ÿWPC 3# ÚU:å % 0ˆ%wš­4G[ 0jq 0Dy 0J½ 0T Æ[ 0^! 0h 0rç 0|Y 0†Õ 0[ 1uë 0d` AQÄ B 0D2 0@v 0D¶ D/ú B) D3FU *yB)£DCÌ AMŽ\yêÍcv~0vÓ®˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(`zZ$¡¡ÑTRY,3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'3Ø'ÿ Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  Ô!+"Y#$E%Y&'(Æ)E*D+•,D-b.E/0D1š3t4É5É6Ë7Ó€9:;¤[ô$ÔüÔô3|x;(·(2OY$¤¤Ý ƒzZ!ÝÑTRY3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôôXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd",Cþÿ << Gÿÿ „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌò òJuly€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€*ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€*ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€City€of€Chattanooga€filed€an€òòamicusóó€òòcuriaeóó€brief€urging€this€Court€to€consider€theÏimmunity€afforded€by€the€GTLA€in€its€analysis€of€òòEzellóó.€€The€City€of€Chattanooga€alleged€that€theÏofficer's€decision€whether€or€not€to€arrest€was€a€discretionary€function.€€òòEzellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€400,Ïf.n.€11.Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€*ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€plaintiff€advanced€a€public€nuisance€theory€and€argued€that€sovereign€immunityÏshould€be€judicially€abolished.€€Both€issues€are€without€merit.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ   ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑšÑ7€ŸÜXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Ñ\R AØ'\ќـÙßR€-.,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òFiled:ó ó€òò€€€€€œJuly€21,›€1998à€ àóóÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€J.€CHASE,€JR.,€ASà@ à)ÌADMINISTRATOR€C.T.A.€OF€THEà@ à)ÌESTATE€OF€BETTY€LOU€STIDHAM,à@ à)à àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌDECEASED,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE/CROSS„à@ à)Ìà àAPPELLANT,à@ à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€SWEARENGEN,Ìà@ à)à àJUDGEÌv.à@ à)Ìà@ à)ÌTHE€CITY€OF€MEMPHIS,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àNO.€02S01„9703„CV„00019Ìà àDEFENDANT/APPELLANT/à@ à)Ìà àCROSS„APPELLEE.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/óóà àòòFOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE/CROSS„óóÌòòCROSS„APPELLEEóó:à àà àà àòòAPPELLANTóó:ÌÌRobert€M.€Fargarsonà àà àà àJohn€J.€Heflin€IIIÌMartin€W.€Zummachà àà àà àMemphisÌMemphisÌÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€INTERVENOR,€STATE€OFóóÌMonice€Moore€Haglerà àà àà àòòTENNESSEEóó:ÌMemphisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMeredith€DeVaultÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSenior€Counsel,€Civil€Rights€andÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClaims€DivisionÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€*èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€*XÔÌÌÌÌREVERSEDà€ àHOLDER,€J.ÇÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThis€case€involves€a€tort€action€against€the€defendant,€City€of€Memphis,Ïarising€out€of€a€woman's€death€when€she€was€mauled€by€two€pit€bull€dogs.€€TheÏCourt€of€Appeals€held€that€the€City€was€immune€under€the€Governmental€TortÏLiability€Act€("GTLA")€but€removed€the€immunity€pursuant€to€the€common€lawÏspecial€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€The€issues€with€which€we€areÏnow€confronted€are€whether:€€(1)€€the€City€animal€shelter's€failure€to€follow„up€onÏan€order€requiring€the€owner€of€the€dangerous€dogs€to€enroll€his€dogs€inÏobedience€school€was€immune€under€the€GTLA€as€a€discretionary€act€orÏomission;€and€(2)€€whether€the€public€duty€doctrine's€special€duty€exception€canÏbe€employed€to€remove€immunity€conferred€under€the€GTLA.€€We€hold€that€theÏCity's€actions€or€inactions€in€this€case€were€not€immune€under€the€GTLA€andÏthat€the€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine€cannot€be€employedÏto€remove€immunity€conferred€under€the€GTLA.€€The€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€is€reversed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ  Ôò òFACTSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àBetty€Lou€Stidham€died€on€June€18,€1990,€after€being€mauled€to€death€byÏtwo€pit€bull€dogs.€€The€pit€bulls€were€owned€by€Ms.€Stidham's€next€doorÏneighbor,€Edwin€Hill.€€Mr.€Hill€was€a€Memphis€police€officer.ÌÌà àPrior€to€Stidham's€death,€Hill's€dogs€had€a€previous€history€of€exhibitingÏviolent€propensities.€€In€1987,€Edwin€Hill€went€to€the€emergency€room€afterÏbeing€bitten€on€the€hand€by€one€of€his€pit€bulls.€€His€hand€had€to€be€surgicallyÏrepaired.€€In€February€of€1988,€City€of€Memphis€emergency€personnelÏresponded€to€a€call€from€Edwin€Hill's€residence€and€found€Edwin€Hill's€motherÏlying€on€the€floor€warding€off€the€pit€bulls€with€a€stick.€€A€paramedic€attempted€toÏenter€the€residence€to€rescue€Ms.€Hill,€but€the€dogs€became€menacing€towardÏhim.€€The€paramedic€then€helplessly€watched€Ms.€Hill€attempt€to€ward€of€anÏattack€for€approximately€fifteen€minutes€until€officer€Edwin€Hill€arrived€and€ledÏhis€dogs€into€another€room.€€In€October€of€1988,€City€police€and€paramedicsÏwere€again€summoned€to€the€Hill€residence€where€Ms.€Hill€had€again€beenÏattacked€by€the€pit€bulls.€€Ms.€Hill€sustained€bites€to€her€face,€head€and€armsÏand€was€transported€to€the€hospital.€€Both€the€police€and€the€hospital€wereÏrequired€to€file€reports€of€these€attacks€with€the€City€of€Memphis€Animal€Shelter.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€previous€owner€of€Ms.€Stidham's€home,€EarlÏGrochau,€had€filed€several€complaints€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department€andÏthe€Animal€Shelter€concerning€Edwin€Hill's€pit€bulls.€€Grochau€testified€that€theÏdogs€caused€him€to€fear€for€his€life.€€He€constructed€a€six„foot€wooden€fenceÏbetween€his€backyard€and€Hill's€property€in€an€attempt€to€keep€the€dogs€out€ofÏhis€yard.€€The€dogs,€however,€burrowed€beneath€the€wooden€fence€andÏattempted€to€attack€Grochau's€children.€€Grochau€filed€complaints€with€theÏMemphis€Police€Department€concerning€Hill's€dogs€in€1987€and€in€1989.ÌÌà àIn€late€1989,€Edwin€Hill€was€again€attacked€by€one€of€his€pit€bulls.€€TheÏbite€caused€temporary€paralysis.€€In€January€of€1990,€Hill's€pit€bulls€attacked€Ms.ÏStidham's€dog.€€Ms.€Stidham's€dog€had€to€have€a€leg€amputated€as€a€result€ofÏthe€attack.€€Ms.€Stidham€filed€a€vicious€animal€complaint€with€the€Animal€ShelterÏin€response€to€the€attack€on€her€dog.€€The€Animal€Shelter€impounded€Hill's€pitÏbulls€for€an€evaluation.€€One€of€the€pit€bulls€attempted€to€attack€an€AnimalÏShelter€employee€during€the€evaluation€period.€€The€Animal€Shelter'sÏevaluation€of€the€dogs,€however,€concluded€that€neither€dog€possessed€anÏovertly€aggressive€behavior.ÌÌà àThe€Animal€Shelter€conducted€a€vicious€animal€hearing€on€January€23,Ï1990,€to€determine€whether€Hill's€dogs€were€vicious€at€the€time€of€the€attack€onÍMs.€Stidham's€dog.€€While€the€Animal€Shelter€is€responsible€for€maintaining€allÏpolice,€fire€department€and€hospital€records€concerning€dog€attacks,€the€shelterÏdid€not€have€the€records€detailing€the€pit€bulls'€prior€attacks.€€Robert€LeeÏconducted€the€hearing€and€refused€to€allow€cross„examination€of€HillÏconcerning€the€violent€nature€of€the€dogs.€€Lee€opined€that€the€pit€bulls€did€notÏappear€to€exhibit€a€vicious€nature€toward€either€humans€or€animals€and€foundÏthat€the€dogs€were€not€"vicious"€based€on€the€Animal€Shelter's€evaluation.€€Lee,Ïhowever,€decided€that€the€dogs€were€"dangerous"€because€they€were€capableÏof€inflicting€serious€injury.ÌÌà àIn€January,€1990,€Lee€issued€a€letter€to€Hill€declaring€the€that€the€pit€bullsÏwere€dangerous.€€The€letter€ordered€Hill€to€correct€any€fencing€deficienciesÏaround€his€property€and€ordered€Hill€to€enroll€the€dogs€in€a€basic€obedienceÏtraining€program€within€ninety€days.€€The€letter€indicated€that€failure€to€complyÏwith€the€order€would€result€in€a€declaration€that€the€dogs€were€vicious€and€inÏimmediate€seizure€of€the€dogs.€€A€copy€of€the€letter€was€forwarded€to€Stidham.€ÏThe€pit€bulls€were€released€to€Hill.ÌÌà àAnimal€Shelter€employees,€including€Lee,€visited€Hill's€residence€on€twoÏoccasions€to€inspect€the€fencing€surrounding€Hill's€property.€€During€one€visit,ÏLee€ordered€Hill€to€keep€the€back€gate€locked.€€Lee€apparently€inquired€whetherÍHill€had€complied€with€the€obedience€school€requirement.€€Hill€had€notÏcomplied€but€assured€Lee€that€he€would€enroll€the€dogs€and€notify€the€AnimalÏShelter€when€obedience€training€was€complete.€€Hill,€however,€never€enrolledÏthe€dogs,€and€the€Animal€Shelter€neglected€to€monitor€the€situation€to€assureÏfurther€compliance.€€Ms.€Stidham€was€mauled€to€death€by€the€dogs€in€June€ofÏ1990.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€City€of€Memphis€assumed€aÏspecial€duty€to€Ms.€Stidham€"to€undertake€certain€acts€which€would€haveÏprotected€her€and€her€neighbors€from€the€danger€the€City€had€notice€of€.€.€.Ïpresented€by€Edwin€Hill's€pit€bull€dogs."€€The€court€found€that€the€City€wasÏnegligent€for€failing€to€follow„up€on€the€obedience€training€requirement€andÏfailing€to€impound€the€dogs.€€The€court€further€found€that€the€vicious€dog€hearingÏwas€improperly€conducted.€€The€court€held€that€the€City's€negligence€was€theÏproximate€cause€of€Ms.€Stidham's€death€and€that€the€duty€owed€was€notÏdiscretionary€under€the€GTLA.€€Ms.€Stidham's€estate€received€a€judgment€in€theÏamount€of€$1,897,713.03€for€her€wrongful€death.€€Forty€percent€of€the€fault€wasÏassessed€to€the€City€of€Memphis.€€The€GTLA,€however,€limited€the€City's€liabilityÏto€$130,000.00€for€which€judgment€was€entered.ÌÌà àThe€City€of€Memphis€appealed€the€judgment€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€ÏThe€appellate€court€found€that€the€Animal€Shelter's€negligence€in€failing€toÏfollow„up€on€its€order€requiring€the€defendant€to€enroll€the€dogs€in€obedienceÏschool€was€a€discretionary€act€and€that€the€City€was€immune€from€liability€underÏthe€GTLA.€€The€appellate€court,€however,€then€determined€that€the€immunityÏwas€removed€by€application€of€the€"special€duty"€exception€to€the€public€dutyÏdoctrine.ÌÌà àWe€granted€review€to€determine:€€(1)€€whether€the€Animal€Shelter'sÏnegligence€in€failing€to€follow„up€on€its€order€requiring€Hill€to€enroll€the€dogs€inÏobedience€school€was€immune€as€failure€to€perform€a€discretionary€function;Ïand€(2)€€whether€a€governmental€act€that€is€immune€as€discretionary€under€theÏGTLA€may€be€subsequently€held€to€be€non„immune€under€the€common€lawÏ"special€duty"€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€We€hold€that€the€AnimalÏShelter's€actions€were€operational€and€were€not€subject€to€immunity.€€We€furtherÏhold€that€once€an€act€falls€within€the€purview€of€the€immunity€conferred€by€theÏGTLA,€the€act€is€immune€and€immunity€may€not€subsequently€be€removedÏunder€a€common€law€public€duty€doctrine€analysis.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ  Ôò òDISCRETIONARY€VERSUS€OPERATIONALó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àOur€initial€inquiry€is€whether€the€Animal€Shelter's€failure€to€follow„up€onÏits€order€was€an€immune€act€within€the€purview€of€the€GTLA.€€The€€GTLA€isÏcodified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð29„20„205€and€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àImmunity€from€suit€of€all€governmental€entities€is€removed€for€injuryÏproximately€caused€by€a€negligent€act€or€omission€of€anyÏemployee€within€the€scope€of€employment€except€if€the€injury:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€Arises€out€of€the€exercise€or€performance€or€the€failure€toÏexercise€or€perform€a€discretionary€function,€whether€or€not€theÏdiscretion€is€abused.ÓÓÌÌAccordingly,€the€GTLA€provides€immunity€for€acts€or€omissions€that€areÏconsidered€discretionary€functions.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€previously€categorized€governmental€functions€orÏdecisions€as€either€planning€or€operational€under€the€GTLA.€€òòSeeóó€òòBowers€v.ÏCity€of€Chattanoogaóó,€826€S.W.2d€427,€430€(Tenn.€1992)€(adopting€a€planning„operational€test).€€Decisions€arising€to€the€level€of€policy„making€or€planning€areÏconsidered€discretionary€acts€and€are€immune€under€the€GTLA.€€Decisions,Ïhowever,€that€are€operational€in€nature€are€not€immune€under€the€GTLA.€€òòSeeóóÍòòidóó.€€Factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€a€decision€is€discretionaryÏand€immune€under€the€GTLA€are:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€whether€the€course€of€conduct€was€determined€afterÏconsideration€or€debate€by€an€individual€or€group€charged€with€theÏformulation€of€plans€or€policies;Ìà8 à(2)€€whether€the€decision€resulted€from€an€assessment€of€prioritiesÏby€an€individual€or€group€responsible€for€formulating€plans€orÏpolicies;€andÌà8 à(3)€€whether€the€decision€is€òònotóó€of€the€type€properly€reviewable€byÏcourts€which€are€typically€ill„equipped€to€investigate€and€balanceÏnumerous€factors€that€go€into€executive€or€legislative€decisions.ÌÌAffirmative€answers€to€the€above€questions€militate€toward€a€finding€that€aÏdecision€was€a€discretionary€function.€€On€the€other€hand,€operational€decisionsÏmay€be€generally€classified€as€ad€hoc€decisions€made€by€an€individual€or€groupÏnot€charged€with€the€development€of€planning€or€policy€decisions€that€stem€fromÏa€determination€based€on€preexisting€laws,€regulations,€policies,€or€standards.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBowersóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€431€(discretionary€function€exception€notÏapplicable€to€claims€that€government€employees€failed€to€comply€withÏregulations€or€policies€designed€to€guide€their€actions).ÌÌà àLee€was€an€individual€charged€with€formulating€plans€for€the€release€ofÏpotentially€dangerous€animals.€€Lee€formulated€a€plan€for€the€release€of€Hill'sÏ"dangerous"€dogs.€€Lee€ordered€Hill€to€enroll€the€dogs€in€obedience€school.€ÏLee's€order€indicated€that€failure€to€enroll€the€dogs€or€comply€with€the€orderÏwould€result€in€immediate€seizure€of€the€dogs.€€Lee's€decision€to€release€theÏdogs€and€his€subsequent€order€were€òònotóó€properly€reviewable€by€a€court€as€aÏcourt€is€ill„equipped€to€investigate€and€balance€the€numerous€factors€that€wentÏinto€Lee's€decision€to€release€the€dogs.€€Lee's€letter€outlined€a€formulated€policyÏdesigned€to€guide€both€the€Animal€Shelter's€and€Hill's€actions€following€theÏrelease€of€Hill's€dogs.€€€The€question€then€becomes€whether€the€AnimalÏShelter's€failure€to€follow€and€enforce€its€policy€formulated€to€deal€with€theÏrelease€of€Hill's€dogs€was€a€planning€or€policy„making€function€and€thereforeÏimmune€under€the€GTLA.ÌÌà àThe€Animal€Shelter€essentially€asserts€that€it€failed€to€follow€itsÏformulated€plan€concerning€Hill's€dogs'€release€due€to€œanother›€formulated€planÏor€policy€not€to€impound€the€dogs€because€of€budgetary€constraints€andÏpriorities.€€The€record,€however,€does€not€indicate€that€either€Lee€or€the€AnimalÏShelter€made€a€conscious€decision€òònotóó€to€pick„up€the€animals€upon€Hill's€non„compliance€or€that€a€policy€or€procedure€was€in€place€to€deal€with€violations€ofÍthe€Animal€Shelter's€orders.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€whether€the€AnimalÏShelter€had€an€established€procedure€for€picking€up€animals€that€were€bothÏdesignated€as€dangerous€and€released€back€into€society€contingent€upon€anÏowner's€compliance€with€an€Animal€Shelter's€order.€€Upon€the€expiration€of€theÏtime€within€which€Hill€had€to€comply€with€the€order,€the€Animal€Shelter€did€not:€Ï(1)€€attempt€to€call€Hill€to€determine€whether€the€order€had€been€complied€with;Ï(2)€€attempt€to€contact€Hill€by€letter€informing€him€of€non„compliance;€or€(3)€Ïplace€Hill's€dogs€on€a€list€for€future€pick„up.€€The€Animal€Shelter's€response€wasÏsimply€"no€response."ÌÌà àThe€conditional€release€was€contingent€upon€certain€requirements.€ÏThese€requirements€were€not€met.€€If€the€Animal€Shelter€had€a€policy€in€placeÏfor€picking€up€animals€upon€violations€of€its€orders€and€œhad€it€followed›€thisÏpolicy,€the€GTLA€would€have€provided€immunity.€€A€negligent€act€or€omission€isÏoperational€in€nature€and€not€subject€to€immunity€when€the€act€or€omissionÏœoccurs:›€€œ(1)›€€in€the€absence€of€a€formulated€policy€guiding€the€conduct€orÏomission;€or€€(2)€€when€the€conduct€deviates€from€an€established€plan€or€policy.€ÏThe€Animal€Shelter's€failure€to€impound€the€pit€bulls€fit€into€the€first€category€andÏwas,€therefore,€operational€in€nature.€€While€Courts€are€ill„equipped€to€judge€theÏAnimal€Shelter's€prioritizing€of€the€order€in€which€animals€shall€be€impounded,Ícourts€are€well€equipped€to€evaluate€a€negligent€inaction€proximately€causingÏthe€death€of€an€individual.€€The€City€is€therefore€liable€under€the€GTLA.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ  Ôò òPUBLIC€DUTY€DOCTRINE/SPECIAL€DUTY€EXCEPTIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€òòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902€S.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€1995),€this€Court€held€that€theÏcommon€law€doctrine€of€public€duty€and€its€exception,€the€special€duty€doctrine,Ïsurvived€the€enactment€of€the€GTLA.€€Because€the€GTLA€was€not€pled€as€aÏdefense× ƒ/ ××  ×€in€òòEzellóó,€however,€this€Court€declined€to€address€just€how€the€GTLAÏand€the€public€duty€doctrine€would€apply€in€cases€in€which€both€bases€forÏimmunity€were€alleged.ÌÌà àBoth€the€GTLA€and€the€public€duty€doctrine€are€affirmative€defenses.€ÏCourts€first€look€to€the€GTLA.€€If€immunity€is€found€under€the€GTLA,€a€court€needÏnot€inquire€as€to€whether€the€public€duty€doctrine€also€provides€immunity.€€If,Ïhowever,€the€GTLA€does€not€provide€immunity,€courts€may€look€to€the€generalÏrule€of€immunity€under€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€If€immunity€is€then€found€underÏthe€public€duty€doctrine,€the€next€inquiry€is€whether€the€special€duty€exceptionÍremoves€the€immunity€afforded€under€the€public€duty€doctrine.€€The€special€dutyÏexception,€however,€cannot€be€used€to€remove€immunity€afforded€by€the€GTLA.€ÏAccordingly,€the€appellate€court€erred€in€using€an€exception€to€a€common€lawÏdoctrine€to€remove€immunity€conferred€by€the€GTLA.€€Unlike€the€appellate€court,Ïhowever,€we€have€found€that€the€defendant's€acts€are€not€immune€under€theÏGTLA.€€We€will€now€look€to€see€whether€the€defendant€is€immune€under€theÏpublic€duty€doctrine.ÌÌà àIn€òòEzellóó,€this€Court€recognized€that€the€public€duty€doctrine€shieldedÏpublic€employees€from€tort€liability€for€injuries€caused€by€a€public€employeeððsÏbreach€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€public€at€large.€€The€special€duty€exception,Ïhowever,€removes€the€immunity€when:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€a€public€official€affirmatively€undertakes€to€protect€the€plaintiffÏand€the€plaintiff€relies€upon€the€undertaking;ÌÌà8 à(2)€€a€statute€specifically€provides€for€a€cause€of€action€against€anÏofficial€or€municipality€for€injuries€resulting€to€a€particular€class€ofÏindividuals,€of€which€the€plaintiff€is€a€member,€from€failure€toÏenforce€certain€laws;€orÌÌà8 à(3)€€a€plaintiff€alleges€a€cause€of€action€involving€intent,€malice,€orÏreckless€misconduct.ÌÌòòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€402.ÌÌà àSubsection€(1)€applies€to€the€facts€of€this€case€as€Robert€Lee€and€theÏAnimal€Shelter€affirmatively€undertook€to€protect€the€plaintiff.€€They€issued€aÏletter€to€Ms.€Stidham€indicating€that€any€fencing€deficiencies€would€beÏcorrected.€€The€letter€further€indicated€that€the€dogs€would€be€enrolled€intoÏobedience€training.€€The€letter€indicated€that€failure€to€comply€with€the€AnimalÏShelter's€order€would€result€in€the€œanimals'›€immediate€seizure.€€Ms.€Stidham€didÏnot€appeal€the€order€and€relied€upon€the€undertaking€of€Lee€and€the€Shelter€toÏremedy€the€situation.€€Accordingly,€the€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€dutyÏdoctrine€is€applicable€to€this€case,€and€the€City€may€be€held€liable€for€theÏplaintiff's€damages€œunder›€the€œGTLA.›ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ  Ôò òœ›CONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€special€duty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine€is€applicable€onlyÏwhen€immunity€has€been€removed€under€the€GTLA.€€The€special€duty€exceptionÏdoes€not€create€liability€but€negates€the€public€duty€doctrine,€a€defense€toÏliability.€€Accordingly,€unless€immunity€has€been€removed€by€the€GTLA,€aÏplaintiff€cannot€recover€damages€against€a€government€entity€even€if€the€specialÏduty€exception€to€the€public€duty€doctrine€is€applicable.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€now€before€us,€the€City's€actions€were€not€immune€under€theÏœGTLA,›€and€the€public€duty€doctrine€defense€was€negated€by€the€special€dutyÏdoctrine.€€The€œjudgment›€of€the€appellate€court€permitting€liability€absent€aÏfinding€that€the€GTLA€removed€immunity€is€reversed.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€awarding€the€plaintiff€$€130,000.00€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Costs›€ofÏthis€appeal€shall€be€taxed€to€the€defendant,€City€of€Memphis,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.›ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌÔ&  Ôò òCONCURRING:ó óÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota€and€Birch,€J.J.ÌReid,€Sp.€J.Ô'  Ô