Sallee v. Barrett

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Governmental Tort Liability Act's exception for claims arising from the "infliction of mental anguish" applies only to intentional infliction of emotional distress, not negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the governmental entity was the proper defendant for the negligence claim, and the police officer was immune from suit. The court also upheld denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add the City of Clarksville because the amendment did not satisfy Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03.

Holdings

1. The phrase "infliction of mental anguish" in section 29-20-205(2) refers only to intentional infliction of emotional distress, not negligent infliction of emotional distress.
2. Barrett was immune from suit under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-310(b), and the City of Clarksville was the proper party defendant for the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sallee's motion to amend because Sallee failed to show that his omission of the City resulted from a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-205(2)'s preservation of governmental immunity for claims arising from the "infliction of mental anguish" applies to negligent infliction of emotional distress as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2. Whether Barrett was immune from suit under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-310(b) because the City of Clarksville was the proper defendant for Sallee's negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Sallee's motion to amend his complaint to add the City of Clarksville under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03.

Disposition

reversed