### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Jul y 10, 200 7 S es sio n
CHRIS TI NA R. BRITT, ET AL 

### . v. MA UR Y C OUN TY BOA RD OF EDUCATIO N, ET AL 

### . Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Maury County No. 10992 Stella L. Hargrove, Judge

No. M2006- 01921-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Septem ber 29, 2008

T h e t ri al co urtgra n t edth e B o ar d o f E d u ca t i o n ’s M o t i o nfo r S u m m ary J u d gm en td i s m i s s i n g a c he e rl e a de r’ s tw o cla ims fo r p e rs on a l in jur y un de r t he Te nn e sse e Go ve rnme nta l T or t L ia bil ity Ac t, Tenn. Code Ann

. § 2 9 -2 0 -101 et seq . We affir m the judgme nt as to the claim that the B oard
ne g lig e ntl y

hir e d th e sp on so r o f t

he c he e rl e a din gsq

ua d. F ind ing , ho we ve r, that a g e nu ine dis pute of mater ial fac t exi sts as to the chee rlea ding squa d sponsor’s neg lige nce, we reve rse that portion of the jud g me nt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed in Par t, Re verse d in P art and Rem anded

P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J. and R OB E R T S. B R ANDT , S P

. J ., joined.

Ro c ky M c E lh an e y ; Au

b r e y G iv e n s , N a s h v il le , T e n n e s s e e , f o r th e a p p e ll an ts , Chr is ti n a

B r itt, b y n e xt friend a nd mother, Caroline J. Dale, and Ca roline J. Dale, individually

. J ames P. Catalano, Cathe rine E. Cunning ham, Na s h v ille, Tennesse e, for the appe llees, Maur

y County Boa rd of Educ ation and Maur y County , Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. F acts
Christina Britt and he r mother br oug ht suit aga inst the Maury County Boa rd of Educ ation (“ B oa rd ” ) an d

M a ur y C o un ty , T e n n e s s e e un d e r th e T e n n e s s e e G o v e r

n m e n t a l T o rtL i a

b i l i ty A c t, T e n n
. Co d e A n n
. § 2 9

- 2 0

- 1 0 1 et al . (“TG TLA”) , seekingto rec over f or per sonal injuries she
su sta ine d whil e pa

rt ic ipatin g on he r high sch oo l che e rl e a din g sq ua d. Ac c or din g to h e r c omp la int , the B oa rd wa s li a bl e beca us e the c he e rl e a din gsq

ua d s po ns or

hir e d b y the bo ard , Sh e rr

y B os he rs , neg li gently

su pe rv ise d th e sq

ua d. In a dd iti on , M s. B ri tt a lle g e d th at th e B oa rd wa s n e g lig e nt i nAl t h ou g h M au r y Coun t y w as n ame d a s a de f en dan t , t h e r ec or d doe s n ot i n di ca t e t h at i t f i l ed f or di s mi s s al or 1

wa s g r an t ed s u mmar y j u dg men t

. T h e or der g r an t i n g s u mmar y j u dg men t g av e j u dg men t on l y f or t h e B oar d a n d di d n ot i n cl u de t h e cou n t y
. I t doe s n ot a ppea r t h at t h e cou n t y h as a n s we r ed or ot h er wi s e appe ar ed.
-2- h i ri n g M s
. Bo s h er s as th e s qu ad s p o n s o r s i n ce s h e l ac k ed“a d equ at e qu al i fi ca t i o n s an d / o r t ra i n i n g”
nece ssary to perfor m her duties as squa d sponsor.
The B oard f

iled a Motion for Summary J udg ment claiming first that the B oard is immune

1 under the TGTLA. Acc ordingto the Boa rd, since hiring Ms. B oshers was a discretionar y act then the B oard is immune under Tenn. Code Ann. §29- 20-205(1)

. The trial court disagree d finding that the B oa rd wa s not immune un de r the TG TLA an d co uld be su e d for ne g lig e nt h ir ingof Ms. B os he rs
. This ruling w as not appe aled a nd is not the subject of re view on ap p ea l. Alternatively , the B oard argued that ther e we re no disputed issues of material f ac t rega rdingMs. Britt’s two neg lige nce c la ims and

the B oa rd wa s e nti tle d to summa

ry jud g me nt. The followingfac ts were not in disput e for the purposes of

summary judgme nt. I n September of 2003, while a freshman at Mount Pleasant Hig h School (“Hig h School”), Ms. B ritt was on the chee rlea ding squa d. Ms. Bosher s, an employ ee in the ca fete ria, wa s the sponsor of the c heer leading squad. The pr incipal of the H igh School, Mr

. W eaver, ha d selec ted Ms. Boshe rs to be the chee rlea ding squa d sponsor. The B oard r atified Ms. B oshers’ a ppointment. I t is not di sputed that wh ile a c tin ga s th e sq

ua d spo ns or , Ms. B os he rs wa s ac tin g wi thi n the sc op e of he r e mpl oy me nt w ith the B oard.
On Se pte mbe r 2 6, 20 03 , th e Hi g h Sc ho ol w a s h old inga pep rally be fo re a ho me fo otb a ll g ame. Ms. B oshers lef

t to attend to other dut ies while t he cheer leading squad was involved in warm up exercises b ef

o re the pep r ally . Whil e the squa d was pe rfor ming a maneuve r ca lled a “ba sket toss,” Ms. Britt was tossed ove r the spotter’ s head a nd broke he r rig ht arm as she landed.
Th e tr ia l c ourt

g ra nte d th e B oa

rd ’s re qu e st f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n th e fo llo wi ngg ro un ds :
The Court finds howe ver, that from the re cord befor e her that there are no g enuine issues of mater ial fac t for trial a nd that Def

endant is entitled to judg ment as a matter of law. Spe c if

ic a lly the Court

fi nd s a s f oll ow s:
There are no g enuine issues of material fa ct that Ms. Boshe rs was ne g lige nt, and that any neg lige nce was thus imputed to Defe ndant under respondeat superior . There are no g enuine issues of material fact to show that Def endant wa s neg lige nt in the hiring
and re te nti on of Ms. B os he rs
. Fr om the undisputed fac ts and inferen ces dr awn f rom those fa cts, there are no g enuine issues of material fa ct t o s h ow an a ct or omission that is a leg al ca use of Plaintiff’s injury

. There are no g enuine issues of m ater ial fac t to show that Pl aintiff’s unfor t u n at e injury , which re sulted from an una uthorized activity

on her pa

rt, was-3-

fore seea ble. The Court finds that rea sonable mi nds cannot diff er in findingthat the acts or omissions of Def

endant we re ne ither the c ause in fac t, the proxi mate ca use, n o r th e l e g a l c a

u s e o f P l a i n t i f f ’ s i n j ur y.
II. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW
In order to me et the require ments for summary judgme nt, a def

endant movingfor summary judgme nt in its filings supporting the motion mus t either a ffirmatively neg ate a n essential ele ment of the non-movingparty ’s claim or c onclusively establish an af

firmative de fense

. Cumulus B r o a d c a s t i n g , I n c . v . S him , 226 S.W. 3d

36 6, 37 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) ; Blair v. W est Town Mall, 130 S.W. 3d 76 1, 76 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 4) ; Staples v. CBL & Assoc. Inc

. , 15 S.W .3d 83, 88 (Tenn. 2000). I f the moving pa

rty fails to meet th i s b u rden, then the burden to c ome forw ard w ith probative evide nce establishing the exis tence of a g enuine issue f or trial does not shift to the non-movingparty , and the motion mus t be denied. Cumulus Broadcasting , 226 S.W. 3d at 37 4; Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 88-89.

I f, howe ver, the moving pa rty succe ssfull y n ega t es a c laimed basis for the action or
e sta bli sh e s an aff

ir mat iv e de fe ns e , th e no n- mov ingpa rt y may no t si mpl y

re st u po n th e ple a din g s. Staples , 1 5 S. W.3 d at 89 . In th at si tuatio n, the no n- mov ingpa rt y has th e bu rden of

po int ingout, re ha bil itatin g , o r p ro vid ingne w e vid e nc e to c re ate a fact ual dis pute a s to the mate ri a l e le me nt i n dispute. Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 89; Rains v. Be nd of the River , 1 24 S.W. 3d 58 0, 58 7- 88 (T e nn . Ct

. App. 2003).
A trial cour

t’s decision on a motion fo r s ummary judgme nt enjoy s no presumption of
corr ectne ss on appea l. Cumulus Broadcasting , 2 26 S .W .3d at 37 3; BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Co. v. Johnson, 10 0 S. W.3 d 2 02 , 2 05 (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; Scott v. Ashland Healthca r e Ctr., Inc. , 49 S.W .3d 281, 285 (Tenn. 2001) . We reviewthe summary judgme nt decision as a que stion of law. Finister v . Humboldt Gen. Hosp., I nc ., 97 0 S. W.2 d 4 35 , 4 37 (T e nn .1 99 8) ; Robinson v. Ome r , 952 S.W .2d 423, 426 (Tenn.1997) . Acc ording ly , this court must rev i ew t h e record de novo and make a fre sh determination of whether the re quirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been me t. Ea die v. Complete Co. , Inc ., 14 2 S.W.3 d 2 88 , 2 91 (T e nn . 2 00 4) ; Blair , 1 30 S.W. 3d at 76 3; Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 88.
The require ments for the g rant of summary judgme nt a re that the filings supporting the mot ion sh owthat th e re is no g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t and tha t th e mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to jud g ment as a matte r o f l aw. Te nn . R. Civ . P. 56 .0 4; Blair , 130 S.W .3d at 764; Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v . Lee , 9 0 S. W.3 d 6 14 , 6 20 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993). Consequently , summary judgme nt should be g rante d only when the undisputed f

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

bly draw n f

ro m th e un dis pute d f

a c ts, su pp or t on e c on c lus ion

- t hat th e pa

rt y seeking the summary judgme nt is entitl ed to a judg ment as a matter of law

. W e bb e r v . S tate Fa rm Mut. Auto

. In s. Co. , 4 9 S. W.3 d 2 65 , 2 69 (T e nn . 2 00 1) ; Brown v. Birman Managed Care, I nc. , 42 S.W. 3d 62 , 6 6 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 88.-4-

In o ur re vie w, we mus t c on sid e r the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at th e summa ry jud g me nt s ta g e in the l ight mos t f

avo ra ble to t he no n- mov ingpa

rt y , a nd we mus t a ff

or d th at pa

rt y a ll r e a so na

ble infere nces. Doe v . HCA Health Serv s., Inc. , 46 S.W.3 d 191 , 1 96 (T e nn . 2 00 1) ; Mem phis Hous. Auth.
v. T h ompson , 38 S.W .3d 504, 507 (Tenn. 2001) , cert. de n. , 5 3 4 U

. S

. 8 2 3 ( 2 0 0 1 )

. W e mus t deter mine first whethe r fa ctual disputes existand, if so, whether the disputed fac t is mate rial to the claim or de fense upon which the summary judgme nt is predicate d and whe ther the disputed f act cre ates a g enuine issue f

or trial. By rd , 8 47 S.W. 2d at 21 4; Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, Inc. , 978 S.W .2d 102, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “[I ]f there is a dispute a s to any materia l fac t or any doubt as to the conclusions to be dra wn from that f

act, the motion must be denied.” By rd , 847 S.W .2d at 211.

III
. A N A L Y SIS Ms. Britt is attempting to re cover from the B oard for injuries she sustained a rising f rom the Boa rd’s ne g lige nt hiring of

Ms. Bosher s and Ms. Boshe rs’ ne g lige nt perfor mance of her

duties as the che erle adingsquad sponsor. The e lements of a ne g lige nce c ause of action ar e we ll known. A
ne g lig e nc e c a

us e of a c tio n h a s b e e n d ist ill e d d own to five ne c e ssa ry ingre die nts : ( 1) a

le g a lly
rec og nized duty

owed by the defe ndant to the plaintiff, (2) the defe ndant’s bre ach of that duty , (3) an injury or loss, (4) c ausation in fac t, and (5) le g al ca use. Drap e r v . W

este rfi e ld , 181 S.W .3d 283, 29 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 5) ; Bi

sc an v . B ro wn , 1 60 S.W. 3d 46 2, 47 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 5) ; Foster v. Bue , 749 S.W .2d 736, 741 (Tenn. 1988) . We will examine Ms. B ritt’s two claims separ ately to de termine whe ther the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in g ra nti ngthe B oa

rd ’s re qu e st f

or summa ry jud g me nt.
A. Boa r d’ s N e gli ge ntHir ing
The B oard move d for summary judgme nt arg

uing that under the un d is p ute d f a c ts , th e Boa

rd’s hiring and re tention of Ms

. Boshe rs was not neg lige nt. Ms. Bosher s testified in her de position t hat she has be en the c heer leadingsponsor since May of 2001. S ince that time, Ms. B oshers ha s attended chee rlea ding c amps with the squad eac h summer, rec eived assistance from the f ormer c heer leade r sponsor, and ke pt an up dated manua l on chee rlea ding r ules and re g ulations. These c heer leading camps we re he ld by

a re cog nized cheer leadi n gassociation hire d by the B oard. The chee rlea ding association also published the manua l on chee rlea dingr u le s a n d r e g u lations. Ms. Boshers’ daug hters
wer e involved in c heer leading , and she had also been involved in othe r che erle adingactivities in the y ear s befor e bec oming the c heer leadingsponsor.
Ms. Britt offe red the aff idavit of J err

y Wil liams on the i s s u e o f n egl ige nt hiring. Mr

. Wil liams has a master s deg ree , is a licensed teac her, holds va rious education certifications, served as t eac her, assistant principal, and principal and se rved on the leg islative counsel of the Tenne ssee Secondar y Schools’ Athletics Association (“ TSSAA”). He states that he is famili a r w it h th e standa

rd of ca re in Te nnessee in hiring hig h school che erle ading sponsors. Acc ordingto the opinion of Mr. Wil liams, hiring Ms. B oshers wa s a neg lige nt act bec ause she was not a c ertified te ache r. Mr. W i l l i a m s t e s t i f

i e d th ata c e rt i f i e d t e a c h e r w o u l d n o th av e l e f

tth e s qu a d

r i g h tb e f o r e a p e p r a l l y. Also, Mr. W illiams said a chee rlea ding sponsor should have e x perie nce e ither as a chee rlea der orT h e d u ty i s thu s d e sc rib e d b y the B o a rd in its b rie f o n a p p e a l. 2

-5- as a c oach. A ccor ding to Mr. Williams’ affidavit, he understands Ms. B oshers’ “ only experience with chee rlea ding a

t all” was through her da

ug hters who were chee rlea ders and she “ba sically had no experience or qualifications whatsoever for the c heer leade r sponsor position.”
Mr. Will iams’ af

fidavit, howeve r, does not cr eate issues of fa ct on wh et h erthe B oard neg lige ntly

hired Ms. B oshers. He gives his opinion that a certified teache r would not have lef t the squad unsuper

vised befor e the pep r ally , but this opi nion is speculative at be st, since he pr ovides no explanation of any

tr ai n i n g for tea cher s, or any other fa ct, that would lead to this conc lusion. He does not say

that allowing an uncer

tified teac her to act as c heer leadingsponsor violates the standa rd of ca re in Te nnessee
. Hi s o pin ion

on Ms

. Bos he rs ’ c re de nti a ls a s a c he e rl e a din gsq

ua d s po ns or

re sts up on

his understandingof her

experience , i.e. , he base s his o p i nion on the fac t that Ms. Bosher s had no “experienc e or qua lifications whatsoeve r.” A cce pting that f actua l premise as true , t h er e h as bee n no ev i d en ce put forth that would establish a ca usal conne ction betwee n Ms. Bosher s’ experienc e, or lac k there of, at the time of hir ing, a nd the ac cident that is t he basis for the this action. The uncontra dicted proof

is that at t h e t i m e o f t he ac cident at issue Ms. B oshers ha d been the chee rlea ding sponsor

for two a nd one-ha lf y ear s and had dutifully attended c heer leading camps for this period and obtained training and assist ance from thos e camps, manuals, and others. Thus, the B oa rd c ame fo rw ard wi th pr oo f o f M s. B os he rs ’ e xpe ri e nc e at th e tim e of the a c c ide nt, and

Ms. B ri tt failed to provide proof that this experience was inadequate or fell below a ny established standa

rd of
car e.
Mr. Will iams’ af

fidavit does not establish widely rec og nized standa rds or qua lifications for chee rlea ding sponsor s. I t does not expl ain why cer tification as a teac her is a valid requisite for the position. Many

schools and school sy stems must rely on part-time “sponsors” in or der to provide
e xtra c ur ri c ula r o pp or tun iti e s f or the ir stu de nts . M s. B ri tt h a s f a ile d to sh ow that th e hir ingof Ms. Boshe rs fe ll below any

rec og nized standard of c are or that, eve n if it did, there wa s any causa l
connec tion to the accide nt. Consequently , the trial cour t’s g rant of summary

judgme nt to the Boa

rd dismiss ing the alleg ation of neg lige nt hiring is af firmed. B. Board’s Responsi bili ty for Ms. Boshers’ Ne gligence
The B oard ma

y be liable unde r the TGT L A for the neg lige nt act of its employ ee. T enn. Code Ann. § 2 9- 20 -2 05

. Th e tr ial c ourt fo un d th at th e re we re no dis pute d is su e s o f m ate ri a l f a c t a s to whether Ms. Bosher s acte d neg lige ntly , and it g rante d the B oard summ ar y j udg ment on this iss ue a s w e ll. All parties agree t h at M s
. Boshers had a “duty to use rea sonable c are to supervise the chee rlea ders . . . to preve nt unrea sonable risk of i njury .” The que stion is whether there is a g enuine 2 dispute of mater ial fac t whether Ms. Boshe rs us ed reasonable car e in her supervision of t he squad.-6-

Upon re view of the rec ord we find that there are disputed issues of m ater ial fac t reg arding whether Ms. Boshe rs neglig ently supervised the squad. First, the parties disput e whether the squa d
wa s d iso be yingMs. B os he rs ’ i ns tr uc tio ns wh e n it

pe rf or me d th e ba sk e t to ss t

hat in jur e d M s. B ri tt. All parties agree , including Ms. B oshers, that the s q u ad should not perf orm maneuve rs like the

“ basket to ss ” un less the sp on so r i s p re se nt. Ms. B os he rs te sti fi e d th at sh e tol d th e sq ua d n ot t o perf orm stunts li ke the ba sket toss unless she was prese nt to supervise. Ms. Britt, on the other ha nd, testified in her de position t hat Ms. Boshe rs did not give those instructions. I n spite of Ms. Br itt’s testimony to the contra

ry , the trial cour

t , h o we v er , expressly

found that the ba sket toss stunt was “unauthor ized.” Given that the que stion of whether Ms. Bosher s had prohibited these stunts is key to t he is su e of

a de qu ate su

pe rv isi on and is d isp ute d, summa

ry jud g me nt a s to ne g lig e nc e by Ms. Boshe rs was not wa

rra nted. Consequently , t h e t ri al court’s gr ant of summary judgme nt to the Boa

rd holding that the B oa rd is no t li able un de r t

he TG TLA f

or Ms. B os he rs ’ n e g lig e nc e is r e ve rs e d s inc e the re re ma in dis pute d is su e s o f mate ri a l fa c t a s to wh at ha pp e ne d and the de g re e of su pe rv isi on e xer c ise d b y

Ms. B os he rs
. Th e tr ia l c ourt jud g me nt is a ff ir me d in pa rt a nd re ve rs e d in

pa rt . T he matte r i s r e mand e d to the trial cour

t for fur ther proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion. Costs of this appea l are assessed equally betwee n Christina Britt and the Maury County Boa rd of Educ ation for whic h execution may i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTREL L , J UDGE