 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthews v. Pickett County6/14/1999
duty doctrine is applicable to this case.
The defendants argue that, if a special duty did exist in this case, the special duty extended only to liability for personal injury and did not extend to liability for damages to Ms. Matthews' property. We disagree. The focus is upon the relationship between the parties and not upon a specific harm. If a special relationship does exist, the public duty doctrine defense is negated, and immunity conferred by the doctrine is removed. The cause of action is controlled strictly by the provisions of the GTLA once the public duty doctrine defense has been negated. Accordingly, the respondents may be subject to liability under the provisions of the GTLA for damages proximately caused by a breach of the special duty.
The deputies had a duty to arrest Winningham if there were reasonable cause to believe that Winningham had violated the order of protection. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-611. If the deputies breached the duty owed to Ms. Matthews, she may recover damages proximately caused by that breach, to the extent permitted by the provisions of the GTLA.
CONCLUSION
Based on the limited facts certified to this Court and on the question posed to this Court, we hold that the special duty exception to the public duty doctrine is applicable and that the respondents may be subject to liability under the GTLA. The clerk will transmit a copy of this opinion in accordance with Tenn. R. Sup. Ct., Rule 23(8). The costs in this Court will be taxed to the respondents.
JANICE M. HOLDER, JUSTICE
Concurring:
Anderson, C.J. Drowota, Birch, and Barker, J.J.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|