## Facts

- Ronald Timmons, a Type I diabetic, went into insulin shock while driving, lost consciousness, and was involved in a minor collision.
- Responding police officers found Timmons rigid, unresponsive, and gripping the steering wheel; they believed he was intoxicated.
- Officers removed Timmons from the vehicle and placed him face-down on the ground to handcuff him.
- During prone handcuffing, officers pulled Timmons’s right arm behind his back; he sustained a spiral, comminuted fracture of the right humerus.
- After Timmons was placed in a police vehicle, paramedics determined he was in diabetic shock and had an arm injury; he was transported for medical care.
- Use-of-force reports were later completed; only one officer reported that Timmons was “actively resisting.”

## Issues

1. Whether the government retained immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) because the officers’ conduct constituted an intentional tort (battery/excessive force) rather than negligence.
2. Whether the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s findings that the officers breached a duty of reasonable care and caused Timmons’s injury by selecting and executing prone handcuffing under the circumstances.
3. Whether comparative fault should have been assigned to Timmons based on his conduct leading to the restraint and injury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Timmons.
- The court held the officers’ actions were properly characterized as negligence, not an intentional tort, so GTLA immunity was removed.
- The court upheld the findings that the officers negligently assessed the threat and unnecessarily used prone handcuffing, and that the negligent restraint caused the fracture.
- The court affirmed the allocation of 100% fault to the officers and 0% to Timmons.
- The court affirmed the $140,000 damages award (and discretionary costs) as supported by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under the GTLA, governmental immunity may be removed for negligent acts or omissions of employees acting within the scope of employment, but immunity is generally preserved for injuries arising out of intentional torts (including battery); liability therefore turns on whether the conduct is negligent or intentional.
- In reviewing a bench trial, appellate courts review factual findings de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise, and review legal conclusions de novo with no presumption of correctness.
- A plaintiff may establish negligence by showing a breach of reasonable care in choosing and applying a restraint method where foreseeable risk of injury is increased and safer alternatives are available.
- Comparative fault is not imposed where the injured person’s condition (including a medical emergency) negates voluntary, negligent conduct contributing to the harm.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed a GTLA judgment against the metropolitan government because the officers’ misassessment of a medical emergency and unnecessary use of prone handcuffing constituted negligence rather than an intentional tort, supported findings of causation and fault, and justified the damages award.


Timmons v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 307 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)