Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (2026)
Removal of immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways - Notice required - Limitation of action for action related to trolley or light rail system
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Immunity from suit of a governmental entity is removed for any injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by such governmental entity. "Street" or "highway" includes traffic control devices thereon.
- (b) This section shall not apply unless constructive and/or actual notice to the governmental entity of such condition be alleged and proved in addition to the procedural notice required by [former] § 29-20-302 [repealed].
- (c) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all actions, arbitrations, or other binding dispute resolution proceedings to recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction of a trolley or light rail system, for injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency, or for injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency, must be brought against any governmental entity that owns, operates, or controls the trolley or light rail system within four (4) years after substantial completion of an improvement.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 506, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.
Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 8; T.C.A., § 23-3309; Acts 1983, ch. 199, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “" [4] Suits brought pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (a) have three essential ingredients.”
Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (a)(Supp. 1997).”
Kirby v. MacOn Cnty., 892 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1994). “Therefore notice to the county was presumed, and the county was not immune from suit under Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-203. We find that .”
Helton v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996). “She relied on Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-203, which removes governmental immunity “for any injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by such governmental entity.”
C. Wesley Fowler as Adm'r Ad Litem of the Est. of Frank Jackson v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “]” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-20-203 (b), 204(b); see also Kirby v.”
Mowdy v. Kelly, 667 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “T.C.A. § 29-20-203 removes governmental immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways and T.”
Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Cleveland, 709 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “The Complaint alleges these two governmental entities are liable for plaintiff's injuries under T.C.A. § 29-20-203, part of the Governmental Tort Liability Act.”
Mosley v. McCanless, 207 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Based upon that finding, the trial court proceeded to strike the Metropolitan Government’s defense of immunity under Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-203 and apportioned 55% of the fault to McCanless, 35% to the Metropolitan Government, and 10% to Plaintiff.”
Britton v. Claiborne Cnty., 898 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “Britton argues that two of the exceptions are relevant to her case: T.C.A. § 29-20-203, which at subsection (a) removes sovereign immunity for “any injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by…”
Butler v. City of Dyersburg, 798 S.W.2d 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “Butler contended that the City’s immunity from suit was removed under T.C.A. § 29-20-203 (Supp.1989) which provides as follows: Removal of immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways — Notice required.”
Baker v. Seal, 694 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “The court initially overruled the motions of both Hancock County and Mutual Exchange but, upon a subsequent hearing of Defendant Seal’s motion, the court changed his position, holding that T.C.A. § 29-20-203(a) of Governmental Tort Liability Act was not sufficiently broad to…”
Swafford v. City of Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “Although § 29-20-403 refers only to “bodily injury or death” in setting the minimum *179 limits of liability coverage under the Act, we think that the specific removal of immunity upon which recovery here rests — that of removal of immunity for injury from unsafe streets and…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203(2000) — 1 case
Calvin Benn v. Pub. Bldg. Auth. of Knox Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203(a) — 32 cases
Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “" [4] Suits brought pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (a) have three essential ingredients.”
Helton v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996). “She relied on Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-203, which removes governmental immunity “for any injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by such governmental entity.”
Baker v. Seal, 694 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “The court initially overruled the motions of both Hancock County and Mutual Exchange but, upon a subsequent hearing of Defendant Seal’s motion, the court changed his position, holding that T.C.A. § 29-20-203(a) of Governmental Tort Liability Act was not sufficiently broad to…”
Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (a)(Supp. 1997).”
Britton v. Claiborne Cnty., 898 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “Britton argues that two of the exceptions are relevant to her case: T.C.A. § 29-20-203, which at subsection (a) removes sovereign immunity for “any injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203(b) — 22 cases
Kirby v. MacOn Cnty., 892 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1994). “Therefore notice to the county was presumed, and the county was not immune from suit under Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-20-203. We find that .”
Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (a)(Supp. 1997).”
Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Cleveland, 709 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “The Complaint alleges these two governmental entities are liable for plaintiff's injuries under T.C.A. § 29-20-203, part of the Governmental Tort Liability Act.”
Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “" [4] Suits brought pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-203 (a) have three essential ingredients.”
Cornell v. State, 118 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
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.