ÿWPC* I# UN %g 0 (mw@•4Õé 1mø 0xe 0DÝ 0c!B„Æ D3Î 0@U:A 0J{ BÅ 0Tâ 0^6 0h” 0rü AQn Æ¿ 0D… 0DÉ D/ B< 0|Y 0†Õ 0[ 1uë 0d`U >ÄU*B),DCU AM˜åé ýD (M uâÊ÷v~Á"vÓ?$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¬5D­5D®5°5D±5U²5D³5´5µ5Ó€Á5 äzz!xúÿÿú, ú3|xÁ5 #,e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(((2¬5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;³º$´´Ô2,eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò`"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô d2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#%&'(/01 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d<<<<7Border 1dd* =Cþÿ << Gÿÿ úÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€;XÔÌÌò òMarch€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€;ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔLieutenant€Mathis€also€perished€in€the€fire,€as€did€two€civilians.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔT.C.A.€ðððð€29„20„101€to€29„20„407€(1980€&€Supp.€1996).Ì :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔWe€recognize€that€our€holding€today€represents€a€departure€from€language€found€in€òòNevill€v.€CityÏof€Tullahomaóó,€756€S.W.2d€226,€233€(Tenn.€1988),€wherein€the€majority€held€ð ðit€inappropriate€to€consider€aÏviolation€of€internal€police€department€policies€and€procedures€as€constituting€negligence€or€negligenceÏper€se.ðð€€We€believe,€however,€that€such€a€departure€is€required€by€the€Supreme€Courtððs€subsequentÏdecisions€in€òòGordon€v.€City€of€Hendersonóó,€766€S.W.2d€784,€786„87€(Tenn.€1989)€(holding€that,€underÏGTLA,€municipal€fire€department€was€not€immune€from€liability€for€its€non„discretionary€acts),€and€òòBowersÏex€rel.€Bowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2d€427,€431€(Tenn.€1992)€(indicating€that€GTLAððsÏdiscretionary€function€exception€will€not€apply€to€claim€that€government€employees€failed€to€comply€withÏregulations€or€policies€designed€to€guide€their€actions€in€given€situation).€€Moreover,€we€note€that€theÏSupreme€Court€since€has€overruled€òòNevillóóððs€primary€holding,€ð ðthat€law€enforcement€personnel€are€notÏliable€for€injuries€resulting€from€an€accident€between€a€vehicle€being€pursued€by€the€police€and€anÏinnocent€third€party€because,€as€a€matter€of€law,€police€ððconductðð€in€initiating€or€continuing€the€high„speedÏchase€is€not€a€proximate€cause€of€the€accident.ðð€€òòHaynes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€883€S.W.2d€606,€607€(Tenn.Ï1994).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòIrvine€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€47€S.W.€419,€420„21€(Tenn.€1898).Ì –Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔA€question€also€may€arise€as€to€whether€the€alleged€procedural€violations€were€the€proximateÏcause€of€Private€Bridgesðð€death.€€At€this€point€in€the€proceedings,€however,€this€issue€has€not€beenÏaddressed.Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔAlthough€the€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€the€validity€of€the€public€duty€doctrine€and€theÏpolicemen€and€firemenððs€rule€in€these€cases,€we€note€that€the€Court€has€abolished€the€fellow€servantÏdoctrine,€which€formerly€relieved€an€employer€from€liability€ð ðfor€any€injuries€to€an€employee€resulting€fromÏthe€negligence€of€a€fellow€worker€engaged€in€common€employment,ðð€provided€there€had€been€ð ðdue€careÏin€selection€and€employment€of€the€tortfeasor.ðð€€òòGlass€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€858€S.W.2d€312,€313Ï(Tenn.€1993).Ì ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ôÔWe€likewise€reject€the€Defendantsðð€argument€that€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€8„36„108€preclude€the€Plaintiffððs€suit€in€this€case.€€Section€8„36„108€provides€that,€if€a€member€ofÏthe€Tennessee€consolidated€retirement€system€dies€as€the€result€of€an€accident€while€in€the€performanceÏof€the€memberððs€duty,€the€memberððs€surviving€spouse€shall€receive€a€state€annuity€equal€to€one„half€of€theÏmemberððs€average€final€compensation€until€the€spouse€dies€or€remarries,€provided€the€surviving€spouse€isÏthe€memberððs€named€beneficiary.€€T.C.A.€ðð€8„36„108(a)€(1993).€€We€find€nothing€in€the€language€ofÏsection€8„36„108€which€would€preclude€the€Plaintiffððs€present€lawsuit€against€the€City€of€Memphis€and€theÏFire€Department.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€:ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` p›XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€;ÔÑ7€!c!XXdðXXdð7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌTERRI€BRIDGES,€Individually€andà à)Ìas€surviving€spouse€of€à àà àà à)ÌPRIVATE€WILLIAM€BRIDGES,€œDecððd.,›à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€69089€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9606„CV„00145Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€MEMPHIS€and€CITY€OFà à)ÌMEMPHIS€FIRE€DEPARTMENT,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àœó óDefendants/Appellees.›à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€H.€BROWN,€JR.,€JUDGE̜ـ*ÙßR€>?=A1-j|Oü` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌò òTODD€A.€KAPLANÌJAMES€O.€LOCKARDó óÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌÌò òMONICE€MOORE€HAGLERÌCity€AttorneyÌROBERT€L.€J.€SPENCE,€JR.ÌAMANDA€C.€KAISERÌStaff€Attorneys,€City€of€MemphisÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌœÌÑ7€!c!XXdð!XXdð7Ñó ó›ÓÓà àPlaintiff€Terri€Bridges,€individually€and€as€the€surviving€spouse€of€PrivateÏWilliam€Bridges,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€dismissing€her€wrongful€death€claimÏagainst€Defendants/Appellees€City€of€Memphis€and€City€of€Memphis€Fire€Department.€ÏAlthough€the€trial€courtððs€order€does€not€give€a€reason€for€its€dismissal€of€the€PlaintiffððsÏaction,€the€order€apparently€was€based€on€one€of€several€theories€of€governmentalÏimmunity€advanced€by€the€Defendants€in€support€of€their€motion€to€dismiss.€œFor›€theÏreasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€dismissal€and€remandÏfor€further€proceedings.̛̜à àOn€April€11,€1994,€Private€William€Bridges,€a€fire€fighter€employed€by€the€City€ofÏMemphis€Fire€Department€(hereinafter€ð ðFire€Departmentðð€or€ð ðDepartmentðð),€died€whileÏfighting€a€fire€at€the€Regis€Tower€Apartments€located€at€750€Adams€Avenue€inÏMemphis,€Tennessee.€€The€Plaintiff,€Private€Bridgesðð€widow,€brought€this€actionÏagainst€the€City€of€Memphis€and€the€Fire€Department€in€which€she€asserted€that€theÏDefendantsðð€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€Private€Bridgesðð€death.€ÍSpecifically,€the€Plaintiff€alleged€that€Private€Bridgesðð€supervisor€and€other€FireÏDepartment€employees€were€guilty€of€negligence€in€that€they€violated€certainÏprocedures€as€set€forth€in€the€Fire€Departmentððs€Operations€Manual.€€According€to€theÏcomplaint,€the€supervisorððs€violations€included,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€failing€to€œactivate›€hisÏpersonal€alert€safety€system€device€prior€to€his€entry€into€a€hazardous€location;Ïordering€Private€Bridges€to€take€the€elevator€to€the€fire€floor;€failing€to€take€the€properÏequipment€to€the€fire€floor;€failing€to€establish,€maintain,€and€engage€in€effective€radioÏcommunication;€ordering€Private€Bridges€out€of€the€elevator,€and€failing€to€returnÏPrivate€Bridges€to€the€lobby€or€the€floor€below€the€fire€floor,€when€it€was€evident€thatÏthey€were€unprepared€for€the€hostile€environment€on€the€fire€floor;€and€failing€to€returnÏPrivate€Bridges€to€the€lobby€when€his€self„contained€breathing€apparatus€experiencedÏproblems.€€In€addition,€the€complaint€alleged€that€the€Fire€Department€battalionÏcommander€committed€the€following€procedural€violations:€€failing€to€establish,Ïmaintain,€and€engage€in€effective€radio€communication;€failing€to€immediately€take€aÏcommand€position€or€to€announce€a€command€post€location;€removing€himself€fromÏhis€command€position€and€failing€to€monitor€certain€radio€frequencies€by€being€out€ofÏhis€command€post€vehicle;€interfering€with€fire„fighting€and€rescue€operations€byÏordering€and/or€allowing€a€heavy€stream€of€water€to€be€directed€to€the€fire€floor;€failingÏto€cause€radio€transmissions€to€be€made€over€the€Fire€Department€radio€frequenciesÏconcerning€the€use€of€heavy€stream€appliance€to€attack€the€fire;€and€setting€up€theÏpotential€for€offensive€and€defensive€attack€mode€combinations.€€The€complaint€furtherÏalleged€that€the€division€chief€violated€established€procedures€by€failing€to€haveÏproper€delineation€for€the€various€incident€command€system€functions;€failing€to€knowÍthe€status€of€fire€fighters€or€fire„fighting€operations;€and€failing€to€establish,€maintain,Ïand€engage€in€effective€radio€communication.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€FireÏCommunications€Bureau€personnel€violated€established€procedures€by€failing€toÏrecognize€problems€while€monitoring€radio€transmissions;€failing€to€establish,Ïmaintain,€and€engage€in€effective€radio€communication;€failing€to€question€PrivateÏBridgesðð€radio€transmissions;€and€failing€to€recognize€and€respond€to€transmissions€toÏthe€Fire€Communications€Bureau.€€Finally,€the€complaint€alleged€that€other€FireÏDepartment€personnel€violated€procedures€in€the€Departmentððs€Operations€Manual€œin›Ïaddition€to€the€foregoing€œviolations€by›€failing€to€dispatch€rescue€teams€to€locate€PrivateÏBridges€after€radio€communications€ceased€or€became€distorted;€failing€to€prepare€forÏentry€into€the€fire€building;€and€directing€a€heavy€stream€of€water€to€the€fire€floor€whenÏfire„fighting€personnel,€including€Private€Bridges,€were€still€on€the€floor.€ÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€the€Defendants€denied€many€of€these€allegations,€during€theÏsubsequent€discovery€process,€the€Defendants€made€the€following€admissions:ÌÌœ›à8 àà à1)à àLt.€Michael€Mathisœ× ƒ@ ××  ×›€[Private€Bridgesðð€supervisor]€did€notÏhave€his€personal€alert€safety€system€device€activated€during€the€fireÏincident.ÌÌà8 àà à4)à àSnorkel€02€discharged€a€heavy€stream€of€water€into€a€9thÏfloor€window€at€approximately€2:26€a.m.€on€April€11,€1994.ÌÌà8 àà à5)à àThe€heavy€stream€appliance€application€forced€Engine€Co.Ï01€personnel€from€the€hallway€of€the€fire€floor,€and€subsequentlyÏimpacted€interior€fire„fighting€and€rescue€operations.ÌÌà8 àà à6)à àLt.€Mathis€and€the€officer€of€Snorkel€13€took€the€elevator€toÏthe€floor€of€origin€which€is€against€all€fire„fighting€practices.ÌÌà8 àà à8)à àFollowing€standard€operational€procedure,€Lt.€Mathis€andÏthe€officer€of€Snorkel€13€should€have€returned€to€the€lobby€or€to€the€floorÏbelow€the€fire.ÌÌà8 àà à9)à àOnce€out€of€the€elevator,€all€personnel€should€haveÏimmediately€left€the€fire€floor€by€use€of€the€stairwell.ÌÌà8 àà à10)à àThe€command€post€did€not€dispatch€rescue€teams€to€locateÏEngine€Co.€07€personnel€after€radio€communications€ceased€or€becameÏdistorted.ÌÌà8 àà à12)à àPvt.€William€Bridges€made€four€attempts€to€contact€Lt.ÏMathis€by€radio.ÌÌà8 àà à13)à àThe€Fire€Communications€Bureau€was€in€error€by€notÏquestioning€Pvt.€Bridgesðð€radio€transmissions€on€radio€frequency€05.ÌÌà8 àà à14)à àThe€Fire€Communications€Bureau€operator,€not€havingÏpreviously€dispatched€during€a€second€alarm€fire,€was€assigned€to€thisÏradio€position.ÌÌà8 àà à15)à àThe€Fire€Communications€Bureau€operator€was€notÏreplaced€by€a€senior€operator€upon€acknowledging€the€request€forÏsecond€alarm€coverage.ÌÌà8 àà à16)à àThe€supervisor€of€the€Fire€Communications€Bureau€wasÏalso€present€and€heard€two€of€Pvt.€William€Bridgesðð€transmissions.ÌÌà8 àà à17)à àThe€Fire€Communications€Bureau€operator€questioned€herÏsupervisor€upon€hearing€the€radio€calls€ð ð7C€to€7Aðð€but€was€advised€thatÏ7C€was€not€attempting€to€reach€the€Fire€Communications€Bureau.ÌÌà8 àà à19)à àPvt.€William€Bridges€arrived€on€the€9th€floor€of€750€AdamsÏby€way€of€elevator€at€approximately€2:11€a.m.€on€April€11,€1994.ÌÌà8 àà à21)à àUpon€exiting€the€elevator,€Pvt.€William€Bridges€experiencedÏdifficulty€with€his€self„contained€breathing€apparatus.ÌÌà8 àà à22)à àPvt.€William€Bridges€became€entangled€in€cable€televisionÏwire€that€had€fallen€from€the€ceiling.ÌÌà8 àà à23)à àThe€cable€television€wires€had€originally€been€secured€by€aÏplastic€encasement€on€the€walls€just€below€the€ceiling.ÌÌà8 àà à24)à àThe€heat€of€the€fire€had€melted€the€encasements,€allowingÏthe€cable€to€fall€or€hang€downward€in€the€hallway.ÌÌà8 àà à27)à àPvt.€William€Bridges€subsequently€died€as€a€result€of€carbonÏmonoxide€poisoning€and€smoke€inhalation.ÌÌà8 àà à28)à àWhen€found,€Pvt.€William€Bridges€had€cable€wires€wrappedÏaround€his€self„contained€breathing€apparatus,€his€back€and€legs.ÌÌà8 àà à33)à àSnorkel€13€took€only€one€axe€to€the€fire€floor.ÌÌà8 àà à34)à àLater€arriving€personnel€remained€on€their€equipmentÏinstead€of€reporting€to€their€expected€staging€areas.ÌÌà8 àà à36)à àUpon€assuming€command,€the€battalion€commander€01Ïexited€his€vehicle€to€watch€the€fire€incident.ÌÌà8 àà à37)à àThe€battalion€commander€01€did€not€immediately€take€aÏcommand€position.ÌÌà8 àà à38)à àThe€battalion€commander€01€did€not€announce€a€commandÏpost€location.ÌÌà8 àà à39)à àThe€battalion€commander€removed€himself€from€hisÏcommand€position€and€did€not€monitor€radio€frequencies€04€and€05€byÏbeing€out€of€his€command€post€vehicle.ÌÌà8 àà à44)à àNo€radio€transmissions€were€made,€over€fire€departmentÏradio€frequencies,€concerning€the€use€of€heavy€stream€appliance€toÏattack€the€fire.ÌÌà8 àà à46)à àThe€division€chief€failed€to€announce,€by€radio,€that€a€heavyÏstream€water€application€was€to€be€used€on€the€fire€building.ÌÌà8 àà à47)à àFire€fighters€as€well€as€residents€were€still€on€the€fire€floorÏwhen€the€heavy€stream€appliance€was€initiated.ÌÌà8 àà à48)à àThe€combination€of€offensive€and€defensive€modes€of€fireÏattack€are€in€violation€of€the€Memphis€Fire€Departmentððs€standardÏoperational€procedure.ÌÌà8 àà à52)à àOfficer€of€Engine€Co.€05€utilized€himself€as€well€as€a€privateÏto€search€for€a€stand„pipe€to€connect€Engine€05.ÌÌà8 àà à54)à àThe€battalion€commander€01€personally€gave€orders€toÏSnorkel€Co.€02€personnel€to€initiate€the€heavy€stream€of€waterÏapplication€into€the€9th€floor€window.€ÌÌÓӜ̛à àThe€Defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€Plaintiffððs€complaint€pursuant€toÏrules€12€and€56€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏmotion,€and€this€appeal€followed.ÌÌà àIn€òòFulenwider€v.€Firefighters€Assððn€Local€Union€1784óó,€649€S.W.2d€268,€269Ï(Tenn.€1982),€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€recognized€ð ðthe€general€rule€of€lawÏthat€a€city€is€not€liable€in€a€private€damage€suit€to€individual€citizens€for€failure€toÏfurnish€adequate€fire€or€police€protection.ðð€€The€Court€acknowledged,€however,€thatÏthis€general€rule€might€be€affected€to€some€extent€by€the€enactment€of€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€œLiability›€Act€(GTLA).× ƒA ××  ×€€Inasmuch€as€the€City€of€Memphis€was€noÏlonger€a€party€to€the€action€in€that€case,€the€Court€declined€to€address€the€question.ÌÌà àSeven€years€later,€in€òòGordon€v.€City€of€Hendersonóó,€766€S.W.2d€784€(Tenn.Ï1989),€the€Supreme€Court€was€faced€squarely€with€the€issue€of€whether€the€foregoingÏgeneral€rule€of€law€survived€passage€of€the€GTLA.€€Whereas,€prior€to€passage€of€theÏGTLA,€a€municipality€and€its€fire€department€generally€were€immune€from€such€suits,Ïthe€Court€held€that€the€Act€removed€governmental€immunity€where€the€plaintiffððs€injuryÏwas€proximately€caused€by€the€negligent€act€or€omission€of€a€city€employee,€unlessÍthe€injury€arose€ð ðout€of€the€exercise€or€performance€or€the€failure€to€exercise€or€performÏa€discretionary€function,€whether€or€not€the€discretion€is€abused.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€786€(quotingÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„20„205€(1980)).ÌÌà àIn€òòGordonóó,€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€alleged€that€the€deaths€of€four€residents€wereÏcaused€by€the€following€negligent€acts€of€fire€department€personnel:€€their€absenceÏfrom€their€regular€duty€station;€their€inadequate€response€time;€their€apparentÏintoxication;€and€their€incorrect€placement€of€equipment€in€operation.€€òòIdóó.€at€785.€€InÏrejecting€the€cityððs€contention€that€the€alleged€actions€were€ð ðdiscretionary,ðð€theÏSupreme€Court€stated:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àœà8 àIt›€may€be€on€a€full€development€of€facts€that€some€of€the€actsÏof€the€firemen€logically€will€be€classified€as€ð ðdiscretionaryÏfunctions,ðð€but€we€find€it€difficult€to€categorize€the€apparentÏintoxication€of€firemen€as€a€ð ðdiscretionary€function,ðð€nor,Ïwithout€an€explanation€by€defendants,€the€absence€ofÏfiremen€from€their€duty€station€and€the€resultant€undueÏdelay€in€response€time.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€786.€€Thus,€after€òòGordonóó,€suits€against€fire€departments€for€negligence€wereÏpermitted,€provided€the€plaintiffs€properly€could€allege€that€their€injuries€resulted€fromÏfire€department€employeesðð€performance€of,€or€failure€to€perform,€a€non„discretionaryÏact.ÌÌà àIn€a€subsequent€decision,€this€court€made€clear€that,€under€òòGordonóó,€a€plaintiffÏmay€not€maintain€a€suit€against€a€municipal€fire€department€based€on€the€generalÏallegation€that€the€department€failed€ð ðto€respond€adequately€to€the€fire.ðð€€òòHarper€v.€CityÏof€Milanóó,€825€S.W.2d€92,€96€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Instead,€the€plaintiff€must€be€able€toÍallege€some€lack€of€proficiency€on€the€part€of€the€municipality.€€In€applying€òòGordonóó,€thisÏcourt€explained€that:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[N]ot›€all€of€the€functions€exercised€by€a€fire€department€areÏremoved€from€the€realm€of€discretionary€functions€by€theÏholding€in€òòGordonóó....€€Determining€the€amount€and€type€ofÏequipment€to€deploy€in€response€to€a€particular€call€is€[a]Ïdiscretionary€decision€whereas,€whether€firemen€shouldÏbecome€intoxicated€while€on€duty€or€whether€calls€shouldÏbe€answered€immediately€is€not€a€question€of€discretion.ÌÌÓÓœòòHarperóó,›€825€S.W.2d€at€95.€€This€court€concluded€that€the€plaintiffsðð€general€allegation„„that€damages€to€their€home€were€greatly€enhanced€by€the€cityððs€failure€to€respondÏadequately€to€the€fire„„did€not€ð ðraise€an€issue€of€fact€regarding€the€proficiency€or€skill€ofÏthe€firemen.ðð€€œòòIdóó.ÌÌ›à àAfter€òòGordonóó€and€òòHarperóó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€decided€òòBowers€exÏrel.€Bowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2d€427€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€notÏrelated€to€the€specific€issue€of€a€fire€departmentððs€negligence,€the€òòBowersóó€decisionÏwas€important€because€it€sought€to€provide€courts€with€ð ðmore€guidance€with€respect€toÏwhich€activities€are€within€the€scope€of€the€GTLAððs€ððdiscretionary€functionðð€exception.ðð€ÏòòBowersóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€430.€€Rejecting€as€imprecise€the€traditional€classification€ofÏfunctions€as€governmental„proprietary€or€discretionary„ministerial,€the€Court€adoptedÏthe€following€planning„operational€test:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àœà8 àToday›€we€approve€of€the€analysis€that€determines€whichÏacts€are€entitled€to€immunity€by€distinguishing€thoseÏperformed€at€the€ð ðplanningðð€level€from€those€performed€atÏthe€ð ðoperationalðð€level....ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àœà8 àà àUnder›€the€planning„operational€test,€decisions€thatÏrise€to€the€level€of€planning€or€policy„making€are€consideredÏdiscretionary€acts€which€do€not€give€rise€to€tort€liability,Ïwhile€decisions€that€are€merely€operational€are€notÏconsidered€discretionary€acts€and,€therefore,€do€not€giveÏrise€to€immunity...œ.›€The€distinction€between€planning€andÏoperational€depends€on€the€type€of€decision€rather€thanÏmerely€the€identity€of€the€decision€maker....€€We€cautionÏthat€this€distinction€serves€only€to€aid€in€determining€whenÏdiscretionary€function€immunity€applies;€discretionaryÏfunction€immunity€attaches€to€all€conduct€properly€involvingÏthe€balancing€of€policy€considerations.€€Therefore,€thereÏmay€be€occasions€where€an€ð ðoperational€actðð€is€entitled€toÏimmunity,€where,€for€instance,€the€operational€actor€isÏproperly€charged€with€balancing€policy€considerations....ÌÌà8 àœà8 àà àUnder›€the€planning„operational€test,€discretionaryÏfunction€immunity€does€not€automatically€attach€to€all€actsÏinvolving€choice€or€judgment.€€Such€an€analysis€recognizesÏthat,€to€some€extent,€every€act€involves€discretion.€€Rather,Ïthe€underlying€policy€of€governmental€immunity€is€betterÏserved€by€examining€(1)€the€decision„making€process€andÏ(2)€the€propriety€of€judicial€review€of€the€resultingÏdecision....ÌÌà8 àœà8 àà àA›€consideration€of€the€decision„making€process,€asÏwell€as€the€factors€influencing€a€particular€decision,€willÏoften€reveal€whether€that€decision€is€to€be€viewed€asÏplanning€or€operational.€€If€a€particular€course€of€conduct€isÏdetermined€after€consideration€or€debate€by€an€individual€orÏgroup€charged€with€the€formulation€of€plans€or€policies,€itÏstrongly€suggests€the€result€is€a€planning€decision.€€TheseÏdecisions€often€result€from€assessing€priorities;€allocatingÏresources;€developing€policies;€or€establishing€plans,Ïspecifications,€or€schedules....ÌÌà8 àœà8 àà àOn›€the€other€hand,€a€decision€resulting€from€aÏdetermination€based€on€preexisting€laws,€regulations,Ïpolicies,€or€standards,€usually€indicates€that€its€maker€isÏperforming€an€operational€act.€€Similarly€operational€areÏthose€ad€hoc€decisions€made€by€an€individual€or€group€notÏcharged€with€the€development€of€plans€or€policies.€€TheseÏoperational€acts,€which€often€implement€prior€planningÏdecisions€are€not€ð ðdiscretionary€functionsðð€within€theÍmeaning€of€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€ÏIn€other€words,€ð ðthe€discretionary€function€exception€[will]Ïnot€apply€to€a€claim€that€government€employees€failed€toÏcomply€with€regulations€or€policies€designed€to€guide€theirÏactions€in€a€particular€situation.ðð€€òòAslakson€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï790€F.2d€688,€692€(8th€Cir.€1986).̛̜ÓÓòòIdóó.€at€430„31€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àApplying€the€planning„operational€test€as€set€forth€in€òòBowersóó,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€Plaintiffððs€complaint€contained€sufficient€allegations€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€theÏFire€Department€so€as€to€survive€the€Defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss.€€In€particular,€theÏPlaintiff€alleged€that€Private€Bridgesðð€death€was€proximately€caused€by€the€FireÏDepartmentððs€failure€to€comply€with€written€procedures€of€the€Fire€Department€as€setÏforth€in€its€Operations€Manual.€€It€is€undisputed€that€these€procedures€were€designed€toÏguide€the€actions€of€Fire€Department€personnel€in€responding€to€and€fighting€fires.× ƒB ××  ×€ÏThe€alleged€procedural€violations€included,€but€were€not€limited€to,€employees€andÏsupervisors€ordering€Private€Bridges€to€take€the€elevator€to€the€fire€floor;€orderingÏPrivate€Bridges€out€of€the€elevator€and€failing€to€return€him€to€the€lobby€or€the€floorÍbelow€the€fire€floor,€given€the€hostile€environment€which€existed€on€the€fire€floor;€failingÏto€establish€and€maintain€radio€communication;€failing€to€dispatch€rescue€teams€toÏlocate€Private€Bridges€after€radio€communications€ceased€or€became€distorted;Ïdirecting€a€heavy€stream€of€water€to€the€fire€floor€when€fire„fighting€personnel,Ïincluding€Private€Bridges,€were€still€on€the€floor;€failing€to€immediately€establish€aÏcommand€position;€failing€to€remain€with€the€command€post€vehicle;€and€employingÏboth€offensive€and€defensive€attack€modes€to€fight€the€fire.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendants€insist€that€all€of€the€alleged€actions€of€their€Fire€DepartmentððsÏpersonnel€are€properly€classified€as€ð ðdiscretionaryðð€and,€for€public€policy€reasons,Ïshould€not€be€the€subject€of€judicial€review.€€In€òòBowersóó,€the€Supreme€Court€recognizedÏthat€certain€types€of€governmental€decisions€are€not€amenable€to€judicial€review.€€TheÏCourt€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àà àAnother›€factor€bearing€on€whether€an€act€should€beÏconsidered€planning€or€operational€is€whether€the€decisionÏis€the€type€properly€reviewable€by€the€courts.€€TheÏdiscretionary€function€exception€ð ðrecognizes€that€courts€areÏill„equipped€to€investigate€and€balance€the€numerousÏfactors€that€go€into€an€executive€or€legislative€decisionðð€andÏtherefore€allows€the€government€to€operate€without€undueÏinterference€by€the€courts.€€òòSeeóó€òòWainscott€v.€Stateóó,€642€P.2dÏ1355,€1356€(Alaska€1982).ÌÌÓÓòòBowersóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€œ431.̛̜à àWe›€reject€the€Defendantsðð€argument€that€all€of€the€Fire€Departmentððs€actions€inÏthis€case€necessarily€were€discretionary€functions€which€are€not€reviewable€by€theÏcourts.€€While€we€agree€with€the€Defendants€that,€for€reasons€of€sound€public€policy,Ícourts€historically€have€been€reluctant€to€review€the€actions€of€municipal€fireÏdepartments€in€responding€to€and€fighting€fires,× ƒC ××  ×€in€òòGordon€v.€City€of€Hendersonóó,€766ÏS.W.2d€784€(Tenn.€1989),€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€made€clear€that,€sinceÏpassage€of€the€GTLA,€a€plaintiff€may€sue€a€municipal€fire€department€for€negligence,Ïprovided€the€plaintiff€can€allege€that€its€injury€was€proximately€caused€by€the€fireÏdepartmentððs€performance€of,€or€failure€to€perform,€a€non„discretionary€(operational)Ïact.€€Subsequently,€in€òòHarper€v.€City€of€Milanóó,€825€S.W.2d€92€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€thisÏcourt€explained€that,€in€order€to€survive€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€plaintiffÏmust€be€able€to€allege€some€lack€of€proficiency€on€the€part€of€the€fire€department.€ÏImplicit€in€these€holdings€is€the€recognition€that€at€least€some€of€a€fire€departmentððsÏactions€in€responding€to€a€fire€are€reviewable€by€the€courts.ÌÌà àAs€the€Court€noted€in€òòGordonóó,€it€may€well€be€that€a€subsequent€development€ofÏfacts€in€this€case€will€reveal€that€many€of€the€acts€of€Fire€Department€personnel€wereÏð ðdiscretionaryðð€as€opposed€to€ð ðoperational.ðð€€òòGordonóó,€766€S.W.2d€at€786.× ƒD ××  ×€€At€this€pointÏin€the€proceedings,€however,€the€Plaintiffððs€complaint€contains€adequate€allegations€ofÏnon„discretionary,€or€operational,€acts€on€the€part€of€Fire€Department€personnel€toÏwithstand€the€Defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss.ÌÌà àIn€seeking€to€uphold€the€trial€courtððs€order€dismissing€the€Plaintiffððs€complaint,Ïthe€Defendants€also€raise€an€issue€concerning€the€applicability€of€the€public€dutyÏdoctrine€and€the€policemen€and€firemenððs€rule€to€this€case.€€On€June€5,€1995,€theÏSupreme€Court€of€Tennessee€issued€two€decisions€which€held,€respectively,€that€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine€and€the€policemen€and€firemenððs€rule€had€survived€passage€of€theÏGTLA.€€òòSeeóó€òòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902€S.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCarson€v.€Headrickóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€685€(Tenn.€1995).× ƒE ××  ×€€The€public€duty€doctrine€immunizes€public€employees,Ïsuch€as€police€officers€and€fire€fighters,€from€actions€for€injuries€caused€by€theÏemployeesðð€breach€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€public€at€large.€€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€397.€ÏConversely,€the€policemen€and€firemenððs€rule€precludes€police€officers€and€fire€fightersÏð ðfrom€recovering€damages€for€injuries€arising€out€of€risks€peculiar€to€their€employment.ðð€ÏòòCarsonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€687.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€must€reject€the€Defendantsðð€argument€that€the€public€duty€doctrineÏprecludes€the€Plaintiffððs€present€action€against€the€Defendants.€€An€exception€to€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine€arises€where€ð ða€ððspecial€relationshipðð€exists€between€the€plaintiffÏand€the€public€employee,€which€gives€rise€to€a€ððspecial€dutyðð€that€is€more€particularÏthan€the€duty€owed€by€the€employee€to€the€public€at€large.ðð€€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€401.€ÏWe€conclude€that€any€duty€owed€by€the€Defendants€to€Private€Bridges€in€this€case€wasÍnot€merely€a€duty€owed€to€the€public€at€large.€€òòSeeóó€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€402€n.13Ï(noting€that€public€duty€doctrine€did€not€preclude€suit€brought€in€òòGordonóó€on€behalf€ofÏresidents€who€died€in€house€fire€where€fire€fighters€responded€to€scene€and€beganÏfighting€fire,€ð ðbut€were€unable€to€do€so€effectively€due€to€negligence€and€intoxicationðð).ÌÌà àThe€more€difficult€question€presented€in€this€case€is€whether€the€policemen€andÏfiremenððs€rule€precludes€the€Plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€against€the€Defendants€forÏPrivate€Bridgesðð€death.€€The€policemen€and€firemenððs€rule€generally€has€been€appliedÏto€prevent€police€officers€and€fire€fighters€from€suing€private€citizens€for€ð ðinjuriesÏsustained€while€encountering€risks€peculiar€to€their€employment.ðð€€òòCarsonóó,€900€S.W.2dÏat€688.€€œThe›€Supreme€Court€explained€the€following€rationale€for€the€rule:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[W]e›€observe€that€the€preservation€of€organized€societyÏrequires€the€presence€and€protection€of€police€officers.€ÏSituations€requiring€the€presence€of€police,€althoughÏcommonplace€and€inevitable,€are€also€routinely€dangerous.€ÏPublic€policy€considerations,€as€well€as€societalÏexpectations,€militate€against€allowing€police€officers€toÏinstitute€tort€actions€against€a€citizen€for€an€injury€resultingÏfrom€a€risk€the€officer€is€trained€and€hired€to€confront.€ÏSimply€stated,€societal€policies€do€not€support€imposition€ofÏa€duty€of€reasonable€care€upon€a€citizen€calling€for€policeÏassistance.ÌÌà8 àœà8 àà àRather,›€public€policy€is€served€when€citizens€areÏencouraged€to€summon€aid€from€police,€regardless€of€theirÏnegligence,€and€are€assured€that€the€compensation€forÏinjuries€sustained€by€police€in€the€line€of€duty€will€be€borneÏby€the€public€as€a€whole.€€[Citations€omitted].€€Accordingly,Ïwe€conclude€as€a€matter€of€public€policy€that€a€citizen€owesÏno€duty€of€reasonable€care€to€police€officers€responding€toÏthat€citizenððs€call€for€assistance€and€join€the€majority€of€otherÏjurisdictions€who€have€reaffirmed€the€policemen€andÏfiremenððs€rule€on€public€policy€grounds.ÌÌÓÓœòòCarsonóó,›€900€S.W.2d€at€690.€€Thus,€for€public€policy€reasons,€police€officers€and€fireÏfighters€in€Tennessee€are€not€permitted€to€sue€members€of€the€public€for€injuries€thatÏarise€out€of€risks€peculiar€to€their€employment.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àApparently,€however,€the€foregoing€rule€has€not€been€applied€in€Tennessee€toÏpreclude€suits€by€police€officers€and€fire€fighters€against€a€governmental€entity,€and€ourÏresearch€has€revealed€only€two€jurisdictions€which€would€preclude€such€suits€basedÏon€the€policemen€and€firemenððs€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcGhee€v.€State€Police€Depððtóó,€459€N.W.2dÏ67,€68€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòMartell€v.€City€of€Uticaóó,€584€N.Y.S.2d€351,€352€(N.Y.€App.ÏDiv.€1992).€€In€this€regard,€we€are€hesitant€to€conclude€that€the€policemen€andÏfiremenððs€rule€precludes€the€Plaintiff€from€bringing€the€present€action€against€theÏDefendants.€€In€accordance€with€the€public€policy€as€set€forth€by€the€Supreme€Court€inÏòòCarsonóó,€citizens,€regardless€of€any€negligence€on€their€part,€should€be€encouraged€toÏseek€help€from€municipal€fire€departments€when€needed,€and€they€should€not€have€toÏfear€subsequent€lawsuits€by€fire€fighters€seeking€compensation€for€their€injuries.€ÏRather,€compensation€for€such€injuries€should€ð ðbe€borne€by€the€public€as€a€whole.ðð€ÏòòCarsonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€690.€€Allowing€the€Plaintiff€to€maintain€the€present€suit€againstÏthe€Defendants€would€not€frustrate€either€of€these€objectives.€€The€present€suit€shouldÏnot€discourage€private€citizens€from€reporting€fires€to€their€local€fire€department.€ÏFurther,€inasmuch€as€the€present€suit€is€against€a€municipality,€it€appears€that€anyÍdamages€awarded€ultimately€will€be€distributed€among€all€of€the€municipalityððsÏcitizens.× ƒF ××  ×ÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€analyses,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€herebyÏreversed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Defendants,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€œnecessary.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›