public duty doctrine in Tennessee

2024“The public duty doctrine originated at common-law and shields a public employee -8- from suits for injuries that are caused by the public employee’s breach of a duty owed to the public at large.” Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394, 397 (Tenn. 1995).

2020That being said, in Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. 1995), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the common law doctrine of public duty and its exception, the special duty doctrine, survive the enactment of the GTLA.

2026Id. -8- A wrongful death action was filed, and the action was eventually appealed to our State’s Supreme Court to determine: (1) whether the shelter’s negligence in failing to follow up on the order to enroll the dogs in obedience school was a discretionary function and (2) whether a discretionary function under the GTLA may be held to be “non-immune under the common law ‘special duty’ exception to the public duty doctrine.” Id.

2026Id. -8- A wrongful death action was filed, and the action was eventually appealed to our State’s Supreme Court to determine: (1) whether the shelter’s negligence in failing to follow up on the order to enroll the dogs in obedience school was a discretionary function and (2) whether a discretionary function under the GTLA may be held to be “non-immune under the common law ‘special duty’ exception to the public duty doctrine.” Id.

2025Lawson, 661 S.W.3d at 60 (“We need not consider the public-duty doctrine or its exceptions unless we first conclude that the Act waives immunity.”); Matthews v. Pickett Cnty., 996 S.W.2d 162, 164-65 (Tenn. 1999) (“The public duty doctrine, however, is only viable as a defense to liability when immunity has been removed under the GTLA.”).

2025The public duty doctrine “provide[s] an additional layer of defense to acts or omissions not immune under the GTLA.” Matthews, 996 S.W.2d at 165 .

2019In other words, under the public duty doctrine, “a duty owed to everyone is a duty owed to no one.” Brown v. Hamilton County, 126 S.W.3d 43, 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

2010In other words, under the public duty doctrine, “a duty owed to everyone is a duty owed to no one.” Brown v. Hamilton County, 126 S.W.3d 43, 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

1995The most recent statement of the public duty doctrine by this Court was in Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Tenn.1975), where we wrote: It is the settled law in this state that private citizens, as such, cannot maintain an action complaining of the wrongful acts of public officials unless such private citizens aver special interest or a special injury not common to the public generally.

1992The Public Duty Doctrine In dismissing the claim, the Commissioner found that “the duties of the State in providing public services is [sic] to the public at large and the State cannot be liable to a particular individual unless there is a special relationship between the State and *175 that individual and no such relationship has been shown in this claim.” Under the so-called public duty doctrine, as it exists in Tennessee, “private citizens, as such, cannot maintain an action complaining of the wrongful acts of public officials unless such private citizens aver special interest or a special

2010Examining the complaint, the Court concluded that the public duty doctrine applied and that “[t]he plaintiff’s allegations [did] not support application of a ‘special-duty’ of care.” Id.; see also Wells, 2005 WL 2007197 , at *1 (affirming dismissal because the “allegations, taken as true, [did] not establish the special duty exception described in Ezell”); Hurd v. Woolfork, 959 S.W.2d 578, 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim because the public duty doctrine applied and the complaint “fail[ed] to contain allegations which would bring the Plaintiffs’ 4 It

2005In Hurd v. Woolfork, 959 S.W.2d 578 , (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), this court concluded that the public duty doctrine was applicable to shield a sheriff and county from liability resulting from negligent failure to promptly and properly process an arrest warrant.

2005As we observed in State v. Jefferson, 529 S.W.2d 674, 689 (Tenn. 1975), “[i]t is essential to the protection of society that a wide discretion be vested in officers chosen to enforce our laws. . . .” (citations omitted) . . .

1997The public duty doctrine “serves the important purpose of preventing excessive court intervention into the governmental process by protecting the exercise of law enforcement discretion.” Id. at 400-01 ; see also State v. Jefferson, 529 S.W.2d 674, 689 (Tenn. 1975) (stating that it is essential to protection of society that wide discretion be vested in officers chosen to enforce our laws).

2019See Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 829 (Tenn. 2005). 3 The footnote, which we have omitted from the quoted portion of the Karnes opinion, acknowledges that the public duty doctrine “[w]hile …couched in terms that appear to provide protection to individual employees, . . . has been applied to shield governmental entities from liability as well.” 2010 WL 3716458 , at *2 n.3 (citing Hurd v. Flores, 221 S.W. 3d 14, 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)). 4 1) officials, by their actions, affirmatively undertake to protect the plaintiff, and the plaintiff relies upon the undertaking; 2) a statute specifical

2012“Succinctly stated, the public duty doctrine provides that private citizens cannot maintain an action against public officials or entities unless they are able to allege a special duty not owed to the public generally.” See Hurd, 221 S.W.3d at 28 .

2025But if not, the City contends that we should affirm the dismissal on one or more of the other grounds advanced in its motion to dismiss.3 A Rule 12.02(6) motion “challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Human., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).

2022See Anthony v. Tidwell, 560 S.W.2d 908, 909 (Tenn. 1977) (explaining that a complaint may be dismissed based on an affirmative defense if the defense “clearly and unequivocally appears on the face of the complaint”).

2019See Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 829 (Tenn. 2005). 3 The footnote, which we have omitted from the quoted portion of the Karnes opinion, acknowledges that the public duty doctrine “[w]hile …couched in terms that appear to provide protection to individual employees, . . . has been applied to shield governmental entities from liability as well.” 2010 WL 3716458 , at *2 n.3 (citing Hurd v. Flores, 221 S.W. 3d 14, 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)). 4 1) officials, by their actions, affirmatively undertake to protect the plaintiff, and the plaintiff relies upon the undertaking; 2) a statute specifical

2003The issue thus becomes whether the plaintiff has shown the elements of a negligence claim under the GTLA as outlined in Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tenn.1997).

1997Although the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the public duty doctrine and the policemen and firemen’s rule in these cases, we note that the Court has abolished the fellow servant doctrine, which formerly relieved an employer from liability "for any injuries to an employee resulting from the negligence of a fellow worker engaged in common employment,” provided there had been "due care in selection and employment of the tortfeasor.” Glass v. City of Chattanooga, 858 S.W.2d 312, 313 (Tenn.1993). .

1997See Green v. Denison, 738 S.W.2d 861, 866 (Mo. 1987) (holding that, under public duty doctrine, police officers could not be held liable for officers’ failure to warn residents of apartment building that officers were entering building to arrest gunman).

1995This Court has noted on at least two occasions that the public duty doctrine "may be affected to some extent by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.” Gordon v. City of Henderson, 766 S.W.2d at 786-87 ; Fulenwider v. Firefighters Ass’n Local Union 1784, 649 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tenn.1982).

1995This Court has noted on at least two occasions that the public duty doctrine "may be affected to some extent by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.” Gordon v. City of Henderson, 766 S.W.2d at 786-87 ; Fulenwider v. Firefighters Ass’n Local Union 1784, 649 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tenn.1982).

1995See Hale v. Johnston, supra, in which the exception was applied to allow suit by the representatives of a city prisoner who was killed while housed in the county workhouse pursuant to a contract between the city and the county that required the prisoners to be "guarded and taken care of in every way by the county.” Although, as was previously discussed, the public duty doctrine was not at issue in Gordon v. City of Henderson, supra, the Court’s refusal to uphold the dismissal is consistent with the public duty doctrine, because, in that case the plaintiffs alleged that the firefighters arrived

1995See e.g., Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d at 576-77 ; Hale v. Johnston, 140 Tenn. 182, 199-200 , 203 S.W. 949 , 953 (1918); 12 State to use of Cardin v. McClellan, 113 Tenn. at 625 , 85 S.W. at 269-70; Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tenn.App.1992); Cary v. Brown, supra; see also, Shore v. Town of Stonington, 444 A.2d at 1382-83 ; Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d at 1312-13 ; Barratt v. Burlingham, 492 A.2d at 1221; Landis v. Rockdale County, 445 S.E.2d at 266 .

1995See e.g., Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d at 576-77 ; Hale v. Johnston, 140 Tenn. 182, 199-200 , 203 S.W. 949 , 953 (1918); 12 State to use of Cardin v. McClellan, 113 Tenn. at 625 , 85 S.W. at 269-70; Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tenn.App.1992); Cary v. Brown, supra; see also, Shore v. Town of Stonington, 444 A.2d at 1382-83 ; Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d at 1312-13 ; Barratt v. Burlingham, 492 A.2d at 1221; Landis v. Rockdale County, 445 S.E.2d at 266 .