WPCA I lŒtzc [~my K}'N@b9ZK3ݻ-(D'uJJ"Od.t#W̯[Lk8:^px1Y?s]$- ),EYϑ$'_{]SRщ&[Qfs2AeW([Zm)a~L0ikPѳHxy ۑ:(AG֍| .}>H)3nPsL0[PnV IuK%Rp.EC YqL;NdtPaVUim@V⍣l?`lf˻EeXiJⱵʲ+/ߨcipr ؀dGÍ]Unh U1ނ$[0L Gv-UfD8jȌ|`^C6匡~p9ydxa%b#\ % UN# 0q UN 3G z z`n^ J 0DV`&wN4E mb:b444444444444444444444444444444444444 0<<<< B'' 0D D5 D- 0KJJ AS 0 0DR AHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular ) R$      1  XX  _ԀSubsequenttothisorder,bothDefendantsfiled memorandumswiththetrialcourtin  whichtheyaddressedthecomplaintfiledbytheAppellant.  R$      3  XX  _ԀInhisappealbrief,theAppellantattemptstoinvoke_T.C.A._Ԁ98307(C),whichconfers  jurisdictionfor Negligentlycreatedormaintaineddangerousconditionsonstatecontrolledreal  property.Thisissuehasnotbeenraisedpreviously,thereforeweshallnotconsideritinthisappeal.  See_Lovell_Ԁv.MetropolitanGovernment,696S.W.2d2(Tenn.1985);Lawrence_v._ԀStanford,655  S.W.2d927(Tenn.1983);Moran_v._ԀCityofKnoxville,600S.W.2d725(Tenn.Ct.App.1979). p ̀ P     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.wpt  R$      4  XX  _ԀTheAppellantalsoclaimsthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoaddresshismotionfor  defaultjudgment.Thequestionofwhetherthedefaultjudgmentshouldhavebeengrantedlies  withinthediscretionofthetrialcourt,andwe_findnoreason__to_Ԁquestionthecourtsdecision. R$      2  XX  _ԀWebelievetheAppellantintendedtheword causeinsteadof result.v(L (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5L-(GRA~18<3|xU  0#mXd#  - -(|G2$ !.8\dd8         0  X;X d(|3A$ !.8\dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8dd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @''%ATJACKSON  XX #XXq#  JOHNWATSONv.MIKEYOUNG,etalXX    @V V  AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLakeCounty  ( @ No.987791;TheHonorableR.LeeMoore,Jr.,Judge   @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈   @ No.W199900683COAR3CVDecidedJuly10,_2000_Ԁ    AV) ` dE<` A    XXXX  ThisappealarisesfromalawsuitfiledbyaninmateattheNorthwestCorrectionalComplex.   Thecomplaintsoughtdamagesforpersonalinjuriessustainedasaresultofanelectricalshock r  allegedlycausedbytheDefendantsinactions.TheLakeCountyCircuitCourtdismissedthe ^  complaintfindingthattheplaintiffsclaimsoundedinnegligenceandthedefendants,asstate J employees,enjoyedabsoluteimmunityfromnegligenceclaims.#XXXX-##XX#XX 6  Tenn.R.App.P.3;Appealasofright;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  b #X#XX.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFarmer,J.,andLillard,J.,joined. B JohnWatson,prose,_Tiptonville_,Tennessee " PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;PamelaS.  _Lorch_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,forAppellees  @55' OPINION #XXk#XXԈ r XXXXJohnWatsonappealsfromthedecisionoftheLakeCountyCircuitCourt,whichdismissedhispro R!  secomplaint.Forthereasonsstatedherein,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecision. >"!   I.FactsandProceduralHistory  %R $     JohnWatson( Appellant)isaTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectioninmatehousedatthe &*"& NorthwestCorrectionalComplex( _NWCC_)in_Tiptonville_,Tennessee.MikeYoungandSonny '#' _Wilkerson_,theDefendants,were,atalltimesrelevant,supervisorsinthefoodservicedepartment ($( at_NWCC_. )$)   OnMay8,1998,theAppellantsufferedburninjuriesafterallegedlycomingintocontactwith v+&+ exposedelectricalwiringwhileworkinginthekitchen.HefiledsuitagainstYoungand_Wilkerson_, b,', claimingthattheywereawareoftheriskofharmbutfailedtotakeanyactiontocorrectthe N-(-   8XXdd8.   dangerouscondition.Afternoanswerwasfiledonbehalfofthedefendants,theAppellantfileda  requestforentryofdefault.OnOctober22,1998,thetrialcourtenteredanordergivingthe  Defendantsthirtydaysinwhichtorespondtothecomplaint.  #  1      ׀Thereafter,theAttorneyGenerals  Office,onbehalfofthedefendants,filedamotionforanextensionoftimeinwhichtorespondto t thecomplaint.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotion,andthedefendantssubsequentlyfiledamotion ` todismissthecomplaintpursuanttoTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure12.02(1)and(6). L    OnAugust12,1999,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdismissingthecase,findingthatthe $ t complaintassertedclaimsfornegligenceandthedefendants,asstateemployees,hadabsolute  ` immunityfromnegligenceclaimspursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ98307(h).Thepresentappealarisesfrom  L  theorderdismissingthecomplaint.  8    II.LawandAnalysis        Thisappealcomesbeforethecourtonamotiontodismisspursuanttorules12.02(1)and(6)   oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.InconsideringtheappealofaRule12.02(6)motionto p dismiss,thiscourtisrequiredtotaketheallegationsofthecomplaintastrueandtoconstruethe \ allegationsliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff._Pemberton_Ԁv.AmericanDistilledSpiritsCo.,664 H S.W.2d690,691(Tenn.1984).Suchamotionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterial 4 avermentscontainedinthecomplaintbutassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstituteacauseofaction.  p Ѐ_Humphries_Ԁv.WestEndTerrace,Inc.,795S.W.2d128,130(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Ourreviewof  \ thecomplaintleadsustoconcludethatthemotiontodismisswasproperlygranted. H   Thedefendants,asstateemployees,enjoyimmunitypursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ98307(h),which   provides:   8  8`   Stateofficersandemployeesareabsolutelyimmunefromliabilityfor  actsoromissionswithinthescopeoftheofficer'soremployee'soffice  oremployment,exceptforwillful,malicious,orcriminalactsor  omissionsorforactsoromissionsdoneforpersonalgain.For l purposesofthischapter,"stateofficer"or"employee"hasthe X  meaningsetforthin8-42-101(3).D!` x` x Theimmunityprovidedbythequotedlanguageservesasanabsolutedefensetoallactionsnot #l! withintheexpressexceptions.Therefore,thedispositiveissueinthiscasecentersonthenatureof $X" theAppellantscauseofaction. $D #   Inhiscomplaint,entitled TortComplaint,theAppellantseeksredressforthe negligent &"% andproximateinjuryhereceivedwhilebeingconfinedtohisassignedworkduty.Hefurtherclaims '#& thathisinjurieswouldnothaveoccurred hadthedefendantstookreasonablecareandthattheir (#'  negligencewastheproximateresultofinjuriesplaintiffsuffered.   #  2      ׀Evenhisbrief,filedforthe  purposesofthisappeal,speaksintermsofanegligenceaction.Whileitissometimesdifficultto  decipheralegaldocumentwrittenbyalayperson,weareoftheopinionthattheAppellants  complaintclearlystatesacauseofactionfornegligence. t   Evenifweweretoassume,_arguendo_,thattheDefendantswereawareofsomedefectinthe L  electricalwiring,theirfailuretorepairsuchadefectdoesnotqualifyasawillful,malicious,or 8  criminalact.Atmost,theDefendantswerenegligentinfailingtoremedyaknownrisk.The $ t Appellantscomplaintspeaksinnegligenceterms,andthemereinsertionofwordssuchas wanton  ` or deliberateindifferencedoesnotchangethecharacterofthecauseofaction.Therefore,no  L  exceptiontothestatutoryimmunityexists,andthetrialcourtproperlydismissedthecomplaint._  #  3      _  8    TheAppellantalsoclaimsthattheDefendantsviolatedhisrightsundertheEightAmendment   totheUnitedStatesConstitution.Weneednotponderlongtoconcludethatthecomplaintfailsto   stateaclaimundertheEighthAmendment.Prisonconditionsare_violative_ԀoftheEighth   Amendmentonlywhentheyresultin seriousdeprivationsofbasichumanneeds.Rhodesv.   Chapman,452U.S.337,347,101_S.Ct_.2392,2399,115_L.Ed_.2d271(1981).Thequestionunder p theEighthAmendmentiswhetherprisonofficials,actingwithdeliberateindifference,exposeda \ prisonertoasufficientlysubstantial"riskofseriousdamagetohisfuturehealth."_Helling_Ԁv. H _McKinney_,509U.S.25,35,113_S.Ct_.2475,2481,125_L.Ed_.2d22(1993).Asstatedpreviously, 4 theallegationsinthecomplaint,atmost,makeoutaclaimfornegligence.Merenegligencedoes  p notconstitutedeliberateindifferenceforthepurposesofanEighthamendmentviolation.Estellev.  \ Gamble,429U.S.97,97_S.Ct_.285,50_L.Ed_.2d251(1976).Moreover,wedonotbelievethatthe H allegedinjuriessufferedbytheAppellantarethetypeof seriousdamagecontemplatedbythe 4 applicablecases.Assuch,webelievethetrialcourtwascorrectindismissingthatpartofthe   AppellantscomplaintallegingaviolationofhisEighthAmendmentrights.      D! Conclusion      Fortheaforementionedreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.   #  4      ׀Costsofthe  appealaretaxedagainsttheAppellant,JohnWatson,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. t #XXXX ##XX #XX