ÿWPC” ˆfcESùÝfÇÖ«ý ÝÏ|öWÀ4qøŸåžÐÁÅd–QX"OZ‘úÁç½ék^'¤ÓEÙa/ÛÀ?Mâe¬{l@+’»6ÅÈä ŠUÁyV»Z ¬]d"Ù+‹G° AN_•£¥½éfÄí´OuæÉ][ÌŠ€pc·@(l‹S—§¡I­”®ô@8Ù„<¦„ˆŒR­˜?áðîFAÓà kúyÂKC‚µiÄ\.×Ûf„KÙ½m(2UÿE–ë“Y‡ß.ã01™ ‡ ØNω ­Ò¾†<½ °¿HH^p ?$…•µO~0L+œû Z\_dÿðšÈ ñ…È)§Ýmùý.2!vœù{M÷ó‡”2+á¿¥W³%=¡p?µþYÈ“a¾áãÛqÇÃqx·E‘Å(QJ Švcíý„åãjx8'ZÌï[Âmkê?`S½ÏX›úˆ]…«|MÌ…¬GÒ ƒ –d-ñjï·¸h’°Nüow´H {ÇÇà¿ÝW9GÉàŠUÓ‚6€Ç!éæw\À9(D †E¯£Ë}>¡uTZHáü”¶J±r¬.fö45w½6L¨Ã„­½ ¼<åÒIË·Nä… C«¤²®r±™d#!xU N™ %ç 0:íb' ^ / w; 4? S b md n­{ "( NJ L 0ÅT 0D [] I¸ U: B; 0VX D5®®®®® AQãÆ4 0Vú 0DP˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular»(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô- ù-“='L {Z='p}.bk13|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ (VG2"Ú$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÕôX»»Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó QÝ ƒ"Ä$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‡àX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€of€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€contained€an€argument€that€Mr.€Drake€was€himselfÐ ° Ðnegligent,€but€this€theory€has€not€been€asserted€on€appeal. ?Ý ƒb½Þ"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€»ÕÛ»»»ÔÔ€,©»»ÕÛÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÜUX,©ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAŠÔó ó,O²ÀAZ‹"Arial Regular d(.3½Þ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝYYYY)ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ„°ÑÑX°ÑÑ€ÑÑ8€lé»»ddÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ€ dOÑÑ  Ñßv€`[@0,j:`  `€€@ÿEô…` 8ttxP,„ð  vßÔ_Ôà@Ÿ Ÿ êàÔ‡ t1!»»Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ „ Ðà@ùù(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ#†»lé»! t1Þ#ԈРÀ< ÐÌÌÌTHOMAS€E.€DRAKE,€and€wife,à0  à)Ð2 ®T$T$ ÐDEBRA€DRAKE,à0 ˆ àà0àˆT$ˆT$àà08àT$àT$àà08T$8T$à)à0èT$T$àà0@èT$èT$àÐD À@T$@T$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellants.à0 8 àà08T$8T$à)Ðh äT$T$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à0 è àAppeal€No.Ðz ö èT$èT$ ÐVS.à0 Ø àà00 Ø T$Ø T$àà0ˆ0 T$0 T$àà0àˆT$ˆT$àà08àT$àT$àà08T$8T$à)à0èT$T$à01„A„01„9810„CV„00525ÐŒ èT$èT$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à0 è àО èT$èT$ ÐBILL€MANSON,€Individually€andà0  à)à0èT$T$àWilson€Circuitа, èT$èT$ ÐWILSON€COUNTY,€WILSONà0  à)à0èT$T$àNo.€9717€and€10051ÐÂ> èT$èT$ ÐCOUNTY€SHERIFF€ANDà0 8 àà08T$8T$à)à0èT$T$àÐÔPèT$èT$ ÐDEPARTMENT,€and€its€Employees,à0  à)ÐæbT$T$ ÐSERGEANT€BILLY€WILLIAMS€à0  à)ÐøtT$T$ Ðand€OFFICER€DONNA€CAMP;€à0  à)Ð †T$T$ Ðand€CITY€OF€MT.€JULIET,à0 8 àà08T$8T$à)ИT$T$ ÐTENNESSEE,€and€MT.€JULIETà0  à)Ð.ªT$T$ ÐPOLICE€DEPARTMENT,à0 8 àà08T$8T$à)Ð@¼T$T$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à0 8 àà08T$8T$à)ÐdàT$T$ ÐÌà@ž ž êàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WILSON€COUNTYˆÌà@??$êàAT€LEBANON,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@í í êàTHE€HONORABLE€BOBBY€CAPERS,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌWILLIAM€L.€MOORE,€JR.Ì119€Public€SquareÌGallatin,€Tennessee€37066Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌTHOMAS€I.€CARLTON,€JR.ÌCHRISTOPHER€S.€DUNNÌ2700€Nashville€City€CenterÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àAttorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee€Wilson€CountyÌÌDARRELL€G.€TOWNSENDÌDERRICK€C.€SMITHÌ300€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1107Ìà Ø àAttorneys€for€Defendant/Appellee€City€of€Mt.€JulietÌÌà@% % êàAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;ˆÌà@==(êàAND€REMANDEDˆÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.€ÌCONCUR:ÌCAIN,€J.ÌCOTTRELL,€J.Ð ¤= :6 ÐÑ dOÑâ  âѰXÑѰ„Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÓÓà@ÒÒ(êàÔ‡ t1!»»léÔòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ#†»lé»! t1 #ԈР° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àA€motorist€was€severely€injured€when€his€car€was€broadsided€by€aÐ H ˜ Ðspeeding€vehicle,€driven€by€an€armed€robbery€suspect€who€had€been€fleeing€inÐ l ¼ Ða€stolen€car€from€pursuit€by€police€officers.€€€The€injured€motoristððs€suit€namedÐ  à Ðthe€fleeing€suspect,€Wilson€County,€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet,€and€individual€policeÐ ´  Ðofficers.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€all€the€defendants€exceptÐ Ø(  Ðfor€the€driver€of€the€stolen€car.€€We€affirm€as€to€the€individual€officers,€butÐ üL Ðreverse€as€to€the€County€and€City.€€€Ð  p ÐÌà@GG#êàò òI.€€A€Dangerous€Pursuitó óˆÐ h¸ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€November€13,€1995,€Thomas€Drake€was€traveling€eastward€onÐ ´ ÐÔ_ÔLeevilleÔ_Ô€Pike€Road€in€Wilson€County.€€€As€he€was€attempting€to€make€a€left€turnÐ Ø ( Ðat€that€roadððs€intersection€with€Ô_ÔCrowellÔ_Ô€Lane,€his€car€was€struck€on€the€driverððsÐ ü"L Ðside€by€a€car€which€was€traveling€eastward€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€in€theÐ  %p  Ðwestbound€lane€of€Ô_ÔLeevilleÔ_Ô€Pike€Road.€€Mr.€Drake€suffered€severe€and€disablingÐ D'”"  Ðinjuries€in€the€collision.€Ð h)¸$" ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€car€that€collided€with€Mr.€Drakeððs€vehicle€was€driven€by€BillÐ °-)& ÐManson,€an€armed€robbery€suspect€who,€with€four€companions,€had€been€fleeingÐ Ô/$+( Ðfrom€pursuit€by€Mt.€Juliet€police€and€Wilson€County€deputies€prior€to€theÐ ø1H-* Ðcollision.€€On€June€10,€1996,€Mr.€Drake€filed€suit€for€his€injuries,€naming€asÐ 4l/, Ðâ âdefendants€Bill€Manson,€Wilson€County,€the€Wilson€County€Sheriff€and€SheriffððsÐ @61. ÐDepartment,€Sergeant€Billy€Williams,€Officer€Donna€Camp,€the€City€of€Mt.Ð ° ÐJuliet,€and€the€Mt.€Juliet€Police€Department.Ð Ô$ Ðâ âÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Drake€claimed€that€the€high€speed€pursuit€of€Mr.€Manson€wasÐ  l Ðconducted€in€a€negligent€way,€and€that€such€negligence€was€a€proximate€causeÐ @  Ðof€his€injuries.€€The€Mt.€Juliet€and€Wilson€County€defendants€filed€motions€forÐ d´  Ðsummary€judgment.€€They€denied€being€guilty€of€any€negligence,€and€assertedÐ ˆØ  Ðthat€the€actions€of€Bill€Manson€were€the€sole€cause€of€the€accident.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€June€16,Ð ¬ü Ð1998,€the€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€all€of€the€defendants€exceptÐ Ð  Ðfor€Bill€Manson.€€The€judgment€was€certified€as€a€final€judgment€for€purposes€ofÐ ôD Ðappeal,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04,€whereupon€it€reached€this€court.Ð h ÐÌà@::$êàò òII.€€Summary€Judgmentó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àSummary€judgment€is€an€appropriate€vehicle€for€disposing€of€aÐ ¬"ü Ðclaim€only€when€there€is€no€dispute€as€to€material€facts,€and€the€moving€party€isÐ Ð$  Ðentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Rule€56.04,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€òò€Byrd€v.Ð ô&D"  ÐHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).€€Summary€judgment€is€not€to€be€regardedÐ )h$" Ðas€a€substitute€for€trial€of€disputed€factual€issues.€€òòGonzales€v.€Ô_ÔAlmanÔ_ÔÐ <+Œ&$ ÐConstruction€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€42€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€A€trial€court€ruling€on€aÐ `-°(& Ðsummary€judgment€motion€must€view€the€pleadings€and€the€evidence€before€itÐ „/Ô*( Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion,òò€Wyatt€v.€Ô_ÔWinnebagoÔ_ÔÐ ¨1ø,* Ðâ âIndustriesóó,€566€S.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€App.€1977),€and€must€draw€all€reasonableÐ Ì3/, Ðfactual€inferences€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party.€òò€Dillard€v.€VanderbiltÐ ° ÐUniversityóó,€970€S.W.2d€958€(Tenn.€App.€1998).€€Ð Ô$ Ðâ âÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€present€case,€the€individual€officers€named€in€the€complaintÐ  l Ðwere€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law,€because€when€theÐ @  Ðimmunity€from€suit€normally€enjoyed€by€governmental€entities€is€removed€underÐ d´  Ðthe€provisions€of€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€29„Ð ˆØ  Ð20„101,€et€seq.,€a€corresponding€immunity€is€conferred€upon€the€governmentÐ ¬ü Ðemployees€whose€alleged€negligence€gave€rise€to€the€cause€of€action.€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCode.€Ann.€ðð€29„20„310(b).Ð ôD ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€Wilson€County€Sheriff€and€Sheriffððs€Department€and€the€Mt.Ð <Œ ÐJuliet€Police€Department€are€likewise€entitled€to€summary€judgment.€€It€appearsÐ `° Ðto€us€that€they€were€named€as€defendants€out€of€an€abundance€of€caution€on€theÐ „ Ô Ðpart€of€the€plaintiff.€€However,€Wilson€County€is€the€only€governmental€bodyÐ ¨"ø Ðrequired€by€law€to€answer€for€the€negligence€of€the€sheriff€and€his€deputies,Ð Ì$  ÐTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðððð€8„8„301€and€302,€while€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€is€the€properÐ ð&@"  Ðdefendant€to€answer€for€the€acts€of€its€police€department,€see€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.Ð )d$" Ððð€29„20„102(3).Ð 8+ˆ&$ ЀÌà@ÁÁêàò òIII.€€òòHaynes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóóó óˆÐ €/Ð*( ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€acknowledge€that€if€this€case€had€arisen€before€the€SupremeÐ Ì3/, ÐCourtððs€decision€in€the€case€ofòò€Haynes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€883€S.W.2d€606Ð ð5@1. Ð(Tenn.€1994),€Wilson€County€and€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€would€also€have€beenÐ 8d30 Ðentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€Courtððs€prior€opinions€hadÐ ° Ðinterpreted€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€58„8„108,€which€deals€with€the€operation€ofÐ Ô$ Ðauthorized€emergency€vehicles,€to€mean€that€law€enforcement€agencies€could€notÐ øH Ðbe€held€liable€for€injuries€to€innocent€third€parties,€when€those€injuries€resultedÐ  l Ðfrom€an€accident€between€a€vehicle€being€pursued€by€the€police€and€the€thirdÐ @  Ðparty.€€The€rationale€for€the€earlier€rule,€as€stated€in€the€case€ofòò€Kennedy€v.Ð d´  ÐSpring€Hillóó,€780€S.W.2d€164€(Tenn.€1989),€was€that€the€police€should€not€be€heldÐ ˆØ  Ðliable€for€attempting€to€perform€their€duty€by€arresting€lawbreakers,€and€thus€theÐ ¬ü Ðmisconduct€of€the€fleeing€suspect€was€deemed€to€be€the€sole€proximate€cause€ofÐ Ð  Ðany€injuries.€€Ð ôD ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€òòHaynesóó€case,€three€innocent€teenagers€were€killed€in€a€fieryÐ <Œ Ðcollision€that€resulted€from€a€100€mile€per€hour€pursuit,€that€began€when€aÐ `° ÐHamilton€County€police€officer€attempted€to€pull€over€a€Corvette€that€had€no€tailÐ „ Ô Ðlights.€€After€the€accident,€police€learned€that€the€Corvette€had€been€stolen.€TheÐ ¨"ø Ðparents€of€the€teens€sued€the€County.€€The€trial€court,€considering€itself€bound€byÐ Ì$  Ðthe€decisions€in€òòKennedyóó,€supra,€and€other€cases,€entered€a€judgment€for€theÐ ð&@"  Ðcounty,€and€this€court€affirmed.Ð )d$" ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€parents€appealed€to€the€Supreme€Court,€which€then€reversed€itsÐ \-¬(& Ðholding€in€òòKennedyóó,€recognizing€that€a€decision€to€initiate€or€to€continue€pursuitÐ €/Ð*( Ðcan€be€negligent,€if€the€risk€to€innocent€third€parties€from€such€pursuit€outweighsÐ ¤1ô,* Ðthe€public€interest€in€apprehending€the€suspect.€€The€Court€listed€some€factors€forÐ È3/, Ðthe€trial€courts€to€consider€when€faced€with€the€question€whether€such€a€decisionÐ ì5<1. Ðshould€give€rise€to€liability,€including€the€speed€and€area€of€the€pursuit,€weatherÐ 8`30 Ðand€road€conditions,€the€presence€or€absence€of€pedestrians€and€other€traffic,Ð ° Ðalternative€methods€of€apprehension,€applicable€police€regulations,€and€theÐ Ô$ Ðdanger€posed€to€the€public€by€the€suspect€being€pursued.€€883€S.W.2d€at€611.€Ð øH ÐÌà@îîêàò òIV.€€Disputed€and€Undisputed€Factsó óˆÐ @  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€case€before€us,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€pursuit€of€Bill€MansonÐ ŒÜ  Ðbegan€on€a€rural€road€where€there€was€very€little€traffic,€that€the€road€was€levelÐ ° Ðand€for€the€most€part€straight,€that€the€weather€was€clear,€and€the€roadbed€wasÐ Ô$ Ðdry.€€The€suspects€were€believed€to€be€armed€and€dangerous,€and€the€danger€theyÐ øH Ðposed€to€the€public€had€to€be€considered€substantial.€€Thus,€we€do€not€believe€theÐ l Ðdecision€to€begin€the€pursuit€of€Mr.€Manson€and€his€companions€is€really€atÐ @ Ðissue.Ð d´ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àHowever,€the€collision€itself€occurred€at€an€intersection€whereÐ ¬"ü Ðtraffic€was€heavier,€in€an€area€that€the€investigating€police€officer€characterizedÐ Ð$  Ðas€urban€and€residential.€€The€appellant€argues€that€the€police€were€negligent€inÐ ô&D"  Ðcontinuing€the€chase€after€the€danger€to€other€motorists€increased,€and€has€raisedÐ )h$" Ðquestions€about€the€duration€of€the€pursuit€and€about€the€failure€of€the€police€toÐ <+Œ&$ Ðutilize€other€means€to€apprehend€the€suspects.Ð `-°(& ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àJust€prior€to€the€collision,€Donna€Camp€Ô_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ô,€a€WilsonÐ ¨1ø,* ÐCounty€deputy,€was€driving€the€lead€pursuit€car,€followed€by€three€or€four€carsÐ Ì3/, Ðdriven€by€Mt.€Juliet€officers.€€The€deputy€had€slowed€her€pursuit€after€theÐ ð5@1. Ðsuspects€threw€objects€at€her€car,€and€then€pointed€what€appeared€to€be€a€firearmÐ 8d30 Ðat€her.€€The€deputyððs€superiors€had€also€radioed€her€to€slow€down€further,Ð ° Ðbecause€they€were€going€to€attempt€to€use€a€ð ðstinger,ðð€a€device€designed€toÐ Ô$ Ðpuncture€the€tires€of€an€oncoming€car,€at€the€intersection€of€Ô_ÔLeevilleÔ_Ô€Pike€andÐ øH ÐÔ_ÔCrowellÔ_Ô€Lane.€€As€she€approached€the€intersection,€the€deputy€observed€thatÐ  l Ðother€law€enforcement€officers€had€stopped€traffic€and€had€directed€vehicles€toÐ @  Ðthe€southern€shoulder€of€Ô_ÔLeevilleÔ_Ô€Pike,€and€she€saw€the€plaintiffððs€car€turn€leftÐ d´  Ðinto€the€path€of€the€suspectððs€car.€Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellees€argue€since€Deputy€Ô_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ô€had€backed€off€priorÐ Ð  Ðto€the€collision,€and€since€this€did€not€deter€Mr.€Manson€from€continuing€to€driveÐ ôD Ðin€an€extremely€reckless€fashion,€the€plaintiff€cannot€establish€that€the€officerððsÐ h Ðconduct€was€a€ð ðsubstantial€factorðð€in€bringing€about€the€harm€complained€of,€andÐ <Œ Ðthus€that€it€could€not€be€considered€a€proximate€cause€of€Mr.€Drakeððs€injuries.Ð `° ÐSee€òòHaynes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€supra€at€611„12.Ð „ Ô ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€do€not€believe,€however,€that€we€are€required€to€find€thatÐ Ì$  Ðliability€cannot€attach€as€a€matter€of€law,€as€long€as€the€pursuit€slows€downÐ ð&@"  Ðbefore€the€accident€occurs.€€In€the€present€case,€the€question€of€exactly€how€longÐ )d$" Ðbefore€the€accident€the€pursuers€backed€off€is€a€material€fact€in€dispute,€as€is€theÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðquestion€of€when€it€became€unsafe€to€continue€the€pursuit.€€The€fact€that€theÐ \-¬(& Ðsuspect€was€driving€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€and€that€the€lead€officer€actuallyÐ €/Ð*( Ðwitnessed€the€collision€would€seem€to€indicate€that€the€pursuit€ended€very€shortlyÐ ¤1ô,* Ðbefore€the€accident,€or€else€that€the€pursuit€actually€continued,€albeit€in€a€lessÐ È3/, Ðintense€mode.€Ð ì5<1. ÐÐ 8`30 Ðà Ø àà 0 àFurther,€law€enforcement€officers€appeared€to€have€taken€control€ofÐ ° Ðthe€intersection€where€the€accident€occurred,€but€the€presence€of€Mr.€Drakeððs€carÐ Ô$ Ðin€the€middle€of€the€intersection€raises€questions€in€regard€to€their€managementÐ øH Ðof€the€traffic.€€We€note€that€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€has€argued€that€even€if€weÐ  l Ðreverse€the€summary€judgment€for€the€County,€we€should€still€affirm€theÐ @  Ðjudgment€in€favor€of€the€City,€because€the€Countyððs€deputy€was€leading€theÐ d´  Ðpursuit€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€However,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€toÐ ˆØ  Ðindicate€whether€the€Mt.€Juliet€officers€still€had€their€lights€and€sirens€on€at€theÐ ¬ü Ðtime€of€the€accident,€or€how€far€behind€the€lead€car€they€were.€€We€believe€thatÐ Ð  Ðthere€is€enough€uncertainty€about€the€actions€of€the€Mt.€Juliet€officers€(includingÐ ôD Ðthe€possibility€that€they€had€a€role€in€the€activity€at€the€intersection)€to€precludeÐ h Ðsummary€judgment€for€the€City.€Ð <Œ ÐÌà@ÉÉ%êàò òV.€€Other€Argumentsó óˆÐ „ Ô ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellees€further€argue€that€a€ruling€against€them€would€thwartÐ Ð$  Ðpublic€policy,€by€deterring€police€officers€from€pursuing€felons€who€had€usedÐ ô&D"  Ðdeadly€force.€€It€appears€to€us,€however,€that€this€amounts€to€the€same€argumentÐ )h$" Ðthat€the€Supreme€Court€rejected€in€òòHaynes€v.€Hamilton€County.óó€€The€danger€thatÐ <+Œ&$ Ðfleeing€suspects€pose€to€public€safety€is€a€factor€that€must€be€weighed€against€theÐ `-°(& Ðdanger€of€continuing€the€pursuit,€rather€than€one€that€must€be€considered€toÐ „/Ô*( Ðoutweigh€all€other€factors.Ð ¨1ø,* Ѐ€Ð Ì3/, Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellees€cite€an€unpublished€opinion€of€this€court,€òòÔ_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ô€v.Ð ð5@1. ÐCity€of€Ô_ÔSmyrnaÔ_Ôóó€(Appeal€No.€01A01„9607„CV„00316,€filed€at€Nashville,€JanuaryÐ 8d30 Ð24,€1997),€which€involved€the€€pursuit€of€a€suspect€(driving€a€stolen€police€car)Ð ° Ðthat€resulted€in€injuries€to€an€innocent€third€party.€€In€that€case,€the€trial€courtÐ Ô$ Ðapplied€the€factors€discussed€in€òòHaynesóó,€and€entered€a€judgment€for€theÐ øH Ðdefendant.€€This€court€affirmed,€finding€that€the€evidence€did€not€preponderateÐ  l Ðagainst€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ð @  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€implicit€argument€is€that€the€factors€militating€against€liabilityÐ ˆØ  Ðfor€the€governmental€defendants€in€the€present€case€are€at€least€as€strong€as€theyÐ ¬ü Ðwere€in€the€òòÔ_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ôóó€case,€and€that€in€order€to€be€consistent,€we€must€rule€inÐ Ð  Ðfavor€of€the€appellees.€€We€note,€however,€that€the€Ô_ÔCrumleysÔ_Ô€received€a€benchÐ ôD Ðtrial,€and€that€they€were€able€to€fully€develop€the€facts.€€Our€review€of€theÐ h ÐòòÔ_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ôóó€case€was€thus€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÐ <Œ Ðtrial€courtððs€findings,€as€is€required€by€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€No€suchÐ `° Ðpresumption€accompanies€a€review€of€a€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€€€€Ð „ Ô ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€believe€that€like€the€Ô_ÔCrumleysÔ_Ô,€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€is€alsoÐ Ì$  Ðentitled€to€further€develop€his€proof.€€In€ruling€for€the€plaintiff,€we€express€noÐ ð&@"  Ðopinion€as€to€the€ultimate€merits€of€his€claim.€€We€note,€however,€as€did€theÐ )d$" Ðappellees,€that€at€trial€the€court€is€obligated€to€view€the€conduct€of€the€policeÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðofficers€ð ðin€light€of€how€a€reasonably€prudent€police€officer€would€respond€underÐ \-¬(& Ðthe€circumstances,€and€not€judge€with€the€perfect€vision€afforded€by€hindsight.ððÐ €/Ð*( Ð883€S.W.2d€at€611.€à à àÐ ¤1ô,* ÐÌÌÐ 8`30 Ðà@KK-êàò òVI.ó óˆÐ „ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€claims€against€Wilson€County€andÐ ÐL Ðthe€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€are€reversed.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€courtððs€judgment€isÐ ô p Ðaffirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Wilson€County€for€furtherÐ  ” Ðproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€theÐ <¸  Ðappellees.Ð `Ü  ÐÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_______________________________Ð ÌH Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ð ÞZ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.€Ð ðl ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð &¢ ÐÌÌÌ______________________________Ð n ê ÐWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE€Ð €!ü ÐÌÌÌ______________________________Ð È%D"  ÐPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE€Ð Ú&V#! ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ„°ÑÑX°ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡îØ­ î»»ÙÜÔà@êê.êàò òÔ#†»ÙÜ» îîØ­žW#Ôó ó