WPC3 X,j.sz0_/\MxŽ0gc5[6īS7/#7FX1͉QGjB wW 'DO):Us|^-M2k{cJ-67Z*a<}%s#1i][ ě͖)gZРC_-/XR`١ 0K$a/:aoNK X6>Bi(-PpIwO[TNJgq)J~/c) $Fa趵Sxݲ[ b{اuHd?FJNgj_*[`ԤACXZh:O]/Mk.͏y Ԁр'eg t\* s d)?]jo. w) vkEpM;4*Y <'0Te~ϲ˼ [O(z&5mI*# LMW % 0(Lw@4^r 0G O U :W  0D T UN1 U :  AQ M _ D3aU:TU:"U:\HU:T4 BU: 0D 0D 0D-q D/sU: BU:HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl C  c$XXXXX)X4   1    TennesseeSupremeCourtRule23permitsthisCourtinitsdiscretiontoanswer  questionsoflawcertifiedtouswhen"thecertifyingcourtdeterminesthat,inaproceedingbeforeit,therearequestionsoflawofthisstatewhichwillbedeterminativeofthecauseandastowhichitappearstothecertifyingcourtthereisnocontrollingprecedentinthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee."X($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT PDQERESeTUVWӀacy& ?3|xc(v(2$ !  )X1XXX)X)X14   0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular(#$  0   J  c$)XXXX)MX)X4   3    Thecasewastriedtothedistrictcourtwithoutajury;thecourt'sfindingsoffactand  conclusionsoflawareincludedintheparties'jointappendix.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,SAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< C C  $)XXXX)X)X4   1    TennesseeSupremeCourtRule23permitsthisCourtinitsdiscretiontoanswer  questionsoflawcertifiedtouswhen"thecertifyingcourtdeterminesthat,inaproceedingbeforeit,therearequestionsoflawofthisstatewhichwillbedeterminativeofthecauseandastowhichitappearstothecertifyingcourtthereisnocontrollingprecedentinthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee." ""  XXXX^ XX   Ad FILEDXX ^  June28,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh 'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular J  i$XXXXMX)X4   3    Thecasewastriedtothedistrictcourtwithoutajury;thecourt'sfindingsoffactand  conclusionsoflawareincludedintheparties'jointappendix.,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular   $)XXXX)X)X4   2    OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonApril14,1999,inParis,HenryCounty,  Tennessee,aspartofthisCourt'sS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor   S tudents)project.   c$XXXXX)X4   2    OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonApril14,1999,inParis,HenryCounty,  Tennessee,aspartofthisCourt'sS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor   S tudents)project.,cAZ"Arial Regular J  c$ XXXX X)X4   3    Thecasewastriedtothedistrictcourtwithoutajury;thecourt'sfindingsoffactand  conclusionsoflawareincludedintheparties'jointappendix. d,cAZ"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   ""  'XXXX'^ X'X   Ad FILED'XX '^  June14,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ((' dxd,cAZ"Arial RegularP Pd,cAZ"Arial Regular !  SSSS4ќTTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TT      &Ƃ&XX"US //&&&&Ƃ 7 3 XXdXXd7TTTTR[A'Legal Manual3'A' Legal3'TTWWaWr<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP  rWacar%<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP  raccccWWcccccct%>.*jxF` `@E` 8ttxP& tߛc@aa INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@  *ATNASHVILLE@dd((HEARDATPARIS)   <      D   FORPUBLICATION d\      <      D   Filed: 򀀀SS񀀀June14,1999SS%%O%   MARYMATTHEWS,@0)  UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals VN  @0)  fortheSixthCircuit &  PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER,@0)  No.965791  @0)v.@0)  Hon.DavidA.Nelson,Judge  @0)PICKETTCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,@0) 6. LARRYPEEKandDANADOWDY,@0)  Individuallyandintheirofficial@0)  capacityasemployeesforthe@0)  PickettCountySheriffsDepartment,@0) vn @0) DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.@0)  No.01S019801FD00005  FORPETITIONER: <      D FORRESPONDENTS: $$ JOSEPHVAVVHV.JOHNSTON     D ALANT.FISTER 6&.& MAXMENDELSOHN <      D JEFFREYM.BEEMER '' Nashville  <      D Nashville ' ( FORAMICUSCURIAE,TENNESSEE D FORAMICICURIAE,THETENNESSEE F*>#+ MUNICIPALLEAGUERISK     D TASKFORCEAGAINSTDOMESTIC +$, MANAGEMENTPOOL:     D VIOLENCE;LAWYERSASSOCIATION +$-    <      D FORWOMEN,MARIONGRIFFIN ,%. ROBERTH.WATSON,JR.     D CHAPTER,SSandSSPOOPSSTENNESSEELAWYERS -~&/ JOHNC.DUFFY <      D ASSOCIATIONFORWOMEN: V.N'0 Knoxville   <      D CHRISTINANORRIS   <      D NashvilleFORAMICUSCURIAE,TENNESSEE 1*4 ASSOCIATIONOFLEGALSERVICES: f2^+5 THEODORER.KERNKnoxville!!E%HOLDER,J.  :~3?W XX&&@- OPINION     X3XXXThiscasecomestousonacertifiedquestionoflaw.SSSS #  1      ׀Thepetitioner,Mary   Matthews,filedthisactionintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt#XXX X3G# X3XXXԀagainstthe   respondents,PickettCounty,SSQ QTennesseeQ Q,SSLarryPeek,andDanaDowdy.Thedistrictcourtheldthatthepetitioner'snegligenceactionwasbarredbythepublicdutydoctrine,whichshieldspublicentitiesandpublicemployeesfromtortliabilityforinjuriescausedbyabreachofadutyowedtothepublicatlarge.ThepetitionerappealedtotheSixthCircuitCourtofAppeals.TheSixthCircuitCourtofAppealscertifiedthefollowingquestionforourresolution:"Maytheexistenceofanorderofprotectiongiverisetoa'specialduty'toprotect,and,ifso,doesthespecialdutyextendtotheprotectionofproperty?"Weacceptcertificationandholdunderthefactsofthiscasethatthespecialdutyexceptiontothepublicdutydoctrineisapplicable.Accordingly,therespondentsmaybeheldliableforthepetitioner'sdamagesundertheGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct("GTLA"),Tenn.CodeAnn.2920201etseq.SFSSPS #  2        #     FACTS  &" a InOctoberof1993,Ms.Matthewswasassaulted,beaten,andsexuallyviolatedbyherestrangedhusband,BillWinningham.ShesoughtandreceivedanorderofprotectionprohibitingWinningham"fromcomingaboutthepetitionerforanypurposeandspecificallyfromabusing,threateningtoabusethepetitioner,or ,0$), committinganyactsofviolenceuponthepetitioner."TheorderfurtherprovidedthatWinningham"shallbearrestedbyalawenforcementofficerwithoutawarrantifthatofficerhasreasonablecausetobelievethat[Winningham]hasviolatedorisviolatingthisOrder." OnNovember18,1993,theeveofthehearingontheirpendingdivorce,WinninghamthreatenedtokillMs.Matthewsandattemptedtobreakintoherhome.Ms.Matthewstelephonedthesheriff'sdepartmentatapproximately9:30p.m.,10:00p.m.,and10:30p.m.Oneachoccasion,thesheriff'sdepartmentinformedMs.Matthewsthattheywouldsendsomeone.Duringthistime,Winningham#XXX X # XXXXsetofffirecrackersunderMs.Matthews'propanetank.Ms.Matthews xp madenomoretelephonecallsafter10:30p.m.asWinningham#XXX XX# XXXXhadseveredthe PH petitioner'stelephoneline. Therespondentdeputies,PeekandDowdy,arrivedatMs.Matthews'houseatapproximately11:50p.m.TheyspoketoWinningham#XXX X/# XXXXbutdidnotarresthim. " TennesseeCodeAnnotated363611authorizedawarrantlessarrestofWinningham#XXX X=# XXXXunderthesecircumstances,butoneofthedeputiestestifiedthathe `&X" didnotbelievehecouldhavearrestedWinningham#XXX X# XXXXwithoutawarrant.Theother 8(0!$ deputytestifiedthattherewasnoprobablecauseforanarrestbecausenoactofviolencewascommittedinthedeputies'presence. ThedeputiestookMs.MatthewstothecourthousesothatshecouldswearoutawarrantforWinninghams#XXX X#arrest.Thedeputiesweretheninformedthata p1h*. warrantwasunnecessary.ThedeputiesandMs.Matthewsreturnedtoherhouseandfoundthatherautomobilehadbeenriddledwithbulletholeswhiletheywereatthecourthouse.ThedeputiesthenescortedMs.Matthewsoutofthecounty.DeputyPeek'scousin,Mr.Mullins,wasleftbehindtowatchMs.Matthews'house. 816 HetestifiedthatWinninghamreturnedtothepetitioner'shousewithalargecontainerandleftafewminuteslaterwithoutthecontainer. ThedeputiesreturnedtopickupMullinsandobservedWinningham XXXXleaving   Ms.Matthews'home.Winningham#XXX X˰!#wasnotstoppedandquestioned.The h` deputiesdidnotexaminethehouseatcloserange.They,however,didshineaspotlightonthehomefromtheroad.Theytestifiedthattheydidnotnoticeanythingunusual.Ms.Matthews'houseburnedtothegroundafterthedeputiesleft.    ANALYSIS xp  j# Thedistrictcourtheldthattherespondents'actionswereoperationalinnatureandnotsubjecttoimmunityundertheGTLA.LSSSSLLL #  3      ׀Thedistrictcourtfoundthat  "despite[the]abundanceofprobablecausetoarrestMr.Winninghamforviolatingtheorderofprotection,thedeputiesfailedtoarrest[him]"and"wenthomeandwenttobed."Weagreewiththedistrictcourt'sholding.Anegligentactoromissionisoperationalinnatureandnotsubjecttoimmunitywhentheactoromission:(1)occursintheabsenceofaformulatedpolicyguidingtheconductoromission;or(2)whentheconductdeviatesfromanestablishedplanorpolicy.Chasev.CityofMemphis,971S.W.2d380,384(Tenn.1998).Boththeorderof +$( protectioninthiscaseandTenn.CodeAnn.363611mandatedthatthedeputiesarrestWinninghamupon"reasonablecausetobelievethat[Winningham]SSha[dSS]violatedtheorderofprotection."Therecordsupportsafindingthatthedeputies'failuretoarrestWinninghamwasadeviationfromapolicyasexpressedbystatutorymandateandwasoperationalinnature.SeegenerallyWattsv. 05(.2 RobertsonCounty,849S.W.2d798(Tenn.App.1992);Doev.CoffeeCountyBd.  ofEduc.,852S.W.2d899(Tenn.App.1992).   HavingfoundthattheGTLAdidnotprovideimmunity,thedistrictcourtcorrectlylookednexttothepublicdutydoctrinedefense.InEzellv.Cockrell,902 h` S.W.2d394(Tenn.1995),thisCourtheldthatthecommonlawdoctrineofpublicdutyanditsexception,thespecialdutydoctrine,survivedtheenactmentoftheGTLA.Thepublicdutydoctrineprovidesimmunitytopublicemployeesforinjuriesthatarecausedbyabreachofadutyowedtothepublicatlarge.Id.at397.The  publicdutydoctrine,however,isonlyviableasadefensetoliabilitywhenimmunityhasbeenremovedundertheGTLA.SSChase,SS971S.W.2datSS385.SSAccordingly, xp neitherthepublicdutydoctrinenorthespecialdutyexceptionexpandsthegovernment'sexposuretotortliability.ThedoctrinemerelyoperatestoprovideanadditionallayerofdefensetoactsoromissionsnotimmuneundertheGTLA. Thepublicdutydoctrinedefenseissubjecttothespecialdutyexception.ThespecialdutyexceptiondoesnotcreateliabilitybutoperatestonegatethepublicdutydoctrinedefenseandallowsaplaintifftopursueaviablecauseofactionundertheGTLA.Thespecialdutyexceptionisapplicablewhen:8 (1)apublicofficialaffirmativelyundertakestoprotecttheplaintiffandtheplaintiffreliesupontheundertaking;  " " 8 (2)astatutespecificallyprovidesforacauseofactionagainstanofficialormunicipalityforinjuriesresultingtoaparticularclassofindividuals,ofwhichtheplaintiffisamember,fromfailuretoenforcecertainlaws;or  " "  816 8 (3)aplaintiffallegesacauseofactioninvolvingintent,malice,orrecklessmisconduct.  " " Chase,971S.W.2dat384;Ezell,902S.W.2dat402.    Subsection(1)appliestothefactsofthiscase.Theorderofprotectioninthiscasewasnotissuedforthepublic'sprotectioningeneral.TheorderofprotectionspecificallyidentifiedMs.Matthewsandwasissuedsolelyforthepurposeofprotectingher.SSCf.SSSSEzell,SS902S.W.2datSS403SS(statuteprohibitingdrunk  drivingdoesnotspecifyanindividualbutundertakestoprotectthepublicingeneralfromintoxicateddrivers).Ms.Matthewsapparentlyreliedonthecourt'sorderofprotection.Shecontactedthesheriff'sdepartmentandrequestedthatitprovideherwithprotectionpursuanttotheorderofprotection.Accordingly,thespecialdutyexceptiontothepublicdutydoctrineisapplicabletothiscase. Thedefendantsarguethat,ifaspecialdutydidexistinthiscase,thespecialdutyextendedonlytoliabilityforpersonalinjuryanddidnotextendtoliabilityfordamagestoMs.Matthews'property.Wedisagree.Thefocusisupontherelationshipbetweenthepartiesandnotuponaspecificharm.Ifaspecialrelationshipdoesexist,thepublicdutydoctrinedefenseisSSnegatedU,UR,RSSandimmunityconferredbythedoctrineisremoved.ThecauseofactioniscontrolledstrictlybytheprovisionsoftheGTLAoncethepublicdutydoctrinedefensehasbeennegated.Accordingly,therespondentsmaybesubjecttoliabilityundertheprovisionsoftheGTLAfordamagesproximatelycausedbyabreachofthespecialduty. ThedeputieshadadutytoarrestWinninghamifthereSSwereSSreasonablecausetobelievethatWinninghamhadviolatedtheorderofprotection. XXXXԀTenn. 816 CodeAnn.363611.IfthedeputiesbreachedthedutyowedtoMs.Matthews,shemayrecoverdamagesproximatelycausedbythatbreach,totheextentpermittedbytheprovisionsoftheGTLA.  @+ CONCLUSION  h`  BasedonthelimitedfactscertifiedtothisCourtandonthequestionposedtothisCourt,weholdthatthespecialdutyexceptiontothepublicdutydoctrineisapplicableandthattherespondentsmaybesubjecttoliabilityundertheGTLA.&  TheclerkwilltransmitacopyofthisopinioninaccordancewithTenn.R.Sup.Ct.,Rule23(8).ThecostsinthisCourtwillbetaxedtotherespondents.'s9#XXX X/7#     <      D %%O%     <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE Concurring:  # Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Birch,andBarker,J.J.