Combs v. City of Elizabethton

• Decision Date: 11 October 1930
• Citation: 31 S.W.2d 691,161 Tenn. 363
• Parties: COMBS v. CITY OF ELIZABETHTON.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

31 S.W.2d 691

161 Tenn. 363

COMBS v. CITY OF ELIZABETHTON.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 11, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County; D. A. Vines, Judge.

Action by Emma Jane Combs against the City of Elizabethton. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

GREEN C.J.

This is a damage suit, dismissed on demurrer, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The substance of the declaration is that a policeman and agent of the city of Elizabethton stopped the car in which the plaintiff was riding with her husband "and alleged that her said husband was drunk or drinking and advised that he would take said husband to jail"; that she remonstrated and that the policeman slapped her in the face with his hand and took her to jail, where she remained the remainder of the day, that night, and was released the next morning without any charge being preferred against her; that by reason of said assault she was injured physically and suffered pain and anguish and that she suffered humiliation and injury to her character as result of being detained in the city jail. It is further averred in the declaration that the city of Elizabethton had actual knowledge of the fact that the said policeman had on previous occasions assaulted other parties while acting as an employee of said city.

The declaration fairly construed is merely a charge of violence on the part of a police officer of Elizabethton in undertaking to arrest the husband of the plaintiff and in arresting the plaintiff herself. It has been settled in this state since Pesterfield v. Vickers, 43 Tenn. (3 Cold.) 205, that a municipal corporation was not liable for such acts of a policeman in making an arrest. The cases are reviewed and the question fully discussed in Chavin v Nashville, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. 317.

In Davis v. Knoxville, 90 Tenn. 599, 18 S.W. 254, this court said:

"But in so far as purely governmental powers are conferred, and in respect to the administration of the general law of the state, and in respect to all duties which are essentially public, and not local and special, they are deemed to be agencies of the sovereign power, and not subject to be sued for the torts of their agents or officers, unless by statute an action is given. ***

*** The preservation of order, the maintenance of sobriety, the arrest and detention of violators of the general law of the state, is not for the local and private benefit of the...