## Facts

- Dalton Reb Hughes, a Metropolitan Nashville firefighter, was walking near a Public Works facility when Metro employee Frank Archey drove a front-end loader back to the facility at the end of the workday.
- Hughes alleged Archey revved the loader’s engine and dropped its bucket against the pavement, creating a loud scraping noise and causing Hughes to believe the equipment was out of control and approaching him.
- Startled, Hughes jumped over a guardrail and fell, injuring both shoulders and both knees; he later underwent rotator-cuff surgery and a double knee replacement.
- Hughes incurred substantial medical expenses and lost wages; his wife asserted a related loss-of-consortium claim.
- Hughes sued Metro and Archey under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), initially alleging negligence and later pleading, in the alternative, that Archey acted intentionally to frighten him.

## Issues

1. Whether Archey’s conduct occurred within the scope of his employment for GTLA purposes.
2. Whether Archey’s conduct was negligence or the intentional tort of assault, and how that classification affected Metro’s immunity under the GTLA.
3. Whether Metro could be liable under the GTLA absent proof of negligent supervision when the employee’s conduct constituted an intentional tort.

## Decision

- The court held Archey acted within the scope of his employment because he was authorized to operate the loader and was performing an assigned task (returning it to the facility) when the incident occurred.
- The court held the conduct constituted assault (intentional creation of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm), not negligent operation of equipment.
- Because the GTLA generally preserves governmental immunity for intentional torts by employees, Metro was not liable on the theory tried and proven.
- The judgment against Metro was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment against Archey individually.

## Legal Principles

- Under the GTLA, governmental immunity is removed for certain negligent acts of employees acting within the scope of employment, but immunity is generally not removed for intentional torts such as assault.
- Scope of employment may include improper methods of performing assigned work when the employee is engaged in authorized duties within the time and space limits of employment.
- Assault includes intentional conduct directed at another that places the person in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm; the label “negligence” does not control if the facts show intentional intimidation.
- When an employee’s intentional tort is the operative wrong, governmental liability under the GTLA requires an independent basis (such as negligent supervision) supported by proof; absent such proof, the governmental entity remains immune.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that although the employee’s conduct occurred within the scope of his job duties, it was an intentional assault rather than negligence, so the GTLA did not waive Metro’s immunity on the record presented; liability was therefore imposed on the individual employee rather than the governmental entity.


Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011)