ÿWPCÈD …# V %a 0og4Öêù 0³ 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ w@Î 0| 0†Š 0 1u  U, 0dA 0@¥ D3åU>U,VU6‚B)¸DCá B$ AMAU*ŽN¸ójY|ÕýãàüâùÞ±× ˆ% “'ïœ-‹.6œ4v~Ò;vÓP= AO#CÆrC 0D8D D/|D B«D˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 .X(G߃$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€.XkXX.XÔà~| ÔXp3|xÆ(c(3äš$¤¤Ý ƒ߃!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€.Xr`XX.XÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ­[®¯°¶·¸¹Dº»Ó€2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò3333'ÿÿdxd<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd d€'2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òMayÏ13,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„20„101€òòet€seq.óó€(1980€&€Supp.€1995).Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€parties€failed€to€designate€the€pleadings€as€a€part€ofÏthe€record€on€appeal.€€Our€conclusion€that€the€case€was€broughtÏunder€ðð€29„20„203€is€based€on€the€trial€court's€reference€to€thatÏsection€in€its€Memorandum€Opinion,€and€on€references€to€thatÏsection€in€both€parties'€briefs.€€Ì `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€when€a€party€relies€on€a€particular€section€of€the€GTLAÏas€a€basis€for€the€lawsuit,€the€courts€are€not€bound€by€thatÏdesignation.€€When€the€facts€of€the€case,€and€the€essence€of€theÏcomplaint€make€another€section€of€the€Act€applicable€to€the€case,Ïthe€court€may€analyze€the€case€under€that€other€section€inÏaddition€to,€or€instead€of,€the€original€section€relied€upon€byÏthe€parties.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b),€36(a);€òòNance€v.€WestsideÏHospitalóó,€750€S.W.2d€740,€744€(Tenn.€1988);€òòCity€of€Memphis€v.ÏInternational€Brotherhood€of€Electric€Worker's€Unionóó,€545€S.W.2dÏ98,€100€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€this€case,€although€the€plaintiffÏpurports€to€rely€on€ðð€29„20„203€as€a€basis€for€her€lawsuit,€bothÏthe€plaintiff's€brief€and€the€defendant's€brief€are€peppered€withÏreferences€to€ðð€29„20„205.€€Because€we€believe€the€facts€of€thisÏcase€warrant€it,€we€have€analyzed€the€issue€of€liability€underÏboth€sections.Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEvidence€was€introduced€that€following€this€accident€theÏCounty€installed€approach€rails€and€guardrails€at€a€cost€of€almostÏ$200,000.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee,€e.€g.,€Hill€v.€Beeleróó,€286€S.W.2d€868€(1956).€€Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„202(a)(1980).€Ì øÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)(Supp.€1995).Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204(a)(1980).Ì ïÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205(1980).Ì §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€language€at€the€end€of€Section€I€in€òòKirby€óó(892ÏS.W.2d€at€406)€appears€to€imply€that€we€found€that€the€lack€ofÏstandard€metal€guardrails€did€not€make€the€bridge€defectiveÏòòbecauseóó€the€decision€to€install€guardrails€is€a€discretionaryÏfunction,€that€was€not€our€intent.€€To€clarify,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€lack€of€standard€metal€guardrails€does€not€render€a€bridge€orÏroadway€"defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous"€òòper€seóó.€€Rather,€theÏcourts€should€consider€all€of€the€physical€aspects€of€a€particularÏbridge,€together€with€its€location,€the€volume€of€traffic,€theÏtype€of€traffic€it€accommodates,€and€the€history€of€accidentsÏoccurring€there,€to€decide€whether€a€particular€bridge€isÏ"defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous."€€òòSweeney€v.€Stateóó,€768€S.W.2dÏ253,€255€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€issue€of€whether€governmental€immunityÏis€preserved€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„205(1)€is€a€separateÏmatter€entirely.€€In€other€words,€even€when€the€decision€whetherÏto€install€guardrails€is€a€discretionary€function€that€preservesÏgovernmental€immunity€under€ðð€29„20„205(1),€it€is€possible€thatÏthe€lack€of€guardrails€might€render€the€bridge€or€roadway€soÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€that€immunity€is€waived€under€ððÏ29„20„203.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„301€òòet€seqóó.€€Subsection€(a)(I)Ïaddresses€negligence€in€planning,€designing,€inspecting,Ïconstructing,€and€maintaining€public€highways€and€bridges.€ÏSubsection€(a)(J)€granted€the€Claims€Commission€authority€to€hearÏclaims€based€on€dangerous€conditions€on€state„maintained€highways.Ì ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhen€the€bridge€was€built€in€1895,€the€law€provided:€"ItÏshall€be€the€duty€of€the€various€county€courts€of€this€State,€inÏletting€out€all€contracts€for€the€erection€of€bridges,€to€requireÏthat€they€shall€be€made€secure€with€good€and€substantial€railingÏof€the€height€of€three€feet."€€Stat.€of€Tenn.€ðð€1273(i›)(1871).€ÏThat€code€section,€however,€was€located€in€Chapter€7€of€the€Code,Ïtitled€"Of€Local€Improvements."€€By€its€own€terms,€this€chapterÏapplied€only€to€òòprivate€and€local€improvements.óó€€The€entireÏchapter€was€devoted€to€the€requirements€by€which€private€personsÏapplying€to€the€courts€for€permission€to€construct€toll„bridges,Ïferry€landings€and€the€like€must€abide.€€It€is€not€clear€from€theÏrecord€whether€this€bridge,€now€part€of€a€public€thoroughfare,€wasÏoriginally€constructed€by€private€persons€or€by€the€government.€ÏThis€statute€is€now€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€54„11„205.€€TheÏlanguage€remains€the€same,€except€that€the€words€"countyÏlegislative€bodies"€have€been€substituted€for€the€words€"variousÏcounty€courts."€€The€section€has€been€moved€to€a€chapter€whichÏdeals€with€òòpublic€óófords,€œferries,›€and€bridges.€€Regardless€of€itsÏpresent€form,€we€do€not€deem€it€a€directive€for€governments€to€goÏback€and€install€three„foot€guardrails€on€bridges€that€did€notÏalready€contain€such€a€feature.Ì åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee€supraóó€footnote€2.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòIndustrial€Indemnity€Co.óó€the€decedent€was€killed€when€hisÏcar€left€the€road.€€The€plaintiff€insurance€company€sued€allegingÏthe€state€was€negligent€in€failing€to€install€a€protectiveÏguardrail€at€the€accident€site.€€There€was€testimony€that€theÏoriginal€highway€project€proposal€had€included€guardrails,€butÏthey€were€excluded€in€the€final€plan€because€of€budgetaryÏconstraints.€€Alaska€had€adopted€its€Tort€Claim€Act€whichÏcontained€a€discretionary€function€exception€to€negligent€acts€orÏomissions€by€the€state€almost€identical€to€ours.€€òòSeeóó€Alaska€Stat.Ïðð€09.50.250(1)(1962).€€In€finding€that€the€decision€not€to€installÏguardrails€was€a€discretionary€function,€the€court€stated:ÌÌà8 à[This]€type[]€of€decision[]€involve[s›]€planning,€anÏassessment€of€competing€priorities,€and€a€weighing€ofÏbudgetary€considerations.€€.€.€.€[œI]t›€remains€clear€thatÏguardrails€are€expensive,€and€that€a€decision€by€theÏstate€to€place€guardrails€along€the€Glenn€Highway€wouldÏnecessarily€affect€the€state's€ability€to€provide€otherÏgovernmental€services.€€We€would€be€engaging€inÏprecisely€the€type€of€policy€evaluation€that€theÏdiscretionary€function€exception€is€designed€toÏforeclose€if€we€were€to€inquire€into€the€wisdom€of€theÏstate's€guardrail€policy€in€this€case.ÌÌ669€P.2d€at€564„65€(citations€omitted)(footnotes€omitted).Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€plaintiff€tries€to€analogize€this€case€to€òòWatts€v.ÏRobertson€Countyóó,€849€S.W.2d€798€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€to€argue€thatÏthe€decision€not€to€install€guardrails€was€not€a€discretionaryÏfunction.€€In€òòWattsóó,€Robertson€County€had€adopted€a€private€actÏrequiring€the€county€road€supervisor€to€ð ð[m]ake›€inspections€of€allÏroads,€highways€and€bridges€of€any€such€County€to€see€that€theÏsame€are€in€good€repair€and€at€all€times€safe€for€travel,€and€toÏthat€end€to€establish€an€inspection€systemðð€and€ð ð[œk]eep›€all€suchÏroads,€highways€and€bridges€in€good€repair€and€safe€for€travel.ððÏ849€S.W.2d€at€799€(quoting€1947€Tenn.€œPriv›.€Acts,€380,€ðð€17(2)€&Ï(3)).€€Robertson€County€had€delegated€the€responsibility€for€roadÏinspections€to€the€œstate.›€€œFour›€œprevious€inspectors›€had€noted€theÏabsence€of€guardrails€at€the€point€where€the€plaintiff's€car€leftÏthe€road€and€had€advised€that€guardrails€be€installed.€€The€CourtÏof€Appeals€held€that€the€failure€to€install€guardrails€under€thoseÏcircumstances€was€an€operational€act,€not€a€discretionaryÏœfunction;›€œtherefore,›€the€county€was€not€immune€from€suit€under€ððÏ29„20„205(1).€€This€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòWattsóó€in€threeÏmajor€respects:€first,€the€bridge€in€òòWattsóó€had€no€guardrails€orÏwheel€guards€at€all;€€second,€the€record€in€this€case€does€notÏsupport€counsel's€argument€that€Knox€County€had€adopted€such€aÏprivate€act;€third,€in€òòWattsóó€the€county€did€not€present€any€policyÏreasons€for€the€failure€to€install€the€guardrails.€€They€simplyÏnever€read€the€inspection€reports€and€never€considered€whether€toÏinstall€guardrails€at€all.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€'‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€//X„d&ÓÑ#€//Xd#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€r`XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€462;+'h|` ‚- `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌKAREN€HELTON,€Surviving€Widowà àà à)à àForÏpublicationÌof€WILLIAM€T.€HELTON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àFiled:€May€13,€1996Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.Ï03„S„01„9502„CV„00015Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKnoxÏCircuitÌKNOX€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.ÏWheeler€A.€Rosenbalm,€Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à€€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àà àà àòòForÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌJohn€E.€Owings,€ChiefÏDeputyà àà àà àTricia€I.€DennisÌKnox€County€LawÏDirectorà àà àà àà àAlley€&€DennisÌKnoxville,€TNÏ37902à àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TNÏ37443ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDà àà àà àà àà àà àBirch,€J.ÓÓÌÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àWilliam€T.€Helton€was€killed€when€the€vehicle€he€wasÏdriving€went€off€the€Coward€Mill€Bridge€in€Knox€County.€€His€widowÏbrought€suit€under€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€ActÏ(GTLA),× ƒ7 ××  ×€on€the€theory€that€the€œcounty›€was€liable€for€the€death€ofÏher€husband€and€damage€to€his€automobile.€€She€relied€on€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203,€which€removes€governmental€immunity€"forÏany€injury€caused€by€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€conditionÏof€any€street,€alley,€sidewalk€or€highway,€owned€and€controlled€byÍsuch€governmental€entity."× ƒ8 ××  ×€€She€alleged€that€the€bridge€was€unsafeÏbecause€there€were€no€guardrails€on€it.€€After€a€bench€trial,€theÏcourt€found€that€the€physical€aspects€of€the€roadway€approachingÏthe€bridge€and€the€bridge€itself€were€not€"defective,€unsafe,€orÏdangerous"€and€dismissed€the€case.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals,€however,€found€that€the€absence€ofÏguardrails€was€a€proximate€cause€of€Helton's€death,€reversed€theÏtrial€court's€judgment,€and€remanded€for€a€determination€ofÏdamages.€€ÌÌà àWe€granted€Knox€County's€application€for€permission€toÏappeal€in€order€to€address€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€failure€to€installÏguardrails€on€Coward€Mill€BridgeÏrendered€the€bridge€"defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous"€and,€if€so,Ïwhether€Knox€County€had€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€of€suchÏcondition€for€purposes€of€€removingÍKnox€County's€immunity€under€ðð€29„20„203€of€the€GTLA;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€under€the€"negligent€actÏor€omission"€provision€of€ðð€29„20„205€of€the€GTLA€the€decision€not€toÏinstall€guardrails€on€Coward€MillÏBridge€was€a€"discretionaryÏfunction"€such€as€would€preserveÏKnox€County's€governmentalÏimmunity.œ× ƒ9 ××  ×›ÌÓÓÌAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€a€careful€considerationÏof€the€arguments,€we€conclude€that€the€bridge€was€not€"defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous."€€Accordingly,€governmental€immunity€is€notÏwaived€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203.€€Inasmuch€as€theÏinstallation€of€guardrails€on€a€county€roadway€is€a€discretionaryÏfunction€that€involves€the€weighing€of€public€policyÍconsiderations,€governmental€immunity€is€preserved€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205(1)€as€well.€€The€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€is€reversed;€the€trial€court's€order€dismissing€the€caseÏis€reinstated.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àCoward€Mill€Bridge€is€a€one„lane,€single„span,€stone„arch€bridge€built€in€1895.€€The€bridge€is€located€in€a€hilly,Ïsparsely€inhabited€area€of€Knox€County€on€Coward€Mill€Road€and€isÏlittle€used.€€The€bridge€lies€at€the€bottom€of€a€steep€grade.€ÏApproaching€the€bridge€from€the€east,€the€driver€first€must€crossÏa€railroad€track€located€approximately€five€hundred€feet€from€theÏbridge.€€The€driver€then€must€proceed€downhill€into€a€ninety„degree€right€curve.€€Randall€Cox,€Ph.D.,€a€registered€professionalÏengineer€whose€specialty€is€mechanical€engineering,€testified€thatÏthe€maximum€speed€at€which€a€driver€could€negotiate€that€firstÏcurve€was€less€than€thirty€miles€per€hour.€€After€passing€throughÏthis€first€curve,€one€must€travel€seventy€to€eighty€yards€into€aÏninety„degree€left€curve.€€Cox€testified€that€the€maximum€speedÏwith€which€a€driver€could€successfully€negotiate€the€second€curveÍwas€approximately€twenty„two€miles€per€hour.€€Upon€completing€thisÏsecond€curve,€a€driver€immediately€enters€onto€the€bridge.ÌÌà àOn€the€date€of€the€accident,€a€sign€reading€"Warning€„ÏOne€Lane€Bridge€Ahead"€was€posted€on€the€right„hand€side€of€theÏroadway€near€the€railroad€tracks€that€cross€Coward€Mill€Road.€ÏThere€were€paddle€boards„„long€narrow€boards€containing€black€andÏyellow€hash€marks„„located€on€each€side€of€the€roadway€at€the€endsÏof€the€bridge.€€These€paddle€boards€become€visible€as€soon€as€aÏdriver€exits€the€first€curve€and€heads€toward€the€second.€€KnoxÏCounty€traffic€sign€supervisor€Henry€Loy€testified€that€the€one„lane€bridge€sign€and€paddle€boards€were€in€full€compliance€withÏthe€recommendations€of€the€Uniform€Manual€for€Traffic€ControlÏDevices.€ÌÌà àThe€surfaces€of€the€bridge€and€roadway€are€asphalt.€€œFog›Ïlines€œdefine›€the€edge€of€the€road€painted€with€reflective€paint.€ÏThe€bridge€does€not€have€standard€guardrails.€€œInstead,›€heavyÏstones€œline›€its€edge.€€Each€stone€is€about€fifteen€inches€long,Ïsix€to€eight€inches€high,€and€weighs€approximately€a€ton.€€TheyÏare€not€bonded€to€the€bridge€or€to€each€other.ÌÌà àElvin€Moore,€a€district€foreman€for€the€Knox€CountyÏHighway€Department,€testified€that€he€used€the€bridge€once€orÏtwice€weekly.€€He€had€driven€across€it€in€good€weather€and€bad.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€had€never€had€trouble€negotiating€the€bridge.€ÏFurthermore,€he€had€crossed€the€bridge€two€to€three€weeks€prior€toÏthe€accident€and€did€not€observe€any€deficiencies€in€either€theÏroadway€or€the€bridge€at€that€time.€€Moore€had€examined€the€KnoxÏCounty€Highway€Department€complaint€file€for€complaints€about€theÏbridge€and€found€none;€he€did€not€recall€ever€having€seen€such€aÏcomplaint.€€Moore€had€never€received€a€report€of€an€accident€onÏthe€bridge€prior€to€September€3,€1988,€the€date€of€HeltonððsÏaccident.ÌÌà àKnox€County€had,€however,€been€advised€by€inspectors€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation€that€the€lack€of€safetyÏfeatures€on€the€bridge€was€"a€serious€deficiency."€€On€August€6,Ï1985,€the€inspectors€advised€county€officials€to€install€approvedÏapproach€rails.€€In€January€1987,€the€inspectors€recommended€thatÏboth€bridge€rails€and€approach€guardrails€be€installed.€€InÏJanuary€1988,€the€inspectors€renewed€their€recommendation€that€theÍcounty€install€approved€œbridge€rails€and›€approach€œguardrails.›€ÏBecause€of€costsœ× ƒ: ××  ×›€and€concern€for€the€preservation€of€this€historicÏbridge,€Knox€County€decided€not€to€follow€the€inspectorsððÏrecommendations.ÌÌà àThe€accident€occurred€during€the€mid„afternoon€onÏSeptember€3,€1988.€€The€road€was€slick€from€a€heavy€rain.€€No€oneÏwitnessed€the€accident.€€Officer€Charles€Lassiter,€Knox€CountyÏSheriff's€Department,€was€the€first€person€on€the€scene.€€He€foundÏHelton's€car€upside„down€in€Beaver€Creek€about€six€to€ten€feetÏfrom€the€right„hand€edge€of€the€bridge.€€One€of€the€large€curbÏstones€on€the€right„hand€side€of€the€bridge€was€missing.€€A€stoneÏthat€had€been€contiguous€to€it€was€precariously€balanced€on€theÏright€edge€of€the€bridge.€€The€space€which€had€been€occupied€byÏthe€missing€stone€was€twenty€feet€from€the€end€of€the€bridge€whereÏHelton€had€entered.€€No€skid€marks€or€debris€were€visible€on€theÏroadway€or€bridge€surface.€€Cox€concluded€that€Helton€had€lostÏcontrol€of€his€vehicle€and€crashed€through€the€stone€curb.€€CoxÏstated€he€had€considered€the€total€weight€of€Helton€and€his€carÍ(approximately€3300€pounds)€and€the€weight€of€the€stone€(1820Ïpounds)€to€calculate€the€force€necessary€to€move€the€stone.€€HeÏconcluded€that€œa€vehicle€traveling€at€a€speed€of€six€miles€perÏhour€could€have€moved€the€stone€two€feet€laterally.€€Clearly,€theÏstone€curbs€in€place€on€Coward€Mill€Bridge€at€the€time€of€Helton'sÏaccident€served€little€purpose€other€than€to€outline€the€edge€ofÏthe€bridge;€they€obviously€were€not€intended€to€prevent€a€vehicleÏfrom€leaving€the€roadway.ÌÌÓ  ÓII€ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€first€question€is€whether€the€bridge€was€in€aÏ"defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition"€so€as€to€waive€theÏcounty's€immunity€under€ðð€29„20„203.€€A€general€principleÏprevalent€in€both€the€common€law× ƒ; ××  ×€preceding€the€enactment€of€theÏGTLA€and€in€the€Act€itself€is€that€governmental€entities€areÏgenerally€immune€from€liability€for€any€injury€resulting€from€theÏexercise€of€governmental€or€proprietary€functions.€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€29„20„201(a)(Supp.€1995)€specifically€restates€thisÏprinciple:€ð ðExcept€as€may€be€otherwise€provided€in€this€chapter,Íall€governmental€entities€shall€be€immune€from€suit€for€any€injuryÏwhich€may€result€from€the€activities€of€such€governmental€entitiesÏwherein€such€governmental€entities€are€engaged€in€the€exercise€andÏdischarge€of€any€of€their€functions,€governmental€or€proprietary.ðð€ÏThe€GTLA€then€removes€governmental€immunity€"for€injuriesÏresulting€from€the€negligent€operation€by€any€employee€of€a€motorÏvehicle€or€other€equipment,"× ƒ< ××  ×€"for€€any€injury€caused€by€aÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€of€any€street,€alley,Ïsidewalk€or€highway€...€includ[ing›]€traffic€control€devicesÏthereon,"× ƒ= ××  ×€"for€any€injury€caused€by€the€dangerous€or€defectiveÏcondition€of€any€public€building,€structure,€dam,€reservoir€orÏother€public€improvement,"× ƒ> ××  ×€and€"for€injury€proximately€caused€by€aÏnegligent€act€or€omission€of€any€employee,"€with€numerousÏexceptions.× ƒ? ××  ×€€Thus,€the€GTLA€is€in€derogation€of€common€law€andÍmust€be€strictly€construed.€€òòMowdy€v.€Kellyóó,€667€S.W.2d€489,€491Ï(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff,€in€the€case€under€review,€brought€suitÏunder€ðð€29„20„203(a),€which€removes€immunity€for€injury€caused€byÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€highways.€€She€contends€that€theÏbridge€did€not€have€guardrails.€€This€contention,€supported€by€theÏexpert€testimony€that€guardrails€would€have€prevented€Helton's€carÏfrom€going€over€the€edge,€constitutes€her€theory€of€liability.ÌÌà àWhether€a€particular€site€is€defective,€unsafe,€orÏdangerous€for€purposes€of€waiving€governmental€immunity€under€ððÏ29„20„203€is€a€question€of€fact.€€The€case€under€submission€isÏsimilar€to€the€recently€decided€case€of€òòKirby€v.€Macon€Countyóó,€892ÏS.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòKirbyóó,€the€bridgeòò€óówas€little„used€andÏin€a€rural€area.€€Much€of€its€traffic€included€farm€equipment€thatÏcould€not€have€used€the€bridge€had€standard€metal€guardrails€beenÏinstalled.€€Accordingly,€wooden€wheel€guards€had€been€installed€onÏthe€bridge.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€the€surface€of€theÏbridge€was€iced€over,€causing€the€plaintiff's€vehicle€to€slideÏover€the€edge.€€At€the€specific€site€where€Kirby's€vehicle€leftÍthe€bridge,€some€of€the€wooden€wheel€guards€were€missing.€€KirbyÏsued€under€two€theories:€€€first,€failure€to€install€guardrailsÏwas€a€negligent€omission€under€ðð€29„20„205;€and€second,€theÏabsence€of€standard€guardrails€made€the€bridge€defective,€unsafe,Ïor€dangerous€under€ðð29„20„203(a).€€We€found€(1)€that€the€decisionÏto€install€wooden€wheel€guards€instead€of€standard€metalÏguardrails€was€within€the€discretionary€function€exception€of€ððÏ29„20„205€so€that€governmental€immunity€was€preserved;€(2)€thatÏthe€lack€of€standard€guardrails€did€not€make€the€bridge€defectiveœ× ƒ@ ××  ×›Ïso€as€to€waive€governmental€immunity€under€ðð€29„20„203;€and€(3)Íthat€even€if€the€missing€wheel€guards€rendered€the€bridge€unsafe,Ïthe€county€did€not€have€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€theÏcondition€so€as€to€waive€immunity€under€ðð29„20„203.ÌÌà àWhether€a€road€or€bridge€is€"defective,€unsafe,€orÏdangerous"€necessarily€depends€on€the€standard€of€care€imposed€onÏgovernments€when€they€are€building€and€maintaining€bridges.€€AsÏthis€Court€noted€in€òòFretwell€v.€Chaffinóó,€652€S.W.2d€755,€756Ï(Tenn.€1983),€prior€case€law€does€not€necessarily€bear€greatlyÏupon€the€construction€and€interpretation€of€the€GTLA.€€Prior€caseÏlaw€does,€however,€provide€a€perspective€as€to€the€standard€ofÏcare€historically€required€of€governments€in€building€andÏmaintaining€roads€and€bridges.ÌÌà àTraditionally,€the€standard€of€care€imposed€onÏgovernments€in€building€and€maintaining€roads€and€bridges€is€oneÏof€reasonableness.€€For€instance,€in€òòSwain€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,Ï92€S.W.2d€405,€406€(Tenn.€1936),€this€Court€noted,€ð ða€city€or€townÏis€not€an€insurer€against€accidents€upon€its€streets€andÏsidewalks,€but€is€bound€to€use€only€ordinary€care€to€keep€them€inÏa€reasonably€safe€condition€for€persons€traveling€in€the€ordinaryÍmodes,€while€exercising€reasonable€care€and€caution.ðð€€Moreover,Ïð ð[œi]t›€[is]€not€its€duty,€however,€to€maintain€guard€rails€ofÏsufficient€strength€to€prevent€all€accidents.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Quoting€theÏNew€York€Court€of€Appeals,€the€Court€continued:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àAll€that€was€required€of€it€was€thatÏit€should€erect€such€a€railing,€ifÏany,€as€would€be€a€sufficientÏprotection€for€travel€generally.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€town€was€not€bound€toÏexercise€extraordinary€care€to€guardÏagainst€unusual€accidents.€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à€.€.€.€To€impose€on€towns€theÏburden€either€of€constructingÏsubstantial€barriers€at€every€pointÏof€possible€danger€or€of€payingÏdamages€when€unusual€accidents€occurÏwhich€such€barriers€might€haveÏprevented€would€be€to€advance€theÏpresent€measure€of€liability€beyondÏthe€rule€of€ordinary€care€into€theÏfield€of€insurance€againstÏaccidental€injury€or€death.ÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€(quoting€òòRoberts€v.€Eatonóó,€144€N.E.€667€(N.Y.€œ1924));›€òòaccordÏLagua€v.€Hawaiióó,€649€P.2d€1135€(Haw.€1982)(applying€Hawaii'sÏversion€of€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act).€€In€òòCity€ofÏMemphis€v.€McCradyóó,€124€S.W.2d€248€(Tenn.€1938),€the€CourtÏaddressed€a€case€œin€which›€the€plaintiff€had€tripped€over€a€two€andÏone„half€inch€obstruction€protruding€from€a€city€sidewalk.€€TheÍCourt€found€this€was€not€such€a€dangerous€obstruction€as€to€amountÏto€negligence€and€pronounced€that€"the€municipality€is€liable€whenÏit€appears€that€the€obstruction€constituted€a€danger€from€whichÏinjury€might€be€reasonably€anticipated."€€124€S.W.2d€at€249.€€InÏòòForrester€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€169€S.W.2d€860€(Tenn.€1943),€weÏnoted,€"Probability,€not€possibility,€governs;€that€it€isÏ'possible'€.€.€.€does€not€make€it€dangerous."ÌÌà àAs€noted€above,€the€GTLA€abolished€the€distinctionÏbetween€governmental€and€proprietary€functions€of€local€governmentÏas€related€to€tort€claims.€€Since€its€enactment,€however,€courtsÏhave€continued€to€affirm€the€duty€of€a€governmental€entity€toÏmaintain€the€road€in€a€"proper,€reasonably€safe€fashion."€€òòSee,Ïe.g.,€Baker€v.€Sealóó,€694€S.W.2d€948,€950€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€ÌÌà àIn€1989,€this€Court€considered€a€claim€against€the€StateÏin€òòSweeney€v.€Stateóó,€768€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€plaintiffÏin€òòSweeneyóó€was€injured€when€the€car€in€which€he€was€riding€leftÏthe€road€on€a€curve.€€The€claim€was€made€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÍœ9„8„307(a)(I)›€and€(J)€of€the€Claims€Commission€Act,× ƒA ××  ×€which€areÏanalogous€to€ðððð€29„20„205€and€„203,€respectively,€of€the€GTLA.€ÏThe€Court€found€the€State€was€not€negligent€under€subsection€(I).€ÏThus,€the€Court€had€to€consider€whether€the€curve€was€"a€dangerousÏcondition"€under€subsection€(J).€€In€resolving€this€issue,€weÏstated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€decision€of€whether€a€conditionÏof€highway€actually€is€a€dangerousÏand€hazardous€one€to€an€ordinaryÏprudent€driver€is€a€factual€one,€andÏthe€court€should€consider€theÏphysical€aspects€of€the€roadway,€theÏfrequency€of€accidents€at€that€placeÏin€the€highway€and€the€testimony€ofÏexpert€witnesses€in€arriving€at€thisÏfactual€determination.ÌÓÓÌ768€S.W.2d€at€255(quoting€òòHolmes€v.€Christopheróó,€435€So.€2d€1022Ï(La.€App.€œ1983)).›€€In€òòSweeneyóó,€the€road€in€question€wasÏreconstructed€after€a€rock€slide€in€1978.€€Between€March€7,€1981,Ïand€March€3,€1983,€there€were€twenty„three€single„car€accidents€onÏthat€same€curve.€€An€expert€testified€that€a€dangerous€conditionÍprevailed€at€the€site.€€We€concluded€that€the€State€should€haveÏforeseen€the€risk€and€œthat€the›€District€Highway€Superintendent€hadÏadequate€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€curve€based€onÏthe€accident€history.€€The€State€œwas,›€œtherefore,›€liable€for€theÏplaintiff's€injuries.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€reached€the€same€conclusion€inÏòòGoodermote€v.€Stateóó,€856€S.W.2d€715€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€InÏòòGoodermoteóó,€the€vehicle€in€which€the€plaintiff€was€riding€left€theÏroad€and€traveled€between€twin€bridges€and€down€an€embankment,Ïcoming€to€rest€in€a€ditch.€€The€industry€standard€when€the€roadÏwas€built€required€placing€a€guardrail€or€an€earthen€berm€betweenÏthe€twin€bridges€because€studies€showed€that€vehicles€would€leaveÏthe€road€and€travel€through€this€area.€€There€was€no€guardrail€orÏberm€at€this€accident€site.€€There€was€testimony€that€if€aÏguardrail€or€berm€had€been€in€place,€the€impact€would€have€beenÏless,€and€the€plaintiff€may€not€have€incurred€his€injuries.€€MoreÏsignificant,€however,€was€the€fact€that€in€the€previous€threeÏyears€six€accidents€had€occurred€within€six„tenths€of€a€mile€ofÏplaintiff's€accident€site.€€Two€accidents€had€occurred€in€exactlyÏthe€same€manner,€in€exactly€the€same€place,€as€the€plaintiff'sÍaccident.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€the€œstate›€had€been€putÏon€notice€by€the€prior€œaccidents,›€that€this€particular€locationÏwas€dangerous,€and€œthat€it›€should€have€installed€safety€devices.€ÏTherefore,€it€held€the€œstate›€liable€for€the€plaintiffððs€subsequentÏinjuries.€€œ856›€S.W.2d€at€723.ÌÌà àThe€present€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòGoodermoteóó.€ÏHere,€there€are€no€prior€recorded€instances€of€anyone€driving€overÏthe€edge€of€Coward€Mill€Bridge.€€The€fact€that€repeated€accidentsÏoccur€at€a€particular€location€may€lead€to€the€ultimate€conclusionÏthat€the€conditions€at€that€location€are€inherently€dangerous.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.,€Goodermoteóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€715;€òòSweeney,€óó768€S.W.2d€atÏ253;€òòSeaton€v.€County€of€Scottóó,€404€N.W.2d€396€(Minn.€Ct.€App.Ï1987).€€However,€the€fact€of,€or€absence€of,€prior€accidents€isÏonly€one€element€in€the€equation.ÌÌà àIn€this€instance,€we€do€not€have€a€modern€structureÏbuilt€during€a€time€when€the€industry€standards€required€theÏinstallation€of€guardrails.€€Rather,€Coward€Mill€Bridge€was€builtÏat€the€turn€of€the€century€before€the€concept€of€metal€guardrailsÍhad€evolved.œ× ƒB ××  ×›€€At€the€time€of€Helton's€accident,€the€road€leadingÏto€the€bridge€was€adequately€marked€"one„lane€bridge€ahead."€€InÏaddition,€as€a€vehicle€rounded€the€first€curve€to€the€right,€theÏpaddle€boards€would€have€been€clearly€visible€to€the€driver.€ÏBecause€of€the€sharpness€of€the€two€curves€on€the€approach€to€theÏbridge,€a€driver€who€had€successfully€negotiated€the€second€curveÏwould€be€traveling€at€a€slow€rate€of€speed.€€The€edges€of€theÏbridge€were€clearly€marked€with€reflective€fog€lines€and€the€stoneÏcurbs.€€Under€these€conditions,€we€cannot€find€that€Coward€MillÏBridge€was€"defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous"€to€the€ordinary,Íprudent€driver.€€Accordingly,€Knox€County's€immunity€is€not€waivedÏunder€ðð€29„20„203(a).ÌÌÓ  ÓIIIÌÌÓ  Óà àAlthough€not€raised€by€the€plaintiff€in€the€originalÏpleading,œ× ƒC ××  ×›€both€parties€have€alluded€to€the€discretionary€functionÏexception€of€ðð€29„20„205(1).€€Knox€County€argues€that€even€if€theÏlack€of€an€adequate€guardrail€on€Coward€Mill€Bridge€could€beÏdeemed€"dangerous"€under€ðð€29„20„203(a),€the€decision€whether€toÏinstall€guardrails€is€a€discretionary€œfunction;›€œtherefore,›Ïgovernmental€immunity€is€preserved€under€ðð€29„20„205(1).€€As€weÏpointed€out€in€òòKirbyóó,€ð ðThe€application€of€one€of€these€immunityÏexceptions€does€not€necessarily€preclude€the€application€ofÏanother.€€In€other€words,€it€is€conceivable€that€either€provisionÏmight€apply€to€remove€governmental€immunity.€€Likewise,€it€isÏpossible€that€no€exception€will€apply,€thereby€preservingÏgovernmental€immunity.ðð€€892€S.W.2d€at€406.€€Each€section€shouldÏbe€considered€separately.€€To€clarify,€ðð€29„20„203(a),€whichÏremoves€governmental€tort€immunity€for€injury€caused€by€aÍ"defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous"€condition€of€any€street,€alley,Ïsidewalk,€or€highway,€does€òònotóó€create€an€exception€forÏdiscretionary€functions.€€òòSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€743ÏS.W.2d€174,€177€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€Therefore,€Knox€County'sÏreliance€on€this€exception€for€a€ðð€29„20„203(a)€condition€isÏmisplaced.ÌÌà àAlthough€€we€have€determined€that€the€lack€of€guardrailsÏwas€not€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€so€as€to€waiveÏgovernmental€tort€immunity€under€ðð€29„20„203(a),€the€nature€of€theÏplaintiff's€allegations€leads€us€to€consider€whether€the€decisionÏnot€to€install€standard€metal€guardrails€on€Coward€Mill€Bridge€wasÏnegligence€under€ðð€29„20„205.€€Section€29„20„205€€provides€for€aÏwaiver€of€governmental€immunity€"for€injury€proximately€caused€byÏa€negligent€act€or€omission€of€any€employee€within€the€scope€ofÏhis€employment."€€However,€immunity€is€not€waived€where€the€injuryÏ"[œa]rises›€out€of€the€exercise€or€performance€or€the€failure€toÏexercise€or€perform€a€discretionary€function,€whether€or€not€theÏdiscretion€is€abused."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205(1).€€Thus,€theÏkey€is€whether€the€decision€not€to€install€guardrails€at€this€siteÏwas€a€discretionary€function.€ÌÌà àWe€defined€the€"discretionary€function"€exception€inÏòòBowers€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2d€427€(Tenn.€1992).€€InÏòòBowersóó,€we€adopted€the€"planning„operational€test"€to€aid€inÏdetermining€whether€a€particular€act€was€a€discretionary€function.€ÏUnder€this€test,€"decisions€that€rise€to€the€level€of€planning€orÏpolicy„making€are€considered€discretionary€acts€which€do€not€giveÏrise€to€tort€liability."€€826€S.W.2d€at€430.€€In€contrast,Ïdecisions€that€are€merely€"operational"€or€implement€priorÏplanning€decisions€are€not€"discretionary€functions"€and€mayÏsubject€the€government€to€tort€liability.€€òòIdóó.€at€430„31.€Ï"Planning"€decisions€are€those€"involving€the€formulation€of€basicÏpolicy€characterized€by€official€judgment,€discretion,€weighing€ofÏalternatives,€and€public€policy€choices."€€òòVoit€v.€Allen€Countyóó,Ï634€N.E.2d€767,€769„70€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1994).€When€deciding€whetherÏa€particular€decision€is€"planning"€or€"operational,"€the€courtsÏshould€keep€in€mind€the€purpose€of€the€discretionary€functionÏexception,€that€is,€"to€'prevent€judicial€ððsecond€guessingðð€ofÏlegislative€and€administrative€decisions€grounded€in€social,Ïeconomic,€and€political€policy€through€the€medium€of€an€action€inÏtort.'"€€òòUnited€States€v.€Gaubertóó,€499€U.S.€315,€323,€111€S.€Ct.Í1267,€1273€(1991)€(òòquotingóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Varig€Airlinesóó,€467ÏU.S.€797,€814,€104€S.€Ct.€2755,€2765€(1984))(both€cases€discussÏthe€discretionary€function€exception€under€the€Federal€Tort€ClaimÏAct,€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€€1346(b),€2674€òòet€seqóó.).€€Moreover,€ð ðcourts€mustÏnot€intrude€into€realms€of€policy€exceeding€their€institutionalÏcompetence.€€The€judicial€branch€lacks€the€fact„finding€ability€ofÏthe€legislature,€and€the€special€expertise€of€the€executiveÏdepartments.€€.€.€.€[T]he€courts€.€.€.€should€not€attempt€toÏbalance€the€detailed€and€competing€elements€of€legislative€orÏexecutive€decisions.ðð€€òòIndustrial€Indemnity€Co.€v.€Alaskaóó,€669ÏP.2d€561,€563€(Alaska€1983).× ƒD ××  ×€€The€discretionary€functionÍexception€covers€acts€involving€an€element€of€judgment€or€choiceÏif€they€are€based€on€considerations€of€public€policy.€€òòBerkovitzÏv.€United€Statesóó,€486€U.S.€531,€536,€108€S.€Ct.€1954,€1958€(1988).€ÏIt€is€the€nature€of€the€conduct€rather€than€the€nature€of€theÏactor€that€governs€whether€the€exception€applies.€€òòGaubertóó,€499ÏU.S.€at€325.€€As€we€pointed€out€in€òòBowersóó,€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àthe€underlying€policy€ofÏgovernmental€immunity€is€betterÏserved€by€examining€(1)€theÏdecision„making€process€and€(2)€theÏpropriety€of€judicial€review€of€theÏresulting€decision.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àA€consideration€of€theÏdecision„making€process,€as€well€asÏthe€factors€influencing€a€particularÏdecision,€will€often€reveal€whetherÏthat€decision€is€to€be€viewed€asÏplanning€or€operational.€€If€aÏparticular€course€of€conduct€isÏdetermined€after€consideration€orÏdebate€by€an€individual€or€groupÏcharged€with€the€formulation€ofÏplans€or€policies,€it€stronglyÏsuggests€the€result€is€a€planningÏdecision.€€These€decisions€oftenÏresult€from€assessing€priorities;Íallocating€resources;€developingÏpolicies;€or€establishing€plans,Ïspecifications,€or€schedules.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àOn€the€other€hand,€a€decisionÏresulting€from€a€determination€basedÏon€preexisting€laws,€regulations,Ïpolicies,€or€standards,€usuallyÏindicates€that€its€maker€isÏperforming€an€operational€act.€ÏSimilarly€operational€are€those€adÏhoc€decisions€made€by€an€individualÏor€group€not€charged€with€theÏdevelopment€of€plans€or€policies.€ÏThese€operational€acts,€which€oftenÏimplement€prior€planning€decisions,Ïare€not€"discretionary€functions"Ïwithin€the€meaning€of€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act.ÌÓÓÌ826€S.W.2d€at€431€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àAnother€factor€that€should€be€considered€when€decidingÏwhether€an€act€is€a€planning€decision€or€merely€operational€isÏwhether€the€decision€is€one€that€is€properly€reviewable€by€theÏcourts.ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€discretionary€function€exceptionÏ"recognizes€that€courts€are€ill„equipped€to€investigate€and€balanceÏthe€numerous€factors€that€go€into€anÏexecutive€or€legislative€decision"Ïand€therefore€allows€the€governmentÏto€operate€without€undueÏinterference€by€the€courts.€€òòSeeÍWainscott€v.€Stateóó,€642€P.2d€1355,Ï1356€(Alaska€1982).€€Put€succinctly:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à[T]he€judiciary€confinesÏitself€.€.€.€toÏadjudication€of€factsÏbased€on€discernibleÏobjective€standards€ofÏlaw.€€In€the€context€ofÏtort€actions€.€.€.€theseÏobjective€standards€areÏnotably€lacking€when€theÏquestion€is€notÏnegligence€but€socialÏwisdom,€not€due€care€butÏpolitical€practicability,Ïnot€[reasonableness]€butÏeconomic€expediency.€ÏTort€law€simply€furnishesÏan€inadequate€crucibleÏfor€testing€the€merits€ofÏsocial,€political,€orÏeconomic€decisions.ÌÓÓÌòòBowersóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€431€(òòquotingóó€òòPeavler€v.€Board€ofÏCommissionersóó,€528€N.E.2d€40,€44„45€(Ind.€1988)).€€As€in€òòKirbyóó,Ï892€S.W.2d€at€408,€we€find€that€the€decision„making€process€inÏthis€case€included€the€weighing€of€economic€œfactors:›€œ€the›€cost€ofÏinstalling€standard€guardrails€against€the€perceived€benefits€thatÏwould€result€therefrom.€€Decisions€that€include€the€allocation€ofÏlimited€resources€among€competing€needs€do€not€need€interferenceÏfrom€the€courts,€absent€clear€guidance€from€the€legislature€to€theÏcontrary.€€òòAccord€Rothrock€v.€United€Statesóó,€62€F.3d€196,€199€(7thÍCir.€1995);€òòBaum€v.€United€Statesóó,€986€F.2d€716,€722€(4th€Cir.Ï1993).€€In€this€case,€the€decision€not€to€install€guardrails€wasÏdiscretionary.€€The€legislature€has€decided€by€adopting€theÏdiscretionary€function€exception€in€our€Governmental€TortÏLiability€Act€to€preserve€governmental€immunity€under€theseÏcircumstances.œ× ƒE ××  ×›ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌIVÌÌÓ  Óà àWe€conclude€that€the€facts€of€this€case€do€not€supportÏthe€Court€of€Appeals'€conclusion€that€Coward€Mill€Bridge€wasÏdefective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous.€€œThus,›€the€œcounty's›€immunity€fromÏtort€liability€is€preserved€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a).€ÏWe€conclude€further€that€the€decision€not€to€install€guardrailsÏdespite€the€recommendations€of€œstate›€inspectors€falls€within€theÏdiscretionary€function€exception€of€the€GTLA.€€The€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€is,€therefore,€œreversed,›€and€the€trial€court'sÏorder€dismissing€the€case€is,€hereby,€reinstated.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌAnderson,€CJ.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€White,€JJ.