ÿWPC8% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µU<Ýw@ 4Y m | 0l„ 0Dð 4 UD< 0J€ 0TÊ 0^ 0h| 0rä 0|V 0†Ò 0X 1uè U ,] 0d‰ Bí D3 U,=U >i 0@§B)çDC AMSU* "ÊCìZ/‰|‘ d&¸Šv~BvÓÀ AO“#Æâ# 0D¨$ D/ì$ B%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman 0E12E34D5D6U7î8Ó€BDÒ ,Y¶4[P3|xB((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌJuly€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€Eakin„Weakley€is€not€a€ð ðthrough€street,ðð€rather€it€leads€to€parkingÏlots€on€the€side€of€the€state€capitol€building.€€Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€Eakin„Weakley€is€on€the€north€side€of€Charlotte€Avenue€andÏbecomes€Seventh€Avenue€North€once€a€motorist€crosses€Charlotte€AvenueÏtraveling€south.€€Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€Metro€Transit€Authority€dispatcher€placed€the€call€to€the€policeÏdispatcher€after€receiving€a€call€from€a€Metro€bus€driver€who€reportedÏthat€there€had€been€an€accident€at€the€corner€of€Seventh€Avenue€North€andÏCharlotte€Avenue.€€The€bus€driver€apparently€did€not€mention€that€theÏtraffic€signal€had€been€knocked€down.€Ì rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€testimony€at€trial€established€that€Metro€Police€policy€allowsÏan€officer€to€leave€an€intersection€with€a€disabled€traffic€light€as€long€asÏthe€traffic€volume€is€ð ðlight.ðð€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€northeast€corner€of€the€intersection€is€occupied€by€the€stateÏcapitol€building.Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔOfficer€Crockett€apparently€determined€that€traffic€was€ð ðlightððÏbased€only€on€the€number€of€cars€in€the€parking€lots€surrounding€Eakin„Weakley€Drive.€€€Ì ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Grissim€was€at€work€repairing€trafficÏsignals€on€the€afternoon€of€October€24th,€and€that€he€could€have€reachedÏthe€intersection€approximately€thirty€minutes€after€receiving€notificationÏof€the€inoperative€signal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€++X„d&ÓÑ#€++Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÑ7€WXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òJOHN€F.€NICHOLS€ANDÌKERRY€L.€STEWART,€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavidson€Circuit€No.€89C„3148Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9509„CV„00393ÌÙ€€ÙßL€02/;+'h|„þ~` ç `€€LßÌò òMETROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENTÌOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€ÌCOUNTY,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant,ÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€DAVIDSON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€HAMILTON€V.€GAYDEN,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌà@ àJohn€C.€Lyell,€II,€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€Plaintiffs„AppelleesÌÌà@ àJames€L.€Murphy,€III,€Director€of€Law,€Ìà@ àDepartment€of€Law€of€the€Metropolitan€Ìà@ àGovernment€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€CountyÌà@ àJohn€L.€Kennedy€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àCharles€W.€Burson,€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌà@ àRachel€L.€Steele,€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà@ àFor€Appellee,€State€of€TennesseeÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÓÓ›à àThis€appeal€arises€out€of€an€automobile€accident€which€occurredÏin€Nashville€at€the€four„way€intersection€of€Charlotte€Avenue€andÏEakin„Weakley€Drive€(Seventh€Avenue€North)€on€October€24,€1988.€ÏPlaintiffs,€John€F.€Nichols€and€Kerry€L.€Stewart,€filed€suit€againstÏdefendant,€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€CountyÏ(Metro),€for€personal€injuries€sustained€in€the€accident.€€They€also€filedÏclaims€with€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€against€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€Subsequently,€the€claims€commission€cases€wereÏtransferred€for€trial€to€the€circuit€court€and€consolidated€for€trial€withÍthe€plaintiffsðð€actions€against€Metro€in€the€circuit€court.€€€Ìà àWith€respect€to€Metro,€plaintiffsðð€complaint€alleges€that€onÏOctober€24,€1988,€there€was€a€traffic€signal€light€ð ðdownðð€at€theÏintersection€of€Eakin„Weakley€Drive€and€Charlotte€Avenue.€€TheÏcomplaint€alleges€that€because€the€traffic€signal€was€down,€Billy€C.ÏStair,€a€state€employee,€crashed€into€plaintiffsðð€vehicle€atÏapproximately€6:15€p.m.€€The€complaint€avers€that€Metro€was€negligentÏbecause€of€the€failure€of€its€employees€to€promptly€warn€of€the€downedÏtraffic€signal€and€to€provide€proper€traffic€control€after€having€noticeÏof€the€dangerous€condition€created€by€the€ð ðdownedðð€signal.€€TheÏcomplaint€further€avers€that€the€negligence€of€Metroððs€employees€was€aÏdirect€and€proximate€cause€of€plaintiffsðð€injuries.€€Ìà àMetroððs€answer€admits€that€the€traffic€light€at€the€intersectionÏwas€down,€admits€that€there€was€a€collision€at€the€intersection,€andÏjoins€issue€on€the€remaining€allegations€of€the€complaint.€€Metro€aversÏthat€the€negligence€of€Billy€Stair,€in€conjunction€with€the€negligence€ofÏthe€plaintiffs,€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€collision€and€theÏresulting€injuries.€€Metro€further€avers€that€the€decision€not€to€provideÏemergency€relief€at€the€intersection€was€a€discretionary€act€for€whichÍimmunity€from€suit€is€preserved€by€T.C.A.€€ðð€29„20„205€(1980).€€Ìà àThe€intersection€of€Charlotte€and€Eakin„Weakley€is€controlled€byÏtraffic€signals€in€all€four€directions.€€Plaintiff€Kerry€Stewart€wasÏdriving€her€vehicle€westbound€on€Charlotte€Avenue€when€her€vehicleÏwas€struck€by€Billy€C.€Stair€who€was€traveling€southbound€on€Eakin„Weakley€Drive.€€At€the€time€of€the€collision,€the€traffic€signalÏcontrolling€westbound€traffic€on€Charlotte€was€green,€and€the€trafficÏsignal€controlling€southbound€traffic€on€Eakin„Weakley€was€inoperativeÏdue€to€an€accident€prior€to€the€accident€in€this€case.€€Immediately€priorÏto€the€accident€in€this€case,€Mr.€Stair€€was€exiting€Eakin„WeakleyÏDrive× ƒ3 ××  ×€and€was€on€his€way€home€from€work.€€Mr.€Stair€is€an€employee€ofÏthe€State€of€Tennessee,€and€at€the€time€of€the€collision,€he€was€drivingÏan€automobile€owned€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ìà àPlaintiff€Stewart€testified€that€there€were€no€warning€signsÏindicating€that€the€traffic€light€for€Eakin„Weakley€was€inoperative,€andÏthat€Stair's€automobile€appeared€suddenly€and€that€there€was€no€chanceÏto€avoid€him.€€Mr.€Stair€testified€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€area€andÍthe€intersection€since€œEakin„Weakley›€was€his€normal€and€customaryÏroute€to€and€from€work.€€Mr.€Stair€also€testified€that€he€did€not€slowÏdown€at€the€intersection€of€Charlotte€and€Eakin„Weakley,€because€heÏthought€he€had€a€green€light.€€He€further€testified€that€he€did€not€noticeÏthat€the€traffic€light€controlling€€œEakin„Weakley›€Drive€was€missing,Ïand€that€his€view€of€westbound€traffic€on€Charlotte€Avenue€wasÏobstructed€by€a€wall€along€the€northeast€corner€of€Eakin„Weakley.€€€Ìà àApproximately€two€hours€prior€to€the€accident€involving€theÏplaintiffs,€a€tractor„trailer€struck€the€pole€which€held€the€trafficÏsignal€facing€œEakin„Weakley›€Drive.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€Metro€Police€dispatch€recordsÏindicate€that€a€call€was€received€at€4:17€p.m.€from€a€dispatcher€at€theÏMetro€Transit€Authority€regarding€an€accident€involving€a€tractor„trailer€at€Seventh€Avenue€North€and€Charlotte.œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€€The€call€from€the€MetroÍTransit€Authority€dispatcher€to€the€police€œdispatcher€indicated›€thatÏthere€were€no€personal€injuries,€thus,€œthe›€police€dispatcher€"assignedÏ[the€call]€a€lower€priority€relative€to€a€personal€injury€accident.ðð€€TheÏMetro€Police€dispatch€records€contain€no€indication€that€the€€MetroÏTransit€Authority€dispatcher€notified€the€Metro€Police€dispatcher€thatÏthe€traffic€signal€was€ð ðdowned.ðð€€€The€police€dispatcher€testified€thatÏshe€called€out€a€dispatch€at€4:37€p.m.€and€that€there€was€a€response€andÏarrival€at€4:41€p.m.€€Apparently€two€officers€answered€the€call€but€tookÏno€action€and€left€the€scene€at€4:41€p.m.€and€4:43€p.m.€€One€of€the€twoÏofficers€who€was€originally€dispatched€to€the€intersection,€DanielÏCrockett,€€was€again€dispatched€at€5:10€p.m.€€Officer€Crockett€arrivedÏat€the€intersection€at€œ5:25›€p.m.,€whereupon€he€investigated€the€scene,Ïwrote€out€the€accident€report,€and€left€the€intersection€with€threeÏdirections€of€traffic€controlled€(by€signal).€€The€fourth€direction€ofÏtraffic,€which,€prior€to€the€accident,€was€controlled€by€the€signalÏfacing€Eakin„Weakley,€was€left€uncontrolled.€€Officer€Crockett€€left€theÏintersection€without€directing€traffic,€without€putting€up€warningÏsigns,€and€without€directing€anyone€else€to€put€up€warning€signs.€€œ›à àÏOfficer€Crockett€testified€that€he€did€not€stay€to€direct€traffic,Íbecause€traffic€on€Eakin„Weakley€was€very€ð ðlight.ðð€€He€testified€thatÏthe€training€he€received€at€the€police€academy€regarding€inoperativeÏsignals€was€to€personally€direct€traffic€when€volume€was€heavy€andÏwhen€he€felt€direction€was€necessary,€"but€not€to€do€so€when€trafficÏflow€was€light€or€non„existent."€€Officer€Crockett€testified€that€in€aÏdowned€signal€situation,€standard€police€procedure€was€to€notify€theÏcounty„wide€dispatcher€of€the€inoperative€signal;€the€county„wideÏdispatcher€would€then€notify€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€employees€thatÏa€signal€was€in€need€of€repair.€€Officer€Crockett€further€testified€thatÏalthough€he€did€not€recall€contacting€either€the€county„wide€dispatcherÏor€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking,€€he€was€sure€he€contacted€one€of€the€twoÏbecause€that€was€standard€procedure.€€The€record€indicates€that€MetroÏTraffic€and€Parking€did€not€receive€notification€that€the€signal€was€outÏof€service€until€9:50€a.m.€on€October€26,€1988,€two€days€after€theÏaccident€involving€the€plaintiffs,€and€then€only€after€reviewing€theÏaccident€report€that€was€filed€by€Officer€Crockett€concerning€theÏtractor„trailer€accident€that€knocked€down€the€pole.Ìà àTerry€Grissim,€a€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€employee€who€repairsÏtraffic€signals,€testified€that€a€"knock„down"€situation€in€which€oneÍtraffic€light€is€down€at€a€œfour„way›€intersection€and€the€remainingÏthree€directions€are€left€controlled,€is€a€"dangerous€condition."€€Mr.ÏGrissim€testified€that€a€"knockdown€is€€.€.€.€[a]€top€priority."€€Mr.€GrissimÏtestified€that€it€was€his€normal€procedure€to€maintain€a€log€of€hisÏrepair€activities,€and€he€testified€that€he€maintained€this€log€onÏOctober€24,€1988.€€He€stated€that€whenever€he€received€a€call€regardingÏan€inoperative€signal,€he€noted€the€time€of€the€call€and€the€location€ofÏthe€inoperative€signal€in€his€log.€€The€log€was€introduced€into€evidenceÏand€showed€that€Mr.€Grissim€had€been€repairing€traffic€signals€all€dayÏon€October€24th,€and€that€he€received€no€notification€of€the€downedÏlight€facing€Eakin„Weakley.€€Mr.€Grissim€stated€that€it€would€normallyÏtake€approximately€eight€hours€to€re„erect€a€downed€pole€and€install€aÏnew€light,€and€that€he€did€not€have€the€equipment€to€erect€a€temporaryÏstop€sign€at€the€intersection€of€Eakin„Weakley€and€Charlotte€Avenue.€ÏHowever,€he€also€stated€that€if€he€had€been€notified€of€the€downedÏsignal,€he€could€have€placed€the€remaining€intersection€signal€lights€ð ðinÏa€flash€operation.ðð€Ìà àErnest€Clark€Poteete,€the€Superintendent€of€Operations€at€MetroÏTraffic€and€Parking,€stated€in€his€deposition€that€Metro€Traffic€andÍParking€has€methods€of€providing€alternate€traffic€control€during€aÏperiod€of€signal€failure,€including€putting€the€signals€on€flash€andÏhaving€someone€direct€traffic.€€Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€nonjury€trial,€the€trial€court€found€MetroÏand€the€State€each€fifty€percent€at€fault€for€the€plaintiffsðð€injuries,Ïand€the€court€entered€judgment€for€Nichols€in€the€amount€of€$30,000.00Ïand€for€Stewart€in€the€amount€of€$180,000.00.€€Only€Metro€has€appealed.€ÏMetroððs€first,€second,€and€fourth€issues€are€interrelated€and€will€beÏconsidered€together.€€As€stated€in€Metroððs€brief,€these€issues€are:ÌÓÓÔ€,Ôà8 àà8 àœÔ€Ô1.›€€Whether€the€trial€court's€findings€ofÏnegligence€against€the€metropolitan€governmentÏare€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence?ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court's€conclusion€ofÏnegligence€against€the€metropolitan€governmentÏand/or€assignment€of€comparative€fault€areÏclearly€erroneous?ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.€€Whether€the€discretionary€function€immunityÏfrom€tort€liability€applies€to€a€decision€of€aÏmetro€police€officer€regarding€manual€trafficÏdirection?ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€T.C.A.€€ðð€29„20„101€òòet€seq.óóÏ(1980€and€Supp.€1995)€is€premised€on€absolute€immunity€forÍgovernmental€entities€except€as€specifically€removed€by€the€Act.€€òòSeeò òÏCollier€v.€Memphis€Light,€Gas€&€Water€Div.ó óóó,€657€S.W.2d€771€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1983);€ò òòòPate€v.€City€of€Martinó óóó,€586€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.App.€1979).€ÏœT.C.A.›€€ðð€29„20„205€(1980)€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓÔ€,Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€ÔImmunity€from€suit€of€all€governmental€entitiesÏis€removed€for€injury€proximately€caused€by€aÏnegligent€act€or€omission€of€any€employeeÏwithin€the€scope€of€his€employment€except€ifÏthe€injury:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€Arises€out€of€the€exercise€or€performance€orÏthe€failure€to€exercise€or€perform€aÏdiscretionary€function,€whether€or€not€theÏdiscretion€is€abused€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓMetro€contends€that€following€the€first€accident,€Officer€CrockettððsÏdecision€to€answer€another€call€rather€than€stay€at€the€intersection€andÏdirect€traffic€was€discretionary€rather€than€operational,€becauseÏofficial€police€policy€provides€an€officer€with€discretion€to€direct€orÏnot€direct€traffic€depending€upon€the€officerððs€assessment€of€theÏtraffic€volume€or€flow.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Metro€further€contends€that€although€a€policeÏofficer€may€normally€be€considered€an€operational€employee,€there€areÍinstances€in€which€an€operational€employee€is€entitled€to€discretionaryÏimmunity.€€Metro€asserts€that€Officer€Crockettððs€decision€to€answerÏanother€call€rather€than€stay€at€the€intersection€and€direct€trafficÏinvolved€a€balancing€of€policy€considerations€and€was,€therefore,Ïdiscretionary.€€à àÌà àIn€òòò òBowers€by€Bowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€427Ï(Tenn.€1992),€our€Supreme€Court,€in€adopting€the€ð ðplanning„operationalððÏtest€for€determining€what€decisions€are€discretionary,€œstated:ÌÓÓ›œà8 àà8 àUnder›€the€planning„operational€test,€decisionsÏthat€rise€to€the€level€of€planning€or€policyÏmaking€are€considered€discretionary€acts€whichÏdo€not€give€rise€to€tort€liability,€while€decisionsÏthat€are€merely€operational€are€not€consideredÏdiscretionary€acts€and,€therefore,€do€not€giveÏrise€to€immunity.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òCarlson€v.€Stateó óóó,€598ÏP.2d€969,€972€(Alaska€1979).€€The€distinctionÏbetween€planning€and€operational€depends€on€theÏtype€of€decision€rather€than€merely€the€identityÏof€the€decision€maker.€€òòSeeò ò€idó óóó.€€We€caution€thatÏthis€distinction€serves€only€to€aid€inÏdetermining€when€discretionary€functionÏimmunity€applies;€discretionary€functionÏimmunity€attaches€to€all€conduct€properlyÏinvolving€the€balancing€of€policy€considerations.€ÏTherefore,€there€may€be€occasions€where€€anÏð ðoperational€actðð€is€entitled€to€immunity,Ïwhere,€for€instance,€the€operational€actor€isÏproperly€charged€with€balancing€policyÍconsiderations.€€òòSee€ò òUnited€States€v.ÏGaubertó óóó,€499€œU.S.€___›€,€111€S.Ct.€1267,€113ÏL.Ed.2d€335€(1991)(recognizing€that€operationalÏactivities€grounded€in€policy€are€entitled€toÏdiscretionary€function€immunity).ÌÌòòò òIdó óóó.€at€430„31.€€ÌÌÓÓà à€Although€the€òòò òBowersó óóó€Court€stated€that€discretionary€immunityÏmay€attach€in€some€instances€to€the€acts€of€an€operational€actor,€theÏCourt€also€cautioned€that€discretionary€immunity€does€notÏð ðautomatically€attach€to€all€acts€involving€choice€or€judgment,ððÏbecause€ð ðto€some€extent,€every€act€involves€discretion.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€431.€ÏWhen€considering€whether€an€act€is€a€planning€or€operational€act,Ïcourts€should€focus€on€the€decision€making€process€and€the€propriety€ofÏjudicial€review€of€the€resulting€decision.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€€The€òòò òBowersó óóó€CourtÏstated:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIf€a€particular€course€of€conduct€is€determinedÏafter€consideration€or€debate€by€an€individual€orÏgroup€charged€with€the€formulation€of€plans€orÏpolicies,€it€strongly€suggests€the€result€is€aÏplanning€decision.€€These€decisions€often€resultÏfrom€assessing€priorities;€allocating€resources;Ïdeveloping€policies;€or€establishing€plans,Ïspecifications,€or€schedules.€(citation€omitted)Ìà8 àà8 àà àOn€the€other€hand,€a€decision€resultingÍfrom€a€determination€based€on€preexisting€laws,Ïregulations,€policies,€or€standards,€usuallyÏindicates€that€its€maker€is€performing€anÏoperational€act.€Similarly€operational€acts€areÏthose€ad€hoc€decisions€made€by€an€individual€orÏgroup€charged€with€the€development€of€plans€orÏpolicies.€€These€operational€acts,€which€oftenÏimplement€prior€planning€decisions,€are€notÏð ðdiscretionary€functionsðð€within€the€meaning€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€ÏIn€other€words,€ð ðthe€discretionary€functionððÏexception€[will]€not€apply€to€a€claim€thatÏgovernment€employees€failed€to€comply€withÏregulations€or€policies€designed€to€guide€theirÏactions€in€a€particular€situation.ðð€€òòò òAslakson€v.ÏUnited€Statesó óóó,€709€F.2d€688,€692€(8th€Cir.Ï1986).€ÌÌòòò òIdó óóó.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓÓà àThe€policy€of€the€Metro€Police€Department€in€an€inoperative€signalÏsituation€is€that€if€traffic€is€heavy€an€officer€should€stay€and€manuallyÏdirect€traffic;€if€traffic€is€light€the€officer€is€free€to€leave€and€answerÏanother€call.€€Officer€Crockett€assessed€the€traffic€flow,€determinedÏthat€it€was€light,€and€left€the€intersection.€€While€œMetroððs›€policyÏregarding€manual€traffic€direction€in€a€downed€œsignal€situation›€may€beÏunwise€or€even€negligently€formulated,€the€adoption€of€the€policy€is€aÏdiscretionary€function,€and€Metro€may€not€be€held€liable€when€one€of€itsÏpolice€officers€properly€complied€with€this€policy.€€€Thus,€no€liabilityÍmay€be€imputed€to€Metro€simply€because€Officer€Crockett€left€theÏaccident€scene€because€the€traffic€was€ð ðlight.ðð€€Ìà àLiability€may€be€premised,€however,€on€the€intersectionððsÏð ðdangerous€conditionðð€and€the€officerððs€decision€to€leave€withoutÏplacing€a€call€to€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€or€€to€the€county„wideÏdispatcher.€€T.C.A.€Ô€Ô€ðð€29„20„203Ô€Ô€Ô€Ô(Supp.€1995)€€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€Immunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entityÏis€removed€for€any€injury€caused€by€a€defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€of€any€street,Ïalley,€sidewalk€or€highway,€owned€andÏcontrolled€by€such€governmental€entity.€Ïð ðStreetðð€or€ð ðhighwayðð€includes€traffic€controlÏdevices€thereon.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€This€section€shall€not€apply€unlessÏconstructive€and/or€actual€notice€to€theÏgovernmental€entity€of€such€condition€be€allegedÏand€proved€in€addition€to€the€procedural€noticeÏrequired€by€Ô€Ô€ððÔ€Ô€œÔ€Ô29„20„302›€œÔ€Ô[repealed].Ì›€€œ›ÌÓÓThe€discretionary€function€exception€does€not€apply€to€proceedingsÏunder€this€section.€€òòò òHelton€v.€Knox€Countyó óóó,€No.€03„S„01„9502„CV„00015,€slip€op.€at€16„17€(Tenn.€May€13,€1996).€€€A€municipalÏcorporation€has€a€duty€to€maintain€its€streets€in€a€reasonably€safeÏcondition€and€the€exercise€of€this€duty€requires€ð ðexercise€of€ordinaryÏcare€to€keep€.€.€.€streets€in€a€reasonably€safe€condition€for€travel€dayÍand€night€in€the€customary€modes€by€persons€themselves€exercisingÏreasonable€care.ðð€€òòò òBryant€v.€Jefferson€Cityó óóó,€701€S.W.2d€626,€626„27Ï(Tenn.App.€1985)(quoting€òòò òBlackburn€v.€Dillonó óóó,€189€Tenn.€240,€243,Ï225€S.W.2d€46,€47€(1949)).€€In€determining€the€liability€ofÏmunicipalities€for€dangerous€conditions€on€public€streets,€ordinaryÏprinciples€of€negligence€apply.€€òòò òBryantó óóó,€701€S.W.2d€at€627.€€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€once€the€traffic€light€controllingÏsouthbound€traffic€on€Eakin„Weakley€œwas›€knocked€œdown,›œ€the›€four„wayÏintersection€€became€€an€ð ðimmediate€hazard,€a€dangerous€condition€.€.€.Ï.ðð€€The€court€found€that€once€Officer€Crockett€became€aware€of€theÏdisabled€traffic€light,€the€intersection€became€a€ð ðdefect€in€a€roadwayððÏfor€purposes€of€€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€€Ìà àIn€ò òòòBryant€v.€Jefferson€Cityó óóó,€701€S.W.2d€626€(Tenn.€App.€1985),Ïthis€Court€noted€that:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€Courts€generally€hold€that€where€aÏmunicipality€has€actual€or€constructive€noticeÏthat€a€stop€sign€is€down,€the€cityððs€negligence€inÏfailing€to€restore€the€sign€is€determined€by€theÏissue€of€whether€the€city€had€a€ð ðreasonable€timeÏto€effect€repairs.ðð€€ò òòòSmith€v.€Godinó óóó,€61ÏIll.App.3d€480,€18€Ill.€Dec.€754,€378€N.E.2d€218Ï(1978).€€What€constitutes€a€ð ðreasonable€timeðð€toÏmake€repairs€will€vary€according€to€the€facts€ofÍeach€case.€€ò òòòBowen€v.€Riverton€Cityó óóó,€656€P.2dÏ434€(Utah€1982).€€ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€627.ÌÌÓÓà àWhile€the€case€before€us€does€not€involve€a€ð ðdowned€stop€sign,ððÏthe€same€effect€is€presented€by€a€downed€traffic€signal.€€It€wouldÏappear€that€the€word€ð ðrepairsðð€provided€for€the€in€the€above€generalÏrule€would€include€any€type€of€temporary€measure€taken€to€alleviate€aÏdangerous€condition€before€actual€repairs€can€be€commenced.€€In€theÏcase€at€bar,€the€officer€testified€that€ð ðdepartment€policyðð€was€toÏnotify€the€ð ðcounty„wide€dispatcherðð€of€an€inoperative€signal,€and€thatÏthe€county„wide€dispatcher€would€then€notify€Metro€Traffic€and€ParkingÏso€that€repairs€could€be€commenced.€€Officer€Crockett€testified€thatÏthis€policy€was€in€place€for€ð ðsafety€reasons€.€.€.€[t]o€get€the€pole€back€upÏor€get€the€traffic€light€to€work.ðð€€Although€the€officer€testified€that€heÏnotified€either€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€or€the€county„wide€dispatcherÏof€the€downed€signal€because€ð ðthatððs€pretty€much€standard€procedure,ððÏhe€admitted€on€further€questioning€that€he€had€no€independentÏrecollection€of€notifying€either€the€county„wide€dispatcher€or€MetroÏTraffic€and€Parking.€€Officer€Crockett€€also€acknowledged€that€thereÍwas€nothing€in€his€accident€report€to€indicate€that€he€had€in€fact€madeÏsuch€notification.€€Ernest€Clark€Poteete,€a€supervisor€at€Metro€TrafficÏand€Parking,€testified€that€all€calls€concerning€inoperative€signals€areÏdocumented€by€the€time,€date,€and€identity€of€the€caller.€€The€records€ofÏthe€department€were€introduced€into€evidence,€and€there€was€no€recordÏof€any€call€received€on€October€24,€1988,€regarding€the€inoperativeÏsignal€at€the€intersection€of€Charlotte€and€Eakin„Weakley.€€Mr.€Grissim,Ïœwho›€was€on€call€repairing€signals€on€October€24,€1988,€testified€thatÏhe€never€received€a€call€regarding€an€inoperative€signal€at€theÏintersection.€€He€also€testified€that€if€such€a€call€had€been€received€byÏhis€department,€he€would€have€been€notified€because€a€ð ðknock„downðð€isÏa€top€priority.€€Ìà àThe€proof€established€that€the€dangerous€condition€of€theÏintersection€was€exacerbated€by€stone€retaining€walls€on€the€northeastÏcorner€of€the€intersection€and€the€fact€that€the€intersection€is€at€theÏcrest€of€a€hill.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Due€to€the€walls€and€the€contour€of€Charlotte€Avenue,Ïwestbound€traffic€on€Charlotte€œ(plaintiffsðð›€direction)€is€entirelyÍobscured€from€the€view€of€southbound€traffic€on€Eakin„Weakley€(BillyÏStairððs€direction),€and€vice„versa.€€These€factors€contributed€to€theÏdanger€of€the€intersection,€and€they€were€either€known€or€should€haveÏbeen€known€by€Officer€Crockett€when€he€investigated€the€accident.€ÏReasonable€care€under€similar€circumstances€would€require€at€leastÏsome€steps€to€alleviate€the€danger€presented€by€the€intersection€beforeÏleaving€the€intersection.€€Furthermore,€Officer€Crockettððs€testimonyÏindicates€that€his€determination€œthat›œ€traffic›€œflow€was›€ð ðlightðð€wasÏunreasonable,€because€at€the€time€Officer€Crockett€investigated€theÏaccident€(5:25€p.m€on€a€Monday€in€downtown€Nashville),€ð ða€lot€of€peopleÏare€leaving€town€.€.€.€.ðð× ƒ8 ××  ×€œ›Ìœ›à àThe€record€supports€the€appellantððs€contention€that€the€pole€andÏlight€could€not€have€been€replaced€prior€to€the€accident€in€question.€ÏHowever,€€the€record€€indicates€that€had€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€beenÏnotified€of€the€downed€signal,€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€could€€haveÏtaken€measures€to€alert€motorists€of€the€dangerous€condition€of€theÍintersection,€and€that€these€measures€could€have€been€implementedÏprior€to€the€accident€in€this€case.€€Ìà àIn€summary,€Officer€Crockettððs€failure€to€notify€the€œcounty„wide›Ïdispatcher€of€the€inoperative€signal€and€his€decision€to€leave€theÏintersection€(a€busy,€downtown,€four„way€intersection€in€whichÏwestbound€and€southbound€€motorists€were€obscured€from€each€otherððsÏvision)€with€three€directions€of€traffic€controlled€and€one€direction€ofÏtraffic€uncontrolled,€constituted€negligence.€€Moreover,€after€notice€ofÏthe€condition,€Metro€had€a€reasonable€time€to€effect€some€repairs€orÏprovide€some€type€of€warning€and/or€some€type€of€traffic€control.€€œMr.›ÏGrissim€testified€that€had€he€been€notified€of€the€ð ðknockdownðð€it€wouldÏhave€been€his€ð ðtop€priority,ðð€and€he€could€have€placed€the€remainingÏsignal€lights€ð ðin€a€flash€operation.ðð€€Mr.€Grissim€testified€that€once€heÏarrived€at€the€intersection,€it€would€have€taken€him€approximately€fiveÏminutes€to€place€the€lights€on€flash.€€The€record€indicates€that€had€Mr.ÏGrissim€been€notified€of€the€inoperative€traffic€signal€at€or€near€theÏtime€Officer€Crockett€was€dispatched€(5:10€p.m.)€or€when€OfficerÏCrockett€arrived€to€investigate€the€intersection€(5:25€p.m.),€€Mr.ÏGrissim€or€another€Metro€Traffic€and€Parking€employee€would€haveÍplaced€the€traffic€signals€facing€Charlotte€Avenue€and€Seventh€AvenueÏon€flash€prior€to€the€accident€in€this€case.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€Plaintiff€Stewart€testifiedÏthat€she€would€have€definitely€approached€the€intersection€withÏgreater€caution€if€she€had€seen€a€flashing€light.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Metroððs€failure€to€provide€any€warningÏand/or€traffic€control€at€the€intersection€was€a€proximate€cause€of€theÏcollision€and€plaintiffsðð€resulting€injuries.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€this€finding.€€Ìà àAppellantððs€last€issue€for€review€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€reversible€error€by€admitting€and€relying€upon€proof€ofÏsubsequent€remedial€measures€by€the€metropolitan€government.ðð€€MetroÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€admittingÏtestimony€from€Mr.€Stair€in€which€Mr.€Stair€stated€that€when€he€sawÏthat€the€signal€had€not€been€repaired€on€October€25,€1988,€he€called€anÏacquaintance€in€the€Metro€Mayorððs€OfficeÔ€Ô€Ô€Ôto€report€the€problem.€€AfterÏMr.€Stair€made€various€phone€calls€to€city€officials,€the€signal€wasÍrepaired€the€following€day.€€Metro€contends€that€the€testimony€wasÏoffered€to€show€that€Metro€was€negligent€by€not€repairing€the€signalÏuntil€two€days€after€the€accident€in€question.€€Metro€argues€that€thisÏtestimony€should€have€been€excluded,€because€it€constituted€evidenceÏof€subsequent€remedial€measures€under€Tenn.R.Evid.€407.€€Ìà àIt€appears€that€this€testimony€was€irrelevant€and€of€no€probativeÏvalue€with€respect€to€any€of€the€issues€in€this€case.€€However,€€fromÏour€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€admission€of€this€evidenceÏdid€not€affect€the€judgment€or€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicialÏprocess.€€T.R.A.P.€€36(b).€€ÌÓÓà àMetro€also€questions€the€trial€courtððs€allocation€of€fault.€€ÓÓTheÏtrial€court€found€Metro€50%€at€fault€€for€the€injuries€and€damagesÏwhich€the€plaintiffsðð€sustained.€€The€trier€of€fact€has€ð ðconsiderableÏlatitude€in€allocating€percentages€of€fault€to€negligent€parties.ðð€Ïòòò òWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995).€€AnÏappellate€court€may€modify€those€findings€only€if€they€are€clearlyÏerroneous.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€€Based€upon€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€allocation€of€fault€to€the€respective€defendants€wasÏclearly€erroneous.€€The€appelleesðð€remaining€issues€are€pretermitted.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€isÏremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€assessed€against€the€œappellant.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó ó›ÌÔ€ÔÔ€Ôœ