CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff Sandra Easley was injured after being struck by a city-owned vehicle driven by a city employee while crossing a street outside a crosswalk. The trial court found the City of Memphis vicariously liable for employee negligence and directly liable for negligent hiring/retention, allocating 10% fault to Easley. This Court reversed, finding no proof of negligent hiring and concluding Easley was at least 50% at fault, barring recovery. The Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that judgment, citing a lack of deference to the trial court's factual findings. On remand, this Court affirms the finding of employee negligence, reverses the finding of direct negligent hiring, vacates the allocation of fault and damages, and remands the case for re-allocation of fault based only on vicarious liability and recalculation of damages with more specific findings.
Sandra Easley v. City of Memphis is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff Sandra Easley was injured after being struck by a city-owned vehicle driven by a city employee while crossing a street outside a crosswalk. The trial court found the City of Memphis vicariously liable for employee negligence and directly liable for negligent hiring/retention, allocating 10% fault to Easley. This Court reversed, finding no proof of negligent hiring and concluding Easley was at least 50% at fault, barring recovery. The Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that judgment, citing a lack of deference to the trial court's factual findings. On remand, this Court affirms the finding of employee negligence, reverses the finding of direct negligent hiring, vacates the allocation of fault and damages, and remands the case for re-allocation of fault based only on vicarious liability and recalculation of damages with more specific findings.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.