### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Ma rc h 19 , 200 8 S es sio n
AUDREY L. LINK OUS, ET AL 

### . v. HAW KI NS COUNTY, TENNESS EE, ET AL 

### . Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Haw kin s County No. 05CV00462 Tom Wright, Judge

No. E2007-01054-COA- R3-CV- F ILED MAY 14, 2008

S HAR ON G. L EE , J., c on c ur ri ngin p art

and dis se nti ngin p art

.
Iconcur in the majority ’s conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing Ms. L inkous’s Rule 59.04 motion t o alter or am en d t h e j u dg ment. Irespe ctfully dissent from the conclusion that summary

judgme nt was correc tly g rante d in this case beca use I believe Ms. L inkous ha s r a ise d g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l fa c t re g ard ing wh e the r he r hu sb and ’s su ic ide wa s f or e se e a ble under the circ umstances, a nd whether

the Def endants’ c onduct was r easona ble.

I n my view, the e ssential question prese nted here i s not whether the Def endants should have
rec og nized that Mr. L inkous was par ticularly prone to suicide a

nd there fore , s h o u l d h av e taken
a dd iti on al st e ps to p la c e him on su ic ide watc h, bu t w he the r i t w a s r e a so na bly fo re se e a ble that a pe rs on so int oxic a te d th a t he wa s una ble to s ig n th e ja il inta

ke fo rm mig ht tr

y to h arm him se lf wi th an immediately

available instrumentality supplied by

the Def endant (a he avy -duty

metal phone cable ) with which he could ea sily and ef fec tively hanghimself. The tes t i m o n y of seve ral of the Def endants e stablishes that it was Hawkins County ’s policy to remove the s hoes and belt of inmates befor e locking them up. The re ason consistently g iven by the Def endants for

this poli cy

is to prevent in mat es fro m ha

rm ingthe mse lve s. Th e re fo re , ta kin g a ll the fa c ts a

nd the inf e re nc e s r e a so na

bly supporting the m in favor of Ms. L inkous, Ibelieve she has established a jury question as to whethe r it was fore seea

ble that Mr. L inkous would hang himself with the rea dily available phone cor d. “F orese eability

is a question of fa ct for the deter mination of the jury .” City of Elizabeth ton v. Slu der , 534 S.W .2d 115, 117 (Tenn. 1976)

.

The Cou rt o f Ap p ea ls noted in Cockr um v. S tat ethat “ [p]r iso n o ff

ic ia ls h a ve a

du ty to exercise or dinary

and re asonable car e for the protec tion of the persons in their c ustody .” Cockr um v. State, 843 S.W .2d 433, 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). C o c kr u m was not a

summary judgme nt case , nor did it involve a situation where the def endant pr ovided the mea

ns of suicide to the inmate a s the-2-

Def endants did he re. I do not be lieve the law as stated in Cockr um re qu ir e s the c on c lus ion that Ms

. L inkous’s case cannot withstand a motion for sum m ary

judgme nt beca

use she f ailed to pre sent expert testimony at this stag e of the proce eding s. I do believe that a jury question has bee n prese nted reg ardingwhether

the Def endan t s ex ercised re asonable car e for Mr. L inkous’s protection by incar cer atinghim in a visit ation room co n t aini ng the metal phone c ord, knowing that he wa s in a highly intox icated state.
Viewingthe fa cts and re aso n ab l e i nfer ence s in the light most favora ble to Ms. L inkous, I be lie ve su mma

ry jud g me nt w a s in c or

re c tly g ra nte d a nd that sh e sh ou ld b e a ff

or de d th e op po rt

un ity to have the g enuinely disputed issues of m ater ial fac t descr ibed above decide d by a jury . There fore , Iwo uld va c a te the tr ia l c ourt ’s su mma ry jud g me nt a

nd re mand the c a se fo r t

ri a l.

_________________________________________ SHARON G. L EE, J UDGE