ÿWPC0 ìô­nÓër£ôó[˃¹ Å‚ÎCÅ<ÿ áÎÚÒ³ü*«°C É*è"ç‘Æ`]Y¹ä¨E…SNÅñlˆÀÂÿ»zëB4Â÷[¤ô]bÖ:É|Y¤,@–¾GEÁ-›ã/uƒ",9±`q€„µø>éU‡ÊÂÀ4“gÄÈm¹ÎÍèÚb Õo6|­Í.-Vùb‡)VR®èƒ=‡ €[ švZ‰°Òñ‘P»]®jS¨E[Öî¨EW …ú:¡óE¾LláÚI^uÎEÙ´rþL'Gj]RZPò@)¯‚+“Y õ®0ü±^äôEÍlzW¶ѯVsCã£3åøŸJ=Åb•ÙÐoM.žö“°]èÊÖGôÿ$÷V‰œÍnÿ‘BâÉ'éwÕúù’eÊ(Ìñ„² QHÛ)‚åÕÎZÍ/¯ÉmÒnþ¡<ŒzŸ—G85õ#”¨–½òt‹ö;äA­¸œ†Ôµ /H•î/:-Ÿ\¹y@4‡éwDôÞæH`glcU%z¸M à¥ýpWö+ìX'eïb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 7‘ ÆÈ ÆŽ ÆTÆ 0DàN$UN&&EtEvvb»»»b%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 0ë---- B 0¤5 D3Ù D-  0K99 AS„Æ× 0¤ 0DA A«…»q-â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*  k2hè¢ 3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 -Ý ƒR.ú$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€addition€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€the€Stateððs€appeal€from€the€Claims€Commission€to€this€Court€is€madeÐ ° Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„403(a)(1).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ;Ý ƒR.ú$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Plaintiffs€also€alleged€in€the€Complaint€that€the€State€was€liable€for€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„Ð ° Ð307(a)(1)(C),€but€this€claim€is€not€an€issue€on€appeal.€€ XÝ ƒR.ú$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€This€Court€in€òòWaters€v.€Stateóó€held€that,€while€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòBowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó€appliedÐ ° Ðthe€planning„operational€test€to€an€action€against€a€municipality€under€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,Ð tÄ Ðthe€test€was€also€applicable€to€actions€against€the€State€where€the€State€raises€the€defense€of€common€law€immunity.€Ð 8ˆ ÐòòWaters€v.€Stateóó,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€844,€at€*€3. - ù-(|G2.ú$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹]ò»»Ô d(|3?u$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?u$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼¥»»»ÔÑ8€UXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îL¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼¥»îîL #ԈРÖ& Ðà@ÖÖ ìàJune€27,€2002€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ‡XUX»¼¥ÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼¥»XXUù#Ôà@O O ìàJANET€BOLTON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XUX»¼¥Ôó óˆÐ Ò " ÐÌò ò€à@Æ Æ ìàAppeal€from€the€Claims€CommissionˆÐ Ò " Ðà@ª ª ìàNo.€T96000358€€€€Michael€S.€Lacy,€Commissioner€ˆÐ ¾   ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€AUGUST€6,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÌßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‚Ò  ÐÌà@ÏÏìàNo.€E2001„02960„COA„R9„CVˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥ Ðó óÌÌJanet€Bolton€and€Jack€Bolton€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€sued€the€State€of€Tennessee€(ð ðStateðð),€alleging€the€StateÐ <Œ Ðwas€liable€for€injuries€Janet€Bolton€received€in€a€motor€vehicle€accident€which€occurred€on€a€StateÐ (x Ðhighway€in€Loudon€County.€€The€State€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€arguingÔ#†¼¥»XXUƒ#ÔÔ‡XUX»¼¥Ô€it€was€entitledÐ d Ðto€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€under€the€defense€of€discretionary€function€immunity.€€The€TennesseeÐ P ÐClaims€Commission€denied€the€motion.€€The€State€appeals.€€We€affirm,€in€part,€and€reverse,€in€part,Ð ì< Ðand€remand.Ð Ø( ÐÌÌò òà@Œ Œ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Interlocutory€Appeal€by€Permission;€ˆÐ œì Ðà@    ìàJudgment€of€the€Claims€CommissionAffirmed,€in€part,€ˆÐ ˆØ Ðà@M M ìàand€Reversed,€in€part;€à@@!!#ìàCase€Remanded.ó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌÌòòÔ#†¼¥»àXU8#ÔÔ€XUX.¼¥ÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.,óóÐ 8!ˆ  Ðand€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Michael€E.€Moore€and€Laura€T.€Kidwell,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,Ð ü#L# ÐState€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌJoe€E.€Guess€and€Samuel€A.€Guess,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Janet€Bolton€and€JackÐ À&"& ÐBolton.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý Ðà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆà0 p àаp(#p(# ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€September€1995,€Janet€Bolton€was€involved€in€a€motor€vehicle€accident€when€sheÐ `° Ðpulled€her€vehicle€onto€U.S.€Highway€11,€also€known€as€State€Route€2€(ð ðHighway€11"),€from€a€stopÐ L œ Ðsign€at€Shaw€Ferry€Road€in€Loudon€County.€€After€entering€Highway€11,€Boltonððs€vehicle€was€hitÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€rear€by€another€vehicle.€€Bolton€sustained€serious€physical€injuries€in€the€accident€and€herÐ $ t Ðhusband,€Jack€Bolton,€claimed€loss€of€consortium.€€The€record€shows€that€the€section€of€HighwayÐ  ` Ð11€that€includes€the€intersection€was€constructed€in€1924.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àJanet€Bolton€and€her€husband,€Jack€Bolton,€filed€a€Complaint€in€May€1996,€with€theÐ Ô$  ÐState€Claims€Commission€and€named€the€State€of€Tennessee€as€defendant.€€In€the€Complaint,Ð À  ÐPlaintiffs€contended€the€Shaw€Ferry/Highway€11€intersection€(ð ðintersectionðð)€was€dangerous€and€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€State€had€notice€of€the€intersectionððs€defective€condition.€€Plaintiffs€claimed€the€State€was€liableÐ ˜è  Ðfor€its€failure€to€install€safety€devices€at€the€intersection€and€to€otherwise€correct€the€dangerousÐ „Ô  Ðintersection.€€Plaintiffs€alleged€in€the€Complaint€that€the€State€was€liable€for€violation€of€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€ð ðby€negligently€planning,€inspecting,€designing,€and€maintaining€of€[sic]€itsÐ \¬ Ðhighways€.€.€.ðð€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(J)€by€ð ðcausing€dangerous€conditions€to€existÐ H˜ Ðon€state€maintained€highways.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€State,€in€addition€to€filing€an€Answer,€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€Ð  \ ÐThe€State€argued,€in€its€motion,€that€it€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€because€it€wasÐ øH Ðimmune€from€suit€on€Plaintiffsðð€claims.€The€State€argued€its€decisions€regarding€whether€to€installÐ ä4 Ða€traffic€control€device€at€the€intersection€and€whether€to€reconfigure€or€reconstruct€the€intersectionÐ Ð  Ðwere€discretionary€decisions.€€In€support€of€its€motion,€the€State€filed€the€deposition€testimony€ofÐ ¼  ÐPaul€Beebe,€who€in€1994€was€a€traffic€engineer€for€the€Tennessee€Department€of€TransportationÐ ¨ø Ð(ð ðTDOTðð).€€The€record€shows€Beebe€testified€that€in€1994,€at€the€request€of€Loudon€County€officials,Ð ”ä Ðhe€conducted€a€study€of€the€intersection€and€found€the€intersection€had€limited€sight€distance.€€BeebeÐ €Ð Ðfound€the€sight€distance€was€limited€to€50€mph.€€Thereafter,€in€1994,€pursuant€to€Beebeððs€findings,Ð l¼ ÐTDOT€cut€back€trees€and€brush€at€the€intersection€and€installed€crossroad€signs,€a€40€miles€per€hourÐ X ¨ Ðadvisory€speed€plate,€and€stop€bars€for€Shaw€Ferry€Road.€€Beebe€also€recommended€to€TDOT€andÐ D!” ÐLoudon€County€that€a€flashing€beacon€at€the€intersection€was€warranted.€€Beebe€testified€it€is€theÐ 0"€  Ðresponsibility€of€the€individual€county€to€install€traffic€lights.€€Beebe€testified€he€sent€a€memorandumÐ #l! Ðin€September€1994€to€the€TDOT€regional€director€regarding€his€recommendations.€€Beebe€did€notÐ $X" Ðknow€how€the€regional€director€determined€how€to€allocate€the€funds€available€for€road€work.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðrecord€shows€Beebe€also€testified€he€was€aware€federal€funds€were€available€to€correct€and€installÐ à%0!$ Ðtraffic€control€devices€on€state€highways.Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€filed€a€response€(ð ðResponseðð)€to€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€òòóóInÐ ° Ðâ âtheir€Response,€Plaintiffs€agreed€the€State€was€entitled€to€immunity€on€the€issue€of€DefendantsððÐ œì Ðfailure€to€install€a€traffic€device€since€this€decision€was€a€discretionary€function.€€Plaintiffs€argued,Ð ˆØ Ðhowever,€the€State€was€not€immune€from€their€other€claims€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€9„8„Ð tÄ Ð307(a)(1)(I)€&€(J)€and€that€there€were€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€which€precluded€a€grant€ofÐ `° Ðsummary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€to€the€State.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€State,€in€reply€to€Plaintiffsðð€Response,€filed€an€affidavit€of€Beebe€in€which€BeebeÐ $ t Ðstated€the€section€of€Highway€11€that€includes€the€intersection€was€constructed€in€1924€and€had€notÐ  ` Ðbeen€redesigned€or€reconstructed€since€then.€€Beebe€further€stated,€in€his€affidavit,€that€TDOT€hadÐ ü L  Ðre„paved€and€maintained€this€section€of€Highway€11.€€Beebeððs€affidavit€also€provided€that€ð ð[a]s€forÐ è 8  Ðsight€distance€standards€or€guidelines€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€construction€of€this€section€ofÐ Ô$  Ð[Highway€11],€I€am€not€aware€of€any€such€standards€or€guidelines.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Claims€Commission€entered€an€Order€in€May€2001,€denying€the€Stateððs€MotionÐ ˜è  Ðfor€Summary€Judgment.€€The€Order€did€not€provide€the€basis€for€the€Claims€Commissionððs€decision€Ð „Ô  Ðother€than€stating€that€ð ðgenuine€issues€of€material€fact€exist€which€will€require€a€trial€of€this€matter.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àThereafter,€the€State€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€judgment€or,€in€the€alternative,Ð H˜ Ðmotion€for€permission€to€file€an€interlocutory€appeal.€€The€Claims€Commission€denied€the€StateððsÐ 4„ Ðmotion€to€alter€or€amend€judgment€but€granted€its€motion€for€permission€to€file€an€interlocutoryÐ  p Ðappeal.€€This€Court€then€allowed€the€Stateððs€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó ó€€Ð  \ ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal€and€although€not€exactly€stated€as€such,€the€State€raises€the€following€issue:Ð ¼  Ðwhether€the€Claims€Commission€erred€in€denying€the€Stateððs€Motion€for€Summary€JudgmentÐ ¨ø Ðbecause€the€State€is€immune€from€Plaintiffsðð€claims€under€the€common€law€defense€of€discretionaryÐ ”ä Ðfunction€immunity.€€The€State,€in€its€reply€brief,€however,€concedes€it€is€not€entitled€to€summaryÐ €Ð Ðjudgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€portion€of€Highway€11€that€includes€the€intersection€wasÐ l¼ Ðnegligently€designed€or€constructed€but€instead€argues€Plaintiffs€did€not€raise€this€claim€at€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðlevel.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€contend€the€Claims€Commission€correctly€denied€the€Stateððs€Motion€forÐ #l! ÐSummary€Judgment€and€argue€the€State€is€not€entitled€to€discretionary€function€immunity€for€theÐ $X" Ðnegligent€design€and€construction€and€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€intersection€under€Tenn.€CodeÐ ô$D # ÐAnn.€ðððð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€and€(J).€€Plaintiffs,€however,€concede€the€State€is€entitled€to€judgment€asÐ à%0!$ Ða€matter€of€lawò òó ó€under€the€discretionary€function€immunity€defense€for€its€decision€whether€or€not€toÐ Ì&"% Ðinstall€a€traffic€control€device€at€the€intersection.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àOur€Supreme€Court€outlined€the€standard€of€review€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment€in€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assoc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83€(Tenn.€2000):Ð œì ÐÔ‡XUXXXUÔÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€court's€review€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ tÄ Ðjudgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€ofÐ `° Ðlaw,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€lower€court's€judgment,Ð L œ Ðand€our€task€is€confined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrequirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSeeóó€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,Ð $ t Ð955€S.W.2d€49,€50-51€(Tenn.1997);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,Ð  ` Ð816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.1991).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.04Ð ü L  Ðprovides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuineÐ è 8  Ðissue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defenseÐ Ô$  Ðcontained€in€the€motion,€òòseeóó€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.1993);Ð À  Ðand€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðundisputed€facts.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,Ð ˜è  Ð559€(Tenn.1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€its€motionÐ „Ô  Ðsatisfies€these€requirements.€€òòSee€Downen€v.€Allstate€Ins.óó€òòCo.óó,€811€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð523,€524€(Tenn.1991).€€When€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€aÐ \¬ Ðproperly€supported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€setÐ H˜ Ðforth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existence€of€disputed,€material€factsÐ 4„ Ðwhich€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€atÐ  p Ð215.€€Ð \` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àòòóóÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmativelyÐ ä4 Ðnegate€an€essential€element€of€the€non-moving€party's€claim€or€conclusivelyÐ Ð  Ðestablish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,Ð ¼  Ð960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.1998);€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.1997).€€If€the€moving€party€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,Ð ”ä Ðthe€non-moving€party's€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existenceÐ €Ð Ðof€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summaryÐ l¼ Ðjudgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Servóó.,€960€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ðat€588;€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€If€the€moving€partyÐ D!” Ðsuccessfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non-moving€party€mayÐ 0"€  Ðnot€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€theÐ #l! Ðexistence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.Ð$X"` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summaryÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€allÐ ¸'#& Ðreasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Omeróó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210-11.€€Courts€should€grantÐ )à$( Ða€summary€judgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ |*Ì%) Ðfrom€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòSeeÐ h+¸&* ÐMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.1995).Ô#†XUXXXU“*#ÔМì` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88„89.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àð ððð[T]he€State€of€Tennessee,€as€a€sovereign,€is€immune€from€suit€except€as€it€consentsÐ L œ Ðto€be€sued.ðððð€òòStewart€v.€Stateóó,€33€S.W.3d€785,€790€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòBrewington€v.€Brewingtonóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð387€S.W.2d€777,€779€(Tenn.€1965)).€€Our€State€Constitution€provides€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôs]uitsÔ_Ô€may€be€broughtÐ $ t Ðagainst€the€State€in€such€manner€and€in€such€courts€as€the€Legislature€may€by€law€direct.ðð€€Tenn.Ð  ` ÐConst.€art.€I,€ðð€17.€€Our€State€Legislature€created€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€to€hear€andÐ ü L  Ðadjudicate€monetary€claims€against€the€State,€and€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€isÐ è 8  Ðoutlined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a).€€If€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)€does€not€contain€aÐ Ô$  Ðparticular€monetary€claim,€the€State€is€immune€from€suit€for€that€monetary€claim,€and€the€claimantÐ À  Ðmay€not€seek€relief€from€the€State€for€that€claim.€€òòStewart€v.€Stateóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€790.€€In€addition,Ð ¬ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(c)€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€determination€of€the€stateððs€liability€in€tort€shallÐ ˜è  Ðbe€based€on€the€traditional€tort€concepts€of€duty€and€the€reasonably€prudent€personððs€standard€ofÐ „Ô  Ðcare.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àò òó óThe€statute€upon€which€Plaintiffs€rely,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€&€(J),Ð H˜ Ðprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)(1)€The€commission€or€each€commissioner€sitting€individually€hasÐ  \ Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€to€determine€all€monetary€claims€against€theÐ øH Ðstate€based€on€the€acts€or€omissions€of€ð ðstate€employees,ðð€as€definedÐ ä4 Ðin€ðð€8„42„101(3),€falling€within€one€(1)€or€more€of€the€followingÐ Ð  Ðcategories:€.€.€.€Ð¼ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(I)€Negligence€in€planning€and€programming€for,€inspectionÐ ”ä Ðof,€design€of,€preparation€of€plans€for,€approval€of€plans€for,€andÐ €Ð Ðconstruction€of,€public€roads,€streets,€highways,€or€bridges€and€similarÐ l¼ Ðstructures,€and€negligence€in€maintenance€of€highways,€and€bridgesÐ X ¨ Ðand€similar€structures,€designated€by€[TDOT]€as€being€on€the€stateÐ D!” Ðsystem€of€highways€or€the€state€system€of€interstate€highways.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(J)€Dangerous€conditions€on€state€maintained€highways.€€TheÐ $X" Ðclaimant€under€this€subsection€must€establish€the€foreseeability€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðrisk€and€notice€given€to€the€proper€state€officials€at€a€time€sufficientlyÐ à%0!$ Ðprior€to€the€injury€for€the€state€to€have€taken€appropriate€measures.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àFurthermore,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(d),€ð ðððthe€State€may€assert€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcommon€law€immunity€which€has€developed€in€this€State€with€regard€to€discretionary€actions€ofÐ )à$( ÐState€employees.ðððð€òòWaters€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03A01„9808„BC„00243,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€844,€atÐ |*Ì%) Ð*€2„3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€17,€1998),€òòno€appl.€perm.€app.€filedóó,€(quoting€òòCox€v.€Stateóó,€844€S.W.2dÐ h+¸&* Ð173,€176€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)).€€The€State€is€immune€from€suit€for€discretionary€acts€under€thisÐ ° Ðdefense.€€Courts,€when€determining€whether€a€particular€decision€of€the€State€is€discretionary,€areÐ œì Ðto€apply€the€planning„operational€test.€€òòId.óó,€at€*€3;€òòCox€v.€Stateóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€176.€€When€using€theÐ ˆØ Ðplanning„operational€test,€courts€are€to€consider€ð ððð(1)€the€decision„making€process€and€(2)€theÐ tÄ Ðpropriety€of€judicial€review€of€the€resulting€decision.ðððð€òòWaters€v.€Stateóó,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€844,Ð `° Ðat€*€3€(quoting€òòBowers€v.€Chattanooga,óó€826€S.W.2d€427,€431€(Tenn.€1992)).€€A€planning,€orÐ L œ Ðdiscretionary,€decision€has€been€described€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðIf€a€particular€course€of€conduct€is€determined€after€consideration€orÐ  ` Ðdebate€by€an€individual€or€group€charged€with€the€formulation€ofÐ ü L  Ðplans€or€policies,€it€strongly€suggests€the€result€is€a€planning€decision.Ð è 8  Ð.€.€.ðð€€Such€decisions€ð ðoften€result€from€assessing€priorities;€allocatingÐ Ô$  Ðresources;€developing€policies;€or€establishing€plans,€specifications,Ð À  Ðor€schedules.€.€.€.ðð€€Additionally,€it€must€be€taken€into€considerationÐ ¬ü  Ðwhether€the€decision€is€the€type€properly€reviewable€by€a€court.€€ð ðTheÐ ˜è  Ðdiscretionary€function€exception€ððrecognizes€that€courts€are€ill„Ð „Ô  Ðequipped€to€investigate€and€balance€the€numerous€facts€that€go€intoÐ pÀ Ðan€executive€or€legislative€decisionðð€and€therefore€allows€theÐ \¬ Ðgovernment€to€operate€without€undue€interference€from€the€courts.€.Ð H˜ Ð.€.ððÐ4„` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó,€at€*€3„4€(citations€omitted)€(quoting€òòBowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€430).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` à€€Plaintiffs€contend€the€defense€of€discretionary€function€immunity€is€not€availableÐ ä4 Ðto€the€State€for€claims€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€&€(J).€€The€plain€language€of€theÐ Ð  Ðstatute,€itself,€however,€does€not€provide€that€this€defense€does€not€apply€to€claims€made€under€Tenn.Ð ¼  ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€&€(J)€or€that€the€State€is€prohibited€from€asserting€this€defense€toÐ ¨ø Ðthese€claims.€€Instead,€the€statute,€after€outlining€the€claims€for€which€the€Claims€Commission€hasÐ ”ä Ðjurisdiction€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1),€provides€the€State€ð ðmay€assert€any€and€all€defenses,Ð €Ð Ðincluding€common€law€defenses€.€.€.ðð€and€ð ðabsolute€common€law€immunities,ðð€except€for€good€faithÐ l¼ Ðcommon€law€Ô_Ôimmunity,Ô_Ô€which€would€be€available€to€individual€state€employees€or€officers€for€theÐ X ¨ Ðsame€occurrence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(d).€€Moreover,€this€Court,€in€òòWaters€v.€Stateóó,€appliedÐ D!” Ðthe€discretionary€function€immunity€defense€to€claims€brought€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€9„8„Ð 0"€  Ð307(a)(1)(I)€&€(J)€and€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€the€action€because€it€found€the€State€was€entitled€toÐ #l! Ðthe€defense.€€òòId.óó,€at€*€2„8.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€now€address€the€Stateððs€argument€on€appeal€that€the€Claims€Commission€erredÐ à%0!$ Ðin€failing€to€grant€it€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€Plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€State€is€liableÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€its€failure€to€install€a€traffic€control€device€or€make€any€correction€to€the€intersection.€€AlthoughÐ ° Ðnot€specifically€stated€as€such€in€the€Complaint,€this€claim€correlates€to€Plaintiffsðð€claim€that€theÐ œì Ðintersection€constituted€a€ð ðdangerous€conditionðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(J).€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðstatute€does€not€provide€a€definition€of€ð ðdangerous€condition.ðð€€Our€Supreme€Court,€however,€whenÐ tÄ Ðinterpreting€this€statutory€section,€held€that€whether€the€condition€of€a€highway€constitutes€aÐ `° Ðð ðdangerous€conditionðð€is€a€question€of€fact,€holding,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àð ðThe€decision€of€whether€a€condition€of€a€highway€actually€is€a€dangerousÐ $ t Ðand€hazardous€one€to€an€ordinary€prudent€driver€is€a€factual€one,€and€the€court€Ð  ` Ðshould€consider€the€physical€aspects€of€the€roadway,€the€frequency€ofÐ ü L  Ðaccidents€at€that€place€in€the€highway€and€the€testimony€of€expert€witnessesÐ è 8  Ðin€arriving€at€this€factual€determination.€.€.€.ððÐÔ$ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòSweeney€v.€Stateóó,€768€S.W.2d€253,€255€(Tenn.1989)€(quoting€òòHolmes€v.€Christopheróó,€534€So.2dÐ ¬ü  Ð1022,€1026€(La.€App.€4òòthóó€Cir.€1983)).€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€conceded,€both€at€the€Claims€Commission€and€on€appeal,€that€the€State€isÐ pÀ Ðentitled€to€discretionary€function€immunity€for€its€decision€whether€or€not€to€install€a€traffic€controlÐ \¬ Ðdevice.€€Accordingly,€this€was€not€an€issue€in€dispute€before€the€Claims€Commission,€and€is€not€anÐ H˜ Ðissue€in€dispute€on€appeal.€€Therefore,€we€hold€the€Claims€Commission€should€have€granted€theÐ 4„ ÐState's€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€claim€relating€to€the€Stateððs€decision€of€whetherÐ  p Ðor€not€to€install€a€traffic€control€device,€and€we€reverse€this€portion€of€the€Order.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€second€portion€of€Plaintiffs'€claim€that€the€intersection€constitutes€a€dangerousÐ ä4 Ðcondition€is€based€upon€their€argument€that€the€State€failed€to€otherwise€correct€the€intersectionððsÐ Ð  Ðdangerous€defects.€€The€State€contends€it€is€entitled€to€discretionary€function€immunity€on€this€claimÐ ¼  Ðas€well.€€While€discretionary€function€immunity€applies€to€claims€such€as€the€one€made€under€Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(J),€and€even€though€the€Stateððs€decision€regarding€the€correction€of€theÐ ”ä Ðintersectionððs€defects€may€well€be€a€discretionary,€or€planning,€decision,€the€record€before€us€showsÐ €Ð Ðthe€State€did€not€satisfy€its€summary€judgment€burden€of€establishing€this€affirmative€defense.€€òòSeeÐ l¼ ÐStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assoc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88.€€The€record€shows€the€State,€in€attempting€to€establishÐ X ¨ Ðthat€it€was€entitled€to€the€discretionary€function€defense,€relied€only€upon€the€deposition€testimonyÐ D!” Ðand€affidavit€of€TDOT€Traffic€Engineer€Paul€Beebe.€€Beebe's€testimony€and€affidavit€fall€short€ofÐ 0"€  Ðestablishing€that€the€State's€decision€not€to€correct€the€intersection's€problems€was€a€discretionary,Ð #l! Ðor€planning,€function.€€òòSee€Waters€v.€Stateóó,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€844,€at€*€5„7€(holding€theÐ $X" ÐClaims€Commission€correctly€found€the€State's€decision€not€to€install€guardrails€on€a€road€wasÐ ô$D # Ðdiscretionary€as€the€proof€showed€that€TDOT€could€not€yet€improve€the€road€due€to,€in€part,Ð à%0!$ Ðeconomic€limitations).€€At€best,€Beebe€testified€only€that€he€saw€problems€with€the€intersection,Ð Ì&"% Ðmade€recommendations€regarding€how€to€correct€the€intersection,€and€knew€about€sources€forÐ ¸'#& Ðfunding€for€corrective€measures€made€to€state€highways.€€The€record€before€this€Court€does€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontain€undisputed€material€facts€specific€to€assessing€priorities,€allocating€resources,€developingÐ )à$( Ðpolicies,€or€establishing€plans,€specifications€or€schedules€relevant€to€correcting€any€dangerousÐ |*Ì%) Ðcondition€of€the€intersection.€€Accordingly,€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€is€not€sufficient€toÐ h+¸&* Ðjustify€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€State€on€this€claim€because€of€discretionary€functionÐ ° Ðimmunity.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€this€may€well€have€been€a€discretionary,€or€planning,€decision,€by€the€State,Ð tÄ Ðwe€cannot€hold€from€the€record€before€us€that€the€State€has,€as€a€matter€of€law,€met€its€burden€toÐ `° Ðjustify€summary€judgment€being€granted€based€on€this€affirmative€defense.€€Because€the€State€failedÐ L œ Ðto€establish€this€affirmative€defense,€we€hold€the€Claims€Commission€correctly€denied€the€State'sÐ 8 ˆ ÐMotion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€State€failed€to€correct,€by€other€than€aÐ $ t Ðtraffic€control€device,€the€alleged€dangerous€condition€of€the€intersection.€€We€hold€the€defense€ofÐ  ` Ðdiscretionary€function€immunity€is€available€to€the€State€as€to€Plaintiffsðð€claim€the€State€failed€toÐ ü L  Ðcorrect€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€intersection.€€However,€based€upon€the€record€before€us,€theÐ è 8  ÐState€has€failed€to€present€undisputed€material€facts€sufficient€to€show,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€thisÐ Ô$  Ðwas€a€discretionary,€or€planning,€function.€€Ð À  ÐÌò òó óà  àà ` àNext,€we€address€the€Stateððs€argument€on€appeal€that€the€Claims€Commission€erredÐ ˜è  Ðin€failing€to€grant€it€summary€judgment€on€Plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€State€is€liable€for€the€negligentÐ „Ô  Ðplanning€and€construction€of€the€intersection€in€1924.€€On€appeal,€the€State€agrees€with€Plaintiffs€thatÐ pÀ Ða€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€regarding€whether€the€intersection€was€negligently€designedÐ \¬ Ðat€the€time€of€the€construction€of€this€section€of€Highway€11€in€1924,€but€contends€Plaintiffs€did€notÐ H˜ Ðraise€this€claim€at€the€trial€level.€€The€State€argues€it€is€ð ðtoo€lateðð€for€Plaintiffs€to€make€thisÐ 4„ Ðallegation,€essentially€arguing€Plaintiffs€waived€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòDepððt€of€Human€Serv.€v.€DeFriece,óóÐ  p Ð937€S.W.2d€954,€960€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(holding€that€ð ð[i]t€is€well„settled€that€issues€not€raisedÐ  \ Ðat€trial€may€not€be€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appealðð).€€€The€record€on€appeal,€however,€showsÐ øH ÐPlaintiffs€alleged€in€the€Complaint€that€the€State€is€liable€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)Ð ä4 Ðfor€ð ðnegligently€òòplanningóó,€inspecting,€òòdesigningóó,€and€maintaining€of€[sic]€its€highways.€.€.€.ðð€Ð Ð  Ð(emphasis€added).€€The€record€also€shows€Plaintiffs€argued,€in€their€Response€to€the€Motion€forÐ ¼  ÐSummary€Judgment,€that€ð ð[w]hether€the€State€was€negligent€in€the€òòdesign€or€constructionóó€of€a€publicÐ ¨ø Ð.€.€.€highway€pursuant€to€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€is€a€factual€inquiry€following€the€general€principles€of€theÐ ”ä Ðlaw€of€negligence.ðð€€(emphasis€added).€€Accordingly,€we€find€Plaintiffs€raised€this€allegation€at€theÐ €Ð Ðtrial€level.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition,€we€find€the€Stateððs€concession€that€this€issue,€if€raised€by€Plaintiffs€below,Ð D!” Ðis€not€ripe€for€summary€judgment€is€appropriate.€€The€Stateððs€concession€was€based€upon€itsÐ 0"€  Ðacknowledgment€that€discretionary€function€immunity€would€not€protect€the€State€from€any€negligentÐ #l! Ðdesign€and€construction€of€the€intersection€in€1924.€€€ð ðThe€State€has€a€duty€to€exercise€reasonableÐ $X" Ðcare€under€all€the€attendant€circumstances€in€planning,€designing,€constructing€and€maintaining€theÐ ô$D # ÐState€system€of€highways€[and]€.€.€.€owes€this€duty€to€persons€lawfully€traveling€upon€the€highwaysÐ à%0!$ Ðof€Tennessee.ðð€€òòGoodermote€v.€Stateóó,€856€S.W.2d€715,€720€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(citing€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ì&"% ÐAnn.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)).€This€specific€issue€or€claim€concerns€whether€the€State€breached€its€dutyÐ ¸'#& Ðof€care€when€it€designed€and€constructed€the€portion€of€Highway€11€that€includes€the€intersection.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€record€on€appeal€contains€no€proof€regarding€whether€the€State€met€its€duty€to€exerciseÐ )à$( Ðreasonable€care€as€the€record€does€not€show€whether€the€State€complied€with€the€plans€for€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðconstruction€of€the€intersection€and€whether€those€plans€complied€with€industry€standards€as€theyÐ h+¸&* Ðexisted€in€1924.€€òòSee€id.óó€(holding€the€State€breached€its€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€theÐ ° Ðconstruction€of€a€bridge€on€I„24€by€its€failure€to€comply€with€the€plans€and,€therefore,€was€liableÐ œì Ðunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)).€€€Beebeððs€affidavit,€as€relevant€to€this€claim,€providesÐ ˆØ Ðonly€that€Beebe,€a€TDOT€traffic€engineer,€is€not€aware€of€any€sight€distance€standards€or€guidelinesÐ tÄ Ðthat€were€in€effect€in€1924.€€Accordingly,€the€record€shows€the€State,€as€the€moving€party,€failed€toÐ `° Ðsatisfy€its€burden€either€to€establish€an€affirmative€defense€or€negate€an€essential€element€of€thisÐ L œ Ðclaim.€€òòSee€Staplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88.€€€Therefore,€we€hold€the€Claims€Commission€correctly€deniedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Stateððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€State€was€liable,€under€Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I),€for€the€negligent€design€and/or€construction€of€the€intersection€inÐ  ` Ð1924.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òòòÔ‡XUXXXUÔà@  %ìàConclusionˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌóóó óà  àà ` àÔ#†XUXXXUÄ#ÔWe€reverse€the€portion€of€the€Claims€Commissionððs€judgment€relative€to€the€StateððsÐ ¬ü  Ðdecision€not€to€install€a€traffic€control€device€and€hold€that€the€State€is€entitled€to€summary€judgmentÐ ˜è  Ðon€€Plaintiffsðð€claim€based€upon€the€Stateððs€decision€regarding€whether€or€not€to€install€a€trafficÐ „Ô  Ðcontrol€device.€€The€remainder€of€the€Claims€Commissionððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ô‡XUXXXUÔThis€cause€isÐ pÀ Ðremanded€to€the€Claims€Commission€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€consistentÐ \¬ Ðwith€this€Opinion,€and€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€againstÐ H˜ Ðthe€Appellant,€the€State€of€Ô_ÔTennessee.Ô#†XUXXXU‚#ÔÔ_ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE