ÿWPC `NA¾SïæDã«ñdví]ôonXZ ßfz”q £Ãï³DÀH¤£ƒùs 쎕i—윎¶kèÄä¼Ò£í»%¶&//`%¢äH"âü·½P;x¸o…òV2ÐfæŒK'#êêýûÉ뻑ó™Å8RÒ/dEVã¨5ãŸ}!©ŒšTk·àU¯Y±¢%/ÙM{‡)i#zŸãÜ}èQèЦÈ–©É‡R9nv2 ˆcœô<2‰¨:rþíõù9ª0Ö©xÅðšCž¸­óÞ¶ ŒTÂyÂzö50ð4üm„bÂJ£[«ìÓ¯‰íT*¯¤¥îŒk`½c´Ô[áwCï]o–æ253î|‡]s@6•Pv¾ óÈÝ…"}špb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ Ð Æ™ Æ_ Æ%Æë 0D±NõN÷<EE僃EhH­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­bõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D5© D-Þ 0K   ASVÆ© 0¤o 0D A«W»r”41Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DÝ ƒRH $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Some€of€this€information€was€obtained€from€a€sworn€statement€Plaintiff€provided€to€the€Tennessee€BureauÐ ° Ðof€Investigation€on€December€13,€2000,€the€day€after€the€children€died.€€ 2Ý ƒRH $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððv€49„6„3007(e)(1)€provides:€ð ðIt€is€the€duty€of€the€principal€or€teacher€of€every€public,Ð ° Ðprivate€or€parochial€school€to€report€promptly€to€the€director€of€schools,€or€the€director€of€schools'€designatedÐ tÄ Ðrepresentative,€the€names€of€all€children€who€have€withdrawn€from€school,€or€who€have€been€absent€five€(5)€days€(thisÐ 8ˆ Ðmeans€an€aggregate€of€five€(5)€days€during€the€school€year€and€not€necessarily€five€(5)€consecutive€days)€withoutÐ üL Ðadequate€excuse.€€Each€successive€accumulation€of€five€(5)€unexcused€absences€by€a€student€shall€also€be€reported.ððÐ À ÐÌà  à€ ÛÝ ƒRH $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Plaintiff€claims€Thacker€apparently€meant€to€write€ð ðKeeping€Promise€òòtoóó€Mother.ðð€ ;Ý ƒRH $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€School€later€destroyed€these€documents€so€we€do€not€know€exactly€which€documents€were€provided€toÐ ° Ðthe€School,€although€Principal€Lowery€did€recall€seeing€the€MDA.€€ HOLLIHANEYPuckett P.J.Cagle CBLCowdenSovran OmerCarvellAssocsNevillTullahomaHenningChatt T]he TBI h]eBurginStephHattenbaughOBoyle COASwiney Administratrixunexcused GTLAGaubert S.CtLimbaughMaylynThacker- ù-(|G2H $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»Ô d(|3?ƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼F½»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îLF½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼F½»îîL #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€9,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼F½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼F½»XXñ#ÔHOLLI€THACKER€HANEY,€òòet€al.óó€v.€BRADLEY€COUNTY€BOARD€OFÐ úJ ÐEDUCATION,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XX»¼F½Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌÔ#†¼F½»XXŸ#ÔÔ€XX»¼F½Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bradley€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€V„01„1033€€€€€€Lawrence€H.€Puckett,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02531„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Filed€September€20,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` Aßó óÓ  ÓÐ ‘á  ÐÌÌHolli€Thacker€Haney€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€had€two€children€who€attended€Michigan€Avenue€ElementaryÐ xÈ ÐSchool€(the€ð ðSchoolðð)€in€Bradley€County.€€Plaintiffððs€husband,€Tracy€Thacker€(ð ðThackerðð),€was€notÐ d´ Ðthe€biological€father€of€the€oldest€child,€but€he€was€the€biological€father€of€the€youngest€child.€Ð P  ÐThacker€filed€for€divorce,€and€he€and€Plaintiff€were€in€sharp€disagreement€over€custody€matters.€Ð <Œ ÐApparently€believing€he€was€going€to€lose€on€the€custody€issues,€on€the€morning€of€December€12,Ð (x Ð2000,€Thacker€went€to€the€School€and€signed€out€both€children.€€The€School€required€Thacker€toÐ d Ðprovide€a€written€explanation€as€to€why€the€children€were€being€signed€out.€€Thacker€wrote€ð ðKeepingÐ P ÐPromise€by€Motherðð€and€ð ðPay€Backðð€as€his€reasons€for€signing€out€the€children.€€School€employeesÐ ì< Ðdid€not€read€what€Thacker€had€written€prior€to€allowing€him€to€leave€the€premises€with€the€children.€Ð Ø( ÐTragically,€Thacker€then€murdered€both€young€children.€€Plaintiff€sued€the€Bradley€County€BoardÐ Ä Ðof€Education€asserting€claims€of€negligence€and€negligence€òòper€seóó€based€on€the€Schoolððs€allowingÐ ° ÐThacker€to€sign€out€the€children€and€leave€the€School€with€them€on€December€12.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ œì Ðgranted€the€Board€of€Educationððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,Ð ˆØ Ðand€remand€for€further€proceedings.€€Ð t Ä ÐÌà@k k ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€CircuitˆÐ L"œ! Ðà@  ìàCourt€Affirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€Remandedó óˆÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.,óó€andÐ %` $ ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ü%L!% ÐÌLynn€Perry,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Holli€Thacker€Haney,€individually€and€asÐ Ô'$#' ÐAdministratrix€of€the€Estate€of€Maylyn€Thacker€and€the€Estate€of€Carson€Thacker.€€Ð À($( ÐÌCharles€W.€Cagle,€Robert€G.€Wheeler,€Jr.,€and€Deb€A.€Smith,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€AppelleeÐ ˜*è%* ÐBradley€County€Board€of€Education.€Ð  „+Ô&+ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€lawsuit€was€filed€by€Plaintiff€against€the€Bradley€County€Board€of€Education€(theÐ `° Ðð ðBoardðð€or€ð ðBoard€of€Educationðð)€following€the€tragic€murder€of€Plaintiffððs€two€young€children.€Ð L œ ÐBefore€we€discuss€the€specifics€of€Plaintiffððs€lawsuit,€some€background€information€is€necessary.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐPlaintiff€and€Thacker€were€married€on€February€29,€1992.€€This€was€Plaintiffððs€first€marriage.€Ð $ t ÐThacker€had€been€married€previously.€€Plaintiff€was€pregnant€when€she€married€Thacker.€€BothÐ  ` ÐPlaintiff€and€Thacker€were€aware€that€Thacker€might€not€be€the€biological€father€of€the€unborn€child,Ð ü L  Ðbut€they€nevertheless€proceeded€with€the€marriage.€€Plaintiff€gave€birth€to€a€daughter,€Maylyn,€inÐ è 8  ÐAugust€of€1992.€€Even€though€the€paternity€of€Maylyn€was€uncertain,€Thacker€was€listed€on€the€birthÐ Ô$  Ðcertificate€as€her€father,€she€was€given€Thackerððs€last€name,€and€Thacker€raised€Maylyn€as€thoughÐ À  Ðshe€were€his€child.€€Plaintiff€and€Thacker€had€a€son,€Carson,€who€was€born€in€December€of€1994.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThacker€filed€for€divorce€in€May€of€2000,€alleging€irreconcilable€differences€hadÐ „Ô  Ðarisen€between€him€and€Plaintiff.€€In€his€complaint€for€divorce,€Thacker€stated€that€genetic€testingÐ pÀ Ðhad€proven€that€he€was€not€Maylynððs€biological€father.€€Along€with€the€complaint,€Thacker€filed€aÐ \¬ ÐMarital€Dissolution€Agreement€(ð ðMDAðð)€which€had€been€signed€by€Thacker€and€Plaintiff.€€TheÐ H˜ ÐMDA€provided€for€joint€custody€of€Carson,€designated€Thacker€as€the€primary€residential€parent,€andÐ 4„ Ðset€forth€Plaintiffððs€visitation€schedule.€€The€MDA€made€no€mention€of€Maylyn.€€The€followingÐ  p Ðmonth,€at€Thackerððs€request€a€guardian€ad€litem€was€appointed€on€Maylynððs€behalf.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€though€the€divorce€action€was€pending,€Plaintiff€and€both€children€continuedÐ ä4 Ðliving€with€Thacker,€as€well€as€Thackerððs€daughter€and€step„daughter€from€his€previous€marriage.€Ð Ð  ÐIn€September€of€2000,€Plaintiff€and€Thacker€separated.€€That€same€month,€Plaintiff€filed€a€motionÐ ¼  Ðto€set€aside€the€MDA€and€for€a€temporary€restraining€order.€€In€support€of€the€motion,€Plaintiff€filedÐ ¨ø Ðher€affidavit€stating€that€Thacker€had€threatened€to€kill€her€and€her€mother€and€sister€if€she€contestedÐ ”ä Ðthe€divorce.€€Plaintiff€claimed€it€was€because€of€these€threats€that€she€signed€the€MDA€whichÐ €Ð Ðdesignated€Thacker€as€Carsonððs€primary€residential€parent.€€Based€on€the€contents€of€the€affidavit,Ð l¼ ÐPlaintiffððs€motion€for€a€temporary€restraining€order€was€granted.€€The€restraining€order€furtherÐ X ¨ Ðprovided€that€ð ðthe€parties€will€treat€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€as€a€Temporary€Order€untilÐ D!” Ðfurther€orders€of€the€Court.ðð€€This€resulted€in€Thacker€being€Carsonððs€primary€residential€parent€andÐ 0"€  ÐPlaintiff€being€Maylynððs€primary€residential€parent€while€the€divorce€litigation€was€pending.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р#l! ÐNotwithstanding€the€fact€that€Thacker€was€not€Maylynððs€biological€father,€he€continued€to€exerciseÐ $X" Ðovernight€visitation€with€Maylyn€and€refer€to€her€as€his€daughter.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThroughout€the€divorce€proceedings,€Thacker€was€insistent€that€he€be€CarsonððsÐ Ì&"% Ðprimary€residential€parent.€€Thacker€apparently€came€to€realize€that€this€was€not€likely€to€happen€andÐ ¸'#& Ðon€the€morning€of€December€12,€2000,€he€went€to€the€School€where€Maylyn€attended€third€grade€andÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCarson€attended€kindergarten.€€Thacker€signed€out€both€children€from€school.€€On€the€sign„out€sheet,Ð ° ÐThacker€wrote€ð ðKeeping€Promise€by€Motherðð€as€the€reason€for€signing€out€Maylyn,€and€ð ðPay€BackððÐ œì Ðas€the€reason€for€signing€out€Carson.€€The€Schoolððs€office€employees€did€not€read€the€reasonsÐ ˆØ ÐThacker€gave€for€signing€out€the€children€before€allowing€Thacker€to€leave€with€the€children,€andÐ tÄ ÐThacker€was€allowed€to€leave€with€the€children€with€no€questions€asked.€€Thacker€returned€to€hisÐ `° Ðhouse€and€stabbed€the€children€to€death.€€After€murdering€the€children,€he€set€their€bodies€and€theÐ L œ Ðhouse€on€fire.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffððs€lawsuit€against€the€Board€of€Education€is€based€on€theories€of€negligenceÐ  ` Ðand€negligence€òòper€seóó.€€The€complaint€centers€around€the€Schoolððs€allowing€Thacker€to€sign€out€theÐ ü L  Ðchildren.€€In€the€complaint,€Plaintiff€alleged€the€School€was€negligent€in€not€obtaining€a€properÐ è 8  Ðreason€for€the€dismissal€of€the€children€before€allowing€them€to€leave,€and€in€allowing€them€to€leaveÐ Ô$  Ðwith€Thacker€when€Plaintiff€had€specifically€requested€that€Thacker€not€be€allowed€to€remove€theÐ À  Ðchildren€from€the€Schoolððs€premises.€€Plaintiff€also€claimed€the€School€failed€to€comply€with€its€ownÐ ¬ü  Ðpolicy€by€not€allowing€Plaintiff€to€deny€Thacker€access€to€the€children.€€Plaintiff€further€claimed€thatÐ ˜è  ÐSchool€representatives€were€aware€of€Thackerððs€violent€propensities€and,€therefore,€were€negligentÐ „Ô  Ðin€allowing€him€to€take€the€children€from€the€School.€€According€to€Plaintiff,€had€the€School€notÐ pÀ Ðimproperly€allowed€Thacker€to€leave€with€the€children,€they€would€not€have€died.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Board€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€claiming€the€undisputed€materialÐ 4„ Ðfacts€showed:€€(1)€the€School€complied€with€the€Board€of€Educationððs€early„dismissal€policy;€(2)Ð  p Ðeven€if€the€School€violated€the€early€dismissal€policy,€the€policy€itself€cannot€form€the€basis€of€aÐ  \ Ðnegligence€òòper€seóó€claim;€(3)€the€Schoolððs€representatives€acted€with€reasonable€and€ordinary€care;Ð øH Ð(4)€Thackerððs€murder€of€the€children€was€the€proximate€cause€of€Plaintiffððs€injuries;€and€(5)€theÐ ä4 ÐBoard€was€immune€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€€NumerousÐ Ð  Ðdepositions€were€filed€with€the€Trial€Court€both€in€support€of€the€Boardððs€motion€for€summaryÐ ¼  Ðjudgment,€and€in€support€of€Plaintiffððs€opposition€thereto.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€August€of€2003,€the€Trial€Court€issued€a€very€detailed€and€thoughtfulÐ €Ð ÐMemorandum€Opinion€granting€the€Boardððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€In€summary,€the€TrialÐ l¼ ÐCourt€concluded:€1)€Thacker€was€the€legal€father€of€Maylyn;€2)€the€School€complied€with€the€BoardÐ X ¨ Ðof€Educationððs€policy€on€early€dismissal;€3)€Thackerððs€murder€of€the€children€was€not€foreseeable;Ð D!” Ð4)€the€Board€was€immune€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€because€theÐ 0"€  ÐSchoolððs€representatives€complied€with€the€Boardððs€policy€and€procedure€regarding€early€dismissalÐ #l! Ðand€acted€in€furtherance€of€the€legislative€directive€underlying€the€Boardððs€early€dismissal€policy;Ð $X" Ðand€5)€the€School€had€no€legal€duty€to€withhold€the€children€from€one€parent€at€the€request€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðother€parent€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€On€appeal,€Plaintiff€challenges€each€of€theseÐ à%0!$ Ðrulings€by€the€Trial€Court.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòBlair€v.€West€Town€Mallóó,€our€Supreme€Court€recently€reiterated€the€standardsÐ ˆØ Ðapplicable€when€appellate€courts€are€reviewing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.òò€€Blair€v.€West€TownÐ tÄ ÐMallóó,€130€S.W.3d€761€(Tenn.€2004).€€In€òòBlairóó,€the€Court€stated:€Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiryÐ $ t Ðinvolves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ  ` Ðattaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€is€confined€toÐ ü L  Ðreviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€ofÐ è 8  ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Staples€v.Ð Ô$  ÐCBL€&€Assoc.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€88€(Tenn.€2000);€òòHunter€v.Ð À  ÐBrownóó,€955€S.W.2d€49,€50-51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCowden€v.€SovranÐ ¬ü  ÐBank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€TennesseeÐ ˜è  ÐRule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€isÐ „Ô  Ðappropriate€where:€1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€theÐ pÀ Ðmaterial€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€theÐ \¬ Ðmotion,€and€2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÐ H˜ Ðof€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à*€*€*€Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàWhen€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properlyÐ ä4 Ðsupported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€partyÐ Ð  Ðto€set€forth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existence€ofÐ ¼  Ðdisputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÐ ¨ø Ðfact.€€Ð”ä¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàà  àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€mustÐ l¼ Ðeither€affirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðnon-moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establish€anÐ D!” Ðaffirmative€defense.€€If€the€moving€party€fails€to€negate€aÐ 0"€  Ðclaimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non-moving€partyððs€burden€toÐ #l! Ðproduce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issueÐ $X" Ðfor€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ ô$D # Ðmust€fail.€€If€the€moving€party€successfully€negates€a€claimedÐ à%0!$ Ðbasis€for€the€action,€the€non-moving€party€may€not€simply€restÐ Ì&"% Ðupon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€theÐ ¸'#& Ðexistence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.€€Ð¤(ô#'¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòBlairóó,€130€S.W.3d€at€763„64,€767€(quoting€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88-89).€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àOur€Supreme€Court€also€has€provided€instruction€regarding€assessing€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðwhen€dealing€with€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€stating:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€theÐ tÄ Ðsummary€judgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€mustÐ `° Ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€partyÐ L œ Ðand€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmovingÐ 8 ˆ Ðpartyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.Ð $ t ÐHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210-11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summaryÐ  ` Ðjudgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ ü L  Ðfrom€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€oneÐ è 8  Ðconclusion.€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  Ð1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌòòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assocs.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Boardððs€early€dismissal€policy€(the€ð ðPolicyðð)€in€effect€at€the€relevant€timeÐ pÀ Ðprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÌà@ÕÕ ìàò òDISMISSAL€PRECAUTIONSó óˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€following€procedure€will€be€observed€with€regard€to€dismissal€ofÐ  \ Ðstudents€during€school€hours:ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€No€student€will€leave€school€prior€to€regular€dismissal€hours,Ð Ð  Ðexcept€with€the€request€of€the€parent€and€approval€of€the€principal.€Ð ¼  ÐRecord€of€the€time€and€date€of€departure€and€return€of€all€studentsÐ ¨ø Ðleaving€or€returning€to€the€school€during€the€school€day€with€theÐ ”ä Ðreason€for€leaving€shall€be€kept€on€file€for€the€entire€year.ð8ðЀÐ` x` x ÐÌÌIn€addition€to€the€foregoing,€the€School€has€what€is€referred€to€as€a€ð ðcustody€bookðð€wherein€theÐ D!” ÐSchool€keeps€court€documents€dealing€with€custody€awards,€visitation€restrictions,€and€the€like.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€will€address€Plaintiffððs€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim.€€The€Board€argues€that€evenÐ $X" Ðif€the€Policy€was€violated,€violation€of€a€school€board€policy€cannot€form€the€basis€of€a€negligenceÐ ô$D # Ðòòper€seóó€claim.€€In€òòSmith€v.€Owenóó,€841€S.W.2d€828€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€this€Court€observed€that:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€doctrine€of€negligence€òòper€seóó€is€firmly€established€in€ourÐ ¸'#& Ðcase€law.€€In€order€to€recover€on€the€basis€of€negligence€òòper€seóó,€threeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðelements€must€be€established.€€First,€it€must€be€shown€that€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendant€violated€a€statute€or€ordinance€which€"imposes€a€duty€orÐ |*Ì%) Ðprohibits€an€act€for€the€benefit€of€a€person€or€the€public."€€òòNevill€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐCity€of€Tullahoma,óó€756€S.W.2d€226,€232-233€(Tenn.€1988)€ð8ð.€Ð ° ÐSecond,€the€proof€must€show€that€the€injured€party€was€within€theÐ œì Ðclass€of€persons€whom€the€legislative€body€intended€to€benefit€andÐ ˆØ Ðprotect€by€the€enactment€of€that€particular€statute€or€ordinance.ð8ð€€InÐ tÄ Ðaddition€to€establishing€negligence€òòper€seóó€by€showing€these€twoÐ `° Ðelements,€the€plaintiff€must€of€course€show€that€such€negligence€wasÐ L œ Ðthe€proximate€cause€of€the€injury.ð8ð€Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌòòSmith€v.€Owenóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€831€(citations€omitted€in€part).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòSnider€v.€Snideróó,€855€S.W.2d€588€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),€this€Court€addressedÐ è 8  Ðwhether€the€violation€of€a€school€board€policy€could€form€the€basis€of€a€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòSnideróó€involved€a€minor€child€who€had€signed€herself€out€of€school€and€eventually€was€found€at€theÐ À  Ðhome€of€a€distant€relative.€€Thereafter,€the€school€was€instructed€by€the€parents€not€to€let€anyoneÐ ¬ü  Ðexcept€the€parents€check€their€daughter€out€of€school.€€Later€that€same€school€year,€the€child€becameÐ ˜è  Ðsick€at€school.€€The€school€was€unable€to€locate€the€parents€and€the€childððs€uncle,€who€worked€withÐ „Ô  Ðthe€father,€was€contacted€and€agreed€to€pick€up€the€child.€€After€picking€up€the€child€from€school,Ð pÀ Ðthe€uncle€raped€the€child€causing€serious€physical€and€emotional€injuries.€€òòId.óó€at€589.€€The€schoolÐ \¬ Ðboardððs€policy€stated€that€students€should€not€be€allowed€to€leave€school€ð ðwithout€request€of€theÐ H˜ Ðparent/guardian€and€the€approval€of€the€principal.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€590.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addressing€the€various€issues,€the€òòSnideróó€Court€noted€that€schools,€teachers,€andÐ  \ Ðadministrators€have€a€duty€to€exercise€ordinary€care€for€the€safety€of€students.€€òòId.óó€at€590€(citingÐ øH ÐòòRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€Bd.€of€Educóó.,€692€S.W.2d€863,€870€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985)).€€WithÐ ä4 Ðregard€to€the€plaintiffsðð€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim,€the€òòSnideróó€Court€stated€that€ð ð[n]ot€every€violationÐ Ð  Ðof€a€statute€or€ordinance€is€negligence€per€se;€it€depends€on€the€type€of€statute€or€ordinance€and€theÐ ¼  Ðreason€it€was€adopted.ð8ð€A€violation€of€oneððs€own€rules€presents€even€more€serious€problems.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐòòSnideróó,€855€S.W.2d€at€590.€€The€òòSnideróó€Court€went€on€to€discuss€cases€involving€claimed€violationsÐ ”ä Ðof€private€rules€or€rules€which€did€not€rise€to€the€level€of€statutes€or€ordinances.€€In€so€doing,€theÐ €Ð ÐòòSnideróó€Court€quoted€the€following€excerpt€òòfrom€Epstein,€Henning€&€Co.€v.€Nashville€Chatt.€&€St.Ð l¼ ÐL.€Ry.€Co.óó,€4€Tenn.€App.€412,€420„21€(1926):€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àPrivate€rules€of€a€master€regulating€the€conduct€of€his€servantsÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€management€of€his€own€business,€although€designed€for€theÐ #l! Ðprotection€of€others,€stand€on€an€entirely€different€footing€fromÐ $X" Ðstatutes€and€municipal€ordinances€designed€for€the€protection€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðpublic.€€The€latter,€as€far€as€they€go,€fix€the€standard€of€duty€towardÐ à%0!$ Ðthose€whom€they€were€intended€to€protect,€and€a€violation€of€them€isÐ Ì&"% Ðnegligence€in€law€or€per€se.€€But€a€person€cannot,€by€the€adoption€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðprivate€rules,€fix€the€standard€of€his€duty€to€others.€€That€is€fixed€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlaw,€either€statutory€or€common.€€Such€rules€may€require€more,€orÐ )à$( Ðthey€may€require€less,€than€the€law€requires;€and€whether€a€certainÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourse€of€conduct€is€negligent,€or€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care,Ð h+¸&* Ðmust€be€determined€by€the€standard€fixed€by€law,€without€regard€toÐ ° Ðany€private€rules€of€the€party.Мì` x` x ÐÌòòSnideróó,€588€S.W.2d€at€590„91.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€discussing€òòEpsteinóó€and€similar€cases,€the€òòSnideróó€Court€concluded€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðhad€properly€dismissed€the€plaintiffsðð€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim.€€Specifically,€the€òòSnideróó€Court€stated:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àUnder€these€authorities€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€a€violationÐ  ` Ðof€the€school€board€policy€did€not€amount€to€negligence€per€se.€€EvenÐ ü L  Ðif€a€violation€[of€the€school€board€policy]€could€be€introduced€asÐ è 8  Ðsome€evidence€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€defendants,€under€allÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€circumstances€in€this€case€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÐ À  Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€trial€judgeÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€defendants€were€not€negligent.€€Here,€an€eleven-year-old€childÐ ˜è  Ðcomplained€of€being€ill€and€attempted€to€call€her€parents€in€order€toÐ „Ô  Ðbe€taken€home.€€Subsequently,€the€child's€uncle€showed€up€to€sign€herÐ pÀ Ðout€and€the€child€showed€no€hesitancy€in€leaving€with€him.€€UnderÐ \¬ Ðthese€circumstances€the€school€officials€had€no€notice€that€the€personÐ H˜ Ðsigning€the€child€out€posed€a€threat.€€Thus,€we€do€not€think€the€releaseÐ 4„ Ðof€the€child€amounted€to€negligence.ð8ðÐ p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAssuming€that€the€conduct€of€the€defendants€did€amount€toÐ øH Ðnegligence,€we€think€the€plaintiffs'€case€fails€for€the€other€reason€citedÐ ä4 Ðby€the€trial€judge:€the€defendants'€negligence€was€not€the€proximateÐ Ð  Ðcause€of€the€injury€because€the€injury€was€entirely€unforeseeable.ð8ðм ` x` x ÐÌòòSnideróó,€855€S.W.2d€at€591.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€we€agree€with€the€Board€that€its€Policy€cannot€form€the€basis€ofÐ l¼ Ða€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim.€€The€Policy€is€neither€a€statute€nor€an€ordinance.€€Rather,€it€is€a€ruleÐ X ¨ Ðadopted€by€the€Board€of€Education€intended€to€regulate€the€conduct€of€school€employees€whenÐ D!” Ðreleasing€students€during€school€hours.€€The€applicable€standard€of€care€owed€by€the€Board€and€theÐ 0"€  ÐSchool€is€established€by€law,€not€the€Policy.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÐ #l! Ðwhen€it€granted€the€Boardððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€Plaintiffððs€negligence€òòper€seóó€claim.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€next€argues€that€the€School€was€negligent€when€it€released€Maylyn€toÐ à%0!$ ÐThacker€because:€(1)€Thacker€was€not€Maylynððs€biological€father;€(2)€School€employees€were€awareÐ Ì&"% ÐThacker€was€not€Maylynððs€biological€father;€and€(3)€only€a€day€or€two€before€Maylynððs€murder,Ð ¸'#& ÐPlaintiff€had€instructed€the€School€not€to€release€Maylyn€to€Thacker.€€When€Plaintiff€instructed€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSchool€not€to€release€Maylyn€to€Thacker,€Plaintiff€was€informed€by€the€School€that€it€must€have€legalÐ )à$( Ðâ âdocumentation€in€order€to€prohibit€Thacker€from€signing€her€out.€€Plaintiff€responded€by€stating€that,Ð |*Ì%) Ðaccording€to€her€attorney,€because€Thacker€was€not€Maylynððs€biological€father€she€did€not€need€anyÐ ° Ðdocumentation€in€order€to€prevent€that€from€happening.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àIn€its€Memorandum€Opinion,€the€Trial€Court€correctly€noted€that€Thacker€wasÐ tÄ Ðpresumed€to€be€Maylynððs€father€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„304(a)(1)€because€she€was€bornÐ `° Ðwhile€Thacker€and€Plaintiff€were€married.€€This€is,€however,€a€rebuttable€presumption€which€wasÐ L œ Ðeffectively€rebutted€when€the€DNA€test€conclusively€established€that€Thacker€was€not€MaylynððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðbiological€father.€€Although€this€Court€cannot€ascertain€the€exact€date€the€DNA€test€was€performed,Ð $ t Ðit€obviously€was€conducted€prior€to€May€of€2000€when€the€complaint€for€divorce€which€discussedÐ  ` Ðthe€DNA€test€results€was€filed.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€stated€previously,€after€the€complaint€for€divorce€was€filed€and€once€Plaintiff€andÐ Ô$  ÐThacker€separated,€Thacker€continued€to€exercise€overnight€visitation€with€Maylyn€and€continuedÐ À  Ðto€refer€to€her€as€his€daughter.€€Maylyn€never€was€told€Thacker€was€not€her€biological€father.€Ð ¬ü  ÐMaylynððs€guardian€ad€litem€met€with€Plaintiff€in€May€of€2000€and€a€report€discussing€this€meetingÐ ˜è  Ðstates:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMrs.€Thacker€states€that€Tracy€ð ðis€a€good€fatherðð€to€both€Carson€andÐ \¬ ÐMaylyn.€€She€recognizes€the€close€emotional€ties€between€Maylyn€andÐ H˜ Ðher€husband.€€Mrs.€Thacker€insisted,€ð ðI€donððt€want€him€to€be€taken€outÐ 4„ Ðof€Maylynððs€life.ðð€Ð p` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€guardianððs€report€also€details€discussions€with€Thacker.€€The€report€indicates€thatÐ øH ÐThacker€wanted€to€have€the€same€rights€as€a€natural€father€would€have€when€it€came€to€Maylyn.€Ð ä4 ÐThacker€stated:€ð ðMaylyn€is€my€daughter€ð8ð€Iððve€raised€her€for€8€ðð€years€and€Iððm€the€only€Dad€sheÐ Ð  Ðknows.ðð€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€recommendation€of€the€guardian€ad€litem€contains€the€following€conclusion:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€Guardian€is€vehement€in€his€recommendation€to€the€Court€thatÐ l¼ ÐTracy€Thacker,€whom€Maylyn€has€since€birth€and€still€now€considersÐ X ¨ Ðto€be€her€father,€continue€to€have€a€large€role€in€her€life€assumingÐ D!” Ðcustody€is€awarded€to€[the]€mother€ð8ð.€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€October€of€2000,€Maylynððs€third€grade€class€was€to€take€a€field€trip€to€a€pumpkinÐ $X" Ðpatch€for€Halloween.€€Plaintiff€signed€an€authorization€for€Maylyn€to€go€on€this€field€trip€and€wroteÐ ô$D # Ðthe€following€on€the€authorization:€€ð ðMaylynððs€dad,€Tracy€Thacker,€would€like€to€chaperone.€€PleaseÐ à%0!$ Ðmark€him€down.€€He€will€drive€his€own€car.€€Thanks!ðð€€In€a€sworn€statement€provided€to€theÐ Ì&"% ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€the€day€following€the€childrenððs€deaths,€Plaintiff€stated:€ð ðTracyÐ ¸'#& Ðand€I€had€joint€custody€of€the€children€but€he€had€primary€residence€of€our€son.ðð€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€Trial€Court€ruled€that€for€all€intents€and€purposes,Ð |*Ì%) ÐThacker€was€Maylynððs€father.€€After€reaching€this€conclusion,€the€Trial€Court€stated:Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhat€the€court€is€ruling€here€is€that€where€two€parents€are€involved,Ð ° Ðthe€school€has€no€legal€duty€to€follow€the€instructions€of€one€parentÐ œì Ðto€withhold€the€children€from€the€custody€of€the€other€parent€unlessÐ ˆØ Ðthe€instruction€is€accompanied€by€a€court€order€which€limits€the€otherÐ tÄ Ðparentððs€custodial€rights€in€the€way€the€parentððs€instruction€proposes.€Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àGiven€the€peculiar€facts€of€this€case€as€outlined€above,€we€agree€with€the€Trial€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€School€was€not€negligent€in€requiring€Plaintiff€to€provide€legalÐ $ t Ðdocumentation€to€the€effect€that€Thacker€no€longer€had€any€rights€to€Maylyn€or,€at€a€minimum,€noÐ  ` Ðright€to€sign€her€out€from€school€before€it€could€prohibit€Thacker€from€doing€just€that.€€For€most€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€time€Maylyn€attended€the€School,€the€School€had€no€reason€to€believe€Thacker€was€not€herÐ è 8  Ðbiological€father.€€For€instance,€the€School€had€Maylynððs€birth€certificate€which€listed€Thacker€as€herÐ Ô$  Ðfather,€etc.€It€was€not€until€sometime€in€2000€before€the€paternity€of€Maylyn€ever€was€questioned.€Ð À  ÐRegardless€of€whether€Thacker€was€Maylynððs€biological€father€or€whether€the€School€was€aware€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€fact,€Plaintiff€and€Thacker€conducted€themselves€as€though€Thacker€was€Maylynððs€father€bothÐ ˜è  Ðbefore€and€after€they€separated.€€Plaintiff€voiced€no€objection€to€Thackerððs€signing€out€Maylyn€untilÐ „Ô  Ðjust€a€day€or€two€before€December€12,€and€then€only€after€she€and€Thacker€had€a€heated€argument.€Ð pÀ ÐMaylyn€was€a€child€born€during€Plaintiffððs€and€Thackerððs€marriage,€and€there€was€no€court€orderÐ \¬ Ðdown€restricting€Thackerððs€access€to€Maylyn.€€For€these€reasons,€we€believe€the€School€quiteÐ H˜ Ðproperly€informed€Plaintiff€that€she€would€need€a€court€order€stating€Thacker€could€no€longer€signÐ 4„ Ðout€Maylyn€before€such€a€restriction€could€be€enforced.€€The€language€in€the€divorce€complaint€statesÐ  p Ðonly€that€Thacker€was€not€Maylynððs€biological€father€and€falls€far€short€of€meeting€this€requirement.€Ð  \ ÐOur€conclusion€is€only€that€the€School,€as€a€matter€of€law,€was€not€negligent€in€continuing€to€treatÐ øH ÐThacker€as€Maylynððs€father€based€on€the€facts€and€the€conduct€of€Plaintiff€and€Thacker€detailedÐ ä4 Ðabove.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€on€this€issue.Ð Ð  ЀÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€then€claims€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€on€whether€the€SchoolÐ ¨ø Ðwas€negligent€in€releasing€the€children€to€Thacker€because€certain€School€employees€had€knowledgeÐ ”ä Ðof€Thackerððs€violent€propensities.€€Plaintiff€testified€in€her€deposition€to€mental€and€emotional€abuseÐ €Ð Ðinflicted€by€Thacker€during€their€marriage.€€This€abuse€turned€physical€in€1998€and€Plaintiff€pursuedÐ l¼ Ðcriminal€assault€charges€against€Thacker€on€one€occasion€in€May€of€2000.€€Much€of€Plaintiffððs€briefÐ X ¨ Ðis€devoted€to€showing€that€various€School€employees€were€aware€of€the€pending€divorce,€the€custodyÐ D!” Ðbattle,€and€Thackersððs€propensity€to€act€violently,€especially€when€it€came€to€Plaintiff.€€However,€theÐ 0"€  Ðonly€evidence€presented€regarding€Thacker€potentially€harming€òòthe€children€óówas€Plaintiffððs€testimonyÐ #l! Ðthat€it€had€ð ðcrossed€her€mindðð€Thacker€might€harm€Maylyn€because€she€was€not€his€child.€€EvenÐ $X" Ðthough€this€had€crossed€her€mind,€Plaintiff€admitted€Thacker€never€threatened€to€harm€the€childrenÐ ô$D # Ðand€she€never€witnessed€any€such€conduct€prior€to€that€horrible€day.€€Plaintiff€acknowledged€CarsonÐ à%0!$ Ðspent€the€night€with€Thacker€the€evening€prior€to€December€12,€and€she€never€would€have€allowedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€to€happen€if€she€thought€any€harm€would€come€to€the€child.€€In€short,€absent€any€proof€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐThacker€had€harmed€or€intended€to€harm€the€children,€we€do€not€believe€Plaintiffððs€testimony€as€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevents€occurring€prior€to€that€fateful€day€and€who€at€the€School€knew€what€is€sufficient,€in€and€ofÐ )à$( Ðitself,€to€create€a€factual€issue€on€whether€the€School€was€negligent€in€releasing€the€children€toÐ |*Ì%) ÐThacker.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àHowever,€we€next€must€consider€whether€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€asÐ ° Ðto€Plaintiffððs€negligence€claim€when€taking€into€account€what€Thacker€wrote€on€the€sign€out€sheet.€Ð œì ÐResolution€of€this€issue€requires€a€more€detailed€discussion€of€the€events€which€occurred€the€dayÐ ˆØ Ðbefore€and€the€day€of€the€murders.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€December€11,€2000,€Plaintiff€asked€her€mother€to€pick„up€the€children€fromÐ L œ Ðschool€for€her,€which€she€did.€€About€an€hour€later,€Thacker€called€Plaintiff€wanting€to€know€whereÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€children€were.€€When€Plaintiff€told€Thacker€she€had€the€children,€he€stated€he€was€coming€overÐ $ t Ðto€get€them.€€Plaintiff€then€informed€Thacker€that€she€would€not€allow€him€to€take€the€children.€Ð  ` ÐOnce€this€discussion€ended,€Thacker€proceeded€to€call€Plaintiffððs€mother€several€times€ð ðcussing€herÐ ü L  Ðfor€taking€the€kidsðð€from€school.€€Plaintiff€eventually€talked€to€her€attorney€and€was€informed€thatÐ è 8  Ðshe€could€not€stop€Thacker€from€taking€Carson€because€of€the€terms€of€the€temporary€custody€order.€Ð Ô$  ÐLater€that€evening,€Plaintiff€and€Thacker€continued€to€argue€and€Thacker€drove€to€PlaintiffððsÐ À  Ðresidence€with€the€intent€of€picking„up€both€children.€€Plaintiff€refused€to€allow€Maylyn€to€go€withÐ ¬ü  ÐThacker.€€When€Thacker€asked€Plaintiff€why€she€would€not€allow€his€daughter€to€go€with€him,Ð ˜è  ÐPlaintiff€told€Thacker€it€was€because€he€was€unfit€and€because€he€was€not€her€actual€father.€€PlaintiffÐ „Ô  Ðdid€allow€Carson€to€go€with€Thacker.€€When€Plaintiff€told€Thacker€when€she€would€retrieve€Carson,Ð pÀ Ðhe€told€her€ð ðno,ðð€that€her€visitation€ð ðhad€just€been€dropped€to€two€weekends€a€month.ðð€€Thacker€thenÐ \¬ Ðleft€with€Carson.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThacker€was€upset€that€the€School€had€allowed€Plaintiffððs€mother€to€pick„up€theÐ  p Ðchildren.€€On€December€11,€between€the€above€arguments€with€Plaintiff,€Thacker€hand€delivered€toÐ  \ Ðthe€School€some€of€the€pleadings€from€the€divorce€litigation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€can€only€assume€Thackerððs€intentÐ øH Ðwas€to€show€the€School€that€Plaintiffððs€mother€did€not€have€any€rights€insofar€as€the€children€wereÐ ä4 Ðconcerned€and€not€to€allow€her€to€take€the€children€in€the€future.€€Thacker€gave€the€documents€toÐ Ð  ÐHenrietta€Morrow€(ð ðMorrowðð),€who€then€called€Plaintiff.€€During€this€discussion€Plaintiff€toldÐ ¼  ÐMorrow€that€the€School€was€no€longer€allowed€to€release€the€children€to€Thacker.€€According€toÐ ¨ø ÐPlaintiff,€Morrow€told€her€that€without€legal€papers€specifically€prohibiting€Thacker€from€signingÐ ”ä Ðout€the€children,€there€was€nothing€the€School€could€do€to€prevent€that€from€happening.€€PlaintiffÐ €Ð Ðthen€told€Morrow€that€because€Thacker€was€not€the€biological€father€of€Maylyn,€she€(i.e.€Plaintiff)Ð l¼ Ðdid€not€need€any€legal€papers€to€prevent€the€School€from€releasing€Maylyn€to€Thacker.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€next€day€Thacker€took€Carson€to€school€and€Plaintiff€took€Maylyn€to€school.€Ð 0"€  ÐWhen€Thacker€returned€home,€he€had€a€telephone€conversation€with€either€his€attorney€or€MaylynððsÐ #l! Ðguardian€ad€litem.€€During€an€apparently€heated€conversation,€Thacker€placed€the€phone€next€to€hisÐ $X" Ðstep„daughter€Crystalððs€ear.€€According€to€Crystal,€ð ðI€heard€the€attorney€tell€him€that€if€he€called€upÐ ô$D # Ðagain€then€he€was€going€to€drop€the€case€with€Maylyn,€and€heððd€also€told€him€that€heððd€already€lostÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€kids€anyway.ðð€€After€this€conversation€Thacker€went€into€a€rage€and€started€breaking€items€in€theÐ Ì&"% Ðhouse.€€Once€Thacker€calmed€down€some,€he€told€Crystal€that€he€was€going€to€get€the€kids€fromÐ ¸'#& Ðschool€and€left€the€house.€Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àà ` àThacker€returned€to€the€School€at€approximately€9:30€a.m.€and€went€directly€toÐ ° ÐMaylynððs€classroom.€€Thacker€spoke€with€Maylyn€who€then€informed€her€teacher€that€she€was€beingÐ œì Ðchecked€out€of€school.€€The€teacher€refused€to€let€Maylyn€leave€and€told€Thacker€he€would€have€toÐ ˆØ Ðsign€her€out€at€the€office.€€Thacker€then€went€to€the€office.€€The€School€had€a€ð ðSign„In/Out€SheetððÐ tÄ Ðwhich€a€parent€or€guardian€was€required€to€fill€out€before€a€student€would€be€dismissed€early.€€TheÐ `° Ðperson€signing€this€sheet€was€required€to€give€certain€information,€including€an€explanation€for€theÐ L œ Ðreason€the€child€was€being€taken€out€of€school.€€On€the€Sign„In/Out€Sheet,€Thacker€wrote€ð ðKeepingÐ 8 ˆ ÐPromise€by€Motherðð€as€the€reason€for€signing€out€Maylyn.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€reason€Thacker€gave€for€signing€outÐ $ t ÐCarson€was€ð ðPay€Back.ðð€€Not€one€of€the€Schoolððs€office€employees€read€at€that€time€the€reasonsÐ  ` ÐThacker€gave€for€signing€out€the€children.€€It€then€was€announced€over€the€Schoolððs€intercom€systemÐ ü L  Ðthat€Maylyn€and€Carson€were€being€checked€out.€€Maylyn€waited€in€her€classroom€until€she€heardÐ è 8  Ðthe€announcement€and€then€left€to€meet€Thacker€at€the€office.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àCarsonððs€kindergarten€teacher€was€Teresa€Stephenson€(ð ðStephensonðð).€€StephensonÐ ¬ü  Ðtestified€that€her€kindergarten€class€ordinarily€has€birthday€parties€for€each€student€and€CarsonððsÐ ˜è  Ðbirthday€was€December€14.€€Stephenson€called€Plaintiff€the€morning€of€December€12€to€discussÐ „Ô  ÐCarsonððs€upcoming€birthday€party.€€Approximately€one€hour€later,€it€was€announced€over€theÐ pÀ Ðintercom€system€that€Carson€was€being€checked€out€of€school.€€Because€School€policy€requiredÐ \¬ Ðkindergarten€students€to€be€accompanied€by€an€adult€at€all€times,€Stephenson€left€her€teachingÐ H˜ Ðassistant€in€charge€of€the€class€and€accompanied€Carson€to€the€office.€€Stephenson€testified€that€sheÐ 4„ Ðhad€just€talked€with€Plaintiff€ð ðabout€an€hour€before€and€she€mentioned€nothing€about€him€leaving,Ð  p Ðand€I€was€just€curious€as€to€why€he€was€leaving.ðð€€Stephenson€walked€Carson€to€the€office€andÐ  \ ÐThacker€was€waiting€in€the€hallway.€€According€to€Stephenson:€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTracy€was€down€at€the€entrance.€€Thereððs€a€little€hall€entrance€whereÐ Ð  Ðthe€front€door€is€and€he€was€standing€at€the€corner€and€MaylynÐ ¼  Ðwalked€up€about€the€same€time,€and€Tracy€waved€for€Carson€to€comeÐ ¨ø Ðon.€€In€fact,€I€think€he€said,€come€on,€Carson,€and€Carson€took€offÐ ”ä Ðrunning€to€his€dad.€€He€was€happy€to€see€him.€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSo€I€kept€going€and€I€was€going€to€speak€with€Tracy€as€IÐ X ¨ Ðalways€do€with€all€parents.€€I€try€to€speak€to€my€parents€and€thatððsÐ D!” Ðwhen€he€looked€at€me€and€he€just€put€his€hand€up€like,€stop.€€HeÐ 0"€  Ðdidnððt€say€anything.€€Carson€went€to€him€and€when€Carson€got€to€hisÐ #l! Ðfather,€Tracy€waved€at€me€and€said,€hi,€and€went€on€out.€Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àStephenson€then€started€back€toward€her€classroom.€€She€was€at€the€door€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðclassroom€when€her€curiosity€got€the€best€of€her€and€she€turned€around€and€went€back€to€the€officeÐ Ì&"% Ðto€see€the€reason€Thacker€had€given€for€signing€out€Carson.€€When€Stephenson€read€what€ThackerÐ ¸'#& Ðhad€written€she€became€ð ðconcerned.€€It€was€not€a€normal€remark.ðð€€Janice€Nicholson€and€ErinÐ ¤(ô#' ÐHattabaugh€were€in€the€office€and€neither€one€of€them€had€read€what€Thacker€had€written€down.€Ð )à$( ÐStephenson€showed€the€remarks€to€Ms.€Nicholson€who€stated€Thacker€was€probably€paying€PlaintiffÐ ° Ðback€for€Plaintiffððs€mother€having€picked€up€the€children€the€day€before.€€Apparently€unconvincedÐ œì Ðby€Ms.€Nicholsonððs€possible€explanation€for€the€comments,€Stephenson€decided€to€show€ThackerððsÐ ˆØ Ðcomments€to€Dorene€Lowery€(ð ðLoweryðð),€the€School€Principal.€€Lowery€was€paged€over€theÐ tÄ Ðintercom€system€and€arrived€at€the€office€a€couple€of€minutes€later.€€After€reading€what€Thacker€hadÐ `° Ðwritten,€Lowery€asked€Stephenson€to€go€to€her€(i.e.€Loweryððs)€office€and€retrieve€the€legal€papersÐ L œ ÐThacker€had€brought€to€the€School€the€day€before.€€While€Stephenson€was€looking€for€theseÐ 8 ˆ Ðdocuments,€Lowery€went€outside€to€see€if€Thacker€was€still€on€the€premises.€€Unfortunately,€ThackerÐ $ t Ðalready€was€gone.€€Lowery€returned€to€the€office€and€at€about€the€same€time,€the€school€resourceÐ  ` Ðofficer,€David€OððBoyle€(ð ðOððBoyleðð),€walked€into€the€office.€€Lowery€was€showing€OððBoyle€theÐ ü L  Ðreasons€Thacker€had€given€for€checking€out€the€children€when€a€call€came€over€OððBoyleððs€policeÐ è 8  Ðradio€giving€a€code€number€and€Thackerððs€address.€€OððBoyle€stated€the€code€number€indicated€arson.€Ð Ô$  ÐLowery€then€instructed€OððBoyle€to€go€to€Thackerððs€residence.€€Lowery€then€received€a€phone€callÐ À  Ðfrom€Thackerððs€attorney€advising€her€that€Tacker€had€threatened€to€kill€himself€and€the€children.€Ð ¬ü  ÐLowery€informed€the€attorney€that€Thacker€already€had€left€with€the€children.€€Lowery€immediatelyÐ ˜è  Ðwent€to€the€Thacker€residence€with€the€intention€of€bringing€the€children€back€to€the€School.€€ThereÐ „Ô  Ðwere€several€police€cars€already€present€and€smoke€was€coming€from€the€house€when€Lowery€arrivedÐ pÀ Ðat€the€Thacker€residence.€€Unbeknownst€to€Lowery,€Thacker€already€had€stabbed€Maylyn€and€CarsonÐ \¬ Ðto€death,€poured€gasoline€over€their€bodies,€and€set€them€and€the€house€on€fire.€€Lowery€heard€gunÐ H˜ Ðshots€a€few€moments€after€she€arrived.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àA€few€minutes€prior€to€Loweryððs€arrival,€Thacker€was€sitting€outside€of€the€burningÐ  \ Ðhouse€holding€a€bloody€knife€when€the€first€police€officer€arrived.€€Thacker€told€the€officer€that€heÐ øH Ðhad€killed€the€children.€€The€officer€pleaded€with€Thacker€to€allow€him€to€retrieve€the€bodies€of€theÐ ä4 Ðchildren€from€the€burning€house,€but€Thacker€refused€to€stand€down.€€After€more€police€officersÐ Ð  Ðarrived,€Thacker€charged€the€first€officer€while€brandishing€the€bloody€knife€and€was€shot€to€death.€Ð ¼  ÐThese€were€the€gunshots€Lowery€heard€when€she€arrived€at€the€scene.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€now€will€consider€whether€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€relevant€toÐ €Ð ÐPlaintiffððs€claim€that€the€School€was€negligent€in€allowing€the€children€to€leave€with€Thacker€in€lightÐ l¼ Ðof€the€reasons€he€gave€for€signing€out€the€children.€€In€order€for€Plaintiff€to€prevail€on€her€negligenceÐ X ¨ Ðclaim,€she€must€establish€the€following€elements:€ð ð(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€defendant€to€plaintiff;Ð D!” Ð(2)€conduct€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€that€amounts€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injuryÐ 0"€  Ðor€loss;€(4)€cause€in€fact;€and€(5)€proximate,€or€legal,€cause.ðð€€òòLett€v.€Collis€Foods,€Inc.óó,€60€S.W.3dÐ #l! Ð95,€99€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)(quoting€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995)).€€TheÐ $X" Ðissue€of€whether€the€School€owed€a€duty€to€Plaintiff€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€decided€by€the€court.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€99.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€have€already€noted€that€schools,€teachers,€and€administrators€have€a€duty€toÐ ¸'#& Ðexercise€ordinary€care€for€the€safety€of€their€students.€€òòSee€Snideróó,€855€S.W.2d€at€590;€òòRobertsóó,€692Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.2d€at€870.€€What€is€considered€ð ðordinary€careðð€is€not€a€fixed€standard€and€evolves€over€timeÐ )à$( Ðalong€with€the€law€under€which€it€is€defined.€€Like€many€other€aspects€of€society,€our€nationððs€schoolÐ |*Ì%) Ðsystems€have€been€forced€to€react€to€the€changing€times.€€Locker€searches€and€policies€prohibitingÐ h+¸&* Ðdrugs€and€weapons€were€relatively€unheard€of€if€not€nonexistent€in€the€not„so„distant€past.€€Now,Ð ° Ðschoolððs€are€in€court€defending€the€legality€of€so„called€zero€tolerance€policies.€€The€wordsÐ œì ÐColumbine€High€School€have€taken€on€a€separate€meaning€unto€themselves,€along€with€OklahomaÐ ˆØ ÐCity€and€September€11òòthóó.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€Board€claims€the€Schoolððs€employees€acted€reasonably€andÐ L œ Ðfollowed€the€requirements€of€the€early€dismissal€policy,€i.e.,€the€children€were€dismissed€from€schoolÐ 8 ˆ Ðearly€at€the€request€of€a€parent€after€the€time,€date,€and€reason€for€early€dismissal€were€provided.€€TheÐ $ t ÐBoard€asserts€that,€as€a€general€rule,€a€school€has€no€legal€right€to€prohibit€a€parent€from€signing„outÐ  ` Ðtheir€child€and,€therefore,€there€is€no€corresponding€duty€to€examine€the€reason€provided€by€theÐ ü L  Ðparent€prior€to€that€parent€leaving€with€his€or€her€child.€€The€Board€maintains€that€it€only€requiresÐ è 8  Ðan€explanation€for€early€dismissal€so€the€School€can€determine€whether€the€absence€is€excused€orÐ Ô$  Ðunexcused€in€accordance€with€truancy€laws.€€The€Trial€Court€agreed€with€the€Board€and€concludedÐ À  Ðthe€purpose€of€the€Policy€was€not€so€the€School€ð ðmay€refuse€to€let€the€parent€take€the€child,ðð€but€toÐ ¬ü  Ðenable€the€School€to€determine€whether€the€absence€was€excused€or€unexcused€in€accordance€withÐ ˜è  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„6„3007(e)(1).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àEarlier€in€this€Opinion€we€agreed€with€the€Board€that€the€Policy€does€not€set€theÐ \¬ Ðstandard€of€conduct€required€of€the€School€when€we€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€Plaintiffððs€negligenceÐ H˜ Ðòòper€seóó€claim.€€The€Board€now€takes€the€inconsistent€position€by€arguing€that€the€Schoolððs€complianceÐ 4„ Ðwith€that€Policy€conclusively€negates€any€negligence€claim.€€Even€assuming€the€Trial€Court€wasÐ  p Ðcorrect€when€it€concluded€the€sole€purpose€behind€the€Policy€was€so€the€School€could€determineÐ  \ Ðwhether€or€not€the€absence€was€excused,€we€do€not€believe€the€purpose€behind€the€Policy€isÐ øH Ðnecessarily€determinative€of€whether€the€School€was€negligent.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€deposition€of€Robert€Taylor€(ð ðTaylorðð),€the€Director€of€Schools€for€BradleyÐ ¼  ÐCounty,€was€filed€with€the€Trial€Court.€€Taylor€testified€that€in€his€experience€of€ten€years€as€aÐ ¨ø Ðprincipal€and€almost€two€years€as€the€Director€of€Schools,€there€was€only€one€occasion€when€a€parentÐ ”ä Ðwas€not€allowed€to€sign€out€his€child€and€that€was€because€the€parent€was€visibly€intoxicated€whenÐ €Ð Ðhe€arrived€at€the€school.€€This€testimony€certainly€shows€that€the€Board€accepted€as€part€of€its€dutyÐ l¼ Ðto€its€students€that€the€safety€of€a€student€can€take€precedence€over€a€parentððs€right€to€have€their€childÐ X ¨ Ðreleased€from€school,€which€is€precisely€the€way€it,€unfortunately,€must€be.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àTestimony€by€the€Schoolððs€principal,€Lowery,€also€raises€a€genuine€issue€as€toÐ #l! Ðwhether€the€sole€purpose€behind€the€Policy€was€so€the€School€could€determine€whether€or€not€theÐ $X" Ðabsence€was€excused.€€Specifically,€Lowery€testified€that€if€an€adult€came€in€to€check€a€child€outÐ ô$D # Ðfrom€the€School€and€the€School€personnel€did€not€know€that€adult,€the€Schoolððs€personnel€wouldÐ ° Ðð ðfind€out€whatððs€going€on€or€who€that€person€is,€absolutely.ðð€€Therefore,€Lowery€admits€that€at€leastÐ œì Ðin€some€circumstances€the€Schoolððs€personnel€would€review€the€explanation€given€by€an€adult€beforeÐ ˆØ Ðallowing€an€adult€to€check€out€a€child,€clearly€something€that€is€not€necessary€to€do€in€order€to€enableÐ tÄ Ðthe€School€to€determine€later€whether€or€not€the€absence€was€excused.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€School€employees€required€Thacker€to€provide€an€explanation€for€the€earlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðdismissal,€the€obvious€problem€is€that€no€one€ever€òòreadóó€that€explanation€prior€to€allowing€ThackerÐ $ t Ðto€leave€with€the€children.€€It€is€difficult€to€image€the€rationale€behind€a€policy€which€requiresÐ  ` Ðsomeone€to€provide€an€explanation€before€they€are€allowed€to€engage€in€an€affirmative€act,€but€thenÐ ü L  Ðdoes€not€require€that€explanation€be€read€before€the€person€is€allowed€to€engage€in€that€act.€€BecauseÐ è 8  Ðthe€Policy€requires€a€written€explanation€before€any€parent€can€sign€out€their€child,€we€believe€it€isÐ Ô$  Ðimplicit€in€that€Policy€that€the€reason€actually€be€read€òòbeforeóó€the€parent€and€child€leave.€€WeÐ À  Ðconclude€that€the€Policy€was€not€complied€with€when€Thacker€provided€the€required€writtenÐ ¬ü  Ðexplanation€for€signing€out€the€children,€but€was€allowed€to€leave€without€anyone€from€the€schoolÐ ˜è  Ðhaving€read€that€explanation.€€Even€if€the€Schoolððs€failure€to€read€Thackerððs€explanation€was€not€aÐ „Ô  Ðviolation€of€the€Policy,€we€nevertheless€hold€that€the€Schoolððs€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€care€forÐ pÀ Ðthe€safety€of€its€students€requires€the€School€to€read€even€a€parentððs€explanation€for€signing€out€hisÐ \¬ Ðor€her€children€before€they€are€allowed€to€leave.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Board€claims€that€even€if€the€School€was€required€to€read€Thackerððs€explanationÐ  p Ðfor€signing€out€the€children,€Plaintiffððs€claim€nevertheless€must€be€dismissed€because€ThackerððsÐ  \ Ðbrutal€murder€of€the€children€was€not€foreseeable€in€much€the€same€way€as€the€rape€of€the€minorÐ øH Ðstudent€in€òòSnider,€supra,óó€was€held€to€be€unforeseeable.€€Had€Thackerððs€stated€reasons€for€signing„outÐ ä4 Ðthe€children€been€innocuous,€we€would€agree.€€But€Thackerððs€stated€reasons€were€not€innocuous€andÐ Ð  Ðwere€clearly€troubling€to€the€School€once€the€School€personnel€read€them.€€According€to€Stephenson,Ð ¼  Ðwhen€she€read€what€Thacker€wrote€she€was€ð ðconcernedðð€because€the€comments€were€not€ð ðnormal.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐWhen€Principal€Lowery€read€the€comments,€she€was€concerned€enough€to€go€outside€to€see€ifÐ ”ä ÐThacker€had€left€the€premises,€and€then€to€show€the€comments€to€the€school€resource€officer.€€In€ourÐ €Ð Ðopinion,€the€comments€written€by€Thacker€are€ominous€at€the€very€least€and€set€this€case€apart€fromÐ l¼ Ðthe€facts€in€òòSnideróó.€€We€believe€the€reasons€Thacker€gave€for€signing€out€the€children€were€of€suchÐ X ¨ Ða€nature€that€reasonable€minds€could€differ€on€whether€Thacker€intended€to€cause€bodily€harm€to€theÐ D!” Ðchildren.€€Given€the€facts€as€now€presented€to€us€at€this€summary€judgment€stage,€we€believe€thereÐ 0"€  Ðis€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€regarding€whether€the€actual€harm€inflicted€on€these€childrenÐ #l! Ðwould€have€been€foreseeable€had€someone€at€the€School€read€Thackerððs€reasons€for€checking€out€theÐ $X" Ðchildren€before€the€children€were€released€to€him.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€concluded€that€the€School€had€a€duty€to€read€the€reasons€Thacker€gave€forÐ Ì&"% Ðsigning€out€the€children€and€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€on€whether€the€murdersÐ ¸'#& Ðwere€foreseeable,€the€final€issue€is€whether€the€Board€is€nevertheless€immune€pursuant€to€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(ð ðGTLAðð),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„101€òòet€seqóó.€€ThereÐ )à$( Ðis€no€dispute€that€the€Board€is€a€governmental€entity€and€the€GTLA€applies.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àThe€GTLA€was€enacted€in€1973€and€codified€the€common€law€rule€that€ð ðallÐ ° Ðgovernmental€entities€shall€be€immune€from€suit€for€any€injury€which€may€result€from€the€activitiesÐ œì Ðof€such€governmental€entities€ð8ð.ðð€ðð€29„20„201(a).€€Later€in€the€statute,€immunity€for€injuries€causedÐ ˆØ Ðby€negligent€acts€or€omission€of€governmental€employees€is€removed,€and€then€several€exceptionsÐ tÄ Ðto€the€removal€of€immunity€are€listed.€€ðð€29„20„205.€€At€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€Board€isÐ `° Ðimmune€because€the€discretionary€function€exception€to€removal€of€immunity€applies.€€The€relevantÐ L œ Ðstatutory€section€provides:€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àImmunity€from€suit€of€all€governmental€entities€is€removed€for€injuryÐ  ` Ðproximately€caused€by€a€negligent€act€or€omission€of€any€employeeÐ ü L  Ðwithin€the€scope€of€his€employment€except€if€the€injury€arises€out€of:Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€the€exercise€or€performance€or€the€failure€to€exercise€orÐ À  Ðperform€a€discretionary€function,€whether€or€not€the€discretion€isÐ ¬ü  Ðabused;€ð8ðИè ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205(1).€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€that€the€discretionary€functionÐ pÀ Ðexception€applied€and€the€Board€was,€therefore,€immune€from€Plaintiffððs€negligence€claim.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòLimbaugh€v.€Coffee€Medical€Centeróó,€59€S.W.3d€73€(Tenn.€2001),€our€SupremeÐ 4„ ÐCourt€discussed€the€discretionary€function€exception€to€removal€of€immunity€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€exception€immunizes€local€governmental€entities€from€liabilityÐ øH Ðfor€an€employee's€negligence€if€the€injury€arises€out€of€"the€exerciseÐ ä4 Ðor€performance€or€the€failure€to€exercise€or€perform€a€discretionaryÐ Ð  Ðfunction,€whether€or€not€the€discretion€is€abused."€€Essentially,€theÐ ¼  Ðdiscretionary€function€exception€prevents€the€use€of€tort€actions€toÐ ¨ø Ðsecond-guess€what€are€essentially€legislative€or€administrativeÐ ”ä Ðdecisions€involving€social,€political,€economic,€scientific,€orÐ €Ð Ðprofessional€policies€or€some€mixture€of€these€policies.€€òòDoe€v.€CoffeeÐ l¼ ÐCounty€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€852€S.W.2d€899,€907€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)Ð X ¨ Ð(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Gaubertóó,€499€U.S.€315,€323,€111€S.€Ct.€1267,Ð D!” Ð113€L.Ed.2d€335€(1991)).€€The€rationale€for€preserving€immunity€forÐ 0"€  Ðcertain€acts€performed€by€governmental€entities€is€that€theÐ #l! Ðgovernment€should€be€permitted€to€operate€without€undueÐ $X" Ðinterference€by€the€courts,€as€courts€are€often€"ill-equipped€toÐ ô$D # Ðinvestigate€and€balance€the€numerous€factors€that€go€into€an€executiveÐ à%0!$ Ðor€legislative€decision."€€òòBowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð427,€431€(Tenn.€1992)€(quoting€òòWainscott€v.€Stateóó,€642€P.2d€1355,Ð ¸'#& Ð1356€(Alaska€1982));€òòsee€also€Carlson€v.€Stateóó,€598€P.2d€969,€972Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(Alaska€1979).Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€òòBowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€this€Court€recognized€thatÐ ° Ðâ âa€more€precise€method€of€analysis€was€needed€for€determining€whichÐ œì Ðacts€are€entitled€to€discretionary€function€immunity.€€Consequently,Ð ˆØ Ðwe€adopted€the€planning-operational€test€under€which€it€is€the€"natureÐ tÄ Ðof€the€conduct,"€that€is,€the€decision-making€process,€and€not€theÐ `° Ð"status€of€the€actor,"€òòBowersóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€430-31,€that€governsÐ L œ Ðwhether€the€exception€applies.€€òòSee€also€United€States€v.€Gaubertóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð499€U.S.€315,€322,€111€S.€Ct.€1267,€113€L.Ed.2d€335€(1991).€€UnderÐ $ t Ðthis€analysis,€a€planning€decision€is€most€likely€to€reflect€a€course€ofÐ  ` Ðconduct€that€was€determined€after€consideration€or€debate€by€those€inÐ ü L  Ðcharge€of€formulating€plans€or€policies.€€òòBowersóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€430Ð è 8  Ð(citing€òòCarlsonóó,€598€P.2d€at€972-73).€€Decisions€that€rise€to€the€levelÐ Ô$  Ðof€planning€or€policy-making€are€considered€to€be€discretionary€actsÐ À  Ðrequiring€judicial€restraint€and€are,€therefore,€not€subject€to€tortÐ ¬ü  Ðliability.€€On€the€other€hand,€decisions€that€merely€implementÐ ˜è  Ðpre-existing€policies€and€regulations€are€considered€to€be€operationalÐ „Ô  Ðin€nature€and€require€the€decision-maker€to€act€reasonably€inÐ pÀ Ðimplementing€the€established€policy.€€If€the€policy,€regulation,€orÐ \¬ Ðother€standard€of€procedure€mandates€specific€conduct,€then€anyÐ H˜ Ðemployee€reasonably€complying€with€that€direction€will€not€abrogateÐ 4„ Ðthe€entity's€immunity€if€the€action€furthers€the€underlying€policies€ofÐ  p Ðthe€regulation.€€òòSee€generally€Chase€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€971€S.W.2dÐ  \ Ð380,€384€(Tenn.€1998).€€If€such€an€employee€does€not€act€reasonablyÐ øH Ðbut€pursues€a€course€of€conduct€that€violates€mandatory€regulation,Ð ä4 Ðthe€discretionary€function€exception€will€not€apply€because€the€actionÐ Ð  Ðwould€be€contrary€to€the€entity's€established€policy.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoÐ ¼  ÐGaubertóó,€499€U.S.€at€324,€111€S.Ct.€1267.Шø` x` x ÐÌòòLimbaughóó,€59€S.W.3d€at€84„85.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€inaction€of€School€employees€in€not€reading€the€reasons€Thacker€gave€for€signingÐ X ¨ Ðout€the€children€cannot€be€characterized€as€a€planning€decision€reflecting€a€course€of€conduct€byÐ D!” Ðthose€in€charge€of€formulating€the€Policy.€€Rather,€it€was€a€failure€in€the€implementation€of€the€PolicyÐ 0"€  Ðadopted€by€the€Board€of€Education,€which€is€ð ðoperational€in€nature€and€require[s]€the€decision„makerÐ #l! Ðto€act€reasonably€in€implementing€the€established€policy.ðð€€òòLimbaughóó,€59€S.W.3d€at€85.€€WeÐ $X" Ðconclude€that€the€discretionary/planning€function€exception€to€the€removal€of€immunity€does€notÐ ô$D # Ðapply€to€shield€the€actions€of€the€School€employees€which€took€place€on€December€12,€2000.€Ð à%0!$ ÐTherefore,€the€Board€is€not€immune€from€suit€on€this€negligence€claim.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Їà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part,€and€thisÐ ˆØ Ðcause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€ExercisingÐ tÄ Ðour€discretion,€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€equally€against€the€Appellant,€Holli€Thacker€Haney,€andÐ `° Ðher€surety,€and€the€Appellee,€Bradley€County€Board€of€Education.€€Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE