ÿWPCÐ 2# ÌUN× %% 0G+U:rw@¬4ìLU:c 0J 0Tç 0^; 0h™ 0r 0|s 0†ï 0u 1u 0dz 0@Þ D3 BQ U>n U*¬ B)Ö DCÿ AMB AQ Æà 0D¦ 0Dê D/. B] z v~vÓý˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL,Î(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular a b Ec d Ee f g Dh i Ó€u §aö"°(#3|xu C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ûÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAugust€26,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€l÷XXdðXXdð7ќـ*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|Ž` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌSTEVE€ELDRIDGE€and€wife,à àà à)ÌLORI€ELDRIDGE,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àò ò)€€Gibson€Circuit€No.€7093Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9503„CV„00041Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTHE€CITY€OF€TRENTON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€GIBSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€TRENTON,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DICK€JERMAN,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌò òPAUL€F.€RICEó óÌò òUTLEY€&€LATIMER,€PCÌó óJackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òT.€J.€EMISON,€JR.Ìó óAlamo,€TennesseeÌò òROBERT€KINTONÌó óTrenton,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óà àÌÓÓà àIn€this€personal€injury€action,€Steve€Eldridge€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€and€his€wife,€LoriÏEldridge€Ñ7€ Kƒ XXdðXXdð7Ñ(ð ðWifeðð),€filed€suit€against€the€City€of€Trenton€(ð ðDefendantðð)€for€injuries€andÏdamages€sustained€when€Plaintiff€was€shot€in€the€face€by€an€armed€robber€whileÏworking€as€a€clerk€in€a€liquor€store.€€Prior€to€Plaintiffððs€injury,€the€Trenton€PoliceÏDepartment€received€a€tip€from€the€Gibson€County€sheriff€that€one€of€the€three€liquorÏstores€in€Trenton€would€be€ð ðhitðð€by€a€particular€individual.€€Because€the€Trenton€PoliceÏDepartment€did€not€warn€the€owner€of€the€liquor€store€at€which€Plaintiff€worked€or€anyÏof€the€storeððs€employees€of€the€tip€it€received€from€the€Gibson€County€sheriff,€PlaintiffsÏbased€their€suit€upon€negligence€and€failure€to€warn€theories.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Defendant€on€all€issues€contained€within€the€complaint,Ïwith€the€exception€of€Plaintiffsðð€allegation€regarding€the€Trenton€Police€DepartmentððsÏduty€to€warn€Plaintiff€of€the€sheriffððs€tip.€€After€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€courtò ò€ó óawardedò òÏó óPlaintiff€$130,000€and€awarded€Wife€$25,000.€€Defendant€appeals€this€judgment,Ïarguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€its€defense€of€governmental€immunity.€€ForÏthe€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌò òà àó óOn€Friday,€December€25,€1992,€the€Gibson€County€Sheriff,€Joe€Shepard,€calledÏthe€Trenton€Police€Department€twice€stating€that€he€had€received€a€tip€from€a€reliableÏinformant€that€Vincent€Anderson€(ð ðAndersonðð)€had€probably€been€involved€in€a€pawnÏshop€burglary€on€December€24,€1992,€and€that€Anderson€would€also€probably€ð ðhitððÏone€of€the€three€liquor€stores€in€Trenton,€Tennessee,€sometime€between€ChristmasÏDay€and€New€Yearððs€Day€for€the€purpose€of€getting€cash€to€get€out€of€town.ò ò€ó óÌÌà àAfter€receiving€this€tip€from€Sheriff€Shepard,€the€Chief€of€the€Trenton€PoliceÏDepartment,€Thomas€Litton€(ð ðLittonðð),€implemented€a€system€whereby€additionalÏroutine,€periodic€checks€of€the€three€Trenton€liquor€stores€were€made€in€order€to€moreÏclosely€monitor€the€storesðð€activities.€€The€Trenton€Police€Department€assigned€aÏnumber€to€each€of€the€three€Trenton€liquor€stores:€one,€two,€and€three.€€As€the€TrentonÏPolice€Department€made€periodic€checks€of€these€stores,€the€checks€were€logged€in€toÏthe€Departmentððs€records€as€routine€check€one,€two,€and€three.€€These€numbers€wereÏassigned€to€the€three€stores€so€that€the€stores€could€be€checked€and€recorded€by€theÏTrenton€Police€Department€without€placing€the€storesðð€names€out€over€the€scanners€forÏmembers€of€the€public€to€hear.€ÌÌà àThe€Trenton€Police€Department,€however,€did€not€warn€any€of€the€three€TrentonÏliquor€storesðð€owners€or€employees€of€the€tip€it€received€regarding€the€potential€ð ðhitðð€ofÏone€of€the€stores.€€The€Trenton€Police€Department€decided€not€to€warn€the€owners€orÍemployees€of€the€three€Trenton€liquor€stores€of€the€œtip€because›€the€Police€DepartmentÏdetermined€that€the€potential€ð ðhitðð€of€one€of€the€stores€would€be€a€burglary€instead€of€aÏrobbery.€€Chief€Litton€testified€that€he€made€this€determination€after€consideration€ofÏthe€following€factors:€€the€Trenton€Police€Department€received€the€tip€on€a€holiday;ÏAnderson€was€suspected€of€a€pawn€shop€burglary€which€occurred€one€day€before€theÏTrenton€Police€Department€received€the€tip;€and€Andersonððs€past€criminal€history€andÏbackground€involved€burglaries€rather€than€robberies.€€Chief€œLitton›€also€determinedÏthat,€if€a€burglary€was€going€to€occur,€Christmas€Day€would€be€a€prime€day€for€theÏburglary€because€the€stores€would€be€closed€on€that€day.€ÌÌà àIn€support€of€the€decision€not€to€warn€the€owners€or€employees€of€the€threeÏTrenton€liquor€stores,€Chief€Litton€also€testified€that€there€are€certain€inherent€risksÏinvolved€in€issuing€a€general€warning€to€employees€of€a€store€in€response€to€a€tipÏreceived€by€the€Police€Department.€€Such€risks€include€the€possibility€that€untrained,Ïarmed€employees€could€inadvertently€injure€or€kill€innocent€citizens€or€police€officers.€ÏœChief€Litton›€further€opined€that€there€would€be€a€greater€chance€of€a€confrontationÏoccurring€if€a€general€warning€was€given€to€store€employees€of€a€potential€œð ðhit.ðð›€ÌÌœà àOn›€Monday,€December€28,€1992,€at€approximately€9:00€p.m.,€Anderson€enteredÏthe€ÌœHouse›€of€Spirits,€one€of€the€three€liquor€stores€in€Trenton,€where€Plaintiff€was€workingÏas€œÌÌa›€clerk.€€In€the€course€of€committing€an€armed€robbery,€Anderson€shot€Plaintiff€in€theÏface,€severely€injuring€him.Ìà àÌà àSometime€during€the€1980's€prior€to€Plaintiffððs€accident,€Plaintiff€and€WifeÏowned€and€operated€The€Party€Shoppe,€a€mini„convenience€store€located€in€Trenton.€ÏPlaintiff€testified€that,€during€his€ownership€of€The€Party€Shoppe,€the€Trenton€PoliceÏDepartment€warned€him€on€various€occasions€of€criminal€activity€in€the€area.€€Wife€alsoÏtestified€that€she€could€remember€one€occasion€œwhen›€the€Trenton€Police€DepartmentÏwarned€her€and€Plaintiff€that€a€robbery€had€occurred€in€Milan,€that€the€criminals€hadÏnot€been€apprehended,€and€that€she€and€Plaintiff€should€take€safety€precautions.€ÌÌà àà@ àò òLAWÌà àó óOn€appeal,€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues€for€this€Courtððs€review:Ìò òà àó ó1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€Trenton€Police€DepartmentÏhas€a€duty€to€warn€potential€crime€victims€of€anonymous€tips€received€by€the€PoliceÏDepartment;€andÌà à2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€discretionary€function€immunityÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„205€to€the€City€of€Trenton€for€the€Trenton€PoliceÏDepartmentððs€handling€of€an€anonymous€tip€it€received.Ìà àPlaintiffs€also€have€appealed,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€WifeÏ$25,000€for€her€loss€of€consortium€claim€instead€of€the€statutory€limit€of€$130,000.Ìà@ àò òÌà@ àPUBLIC€DUTY€DOCTRINEó óÌà àPrior€to€the€passage€of€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€aÏmunicipality€and€its€police€and€fire€departments€generally€were€immune€from€suit€by€aÏprivate€individual€based€upon€the€principle€that€duties€of€municipal€corporations€inÏfurnishing€police€and€fire€protection€were€general€duties€owed€to€the€public€at€largeÏand€not€special€duties€owed€to€a€private€individual.€€òòSeeóó€òòGordon€v.€City€of€Hendersonóó,Ï766€S.W.2d€784,€785„86€(Tenn.€1989);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòFulenwider€v.€Firefighters€Assððn€LocalÏUnion€1784óó,€649€S.W.2d€268,€269„70€(Tenn.€1982)€(stating€that€city€is€not€liable€inÏprivate€damage€suit€to€individual€citizens€for€failure€to€furnish€adequate€police€or€fireÏprotection);€òòBurnett€v.€Ruddóó,€54€S.W.2d€718€(Tenn.€1932);€òòIrvine€v.€City€ofÏChattanoogaóó,€47€S.W.€419€(Tenn.€1898).€€This€principle€is€commonly€referred€to€as€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine.ÌÌà àThe€public€duty€doctrine,€which€originated€at€common€law,€shields€a€publicÏemployee€from€suits€for€injuries€that€are€caused€by€the€public€employeeððs€breach€of€aÏduty€owed€to€the€public€at€large.€€òòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902€S.W.2d€394,€397€(Tenn.€1995)Ï(citing€Kelly€M.€Tullier,€òòGovernmental€Liability€for€Negligent€Failure€to€Detain€DrunkÏDriversóó,€77€Cornell€L.€Rev.€873,€886€(1992)).€€This€doctrine€can€be€traced€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòSouth€v.€Marylandóó,€59€U.S.€(18€How.)€396€(1855),Ïwherein€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€sheriff€was€not€liable€for€failing€to€protect€aÏkidnap€victim€because€the€sheriffððs€duty€to€keep€the€peace€was€ð ða€public€duty,€forÏneglect€of€which€he€is€amenable€to€the€public,€and€punishable€by€indictment€only.ðð€ÏòòSouthóó,€59€U.S.€at€403.ÌÌà àIn€addressing€the€duty€owed€by€law€enforcement€officers€to€individuals€withinÏthe€community,€this€Court€has€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€duty€of€a€law€enforcement€officer€to€preserve€theÏpeace€and€arrest€lawbreakers€is€one€which€the€officer€owesÏto€the€public€generally,€rather€than€to€particular€individuals,Ïand€the€breach€of€such€duty€creates€no€liability€on€the€partÏof€the€officer€to€an€individual€who€is€damaged€as€a€result€ofÏthe€officerððs€failure€to€perform€it.€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*Ìà8 àà8 àà àIn€the€absence€of€special€circumstances,€there€is€noÏduty€resting€upon€a€municipality€or€other€governmentalÏbody€to€provide€police€protection€to€any€particular€person,Ïand€it€may€not€be€held€liable€for€its€failure€to€do€so.ÌÌòòÓÓœSeidner›€v.€Metropolitan€œGovððt›óó,€No.€œ01A01›„9012„CV„00451,€1991€WL€66440,€at€*4Ï(Tenn.€œApp›.€May€1,€1991)€(quoting€70€Am.€œJur›.€œ2d›€òòSheriffs,€Police,€and€Constablesóó€ððÏ94;€57€Am.€œJur›.€œ2d›€òòMunicipal,€School,€and€State€Tort€Liabilityóó€ðð€444),€òòperm.€app.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€9,€1991).ÌÌÌà àIn€òòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902€S.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€1995),€the€supreme€court€addressedÏthe€application€of€the€public€duty€doctrine€in€light€of€the€legislatureððs€passage€of€theÏTennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€€In€òòEzellóó,€the€plaintiffððs€husband€was€œkilled›Ïand€the€plaintiff€was€seriously€injured€by€an€intoxicated€driver.€€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€atÏ396.€€Earlier€in€the€evening,€the€police€chief€of€the€City€of€Elkton€had€permitted€theÏdriver€to€operate€an€intoxicated€friendððs€car€when€the€police€chief€allegedly€knew,€orÏshould€have€known,€that€the€driver€was€also€intoxicated.€€òòIdóó.€€The€plaintiff€sued€the€CityÏof€Elkton€and€its€police€chief€based€on€the€police€chiefððs€negligence€in€failing€to€arrestÏthe€intoxicated€driver.€€òòIdóó.€at€396„97.€€Reaffirming€the€viability€of€the€public€dutyÍdoctrine,€the€court€concluded€that€the€City€could€not€be€held€liable€for€the€police€chiefððsÏfailure€to€arrest€the€intoxicated€driver.€òòIdóó.€at€404.ÌÌà àVarious€public€policy€considerations€have€been€advanced€to€explain€andÏsupport€the€adoption€of€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€One€public€policy€considerationÏadvanced€is€that€individuals,€juries,€and€courts€are€ill„equipped€to€judge€governmentalÏdecisions€as€to€how€specific€community€resources€should€be€or€should€have€beenÏallocated€to€protect€individual€members€of€the€public.€€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€397„98Ï(citing€òòMorgan€v.€District€of€Columbiaóó,€468€A.2d€1306,€1311€(D.C.€1983)).€€A€secondÏfactor€favoring€application€of€the€public€duty€doctrine€is€the€depletion€of€municipalÏresources€that€would€result€if€every€oversight€or€omission€of€a€police€official€resulted€inÏcivil€liability.€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€397„98.€€A€third€factor€justifying€application€of€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine€involves€recognition€of€the€fact€that,€without€the€application€of€suchÏdoctrine,€police€officers€continually€would€be€faced€with€the€precarious€dilemma€ofÏdeciding€between€whether€to€avoid€liability€for€personal€injury€by€arresting€all€personsÏwho€pose€any€potential€threat€to€the€public€or€whether€to€avoid€liability€for€falseÏimprisonment€by€not€arresting€those€persons.€€òòIdóó.€The€public€duty€doctrine€ð ðserves€theÏimportant€purpose€of€preventing€excessive€court€intervention€into€the€governmentalÏprocess€by€protecting€the€exercise€of€law€enforcement€discretion.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€400„01;€òòseeÏalso€óó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674,€689€(Tenn.€1975)€(stating€that€it€is€essentialÏto€protection€of€society€that€wide€discretion€be€vested€in€officers€chosen€to€enforce€ourÏlaws).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€brings€theÏactions€of€Defendant€and€the€officers€of€the€Trenton€Police€Department€within€theÏscope€of€the€public€duty€doctrine€of€governmental€immunity.€€Plaintiffsðð€theory€ofÏrecovery€was€that€the€Trenton€Police€Department€breached€its€duty€to€warn€Plaintiff€ofÏa€potential€crime€at€his€place€of€business.€The€duty€of€the€Trenton€Police€Department€toÏprotect€Plaintiff€from€crime€falls€within€the€Police€Departmentððs€general€duty€to€preserveÏthe€peace,€arrest€lawbreakers,€and€provide€police€protection.€Because€this€duty€isÏowed€to€the€public€generally,€rather€than€to€particular€individuals,€based€upon€theÏapplication€of€the€public€duty€doctrine,€we€hold€that€Defendant€is€not€liable€for€theÏTrenton€Police€Departmentððs€failure€to€warn€Plaintiff.€œòòSeeóó›€òòGreen€v.€œDenison›óó,€738ÏœS.W.2d›€861,€866€(Mo.€1987)€(holding€that,€under€public€duty€doctrine,€police€officersÏcould€not€be€held€liable€for€officersðð€failure€to€warn€residents€of€apartment€building€thatÏofficers€were€entering€building€to€arrest€gunman).€€œÌ›œÌ›œà@ à›œò òSPECIAL€DUTY€EXCEPTIONó 󛀀€Ìœ›à àIn€adhering€to€the€public€duty€doctrine€in€òòEzellóó,€the€supreme€court€recognizedÏthe€continuing€viability€of€the€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrineððs€no„liability€rule.€€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€401.€€The€special€duty€exception€applies€ð ðwhere€aÏððspecial€relationshipðð€exists€between€the€plaintiff€and€the€public€employee,€which€givesÏrise€to€a€ððspecial€dutyðð€that€is€more€particular€than€the€duty€owed€by€the€employee€toÏthe€public€at€large.ðð€€Id.€€In€òòEzellóó,€the€court€further€refined€the€special€duty€exception€toÏthe€public€duty€doctrine€and€concluded€that€the€application€of€the€exception€should€beÏlimited€to€the€following€three€situations:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1)€[When]€officials,€by€their€actions,€affirmatively€undertakeÏto€protect€the€plaintiff,€and€the€plaintiff€relies€upon€theÏundertaking;ÌÌà8 àà8 à2)€[When]€a€statute€specifically€provides€for€a€cause€ofÏaction€against€an€official€or€municipality€for€injuries€resultingÏto€a€particular€class€of€individuals,€of€which€the€plaintiff€is€aÏmember,€from€failure€to€enforce€certain€laws;€orÌÌà0 àà àà8 àà8 à3)€[When]€the€plaintiff€alleges€a€cause€of€action€involving€intent,Ïmalice,€or€reckless€conduct.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€402.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àDespite€its€recognition€of€the€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine,Ïthe€court€concluded€that€the€exception€did€not€apply€in€òòEzellóó.€€€Regarding€the€firstÏsituation€under€the€special€duty€exception,€the€court€explained€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€plaintiffððs€allegations€do€not€support€applicationÏof€a€ð ðspecial„dutyðð€of€care.€€Neither€[the€police€chief]€nor€theÏCity€of€Elkton€had,€by€their€actions,€affirmatively€undertakenÏto€protect€the€plaintiff.€€In€fact,€[the€police€chief]€never€hadÏany€contact€with€the€plaintiff;€thus,€the€defendants€had€takenÏno€action€which€would€have€caused€the€plaintiff€toÏparticularly€rely€upon€them€for€protection.€€ÌÌòòÓÓEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€403.€€The€court€also€rejected€the€plaintiffððs€argument€that€a€specialÏduty€of€care€arose€from€certain€statutes€pertaining€to€drunk€driving,€public€intoxication,Ïand€the€general€authority€and€responsibility€of€police€officers€to€enforce€laws€and€makeÏarrests.€€The€court€reasoned€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSuch€statutes€neither€impose€a€mandatory€duty€to€arrestÏevery€motorist€suspected€of€driving€under€the€influence,€norÏauthorize€negligence€actions€against€police€officers€who€doÏnot€arrest€every€suspected€drunk€driver.€€ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€The€court€likewise€concluded€that€the€third€situation€under€the€special€dutyÍexception€did€not€apply€because€the€plaintiffððs€allegations€did€not€establish€intentional,Ïmalicious,€or€reckless€conduct€but,€instead,€established€only€simple€negligence.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€contend€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€brings€this€action€withinÏthe€first€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€ÏAlthough€the€Trenton€Police€Department€had€increased€its€surveillance€of€the€threeÏliquor€stores€after€receiving€the€tip€from€Sheriff€Shepard€regarding€AndersonððsÏpotential€ð ðhitðð€of€one€of€the€stores,€this€action€by€the€Police€Department€falls€short€of€theÏfirst€situation€recognized€under€the€special€duty€exception,€under€which€officials,€byÏtheir€actions,€must€affirmatively€undertake€to€protect€a€plaintiff€and€the€plaintiff€must€relyÏupon€the€officialsðð€undertaking.€€While€the€Trenton€Police€Department€did€increase€itsÏwatch€over€the€three€liquor€stores,€no€notice€was€given€by€the€Police€Department€toÏany€of€the€owners€or€employees€of€the€œliquor›€stores€of€either€the€fact€that€the€PoliceÏDepartment€had€received€a€tip€regarding€a€potential€ð ðhitðð€on€one€of€œthe€stores€or€theÏfact€that€the€Police€Department€had€increased€its€surveillance€of€the€stores€in€responseÏto€the€tip.€€Thus,€neither€Plaintiffs€nor€the€owners€or€employees€of€any€of€the€threeÏliquor€stores€could€have€relied€upon€the€Trenton€Police€Departmentððs€increased€watchÏover€the€stores.€òòSeeóó€òòHurd›€v.€œWoolfork›óó,€No.€œ02A01›„9607„CV„00170,€1997€WL€224883,Ïat€*5€(Tenn.€œApp›.€May€6,€1997)€(concluding€that€public€duty€doctrine€barred€suit€againstÏsheriff€for€failure€to€execute€arrest€warrant€on€plaintiffsðð€neighbor€where€complaintÏfailed€to€allege€that€plaintiffs€relied€upon€sheriff€to€protect€œthem€from›€œneighbor).€ÏMoreover,€Plaintiff€has€failed€to€explain€how€he€relied€on€the€Police€Departmentððs€pastÏwarnings€of€criminal€activity€in€the€area.›ÌÌà àInasmuch€as€Plaintiffs€have€been€unable€to€establish€the€application€of€theÏspecial€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine,€we€adhere€to€our€holding€that€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine€bars€this€lawsuit.€In€light€of€our€holding,€we€need€not€address€theÏpartiesðð€remaining€issues€concerning€discretionary€function€immunity€and€damages.Ìà àà àÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€reversed,€and€this€cause€is€dismissed.€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Plaintiffs€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.