WPC <7j -{8NT} @buIܷBWN_D#̰^`؝{<><<(w/V{ZYZe9c68Ocax)fLcP#'H3Yri[ )k2׃2ݶ3xgFI$7hoN!NW|wC\</H|S_+9;qj_D|La%n}9u gWY1vvPxU~R'z^:Wwl~=BJ_,2kWhB4xp >n[?7|euU]zjD"n6V]xh)A6Hcxc2mE%&D{pOT k2ϨNi`{w(~4K~kщaU4I'hVYx౤[t-A- hb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  NEb 0 B 0 D3i D- 0K ASg 0- 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0jP+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+hN 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|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8[dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8[dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8[dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8[dd8     _   [8AXXdd8@ ^ [INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#[^ #Ԉ &   June13,2001Session L XAX[ #[XXA#EDDIEBROWNLIMBAUGH,ExecutoroftheEstateofEMMARUTH J LIMBAUGH,etal.v.COFFEEMEDICALCENTER,etal.XAX[   ^ @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,MiddleSection  ^ CircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty  J @@No.28,936JohnW.Rollins,Judge  6  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M1999-01181-SC-R11-CVFiledOctober16,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }    JaniceM.Holder,J.,concurring.#[XXA#XAX[ P #[XXAX#  XAX[  CoffeeMedicalCenter(CMC)owedadutytoitspatient,EmmaRuthLimbaugh,toprotect (x herfromtheforeseeableriskofharmpresentedbytheemploymentofnursingassistantLouiseRay. d IthereforeagreewiththeresultreachedbythemajorityholdingCMCliablefortheinjuriesinthis P case.Iwriteseparatelytoexpressmydisagreementwiththemajoritysanalysisoftheapplicable < governmentalimmunitystatutes.BecauseIbelievethattherationalesupportingPotterv.Cityof ( Chattanooga,556S.W.2d543(Tenn.1977),isflawed,Iwouldoverrulethatopinioninitsentirety.  Instead,Iwouldholdthatagovernmentalentitymaybeheldliableforitsownnegligentemployment  practicesregardlessofthenatureoftheunderlyingactsofitsemployees.    TheGeneralAssemblyhasremovedgovernmentalimmunityforinjuriesproximatelycaused t  bythenegligentactsofgovernmentalemployeeswithinthescopeoftheiremployment.Tenn.Code `!  Ann.29-20-205.Subsection(2)of29-20-205preservesimmunityforinjuriesarisingoutof L"! certainenumeratedintentionaltortscommittedbygovernmentalemployees.InPotter,we 8#" misappliedtheintentionaltortexceptioninamannerindicatingthattheexceptionpreserves $$t# immunityforinjuriesarisingfromallintentionaltorts.Id.at544-46.Themajoritytodaycorrects %` $ thatmisapplicationoftheintentionaltortexception,overrulingPottertotheextentthatitimmunized %L!% intentionaltortsnotspecificallylistedin29-20-205(2). &8"&   AlthoughIagreewiththelimitationof29-20-205(2)tothoseintentionaltortsspecifically ($( enumerated,IdisagreewiththepremiseunderlyingourdecisioninPotterandwouldthereforefully )$) overruleitsholding.InPotter,theplaintiffinitiallyfiledhercomplaintallegingliabilityonthepart *%* oftheCityofChattanoogafortheintentionaltortscommittedbyapoliceofficer.Id.at544.In +&+ responsetotheCitysmotiontodismiss,theplaintiffamendedhercomplainttoincludeaclaimof p,', negligencebytheCityforfailuretoprovideadequatepsychologicalscreeningofitsemployees.Id. \-(- ThisCourtheldthatthe truebasesoftheinjuriesweretheintentionaltortsoffalsearrestand  assaultandbatteryallegedinthecomplaint.Id.at545.TheCourtreasonedthatthenegligence  claimbaseduponfailuretoprovidepsychologicalscreeningdidnotalterthefactthattheinjuries  aroseoutoftheintentionaltorts.Id.Basedupontheintentionaltortexception,thisCourtconcluded t thattheplaintiffcouldnotmaintainanactionagainsttheCitydespitehernegligenceclaim.Id.at ` 545-46. L    IfindthereasoninginPottertobefundamentallyflawed.Wehavenotedthat plaintiffsare $ t freetopursueseveralalternativetheoriesofrecoveryandtostructuretheirclaimsinthemannerthat  ` ismostbeneficialtothem.ConcreteSpaces,Inc.v.Sender,2S.W.3d901,909(Tenn.1999).Rule  L  8.01oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,governingclaimsforreliefinpleadings,provides  8  that [r]eliefinthealternativeorofseveraldifferenttypesmaybedemanded.Furthermore,this $  Courthasrecognizedthatanintentionaltortiousactdoesnotnecessarilysupersedeapriornegligent   act.SeeTurnerv.Jordan,957S.W.2d815(Tenn.1997)(addressingthecomparativefaultofa   psychiatristforfailuretowarnofapatientsdangerouspropensities);McClenahanv.Cooley,806   S.W.2d767(Tenn.1991)(findingthatacarownercouldbeheldliableinawreckafterleavingthe   keysinacarthatwassubsequentlystolen;thecartheftwasnotnecessarilyaninterveningact p breakingthechainofcausation).Instead,aplaintiffmayrecoverdamagesfromboththeintentional \ tortfeasorandtheoriginalnegligenttortfeasor.Seeid.TheplaintiffinPottershouldhavebeen H allowedtopursueseparateclaimsagainsttheCity!onebasedupontheintentionaltortscommitted 4 bythepoliceofficerandonebasedupontheCitysnegligenceinfailingtoproperlyscreenits  p employees.ThesecondclaimarisesoutoftheCitysnegligentemploymentpractices,notthepolice  \ officersintentionaltorts.Itthereforeisnotbarredbytheintentionaltortexceptionunder H 29-20-205(2). 4   Moreover,theGeneralAssemblyhasclearlyexpresseditsintenttowaivegovernmental   immunityforinjuriesproximatelycausedbynegligentgovernmentalacts.Tenn.CodeAnn.  29-20-205.Weareboundtoupholdthatintenttothefullestextent. ThisCourt'sroleinstatutory  interpretationistoascertainandtoeffectuatethelegislature'sintent.Freemanv.MarcoTransp.  Co.,27S.W.3d909,911(Tenn.2000).Theinterpretationof29-20-205employedinPotterdid l notcarryouttheintentoftheGeneralAssemblytoallowrecoveryforthenegligentactsofthe X  governmentalentity. D!   TheholdinginPotteralsoprovidesuswithaninconsistentoutcome.Itallowsrecoveryfor #l! negligentgovernmentalemploymentpracticesifthegovernmentalemployeeactsnegligentlybutnot $X" iftheemployeeactsintentionally.Icannotagreewitharesultsocontrarytocommonsenseand $D # legislativeintent.Properinterpretationof29-20-205shouldholdagovernmentalentityliablefor %0!$ itsnegligentemploymentpracticesregardlessofthenatureoftheunderlyingactsoftheemployee &"% causingtheinjury. '#&   Accordingly,IwouldwhollyoverrulethisCourtsholdinginPotterv.CityofChattanooga, )$( 556S.W.2d543(Tenn.1977).Theplaintiffinthiscaseshouldbeabletoproceedinanaction |*%) againstCMCbaseduponCMCsnegligentemploymentpractices.BecauseIagreewiththeresult h+&* reachedbythemajorityinthiscase,however,Iconcurinthejudgmentremandingthiscasetothe  trialcourtforadeterminationofdamages.     `     h     ___________________________________ L     `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE