Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-202 (2026)

Removal of immunity for injury from negligent operation of motor vehicles - Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 7; T.C.A., § 23-3308.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011).
Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 10× “Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, it ruled that the trial court had erroneously interpreted section 29-20-202 of the GTLA when it held that the section did not require a finding of negligent conduct and observed that if the General Assembly had wanted to…”
Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 6× “§ 29-20-310 (b) precludes the entry of a judgment against the employee when the governmental entity’s immunity from suit has been removed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-20-202 to — 205. We also hold that Jordan applies retroactively to: (1) all cases tried or retried after…”
Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 4× “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202 through § 29-20-204 (1980 & Supp.”
Richard Moreno v. City of Clarksville, 479 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2015). · cites it 4× “, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-20-202 through - 205.”
David G. Young v. City of Lafollette, 479 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2015). · cites it 3× “Had the' Legislature intended to subject TPPA claims to the procedural requirements of the GTLA, it easily could, have amended the GTLA to remove immunity for TPPA claims, instead of amending the TPPA to specifically allow suit against governmental entities.”
Haynes v. Hamilton Cnty., 883 S.W.2d 606 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202 (1980) provides that the County’s immunity is removed for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by any employee.”
Kirby v. MacOn Cnty., 892 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-201(a) (Supp.1993).”
Erwin v. Rose, 980 S.W.2d 203 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “The county’s immunity has been abolished in other sections of the Act, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202, 203, 204 and 205, but the county’s liability is limited by Tenn.”
Jenkins v. Loudon Cnty., 736 S.W.2d 603 (Tenn. 1987). · cites it 2× “, T.C.A. §§ 29-20-202 (negligent operation of vehicles but continuing certain statutory exceptions), 29-20-203 (unsafe streets and highways), 29-20-204 (dangerous structures).”
Baines v. Wilson Cnty., 86 S.W.3d 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “3d at 79 ; see Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202 (negligent operation of motor vehicles); § 29-20-203 (unsafe streets and highways); § 29-20-204 (dangerous structures); § 29-20-205 (negligent act or omission of employees).”
Helton v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202(a) (1980). 7 .”
Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202(a)(1980 Repl.)(immunity removed for injuries resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or other equipment by an employee in the scope of employment); Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-202(a) — 14 cases
Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011). “Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, it ruled that the trial court had erroneously interpreted section 29-20-202 of the GTLA when it held that the section did not require a finding of negligent conduct and observed that if the General Assembly had wanted to…”
Kirby v. MacOn Cnty., 892 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-201(a) (Supp.1993).”
Helton v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202(a) (1980). 7 .”
Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. 1996). “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-202(a)(1980 Repl.)(immunity removed for injuries resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or other equipment by an employee in the scope of employment); Tenn.”
Paduch v. City of Johnson City, 896 S.W.2d 767 (Tenn. 1995).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.