ÿWPCž" 2# ÌUN× %% 0 (+w@S4“§ 0l¶ 0D" 0Jf 0D° 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡ U>ë B)) 0@R D3’ DCÅ AM U*U  ó€ ´s ú' AQ!Ær B8 0DU D/™ BÈhåv~MvÓ˘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ˜U™ š › œ £žŸ Ó€¬äzz!3|x¬((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2" 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò++++'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd* "Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMay€6,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó éÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPrior€to€granting€the€Defendantsðð€motions€to€dismiss,€the€trial€court€entered€an€agreedÏorder€consolidating€the€cases.€Ì ªÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝT.C.A.€ðððð€29„20„101€to€29„20„407€(1980€&€Supp.€1996).Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Plaintiffs€suggest€that€ò òòòEzelló óóó€was€wrongly€decided€and€that,€contrary€to€the€supremeÏcourtððs€holding€therein,€the€legislature€did€not€intend€for€the€public€duty€doctrine€to€survive€passageÏof€the€GTLA.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€the€Plaintiffs€cite€the€GTLAððs€following€language:ÌÌà8 àà8 àWherein€immunity€from€suit€is€removed€by€this€chapter,€consent€toÏbe€sued€is€granted€and€liability€of€the€governmental€entity€shall€beÏdetermined€òòò òas€if€the€governmental€entity€were€a€privateÏpersonó óóó.ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€29„20„206€(1980)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Plaintiffs€then€argue€that:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThis€section€was€completely€overlooked€in€the€ò òòòEzelló óóó€decision.€€OnÏits€face,...€it€commands€the€courts€to€adjudicate€the€liability€ofÏgovernmental€entities€as€if€they€were€private€persons.€€Since€privateÏpersons€are€not€protected€by€the€public€duty€doctrine,€neither€areÏgovernmental€entities€or€their€agents.ÌÌWhile€the€Plaintiffs€raise€an€interesting€argument€with€regard€to€construction€of€the€GTLA,€we€areÏunwilling€to€presume€that€the€supreme€court,€in€deciding€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€was€unaware€of€the€cited€languageÏin€section€29„20„206.€€More€importantly,€however,€this€Court€is€not€at€liberty€to€depart€fromÏprecedent€decisions€of€the€supreme€court€of€this€state.€€ò òòòEstate€of€Schultzv.€Munford,€Inc.ó óóó,Ï650€S.W.2d€37,€39€(Tenn.€App.€1982).Ì* ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ^Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝInasmuch€as€we€have€concluded€that€the€public€duty€doctrine€bars€the€Plaintiffsðð€lawsuits,Ïwe€need€not€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€Sheriffððs€failure€to€execute€the€arrest€warrantÏconstituted€a€discretionary€act.€€Under€the€GTLA,€a€governmental€entity€is€immune€from€suits€forÏinjuries€arising€out€of€a€governmental€employeeððs€performance€of,€or€failure€to€perform,€aÏdiscretionary€function.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð29„20„205(1)(1980);€ò òòòsee€generallyó óóó€ò òòòBowers€ex€rel.ÏBowersv.€City€of€Chattanoogaó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€427,€430„32€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€declining€toÏaddress€this€issue,€we€reject€the€Plaintiffsðð€argument€that€the€public€duty€doctrine€applies€only€toÏacts€involving€the€exercise€of€discretion.€€Rather,€we€interpret€ò òòòEzelló óóó€to€mean€that€the€public€dutyÏdoctrine€exists€in€addition€to,€and€independent€of,€the€exceptions€to€the€waiver€of€governmentalÏimmunity€expressly€listed€in€the€GTLA.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€400€(citing€T.C.A.€ððÏ29„20„205(1)„„(8)€(1980€&€Supp.€1994)).€€If€the€public€duty€doctrine€were€to€apply€only€to€actsÏinvolving€the€exercise€of€discretion,€as€the€Plaintiffs€urge,€then€the€doctrine€would€be€subsumed€byÏthe€GTLAððs€discretionary€function€exception.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌERICA€REBECCA€HURD,€deceasedó óà à)à àMadison€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òby€and€through€her€parents€and€nextó óà à)à àNos.€C„95„284„I€and€C„95„295„IÌò òfriends,€CHARLES€and€VIRGINIAó óà à)Ìò òHURD,€and€CORTNEY€DESHAUNó óà à)Ìò òRAGLAND,€a€minor,€by€and€through€hisó óà à)Ìò ònext€friend,€WANDA€KAY€GRIMEó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9607„CV„00170ÌÙ€*ÙßR€#%"A1-j|ƒü¤` Å `€€@ÿRßà à)Ìò òDAVID€WOOLFORK,€individually€and€ó óà à)Ìò òas€an€agent,€servant,€employee,€Sheriff,ó óà à)Ìò òand€representative€of€MADISONó óà à)Ìò òCOUNTY,€TENNESSEE€and€ó óà à)Ìò òMADISON€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Madison€County€at€Jackson.Ìò òHonorable€Whit€A.€Lafon,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òLarry€C.€Sandersó ó,ÌGARRETY€&€SANDERS,€P.C.,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òBlake€Andersonó ó,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee,€Daivd€Woolfork,€Individually.ÌÌò òJames€I.€Pentecostó ó,ÌWALDROP€&€HALL,€P.A.,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€Sheriff€David€Woolfork€and€Madison€County,€Tennessee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àPlaintiffs€Erica€Rebecca€Hurd,€deceased,€by€and€through€her€parents€and€nextÏfriends,€Charles€and€Virginia€Hurd,€and€Cortney€Deshaun€Ragland,€a€minor,€by€and€through€hisÏnext€friend,€Wanda€Kay€Grimes,€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€order€dismissing€their€wrongful€deathÏactions€against€Defendants/Appellees€Madison€County€and€David€Woolfork,€Madison€CountyððsÏSheriff.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àIn€their€respective€complaints,€the€Plaintiffs€sued€Sheriff€Woolfork€and€MadisonÏCounty€for€the€wrongful€deaths€of€Plaintiff€Erica€Rebecca€Hurd€and€Charles€Edward€Ragland,ÏPlaintiff€Cortney€Deshaun€Raglandððs€father.€€It€is€further€alleged€that€Hurd€and€Ragland€were€killedÏby€one€Farris€G.€Morris,€Jr.,€on€September17,€1994.€€A€warrant€for€Morrisððs€arrest€had€beenÏissued€on€September7,€1994,€but€Sheriff€Woolforkððs€office€had€not€executed€the€warrant€byÏSeptember17,€1994,€the€date€Hurd€and€Ragland€were€killed.ÌÌà àSpecifically,€the€Plaintiffsðð€complaints€contained€the€following€factual€allegations:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à5.à àOn€or€about€August23,€1994,€Farris€G.€Morris,Jr.Ïwas€arrested€and€charged€with€aggravated€rape€in€Madison€County,ÏTennessee.€€On€or€about€August30,€1994,€a€preliminary€hearingÏwas€held€on€the€aggravated€rape€charges€against€Morris€andÏsufficient€evidence€was€found€to€believe€that€such€crime€hadÏoccurred€and€the€case€was€bound€over€to€the€Madison€County€GrandÏJury.€€On€or€about€September7,€1994,€a€warrant€for€Morrisðð€arrestÏcharging€violation€of€the€terms€of€his€probation€from€a€1992€drugÏsale€conviction.€€Such€arrest€warrant€was€duly€signed€by€a€properlyÏauthorized€judge€and€delivered€to€David€Woolfork,€Sheriff€ofÏMadison€County,€Tennessee.ÌÌà8 àà à6.à àThe€said€David€Woolfork,€in€direct€violation€of€theÏduties€imposed€upon€him€under€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð8„8„201Ïengaged€in€extremely€reckless€conduct€by€failing€to€promptly€andÏproperly€process€said€warrant€for€Morrisðð€arrest€although€the€saidÏDavid€Woolfork€and/or€members€of€the€Madison€County€SheriffððsÍDepartment€knew€or€should€have€known€of€the€dangerous€andÏviolent€propensity€of€the€said€Morris€to€commit€serious€acts€ofÏbodily€harm€and€despite€having€been€informed€by€the€neighbors€ofÏthe€said€Morris€of€his€continuing€course€of€conduct€that€threatenedÏthe€members€of€the€neighborhood€in€which€Morris€resided.€€SaidÏarrest€warrant€of€September7,€1994,€was€never€even€processed€byÏthe€said€David€Woolfork€or€members€of€his€staff€until€afterÏSeptember17,€1994.ÌÌà8 àà à7.à àDavid€Woolforkððs€continuing€course€of€recklessÏconduct€in€failing€to€process€the€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€the€saidÏMorris€and€his€gross€negligence€in€failing€to€even€discover€that€suchÏwarrant€had€been€properly€delivered€to€his€office€for€processingÏcontinued€until€after€September17,€1994.ÌÌÓÓÌThe€complaints€further€alleged,€respectively,€that€on€September17,€1994:ÌÌÓÓà8 àMorris€brutally€beat€and€stabbed€young€Erica€Rebecca€Hurd€to€deathÏwhile€she€was€visiting€her€sister€who€resided€in€the€same€duplex€inÏwhich€Morris€was€known€by€the€Defendant€to€be€living.ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€Morris€brutally€murdered€and€killed€Charles€EdwardÏRagland€by€shooting€him€in€the€head€with€a€shotgun.€€The€saidÏCharles€Edward€Ragland€lived€and€resided€in€the€same€duplex€inÏwhich€the€said€Morris€was€known€by€the€Defendants€to€be€living.€€ÌÌÓÓÌIn€seeking€to€hold€Sheriff€Woolfork€and€Madison€County€liable€for€the€deaths€of€Hurd€andÏRagland,€the€Plaintiffs€alleged€the€following€causes€of€action:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€reckless€conduct€of€David€Woolfork€and€his€failure€toÏfulfill€the€duties€imposed€upon€him€by€T.C.A.€ðð8„8„201€and€theÏgross€negligence€of€the€named€Defendants€in€failing€to€fulfill€theÏduties€of€the€Sheriffððs€office€directly€and€proximately€led€to€theÏviolent€death[s]€of€[Erica€Rebecca€Hurd€and€Charles€EdwardÏRagland]€for€which€each€of€the€above„named€Defendants€should€beÏheld€both€jointly€and€severally€liable.€€The€further€reckless€andÏgrossly€negligent€conduct€of€the€Defendant,€David€Woolfork,€inÏdevoting€his€time€and€attention€to€the€political€aspects€of€his€electedÏposition€rather€[than]€to€fulfilling€the€duties€statutorily€imposed€uponÏhim€by€T.C.A.€ðð8„8„201,€constitutes€a€separate€and€distinct€cause€ofÏaction€for€which€the€said€David€Woolfork€should€be€heldÏindividually€responsible.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àContending€that€the€complaints€failed€to€state€claims€upon€which€relief€could€beÏgranted,€the€Defendants€subsequently€filed€motions€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€rule€12.02(6)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€As€grounds€for€their€motions,€the€Defendants€argued€that€theÏPlaintiffsðð€wrongful€death€actions€were€barred€by€(1)the€public€duty€doctrine€of€governmentalÏimmunity€and,€alternatively,€(2)discretionary€function€immunity.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏmotions,€and€this€appeal€followed.× ƒ& ××  ×€€ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€recently€summarized€the€standard€to€be€applied€by€a€court€inÏaddressing€a€motion€to€dismiss€a€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€beÏgranted:ÌÌÓÓà8 àSuch€a€motion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€tests€the€legalÏsufficiency€of€a€complaint;€it€admits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€andÏmaterial€allegations,€ð ðbut€asserts€that€such€òòò òfactsó óóó€do€not€constitute€aÏcause€of€action€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€ò òòòPursellv.€First€AmericanÏNational€Bank€et€al.ó óóó,€[937€S.W.2d€838,€840]€(Tenn.€1996)Ï(emphasis€added).ÌÌà8 àà àIn€ruling€on€such€a€motion,€courts€must€construe€theÏallegations€in€the€plaintiffððs€favor€and€accept€allegations€of€fact€asÏtrue.€€However,€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€or€theÏlegal€conclusions€as€set€forth€in€a€complaint€are€not€required€to€beÏtaken€as€true.€€ò òòòDobbsv.€Guentheró óóó,€846€S.W.2d€270,€273€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1992).ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòRiggsv.€Bursonó óóó,€No.€03„S„01„9603„CV„00032,€1997€WL€102427,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Mar.10,Ï1997)€(emphasis€in€original).€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that,€even€accepting€theirÏallegations€of€fact€as€true,€the€Plaintiffsðð€complaints€fail€to€state€claims€upon€which€relief€can€beÏgranted.ÌÌò òòòà@ àPUBLIC€DUTY€DOCTRINEó óóóÌÌà àIn€ò òòòEzell€v.€Cockrelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€394,€404€(Tenn.€1995),€the€supreme€courtÏconfirmed€that€the€public€duty€doctrine€had€survived€the€enactment€of€Tennesseeððs€GovernmentalÏTort€Liability€Act€(GTLA).× ƒ' ××  ×€€In€defining€the€public€duty€doctrine,€the€court€explained€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€public€duty€doctrine€originated€at€common„law€andÏshields€a€public€employee€from€suits€for€injuries€that€are€caused€byÏthe€public€employeeððs€breach€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€public€at€large.€ÏKelly€M.€Tullier,€ò òòòGovernmental€Liability€for€NegligentÏFailure€to€Detain€Drunk€Driversó óóó,€77€Cornell€L.€Rev.€873,€886Ï(1992).€€The€doctrine€can€be€traced€to€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourtððs€decision€in€ò òòòSouthv.€Marylandó óóó,€59€U.S.€(18€How.)€396,Ï15€L.€Ed.€433€(1855),€which€held€that€a€sheriff€is€not€liable€forÏfailing€to€protect€a€kidnap€victim€because€the€sheriffððs€duty€to€keepÏthe€peace€was€ð ða€public€duty,€for€neglect€of€which€he€is€amenable€toÏthe€public,€and€Ô&  Ôpunishable€by€indictment€only.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€403.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòEzelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€397.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àIn€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€the€plaintiffððs€husband€was€killed€and€the€plaintiff€was€seriously€injuredÏby€an€intoxicated€driver.€€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€396.€€Earlier€in€the€evening,€the€police€chief€of€theÏCity€of€Elkton€had€permitted€the€driver€to€operate€an€intoxicated€friendððs€car€when€the€police€chiefÏallegedly€knew,€or€should€have€known,€that€the€driver€also€was€intoxicated.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€The€plaintiffÏsued€the€City€of€Elkton€and€its€police€chief€based€on€the€police€chiefððs€negligence€in€failing€to€arrestÏthe€intoxicated€driver.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€396„97.€€Reaffirming€the€viability€of€the€public€duty€doctrine,€theÏcourt€concluded€that€the€doctrine€barred€the€plaintiffððs€suit.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€404.ÌÌà àWe€similarly€conclude€that€the€allegations€of€the€Plaintiffsðð€complaints€bring€theirÏactions€against€Sheriff€Woolfork€and€Madison€County€within€the€public€duty€doctrine€ofÍgovernmental€immunity.€€The€Plaintiffsðð€theory€of€negligence€was€that€the€Sheriff€failed€toÏpromptly€and€properly€process€the€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€Farris€G.€Morris,€Jr.€€A€sheriffððs€dutyÏto€keep€the€peace,€however,€includes€the€execution€of€arrest€warrants€and€is€a€public€duty,€ð ðnotÏowed€to€any€individual€in€particular.ðð€€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€397.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€therefore,€the€public€duty€doctrine€bars€the€Plaintiffsðð€present€actions€against€SheriffÏWoolfork€and€Madison€County.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àAlthough€our€research€revealed€no€reported€Tennessee€decisions€addressing€thisÏissue,€we€note€that€our€conclusion€is€supported€by€a€Texas€courtððs€decision€in€ò òòòMunoz€ex€rel.ÏMartinezv.€Cameron€Countyó óóó,€725€S.W.2d€319€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€There,€the€plaintiffsÏbrought€a€wrongful€death€action€against€Cameron€County€and€the€county€sheriff,€alleging€that€theÏdeath€of€the€plaintiffsðð€mother€was€caused€by€the€sheriffððs€failure€to€execute€an€arrest€warrant.€Ïò òòòMunozó óóó,€725€S.W.2d€at€319„20.€€Pursuant€to€a€complaint€filed€by€the€decedent,€an€arrest€warrantÏhad€been€issued€for€the€decedentððs€husband€charging€him€with€aggravated€assault.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€320.€ÏAlthough€the€Sheriff€received€the€warrant€on€October17,€by€November6€the€Sheriff€still€had€notÍexecuted€the€warrant.€€On€that€day,€the€warrant€was€withdrawn€after€the€decedentððs€husband€agreedÏto€turn€himself€in€to€police.€€Apparently,€however,€the€husband€did€not€turn€himself€in€asÏpromised.€€On€November16,€he€shot€and€killed€the€decedent.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.ÌÌà àHolding€that€the€plaintiffsðð€action€was€barred€by€the€public€duty€doctrine€first€setÏforth€in€ò òòòSouthv.€Marylandó óóó,€the€court€reasoned:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[W]e€can€find€no€case€in€which€a€sheriff€or€other€law€enforcementÏofficer€has€been€held€liable€for€personal€injury€damages€for€failure€toÏexecute€a€criminal€warrant€of€arrest.ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà à...[I]t€goes€without€saying€that€a€sheriff€has€a€duty€toÏexecute€an€arrest€warrant€that€comes€to€his€hand,€much€the€same€asÏhe€has€a€duty€to€keep€and€maintain€the€peace.ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà àWe€believe€the€rule€of€ò òòòSouthv.€Marylandó óóó€applies€to€theÏpresent€situation.€€The€purpose€of€the€warrant€of€arrest€is€to€bringÏthe€Ô&  Ôaccused€lawbreaker€to€court€to€answer€for€the€commission€of€anÏalleged€offense€and€is€not€to€prevent€future€crimes€from€occurring.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòMunozó óóó,€725€S.W.2d€at€321„22.Ô'  ÔÌÌÔ&  Ôò òòòà@ àSPECIAL€DUTY€EXCEPTIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€Plaintiffs€contend,€however,€that€the€public€duty€doctrine€does€not€apply€in€thisÏÔ'  Ôcase€because€the€allegations€of€their€complaints€bring€their€actions€within€the€special€duty€exceptionÏto€the€doctrine.€€In€adhering€to€the€public€duty€doctrine€in€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€the€supreme€court€recognized€theÏcontinuing€viability€of€the€special€duty€exception€to€the€doctrineððs€no„liability€rule.€€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€902ÏS.W.2d€at€401.€€The€special€duty€exception€applies€ð ðwhere€a€ððspecial€relationshipðð€exists€betweenÏthe€plaintiff€and€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€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€In€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€the€court€undertook€toÍfurther€refine€the€special€duty€exception€and€concluded€that€application€of€the€exception€should€beÏlimited€to€the€following€three€circumstances:ÌÌÓÓà8 à1)à à[When]€officials,€by€their€actions,€affirmatively€undertake€toÏprotect€the€plaintiff,€and€the€plaintiff€relies€upon€the€undertaking;ÌÌà8 à2)à à[When]€a€statute€specifically€provides€for€a€cause€of€actionÏagainst€an€official€or€municipality€for€injuries€resulting€to€a€particularÏclass€of€individuals,€of€which€the€plaintiff€is€a€member,€from€failureÏto€enforce€certain€laws;€orÌÌÔ&  Ôà8 à3)à à[When]€the€plaintiff€alleges€a€cause€of€action€involvingÏintent,€malice,€or€reckless€misconduct.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€402.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àDespite€its€recognition€of€the€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine,€theÏcourt€concluded€that€the€exception€did€not€apply€in€ò òòòEzelló óóó.€€Regarding€the€first€circumstance,€theÏcourt€explained€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€plaintiffððs€allegations€do€not€support€application€of€aÏð ðspecial„dutyðð€of€care.€€Neither€[the€police€chief]€nor€the€City€ofÏElkton€had,€by€their€actions,€affirmatively€undertaken€to€protect€theÏplaintiff.€€In€fact,€[the€police€chief]€never€had€any€contact€with€theÏplaintiff;€thus,€the€defendants€had€taken€no€action€which€would€haveÏÔ&  Ôcaused€the€plaintiff€to€particularly€rely€upon€them€for€protection.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòEzelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€403.€€The€court€also€rejected€the€plaintiffððs€argument€that€a€special€duty€ofÏcareÔ'  Ô€arose€from€certain€statutes€pertaining€to€drunk€driving,€public€intoxication,€and€the€generalÏauthority€and€responsibility€of€police€officers€to€enforce€laws€and€make€arrests.€€The€courtÏreasoned€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àSuch€statutes€neither€impose€a€mandatory€duty€to€arrest€everyÏmotorist€suspected€of€driving€under€the€influence,€nor€authorizeÏnegligence€actions€against€police€officers€who€do€not€arrest€everyÏsuspected€drunk€driver.ÌÌÓÓÌòòò òIdó óóó.€€Finally,€the€court€concluded€that€the€third€circumstance€did€not€apply€because€the€plaintiffððsÏallegations€did€not€establish€intentional,€malicious,€or€reckless€conduct€but,€instead,€establishedÏonly€simple€negligence.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.ÌÌà àAfter€careful€consideration,€we€likewise€conclude€that€none€of€the€foregoingÏcircumstances€apply€in€this€case€and,€thus,€that€the€special€duty€exception€does€not€preventÏdismissal€of€the€Plaintiffsðð€actions.€€As€in€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€neither€Sheriff€Woolfork€nor€Madison€CountyÏhad,€by€their€actions,€affirmatively€undertaken€to€protect€the€decedents€in€this€case,€Hurd€andÏRagland.€€According€to€the€Plaintiffsðð€complaints,€the€Madison€County€Sheriffððs€Department€hadÏð ðbeen€informed€by€the€neighbors€of€the€said€Morris€of€his€continuing€course€of€conduct€thatÏthreatened€the€members€of€the€neighborhood€in€which€Morris€resided.ðð€€The€complaints€contain€noÏallegations,€however,€that€either€of€the€Plaintiffsðð€decedents€had€contacted,€or€been€contacted€by,ÏSheriff€Woolfork€or€the€Sheriffððs€Department€concerning€Morrisððs€threatening€conduct.€€TheÏcomplaints€also€contain€no€allegations€that€the€decedents€relied€upon€Sheriff€Woolfork€or€hisÏdepartment€to€provide€them€with€protection€from€Morris.€€ò òòòCf.ó óóó€ò òòòMillerv.€Niblackó óóó,€No.Ï02A01„9505„CV„00101,€1996€WL€578492,€at€*6€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.9,€1996)€(concluding€thatÏspecial€duty€exception€applied€where,€pursuant€to€state€contract,€defendants€affirmativelyÏundertook€to€accurately€record€plaintiffsðð€court„ordered€blood€tests€and€plaintiffs€were€justified€inÏrelying€upon€defendants€to€do€so),€ò òòòperm.€app.€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€Mar.3,€1997).ÌÌà àEven€in€ò òòòMunozó óóó,€where€the€plaintiffsðð€decedent€was€the€victim€of€the€aggravatedÏassault€for€which€the€arrest€warrant€was€issued,€the€Texas€court€still€concluded€that€no€specialÏrelationship€existed€between€the€sheriff€and€the€decedent.€€The€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOur€inquiry€then€is€whether€this€duty€to€timely€execute€aÏwarrant€is€owed€to€a€particular€person€or€is€owed€to€the€publicÏgenerally.ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà àThe€exceptions€to€this€rule€of€non„liability€appear€mainly€toÏbe€where€a€special€relationship€is€created€between€the€victim€and€theÏagency€or€officer....ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà àIn€reviewing€the€summary€judgment€evidence,€we€find€noÏevidence€that€could€be€construed€as€creating€a€special€relationshipÏunder€the...€cited€cases€between€the€deceased€and€the...€sheriff.€ÏIn€Ô&  Ôthe€absence€of€a€special€relationship,€no€liability€exists€at€commonÏlaw.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòMunozó óóó,€725€S.W.2d€at€321„22.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àWe€also€reject€the€Plaintiffsðð€contention€that€the€second€part€of€the€special€dutyÏexception€applies€by€virtue€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€8„8„201(1)€and€8„8„207.€ÏSection€8„8„201(1)€imposes€upon€sheriffs€the€duty€to:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àExecute€and€return,€according€to€law,€the€process€and€ordersÏof€the€courts€of€record€of€this€state,€and€of€officers€of€competentÏauthority,€with€due€diligence,€when€delivered€to€the€sheriff€for€thatÏpurpose.ÌÌÓÓÌT.C.A.€ðð€8„8„201(1)€(1993).€€Section€8„8„207€further€provides€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àA€sheriffððs€disobedience€of€the€command€of€any€process€is€aÏcontempt€of€the€court€from€which€it€issued,€and€may€be€punishedÏaccordingly;€òòò òand€such€sheriff€is€further€liable€to€the€actionÏof€the€party€aggrievedó óóó.ÌÌÓÓÌT.C.A.€ðð€8„8„207€(1993)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àCiting€the€foregoing€language,€the€Plaintiffs€contend€that€the€special€duty€exceptionÏapplies€in€this€case€because€section€8„8„207€specifically€provides€for€a€cause€of€action€against€theÍsheriff€by€imposing€liability€against€him€for€his€failure€to€obey€the€command€of€any€process.€€WeÏconclude,€however,€that€the€exception€does€not€apply€because€the€Plaintiffs€are€not€members€of€theÏparticular€class€of€individuals€referred€to€in€the€statute.€€Specifically,€the€Plaintiffs€do€not€qualify€asÏaggrieved€parties€for€purposes€of€section€8„8„207€because€the€Plaintiffs€are€not€parties€to€theÏunderlying€action€for€which€the€arrest€warrant€was€issued.€€The€only€parties€to€that€action€were€theÏState€of€Tennessee€and€FarrisG.€Morris,Jr.€€òòò òSee€Mallder€v.€Rasmussenóóó ó,€495€N.E.2d€1356,Ï1357„58€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1986)€(concluding€that,€where€Illinois€statute€similarly€provided€that€sheriffÏwho€disobeys€command€of€any€writ,€warrant,€process,€order,€or€decree€shall€be€liable€to€ð ðpartyÏaggrieved,ðð€sheriffððs€liability€under€statute€was€limited€to€ð ðparties€to€the€proceedingðð);€ò òòòcf.ó óóóÏò òòòMaxwellv.€Hixsonó óóó,€383€F.€Supp.€320,€324€(E.D.€Tenn.€1974)€(concluding€that,€underÏpredecessor€of€T.C.A.€ðð€8„8„207,€party€to€judicial€attachment€or€garnishment€proceeding€couldÏrecover€from€sheriff€any€damage€sustained€by€party€as€result€of€sheriffððs€false€or€unlawful€return€ofÏprocess),€ò òòòaffððdó óóó,€425€U.S.€927€(1976).ÌÌà àFinally,€we€reject€the€Plaintiffsðð€contention€that€the€special€duty€exception€applies€inÏtheir€cases€because€their€complaints€allege€causes€of€action€involving€reckless€conduct.€€It€is€trueÏthat€both€Plaintiffsðð€complaints€allege€that€Sheriff€Woolfork€ð ðengaged€in€extremely€recklessÏconductðð€by€failing€to€promptly€process€the€warrant€for€Morrisððs€arrest.€€The€allegation€that€SheriffÏWoolfork€engaged€in€ð ðrecklessðð€conduct,€however,€is€a€legal€conclusion.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòSheimanv.ÏLafayette€Bank€&€Trust€Co.ó óóó,€492€A.2d€219,€223€(Conn.€App.€Ct.€1985)€(concluding€thatÏmere€use€of€word€ð ðrecklessðð€in€complaint€is€insufficient€to€raise€actionable€claim€because€allegationÏof€reckless€conduct€is€conclusion€of€law);€ò òòòHearonv.€City€of€Chicagoó óóó,€510€N.E.2d€1192,Ï1195€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(holding€that€complaintððs€allegation€of€recklessness€was€legal€conclusionÏunsupported€by€allegations€of€specific€acts).€€In€ruling€on€the€Defendantsðð€motions€to€dismiss,€theÏtrial€court,€and€this€court€on€appeal,€are€not€required€to€accept€such€legal€conclusions€as€true.€Ïò òòòRiggsv.€Bursonó óóó,€No.€03„S„01„9603„CV„00032,€1997€WL€102427,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Mar.10,Ï1997).€€Only€the€complaintsðð€factual€allegations€must€be€accepted€as€true.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€The€only€allegedÍfactual€basis€for€the€Plaintiffsðð€claims€of€reckless€conduct€is€that€Sheriff€Woolfork€was€ð ðdevotingÏhis€time€and€attention€to€the€political€aspects€of€his€elected€position€rather€[than]€to€fulfilling€theÏduties€statutorily€imposed€upon€him€by€T.C.A.€ðð8„8„201.ðð€€At€most,€these€factual€allegationsÏestablish€simple€negligence.€€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€403.ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€ò òòòEzellv.€Cockrelló óóó,€902ÏS.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€1995),€we€hold€that€the€public€duty€doctrine€of€governmental€immunity€barsÏthe€Plaintiffsðð€present€lawsuits€against€Sheriff€Woolfork€and€Madison€County€and,€further,€that€theÏPlaintiffsðð€complaints€fail€to€contain€allegations€which€would€bring€the€Plaintiffsðð€actions€within€theÏdoctrineððs€special€duty€exception.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellants,Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à_______________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)