointentionalactsbytheemployeesof  L  governmentalentities.  8    Thebasisofthe Limbaugh decisionrestsonthelawofstatutoryconstruction:     8  8`    Itiswell-settledthattheroleofthisCourtinconstruing   statutesis"toascertainandgiveeffectto"thelegislativepurposeand   intentwithoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingastatute'scoverage p beyonditsintendedscope. Mooneyv.Sneed ,30S.W.3d304,306 \ (Tenn.2000)."'Thelegislativeintentandpurposearetobe H ascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthe 4 statutorylanguage,withoutaforcedorsubtleinterpretationthat  p wouldlimitorextendthestatute'sapplication.'" Id .(quoting Statev.  \ Blackstock ,19S.W.3d200,210(Tenn.2000)).Courtsarenot H authorizedtoalteroramendastatute,andmust"'presumethatthe 4 legislaturesaysinastatutewhatitmeansandmeansinastatutewhat   itsaysthere.'" Id .at307(quoting BellSouthTelecomm.,Inc.v.   Greer ,972S.W.2d663,673(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)); Gleavesv.  CheckerCabTransitCorp .,15S.W.3d799,803(Tenn.2000)("'If  thewordsofastatuteplainlymeanonethingtheycannotbegiven  anothermeaningbyjudicialconstruction.'"(quoting Henryv.White , l 194Tenn.192,250S.W.2d70,72(1952))).Thislastprinciple X  appliesespeciallywhenanalyzingtheGTLA,asthelegislature D! createdthisActinderogationofthecommonlaw,andtherefore,the 0"  Actmustbestrictlyconstrued. Roberts ,963S.W.2dat746(citing #l!  Lockhartexrel.Lockhartv.Jackson-MadisonCountyGen.Hosp ., $X" 793S.W.2d943(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)).$D #` x` x 8  8`    Applyingtheforegoingprinciplesofstatutoryconstruction, &"% weconcludethatitwaserrortoexpandtheintentionaltortsexception '#& toincludethetortsofassaultandbattery.Thelegislativeintenthas (#' beenexpressedinplainandunambiguousterms,andwearetherefore )$( requiredtoenforcethestatuteaswritten.TheGeneralAssembly |*%) expresslycreatedsection29-20-205toremovegovernmental h+&* immunityforinjuriesproximatelycausedbynegligentacts;thatit  wantedtothencreateseveralexceptionstothisgeneralwaiver  convincesusthatadditionalexceptionsarenottobeimpliedabsent  legislativeintenttothecontrary. Cf.UnitedStatesv.Smith ,499U.S. t 160,167,111S.Ct.1180,113L.Ed.2d134(1991)("WhereCongress ` explicitlyenumeratescertainexceptionstoageneralprohibition, L  additionalexceptionsarenottobeimplied,intheabsenceof 8  evidenceofacontrarylegislativeintent.").$ t` x` x  Limbaugh ,59S.W.2dat83.  H  FJ  SalleereliesuponthisCourtsopinionin Lockhartv.JacksonMadisonCounty   GeneralHospital ,793S.W.2d943(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)forthepropositionthatnegligent   inflictionofemotionaldistressisatortforwhichagovernmentalentityisimmune.Barrett   arguesthattheSupremeCourtsholdingin Limbaugh ,andthisCourtsopinionin Elmore ,   implicitlyoverrulethisCourtsopinionin Lockhart .Wedisagree.In Lockhart ,thisCourt   appliedtherulesofstatutoryconstructionandheldasfollows: l   8  8`   IntheinstantcasetheapplicablelanguageofT.C.A.29-20-205is D asfollows:0` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xImmunityfromsuitofallgovernmentalentitiesis X removedforinjuryproximatelycausedbyanegligent D actoromissionofanyemployeewithinthescopeof 0 hisemploymentexceptiftheinjury:   8  8`   8 ` x` x8  8h******hphp 8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)Arisesoutof...inflictionofmentalanguish....   8  8`   Incasesnotinvolvingthedoctrineofgovernmentalimmunity,our h courtshave,withcertainexceptions,generallydeniedrecoverywhere T  thedefendant'snegligencecausesmentaldisturbancewithnophysical @! injuryorphysicalconsequence. Laxtonv.OrkinExterminatingCo., ,"|  Inc .,639S.W.2d431(Tenn.1982).TheCourtin Laxton carvedout #h! yetanotherexceptiontothegeneralruleafterdiscussingthevarious $T" exceptionsthathadpreviouslybeenallowedbyourcourts.639 $@ # S.W.2dat433-34.%,!$` x` x 8  8`   Mostofthecasescitedin Laxton pre-datethepassageoftheactin '#& question,andwefinditsignificantthatthelegislature,knowingthat (#' variousexceptionshadbeenmadetothegeneralrule,specifically )$( madeprovisionsintheactthatgovernmentalimmunitywouldnotbe x*%) removedforanyinjuryarisingoutof"inflictionofmentalanguish." d+&* Thelanguageofthestatuteisclearandunambiguousthatthe  legislaturedidnotremovegovernmentalimmunityforanyinjury  whicharisesoutofmentalanguish.Webelievetheplainlanguageof  thestatutejustifiesnootherconstructionofthelegislature'sintent.t` x` x   Thelegislaturesintentandpurposearetobeascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturaland L  ordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguage,withoutforcedorsubtleinterpretationthatwouldlimit 8  orextendthestatutesapplication. Statev.Blackstock ,19S.W.2d200,210(Tenn.2000).InT.C.A. $ t 2920205(2),itappearsthatthelegislatureintendedbothintentionalinflictionofemotional  ` distressandnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistresstotriggeragovernmentalentitysimmunity.  L  AsthisCourtpointsoutin Lockhart ,supra,hadthelegislaturenotsointended,itwouldhavemade  8  adistinctionbetweennegligentandintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.Significantly,the $   Lockhart case,whichgrantedimmunitytothegovernmentalentityfornegligentinflictionof   emotionaldistress,wascitedin Limbaugh forthepropositionthattheGovernmentalTortLiability   Actmustbestrictlyconstrued.59S.W.2dat83.     BasedupontheplainandunambiguouslanguageofT.C.A.2920205(2),wefindthatthe p legislatureintendedtoincludebothnegligentandintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressinthis \ exceptiontotheremovalofagovernmentalentitysimmunity.SincetheCityofClarksvilleis H immunefromsuitforthenegligentinflictionofemotionaldistressarisingfromitsemployees 4 negligentact,underT.C.A.2920310(b),BarrettistheproperDefendantinthissuit.  p   HavingdeterminedthatthetrialcourterredingrantingBarrettsMotiontoDismissuponits H findingthattheCityofClarksville,asopposedtoBarrett,wastheproperpartytothissuit,we 4 pretermitdiscussionofAppellantssecondissue.However,ouranalysisdoesnotstophere.We   nowturntoadiscussionofwhetherSalleesComplaintstatesaclaimforrelieffornegligent   inflictionofemotionaldistress.    Inordertomakeoutaprimafaciecaseofnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress,the  plaintiffmustprovetheelementsofduty,breachofduty,injuryorloss,causationinfact,and l proximatecause. SeeCamperv.Minor ,915S.W.2d437,446(Tenn.1996).In Camper ,theCourt X  furtherheldthatrecoveryfornegligentinflictionofemotionaldistressclaims,wherethereisno D! physicalinjury,islimitedtoseriousorsevereemotionalinjurysupportedbyexpertmedicalor 0"  scientificproof. Id. A"serious"or"severe"emotionalinjuryoccurs"whereareasonableperson, #l! normallyconstituted,wouldbeunabletoadequatelycopewiththementalstressengenderedbythe $X" circumstancesofthecase." Id (citationsomitted).AsdiscussedbyourSupremeCourtin Estateof $D # Amosv.VanderbiltUniv.etal. ,62S.W.3d133(Tenn.2001),theheightenedproofandpleading %0!$ requirementsof Camper aremandatoryforstandaloneclaimsofnegligentinflictionofemotional &"% distress,towit: '#& 8  8`   ThespecialproofrequirementsinCamperareauniquesafeguardto )$( ensurethereliabilityof"stand-alone"negligentinflictionof |*%) emotionaldistressclaims. Camper ,915S.W.2dat440; seealso h+&* Millerv.Willbanks ,8S.W.3d607,614(Tenn.1999).Thesubjective  natureof"stand-alone"emotionalinjuriescreatesariskforfraudulent  claims. Miller ,8S.W.3dat614("legitimateconcernsoffraudulent  andtrivialclaimsareimplicatedwhenaplaintiffbringsanactionfor t apurelymentalinjury"); seeCamper ,915S.W.2dat440.Theriskof ` afraudulentclaimisless,however,inacaseinwhichaclaimfor L  emotionalinjurydamagesisoneofmultipleclaimsfordamages. 8  Whenemotionaldamagesarea"parasitic"consequenceofnegligent $ t conductthatresultsinmultipletypesofdamages,thereisnoneedto  ` imposespecialpleadingorproofrequirementsthatapplyto  L  "stand-alone"emotionaldistressclaims. SeeKushv.Lloyd ,616  8  So.2d415,422-23(Fla.1992); seealsoNaccashv.Burger ,223Va. $  406,290S.E.2d825,831(1982); Phillipsv.UnitedStates ,575   F.Supp.1309,1318-19(D.S.C.1983). ` x` x  Id. at13637.     Under EstateofAmos ,Salleesstandaloneclaimfornegligentinflictionofemotional \ distressissubjecttotheheightenedrequirementsof Camper .ATenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion H admitsthetruthofalltherelevantandmaterialfactualallegationsinthecomplaintbutassertsthat 4 nocauseofactionarisesfromthesefacts. Davisv.TheTennessean ,83S.W.3d125,127(Tenn.Ct.  p App.2001); Pendletonv.Mills ,73S.W.3d115,120(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Accordingly,courts  \ reviewingacomplaintbeingtestedbyaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionmustconstruethe H complaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiffbytakingallfactualallegationsinthecomplaintastrue, 4  Steinv.DavidsonHotel ,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997),andbygivingtheplaintiffthebenefit   ofalltheinferencesthatcanbereasonablydrawnfromthepleadedfacts.RobertBanks,Jr.&June   F.Entman,TennesseeCivilProcedure5-6(g),at254(1999).Onappealfromanordergranting  aTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion,thisCourtmustlikewisepresumethatthefactualallegationsin  thecomplaintaretrue,andwemustreviewthetrialcourt'slegalconclusionsregardingtheadequacy  ofthecomplaintwithoutapresumptionofcorrectness. Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis, l Timm,Furen&Ginsburg,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999); Steinv.DavidsonHotel ,945 X  S.W.2dat716. D!   SalleesComplaint,assetoutsupra,allegesthat,asaresultofBarrettsnegligence,Sallee #l!  sufferedsevereandpermanentemotionaldistressandnowhasposttraumaticstressdisorder. $X" Furthermore,Salleepraysforcompensatorydamagestoinclude medicalexpenses.Takingallof $D # thefactualallegationsoftheComplaintastrue, Steinv.DavidsonHotel ,945S.W.2dat716,and %0!$ bygivingtheSalleethebenefitofalltheinferencesthatcanbereasonablydrawnfromthepleaded &"% facts,wefindthattheComplaintissufficienttosurviveDefendantsMotiontoDismiss. '#&   Fortheforegoingreasons,wereversetheOrderofthetrialcourt,grantingAppelleesMotion )$( toDismiss,weremandthecaseforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsofthis |*%) appealareassessedtotheAppellee,TylerBarrett. h+&* CZ#XXBq #XBqX   `     h __________________________________________ L     `     h W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.