WPCMH mT\<_SOhZZfd0Bj'pV~R-3 HfJ 6:s G=V k?htS "DqtNΟ.@b<8c ]|0>5,,j[tq1}T c;x? p,9 xnvf/?el+_H'DsfCfqfe2VB}tRdPZsQnyH9 x<=!EuԄX1fG%T؍Ur߫q-%,I5ն$ܵ^{6!-r" I)N&ӫY"rkWi!%>B<%/w>w.)IXE-HdATEqioHجq@H&v)=Quuv~q K7/*_Hm{pخS0[F0D,he# %G ^ M 0Y U4N w/ 43 zG    m \ i 0D/Nsfu`E; =]ai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0t 0S! 0/" 0# 0# 0$ 0% 0{& 0N' 0( 0(b) 0) 0* 0|+ 0W, 0/- 0. 0. 0/ 0q0 00:1 0<j1 01 0>d2 0v2 0`3 0`x3 0`3 0`84 0`4 084 005 026 046 0:07 0Yj7 0_7 0 "8 0j,9 0: B*< D/D< 0s< D/= 0&> 06> 0*? 0@ 0:A 0^WA BA 0<A 0B D3B D-B 0KCU6]C ASCC 0D 0DPE AEU>?FU*}FFHP LaserJet 40500S, (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*f C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U R R<_$      5    _TheTennesseesavingsstatuteprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8  8`   Iftheactioniscommencedwithinthetimelimitedbyaruleorstatuteoflimitation, 8 butthejudgmentordecreeisrenderedagainsttheplaintiffuponanygroundnot L concludingtheplaintiffsrightofaction,orwherethejudgmentordecreeis  renderedinfavoroftheplaintiff,andisarrested,orreversedonappeal,the  plaintiff...may,fromtimetotime,commenceanewactionwithinone(1)yearafter H  thereversalorarrest. \` x` x T.C.A.281105(a)(2000).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   \ R<_$      6    _Atthisjunctureintheproceedings,wedonotfinditnecessarytodeterminewhetherthisisan entrustment  caseintheliteralsense;clearlytheplaintiffshaveallegedcommonlawnegligence. V R<_$      4    _T.C.A.2920305(b)(2000)providesthatanactionagainstagovernmentalentity mustbecommenced  withintwelve(12)monthsafterthecauseofactionarises.(Emphasisadded).  R<_$      2    _Theplaintiffseventuallytookavoluntary_nonsuit_Ԁasto_Brockwell_ԀConstructionCompany.  R<_$      7    _WenotethatiftheCountybelievesthattheplaintiffscomplaintissovagueorambiguousthatitcannot  reasonablyrespondtoit,theCounty,uponremand,mayfileamotionforamoredefinitestatementpointingoutthe t allegeddefectsinthecomplaintanddescribingtheadditionaldetailsdesired.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.12.05.  ~ R<_$      3    _Althoughthecorrectnomenclatureofthedefendantisthe _Cocke_ԀCountyHighwayCommission,the  responsesidentifyitasthe _Cocke_ԀCountyHighwayDepartment.   2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK\<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSb\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K\<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSb\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K\<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSb\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7M(X7  ?c%2A`Arial?  XXXSb\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dL)1dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?c%2A`Arial?  XXXSb\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7L)2dxd0KS.SampleK\<6X9`(Courier NewKSb\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong (|G2<_$ !.8Vdd8         0  8dl6TypewriterK\<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSb\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB       d2 0CommentB  (|3G$ !.8Vdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  <6X9`(Courier New^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Vdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  R<_$      1    _TheshareholdersandemployeesofBushConstructionwerealsosuedintheirindividualcapacity.Forease  ofreference,weshallrefertotheshareholdersandthecompanycollectivelyas BushConstructionCompanyor the t company. !.8Vdd8     _  V8 XXdd8  @ IVINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#VI #Ԉ &   December13,2001Session L X XV #VXX #MICHAELSUTTON,etal.v.LARRYBARNES,etal.X XV  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCockeCounty  J @@No.26,389IIRichardR.Vance,Judge  6 FILEDJANUARY30,_2002___Ԁ    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101911COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XXTheplaintiffs,_Cocke_ԀCountyhomeowners,broughtthisactionseekingcompensationfordamage x  causedtotheirhomebyblastingactivityontheirneighborsproperty.Inresponsetointerrogatories, d thecompanythatdidtheblastingidentifiedtheCockeCountyHighwayCommissionastheprovider P oftheexplosives.Thereafter,theplaintiffsfiledanamendedcomplaint,namingCockeCountyand < theCockeCountyHighwayCommission(collectively theCounty)asadditionalpartydefendants. (x UpontheCountysmotion,thetrialcourtdismissedtheplaintiffscomplaintastotheCounty, d holdingthattheiractionistimebarred.#VXX v#X XVԀOnappeal,theplaintiffsarguethatthediscoveryruleapplies P totheiractionagainsttheCounty,and,therefore,theirclaimisnottimebarred.TheCountyargues < thateveniftheplaintiffsactionisnotbarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,theplaintiffs ( havefailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Weholdthatthediscoveryruleapplies  toactionsagainstgovernmentalentitiesandthatthereisagenuineissuefortrialastowhenthe  plaintiffscauseofaction _ar[ose_].Wefurtherholdthatthecomplaintadequatelystatesacause  ofaction,butonlyastotheplaintiffsclaimofcommonlawnegligence.Accordingly,thejudgment  ofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart. t  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt L  AffirmedinPartandReversedinPart;CaseRemanded  8!    #VX 1#X X.VCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard, #`" P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined. #L# StevenDouglasDrinnon,Dandridge,Tennessee,fortheappellants,MichaelSuttonandSandra %$!% Sutton. &"& DouglasL.DuttonandLisaJ.Hall,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,CockeCountyandthe (#( CockeCountyHighwayCommission. )$)   OPINION #VXX #X XV \+&+   H,', #VXX I#X XV    [I.    TheplaintiffsfiledtheircomplaintonApril14,2000,claimingthatonApril20,1999,their  homewasdamagedbyblastingactivityonadjacentpropertybelongingtothedefendants,Larry t BarnesandMelissaBarnes.TheplaintiffssuedtheBarnesaswellasBushConstructionCompany, ` Inc.d #  1      ,#VXX #X XVԀthecompanythatdidtheblasting,andBrockwellConstructionCompany,Inc.,thealleged L  supplieroftheblastingmaterial. #  2       8    OnJune5,2000,theplaintiffsservedtheirfirstsetofinterrogatoriesuponBushConstruction  ` Company.Amongotherthings,theinterrogatoriesrequestedtheidentityofthepersonorentitythat  L  suppliedtheblastingmaterialsusedontheBarnesproperty.WhenBushConstructionCompany  8  didnottimelyrespond,theplaintiffs,onOctober16,2000,filedamotiontocompel.Finally,on $  November30,2000,BushConstructionCompanyfileditsresponsesand,forthefirsttime,identified   theCockeCountyHighwayCommissionh #  3      ׀astheprovideroftheexplosives.Thereafter,on   December27,2000,theplaintiffsmovedtoamendtheircomplainttoaddCockeCountyandthe   CockeCountyHighwayCommissionaspartydefendants,whichmotionwasgranted.Theamended   complaintalleges(1)thattheCountyviolatedtheTennesseeBlastingStandardsActof1975,T.C.A. p 68105101,etseq.,bysellingexplosivestounlicensedandunregisteredusers;and(2)thatthe \ Countywasnegligentinthatit breachedadutyofcareowedtoPlaintiffsbysellingand/or H providingsaidexplosivesand/orexplosivedevicestoanunlicensed,unregistered,inexperiencedand 4 uncertifiedpersonand/orentity.  p   TheCountyfiledamotiontodismisstheamendedcomplaint,alleging(1)thattheplaintiffs H actionisbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitations #  4      ׀setforthintheTennesseeGovernmentalTort 4 LiabilityAct( GTLA)and(2)thattheplaintiffsfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbe   granted.Theplaintiffsopposedthemotiontodismiss,arguingthat,pursuanttothediscoveryrule,   theircauseofactiondidnot arise[]!andthusthestatuteoflimitationsdidnotbegintorun!until  November30,2000,whentheydiscoveredthattheCountysuppliedtheexplosivesthatdamaged  theirproperty.TheplaintiffssubmittedtheaffidavitofMr.Sutton,inwhichhestatesthatitwashis  understandingatthetimeoftheblastingthatBrockwellConstructionCompanyhadsuppliedthe l explosivesandthatalthoughhehad consultedpersonsinthecommunity,hedidnotlearnthatthe X   CountyinfacthadprovidedtheexplosivesuntiltheplaintiffsreceivedBushConstruction D! Companysresponsestotheinterrogatories.Mr.Suttonfurtherassertsthathe hadnowayof  knowingthattheCountywasthesupplieruntilthattime.     ThetrialcourtgrantedtheCountysmotion,holdingthatthediscoveryruledoesnotapply t tocasesgovernedbytheGTLAand,therefore,theplaintiffsclaimistimebarred.Thetrialcourt ` certifiedtheorderasafinaljudgmentpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.54.02.Theplaintiffsappeal, L  arguing(1)thatthediscoveryruleappliestocasesinvolvingtheGTLAand(2)thattheiractionis 8  notbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.TheCountyassertsthateveniftheplaintiffsclaimisnot $ t timebarred,theyhavefailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.  `   II.  8  "  Theplaintiffscontendthatthediscoveryruleappliesand,therefore,theircauseofaction   againsttheCounty _ar[ose_]onNovember30,2000,whentheyfirstlearned,bywayofBush   ConstructionCompanysinterrogatoryresponses,thattheCountyhadprovidedtheexplosivesthat   damagedtheplaintiffsproperty.TheCountycountersthattheGTLAmustbestrictlyconstrued,   andtherefore,thediscoveryruleshouldnotbeappliedbecausetodosowouldeffectivelyenlarge p theperiodoftimewithinwhichsuitcouldbebroughtagainstagovernmentalentity. \   SincethetrialcourthadbeforeittheaffidavitofMr.Sutton,wewilltreattheactionofthe 4 trialcourtindismissingtheplaintiffscomplaintasoneforsummaryjudgment.SeeTenn.R.Civ.  p P.12.03.Weareobligatedtoaffirmagrantofsummaryjudgment ifthepleadings,depositions,  \ answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthere H isnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasa 4 matteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.#VXX #X XV     WehaveconductedanextensivesearchofTennesseecaselaw,includingthecasescitedby  theparties;however,wehavenotfoundanycasesinwhichthis discoveryruleissuehasbeen  squarelyaddressed.Therefore,wewillbeginouranalysiswithanexaminationofthegeneral  principlesofthediscoveryrule.WewillthenexamineTennesseecasesinvolvingtheGTLAstatute l oflimitationssetforthinT.C.A.2920305(b).Finally,wewilllookatotherjurisdictionstosee X  howthediscoveryrulehasbeenappliedtogovernmentaltortliabilitystatutesinthosevenues. D!   A. #l! +  #VXX '#X XVThediscovery#VXX d+#X XVruleprovidesthattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsbeginstorunwhenthe $D # plaintiffdiscovers,orintheexerciseofreasonablecareshouldhavediscovered,thataninjurywas %0!$ sustainedasaresultofwrongfulconductbythedefendant. Shadrickv.Coker, 963S.W.2d726,733 &"% (Tenn.1998).Therulewasdesigned toalleviatetheintolerableresultofbarringacauseofaction '#& byholdingthatitaccruedbeforethediscoveryoftheinjuryorthewrong. Fosterv.Harris, 633 (#' S.W.2d304,305(Tenn.1982). )$(   |*%)   Furthermore,itiswellsettledthat acauseofactionintortdoesnotaccrueuntilajudicial   remedyisavailable. Wyattv.ABest,Co.,Inc., 910S.W.2d851,855(Tenn.1995) ; Foster, 633  S.W.2dat305.Ajudicialremedyisconsidered availablewhen(1)adefendantbreachesalegally  recognizeddutyowedtoaplaintiffand(2)thebreachcausestheplaintifflegallycognizabledamage. t  Wyatt, 910S.W.2dat855. Abreachofdutyoccurswhentheplaintiffdiscovers,or reasonably ` shouldhavediscovered,(1)theoccasion,themannerandmeansbywhichabreachofdutyoccurred L  thatproduced...injury;and(2)theidentityofthedefendantwhobreachedtheduty. Foster, 633 8  S.W.2dat305. Quitesimply,aplaintiffmusthavediscoveredtheexistenceoffactswhichwould $ t supportanactionintortagainstthetortfeasorbeforesuitcanbefiled.#VXX +#X XV Wyatt, 910S.W.2dat855.  ` Thus,theplaintiffmusthavediscovered notonlytheexistenceofaninjury,butthetortiousorigin  L  oftheinjury. Id. (quoting Hathawayv.MiddleTennesseeAnesthesiology,P.C., 724S.W.2d355,  8  359(Tenn.Ct.App.1986)).However,aplaintiffmaynotdelayfilingmerelybecausethefulleffects $  oftheinjuryarenotactuallyknown; suchadelaywouldconflictwiththepurposeofavoiding   uncertaintiesandburdensinherentinpursuinganddefendingstaleclaims.#VXX 13#X XV Wyatt, 910S.W.2dat   855.#VXX 5#X XVWhethertheplaintiffhasexercisedreasonablecareindiscoveringtheinjuryorthewrongis   generallyaquestionforthetrieroffacttodetermine. Id. at854.#VXX |6#X XV     B. \ 7  WewillnowexaminethestatuteoflimitationssetforthintheGTLA.Historically, 4 governmentalentitieshavebeenimmunefromsuitbasedontheconceptofsovereignimmunity.See  p  Williamsv.MemphisLight,GasandWaterDiv., 773S.W.2d522,523(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).  \ However,withthepassageoftheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,T.C.A.2920101, H etseq.,theLegislature,actingwithinitspowerunderArticle1,17oftheTennesseeConstitution, 4 hasprovidedforthewaiveroftheabsoluteimmunityaffordedgovernmentalentities,butonlywithin   certainlimitations.See id. Oneoftheselimitationsisthestatuteatissueintheinstantcase,T.C.A.   2920305(b),whichprovidesthatanactionagainstagovernmentalentity mustbecommenced  withintwelve(12)monthsafterthecauseofactionarises.    TheGTLAswaiverofimmunity isnarrowlyconfinedinitsscope. Doylev.Frost, 49 l S.W.3d853,858(Tenn.2001);seeT.C.A.2920201(c)(2000)( anyclaimfordamagesmustbe X  broughtinstrictcompliancewiththetermsofthischapter).AstheSupremeCourtnotedin Doyle : D! 8  8`   Thelimitedwaiverofgovernmentalimmunityprovidedforinthe #l! [GTLA]isinclearderogationofthecommonlaw.Generally, $X" statutesinderogationofthecommonlawaretobestrictlyconstrued $D # andconfinedtotheirexpressterms,andthatruleofconstructionhas %0!$ beenexpresslyincorporatedintotheAct....&"%` x` x  Doyle, 49S.W.3dat858(quoting Ezellv.Cockrell, 902S.W.2d394,399(Tenn.1995)).   (#'  #VXX 7#X XV )$( [    #VXX ?@#X XV^@  BecausetheGTLAisstrictlyconstrued,courtshaverefusedtoapplystatutesandrulesto   casesarisingundertheGTLAifapplicationoftheparticularstatuteorrulewouldeffectivelyexpand  thestatuteoflimitationsperiodsetforthinT.C.A.2920305(b).Forexample,thisCourthasheld  thatthesavingsstatute#VXX @#  #  5      X XVԀdoesnotapplytoGTLAactions.See Williams, 773S.W.2dat523; Rael t v.MontgomeryCounty, 769S.W.2d211,214(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).In Williams ,thisCourtstated, ` inpertinentpart, asfollows: L  8  8`   Sincethe[GTLA]createdanewliability,itmustbestrictly $ t construed.Insodoing,wefindthatthetwelvemonthlimitation  ` periodofT.C.A.2920305(b)forbringinganactionisacondition  L  precedentwhichmustbemetbeforeasuitmaybebroughtagainstthe  8  governmentalentity.$ ` x` x =G  8 ` 8 ` x` x8  8h*  *  * hphp 6F8  8`   Inthiscasetherighttosue[thedefendantgovernmentalentity]was   grantedto[theplaintiff]bystatute.However,thatstatuteprovided p alimitedtimewithinwhichhemustexercisethatright.[The \ plaintiff]failedtocomplywiththeconditionprecedentand,asa H result,helosttherighttobringthisaction.Wefindthatthesavings 4 statutecannotbeusedtoextendtheperiodwithinwhichtofilesuit  p againstagovernmentalentity.Thelegislaturecouldhavemade  \ T.C.A.281105applicabletothe[GTLA],however,ithaschosen H nottodoso.4` x` x  Williams, 773S.W.2dat523(citationomitted).Forthesesamereasons,thisCourtheldin Nance   v.CityofKnoxville, 883S.W.2d629,631(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),thatT.C.A.281115,which  allowsaplaintifftobringanactioninstatecourtfollowingthedismissalofanactioninfederal  courtforlackofjurisdiction,doesnotapplytoGTLAactionsbecausethestatutewouldeffectively  extendtheGTLAstatuteoflimitationsperiod  .See Lynnv.CityofJackson, 63S.W.3d332,337 l (Tenn.2001). X  Ѐ D!   In Danielv.HardinCountyGeneralHospital, 971S.W.2d21(Tenn.Ct.App.1997),this 0"  Courtaddressedtheapplicabilityofthecomparativefaultjoinderstatute,whichprovidesthatina  #l! comparativefaultcase,where,aftertheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitations,thedefendantalleges  thatanonpartycontributedtotheplaintiffsinjury,theplaintiffmaybX XXX within90daysofthe  defendantsanswerallegingsuchpersonsfault,either: (1)Amendthecomplaint...pursuanttoRule  15...;or(2)Instituteaseparateactionagainstthatperson...._T.C.A._Ԁ201119(a)(Supp.2001). t ThisCourthasheldthatthisparticularprovision#X XXbX N#doesnotapplytocasesarisingundertheGTLA ` becauseapplicationofthestatutewouldeffectivelyextendthelimitationsperiod. Id. at25.The L   Daniel courtexplaineditsrationaleasfollows: 8  8  8`   Thelegislaturewasquiteclearinstatingthat actionsmustbe  ` commencedwithintwelve(12)monthsafterthecauseofaction  L  arisesandthat anyclaimfordamagesmustbebroughtinstrict  8  compliancewiththetermsofthischapter.T.C.A.2920201(b), $  2920305(b).Wecannotchangetheplainmeaningofthewordsof   the[GTLA].ThelegislaturecouldhavemadeT.C.A.201119   applicabletothe[GTLA],however,ithaschosennottodoso. ` x` x  Daniel, 971S.W.2dat25.(Emphasisinoriginal). p   Mostrecently,theSupremeCourthasaddressedtheGTLAstatuteoflimitationsin Doyle H v.Frost, 49S.W.3d853(Tenn.2001).Atissueinthatcasewastheapplicationoftherelationback 4 doctrinesetforthinTenn.R.Civ.P.15.03. Id. at854.TheCourtfoundthattheapplicationofRule  p 15.03toaGTLAactiondoesnotconflictwithastrictinterpretationofT.C.A.2920305(b),noting  \ that anamendmentunderRule15.03madepursuanttotherelationbackdoctrineisnotconsidered H exceptedfromtheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,itisconsideredmadebeforethelimitations 4 periodexpired. Id. at858(emphasisadded).TheCourtnotedthattheRulesrequirementthatthe   affectedpartyreceivenoticewithintheapplicablelimitationsperiodorwithin120daysof   commencementoftheactionservestoensurethattheprotectionsaffordedbythestatuteof  limitations,namelytheavoidanceofadjudicatingstaleclaimsandaffordingnoticetodefendants,  wouldnotbecompromised. Id. at858,859.    C. X  Y  WhilewearenotawareofanyTennesseecasesquarelyaddressingtheapplicabilityofthe 0"  discoveryruletoactionsarisingundertheGTLA,otherjurisdictionshaveheldthattheruledoes #l! applytosimilarlywordedstatutesaddressingtortclaimsagainstgovernmentalentities.For $X" example,in Riov.EdwardHospital, 472N.E.2d421(Ill.1984),theSupremeCourtofIllinois $D # appliedthediscoveryruleinamedicalmalpracticeactionbroughtagainstagovernmentalentity. %0!$  Id. at425.Theplaintiffhadfiledsuitin1981,allegingthatphysicianshadnegligentlytreatedhim &"% atthedefendanthospitalforawristinjuryin1979. Id. at422.AccordingtotheIllinoisTort '#& ImmunityAct,theplaintiffwasrequiredtogivenoticeofhisclaimwithinoneyearfromthedate (#' thecauseofaction wasreceivedoraccrued. Id. at423.Theplaintiffarguedthatthediscovery )$( ruleshouldapply,becausehehadnotdiscoveredthathehadacauseofactionagainstthedefendants |*%) until1981. Id. at422.TheIllinoisSupremeCourtagreedwiththeplaintiff,statingasfollows: h+&* Ї8  8`   TheprimarypurposeoftheTortImmunityActistoencourageearly  investigationintotheclaimassertedagainstthelocalgovernmentat  atimewhenthematterisstillfresh,witnessesareavailable,and  conditionshavenotmateriallychanged.Suchaninvestigation t permitspromptsettlementofmeritoriousclaimsandallows ` governmentalentitiestoplantheirbudgetsinlightofpotential L  liabilities.Defendantscontendthattheextensionofthediscovery 8  ruletocasessuchasthiswilldefeatthepurposeoftheTortImmunity $ t Act,becauseitwillpreventlocalgovernmentsfromconducting  ` investigationsshortlyaftertheinjuriesoccur.Wedisagree....Inview  L  ofthefactthatundertheprovisionsofsection8102agovernmental  8  entityneednotbegivennoticeforalmostayearaftertheoccurrence $  itcanhardlybecontendedthatthestatutenecessarilyassuresan   opportunitytoconductaninspectionimmediatelyaftertheinjuryis   sustained.Aninjuredpartywouldstillberequiredtogivetimely   noticeafterdiscoveryofhisinjury.Itwouldbeabsurdtoconclude   thattheGeneralAssemblyintendedanythingmore.p` x` x  Id. at425(citationsandquotationmarksomitted). H   In Callahanv.State, 464N.W.2d268(Iowa1990),theIowaSupremeCourtappliedthe  p discoveryruleinacasebroughtagainstthestatebyaparentwhoallegedthatherchildhadbeen  \ abusedwhileatastateschoolforthedeaf. Id. at269.Theplaintiffdidnotdiscovertheabuseof H herchilduntilfouryearsafterthechildwithdrewfromtheschool. Id. Thestatearguedthatthe 4 claimwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsinthestatetortclaimsact,whichperiodoflimitations   requiredtheplaintifftofilesuit withintwoyearsaftersuchclaimaccrued. Id. at269,270.The   SupremeCourtofIowadisagreed,notingthat [u]nderthediscoveryrule,acauseofactionbased  onnegligencedoesnotaccrueuntilplaintiffhasinfactdiscoveredthathehassufferedinjuryorby  theexerciseofreasonablediligenceshouldhavediscoveredit.... Id. (citationandinternalquotation  marksomitted)  (emphasisadded).Accordingly,theCourtheldthataclaimagainstthestate does l notaccrueuntiltheplaintiffknowsorintheexerciseofreasonablecareshouldhaveknownboththe X  factoftheinjuryanditscause. Id. at273.TheCourtbaseditsholdingonseveralfactors,including D! theIowacourts generalacceptanceofthediscoveryruleinnegligencecases,thegeneralremedial 0"  purposesofthestatetortclaimsact,andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionin UnitedStates #l! v.Kubrick, 444U.S.111,100S.Ct.352,62L.Ed.2d259(1979),whereinthediscoveryrulewas $X" heldtoapplytotheFederalTortClaimsAct,which,theIowaSupremeCourtnoted,containednearly $D # identicallanguagetotheIowastatuteatissue. Callahan, 464N.W.2dat271,273. %0!$   TheUtahSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatthediscoveryruleisapplicabletotheUtah '#& GovernmentalImmunityAct.In Warrenv.ProvoCityCorp., 838P.2d1125(Utah1992),the (#' plaintiffwasinjuredwhentheplaneheleasedfromalocalflyingclubcrashed. Id. at1127.Within )$( oneyearoftheaccident,theplaintiffcontactedthecityairportmanagertorequestinformation |*%) regardingtheflyingclubsinsurance. Id. at1128.Bythetimetheairportmanageradvisedthe h+&* plaintiffthattheflyingclubhadnotmaintainedinsuranceasrequiredbycityaviationregulations,  overayearhadpassedsincetheaccident. Id. Theplaintiffbroughtsuitagainstthecityforfailing  toenforceitsregulations. Id. TheUtahSupremeCourtstatedthatthediscoveryruleisapplicable  only incertaininstances,suchas(1)wheretheruleismandatedbystatute;(2)wheretheplaintiff t isnotawareofthecauseofactionbecauseofmisleadingconductorconcealmentbythedefendant; ` or(3)where exceptionalcircumstancesexist. Id. at112930.TheCourtdeterminedthatnoneof L  thesesituationsexistedinthecasebeforeit. Id. Specifically,theCourtfoundthattheplaintiffhad 8  notconductedareasonableinvestigationand,therefore,couldnotshowthathedidnotknowand $ t couldnotreasonablyhaveknownoftheexistenceoftheclaimagainstthecitywithinthelimitations  ` period. Id. at1129.TheCourtthereforeaffirmedthedismissaloftheplaintiffsclaim. Id. at1130  L  31.  8  Ѐ  D.   u  Ourreviewoftheforegoingleadsustoconcludethatthediscoveryruleshouldbeapplied   tocasesinvolvingtheGTLA.Accordingly,weholdthatacauseofaction arisesundertheGTLA   whentheplaintiffdiscovers,orintheexerciseofreasonablecareshouldhavediscovered,thathe p orshesustainedaninjuryasaresultofthedefendantswrongfulconduct.See Shadrick, 963 \ S.W.2dat733.Inourview,theapplicationofthediscoveryruledoesnotconflictwiththestrict H interpretationmandatedbythecontrollingTennesseeauthoritycitedinthisopinion.Unlikethe 4 statutesatissuein Williams,_Nance_ and Daniel ,applicationofthediscoveryrulewouldnotexpand  p the12monthperiodinwhichaplaintiffhastofilesuitundertheGTLA.Theplaintiffmuststillfile  \ itsactionwithin12monthsofthedateonwhichthecauseofaction arises;thediscoveryrule H merelyoperatestodeterminewhenthe12monthsstartstorun. 4   Havingdeterminedthatthediscoveryruleappliesintheinstantcase,wehastentoaddthat   wedonotpassjudgmentontheissueofwhethertheruleoperatestotollthestatuteoflimitations  intheinstantcase.Basedupontherecordbeforeus,wefindthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfact  astowhethertheplaintiffsexercisedreasonablecareindiscoveringtheidentityofthesupplierof  theexplosiveswithinthelimitationsperiod.See Wyatt, 910S.W.2dat854.Accordingly,wehold l thatsummaryjudgmentisinappropriateonthisbasis.Thisissuemustberesolvedbythetrierof X  fact. D!   III. #l! }  TheCountyarguesthateveniftheplaintiffsactionisnottimebarred,thedismissaloftheir $D # actionwasneverthelessproperbecause,sotheargumentgoes,theplaintiffsfailedtostateaclaim %0!$ uponwhichreliefcouldbegranted.Theplaintiffsassertthattheircomplaintadequatelystatesa &"% causeofactionbaseduponnegligenceandnegligententrustment.Whilethetrialcourtbasedits '#& dismissalonthegroundthattheplaintiffscomplaintwastimebarred,thefailuretostateacauseof (#' actionissuewasproperlyraisedbelowandis,byvirtueoftheissuestatedintheCountysbrief,now )$( beforeusonthisappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P._27(b)._ |*%)  h+&*   Thetrialcourt'sgrantofamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcan  begrantedpresentsaquestionoflaw,whichwereviewdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.   Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo., 945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997).Wemustexaminethecomplaint  alone, construethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff,takingallallegationsoffacttherein t astrue.  Cookv.SpinnakersofRivergate,Inc., 878S.W.2d934,938(Tenn.1994) .Themotion ` shouldbedenied unlessitappearsthattheplaintiff[s]canprovenosetoffactsinsupportof[their] L  claimthatwouldentitle[them]torelief. Stein, 945S.W.2dat716. 8    TheplaintiffsasserttwoprimarybasesfortheircauseofactionagainsttheCounty.First,  ` theyarguethattheCountyviolatedtheTennesseeBlastingStandardsActof1975,T.C.A.68105  L  101,etseq.( theAct),bysellingexplosivestopersonswhowerenotlicensedbyorregisteredwith  8  thestateasrequiredbytheAct.WehavereviewedtheActinitsentiretyandagreewiththeCounty $  thattheActdoesnotprovideanybasisforacauseofactionagainstthesellerofexplosives.TheAct   setsforththerequirementsofthosewhouseblastingmaterials;thereisnostatutoryprovision   restrictingthesaleofexplosivesonlytothosewhoareregistered,licensed,orotherwisequalified   tousesuchmaterials.AstotheclaimofliabilityundertheTennesseeBlastingStandardsActof   1975,theCountysmotionshouldbegranted. p   Theotherbasisfortheplaintiffscauseofactioniscommonlawnegligence,atheory H sometimesreferredtointheirbriefasatheoryofnegligententrustment. #  6      ׀Uponreviewingthe 4 allegationsintheplaintiffscomplaint,whichwemusttakeastrue,see Cook, 878S.W.2dat938,  p wefindthattheplaintiffshaveadequatelysetforthacauseofactionfornegligence.Itisrecognized  \ inTennesseethatasellerofhazardousmaterials,suchasexplosives,hasadutytouseadegreeof H careproportionatetothedangerposedtopersonswhomaycomeintocontactwiththosematerials. 4 See13Tenn.Jur.ExplosionsandExplosives3(1984);seealso ReadPhosphateCo.v.Vickers,    11Tenn.App.146,154(1930)(holdingsellerofsulphuricacidliableforinjuriestothirdpartywhen   sellernegligentlyfailedtogivenoticetothepurchaseroftheproductsdangerouscharacter).The  plaintiffsintheinstantcaseallegethattheCountybreacheditsdutyofcarebysellingexplosivesto  inexperienced,unlicensed,andunregisteredpersons.Wecannotsaythat theplaintiff[s]canprove  nosetoffactsinsupportof[their]claimthatwouldentitle[them]torelief.See Stein, 945S.W.2d l at716.Accordingly,weholdthattheCountysmotiontodismissastothecommonlawnegligence X  claimisnotwelltakenandshouldbedenied. #  7       D!      IV. #l!   ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtastotheCountysallegedliabilityundertheTennessee $D # BlastingStandardsActof1975isaffirmed.Theremainderofthejudgmentisreversed.Thiscase %0!$ isremandedforfurtherproceedings,consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtothe  appellees,CockeCountyandtheCockeCountyHighwayCommission.     `     h     _______________________________ `    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE L     `