Four different lawsuits were filed Tuesday in the death of Tory Hardy just after last year's Bessie Smith Strut.

A federal lawsuit claims that city and county officers failed to provide medical assistance to the victim as he lay at 10th and Foster Streets after being shot.

It was 45 minutes before an ambulance got to him, the lawsuit by attorney John Wolfe says.

A separate suit is against Erlanger Medical Center, saying he received inadequate care after the victim was taken to the hospital. Mr. Hardy was an Erlanger employee. It asks $2 million in damages.

Another suit is brought against Rheubin Taylor Jr. and Timothy Beasley, who have been charged in the slaying. Friends of the Festival, which stages the Bessie Smith Strut as part of the Riverbend Festival, was also sued.

That suit, which claims Friends of the Festival did not provide proper security, asks $10 million in damages.

The fourth lawsuit is against Taylor Funeral Home, alleging that it should not have removed inner organs from the body of the victim. It is also brought against medical examiner Dr. Stanton Kessler, Lakewood Memory Gardens and Hamilton County.

The suit says Dr. Kessler should have removed bullet fragments from the body. It says the victim was buried in a flood-prone part of the cemetery and put in a casket that leaked.

It asks $5 million compensatory damages and $10 million punitive damages.

Here are the full complaints:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

TERILYNN NICHOLSON, Individually *
and as Next of Kin and *
Representative of the *
Beneficiaries of Tory Hardy, Deceased, * Case No._________
*
Plaintiff, *
*
vs. * *
ANDREW GIENAPP; ROBERT *
BRINKLEY; CRAIG MCDONALD; *
JAMMIE DILL; JOANNA KILLIAN; *
TIMOTHY MILNER, M.D.; ZOFIA *
NOWICK, M.D.; PAUL STOUT, M.D.; *
CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON *
COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY; *
and HAMILTON COUNTY, *
TENNESSEE, *
*
Defendants. *
*

COMPLAINT
________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, Terilynn Nicholson, as Next of Kin and as the Representative of the Beneficiaries of Tory Hardy, Deceased, by and through counsel, brings this action for reasonable and just compensation against the Defendants, Andrew Gienapp, Robert Brinkley, Craig McDonald, Jammie Dill, Joanna Killian, Timothy Milner, M.D., Zofia Nowick, M.D., Paul Stout, M.D., Hamilton County, Tennessee, and Chattanoooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, and states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee with her place of residence at 2211 Elmendorf Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37406. She is the natural mother of Tory Hardy, Deceased, and is the legal guardian of his minor child, Duente McCain Hardy.
2. Defendant Andrew Geinapp is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and is a paramedic licensed in the State of Tennessee and practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
3. Defendant Robert Brinkley is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee and is a paramedic licensed in the State of Tennessee and practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
4. Defendant Craig McDonald is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee and is a paramedic licensed in the State of Tennessee and practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
5. Defendant Jammie Dill is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee and is a registered nurse licensed in the State of Tennessee and practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
6. Defendant Joanna Killian is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee and is a registered nurse licensed in the State of Tennessee and practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.

7. Defendant Timothy Milner, M.D. is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Tennessee and is practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
8. Defendant Zofia Nowick, M.D. is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Tennessee and is practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
9. Defendant Paul Stout, M.D., is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Tennessee and is practicing in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
10. Defendant Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Erlanger”) is a Tennessee Corporation employing physicians, nurses and related staffs to provide healthcare services to patients in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee.
11. Defendant Hamilton County, Tennessee is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee and did employ defendant paramedics, Gienapp, Brinkley and McDonald, whom Plaintiff avers are health care practitioners pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-310.
12. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee.

FACTS
13. Paragraphs 1-12 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
14. On June 9, 2003 Tory Hardy was attending the annual Bessie Smith Strut (hereinafter the “Strut”) of the Riverbend Festival located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Strut is an annual event with concerts and vendors located along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
15. At the Strut drew to a conclusion, at approximately 10:00 p.m., the Chattanooga Police Department and Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department, in full riot gear, marched down Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to disburse the crowd. As the crowd disbursed, Tory Hardy was making his way home from the festival and was walking near corner of 10th and Foster Streets, when he was shot in the chest during an exchange of gunfire between Rheubin Taylor, Jr. and Timothy Beasley.
16. After Mr. Hardy was shot, police arrived on the scene. Approximately forty-five (45) minutes elapsed before police allowed paramedics to enter the area.
17. When the Defendants Gienapp, Brinkley, and McDonald, who were paramedics employed by Defendant Hamilton County, Tennessee under the Hamilton County Emergency Medical Services, arrived on the scene, Tory Hardy was still clinging to life as they began to work on him. They noted a gun shot wound to the chest but did not note an exit wound. After clearing his throat, they intubated Tory Hardy and gave him medication. At that time, they noted breathing sounds and Mr. Hardy began to hyperventilate. They performed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (hereinafter “C.P.R.”) on Tory Hardy for several minutes while they were on route to Defendant Erlanger. Upon arrival at Defendant Erlanger, they were still performing C.P.R.
18. At Defendant Erlanger, the Defendants Dill, Killian, Milner, Nowick, and Stout, treated Tory Hardy. They described a traumatic arrest he had in route to the hospital. These Defendants noted a gunshot wound to the chest, but did not note an exit wound on Mr. Hardy. In fact, the Defendants made two separate notations that Tory Hardy’s back was clear and did not have an exit wound, even sketching a diagram of entry wound but making no notation of any exit wound. The Defendants performed C.P.R. on Mr. Hardy for approximately ten (10) minutes before declaring him deceased.
19. Upon autopsy of Mr. Hardy, the Medical Examiner, Stanton Kessler, found an exit wound on Mr. Hardy’s back.
20. By failing to look for and failing to find the exit wound on Mr. Hardy’s back, the Defendants pushed the blood, and the life, out of Tory Hardy with every chest compression they made in performing C.P.R. upon him.

NEGLIGENT ACTS OF DEFENDANTS
21. Paragraphs 1-20 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
22. The Defendants collectively and their employees, agents, and servants, owed the decedent, Tory Hardy, a duty to perform their medical and healthcare services according to the recognized standard of acceptable professional care and practice applicable to physicians, nurses, hospital employees and emergency medical workers in the practice of medicine, nursing and emergency medical services in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee or similar communities. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care to render treatment in accordance with these accepted standards, and recklessly, willfully, and wantonly disregarded these standards, and therefore were guilty of negligence and gross negligence. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants were guilty of medical negligence that includes the following:
a. Negligently failing to check Tory Hardy’s body for an exit wound before performing C.P.R. on Mr. Hardy;
b. Negligently failing to pack Mr. Hardy’s exit wound before performing C.P.R. on Mr. Hardy;
c. Negligently performing C.P.R. on Mr. Hardy;
d. Defendant Erlanger, through its personnel, hospital staff, employees, agents and/or servants, failed to institute and/or utilize appropriate protocols and hospital procedures to properly assess and diagnose Mr. Hardy’s conditions, given his signs, symptoms, history and circumstances, so as to ensure he would received necessary treatment to protect his health and well-being;
e. Defendant Hamilton County, through its employees, agents and/or servants, failed to institute and/or utilize appropriate protocols and emergency medical procedures to properly assess and diagnose Mr. Hardy’s conditions, given his signs, symptoms, history and circumstances, so as to ensure he would received necessary treatment to protect his health and well-being;
f. Defendant Erlanger, through its employees, agents and/or servants, failed to train, educate, instruct and/or supervise their own nursing personnel, hospital staff, employees, agents and/or servants, in the proper evaluation and treatment of Mr. Hardy;
g. Generally, Defendants failed to provide Tory Hardy with medical, physician, nursing, hospital, emergency medical and surgical services to the applicable standard of professional practice in the specialties of the Defendants in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee or in similar communities.
23. Plaintiff avers that Defendant Erlanger and Defendant Hamilton County, Tennessee are liable for any and all acts or omissions of their principals, agents, employees and/or servants under the doctrine of respondeat superior, by vicarious liability theories and pursuant to agency principles.
24. Plaintiff avers that Defendants Gienapp, Brinkley and McDonald are health care practitioners pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-310.

DAMAGES
25. Paragraphs 1-24 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
26. Plaintiff avers that the Defendants’ deviations from the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice proximately resulted in injury and death to Tory Hardy and that their medical negligence caused considerable damages. Plaintiff alleges that the negligence and gross negligence of the Defendants and their employees, agents, and servants, individually and collectively, was the proximate cause of the injuries and the death of the Plaintiff’s decedent, Tory Hardy. Plaintiff further avers that the Defendants Erlanger and Hamilton County, Tennessee are liable for any and all acts or omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, vicarious liability and pursuant to principals of agency.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27. Paragraphs 1-26 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
28. Plaintiff avers that these acts of negligence, or any one of them, proximately caused the death of Tory Hardy. Plaintiff sues the Defendants for medical negligence and seeks damages for the wrongful death of Tory Hardy. Plaintiff sues the Defendants for the following damages:
a. Pecuniary value of the life of Tory Hardy;
b. Pain and suffering;
c. Mental anguish;
d. Funeral and medical expenses; and
e. Consortium losses including, but not limited to, loss of companionship, comfort, society, solace and love of Tory Hardy to his mother and his son as a part of the pecuniary value of his life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff sues the Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of two-million dollars ($2,000,000.00) and demands fair, just and reasonable compensation. Plaintiff demands a jury of 12 persons to try these issues when joined.

Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
John M. Wolfe, Jr. (BPR # 010319)
Amelia C. Roberts (BPR # 022555)
707 Georgia Avenue, Suite 201
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(423) 266-8400

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

TERILYNN NICHOLSON, Individually *
and as the Next of Kin and *
Representative of the *
Beneficiaries of Tory Hardy, Deceased, * Case No._________
*
Plaintiff, *
*
vs. * *
RHEUBIN TAYLOR, JR.; *
RHEUBIN TAYLOR, SR.; *
TIMOTHY BEASLEY; and *
FRIENDS OF THE FESTIVAL, *
*
Defendants. *

COMPLAINT
________________________________________________________________________

Now comes the Plaintiff, Terilynn Nicholson, by and through counsel, and for her Complaint against Defendants, Rheubin Taylor, Jr., Rheubin Taylor, Sr., Timothy Beasley, and Friends of the Festival, and states as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee with her place of residence at 2211 Elmendorf Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37406.
2. Defendant Rheubin Taylor, Jr. is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee with his place of residence at 604 Hemphill Circle, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
3. Defendant Rheubin Taylor, Sr. is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee with his place of residence at 604 Hemphill Circle, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
4. Defendant Timothy Beasley is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
5. Defendant Friends of the Festival is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business at 200A Manufacturers Road, Suite 103, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37405-2643.
6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
FACTS
7. Paragraphs 1-6 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
8. On June 9, 2003 Tory Hardy was attending the annual Bessie Smith Strut of the Riverbend Festival located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
9. The Riverbend Festival is an annual festival produced and sponsored by the Defendant Friends of the Festival. The Riverbend Festival is a 7-10 day outdoor event featuring concerts. The Defendant Friends of the Festival leases space to vendors for food, alcohol, clothing and other sales.
10. The Defendant Friends of the Festival charges admission to attendees. For the price of admission, attendees receive a pin that allows entry into the Festival area along the river. Every night of Riverbend, with the exception of the night of the Bessie Smith Strut, is held along the Tennessee River riverfront with all access to the festival area blocked except for designated admission gates with employees and volunteers checking to see that each attendee has a pin and to see that each attendee does not have contraband. Often there is also a police officer at these admission gates.
11. On the night of the Bessie Smith Strut, the Riverbend Festival is held along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. There is no admission charge and pins are not required. The area of the festival is not roped, gated or confined or defined in any way. There are no entrance gates. Any person may enter the festival area or park their car in the festival area. Alcohol, including liquor, is served in the festival area.
13. Each year at the Bessie Smith Strut, there are numerous assaults and incidents of property damage and theft.
14. At the conclusion of concerts at the Bessie Smith Strut on June 9, 2003, at approximately 10:00 p.m., the Chattanooga Police Department and Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department, in full riot gear, marched down Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to disburse the crowd.
15. As the crowd began to disburse, Tory Hardy was making his way home from the festival and was walking near corner of 10th and Foster Streets, approximately one block from Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
16. At the same time, Defendant Rheubin Taylor, Jr. was leaving the area in his Chevrolet Caprice Classic with two other passengers in his car.
17. As Defendant Taylor, Jr. was driving in the vicinity of 10th and Foster Streets, he nearly struck a passing adolescent pedestrian and an angry crowd of approximately a dozen persons approached his car. Defendant Taylor, Jr. then waved a .357 Magnum gun, owned by his father, Defendant Rheubin Taylor, Sr., at the crowd.

18. The crowd, upon seeing the weapon, drew back several paces. Moments later, some members of the crowd began to re-approach Defendant Taylor, Jr.’s car, whereupon Defendant Taylor, Jr. began firing into the crowd.
19. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that just after Defendant Taylor, Jr. began to fire his weapon, Defendant Timothy Beasley began to fire back at Defendant Taylor, Jr.
20. Tory Hardy was shot in the chest by one of the bullets.
21. After Mr. Hardy was shot, police arrived on the scene. Approximately forty-five (45) minutes elapsed before the area was declared secure and paramedics entered the area.
22. When the Defendant City of Chattanooga Police Department did allow EMS workers into the area approximately forty-five minutes after the initial call, Tory Hardy was placed in an ambulance to be transported to Erlanger Medical Center. Mr. Hardy was intubated and given medicine and breathing sounds were noted. He then hyperventilated. Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation was performed en route to the hospital.
23. Upon arrival at the hospital, the medical team continued to perform CPR for several minutes until Mr. Hardy was pronounced dead by the attending physician.
24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Tory Hardy suffered serious anguish and emotional distress, physical injuries, pain and suffering, and was wrongfully deprived of his life.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: WRONGFUL DEATH

25. Paragraphs 1-24 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
26. The wanton and reckless or negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Defendants Taylor, Jr., Taylor, Sr. and Beasley directly and proximately caused the death of Tory Hardy, and Tory Hardy’s death resulted in the loss of support, society, services, and in mental anguish to his son, Duente McCain Hardy, and his mother, Terilynn Nicholson.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

27. Paragraphs 1-26 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
28. The wanton and reckless or negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Defendants Taylor, Jr., Taylor, Sr. and Beasley directly and proximately caused injury and death to Tory Hardy.
29. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants wanton and reckless or negligent or intentional acts or omissions which resulted in causing fatal injury to Tory Hardy, he is no longer capable of giving love, affection, society, comfort and support to his son, Duente McCain Hardy, and his mother, Terilynn Nicholson.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

30. Paragraphs 1-29 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
31. Defendant Rheubin Taylor, Sr. negligently entrusted his gun to his son Defendant Rheubin Taylor, Jr., which Defendant Taylor, Jr. used in a gun battle that killed Tory Hardy, an innocent by-stander.
32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Taylor, Sr.’s actions, Tory Hardy suffered great physical pain and mental suffering until his ultimate death from the shooting.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENCE

33. Paragraphs 1-32 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
34. Defendants Taylor, Jr. and Beasley exchanged gunfire in the public streets of Chattanooga, Tennessee, causing injury and death to Tory Hardy.
35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Taylor, Jr. and Beasley exchanging gunfire and shooting and killing Tory Hardy, Mr. Hardy suffered severe physical and emotional anguish and eventually died from his wounds.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENCE PER SE

36. Paragraphs 1-35 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
37. Defendants Taylor, Jr. and Beasley discharged their guns within the city limits of the City of Chattanooga in violation of the City of Chattanooga ordinances. Defendants Taylor, Jr. and Beasley were further unlawfully carrying firearms in violation of T.C.A. § 39-17-1307.

38. Furthermore, Defendant Taylor, Sr. loaned his firearm to an unlicensed user, Defendant Taylor, Jr.
39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Taylor, Sr. entrusting his gun to Defendant Taylor, Jr. and as a direct and proximate result of Defendants Taylor, Jr. and Beasley exchanging gunfire and shooting Tory Hardy, Mr. Hardy suffered severe physical and emotional anguish and eventually died from his wounds.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: ASSAULT AND BATTERY

40. Paragraphs 1-39 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
41. The actions of Defendants Taylor and Beasley constitute and assault and battery upon the person of Tory Hardy.
42. The act of Defendants Taylor, Jr. and Beasley in shooting Tory Hardy resulted in physical and mental anguish, and ultimately resulted in the death of Mr. Hardy.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENCE

43. Paragraphs 1-42 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
44. Tory Hardy was an invitee of Defendant Friends of the Festival to the Bessie Smith Strut portion of the Riverbend Festival.
45. While Tory Hardy was at the Defendants’ festival and making his way to leave, he was shot and killed in a gunfire exchange between two other attendees.

46. Defendant Friends of the Festival knew or should have known that weapons had been brought into the Riverbend Festival on the night of the Bessie Smith Strut.
47. Defendant Friends of the Festival took precautionary measures to screen attendees on every other night of the Riverbend Festival except for the night of the Bessie Smith Strut. On the night of the Bessie Smith Strut, there were no entrance gates, no set definitions of the festival area, and no screening of attendees as they entered or exited the festival area.
48. On June 9, 2003, Rheubin Taylor, Jr. was in the festival area with an automobile containing a gun. Also on June 9, 2003, Timothy Beasley was attending the festival with a gun on his person.
49. Defendant Friends of the Festival was negligent in failing to safeguard the festival area for its invitees.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Friends of the Festival’s negligence, Tory Hardy suffered severe physical and emotional anguish and eventually died from his wounds.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
A. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages against Defendants in the amount of two-million dollars ($2,000,000.00) including but not limited to pain and suffering of the deceased;

B. Award Plaintiff the reasonable funeral and burial expenses incurred as a result of this wrongful death;
C. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of eight-million dollars ($8,000,000.00) based upon Defendants willful and wanton and reckless acts;
D. Award Plaintiff damages for loss of consortium, pain and suffering;
E. Grant the Plaintiffs a trial by jury; and
F. Grant such other relief as may be just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
John M. Wolfe, Jr. (BPR # 010319)
Amelia C. Roberts (BPR # 022555)
707 Georgia Avenue, Suite 201
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(423) 266-8400

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

TERILYNN NICHOLSON, Individually *
and as the Next of Kin and *
Representative of the *
Beneficiaries of Tory Hardy, Deceased, * Case No._________
*
Plaintiff, *
*
vs. * *
TAYLOR FUNERAL HOME OF *
CHATTANOOGA, INC.; *
LAKEWOOD MEMORY GARDENS; *
STANTON KESSLER; and HAMILTON *
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, *
*
Defendants. *

COMPLAINT
________________________________________________________________________

Now comes the Plaintiff, TerriLynn Nicholson, by and through counsel, and for her Complaint against Defendants, Taylor Funeral Home of Chattanooga, Inc., Lakewood Memorial Gardens, Stanton Kessler, and Hamilton County, Tennessee, states as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee with her place of residence at 2211 Elmendorf Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37406.
2. Defendant Taylor Funeral Home of Chattanooga, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office located at 3714 Wilcox Boulevard, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37411. Its registered agent for service of process is John Taylor at 3714 Wilcox Boulevard, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37411.

3. Defendant Lakewood Memory Gardens is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office at 155 Rittenhouse Circle, Bristol, Pennsylvania, 19007. Its registered agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 2908 Poston Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee, 37203.
4. Defendant Stanton Kessler is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
5. Defendant Hamilton County, Tennessee is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee.
6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
FACTS
7. Paragraphs 1-6 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
8. On June 9, 2003, Tory Hardy was attending the annual Bessie Smith Strut (hereinafter the “Strut”) of the Riverbend Festival located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Strut is an annual event with concerts and vendors located along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
9. At the conclusion of the Strut, at approximately 10:00 p.m., the police disbursed the crowd.
10. As the crowd disbursed, Tory Hardy was making his way home from the festival and was walking near corner of 10th and Foster Streets.
11. At the same time, Rheubin Taylor, Jr. was leaving the area in his Chevrolet Caprice Classic with two other passengers in his car.
12. As Taylor, Jr. was driving in the vicinity of 10th and Foster Streets, a crowd of approximately a dozen persons approached his car. Taylor, Jr. waved a .357 Magnum gun, owned by his father, Rheubin Taylor, Sr., at the crowd.
13. The crowd, upon seeing the weapon, drew back several paces. Afterward, some members of the crowd began to re-approach Taylor, Jr.’s car, whereupon Taylor, Jr. began firing into the crowd.
14. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that after Taylor, Jr. began to fire his weapon, Timothy Beasley, who was in the crowd, began to fire back at Taylor, Jr.
15. Tory Hardy was shot in the chest by one of the bullets.
16. After Mr. Hardy was shot, police arrived on the scene.
17. Tory Hardy was not moved until forty-five minutes later when Hamilton County paramedics arrived on the scene.
18. Tory Hardy was then placed in an ambulance and transported to Erlanger Medical Center (hereinafter “Erlanger”). Mr. Hardy was intubated and given medication. At that time breathing sounds were noted and Mr. Hardy hyperventilated. The emergency medical workers performed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation on Mr. Hardy.
19. The paramedics noted a gun-shot entrance wound, but did not note an exit wound. C.P.R. was performed en route to the hospital.
20. Upon arrival at the hospital, the medical team continued to perform CPR for several minutes until Mr. Hardy was pronounced dead by the attending physician. Three physicians and two nurses worked on Mr. Hardy. In the medical report made by Erlanger, a gun-shot entrance wound was noted, but no exit wound was noted.
21. Two City of Chattanooga Police Department officers, whose names are not known by the Plaintiff at this time, guarded Tory Hardy’s body. These officers removed Mr. Hardy’s body to the Office of the Hamilton County Medical Examiner, Defendant Stanton Kessler, who performed an autopsy the following day.
22. Defendant. Kessler noted in his report that there were bullet fragments in Tory Hardy’s organs, but failed to remove these fragments. Mr. Hardy’s organs were allegedly sealed within his chest cavity and Mr. Hardy’s body, allegedly with the organs therein, were removed to the Defendant Taylor Funeral Home of Chattanooga, Inc. (herein “Defendant Taylor”).
23. Without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, all of Tory Hardy’s bodily tissue, including all muscle, veins and organs within his chest cavity from his abdomen to his neck was removed, including his heart and lungs, where bullet fragments were noted. He was completely “gutted” like a fish. This “gutting” was done by either Defendant Stanton Kessler or Defendant Taylor Funeral Home.
24. The Plaintiff contracted with Defendant Taylor to provide for embalming of Tory Hardy. Defendant Taylor represented to the Plaintiff that Mr. Hardy’s whole person, including his organs, would be embalmed and interred with dignity. Defendant Taylor further represented to the Plaintiff that Mr. Hardy would be buried in a sealed casket, which they referred to as a “vault” with the brand name of the ‘Monticello’. Defendant further represented that the Monticello vault was air-tight and water-tight, and completely sealed from the elements.

25. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff states that the embalming of Tory Hardy was performed by an unlicensed employee of Defendant Taylor.
26. Without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, Defendant Taylor removed all of the organs lying within Tory Hardy’s chest, including his heart and lungs where bullet fragments were noted by Dr. Kessler and incinerated these organs.
27. Without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, Defendant Taylor then filled Mr. Hardy’s chest cavity with cedar chips.
28. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant Lakewood Memory Gardens (hereinafter “Defendant Lakewood”) to bury Tory Hardy in a plot on their property. Defendant Lakewood represented to Plaintiff that the plot was dry and secure. However, a portion of Defendant Lakewood Memory Gardens is in a flood zone. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff states that Tory Hardy’s burial plot was in the flood zone. Alternatively, if Tory Hardy’s body was not buried within the flood zone, it was buried in a plot just beyond the flood zone, in an area known by Defendant Lakewood to be prone to flooding.
29. Defendant Lakewood further represented to the Plaintiff that their standard charge for a burial plot was twenty-one hundred dollars ($2100.00), which Plaintiff paid for in cash. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff states that the actual ordinary and usual charge of Defendant Lakewood for a burial plot is three-hundred dollars ($300.00).
30. After Mr. Hardy’s burial, there was a motion by the Office of the District Attorney General, who was investigating the murder, for an exhumation of the body in order to collect the bullet fragments within the organs.
31. The motion was heard by the Hamilton County Criminal Court, which granted the exhumation on November 21, 2003, and the exhumation was scheduled for December 12, 2003.
32. The motion for exhumation and the hearing were reported widely in the television, internet and newspaper media.
33. At no time prior to the exhumation did Defendant Kessler or any agent of Defendant Taylor notify the family of Tory Hardy, the District Attorney General or the Criminal Court that there were no organs within Tory Hardy. Instead, they remained silent, putting the Plaintiff through the agony of a needless exhumation.
34. On the date of the exhumation, several members of the Tory Hardy’s family were present, including his mother, the Plaintiff Terilynn Nicholson, his grandfather, grandmother, and aunts. Additionally, John Taylor of the Defendant Taylor was present.
35. At no time prior to the exhumation did John Taylor of the Defendant Taylor tell any member of the family or the Assistant District Attorney General that there were no organs within Tory Hardy’s body. Instead, he stood silently as the exhumation occurred.
36. As Tory Hardy’s casket was raised from the grave, water poured out of the casket to such an extent that the casket had to be stood vertically to drain while the Hardy family watched in horror.
37. After the casket was drained as much as possible at the grave site, it was loaded in a hearse to be transported to Nashville for the autopsy to be performed by Dr. Bruce Levy of the State of Tennessee Medical Examiner’s Office. The Hardy family drove behind the hearse and watched as water drained out of the back of the hearse all the way from Chattanooga to Nashville.
38. After the autopsy, Tory Hardy’s mother, the Plaintiff Terilynn Nicholson, witnessed her son’s body as it lay filled with cedar chips, and witnessed the skin falling off his face and mold covering his body from being submerged in water.
39. When it was discovered by Dr. Levy that Tory Hardy’s chest was filled with cedar chips, he confronted John Taylor, who then admitted that he had destroyed the organs by incineration.
40. As the majority of the bullet fragments were in the organs, there were few to recover from Mr. Hardy’s body. What fragments that were recovered were too minute for experts to conclude which gun fired the deadly shot that killed Tory Hardy.
41. The acts and omissions of Defendants were done in a negligent, or intentional, or wanton, reckless and malicious manner.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and omissions, the Plaintiff has suffered serious anguish and emotional distress.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT TAYLOR : BREACH OF CONTRACT

43. Paragraphs 1-42 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
44. Defendant Taylor contracted with the Plaintiff to embalm and bury all of Tory Hardy’s remains and provide that his interment would be within a sealed vault, protected from all elements.
45. Defendant Taylor breached its contract with the Plaintiff by removing and incinerating his organs and filling his chest cavity with cedar chips, and by placing him within a casket that failed to seal or by failing to properly seal the casket.
46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Taylor’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages and losses, including mental distress, pain and suffering.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : BREACH OF CONTRACT

47. Paragraphs 1-46 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
48. Defendant Lakewood contracted with the Plaintiff to bury Tory Hardy’s remains in a plot that was dry and secure.
49. Defendant Lakewood breached its contract with the Plaintiff by burying Tory Hardy in a plot that was in a flood zone or just on the edge of a flood zone in an area Defendant Lakewood knew to be prone to flooding.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Lakewood’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages and losses, including mental distress, pain and suffering.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT TAYLOR : BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

51. Paragraphs 1-50 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
52. Defendant Taylor breached its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of said breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

53. Paragraphs 1-52 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
54. Defendant Lakewood breached its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of said breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : FRAUD AND/OR DECEIT

55. Paragraphs 1-54 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
56. Defendant Lakewood, with fraud and or deceit, told the Plaintiff that the burial plot was dry and secure when Defendant Lakewood knew the burial plot was in a flood zone or in an area near the flood zone and prone to flood.

57. Defendant Lakewood concealed facts or recklessly failed to determine the truth.
58. Defendant Lakewood further with fraud and or deceit told the Plaintiff that their standard charge for a burial plot was $2100.00 when in fact it is $300.00.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud and/or deceit, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT TAYLOR : FRAUD AND/OR DECEIT

60. Paragraphs 1-59 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
61. Defendant Taylor with fraud and or deceit told the Plaintiff that they would embalm Tory Hardy’s entire person with dignity when Defendant Taylor knew that it already had or would remove and incinerate Tory Hardy’s organs and fill his body with cedar chips.
62. Additionally, Defendant Taylor with fraud and or deceit told Plaintiff that they would secure Tory Hardy’s remains in a sealed casket they described as a vault called the ‘Monticello’.
63. Defendant Taylor concealed facts or recklessly failed to determine the truth.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud and/or deceit, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

65. Paragraphs 1-64 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
66. Defendant Lakewood, in the alternative to acting with fraud and or deceit, negligently misrepresented to the Plaintiff that the burial plot was dry and secure when Defendant Lakewood knew the burial plot was in a flood zone or in an area near the flood zone and prone to flood.
67. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud and/or deceit, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT TAYLOR : NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

68. Paragraphs 1-67 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
69. Defendant Taylor, in the alternative to acting with fraud and or deceit, negligently misrepresented to the Plaintiff that they would embalm Tory Hardy’s entire person when Defendant Taylor should have known that it already had or would remove and incinerate Tory Hardy’s organs.
70. Additionally, Defendant Taylor in the alternative to acting with fraud and or deceit, negligently misrepresented to the Plaintiff that they would secure Tory Hardy’s remains in a sealed casket they described as a vault called the ‘Monticello’, when in fact the vault did not seal.
71. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud and/or deceit, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAYLOR AND KESSLER :
INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT MISHANDLING OF BODY

72. Paragraphs 1-71 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
73. Defendant Taylor and Defendant Kessler intentionally or negligently mishandled Tory Hardy’s remains. Defendants knew or should have known that a person should not be ‘gutted’ and that person’s organs should not be disposed of and incinerated and that a person’s body should not be filled with cedar chips, all without the knowledge and consent of the family. Furthermore, Defendant Taylor destroyed organs knowing they contained evidence that would have proven the identity of Tory Hardy’s killer.
74. Defendant Taylor further knew or should have known that the ‘Monticello’ casket did not seal properly or that its employees improperly sealed the casket.
75. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional or negligent mishandling of Tory Hardy’s remains, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries, including severe anguish and emotional distress.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAYLOR AND KESSLER: NEGLIGENCE

76. Paragraphs 1-75 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
77. Defendant Taylor or Defendant Kessler negligently removed all tissue and organs within Tory Hardy’s chest. Then Defendant Taylor negligently destroyed Tory Hardy’s organs by incineration and filled his chest with cedar chips, and additionally in so doing destroyed evidence as to the identity of Tory Hardy’s murderer.
78. Defendant further knew or should have known that the Monticello casket did not seal properly or that its employees improperly sealed the casket.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Taylor’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries, including severe anguish and emotional distress.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : NEGLIGENCE

80. Paragraphs 1-79 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
81. Defendant Lakewood, negligently buried Tory Hardy’s remains in a burial plot that was in a flood zone or in an area near the flood zone and prone to flood.
82. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud and/or deceit, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

83. Paragraphs 1-82 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
84. Defendant Lakewood’s actions constitute deceptive trade practices under T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et. seq. Defendant falsely promised that Tory Hardy’s body would be interred in a dry and secure plot, yet they buried him in a plot within a flood zone or immediately adjacent to a flood zone in an area known to be prone to flood.
85. Accordingly, Defendant is liable under the theories of deceptive trade practices.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT TAYLOR : DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

86. Paragraphs 1-85 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
87. Defendant Taylor’s actions constitute deceptive trade practices under T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et. seq. Defendant falsely promised that Tory Hardy’s whole body would be interred with dignity and would be placed in a sealed casket, yet Defendant Taylor removed and incinerated Tory Hardy’s organs and placed him in an unsealed casket or failed to seal the casket.
88. Accordingly, Defendant is liable under the theories of deceptive trade practices.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAYLOR
AND KESSLER: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

89. Paragraphs 1-88 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
90. Defendant Taylor or Defendant Kessler removed all tissue from Tory Hardy’s chest. Defendant Kessler failed to remove the bullet fragments or save organs as evidence and Defendant Taylor destroyed the organs and then stuffed Tory Hardy’s chest with cedar chips.
91. The exhumation of Tory Hardy was well-publicized and the procedure for approving the exhumation took several weeks. All of the court filings were public record and it was widely reported in all the news media. The court filings and media reports stated that the reason for the exhumation was to remove bullet fragments from the organs which Defendant Kessler failed to do.
92. Defendant Taylor knew that Tory Hardy’s body no longer contained any organs in which bullet fragments could be located.
93. John Taylor of the Defendant Taylor was present at the exhumation and second autopsy by Dr. Bruce Levy.
94. At no time prior to the exhumation did John Taylor or any agent of Defendant Taylor inform the family or the District Attorney General that there were no organs within Tory Hardy’s body from which to remove bullet fragments.

95. The Plaintiff, Tory Hardy’s mother, witnessed the horrific exhumation and witnessed her son’s containing cedar chips, and suffers great emotional distress from seeing her son’s desecrated body. She also now bears the burden that her son’s killer will never be charged with murder.
96. John Taylor of Defendant Taylor did not reveal that the organs were destroyed until Tory Hardy’s chest was opened and he was questioned directly by Dr. Bruce Levy.
97. Defendant Taylor’s actions desecrating the body of Tory Hardy and removing his bodily organs and replacing them with cedar chips are extreme and outrageous, and outside the bounds of decent society.
98. Defendant Taylor’s actions of failing to report to the family or the District Attorney General that there no organs from which to remove bullet fragments and therefore allowing a needless exhumation to proceed are extreme and outrageous, and outside the bounds of decent society.
99. As a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injury, including severe anguish and emotional distress.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT LAKEWOOD : INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

100. Paragraphs 1-99 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
101. Defendant Lakewood’s actions of burying Tory Hardy’s remains in a flood zone or in an area directly adjacent to a flood zone and known to be prone to flood are extreme and outrageous, and outside the bounds of decent society.
102. Plaintiff witnessed Tory Hardy’s casket being removed from the burial plot with such an amount of water within it that the casket had to be stood vertically for almost an hour to drain the water and the casket still leaked out of the hearse as it was being transported to Nashville for the autopsy, while the Plaintiff drove behind the hearse and witnessed it. After the autopsy, the Plaintiff witnessed her son’s skin falling off his face and witnessed his body covered in mold from being submerged in water.
103. As a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injury, including severe anguish and emotional distress.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS
KESSLER, LAKEWOOD AND TAYLOR : NEGLIGENCE PER SE

104. Paragraphs 1-103 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
105. Defendant Kessler, Defendant Lakewood and Defendant Taylor abused the corpse of Tory Hardy in violation of T.C.A. §39-17-312.
106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Taylor, Defendant Lakewood and Defendant Kessler’s abuse of the corpse of Tory Hardy, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional anguish.
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANT TAYLOR : NEGLIGENCE PER SE

107. Paragraphs 1-106 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
108. Defendant Taylor allowed the embalming of Tory Hardy to be performed by an unlicensed employee in violation of T.C.A. § 62-5-309.
109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Taylor’s failure to use a licensed embalmer, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, losses and injuries.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
A. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages against Defendants in the amount five-million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
B. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of ten-million dollars ($10,000,000.00) based upon Defendants’ willful and wanton and reckless acts;
C. Award reasonable attorney fees and treble damages pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-18-101;
D. Grant the Plaintiffs a trial by jury; and
E. Grant such other relief as may be just and equitable.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
John M. Wolfe, Jr. (BPR # 010319)
Amelia C. Roberts (BPR # 022555)
707 Georgia Avenue, Suite 201
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(423) 266-8400