ÿWPC¡ ñcA):Ç âóÔYü,ûèëV6£P«ýá"6&DݲŒ(È!:Ç;wÂa]Ë!—l*{mŒ>$g´éR5šäW<£7íxøÊæØsŠGˆ#K B@ò•v·±D ç»m›ûê&àeAm‹VÖ«êx;¾.)YÊ!3?#šo# ‘C/³Úg©'â¦îâ Vö‘°z{#aº˜Þ#z^F•­$d#!xUN™ %ç 0(íw 4 - UN< Š -’ N¿ ^ Á Í mÏ 0èæ áÎ 0D¯ó7ûU:2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 0Dl D5° Båååå AQÆS 0D 0D]˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡{Z=',,,,,,3|x(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñšœ5'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(˜(2›k$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ×Ý ƒ0„$ÝÑT@R[ì AØ'ÿ LegalXà3Ø' Letter  AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSince€we€find€jurisdiction€lies€under€section€9„8„307€when€that€statute€is€strictlyÐ ° Ðconstrued,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€delve€into€the€constitutional€morass€of€liberal€versus€strictÐ œì Ðconstruction,€except€to€note€the€questionable€constitutionality€of€an€attempt€by€legislative€fiatÐ ˆØ Ðto€enlarge€a€power€which€is€already€limited€at€its€source,€òòi.e.,óó€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,Ð tÄ ÐArticle€I,€section€17.€€The€opinion€by€Judge€Koch€in€òòHembree€v.€State,óó€alluded€to€this€tension.Ð `° ÐòòÔ_ÔHembreeÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€1995€WL€50066€at€*€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€òòperm€app.€granted,€HembreeÐ L œ Ðv.€State,óó€925€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€1996).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  -Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xþ…XXXÔÔ€ÎmXXþ…ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xþ…XÎmÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€21,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý\\\\)ÿÿ!dxdx dabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼ï,»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ-¼äd†XœÔ‘X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€ úÑÔ_ÔLARRY€STEWART,à  àà t àà  à)Ð ° Ðà  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)ÌÓ?¼8d‚X,X¼äd†XœÔ‘X?Óà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ô$ Ðà  àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9810„BC„00557Ð æ6 Ðv.à  àà  à)à  àà  àÐ øH Ðà  àà  à)à  àTennessee€Claims€CommissionÐ  Z Ðßx€`[B2.jzw`  `€€@ÿEž: ` 8ttxPÖ (  xßSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à  à)à  àNo.€109172Ð  l Ðà  àà  à)Ìà  àDefendant/Appellee.à  à)Ð @  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€TENNESSEE€CLAIMS€COMMISSION€ÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€W.€R.€BAKER,€COMMISSIONER€ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌRANDY€HILLHOUSEÌHillhouse€&€HuddlestonÌ212€Pulaski€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€787ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€38464Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌMARY€G.€MOODYÌLAURA€T.€KIDWELLÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌSecond€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0488Ìà  àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ F;–63 ÐÑ úÑâ  âÑ8€~¸XXdìdÈ8Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€„„»¼'DÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌÔ‡„Û „„„ÔÔ‡¼¯»„„Û Ôà  àThis€is€an€automobile€accident€case€that€was€tried€before€the€TennesseeÐ  p ÐClaims€Commission€as€regards€the€liability€of€the€State€for€the€actions€of€aÐ Ä  ÐTennessee€highway€patrolman€alleged€to€have€been€negligent.Ð h ¸ ÐÌà  àLate€in€the€evening€of€September€20,€1991,€Tennessee€highway€patrolmanÐ °  ÐBilly€Ray€was€patrolling€in€Lewis€County,€Tennessee€when€he€overheard€aÐ T¤  Ðcounty€radio€alert€relative€to€someone€speeding€on€Buffalo€Road€(TennesseeÐ øH  ÐHighway€99).€€In€follow„up€to€this€radio€message,€Trooper€Ray€pulled€in€behindÐ œì Ða€1974€Nova€automobile€and€activated€his€blue€lights;€the€Nova€pulled€onto€theÐ @ Ðright€shoulder€of€the€highway€and€stopped€with€Trooper€Ray€stoppingÐ ä4 Ðimmediately€behind€the€Nova€with€blue€lights€still€activated.€€The€1974€NovaÐ ˆØ Ðbelonged€to€one€Robert€Spencer€and€was€being€driven€at€the€time€by€RonnieÐ ,| ÐSchaffer€who€was€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€In€the€passenger€seat€of€theÐ Ð  ÐNova€was€one€Angela€Pollock.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àTwo€patrol€cars€from€the€Lewis€County€Sheriff's€Department€arrivedÐ ¼ ! Ðshortly€thereafter€and€pulled€in€with€blue€lights€and€headlights€activated€behindÐ `"°# Ðthe€patrol€car€of€Trooper€Ray.€€The€first€of€these€was€the€patrol€car€of€DeputyÐ $T% ÐWilliam€Adkins€who€was€accompanied€by€Reserve€Deputy€Bruce€Bowen.€€TheÐ ¨%ø ' Ðsecond€sheriff's€patrol€car€was€driven€by€Deputy€W.€C.€Hamm€accompanied€byÐ L'œ") ÐReserve€Deputies€Blain€Roden€and€Larry€Stewart.€€Trooper€Ray€arrested€RonnieÐ ð(@$+ ÐSchaffer€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€placed€him€in€the€TennesseeÐ ”*ä%- ÐHighway€Patrol€car.€€Mr.€Schaffer€requested€that€Ms.€Pollock€be€allowed€to€takeÐ 8,ˆ'/ Ðthe€1974€Nova€back€to€the€owner€Mr.€Spencer.€€As€Mr.€Schaffer€was€not€in€anyÐ Ü-,)1 Ðway€impaired,€Trooper€Ray,€pursuant€to€state€policy€guidelines,€granted€hisÐ €/Ð*3 Ðrequest€but€problems€with€the€1974€Nova€were€soon€apparent.€€It€was€parked€onÐ $1t,5 Ðan€incline€and€suddenly€started€to€roll€backward€toward€Mr.€Ray's€patrol€car.€Ð È2.7 ÐReserve€Deputy€Bowen€climbed€in€the€Nova€and€stepped€on€the€brakeÐ l4¼/9 Ðsuccessfully€stopping€the€vehicle.€€Ms.€Pollock€wanted€to€turn€the€car€around€toÐ 6`1; Ðhead€in€the€opposite€direction€but€during€the€turn€the€Nova€stalled€and€would€notÐ ´73= Ðstart.€€The€deputies€and€reserve€deputies€then€pushed€the€car€to€the€opposite€sideÐ X9¨4? Ðof€the€road€turning€it€to€the€left€and€pushed€it€on€to€the€shoulder€opposite€to€theÐ ° Ðpatrol€cars.€€The€deputies€pushed€the€car€to€a€level€spot€in€the€road€where€itÐ T¤ Ðstopped.€€Efforts€to€start€the€Nova€failed€and€Ronnie€Schaffer€indicated€toÐ øH ÐTrooper€Ray€that€there€was€a€"trick"€to€starting€the€car€and€asked€to€be€allowedÐ œ ì Ðto€go€across€the€highway€and€start€the€car.€€Trooper€Ray€acceded€to€this€request,Ð @  Ðbut€Schaffer€was€unable€to€start€the€Nova.€€The€scene€was€set€thus.€€On€the€westÐ ä 4  Ðside€of€the€highway€were€three€patrol€cars€with€blue€lights€and€headlights€inÐ ˆØ  Ðactivated€position,€all€facing€south,€and€on€the€east€side€of€the€highway€facingÐ ,|  Ðnorth€was€a€stalled€1974€Nova.€€Mr.€Stewart€and€some€of€the€other€deputies€wereÐ Ð  Ðstill€on€the€east€side€of€the€road€attending€the€stalled€Nova.€€At€this€point€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐMann€Nutt,€driving€a€truck€in€a€northerly€direction€on€Highway€99,€came€uponÐ h Ðthis€scene€and€focused€his€attention€to€his€left€on€the€blue€lights€of€the€threeÐ ¼  Ðpatrol€cars.€€His€truck€struck€Reserve€Deputy€Larry€Stewart€and€knocked€himÐ `° Ðsome€ninety€feet€from€the€point€of€impact.€€The€truck€then€struck€the€parkedÐ T ÐNova.€€The€injuries€to€Mr.€Stewart€were€severe,€permanent€and€totally€disabling.€Ð ¨ø ÐMr.€Stewart€and€his€wife,€Kathy€Stewart,€brought€suit€before€the€ClaimsÐ Lœ ÐCommission,€asserting€negligence€of€Trooper€Ray€and€seeking€recovery€underÐ ð@  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307.€€The€case€was€heard€on€its€meritsÐ ” ä" Ðand€the€Claims€Commissioner€assessed€seventy€percent€of€fault€to€Mr.€Nutt,Ð 8"ˆ$ Ðtwelve€percent€fault€to€Larry€Stewart,€ten€percent€fault€to€Trooper€Ray,€and€eightÐ Ü#,& Ðpercent€fault€to€the€other€deputies€of€the€Lewis€County€Sheriff's€Department.€Ð €%Ð ( ÐThe€Commissioner€further€held€that€since€he€found€Mr.€Stewart€to€be€more€atÐ $'t"* Ðfault€than€Trooper€Ray,€he€could€allow€no€recovery€to€Mr.€Stewart€against€theÐ È($, ÐState€of€Tennessee.€€It€is€conceded€that€this€is€error€and€that€under€comparativeÐ l*¼%. Ðfault€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Stewart€would€be€allowed€to€recover€ten€percent€of€theirÐ ,`'0 Ðdamages€from€the€state€under€the€allocation€of€fault€made€by€the€ClaimsÐ ´-)2 ÐCommissioner.Ð X/¨*4 ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€terms€"appellant€and€appellee"€are€somewhat€misleadingÐ  2ð-8 Ðas€Larry€and€Kathy€Stewart€appeal€solely€on€the€failure€of€the€ClaimsÐ D4”/: ÐCommissioner€to€allow€their€ten€percent€recovery€against€the€state,€withÐ è581< Ðeverybody€agreeing€that€on€this€issue€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Stewart€are€correct.€€The€realÐ Œ7Ü2> Ðappeal€therefore€is€by€the€appellee€questioning€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€aÐ 09€4@ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€and€asserting€governmental€discretionaryÐ ° Ðfunction€immunity,€and€alleging€further€that€Larry€Stewart€was€more€than€fiftyÐ T¤ Ðpercent€at€fault.Ð øH ÐÔ#†¼'D»»¼¯ #ÔÔ#†„„»¼'D= #ÔÌà  àÔ€¼'D»„„ÔThe€first€two€issues€stated€by€the€appellee€for€review€are:Ð ¬ ü ÐÓ€ÓÓB¼8d‚X¸ ,X¼8d‚X,XBÓà  à1.à8 ¸ àIs€a€claim€based€upon€a€trooper's€alleged€failure€toÐ G —  Ðadequately€supervise€sheriff's€deputies€within€theÐ Y©  Ðjurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€Act?Ðk» ¸ X ¸ X  ÐÌà  à2.à8 ¸ àDoes€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€preponderate€againstÐ ß  Ðthe€Commissioner'sà8@ì¸ X ¸ X à€finding€that€Trooper€Ray€was€negligent€in€failing€"to€takeÐ ¡ñ  Ðsharper,€firmer€control"€of€sheriff's€deputies€who€were€present€at€an€arrest€scene,Ð ³ Ðbut€not€assisting€the€trooper.Ð Å ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€Claims€Commissioner€does€not€identify€the€particular€category€ofÐ r ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307(a)(1)€under€which€he€made€hisÐ  ] Ðdetermination€of€ten€percent€fault€as€to€Trooper€Ray.€€Inherent€in€his€findings,Ð ¨ø Ðhowever,€are€categories€(E)€and€(F).Ð C“ ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307(a)(1)€provides€in€part:Ð yÉ ÐÓ€Óà8  àThe€Commission€or€each€Commissioner€sitting€individually€hasÐ !d  Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€to€determine€all€monetary€claims€against€theÐ &"v! Ðstate€based€on€the€acts€or€omissions€of€"state€employees,"€as€suchÐ 8#ˆ" Ðterm€is€defined€in€section€8„42„101(3),€falling€within€(1)€or€moreÐ J$š# Ðof€the€following€categories:Ð\%¬ $ ü! ü! Ðà  àà ¸ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.€.€.€€Ð n&¾!% Ðà8  à(E)€Negligent€care,€custody€and€control€of€persons;€Ð€'Ð"& ü! ü! Ðà8  à(F)€Negligent€care,€custody€or€control€of€personal€property;Ð’(â#' ü! ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àWe€must€first€consider€the€stateððs€assertion€that€the€alleged€failure€ofÐ ?+&* ÐTrooper€Ray€to€"adequately€supervise"€sheriff's€deputies€is€not€within€theÐ Ú,*(, Ðjurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€Act.Ð u.Å). ÐÌà  àFirst€of€all,€the€plaintiff€contends€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ «1û,2 Ð9„8„307(2)(3),€specifically€mandates€a€liberal€construction€of€the€subject€matterÐ F3–.4 Ðjurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€providing€in€part:€€It€is€the€intent€of€theÐ á4106 ÐGeneral€Assembly€that€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€be€liberallyÐ |6Ì18 Ðconstrued€to€implement€the€remedial€purposes€of€this€legislation€...ððÐ 8g3: ÐÐ ²95< Ðà  àThe€above€provision€of€the€statute€was€not€a€part€of€Chapter€972€of€theÐ ° ÐPublic€Acts€of€1984,€which€first€established€the€Claims€Commission€but€wasÐ K› Ðadded€thereto€by€section€one€of€Chapter€105€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1985.Ð æ6 ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€has€held:Ð  l ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àArticle€1,€section€17,€of€the€Constitution,€delegating€to€theÐ ·   ÐLegislature€the€power€to€authorize€suits€against€the€state,€being€inÐ É   Ðderogation€of€the€state's€inherent€exemption€from€suit,€must€itselfÐ Û+  Ðbe€strictly€construed;€hence€legislation€authorizing€suits€against€theÐ í=  Ðstate€must€strictly€pursue€the€constitutional€requirements,€and€be€soÐ ÿO  Ðplain,€clear,€and€unmistakable€in€its€provisions€as€to€the€mannerÐ a  Ðand€form€in€which€such€suits€may€be€brought€as€to€leave€nothing€toÐ #s Ðsurmise€or€conjecture.Ð5… ü! ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓState,€ex€rel.€Allen€v.€Cookóó,€171€Tenn.€605,€611,€106€S.W.2d€858,€860„61Ð Y© Ð(1937).Ð ôD ÐÌà  àIn€spite€of€the€existence€of€this€"liberal€construction"€provision€in€theÐ *z Ðstatute€since€1985,€the€appellate€courts€have€continued€to€adhere€to€theÐ Å Ðconstitutionally€mandated€strict€construction€rule.€€òòPool€v.€State,€óó987€S.W.2dÐ `° Ð566€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòMorris€v.€State,€óó1999€WL€98965€(Tenn.€Mar.€1,Ð ûK Ð1999)òò;€Daley€v.€State,€óó869€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)òò.óó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð –!æ! ÐÌà  àApplying€the€strict€construction€rule€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Ì$ % Ðsection€9„8„307,€still€leaves€for€decision€the€question€of€whether€or€not€the€actsÐ g&·!' Ðor€omissions€of€Trooper€Ray€constituted€"...€negligent€care,€custody€and€controlÐ (R#) Ð..."€of€persons€or€personal€property€within€the€meaning€of€categories€(E)€and€(F).Ð )í$+ ÐÌà  àIn€this€respect,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€ofÐ Ó,#(/ Ðthe€Commissioner€that€Trooper€Ray€was€negligent€and€that€such€negligence€wasÐ n.¾)1 Ða€proximate€cause€of€the€injuries€to€the€plaintiffs.€€The€proof€is€undisputed€thatÐ  0Y+3 ÐTrooper€Ray€was€the€first€law€enforcement€officer€on€the€scene€and€that€he€"tookÐ ¤1ô,5 Ðcharge"€of€persons€and€personal€property€by€placing€the€driver€of€the€1974€NovaÐ ° Ðunder€arrest€and€then€releasing€the€car€to€Angela€Pollock.€€While€refusal€to€callÐ K› Ðfor€a€wrecker€to€tow€away€the€Nova€and€the€decision€to€turn€the€Nova€over€toÐ æ6 ÐAngela€Pollock€because€requested€to€do€so€by€the€driver€Ronnie€Schaffer€wasÐ  Ñ Ðin€accordance€with€state€mandated€policy,€such€is€not€determinative€of€stateÐ  l Ðliability.€€Trooper€Ray€knew€that€the€Nova€was€defective€when€it€suddenlyÐ ·   Ðstarted€to€roll€backward€toward€his€patrol€car,€prior€to€the€intervention€of€DeputyÐ R¢  ÐBowen.€€He€knew€that€the€car€stalled€in€the€road€when€Ms.€Pollock€tried€to€moveÐ í=  Ðit.€€More€importantly,€he€knew€that€personnel€of€the€Lewis€County€Sheriff'sÐ ˆØ  ÐDepartment€had€moved€the€disabled€Nova€to€the€eastern€side€of€the€roadÐ #s Ðpointing€north€at€a€time€when€traffic€moving€north€on€the€highway€wouldÐ ¾ Ðconfront€a€scene€to€the€left€of€the€driver€where€headlights€and€flashing€lightsÐ Y© Ðwere€activated.€€The€evidence€thus€supports€the€Commissioner's€finding€thatÐ ôD ÐTrooper€Ray€was€negligent€in€failing€"...€to€take€sharper,€firmer€control€..."€ofÐ ß Ðsheriff's€deputies€at€the€scene€and€further€supports€a€finding€of€negligent€care,Ð *z Ðcontrol€and€custody€of€the€1974€Nova€of€which€he€had€taken€control€when€heÐ Å Ðquite€correctly€arrested€its€driver,€Ronnie€Schaffer.Ð `°  ÐÌà  àIt€does€not€matter€in€the€context€of€this€case€that€the€fault€of€Trooper€RayÐ –!æ$ Ðis€minor€by€comparison€to€the€fault€of€others€as€found€by€the€ClaimsÐ 1#& ÐCommissioner.€€Plaintiff€Larry€Stewart€was€found€by€the€Commissioner€to€beÐ Ì$ ( Ðmore€at€fault€than€was€Trooper€Ray€but€the€findings€of€the€CommissionerÐ g&·!* Ðspecifically€did€not€assign€"more€than€fifty€percent"€of€the€total€fault€to€Mr.Ð (R#, ÐStewart.€€The€findings€of€the€Commissioner€thus€rendered€the€state€liable€for€tenÐ )í$. Ðpercent€of€the€damages€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Stewart.€€òòSee€generally€McIntyre€v.Ð 8+ˆ&0 ÐBallentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).Ð Ó,#(2 ÐÌà  àThus,€the€first€two€issues€presented€by€the€state€are€found€to€be€withoutÐ  0Y+6 Ðmerit.Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐÌà  àIssue€number€three€asserted€by€the€state€is:€€"III.€€Are€a€state€trooper'sÐ Ú4*0< Ðactions€in€controlling€an€arrest€scene€discretionary€functions€for€which€the€stateÐ u6Å1> Ðis€immune€from€liability?"Ð 8`3@ ÐÐ «9û4B Ðà  àUnder€the€facts€of€this€case€the€actions€of€Trooper€Ray€are€clearlyÐ ° Ð"operational€acts"€to€which€"discretionary€function€immunity"€does€not€attach.Ð K› ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€has€held:Ð  Ñ ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€a€decision€resulting€from€a€determinationÐ  l Ðbased€on€preexisting€laws,€regulations,€policies,€or€standards,Ð . ~  Ðusually€indicates€that€its€maker€is€performing€an€operational€act.€Ð @   ÐSimilarly€operational€are€those€ad€hoc€decisions€made€by€anÐ R¢  Ðindividual€or€group€not€charged€with€the€development€of€plans€orÐ d´  Ðpolicies.€€These€operational€acts,€which€often€implement€priorÐ vÆ  Ðplanning€decisions,€are€not€"discretionary€functions"€within€theÐ ˆØ  Ðmeaning€of€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€€InÐ šê  Ðother€words,€"the€discretionary€function€exception€[will]€not€applyÐ ¬ü Ðto€a€claim€that€government€employees€failed€to€comply€withÐ ¾ Ðregulations€or€policies€designed€to€guide€their€actions€in€aÐ Ð  Ðparticular€situation.€€òòAslakson€v.€United€Statesóó,€790€F.2d€688,€692Ð â2 Ð(8th€Cir.€1986).ÐôD ü! ü! ÐÌòòBowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2d€427,€431€(Tenn.€1992).Ð h ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àTrooper€Ray€had€no€part€in€decisions€determining€regulation,€policy€andÐ Å Ðstandard.€€Carrying€out€such€preexisting€regulations,€policies€and€standards€wasÐ `° Ðan€operational€act€for€which€governmental€immunity€does€not€exist€forÐ ûK Ðnegligence€constituting€proximate€cause.Ð –!æ ÐÌà  àThe€final€issue€presented€by€the€state€faults€the€Commissioner€for€failingÐ Ì$ # Ðto€find€that€the€evidence€established€that€Larry€Stewart€was€more€than€fiftyÐ g&·!% Ðpercent€at€fault.€€The€evidence€establishes€that€there€was€plenty€of€fault€to€beÐ (R#' Ðshared€by€everyone€involved€in€this€tragedy€and€the€evidence€does€notÐ )í$) Ðpreponderate€against€the€fault€allocation€found€by€the€Commissioner.€€Tenn.€R.Ð 8+ˆ&+ ÐApp.€P.€13(d).Ð Ó,#(- ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€Claims€Commission€is€affirmed€in€all€respects€exceptÐ  0Y+1 Ðas€to€the€right€of€recovery€by€Larry€and€Kathy€Stewart€from€the€State€ofÐ ¤1ô,3 ÐTennessee.€€That€recovery€for€Mr.€Stewart€is€ten€percent€of€the€$300,000.00Ð ?3.5 Ðlimit€of€liability€mandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307(e).€Ð Ú4*07 ÐThe€recovery€for€Mrs.€Stewart€is€ten€percent€of€the€$40,000.00€found€by€theÐ u6Å19 ÐCommissioner,€the€amount€of€such€damages€not€being€challenged€on€appeal.€Ð 8`3; ÐThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€Claims€Commission€for€collection€of€the€judgments.Ð «9û4= Їà  àCosts€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ° ÐÌÌÓB¼8d‚X z „!X¼8d‚X¸ ,XBÓÓ€Óà  àà  àà z àà  à_____________________________________Ð  Ñ Ðà  àà  àà z àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ “ ã ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð É   ÐÌÌ____________________________________Ð ÿO  ÐBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.Ð a  ÐÌÌ____________________________________Ð G— ÐJOE€C.€LOSER,€SPECIAL€JUDGE