ÿWPC) …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0Jé 0T3 0^‡ 0hå 0rM 0|¿ 0†; 0Á 1uQ 0dÆ UB* %l U6r B)¨ DCÑ AM U*a ‹ v~£vÓ! Bô D3 0@D AO„ÆÓ 0D™ D/Ý B ƒ‰"ÔøÔô3|x‚($¡¡ nDoDpqDrsDtDuUvEwÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òApril€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ªXXdÈdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌœ›ÌÌSHARON€O.€GARDNER,à àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€030A1„9701„CV„00003Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à)€HAMILTON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€ROBERT€M.€SUMMITT,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGE̜ـ€ÙßR€ "A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›INSURA€PROPERTY€&€CASUALTYà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,€THE€CITY€OF)ÌCHATTANOOGA,€A€Municipality,€à à)Ìand€d/b/a€THE€CHATTANOOGA€à à)ÌPOLICE€DEPARTMENT,€and€OFFICER)ÌKEVIN€SMITH,€BADGE€#737,€andà à)ÌERNEST€PATILLO,à àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AND›Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€A.€SCHULMAN€and€SCOTT€A.€MILLER,€SPEARS,€MOORE,€REBMAN€&ÏWILLIAMS,€Chattanooga,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌRANDALL€L.€NELSON,€City€Attorney€by€PHILLIP€A.€NOBLETT,€SpecialÏCounsel,€City€Attorneyððs€Office,€Chattanooga,€for€Defendants„Appellees,€The€City€of€Chattanooga€and€Officer€Kevin€Smith.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌÌà àà àIn€œthis›€action€for€damages€for€personal€œinjuriesÍsuffered€in€a€motor€vehicle€accident,›€the€Trial€Court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€to€the€City€of€Chattanooga,€Chattanooga€PoliceÏDepartment€and€Officer€Kevin€Smith.€€Plaintiff€has€appealed.Ìà àà àAffidavits€and€depositions€filed€with€plaintiffððsÏresponse€to€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€establish€œwithoutÏdispute€that›€on€December€24,€1994,€Julie€Wilsonððs€automobile€wasÏstruck€by€a€car€driven€by€Ernest€Patillo.€€Patillo€stopped€hisÏcar€approximately€half€a€block€from€the€accident€and€WilsonÏobserved€that€Patilloððs€breath€smelled€of€alcohol,€his€speechÏwas€slurred,€and€his€gait€was€staggered.€€She€called€911€andÏOfficer€Kevin€Smith€was€dispatched€to€the€scene€of€the€accident.€ÏSmith€also€smelled€alcohol€on€Patillo€and€noticed€that€hisÏspeech€was€slurred€and€that€he€was€unsteady€on€his€feet.€€SmithÏplanned€to€conduct€a€field€sobriety€test€on€Patillo,€however,€heÏfirst€asked€Wilson€for€some€information,€intending€to€allow€herÏto€leave€the€scene€and€remove€her€vehicle€from€the€flow€ofÏtraffic.€€Smith€says€that€he€told€Patillo€to€stand€on€theÏsidewalk,€but€while€Smith€was€writing€down€Wilsonððs€licenseÏplate€œnumber,›€Patillo€got€into€his€œvehicle›€and€drove€away.€ÏSmith€ran€to€his€vehicle€and€pursued€Patillo€with€emergencyÏlights€and€sirens€engaged.€€Before€Smith€caught€up€with€Patillo,ÏPatillo€ran€a€stop€sign€and€struck€plaintiff€Gardnerððs€vehicle.€ÏA€breathalyser€œtest€revealed›€that€Patilloððs€blood€alcohol€wasÏ.24,€more€than€two€times€the€legal€limit.€€Gardner€sufferedÍpersonal€injuries€in€the€accident,€and€brought€this€action.€€Ìà àà àThe€complaint€against€the€City€of€Chattanooga€wasÏdismissed€by€the€Trial€Judge,€relying€on€òòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902ÏS.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ìà àà àDefendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€was€converted€into€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment,€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€Rule€12.03,Ïwhen€the€trial€Court€considered€evidence€outside€the€pleadings.€ÏòòHixson€v.€Stickleyóó,€493€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€1973).€€TheÏstandard€of€review€for€a€summary€judgment€is€òòde€novoóó€with€noÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòGonzales€v.€Alman€Construction€Co.óó,Ï857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.App.€1993).€€Summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€when,€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€non„moving€party,€there€are€no€genuine€issuesÏof€œmaterial€fact›€and€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€asÏa€matter€of€law.€€T.R.C.P.€56.Ìà àà àWe€agree€with€the€Trial€Court,€œthat€the€doctrineÏadvanced€in€òòEzell›€óócontrolsòò.óó€€òòEzellóó€was€a€case€involving€HillisÏand€Blankenship,€who€had€been€drinking€at€a€bar€in€Elkton,ÏTennessee.€€After€Blankenship€left€the€establishment,€the€ElktonÏChief€of€Police€prevented€her€from€driving€because€she€appearedÏto€be€too€intoxicated€to€operate€the€vehicle€safely.€€HillisÏcame€out€of€the€bar€and€volunteered€to€drive€Blankenshipððs€carÏhome,€which€the€chief€of€police€allowed.€€About€an€hour€later,ÏHillis€collided€with€the€vehicle€of€plaintiff€Ezell,€severelyÍinjuring€her€and€causing€the€death€of€her€husband.€€Ezell€suedÏthe€chief€of€police€œalleging›€negligence€in€allowing€Hillis€toÏdrive€œa›€motor€vehicle€when€he€knew€or€should€have€known€thatÏHillis€was€intoxicated.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€the€chiefÏhad€breached€a€duty€œowed›€to€the€plaintiff€when€he€failed€toÏarrest€Hillis€and€Blankenship€for€driving€under€the€influence€orÏpublic€intoxication.Ìà àòòà àEzellóó€discussed€Tennesseeððs€public€duty€doctrine,Ïwhich€shields€a€public€employee€from€suits€for€injuries€causedÏby€the€public€employeeððs€breach€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€public€atÏlarge.€òò€Id.óó€at€400.€€There€is€an€exception€to€the€public€dutyÏrule€of€no„liability€where€a€ð ðspecial€relationshipð ð€exists.€ÏòòEzellóó€gave€three€situations€where€such€a€relationship€isÏœcreated:›ÌÓÓÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ  Òà0 à1)€officials,€by€their€actions,€affirmativelyÏundertake€to€protect€the€plaintiff,€and€theÏplaintiff€relies€upon€the€undertaking;€2)€aÏstatute€specifically€provides€for€a€cause€ofÏaction€against€an€official€or€municipality€forÏinjures€resulting€to€a€particular€class€ofÏindividuals,€of€which€the€plaintiff€is€a€member,Ïfrom€failure€to€enforce€certain€laws;€or€3)€theÏplaintiff€alleges€a€cause€of€action€involvingÏintent,€malice,€or€reckless€misconduct.€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€at€402.Ìà àà àThe€Court€then€determined€that€ð ðstatutes€pertaining€toÏdrunk€driving€and€pubic€intoxication,€do€not,€in€conjunctionÏwith€statutes€authorizing€warrantless€arrests,€give€rise€to€aÏððspecial„dutyðð€of€care€where€a€plaintiff€alleges€that€a€policeÍofficer€failed€to€arrest€or€detain€an€alleged€drunk€driver.ð ð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€403.€€The€Court€noted€that€plaintiff€in€òòEzellóó€had€allegedÏonly€simple€negligence,€not€the€intentional,€malicious,€orÏreckless€conduct€which€œcould›€have€created€a€special€relationshipÏpursuant€to€section€three€of€the€above€quoted€analysis.€€Ìà àà àPlaintiff€argues€that€her€case€falls€with€one€of€theÏexceptions€to€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€She€first€points€to€herÏcomplaint,€which€includes€a€charge€of€recklessness:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 à(6)€The€defendant,€Ernest€H.€Patillo,€had€alreadyÏcaused€another€accident,€was€obviously€impaired€andÏguilty€of€reckless€driving€and€the€police€officerÏand/or€officers€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€controlÏover€him€and€thereby€was€negligent€and€reckless€inÏtheir€conduct.ÌÌÓÓœà àà àReckless›€conduct€is€defined€as€taking€place€when€a€Ìœperson›€is€aware€of,€but€consciously€disregards,€a€substantialÏand€unjustifiable€risk€of€such€a€nature€that€its€disregardÏconstitutes€a€gross€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€that€anÏordinary€person€would€exercise€under€all€the€circumstances.€ÌÓÓòòÓÓHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€(Tenn.€1992).€Ìà àà àPlaintiffððs€response€to€the€motion€to€dismissÏcontained€Wilsonððs€affidavit€and€deposition€and€Officer€SmithððsÏdeposition.€€Wilson€states€essentially€that€she€could€tellÏimmediately€upon€speaking€with€Patillo€that€he€was€intoxicated.€ÏOfficer€Smithððs€deposition€acknowledges€that€he€also€believedÏPatillo€to€be€intoxicated.€€He€states€that€he€spoke€briefly€withÏPatillo€and€decided€that€he€would€give€him€a€field€sobrietyÍtest,€and€told€him€to€stand€on€the€sidewalk.€€He€then€spokeÏbriefly€with€Wilson€and€walked€to€the€back€of€her€car€to€writeÏdown€her€license€plate€number.€€He€stated€that€these€actionsÏwere€taken€so€that€she€could€move€her€car€from€where€it€wasÏblocking€traffic€and€let€her€leave€the€scene.€€Wilson€and€SmithÏagree€that€while€Smith€was€writing€down€the€license€number,ÏSmith€looked€up€and€saw€that€Patillo€was€half€a€block€awayÏgetting€in€his€car.€€Smith€then€got€in€his€patrol€car€andÏpursued€Patillo.Ìà àà àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€when€the€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€from€uncontroverted€facts€are€so€certain€thatÏall€reasonable€persons€must€agree€on€them.€€òòSee€Brookins€v.€TheÏRound€Table€Inc.óó,€624€S.W.2d€547€(Tenn.€1981).€€Plaintiff€offersÏmany€scenarios,€such€as€an€immediate€confiscation€of€PatilloððsÏkeys€or€his€placement€in€the€officerððs€patrol€car,€which€couldÏhave€prevented€his€escape.€€However,€when€viewed€most€favorablyÏto€the€plaintiff,€the€undisputed€material€evidence€does€notÏestablish€that€the€officerððs€conduct€was€a€gross€œor€a€recklessÏdeviation›€from€œthe›€reasonable€standard€of€care,€and€theÏallegation€that€the€officer€œwas›€œð ðrecklessð ð›€is€a€legalÏconclusion,€which,€standing€alone,€œdoes€not€state€a€cause€ofÏaction.›€€òòSee€Griggs,€et€al.,€v.€Burson,€et€al.,€óó___€S.W.2d€€___,Ï(Tenn.€Filed€March€10,€1997,€Knoxville).€€œÌà àà àFinally,›€plaintiff€argues€that€her€complaint€isÍactionable€under€the€òòEzellóó€exception€No.€2,€œi.e.,€where›€aÏstatute€specifically€provides€for€a€cause€of€action€against€anÏofficial€or€municipality€for€injuries€resulting€to€a€particularÏclass€of€œindividuals›€œof›€which€plaintiff€is€a€œmember.›€€òòEzellóó€atÏ402.€€She€œrelies€on€the€following€statute:›€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 à[N]o€municipality€or€county€nor€the€state€or€any€ofÏits€political€subdivisions,€nor€their€officers€orÏemployees,€shall€be€liable€for€any€injury€proximatelyÏor€indirectly€caused€to€an€actual€or€suspectedÏviolator€of€a€law€or€ordinance€who€is€fleeing€pursuitÏby€law€enforcement€personnel.€€The€fact€that€lawÏenforcement€personnel€pursue€an€actual€or€suspectedÏviolator€of€a€law€or€ordinance€who€flees€from€suchÏpursuit€shall€not€render€the€law€enforcementÏpersonnel,€or€the€employers€of€such€personnel,€liableÏfor€injuries€to€a€third„party€proximately€caused€byÏthe€fleeing€party€unless€the€conduct€of€the€lawÏenforcement€personnel€was€negligent€and€suchÏnegligence€was€a€proximate€case€of€the€injuries€to€theÏthird€party.Ìà0 àà0 àœÌT.C.A.›€ðð€55„8„108(e).ÓÓÌà àà àThe€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provide€that:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àEvery€pleading€stating€a€claim€or€defense€relying€uponÏthe€violation€of€a€statute€shall,€in€a€separate€countÏor€paragraph,€either€specifically€refer€to€the€statuteÏor€state€all€of€the€facts€necessary€to€constitute€suchÏbreach€so€that€the€other€party€can€be€duly€appraisedÏof€the€statutory€violation€charged.€.€.€.€ÌÌÓÓT.R.C.P.€8.05.€€Plaintiffððs€complaint€neither€specificallyÏrefers€to€T.C.A.€ðð55„8„108(e),€nor€does€it€recite€factsÏsupporting€such€a€claim.€€Accordingly,€the€pleadings€do€notÏbring€the€case€within€œthis›€exception€to€the€public€dutyÏdoctrine.Ìà àà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÍand€remand€at€appellantððs€cost.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌ