Pamela Johnson Arnold and Nancy Fortson On Behalf of A Minor Vs Hamilton Co. Dept. of Education

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
PAMELA JOHNSON ARNOLD

and NANCY FORTSON,
each on behalf of
N.F., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Docket No.: 1:19-cv-234
HAMILTON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

______________________________________________________________________________
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Pamela Johnson Arnold and Nancy Fortson, each on behalf of
N.F., a minor, (herein collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, and
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, hereby file this Complaint against the Hamilton County
Department of Education (hereinafter the “Defendant”), and aver as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Pamela Johnson Arnold is the maternal grandmother and appointed legal
guardian of N.F., a minor, and is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
2. Plaintiff Nancy Fortson is the mother of N.F., a minor, and a resident of Hamilton
County, Tennessee.
3. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff N.F. (D.O.B. 2009) is a minor child, a
student at Woodmore Elementary School and a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1

4. Defendant Hamilton County Department of Education is a governmental body
and a separate legal entity from Hamilton County. The Defendant, at all times relevant to this
Complaint, was responsible for the provision of education to Hamilton County students,
including, but not limited to the provision of student transportation. The Defendant may be
served through Dr. Bryan Johnson, Superintendent, 3074 Hickory Valley Road, Chattanooga,
Tennessee 37421.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action seeks monetary damages for Defendant’s violations of rights,
privileges, and immunities secured under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee because the acts,
transactions, and omissions complained of herein all occurred within this District.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
8. Throughout all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant exercised
authority and control over the operation of Woodmore Elementary School and its staff, including
school bus transportation to and from Woodmore Elementary School.
9. From July 1, 2013 to November 21, 2016, Chattanooga public school children
who ride school buses were transported by either Durham School Services, L.P. (hereinafter
“Durham”) or third-party owner/operators.

The July 1, 2013 Contract Between the Defendant and Durham
10. On July 1, 2013, the Hamilton County Department of Education, (“the
Defendant”), entered into a service contract with Durham.
11. The contract required Durham to purchase and equip its school buses with digital
cameras and radios.
12. The contract also required the school buses to be equipped with GPS technology
that “…enables staff to monitor the path and speed of a bus. District staff will be given access to
this system.”
13. Monitoring the path of the school bus would reveal when a bus is no longer
traveling on the designated bus route, exceeding the speed limit, and driving in a reckless
manner.
14. Both Durham and the Defendant were responsible for monitoring the path and
speed of the school buses, including Bus 366.
15. The contract further provides that, “[r]ules and regulations for details incidental to
the operation of bus routes, bus stops and other attendant matters shall be mutually agreed upon
[by the Defendant and Durham].”
Defendant’s Transportation Policy
16. The regulations and rules that Defendant promulgated include, but are not limited
to the Transportation Department Policy of the Hamilton County Board of Education. These
policies provide, in relevant part, as follows:
a. The bus driver is authorized and empowered to, “maintain[] discipline of
students.”

b. The bus driver is to immediately notify his or her supervisor when a student is
injured on the bus.
c. School principals are responsible for putting students on and removing
students from the bus each day while on their campus.
d. Students riding the bus “shall” be under the supervision of the driver/assistant
at all times and “shall” obey the driver/assistant at all times.
e. Bus drivers are expected to be familiar with the rules and regulations and
supervisory staff are expected to enforce violations.
17. The Transportation Policy provides that bus driver violations, such as “breaches
of safety,” may result in a disciplinary hearing, leading to suspension without pay or termination.
18. Pursuant to the Transportation Policy, “[s]upervisory personnel are charged with
the responsibility of seeing that all of these rules and regulations are followed.”
19. The Transportation Policy contains a section entitled “ROUTES”. This section
requires each driver to “follow the specific route assignment without any deviations.”
20. The Transportation Policy also contains a section entitled “SAFETY”. This
section proscribes that bus drivers “shall:”
a. Obey all speed limits as follows:
i. Rural streets not to exceed posted speed limit.
21. The Transportation Policy also contains a section entitled “STUDENT
INJURY.” This section explicitly instructs that, “[i]n the event a student is injured while on the
school bus, it is the driver’s responsibility to notify the supervisor immediately.”

22. Pursuant to the Transportation Policy, the school principal, at the direction of
Coulter and the Defendant, is “responsible for the safe loading/unloading of buses while on their
campus.”
23. Pursuant to the Transportation Policy, the school principal “shall” report
complaints from bus drivers regarding students within 24 hours, to preclude a problem from
“getting worse.”
Defendant’s Failure to Protect Students Loaded onto School Buses from Danger
24. At all times relevant hereto, Benjamin Coulter was employed as the Defendant’s
Transportation Supervisor.
25. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant assigned to various employees, including
but not limited to Benjamin Coulter, the responsibilities of receiving, documenting, addressing,
and/or responding to concerns and complaints regarding school bus drivers on behalf of
Defendant.
26. From July 1, 2013 to November 21, 2016, Defendant, through its employees and
agents including but not limited to Coulter and its Principals and Assistant Principals, was aware
of instances of unsafe driving by school bus drivers while transporting its students.
of instances of school bus drivers exceeding the posted speed limit while transporting its
students.

of instances of school bus drivers swerving and/or abruptly braking the school bus while
transporting its students.
29. Defendant was aware that school bus drivers swerving and/or abruptly braking the
school bus during transportation of students is dangerous.
of instances of school bus drivers using a cellular telephone or headset while students were being
loaded onto and transported by school bus.
of instances of school bus drivers running bus routes incorrectly while transporting its students.
that school buses transporting its students were involved in motor vehicle accidents that were
preventable and/or or the fault of the school bus driver.
that Defendant’s students were harmed during their transportation by school bus as a result of
unsafe driving by school bus drivers.
that Defendant’s students were subjected to danger during their transportation as a result of
unsafe driving by school bus drivers.

35. From July 1, 2013 to November 21, 2016, Defendant was responsible for
monitoring and supervising school bus drivers in a manner which would protect the safety of its
students being transported.
that Durham was not monitoring, supervising, and disciplining school bus drivers in a manner
which would protect the safety of Defendant’s students being transported.
agents including but not limited to Coulter and its Principals and Assistant Principals, failed to
investigate or conduct a meaningful investigation of instances in which it became aware that the
safety of Defendant’s students was at risk while and after students were loaded onto a school
bus.
agents including but not limited to Coulter and its Principals and Assistant Principals, failed to
respond to or take action in response to instances in which they became aware that the safety of
Defendant’s students was at risk while and after the students were loaded onto a school bus.
agents including but not limited to Coulter and its Principals and Assistant Principals, had the
authority to prevent students from being loaded onto a school bus when the safety of students
was at risk during transportation.
40. Defendant did not provide Coulter, its transportation staff, or its Principals and
Assistant Principals with training regarding preventing students from being loaded onto a school
bus when the safety of students was at risk during transportation.

41. Defendant did not promulgate any policies, procedures, or guidelines which
provide instructions or guidance as to when Coulter, its transportation staff, or its Principals and
Assistant Principals should prevent students from being loaded onto a school bus when the safety
of students was at risk during transportation.
agents including but not limited to Coulter, its transportation staff and its Principals and
Assistant Principals, instructed students to board and be transported by school buses after it
became aware that the safety of students was at risk.
Defendant’s Failure to Protect Students Instructed to Board Walker’s School Bus from
Danger
43. Since Walker began transporting Defendant’s students, his driving performance
was recorded by the Zonar global positioning system.
44. Since Walker began transporting Defendant’s students, Defendant had access to
the Zonar global positioning system which recorded Walker’s driving performance.
45. Since Walker began transporting Defendant’s students, the information available
to Defendant in the Zonar global positioning system included the speed that Walker was
traveling while driving the school bus and the posted speed limit.
46. At the time of the filing of the above-styled cause, Defendant had access to the
information in the Zonar global positioning system regarding Walker’s driving performance.
47. Since Walker began transporting Defendant’s students, the Zonar global
positioning system documented that Walker regularly and routinely exceeded the posted speed
limit while transporting students.

48. On August 18, 2016, Walker struck a curb with the school bus while transporting
Defendant’s students.
49. On or about August 18, 2016, Defendant was aware that the school bus Walker
was driving was involved in a motor vehicle accident.
50. Defendant was aware that the motor vehicle accident involving Walker on August
18, 2016 was a preventable accident that was caused by Walker’s actions or inactions.
51. Defendant continued to instruct the students to board school bus driven by Walker
after the August 18, 2016 motor vehicle accident involving Walker.
52. On or about September 6, 2016, Defendant became aware of a complaint from
one or more parents advising that Walker was arriving too early at their bus stop, and as a result
the students had to walk to school.
53. Defendant is aware that students having to walk to school from a scheduled bus
stop is dangerous.
54. Defendant continued to instruct the students to board the school bus driven by
Walker after the September 6, 2016 complaint regarding Walker.
55. On September 20, 2016, Walker side-swiped another vehicle while transporting
Defendant’s students by school bus.
56. On or about September 20, 2016, Defendant became aware that the school bus
Walker was driving was involved in a motor vehicle accident.
57. Defendant was aware that the motor vehicle accident involving Walker on
September 20, 2016 was a preventable accident that was caused by Walker’s actions or inactions.
Walker after the September 20, 2016 motor vehicle accident involving Walker.

59. On or about September 28, 2016, a parent submitted a complaint to Defendant
that Walker was cursing at children, slamming on his breaks and making them hit their heads and
fall out of their seats.
60. The child of the parent who submitted the complaint to Defendant on September
28, 2016 was killed during the November 21, 2016 bus crash.
61. Defendant was aware that a bus driver slamming on his breaks and making
students hit their heads and fall out of their seats is dangerous.
Walker after the September 28, 2016 complaint.
63. In early November 2016, Defendant received written complaints from employees,
parents and children that Walker was recklessly endangering the safety of the young children on
his route at Woodmore Elementary School.
64. At all times relevant hereto, Brenda Adamson-Cothran (also referred to herein as
“Principal Adamson-Cothran”) was the Principal of Woodmore Elementary School.
65. On or about November 2, 2016, Principal Adamson-Cothran complained to
Defendant that she had to “go out there several times and the driver [Walker] is arguing with
students.”
66. On or about November 2, 2016, a school official, Carlis Shackleford, documented
his chilling interaction with Walker after Mr. Shackleford boarded the bus in response to student
complaints. Mr. Shackleford wrote:
The driver was visibly upset and continued on by saying that he had
another job and driving this bus was just a part time job for him.
…
Driver stated that he could just leave [a student] at the school. He then
stated ‘or I can just leave the student on the bus and I will get off the bus and
leave the school.’
10

…
Driver stated that he did not care about the students and proceeded to tell
the students he did not care about them.
67. Defendant was aware that Walker’s statements on November 2, 2016 were of a
threatening nature.
Walker after the November 2, 2016 complaint regarding Walker.
69. On or about November 8, 2016, Principal Adamson-Cothran complained to
Defendant that Walker was “driving way too fast when he pulled out our school [Woodmore].”
71. On or about November 9, 2016, Defendant became aware that Walker was
utilizing his cellular telephone and/or Bluetooth headset while transporting its students.
73. On or about November 16, 2016, six elementary school students submitted
complaints to Woodmore Elementary School regarding Walker’s dangerous driving.
74. One student’s complaint submitted to Woodmore Elementary School on
November 16, 2016 included the following statement:
The bus driver drives fast. It feels like the bus is going to flip over….He
makes people go seat to seat back and forth, when someone is in the aisle he stops
the bus and makes people hit their heads.
(Emphasis added).
75. One student’s complaint submitted to Woodmore Elementary School on
November 16, 2016 stated:
11

The bus driver was doing sharp turns and he made me fly over to the next seat.
We need seat belts.
(Emphasis added).
76. A video recording device mounted in the school bus recorded Walker’s driving on
November 16, 2016.
77. The video from November 16, 2016 substantiated the students’ complaints
regarding Walker’s driving.
78. Prior to November 21, 2016, Defendant did not review the video of Walker’s
driving November 16, 2016.
Walker after the November 16, 2016 complaints regarding Walker.
80. Principal Brenda Adamson-Cothran, after receiving the documented complaints
of school employees and students about Walker’s driving, notified Coulter on several occasions
that Walker was driving recklessly with students on board, injuring students intentionally and
driving dangerously fast when leaving Woodmore Elementary.
81. Defendant never took action to stop Walker’s dangerous driving.
82. Defendant continued to instruct the students to board the school bus each day with
the actual knowledge that Walker was speeding and driving dangerously while transporting
students.
83. Despite Defendant’s policy requiring the installation and use of an electronically
monitored system to track both the path and speed of school buses, and to monitor video-camera
recordings from inside the school buses, Walker’s driving performance was not monitored.
12

84. Defendant had actual prior knowledge that Walker was driving recklessly and that
the students on his bus were being violently tossed about the bus. However, it did not take action
to protect the Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366.
85. Defendant had actual prior knowledge that Walker’s reckless driving had caused
injury to the students on his bus which Walker had not reported.
86. Consistent with the pattern and practice of Defendant, Defendant did nothing to
enforce its regulations which required Johnthony Walker to immediately report the injuries
sustained by students when they were violently thrown from seat to seat and were slammed into
the seats in front of them—injuries caused by Johnthony Walker’s reckless and malicious
driving.
87. Defendant had actual prior knowledge that Johnthony Walker was using the
school bus as a weapon to recklessly and sadistically inflict pain on the elementary school
children riding his bus.
88. Defendant instructed the young children to leave the safety of their elementary
school and board the school bus operated by Walker.
89. Defendant implicitly authorized, approved, and/or knowingly acquiesced to the
unconstitutional behavior of its employees, including but not limited to Principal Adamson-
Cothran and Coulter.
90. Consistent with Defendant’s pattern and practice, it did nothing to enforce its
regulations regarding the known threat posed by Walker, and was deliberately indifferent to the
rights and safety of the elementary school children on his bus.
91. Principal Adamson-Coulter reported her observations, concerns, and complaints
set forth herein to Coulter.
13

92. Despite its rules and regulations, Defendant ignored the complaints of the
principal, driver, parents, and students and continued to instruct the young students at Woodmore
Elementary School to leave the safety of the school campus and board a school bus operated by
Walker.
93. Defendant, despite its regulations, rules and policies, ignored Walker’s repeated
and flagrant violations, thereby placing Plaintiffs and the other students on Bus 366 in imminent
danger and subjecting them to repeated acts of physical and mental brutality by Walker.
94. As a result of their aforementioned acts and omissions, Defendant subjected the
elementary school children of Bus 366 to Walker’s repeated and sadistic infliction of bodily
harm, including the fear of death.
95. Defendant’s continuous instruction to young students to board Walker’s bus each
day directly caused injury to the Plaintiffs and the other students on Bus 366, including severed
limbs, head and spinal cord injuries, severe emotional trauma and, for six small children, death.
96. The force used by Walker and approved by Defendant, including slamming small
children’s heads into their seats, swerving the bus to make the children fall out of their seats and
employing threats of death and imminent bodily harm, resulted in serious injuries, which include
death, severed limbs, severe head and spinal injury, and/or severe emotional trauma of Plaintiff
N.F. and the other students on Bus 366. The excessive nature of the Defendant’s actions or
inactions shocks the conscious.
97. The force used by Walker and approved by Defendant, including slamming small
children’s heads into their seats, swerving the bus to make the children fall out of their seats, and
employing threats of death and imminent bodily harm was malicious, sadistic and done for the
sole purpose of causing harm.
14

98. Defendant ignored Walker’s reckless and dangerous operation of the bus, and was
deliberately indifferent to the abuse of the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the other
students on Bus 366.
The November 21, 2016 Bus Crash
99. In the afternoon on November 21, 2016, Defendant, by and through its Principal
and Assistant Principals at Woodmore Elementary School, instructed the children, including
Plaintiff, to board Walker’s bus after afternoon dismissal.
100. The decision of Principal Adamson-Cothran to instruct students attending
Woodmore Elementary School to board Bus 366 in the afternoon of November 21, 2016 was
consistent with the policies and procedures of Defendant.
101. Prior to boarding Walker’s bus in the afternoon on November 21, 2016, the
children were otherwise in no imminent danger.
102. During the time that the children were loaded onto Walker’s bus in the afternoon
on November 21, 2016, he was using his cellular telephone.
103. As had become the custom, practice and policy of Defendant, despite actual prior
knowledge that Walker was speeding and driving recklessly, it was not monitoring the route or
speed of Walker’s bus.
104. At the time of the crash, the bus driven by Walker was not on the mandatory route
and was being operated by Walker in a reckless manner and at a high rate of speed.
105. Upon information and belief, Walker began to swerve violently in an attempt to
inflict pain upon the young children who were on their way home for Thanksgiving break.
15

106. Upon information and belief, immediately prior to losing control of the bus and
consistent with his previous threats, Walker yelled at the young children, “Are ya’ll ready to
die?”
107. The bus swerved violently from the right side of the roadway to the left. It left the
roadway at such a high rate of speed that the bus sheared a telephone pole at its base and
slammed violently into a large tree.
108. The impact severed the roof of the school bus and decapitated one young child.
Ultimately six elementary school children died from their injuries. Several others were
hospitalized in intensive care for severed limbs, spinal injuries and/or head trauma while many
other young children were treated at the emergency room for broken bones, lacerations and/or
shock.
109. First responders reported that the scene was horrific. Within the twisted
wreckage, children as young as 6 were covered in their own blood and the blood of their
classmates and siblings. Some small children were too young to even tell the first responders
their names and telephone numbers.
110. Some children escaped from the carnage, only to re-enter the bus in an attempt to
help their classmates escape.
111. In the school bus accident on November 21, 2016 Plaintiff N.F. sustained life-
long significant, disfiguring, and permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering as a result of
those personal injuries, and has suffered psychological damages.
112. Plaintiff N.F., as a direct and proximate result of one or more of the Defendants’
actions and/or inactions set forth herein, suffered the following injuries and damages:
(a) Severe injuries either caused, precipitated or aggravated by the wrongs
16

complained of;
(b) Disfigurement;
(c) Great fright and shock;
(d) Physical pain, including past, present and future;
(e) Mental and emotional anguish, past, present, and future;
(f) Medical expenses, past, present and future;
(g) Inability to enjoy normal pleasures of life, past, present, and future;
(h) Loss of earning capacity; and
(i) Other damages as allows under the law or in equity, including, but not limited to,
out-of-pocket expenses associated with the accident.
113. The scene of the crash was so horrific that many of the first responders required
treatment for emotional trauma after extricating the mangled bodies of children from the twisted
wreckage.
114. Subsequent to the November 21, 2016 crash, Defendant became aware that
Walker was using his cellular telephone at the time of the crash.
Walker was exceeding the posted speed limit at the time of the crash.
Walker was not driving the bus on his approved route at the time of the crash.
117. Defendant did not conduct a meaningful investigation of the crash or the actions
and inactions of Coulter and the Principal and Assistant Principals at Woodmore Elementary
School.
17

Count I
Deprivation of a Constitutional Right—42 U.S.C. § 1983
Breach of Duty to Protect Against State-Created Danger
118. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt each allegation contained in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
119. At all times relevant hereto, N.F. a young elementary school child, was in the
Defendant’s custody and under the Defendant’s exclusive control while loading onto Bus 366
and traveling on Bus 366.
120. At all times relevant hereto, N.F. a young elementary school child, was in the
Defendant’s custody and under the Defendant’s exclusive control while traveling on Bus 366.
121. At all times relevant hereto, the other students on Bus 366 were in the
Defendant’s custody and under Defendant’s exclusive control while loading onto Bus 366.
122. At all times relevant hereto, the other students on Bus 366 were in the
Defendant’s custody and under Defendant’s exclusive control while traveling on Bus 366.
123. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted under color of law.
124. Defendant, under color of law, was responsible for protecting the health, safety
and welfare of Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 from a danger created by the
Defendant to which it then exposed them. Defendant, in abrogation of this special duty,
knowingly, recklessly and callously exposed Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 to
grievous harm which caused death, grievous bodily harm and psychological trauma.
125. Defendant created the special danger to which it then exposed Plaintiff N.F. and
the other students on Bus 366 as set forth herein.
18

126. Defendant affirmatively instructed Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus
366 to board Bus 366 each day despite actual prior notice that the children on the bus were being
subjected to threats, injury and death.
127. Prior to being instructed and required to board Bus 366, Plaintiff N.F. and the
other students on Bus 366 were not in imminent danger.
128. Defendant’s actions placed Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 in
continuous and ongoing danger by instructing them to board Bus 366 each day.
129. Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 faced special danger on Bus 366
because the sadistic acts of Walker were specifically targeted at and visited upon the occupants
of the school bus, not the general public at large.
130. Defendant’s actions placed Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 in
special danger of death and serious injury and their injuries were proximately caused as a result
of the danger.
131. Defendant’s actions created the special danger that Plaintiff N.F. and the other
students on Bus 366 would suffer death or serious physical injury as a result of Walker’s actions
inasmuch as none of them would have been subject to harm and Walker’s sadistic acts had they
not boarded Bus 366 at the Defendant’s direction and instruction.
132. Because Defendant’s actions created the special danger to which Plaintiff N.F.
and the other students on Bus 366 were then required to be exposed, the Defendant had a duty to
protect them.
133. Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 were further denied substantive
due process of law as alleged supra and infra, and suffered the injuries complained of herein.
19

134. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant carried out a policy, procedure, and
custom of requiring students to board school buses even though it was aware that doing so
presented a danger to the safety of the students.
135. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was aware that Durham was not properly
and adequately monitoring the driving performance of its school bus drivers, including but not
limited to Walker.
136. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was aware that Durham was not properly
and adequately responding to and/or disciplining school bus drivers, including but not limited to
Walker, for driving dangerously while transporting students.
137. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was aware that school bus drivers,
including but not limited to Walker, were driving dangerously while transporting its students.
138. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant failed to train its employees to monitor the
driving performance of school bus drivers, including but not limited to Walker.
139. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant failed to train its employees to respond to
and/or address instances in which school bus drivers, including but not limited to Walker, were
driving dangerously while transporting its students.
140. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant’s Principals and Assistant Principals
received and/or became aware of concerns and complaints regarding unsafe driving by school
bus drivers transporting Defendant’s students, including but not limited to Walker.
141. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant’s transportation staff, including but not
limited to Coulter, received and/or became aware of concerns and complaints regarding unsafe
driving by school bus drivers transporting Defendant’s students, including but not limited to
Walker.
20

142. Defendant failed to train its Principals and Assistant Principals, including but not
limited to Principal Adamson-Cothran, in regards to preventing students from being loaded onto
a school bus if they become aware that the safety of students was at risk during transportation.
143. Defendant failed to train its transportation staff, including but not limited to
Coulter, in regards to preventing students from being loaded onto a school bus if they become
aware that the safety of students was at risk during transportation.
144. Defendant failed to adopt policies, procedures, and/or guidelines for Defendant’s
Principals and Assistant Principals in regards to preventing students from being loaded onto a
school bus if they become aware that the safety of students was at risk during transportation.
145. Defendant failed to adopt policies, procedures, and/or guidelines for its
transportation staff, including but not limited to Coulter, in regards to their ability to decline to
allow students to board a school bus if the school bus driver presented a danger to the safety of
students while transporting them.
146. Defendant failed to investigate prior instances in which its employees became
aware of dangerous driving by school bus drivers while transporting its students.
147. Defendant failed to investigate prior instances in which its Principals and
Assistant Principals, including but not limited to Principal Adamson-Cothran, ordered students to
board a school bus even though they were aware that doing so presented a danger to the safety of
students.
148. Defendant failed to investigate prior instances in which its transportation staff,
including but not limited to Coulter, ordered students to board a school bus even though they
were aware that doing so presented a danger to the safety of students.
21

149. Defendant ratified the actions and inactions of its employees including but not
limited to Coulter and Brenda Adamson-Cothran, in regards to the school bus crash on
November 21, 2016.
150. Defendant ratified the actions and inactions of its employees including but not
limited to Coulter and Brenda Adamson-Cothran, in regards to the complaints and concerns
regarding Walker prior to November 21, 2016.
151. Defendant’s actions and inactions set forth herein were with deliberate
indifference to the ongoing violations of the rights of Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus
366.
152. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 were
deprived of their property, personal and emotional health and life by the inherently dangerous
activity of the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory damages against
Defendant in an amount to be determined by a jury, together with the costs of suit, attorneys’
fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count II
Deprivation of a Constitutional Right—42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of Right to Bodily Integrity—U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
153. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference each allegation set forth in each
preceding and subsequent paragraph, as if fully restated herein.
154. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects right of Plaintiff
N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 right to be free from physical abuse at the hands of state
actors and the right to personal security and bodily integrity.
22

155. Defendant violated rights of Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 to
personal security and bodily integrity when it countenanced and approved Walker’s continuous
use of sadistic and malicious force on Bus 366, including but not limited to driving recklessly
and at high speeds, deliberately slamming on the brakes to force children into the seats in front of
them, driving off of or improperly driving the approved route, and swerving on the road.
156. Defendant was recklessly, callously, and deliberately indifferent to the
Constitutional right of the Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366 when it intentionally
disregarded Walker’s clear and persistent pattern of abuse of the students on Bus 366.
157. Defendant tacitly approved Walker’s unconstitutional conduct by failing to act,
amounting to an official policy of inaction.
158. Defendant had ample actual prior and constructive notice of Walker’s continuing
pattern of abuse and unconstitutional behavior.
159. Defendant’s policy of inaction proximately caused serious injury, including
severed limbs, head and spinal cord injuries, and/or death of the students on Bus 366 including
but not limited to Plaintiff N.F.
160. Defendant implicitly authorized, approved, and/or knowingly acquiesced to the
unconstitutional behavior of Walker and Principal Adamson-Cothran. These acts proximately
caused the injuries of Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366.
161. Defendant affirmatively instructed Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus
366 to board Bus 366 each day, including the afternoon of November 21, 2016, despite actual
prior notice that the children on the bus were being subjected to harm and sadistic physical and
mental acts. Those affirmative acts proximately caused the injuries of Plaintiff N.F. and the other
students on Bus 366.
23

162. Defendant, a state actor, maliciously, intentionally, brutally, and inhumanely
injured Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus 366, thereby abusing its official power and
shocking the conscious.
163. There was no pedagogical justification for Defendant’s use of force—it was
exerted solely for sadistic and malicious purposes. Even had such a pedagogical justification
existed, Defendant’s use of force was unconstitutionally excessive.
164. Defendant provided inadequate training to and/or failed to train Johnthony Walker
regarding safe and appropriate methods of school bus operation.
165. Defendant did not establish an adequate training system despite the fact that they
had actual knowledge of Walker’s actions. Defendant’s inaction was with deliberate
indifference to the ongoing violations of the rights of Plaintiff N.F. and the other students on Bus
366.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for compensatory
damages in a sum to be determined by the jury, together with the costs of suit, attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and such further relief as the Court deems proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on the issues set forth in this Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Robert L. J. Spence, Jr.

Robert L. J. Spence, Jr. (BPR# 12256)
Bryan M. Meredith (BPR#26876)
Spence Law Firm, PLLC
80 Monroe Ave., Garden Suite 1
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 312-9160 (ofc.)
(901) 521-9550 (fax.)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 25

Pamela Johnson Arnold and Nancy Fortson On Behalf of A Minor Vs Hamilton Co. Dept. of Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Pamela Johnson Arnold and Nancy Fortson On Behalf of A Minor Vs Hamilton Co. Dept. of Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pamela Johnson Arnold and Nancy Fortson On Behalf of A Minor Vs Hamilton Co. Dept. of Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

PAMELA JOHNSON ARNOLD

vs. Docket No.: 1:19-cv-234

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Department of Education (hereinafter the “Defendant”), and aver as follows:

guardian of N.F., a minor, and is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.

student at Woodmore Elementary School and a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This action seeks monetary damages for Defendant’s violations of rights,

United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee because the acts,

8. Throughout all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant exercised

school bus transportation to and from Woodmore Elementary School.

“Durham”) or third-party owner/operators.

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 2

10. On July 1, 2013, the Hamilton County Department of Education, (“the

Defendant”), entered into a service contract with Durham.

cameras and radios.

speed of the school buses, including Bus 366.

[by the Defendant and Durham].”

Defendant’s Transportation Policy

policies provide, in relevant part, as follows:

a. The bus driver is authorized and empowered to, “maintain[] discipline of

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3

injured on the bus.

c. School principals are responsible for putting students on and removing

students from the bus each day while on their campus.

at all times and “shall” obey the driver/assistant at all times.

supervisory staff are expected to enforce violations.

section proscribes that bus drivers “shall:”

a. Obey all speed limits as follows:

i. Rural streets not to exceed posted speed limit.

21. The Transportation Policy also contains a section entitled “STUDENT

school bus, it is the driver’s responsibility to notify the supervisor immediately.”

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 4

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 5

transporting its students.

school bus during transportation of students is dangerous.

loaded onto and transported by school bus.

preventable and/or or the fault of the school bus driver.

unsafe driving by school bus drivers.

unsafe driving by school bus drivers.

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6

students being transported.

which would protect the safety of Defendant’s students being transported.

was at risk during transportation.

bus when the safety of students was at risk during transportation.

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7

of students was at risk during transportation.

became aware that the safety of students was at risk.

was recorded by the Zonar global positioning system.

limit while transporting students.

Case 1:19-cv-00234-HSM-SKL Document 1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 8

was driving was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

52. On or about September 6, 2016, Defendant became aware of a complaint from