WPC iάT˯䊐o<<|Bi BءsɬbV\j_ RgssZN]KN#+.Ev9lEf}lXPq1?Ǘ%Q{u&=ݹwfeit?ꙺ4v\Ͷ\{5&W+ 5xC2UEt&(2x.tGܾ>"z2/H~WGhn੕jn'}uJX4o (fq21wO(t7c*+(mCu[A:fFo#0@=:t.t<3nӻq'g:3_9RpBbMj僤l|A%/U~ ' nm= qև.;XuǑcQU'xʢ io@ Zhp\zpY l٢^i ߂,\b %\UNb 0N8U0N:UNU: z  ^ \ wh 4l 0D   P  + N E m#3333333333333333333333b 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASS 0l 0D AT(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpti~B+s j5+(ѡk2<(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ! Rb$      1    _ԀThisorderwasmadefinalpursuantto_Tenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁ54.02.Weshouldnoteatthispointthatanother  defendantinthetrialcourt,_Shelia_Ԁ_Cathey_,filedanappellatebriefinthiscase,althoughplaintiffsdidnotappealtheorder t ofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttodefendant_Cathey_.Obviously,Defendantsdidnotfileanoticeofappeal 8 astodefendant_Cathey_,becausetheorderisnotafinaljudgmentappealableasofrightatthistime.3|xUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0- -(|G2b$ !.8WUdXXd8         0   d(|3W$ !.8WUdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3W$ !.8WUdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8WUdd8     _  WU8)XXdd8  @ PdWUINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#WUPd #Ԉ &   July11,2001Session L X)XWU #WUXX)#JAMESS.HILL,etux.v.CHARLES_LAMBERTH_,etal.X)XWU  J @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHoustonCounty  J @@No.1208;TheHonorableWalterKurtz,JudgebyInterchange  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002408_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober2,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X)XXX)  Inthisnegligenceaction,plaintiffandhiswifesueddefendants,countyschoolboardand x  parentsofseveraljuveniles,fordamagesresultingfromaneyeinjuryhesustainedwhenhewas d struckbyarockwhileattendingahighschoolfootballgame.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummary P judgmenttodefendantschoolboard.Plaintiffappeals.Weaffirm.#X)XXX)##WUXX)#X)XWU <  _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedand d Remanded  P   #WUX)#X)X.WUW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_, ( J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.  Johnb.Link,III,Nashville;_Jerre_ԀM.Hood,Winchester,ForAppellants  KentKrause,LisaD.York,Nashville,ForAppellees t GregoryD.Smith,Clarksville,ForAppellee,Sheila_Cathey_ L   OPINION #WUXX)$#X)XWU $"t! #WUXX) #X)XWU  8)XdXXd8  OnOctober10,1997,Plaintiff/AppellantJamesHillwasstruckintheeyebyarockwhile #L# attendingafootballgameatHoustonCountyHighSchool.Therecordindicatesthatagroupof $8 $ juvenileswasplayingintheareaofthespectatorstandsandthatoneofthechildrenthrewtherock %$!% whichstruckMr.Hill.TherockshatteredMr.Hillseyeglassesandapieceofglassbecame &"& embeddedinMr.Hillseye.Asaresultofhisinjuries,Mr.Hillsufferedseveresightlossandhas '"' apermanentlydilatedpupil. (#(   OnJune29,1998,PlaintiffHillandhiswife,KarenHill,filedthisactionagainsttheHouston p*%* CountySchoolBoard( SchoolBoard)andvariouscodefendants,whoarenotpartiestothis \+&+ appeal.IntheirComplaint,theHillsallegethattheSchoolBoard,throughitsschoolprincipal,knew H,', ofpreviousincidentsinvolvingrockthrowingbutneverthelessfailedtoprovidesecuritysufficient 4-(- toprotectspectatorsatschoolfootballgames.OnDecember8,1999,theSchoolBoardfileda  MotionforSummaryJudgmentonthebasisofimmunityfromliabilityundertheTennessee  GovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,T.C.A.2920201,etseq.( _TGTLA_).OnAugust8,2000,  followingthecompletionofwrittendiscoveryandafterPlaintiffshadtakenseveraldepositions,the t trialcourtenteredanordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttotheSchoolBoard._  #  1      _ԀInitsOrder,thetrial ` court,ratherthanaddressinggovernmentalimmunity,foundthat_foreseeability_Ԁwasthe controlling L  issue. 8    Plaintiffsappealthetrialcourtsordergrantingthedefendantschoolboardsummary  ` judgmentandpresentwhatweperceivetobetwoissuesonappeal:(1)WhetherDefendantSchool  L  Boardisimmunefromliabilitybecausethedecisionwhethertoprovidesecurityandtheextent  8  thereofataschoolfootballgameisadiscretionaryfunction;and(2)Whetherthetrialcourterredin $  findingthatDefendantSchoolBoarddidnotowePlaintiffsadutytoprovidesecurityatthefootball   gamebecausetherockthrowingincidentwasunforeseeable.WeaffirmtheOrderofthetrialcourt,   however,wedosoonthebasisthattheSchoolBoardisimmunefromsuitundertheX)XXX)ԀTennessee   GovernmentalTortLiabilityAct#X)XXX)#X)XXX).     #X)XXX)#X)XXX)Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthe_movant_Ԁdemonstratesthatthere \ arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter H oflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenof 4 demonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. See#X)XXX)j#X)XXX)Ԁ_Bain_Ԁv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622  p (Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateview  \ oftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthat H party,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. See#X)XXX)j#X)XXX)Ԁid. In Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208(Tenn. 4 1993),ourSupremeCourtstated:   8  8`   Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissue  ofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,by  affidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfact  disputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthe l nonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustset X  forthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterial D! factfortrial.8` x` x0"   Id. at21011(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal). $X"   Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfrom %0!$ thefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. See#X)XXX)1#X)XXX)ԀCarvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn. &"% 1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding  atrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. See#X)XXX)#X)XXX)ԀBain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewof  thetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. See#X)XXX) #X)XXX)ԀWarren  v.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997). t   The_TGTLA_Ԁgovernsthiscase,andcourtsarerequiredtostrictlyconstruetheAct,because L  theActisinderogationofthecommonlaw. See,e.g.,Lockhartv.JacksonMadisonCounty 8  GeneralHospital#X)XXX)!#X)XXX) ,793S.W.2d943,945(Tenn.Ct.App.1990); Doev.BoardofEduc.ofMemphis $ t CitySchools ,799S.W.2d246,247(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).TheTGTLAprovidesthatthe  ` governmentisimmunefromtortliabilityunlesstheActspecificallyremovesimmunity. See T.C.A.  L  2920201(West2000).  PertinenttotheinquirybeforetheCourt,is_T.C.A._Ԁ#X)XXX)##X XXX)#X)X XX%#X)XXX)Ԁ2920205,which  8  providesinpertinentpart: $  8  8`    2920205.Removalofimmunityforinjurycausedbynegligent   actoromissionofemployeesExceptionsImmunityforyear   2000computercalculationerrors. Immunityfromsuitofall   governmentalentitiesisremovedforinjuryproximatelycausedbya t negligentactoromissionofanyemployeewithinthescopeofhis ` employmentexceptiftheinjuryarisesoutof:L` x` x 8  8`   (1)theexerciseorperformanceorthefailuretoexerciseorperform $t adiscretionaryfunction,whetherornotthediscretionisabused;...`` x` x _T.C.A._Ԁ#X)XXX)&#X XXX)#X)X XX)#X)XXX)Ԁ2920205(1)(2000). 8   Thefirstissueisappropriateforsummaryjudgmentbecausethereisnofactualdispute  concerningtheBoardsaction,actingthroughtheschoolprincipal.Thedeterminativeissueinthis  caseiswhetherPrincipalBellsdecisionnottoprovideuniformedsecuritypersonnelatthefootball  gameinquestionwasa discretionaryact.Thebenchmarkforconsiderationofthisissueisthe  decisionofourSupremeCourtin BowersbyBowersv.CityofChattanooga ,826S.W.2d427 p (Tenn.1992)adoptingtheplanning/operationaltestfordeterminingiftheallegednegligentconduct \  ofthegovernmentalentityarisesoutoftheperformanceofadiscretionaryfunction.TheCourtsaid: H! #X)XXX))#X)XXX)  8  8`    Undertheplanningoperationaltest,decisionsthatrisetothe  #p! levelofplanningorpolicymakingareconsidereddiscretionaryacts  $\" whichdonotgiverisetotortliability,whiledecisionsthataremerely $H # operationalarenotconsidereddiscretionaryactsand,therefore,do %4!$ notgiverisetoimmunity. SeeCarlsonv.State ,598P.2d969,972 & "% (Alaska1979).Thedistinctionbetweenplanningandoperational ' #& dependsonthetypeofdecisionratherthanmerelytheidentityofthe (#' decisionmaker. Seeid. Wecautionthatthisdistinctionservesonly )$( toaidindeterminingwhendiscretionaryfunctionimmunityapplies; *%)  discretionaryfunctionimmunityattachestoallconductproperly l+&* involvingthebalancingofpolicyconsiderations .Therefore,there  maybeoccasionswherean operationalactisentitledtoimmunity,  where,forinstance,theoperationalactorisproperlychargedwith  balancingpolicyconsiderations. SeeUnitedStatesv._Gaubert_, 499 t U.S._____,111S.Ct.1267,113L.Ed.2d335(1991)(recognizing ` thatoperationalactivitiesgroundedinpolicyareentitledto L  discretionaryfunctionimmunity).8 ` x` x  Id. at43031(emphasisadded).  `   In Doev.CoffeeCountyBd.ofEducation ,852S.W.2d899(Tenn.Ct.App.1992),this  8  Courtsaid: $  8  8`    Identifyingthegovernmentaldecisionsandactionsthat   involvepolicyjudgmentrequiresaconsiderationoftheoriginal   purposeofthediscretionaryfunctionexemption.Thepurposeofthe   TennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityActistodefinethe p circumstanceswhenlocalgovernmentalentitiesmaybesuedfor \ negligenceasiftheywereaprivateperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.#X)XXX)-#X XXX)#X)X XXe7#X)XXX)Ԁ29 H 20206(1980).Inrecognitionoftheconstitutionalprincipleof 4 separationofpowers,thediscretionaryfunctionexceptionwas  p intendedtopreventtheuseoftortactionstosecondguesswhatare  \ essentiallyexecutiveorlegislativedecisionsinvolvingsocial, H political,economic,scientific,orprofessionalpoliciesorsome 4 mixtureofthesepolicies. ` x` x 852S.W.2dat907(citationsomitted).    The Bowers Courtrecognizedtheproprietyofjudicialreviewofthequestioneddecision:  8  8`   Thediscretionaryfunctionexception recognizesthatcourtsareill X  equippedtoinvestigateandbalancethenumerousfactorsthatgointo D! anexecutiveorlegislativedecisionandthereforeallowsthe 0"  governmenttooperatewithoutundueinterferencebythecourts. See #l! Wainscottv.State ,642P.2d1355,1356(Alaska1982).$X"` x` x 826S.W.2dat431.#X)XXX)7#X)XXX) %0!$    ThefootballgameatissueinthiscasewasheldundertheauspicesoftheTennessee '#& SecondarySchoolAthleticAssociation(the TSSAA).Therecordinthiscaseestablishesthat (#' PrincipalBell_#X)XXX)<#X)XXX)was_Ԁthepersonchargedwithmakingdecisionsregardingsecuritymeasuresforfootball )$(  gamesundertheTSSAABylaws.ArticleIV,7and8oftheBylawsprovide,inrelevantpart: |*%) 8  8`   Allgamesshallbeproperlysupervisedtoinsuresportsmanlike   contests.Thehostschoolshallberesponsibleforproviding   sufficientsecuritytoinsureorderlyconductonthepartofall  spectators .Ifthegameisplayedonaneutralfieldandneitherteam p isdesignatedasthehostteam,thecompetingschoolsshallsharethe \ responsibilityofprovidingsufficientsecurity.H ` x` x @***  p 8  8`   Theprincipalofeachschool,inallmatterspertainingtotheathletic  H  relationsofhisschool,isresponsibletothisAssociation. The  4  principalshallexercisecontroloverallfinances,theschedulingof   contests,andallothermattersinvolvedinthemanagementofthe   schoolsathleticprogram.  ` x` x (emphasisadded).PrincipalBelltestifiedindepositionthatheconsideredmanyfactorsin t  determiningwhat sufficientsecuritywas#X)XXX)>#X)XXX)Ԁundertheguidelines,including:(1)thesizeofthecrowd ` anticipatedattheballgame;(2)thefactthattheteamsplayingwerenotrivalteams;(3)thepotential L negativeinfluencetheuseofuniformedsecuritypersonnelwouldhaveonstudents;(4)hisfifteen 8 yearsofexperience;and(5)thecostofprovidingaddedsecurity.WebelievethatPrincipalBells $t decisionreflectshispositionasthe individual...chargedwiththeformulationofplansorpolicies#X)XXX)GD#X)XXX) ` underthe Bowers analysisabove. L   Wealsobelievethatjudicialsecondguessingofexecutivedecisionsisinappropriateinthis $ case.ThisCourthasrecognizedthat:  8  8`   Schooladministratorsaretheonlypersonsawareoftheparticular  needsoftheschool...andarethereforeintheuniquepositionof  beingtheonlypersonsqualifiedtomakeinformeddecisionsabout p schoolsecurity.Thisdecisionmakingdutycannotbedeemeda \ simplyministerialtask.H ` x` x  Doev.BoardofEduc.ofMemphisCitySchools ,#X)XXX)F#X)XXX)Ԁ799S.W.2dat248.Similarly  thisCourthasheld  "p  thataschoolprincipalsdecisionnottoallocatelimitedfinancialresourcesforaddedsecurityisnot  #\! actionableunderthe_TGTLA_,inspiteofthefactthatsuchadecisionmayhavebeenunwise. See  #H"  Chudasamav.MetropolitanGovtofNashville&DavidsonCounty #X)XXX)I#X)XXX),914S.W.2d922,925(Tenn. $4 # Ct.App.1995).ThecorrectnessofPrincipalBellsdecisionissubjecttodebate,butthecourtsare % !$ illequippedtoreviewthedecision. & "%   Althoughthetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentonthebasisofforeseeability,thisCourt (#' mayaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionwhenrenderedondifferentgrounds. SeeWoodv.Parker ,901 )$( S.W.2d374(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingtheschool l*%) boardsummaryjudgmentisaffirmedonthebasisofdiscretionaryfunctionimmunityunderthe X+&* TGTLA.Thesecondissuesetoutabovepresentedonappealispretermitted.Thecaseisremanded  tothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessed  toappellants,JamesS.HillandKarenHill,andtheirsurety.  #X)XXX)K##WUXX) #X)XWU   `     h   __________________________________________ $ t    `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.