ÿWPCç# …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dl 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r † n­Ž n­; è n­ð n­ J 0|R 0†Îw@T 0” 1u$U,™ 0dÅ B) D3F 0@yU,¹U>åU*#B)MDCv AM¹U*,0\øéáv~ñvÓo AOB"Æ‘" 0DW# D/›# BÊ#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡yJÚ }3|xp((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô \D]D^E_e`r‚aDbecdÓ€p2^ 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 d'''''ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd€-2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òJuly€15,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€29„25„102(2)€states€that€a€ð ðperemptory€writÏà à[of€mandamus]€commands€the€defendant€to€do€the€act€and€return€the€writ€[to€theÏcourt].ððà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„25„102(2)(1980€Repl.).Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€court€determined€that€the€amount€of€post„judgment€interest€due€Lucius€wasÌà à$5,331.69,€and€that€interest€would€continue€to€accrue€at€the€rate€of€$1.46€per€day.€€TheÌà àcourt€also€found€that€Burns€was€entitled€to€$1,383.10€in€post„judgment€interest,€and€that€itÌà àwould€continue€to€accrue€at€the€rate€of€$.38€per€day.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓ ` ܇X2È“X ÓJustice€Henry€of€this€Court€once€observed€that€ð ð[g]overnmental€immunity€is€aÏà àcankered,€corroded€and€corrupted€area€of€our€law.€€It€is€the€flaming€sword€used€by€citiesÏà àand€counties€in€Tennessee€to€banish€the€innocent€victims€of€their€wrongs€and€deny€themÏà àtheir€traditional€day€in€court.€€It€has€become€the€hallmark€of€governmental€irresponsibility€„Ïà àthe€defense€by€which€governmental€entities€stoop€to€conquer€their€own€citizens.ðð€€òòà àCooperÏà àv.€Rutherford€Countyóó,€531€S.W.2d€783,€785€(Tenn.€1975)€(Henry,€J.,€dissenting).€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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€/ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€¶YXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/¼ÔØ ØÓ&€00X8d&Óœ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€352;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌÌNANCYE€L.€LUCIUS€and€€€€à à)à àò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONó óÌóóRICHARD€S.€BURNS,òòà àà àóó)Ìòòà àà àà àà àà àóó)òòà àò òFiled:€July€œ15,›Ï1996Ìó óóóà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€James€E.€Swearengen,€JudgeÌCITY€OF€MEMPHIS,€€€€€€€€à à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9511„CV„00114Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)à àÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant€Luciusóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJohn€J.€Heflin,€IIIà àà àà àà àà àMonice€Moore€HaglerÌBOURLAND,€HELFIN,€ALVAREZ,€à àà àL.€Kenneth€McCown,€Jr.Ì€€€€€HOLLEY€&€MINORà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TNÌMemphis,€TNÌÌòòFor€Appellant€Burnsóó:à àÌÌMelanie€M.€ShuttleworthÌSHUTTLEWORTH€&€WILKINSONÌMemphis,€TNÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òà@ àO€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NÌÌÌÌÌó óÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEAL€REVERSED;à àà àà àà àWHITE,€J.ÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€REINSTATEDÌÌÌÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àIn€this€suit€for€personal€injury€and€property€damage,€the€CourtÏmust€decide€whether€municipalities€are€liable€for€post„judgment€interest€onÏjudgments€rendered€under€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(hereafterÏð ðGTLAðð),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„20„101€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€(1980€Repl.€&€1995ÏSupp.).€€For€the€reasons€explained€below,€we€hold€that€judgments€obtainedÏpursuant€to€the€GTLA€accrue€post„judgment€interest.€€The€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€holding€to€the€contrary€is€therefore€reversed€and€that€ofÏthe€trial€court€reinstated.ÌÌà@ àI.Ìà àà àThis€case€arises€out€of€an€automobile€accident€that€occurred€onÏOctober€27,€1989,€between€plaintiff,€Nancye€Lucius,€and€a€police€officerÏemployed€by€defendant,€the€City€of€Memphis.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€ÏLucius€was€driving€a€car€owned€by€her€father,€plaintiff€Richard€Burns.€ÏLucius€and€Burns€filed€suit€against€the€City€of€Memphis€under€the€GTLA,Íalleging€that€the€accident€occurred€as€a€result€of€defendantððs€police€carÏentering€an€intersection€against€a€red€light,€at€a€high€rate€of€speed,€andÏwithout€sounding€its€siren.€€At€the€time€of€the€collision,€defendantððs€officerÏwas€chasing€a€suspected€car€thief.€€As€a€result€of€the€accident,€Lucius€wasÏinjured€and€taken€to€a€hospital.€€€Both€automobiles€sustained€substantialÏdamages.€€Lucius€sought€damages€for€personal€injury.€€Burns€soughtÏcompensation€for€property€damage€to€his€automobile.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€a€non„jury€trial€on€July€7,€1992,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€defendantððs€officer€was€100€percent€at€fault€and€rendered€judgment€inÏfavor€of€Lucius€for€$35,000€and€in€favor€of€Burns€for€$9,100.€€DefendantÏappealed.€€The€Ñ7€¶YXXdìXXdì7ÑCourt€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€finding€ofÏliability€and€its€award€of€damages.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€court,€defendantÏpaid€plaintiffs€the€principal€amounts€of€their€judgments,€but€refused€to€payÏpost„judgment€interest.€This€refusal€to€pay€prompted€plaintiffs€to€petitionÏthe€trial€court€for€a€€peremptory€writ€of€mandamus€on€January€20,€1994.× ƒ6 ××  ×€ÍPlaintiffsðð€petition€sought€an€order€compelling€defendant€to€pay€post„judgment€interest,€beginning€July€7,€1992,€on€their€respective€judgments.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€issued€the€writ€of€mandamus,€commandingÏdefendant€to€pay€post„judgment€interest€at€the€rate€of€10€percent€from€JulyÏ7,€1992,€through€the€date€of€payment.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€After€unsuccessfully€seeking€a€stayÏof€execution,€defendant€paid€plaintiffs€the€post„judgment€interest€as€orderedÏby€the€trial€court,€but€refused€to€pay€the€per€diem€interest.€€Defendant€thenÏappealed€a€second€time,€contending€that€it€was€not€liable€for€post„judgmentÏinterest€on€the€basis€of€sovereign€immunity.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏreversed€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€post„judgment€interest,€holding€that€aÏmunicipality€is€not€liable€for€post„judgment€interest€on€judgments€renderedÏpursuant€to€the€GTLA.€€The€court€reasoned€that€ð ð[t]he€lack€of€a€specificÏprovision€[in€the€GTLA]€for€post„judgment€interest€generally€coupled€withÏthe€specific€provision€[in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€29„20„312]Ïproviding€for€six€percent€(6%)€interest€on€judgments€paid€in€instalmentsÏevidences€the€legislative€intent€that€the€post„judgment€interest€statuteÍ[Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€47„14„121]€has€no€application€toÏjudgments€under€the€[GTLA].ðð€€ÌÌà àà àWe€granted€plaintiffsðð€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏdecide€whether€a€municipality€is€liable€for€post„judgment€interest€onÏjudgments€rendered€pursuant€to€the€GTLA.€€Since€this€question€is€solelyÏone€of€law,€the€scope€of€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àà àTennessee€law€provides€that€ð ð[i]nterest€òòshallóó€be€computed€onÏòòeveryóó€judgment€from€the€day€on€which€the€jury€or€the€court,€sittingÏwithout€a€jury,€returned€the€verdict€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„122Ï(1995€Repl.)€(emphasis€added).€€The€rate€at€which€post„judgment€interestÏaccrues€is€ð ðten€percent€(10%)€per€annum,€except€as€may€be€otherwiseÏprovided€or€permitted€by€statute€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„121Ï(1995€Repl.).€€Plaintiffs€contend€that€these€statutes€establish€theirÏentitlement€to€post„judgment€interest€as€ordered€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€contrast,€defendant€correctly€asserts€that€the€GTLAÏspecifically€refers€only€to€post„judgment€interest€in€the€context€ofÏjudgments€paid€in€instalments.€€Defendantððs€argument€is€based€uponÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€29„20„312€which€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àPayment€of€claims.€„€(a)€Any€claimÏapproved€for€payment€by€a€governmental€entityÏor€any€final€judgment€obtained€against€aÏgovernmental€entity€shall€be€paid€from€fundsÏappropriated€or€reserved€for€that€purpose€or€inÏthe€discretion€of€the€governmental€entity€may€beÏpaid€in€not€more€than€ten€(10)€equal€annualÏinstalments€commencing€the€next€fiscal€year€or€inÏsuch€other€manner€as€is€agreed€upon€by€theÏclaimant€and€governmental€entity.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(b)€Instalment€payments€shall€bear€interestÏat€six€percent€(6%)€per€annum€on€the€unpaidÏbalance.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(c)€The€provisions€of€this€section€shall€beÏdiscretionary€with€the€court€of€originalÏjurisdiction€and€such€court€is€hereby€authorized€inÏits€discretion€to€order€a€lump€sum€payment€of€anyÏfinal€judgment.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(d)€All€judgments€below€five€thousandÏdollars€($5,000)€must€be€paid€in€one€(1)Ïinstalment€and€must€be€paid€as€other€tortÏjudgments.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„312€(1980€Repl.).€€Defendant€thus€argues€that€theÏlegislature€chose€to€address€the€subject€of€interest€in€the€GTLA€exclusivelyÏas€to€judgments€paid€by€instalments.€€Consequently,€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity€immunizes€the€municipality€from€reliefÍnot€specifically€authorized€by€law,€including€payment€of€post„judgmentÏinterest€except€as€provided.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity,€which€has€been€a€part€ofÏTennessee€law€for€more€than€a€century,€provides€that€suit€may€not€beÏbrought€against€a€governmental€entity€except€to€the€extent€that€theÏgovernmental€entity€has€consented€to€be€sued.€€òòCruse€v.€City€of€Columbiaóó,€òò€€€€€óóÏS.W.2d€òò€€€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1996).€The€doctrine€was€codified€in€1973€when€theÏlegislature€enacted€the€GTLA.€€The€GTLA€governs€claims€against€counties,Ïmunicipalities,€and€other€local€governmental€agencies,€but€does€not€apply€toÏstate€government,€its€agencies,€and€departments.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€Dept.€OfÏMental€Health€&€Mental€Retardation€v.€Hughesóó,€531€S.W.2d€299,€300Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€Specifically,€the€Act€provides€that€ð ð[e]xcept€as€may€beÏotherwise€provided€in€this€chapter,€all€governmental€entities€shall€beÏimmune€from€suit€for€any€injury€which€may€result€from€the€activities€ofÏsuch€governmental€entities€wherein€such€governmental€entities€are€engagedÏin€the€exercise€and€discharge€of€any€of€their€functions€€€€€€€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(a)(1995€Supp.).€€The€Act€then€removes€immunityÏunder€certain€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„202(a)(1980€Repl.)(immunity€removed€for€injuries€resulting€from€theÏnegligent€operation€of€a€motor€vehicle€or€other€equipment€by€an€employeeÍin€the€scope€of€œemployment);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)(1995ÏSupp.)(immunity€removed€for€injuries€caused€by€a€defective,€unsafe,€orÏdangerous€condition€on€a€public€roadway€or€sidewalk);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„20„204(a)(1980€Repl.)(immunity€removed€for€injuries€caused€byÏdangerous€or€defective€conditions€associated€with€public€structures€orÏimprovements);€&€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205€(1980€Repl.)(immunityÏremoved€for€injuries€caused€by€the€negligence€of€governmental€›employeesÏwith€certain€exceptions).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€essence€of€defendantððs€argument€is€that€the€expressÏprovision€for€post„judgment€interest€in€the€context€of€instalment€paymentsÏindicates€the€legislatureððs€intent€to€authorize€such€interest€exclusively€onÏjudgments€paid€by€€instalment.€€While€defendantððs€premise€that€the€GTLAÏonly€addresses€post„judgment€interest€in€the€instalment€payment€context€isÏcorrect,€it€does€not€necessarily€follow€that€post„judgment€interest€cannot€beÏawarded€in€a€GTLA€case€not€involving€instalment€payments.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€addressing€the€applicability€of€legislation€which€is€not€a€partÏof€€the€GTLA€to€cases€brought€under€the€GTLA,€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€29„20„104(a)€provides€that€ð ðall€other€acts€or€statutes€òòinÏconflictóó€with€the€provisions€of€[the€GTLA]€shall€only€be€applicable€toÍgovernmental€entities€exercising€their€right€not€to€come€under€theÏprovisions€of€[the€GTLA]€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„104(a)(1980ÏRepl.)(emphasis€added).€€The€plain€language€of€this€provision€instructs€thatÏonly€statutes€òòinconsistentò òóó€ó ówith€specific€provisions€of€the€GTLA€are€notÏapplicable€to€suits€filed€against€local€governments.€€The€language€does€notÏsupport€the€sweeping€conclusion€that€all€statutes€touching€upon€some€aspectÏof€local€governmental€liability€are€preempted€by€the€GTLA.€€Indeed,€weÏhave€recently€observed€that€the€ð ðGTLA€does€not€encompass€every€tortiousÏact€by€a€governmental€entity.€€In€fact,€the€GTLA€leaves€significant€areas€ofÏactivities€either€protected€by€immunity€or€subject€to€independent€bodies€ofÏlaw.ðð€€òòCruse€v.€City€of€Columbiaóó,€òò€€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€at€òò€€€€€€€óó.òò€óó€To€state€theÏobvious,€ð ð[i]t€would€be€utterly€impractical,€if€not€impossible,€to€require€ofÏa€legislative€act€that€it€contain€apt€reference€to€every€law€which€the€actÏmight€possibly€touch.ðð€€òòJenkins€v.€Loudon€Countyóó,€736€S.W.2d€603,€607Ï(Tenn.€1987)€(quoting€òòChicago€&€Southern€Air€Lines,€Inc.€v.€Evansóó,€240ÏS.W.2d€249,€251€(Tenn.€1951)).€€ÌÌà àà àMindful€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€29„20„104(a),Ïwe€find€no€conflict€between€the€general€post„judgment€interest€statutes,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€47„14„121€&€„122€(1995€Repl.),€and€the€interestÏstatute€in€the€GTLA,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„312€(1980€Repl.).€€Only€inÍthe€circumstance€in€which€a€GTLA€judgment€is€paid€by€instalments€do€theÏtwo€provisions€conflict.€€In€that€situation,€when€a€GTLA€defendant€isÏpaying€by€instalments,€the€GTLA€interest€provision€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€29„20„312€takes€precedence€over€the€general€provisionsÏin€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Sections€47„14„121€and€„122.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóóÏòòIn€the€Matter€of€Harrisóó,€849€S.W.2d€334,€337€(Tenn.€1993)(ð ð[W]here€thereÏis€a€conflict€between€a€special€statute€and€a€general€statute,€the€specialÏstatute€will€be€given€effect.ðð);€òòWatts€v.€Putnam€Co.óó,€525€S.W.2d€488,€492Ï(Tenn.€1975);€òòContinental€Tennessee€Lines,€Inc.€v.€McCanlessóó,€354€S.W.2dÏ57,€58„59€(Tenn.€1962).€€Had€the€legislature€intended€to€prohibit€orÏotherwise€limit€the€application€of€the€general€interest€statutes€in€GTLAÏcases,€it€could€have€easily€done€so€in€the€Act.ÌÌà àà àAdditionally,€the€apparent€underlying€purpose€of€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€29„20„312€is€to€permit€a€governmental€entity,€ifÏthe€trial€court€allows€its€to€do€so,€to€spread€the€payment€of€judgments€overÏtime€so€as€not€to€disrupt€unduly€the€finances€of€local€government.€€ThisÏpurpose€is€in€no€way€undermined€by€limiting€the€application€of€theÏprovision€to€the€only€subject€it€addresses€„€instalment€payments.€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€accepting€defendantððs€argument€that€it€is€immune€fromÏpost„judgment€interest€would€result€in€two€undesirable€consequences.€€TheÏfirst€is€that€judgments€rendered€against€governmental€entities€would€beÏdevalued€over€time,€effectively€leaving€the€plaintiff€with€compensation€lessÏthan€that€awarded.€€Post„judgment€interest€compensates€the€party€who€wasÏentitled€to€money€but€deprived€of€its€use€by€requiring€an€additionalÏpayment€by€one€who€benefitted€from€retaining€the€money.€€òòSeeóó€òòElmoreÏCounty€Comððn€v.€Ragonaóó,€561€So.2d€1092,€1093€(Ala.€1990);€òòHarland€v.ÏStateóó,€160€Cal.€Rptr.€613,€618€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€The€secondÏundesirable€consequence€which€results€from€defendantððs€position€is€that€itÏwould€provide€an€incentive€for€governmental€entitles€to€appeal€adverseÏjudgments€or€delay€paying€them.€€Imposing€such€a€detriment€upon€citizensÏwho€legitimately€obtain€judgments€against€governmental€entities€isÏinconsistent€with€notions€of€justice€and€fairness.€€òòAccordóó€òòHarland€v.€Stateóó,Ï160€Cal.€Rptr.€at€618.ÌÌà àà àIn€sum,€we€hold€that€the€general€interest€provisions€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Sections€47„14„121€&€„122,€because€they€do€notÏconflict€with€specific€provisions€of€the€GTLA,€its€structure,€purpose€orÏintent,€apply€to€actions€brought€under€the€GTLA.€€Our€holding€is€consistentÏwith€the€established€view€that€disfavors€the€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunityÍas€applied€to€local€governments.€€òòSeeóó€òòJenkins€v.€Loudon€Countyóó,€736ÏS.W.2d€at€605„606;€òòJohnson€v.€Oman€Construction€Co.,€Inc.óó,€519€S.W.2dÏ782,€786€(Tenn.€1975).× ƒ8 ××  ×€€It€is€also€in€accord€with€recent€decisions€refutingÏthe€sweeping€notion€that€the€GTLA€necessarily€excludes€the€application€ofÏall€other€rules€and€statutes€not€specifically€made€a€part€of€the€GTLA€evenÏabsent€statutory€conflict€or€undermining€of€the€purposes€of€the€GTLA.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCruse€v.€City€of€Columbiaóó,€_____€S.W.2d€at€_____.ÌÌà àFinally,€our€conclusion€mirrors€those€reached€by€several€other€statesÏapplying€general€interest€statutes€to€judgments€rendered€against€politicalÏsubdivisions€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòElmore€County€Commððn€v.€Ragonaóó,Ï561€So.2d€1092,€1093„94€(Ala.€1990);€òòCity€of€Little€Rock€v.€Cashóó,€644ÏS.W.2d€229,€237€(Ark.€1983);€òòPolice€Pension€and€Relief€Board€v.€Behnkeóó,Ï353€P.2d€370,€372€(Colo.€1960);€€€òòPalm€Beach€County€v.€Town€of€PalmÏBeachóó,€579€So.2d€719,720€(Fla.€1991);€òòHome€Builders€Assoc.€v.€KansasÏCityóó,€464€S.W.2d€5,€10€(Mo.€1971);€òòState€ex€rel.€Shimola€v.€Clevelandóó,€637ÏN.E.2d€325,€326„27€(Ohio€1994);€€€òòAssociated€Developers,€Inc.€v.€City€ofÍBrookingsóó,€305€N.W.2d€848,€849€(S.D.€1981);€òòHerbert€v.€Town€ofÏMendonóó,€617€A.2d€155,€159€(Vt.€1992);€òòKraemer€&€Sons,€Inc.€v.€OverlandÏParkóó,€880€P.2d€789,€795€(Kan.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòCity€of€Henderson€v.€Rileyóó,Ï674€S.W.2d€27,€33€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1984);€òòPittman€Const.€Co.€v.€HousingÏAuth.€of€New€Orleansóó,€169€So.2d€122,€140€(La.€Ct.€App.€1964);€òòImlay€v.ÏCity€of€Lake€Crystalóó,€444€N.W.2d€594,€601€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1989),Ïòòaffirmedóó,€453€N.W.2d€336€(Minn.€1990);€òòHarland€v.€Stateóó,€160€Cal.Rptr.Ï613,€614€(Cal.€App.€1979);€€€€òòContraóó,€€€òòMorgan€v.€City€of€Rockfordóó,€31ÏN.E.2d€596,€598€(Ill.€1941);€òòCity€of€Jackson€v.€Reedóó,€103€So.2d€6,€8€(Miss.Ï1958);€òòMulvaney€v.€Napolitanoóó,€671€A.2d€312,€313€(R.I.€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€is€reversed,€and€that€of€the€trial€court€reinstated.€€Costs€shall€beÏpaid€by€defendant.€€ÌÓÓà àòòà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌà àà àÌCONCUR:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Anderson,€Reid,€J.J.Ì