Opinion ID: 1571705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Grundy County's Day in Court

Text: The remaining assignments are critical. In general, they charge the trial court with error in entering judgment against Grundy County based on a judgment in another court in another action to which Grundy County was not a party and thus depriving the county of a day in court to contest the amount of damages. We think that the statutory scheme basically contemplates a direct action against the county. We do not feel, however, that it operates to preclude an action on a judgment obtained against a deputy in another jurisdiction, provided, proof of liability and damages are determined in an adversary proceeding with full opportunity to the county to participate. We cannot conceive of the county being held liable on a judgment rendered in a case in which it did not participate fully and as an adversary. Again we look to § 6-640, T.C.A. and to a recent decision of this Court, Banks v. City of Mason, 541 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1976). There a judgment was obtained in Federal Court against a city policeman and suit was instituted in the state court to enforce the collection of the judgment against the City of Mason. Mason was not a party to the Federal Court action but did provide counsel as required by § 6-640, T.C.A. In holding that the City of Mason was entitled to litigate liability in a suit brought pursuant to § 6-640, we said: It is elementary that a municipality must be provided the right to deny liability for a judgment against the employee on the basis of the statutory defense of willful misconduct, and the courts must be open to the assertion of that defense in a suit brought subsequent to the tort action. This is necessarily true whether or not willfulness is asserted or adjudicated in the tort action. 541 S.W.2d at 146. The rationale of Banks v. City of Mason is convincing and controlling. We sustain the assignments relating to this issue and hold that the trial judge erred in sustaining plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment and in awarding judgment against Grundy County. On remand, Grundy County may litigate liability and damages to the same manner and to the same extent as if the Federal Court judgment had not been awarded. Be it remembered that the Circuit Court of this state, acting under § 8-832, et seq., constitutes a forum wherein the plaintiff could obtain full and adequate relief. He elected a forum in which the county was not a proper party and could not participate since it is not a person or a suable entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Note 121, to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. We can appreciate the manifest advantage of a suit in Federal Court, free from local influences and pressures; however, we are compelled to hold that Grundy County is entitled to its day in court. On remand, a viable issue will also be whether the deputy was acting by virtue of, or under color of his office, a condition precedent to the recovery of any judgment against Grundy County. This is a substantial issue of fact. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. COOPER, C.J., and FONES, BROCK and HARBISON, JJ., concur.