ÿWPCB @‡S7Á§5ï$ð4«¥£o|¾¢×]}Ÿ†9.‹ *•H$‹2 «ÓV·³{åföƒžŒ£‡Nß’6dˆÇŽvï6ÍQ¿Ã6¦Ù,ø4*Ý…¿7 ,¾æçy„ùï¤ä¼møÍÆq»vŽY¨×â”’w¾ÒÛ`ËÜì>ÆS¥%C‚ ÷¼ÅËj#híýrcGð§c›fÄÏ>™ôŒˆÈ½ð>M™|œGQ°'·4Lù%üõ ¶H¦{,ÀïL)–Y²¹òsÅ=qóC@a"G½Ô~Xœ×¢ÁDº­;e‘? †¼87½:2òHòÛRäju¯-rÓ >ì Ï2e%öèKBĦîùç‹—¸|‘ËJFƒçFp¨¤=HL?Ôx—f`3–I¸£p¯”Ê!¨BÃâËZglÜó?¬v™—Kãˆjàò4‰ñîöªÅ´äüÆï«rùs÷Êþx¸^¥Fé (?l9»†e)š×>š«dà´¹(èç*ú5ýréò%EW)ä êm1 ‚/²N˜Ôg9lÊ6¸1¯‰ÚV$}§ -RT竺\Ê¥ÀWRaÒ::ÛÏÞîÑ&ÃvƒÆ^W{f¡¹Åó˜é(kUÆlçÐÓ±éžgŸ Ø@b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz  ‘ Æ ÆcÆ)ÆïU @µNõ 0D÷’;EÍÍÍÏ`××××××××××××××××××××b777777777777777777777777777777777777 0ë???? B** 0¤G D3ë D- 0KKK AS–Æé 0¤¯ 0DS A«—˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»2’”+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+¼¦¥„Ü¥ ˜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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒR=4$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõ•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ€ôõ•òòôõ•ÔBell€ex€rel.€Snyder€v.€Ô_ÔIcardÔ_Ô,€Merrill,€Cullis,€Ô_ÔTimmÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔFurenÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔGinsburgÔ_Ô,€P.A.óó,€986€S.W.2d€550,€552€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1999)€(stating€that€a€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€admits€the€truth€of€the€allegations€in€the€complaint).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˆÝ ƒR=4$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõ•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJustice€Ô_ÔHarbisonÔ_Ô€authored€the€majority€opinion,€which€was€concurred€in€by€Justices€Ô_ÔFonesÔ_Ô€and€Henry.€€JusticeÐ ° ÐBrock€filed€a€dissenting€opinion,€and€Justice€Cooper€did€not€participate.  VÝ ƒR=4$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõ•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòLockaby€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€Ô‡ôõ•òòôõ•ÔNo.€03A01„9606„CV„00297Ô#†ôõ•òòôõ•¬#Ô,€1997€WL€129115€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð ° ÐMarch€21,€1997).- ù-(|G2=4$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõ•ò»»Ô d(|3Çt$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çt$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼L »»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼L »»¼L ÔÓ=€L »Ð»dÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î î»¼L ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼L »îî h#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓNovember€14,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼L ÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼L »XX!M#Ôà @ àTERRY€BATES€LYNN,€òòet€al.óó€v.€CITY€OF€JACKSON,€TENNESSEEÔ‡X!X»¼L Ôó óÐ æ 6 ÐÔ#†¼L »XX!Ú#ÔÌÔ€X!X»¼L Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ  \ ЀCircuit€Court€for€the€Madison€CountyÐ ø H Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„99„170€€€€€€Roy€Morgan,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ ä 4  ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01695„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€December€20,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€inÐ ŠÚ Ðdismissing€the€plaintiffsðð€wrongful€death€claim€after€concluding€that€the€one„year€statute€ofÐ vÆ Ðlimitations€was€not€tolled€during€the€minority€of€the€decedentððs€children€or€during€the€time€the€actionÐ b² Ðwas€pending€in€federal€district€court€before€it€was€dismissed€for€lack€of€jurisdiction.€€After€carefulÐ Nž Ðconsideration,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€In€so€holding,Ð :Š Ðwe€reaffirm€òòJones€v.€Blackóó,€539€S.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€1976),€in€which€this€Court€held€that€the€statuteÐ &v Ðof€limitations€for€a€wrongful€death€claim€is€not€tolled€during€the€minority€of€the€decedentððs€children.€Ð b ÐWe€also€reaffirm€the€well„established€rule€of€Tennessee€law€that€general€saving€statutes€do€not€applyÐ þN Ðto€extend€the€time€for€filing€an€action€under€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act.Ð ê: ÐÓtÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€Affirmed€ó óÐ Â ÐÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€E.€Riley€Anderson,Ð šê ÐÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Janice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barkeróó,€joined.Ð †Ö ÐÌÔ_ÔRickyÔ_Ô€€L.€Boren,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€John€Darryl€Bates€and€Terry€Bates€Lynn,Ð ^!®  Ðin€her€capacity€as€the€Personal€Representative€of€the€Estate€of€Howard€Darryl€Bates,€and€as€nextÐ J"š! Ðfriend€and€parent€of€Steven€Todd€Bates.Ð 6#†" ÐÌÌJohn€D.€Burleson€and€Dale€Ô_ÔConderÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€City€of€Jackson,Ð ú%J!% ÐTennessee€Ð æ&6"& ÐÓB ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ª)ú$) ÐòòóóÓ  ÓÌÌÌÐ Z-ª(-ý Їà@ÛÛ%ìàòòò òBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àThe€issue€in€this€appeal€is€a€question€of€law.€€The€facts€are€not€in€dispute,€and€the€allegationsÐ œì Ðof€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€are€taken€to€be€true.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€October€25,€1997,€Howard€Darryl€BatesÐ ˆØ Ðcommitted€suicide€while€incarcerated€in€the€Jackson€City€Jail.€€Bates€had€two€surviving€minor€sons,Ð tÄ ÐSteven€Todd€Bates€and€John€Darryl€Bates.€On€October€23,€1998,€Terry€Bates€Lynn,€as€personalÐ `° Ðrepresentative€of€the€Estate€of€Howard€Darryl€Bates€and€as€next€friend€and€parent€(mother)€of€StevenÐ L œ ÐTodd€Bates€and€John€Darryl€Bates€filed€an€action€in€federal€district€court€against€the€City€of€JacksonÐ 8 ˆ Ð(ð ðCityðð).€€The€complaint€alleged€both€federal€civil€rights€violations€pursuant€to€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€andÐ $ t Ða€wrongful€death€claim€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(ð ðGTLAðð).€€òòSeeóóÐ  ` ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„20„201€et€seq.Ð ü L  Ѐ€Ð è 8  Ðà  àOn€May€3,€1999,€the€federal€district€court€dismissed€the€GTLA€claim€without€prejudice,Ð Ô$  Ðfinding€that€the€GTLA€grants€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€state€circuit€courts,€and€alternatively,€decliningÐ À  Ðto€exercise€jurisdiction€over€the€state€law€claim.€€Two€days€later,€on€May€5,€1999,€Lynn,€as€personalÐ ¬ü  Ðrepresentative€and€next€friend,€along€with€John€Darryl€Bates,€who€by€then€had€attained€majority,€filedÐ ˜è  Ða€complaint€in€Circuit€Court€in€Madison€County,€again€alleging€a€wrongful€death€claim€pursuant€toÐ „Ô  Ðthe€GTLA.€€Specifically,€the€complaint€asserted€that€the€City€had€negligently€failed€to€regularly€checkÐ pÀ Ðthe€decedentððs€cell€to€determine€whether€he€was€contemplating€suicide.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€City€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6),€asserting€that€theÐ 4„ Ðaction€was€time„barred€by€the€twelve„month€Ô_ÔGTLAÔ_Ô€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ  p Ð29„20„305(b).€€The€plaintiffs€opposed€the€motion€to€dismiss,€arguing€that€the€action€was€timelyÐ  \ Ðbecause€it€was€filed€within€one€year€of€John€Darryl€Bates€attaining€majority€.€€Alternatively,€theÐ øH Ðplaintiffs€asserted€that€the€action€was€timely€because€it€was€filed€within€one€year€after€the€claim€wasÐ ä4 Ðdismissed€by€the€federal€court.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss€and€the€Court€ofÐ Ð  ÐAppeals€affirmed.€€We€granted€the€plaintiffsðð€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€resolve€anÐ ¼  Ðapparent€split׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€between€the€Eastern€Section€and€the€Western€Section€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€as€toÐ ¨ø Ðwhether€the€statute€of€limitations€in€wrongful€death€actions€is€tolled€during€the€minority€of€theÐ ”ä Ðdecedentððs€children.€€For€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌà@r r ìàò òòòTolling:€Minority€of€the€Decedentððs€Childrenóóó óˆÐ D!” Ðà  àAs€stated,€the€plaintiffs€brought€this€action€against€the€City€pursuant€to€the€GTLA,€whichÐ 0"€  Ðremoves€the€sovereign€immunity€of€governmental€entities€under€certain€limited€circumstances.€€òòSeeóóÐ #l! ÐòòDoyle€v.€Frostóó,€49€S.W.3d€853,€857€(Tenn.€2001).€€Immunity€is€removed€for€injuries€ð ðproximatelyÐ $X" Ðcaused€by€the€negligent€act€or€omission€of€any€employee€[of€the€governmental€entity]€within€theÐ ô$D # Ðscope€of€his€employment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205.€€However,€claims€brought€pursuant€toÐ à%0!$ Ðthis€statute€must€be€brought€ð ðwithin€twelve€(12)€months€after€the€cause€of€action€arises.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ì&"% ÐAnn.€ðð€29„20„305(b).€€The€parties€to€this€appeal€agree€that€this€twelve„month€or€one„year€statute€ofÐ ° Ðlimitations€applies€to€this€action.€€Further,€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€plaintiffs€filed€this€action€inÐ œì Ðstate€court€more€than€one€year€after€the€decedentððs€death.€€However,€the€plaintiffs€assert€that€thisÐ ˆØ Ðaction€is€not€time„barred€because€the€statute€of€limitations€was€tolled€as€to€the€decedentððs€childrenÐ tÄ Ðsince€both€were€minors€at€the€time€of€his€death.€€The€City€asserts€that€the€minority€of€the€decedentððsÐ `° Ðchildren€is€irrelevant€in€a€wrongful€death€action€because€the€wrongful€death€statute€in€TennesseeÐ L œ Ðmerely€preserves€the€cause€of€action€that€belonged€to€the€decedent€and€does€not€create€a€new€causeÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€action€for€beneficiaries,€such€as€the€children€in€this€case.€€To€support€this€argument,€the€City€reliesÐ $ t Ðupon€a€prior€decision€of€this€Court,€òòJones€v.€Blackóó,€539€S.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€1976).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€the€incapacity€statute€upon€which€the€plaintiffs€rely,€Tenn.€CodeÐ è 8  ÐAnn.€ðð€28„1„106,€which€provides€as€follows:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àIf€the€person€entitled€to€commence€an€action€is,€at€the€time€the€cause€of€actionÐ ¬ü  Ðaccrued,€either€within€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€years,€or€of€unsound€mind,€suchÐ ˜è  Ðperson,€or€such€personððs€representatives€and€privies,€as€the€case€may€be,€mayÐ „Ô  Ðcommence€the€action,€after€the€removal€of€such€disability,€within€the€time€ofÐ pÀ Ðlimitation€for€the€particular€cause€of€action,€unless€it€exceeds€three€(3)€years,€and€inÐ \¬ Ðthat€case€within€three€(3)€years€from€the€removal€of€such€disability.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌAs€the€plaintiffs€correctly€point€out,€this€statute€is€specifically€incorporated€by€the€GTLA.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð  p ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„104(b)€(ð ðNotwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law€to€the€contrary,€theÐ  \ Ðprovisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€28„1„106€.€.€.€shall€apply€in€causes€of€action€arising€pursuant€to€[the€GTLA].ðð)€Ð øH ÐGiven€these€statutes,€the€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€GTLA€one„year€statute€of€limitations€is€tolled€inÐ ä4 Ða€wrongful€death€action€until€the€decedentððs€children€attain€majority.€€The€plaintiffs€rely€uponÐ Ð  ÐòòLockabyóó,€an€unreported€decision€of€the€Eastern€Section€Court€of€Appeals,€in€which€the€appellateÐ ¼  Ðcourt€sua€sponte€reversed€a€trial€court€decision€dismissing€as€untimely€a€wrongful€death€actionÐ ¨ø Ðagainst€a€governmental€entity,€finding€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€been€tolled€during€theÐ ”ä Ðminority€of€the€decedentððs€child.Ô‡X!XXX!Ô€Ô#†X!XXX!Þ)#Ô€òòLockaby€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€No.€03A01„9606„CV„00297,€1997Ð €Ð ÐWL€129115€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€21,€1997).€€We€disagree€with€the€plaintiffððs€assertionÐ l¼ Ðand€believe€that€òòLockabyóó€was€wrongly€decided.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAs€the€City€points€out,€this€Court€in€òòJonesóó€considered€whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106Ð 0"€  Ðtolls€the€statute€of€limitations€in€wrongful€death€actions€during€the€minority€of€a€decedentððs€child.€Ð #l! ÐThe€wrongful€death€action€in€òòJonesóó€was€brought€on€behalf€of€a€minor€child€to€recover€damages€forÐ $X" Ðthe€wrongful€death€of€her€mother,€whose€death€occurred€during€a€Caesarean€surgery€in€connectionÐ ô$D # Ðwith€the€minor€childððs€birth.€€The€suit€was€filed€more€than€one€year€following€the€decedentððs€death,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Appeals€held€the€claim€was€time„barred€by€the€one„year€statute€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âlimitations.€€Before€this€Court,€the€representative€of€the€minor€child€argued€that€the€action€was€timelyÐ ¸'#& Ðbecause€the€statute€of€limitations€was€tolled€during€the€childððs€minority.€€This€Court€rejected€theÐ ° Ðargument.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àRecognizing€that€the€Tennessee€wrongful€death€statute€€preserves€the€action€the€decedentÐ tÄ Ðwould€have€had,€rather€than€creating€a€new€cause€of€action€in€the€surviving€beneficiaries,€this€CourtÐ `° Ðrefused€to€apply€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106€to€toll€the€wrongful€death€statute€of€limitations€duringÐ L œ Ðthe€minority€of€the€decedentððs€children.€€In€so€holding,€this€Court€stated:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àIt€is€the€opinion€of€the€majority€of€the€Court€that€to€now€hold€that€the€right€of€actionÐ  ` Ðaccrues€to€the€beneficiary,€and€that€the€statute€of€limitations€in€a€death€action€wouldÐ ü L  Ðdepend€upon€the€age€or€competency€of€the€beneficiary,€would€be€contrary€to€the€basicÐ è 8  Ðtheory€and€construction€of€the€wrongful€death€statutes€as€laid€down€in€many€cases€inÐ Ô$  Ðthis€state€over€a€long€period€of€time.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòJonesóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€124.€€In€so€holding,€òòJonesóó€did€not€break€new€ground,€but€instead€merelyÐ ˜è  Ðfollowed€prior€Tennessee€cases€considering€the€issue.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWhaley€v.€Catlettóó,€103€Tenn.€347,Ð „Ô  Ð53€S.W.€131€(1899).€Ð pÀ ЀÌà  àContrary€to€the€plaintiffsðð€arguments,€the€principles€underlying€the€decision€in€òòJonesóó€haveÐ H˜ Ðbeen€recently€reaffirmed.€€In€holding€that€loss€of€consortium€damages€are€recoverable€in€wrongfulÐ 4„ Ðdeath€actions,€this€Court€emphasized€that:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àòòThe€plain€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„5„113€reveals€that€it€may€be€classifiedÐ øH Ðas€a€survival€statute€because€it€preserves€whatever€cause€of€action€was€vested€in€theÐ ä4 Ðvictim€at€the€time€of€death.€€Jones€v.€Black,óó€539òò€óóS.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€1976);€òòMilliganÐ Ð  Ðv.€American€Hoist€&€Derrick€Co.óó,€622€F.Supp.€56€59€(W.D.€Tenn.€1985).€€€TheÐ ¼  Ðsurvival€character€of€the€statute€is€evidenced€by€the€language€ð ðthe€party€suing€shallÐ ¨ø Ðhave€the€right€to€recover€[damages]€resulting€to€the€deceased€from€the€personalÐ ”ä Ðinjuries.ðð€€òòThraikill€v.€Pattersonóó,€879€S.W.2d€836,€841€(Tenn.€1994).€€TennesseeÐ €Ð Ðcourts€have€declared€the€purpose€of€this€language€is€to€provide€ð ðfor€the€continuedÐ l¼ Ðexistence€and€passing€of€the€right€of€action€of€the€deceased,€and€not€for€any€new,Ð X ¨ Ðindependent€cause€of€action€in€[survivors].ðð€€òòWhaley€v.€Catlettóó,€103€Tenn.€347,€53Ð D!” ÐS.W.€131,€133€(1899);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHerrell€v.€Haneyóó,€207€Tenn.€532,€341€S.W.2d€7,€576Ð 0"€  Ð(1960);€òòMemphis€St.€Ry.€Co.€v.€Cooperóó,€203€Tenn.€425,€313€S.W.2d€444,€447„48Ð #l! Ð(1958);€òòJamison€v.€Memphis€Transit€Management€Co.óó,€381€F.2d€670,€673€(6th€Cir.Ð $X" Ð1967).€€Accordingly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„5„113€ð ðin€theory,€Ô_Ôpreserve[sÔ_Ô]€the€rightÐ ô$D # Ðof€action€which€the€deceased€himself€would€have€had,€and€.€.€.€[has]€basically€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðconstrued€as€falling€within€the€survival€type€of€wrongful€death€statutes€for€over€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcenturyðð€because€it€continues€that€cause€of€action€by€permitting€recovery€of€damagesÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€the€death€itself.€€òòJonesóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€123„25.€€€Ð¤(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐòòóóÌòòJordan€v.€Baptist€Three€Rivers€Hospitalóó,€984€S.W.2d€593,€598€(Tenn.€1999)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐEven€more€recently,€in€òòHill€v.€City€of€Germantownóó,€31€S.W.3d€234€(Tenn.€2000),€this€CourtÐ h+¸&* Ðemphasized€that€the€wrongful€death€statute€does€not€create€a€new€cause€of€action€in€the€beneficiariesÐ ° Ðand€that€€òòJordanóó€merely€refined€the€meaning€of€the€term€ð ðpecuniary€valueðð€to€include€loss€ofÐ œì Ðconsortium€damages.€€€òòHillóó,€31€S.W.3d€at€240.€€While€this€Court€in€òòJordanóó€recognized€that€theÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee€wrongful€death€statute€is€in€reality€a€hybrid€statute,€this€acknowledgment€is€not€aÐ tÄ Ðdeparture€from€òòJonesóó,€as€the€plaintiffs€suggest.€€To€the€contrary,€both€the€majority€and€dissentingÐ `° Ðopinion€in€òòJonesóó€agreed€that€the€Tennessee€wrongful€death€statute€provides€ð ðfor€elements€of€damagesÐ L œ Ðconsistent€with€a€theory€of€the€survival€of€the€right€of€the€action€of€the€deceased€but€also€allowÐ 8 ˆ Ðdamages€consistent,€to€some€degree,€with€the€creation€of€a€new€cause€of€action€in€the€beneficiaries.ðð€Ð $ t ÐòòJonesóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€124;€òòsee€€alsoóó,€òòJonesóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€128€(dissenting€opinion)€(stating€thatÐ  ` ÐTennessee€has€a€hybrid€wrongful€death€statute).€€Therefore,€our€statement€in€òòJordanóó€and€òòHillóó€that€theÐ ü L  Ðwrongful€death€statute€is€a€hybrid€for€purposes€of€damages€is€not€novel€and€does€not€undercut€theÐ è 8  Ðholding€of€òòJonesóó€with€respect€to€the€statute€of€limitations€and€the€incapacity€savings€statute.€€Clearly,Ð Ô$  Ðas€the€City€points€out,€this€Court€in€òòJordanóó€and€òòHillóó€reaffirmed€the€fundamental€principle€underlyingÐ À  Ðthe€decision€in€òòJonesóó€ð"ð€Tennesseeððs€wrongful€death€statute€does€not€create€a€new€cause€of€actionÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€the€beneficiaries€but€instead€preserves€the€right€of€action€of€the€decedent.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€after€carefully€reviewing€the€relevant€authorities,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourt€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€correctly€held€that€the€plaintiffs€GTLA€action€asserting€a€wrongfulÐ \¬ Ðdeath€claim€is€time„barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€minority€of€the€decedentððs€children€doesÐ H˜ Ðnot€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€where€the€claim€asserted€is€wrongful€death.€€As€the€plaintiffs€pointÐ 4„ Ðout,€this€claim,€unlike€the€claim€at€issue€in€òòJonesóó,€was€brought€pursuant€to€the€GTLA.€€However,€inÐ  p Ðour€view,€this€fact€has€no€bearing€upon€our€conclusion.€€As€the€City€correctly€asserts,€the€GTLAÐ  \ Ðmerely€incorporates€and€applies€the€incapacity€statute,€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€28„1„106.€€Precisely€howÐ øH Ðthat€statute€applies€to€wrongful€death€claims€was€explained€by€this€Court€in€òòJonesóó.€€The€decision€inÐ ä4 ÐòòJonesóó€therefore€applies€to€all€wrongful€death€claims,€including€those€brought€pursuant€to€the€GTLA.€Ð Ð  ÐAny€prior€decisions€holding€to€the€contrary,€including€òòLockaby€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€are€herebyÐ ¼  Ðexpressly€overruled.òòò òÐ ¨ø ÐÌà@` ` ìàTolling:€Pendency€of€Action€in€Federal€Courtóóó óˆÐ €Ð Ðà  àThe€plaintiffs€also€argue€that€the€supplemental€jurisdiction€section€of€the€JudicialÐ l¼ ÐImprovement€Act€of€1990,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1367,€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations€during€the€pendencyÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€action€in€federal€court€and€for€thirty€days€following€dismissal€by€the€federal€court.€€The€statuteÐ D!” Ðupon€which€the€plaintiffs€rely€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(a)€Except€as€provided€in€subsections€(b)€and€(c)€or€as€expressly€providedÐ $X" Ðotherwise€by€Federal€statute,€in€any€civil€action€of€which€the€district€courts€haveÐ ô$D # Ðoriginal€jurisdiction,€the€district€courts€shall€have€supplemental€jurisdiction€over€allÐ à%0!$ Ðother€claims€that€are€so€related€to€claims€in€the€action€within€such€originalÐ Ì&"% Ðjurisdiction€that€they€form€part€of€the€same€case€or€controversy€under€Article€III€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€United€States€Constitution.€€Such€supplemental€jurisdiction€shall€include€claimsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€involve€joinder€or€intervention€of€additional€parties.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌà@”” ìà*€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€ˆÐ h+¸&* Їà8  àà ` à(c)€The€district€courts€may€decline€to€exercise€supplemental€jurisdiction€overÐ ° Ða€claim€under€subsection€(a)€if€ð!ðМìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€the€claim€raises€a€novel€or€complex€issue€of€State€law,ÐtÄ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€the€claim€substantially€predominates€over€the€claim€orÐ `° Ðclaims€over€which€the€district€court€has€original€jurisdiction,€ÐL œ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)€the€district€court€has€dismissed€all€claims€over€which€it€hasÐ 8 ˆ Ðoriginal€jurisdiction,€orÐ$ t` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(4)€in€exceptional€circumstances,€there€are€other€compellingÐ  ` Ðreasons€for€declining€jurisdiction.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà ` à(d)€òòThe€period€of€limitations€for€any€claim€asserted€under€subsection€(a),€andÐ Ô$  Ðfor€any€other€claim€in€the€same€action€that€is€voluntarily€dismissed€at€the€same€timeÐ À  Ðas€or€after€the€dismissal€of€the€claim€under€subsection€(a)€shall€be€tolled€while€theÐ ¬ü  Ðclaim€is€pending€and€for€a€period€of€30€days€after€it€is€dismissed€unless€State€lawÐ ˜è  Ðprovides€for€a€longer€tolling€period.€óóÐ„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌ28€U.S.C.€ðð€1367€(emphasis€added).€€The€plaintiffs€also€rely€upon€a€similar€state€statute,€Tenn.€CodeÐ \¬ ÐAnn.€ðð€28„1„115,€which€provides:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àNotwithstanding€any€applicable€statute€of€limitation€to€the€contrary,€any€party€filingÐ  p Ðan€action€in€a€federal€court€that€is€subsequently€dismissed€for€lack€of€jurisdictionÐ  \ Ðshall€have€one€(1)€year€from€the€date€of€such€dismissal€to€timely€file€such€action€inÐ øH Ðan€appropriate€state€court.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€City€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€neither€the€federal€statute€nor€Tenn.Ð ¼  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€28„1„115€tolls€the€GTLA€statute€of€limitations.€€The€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunityÐ ¨ø Ðhas€been€embraced€in€Tennessee€for€over€a€century€and€precludes€lawsuits€against€governmentalÐ ”ä Ðentities€unless€the€governmental€entity€has€consented€to€be€sued.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€òòDoyleóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€857.€Ð €Ð ÐIn€fact,€the€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity€is€recognized€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution€whichÐ l¼ Ðprovides€that€ð ðSuits€may€be€brought€against€the€State€in€such€manner€and€in€such€courts€as€theÐ X ¨ ÐLegislature€may€by€law€direct.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€17.€€The€GTLA€reaffirms€the€doctrine€andÐ D!” Ðmerely€removes€immunity€in€certain€limited€and€enumerated€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 0"€  Ððð€29„20„201(a);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHawks€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔWestmorelandÔ_Ôóó,€960€S.W.2d€10,€14€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð #l! ÐConsistent€with€this€narrowly€defined€removal€of€immunity,€ð ðany€claim€for€damages€must€be€broughtÐ $X" Ðin€strict€compliance€with€the€terms€of€[the€GTLA].ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(c).€€One€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðterms€of€the€GTLA€which€demands€strict€compliance€is€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIndeed,€recognizing€this€principle,€several€prior€Tennessee€cases€have€emphasized€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðgeneral€savings€statutes€do€not€apply€to€extend€the€time€for€bringing€claims€under€the€GTLA.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòAutomobile€Sales€Co.€v.€Johnsonóó,€174€Tenn.€38,€122€S.W.2d€453€(1938)€(discussing€a€predecessorÐ )à$( Ðsavings€statute€identical€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105);€òòÔ_ÔNanceÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€883€S.W.2dÐ |*Ì%) Ð629€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€6,€1994)€(discussing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð h+¸&* Ððð€28„1„115);€òòÔ_ÔRaelÔ_Ô€v.€Montgomery€Countyóó,€769€S.W.2d€211€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988)€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€April€3,€1989)€(discussing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105);€òòWilliams€v.€Memphis€Light,€Gas,Ð œì Ðand€Water€Div.óó,€773€S.W.2d€522€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988)€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€April€3,€1989)Ð ˆØ Ð(discussing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð28„1„105);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDoyleóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€859€(discussing€prior€casesÐ tÄ Ðdeclining€to€apply€general€savings€statutes€to€GTLA€claims).€€The€rationale€of€these€decisions€wasÐ `° Ðexplained€by€this€Court€in€òòAutomobile€Sales€Co.óó€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà ° àà8Ð Ð àAs€has€been€seen,€it€is€laid€down€(1)€that€general€statutes€do€not€apply€to,€or€affect,Ð $ t Ðthe€State,€unless€they€expressly€so€provide;€and,€(2)€that,€even€more€conclusive€here,Ð  ` Ðwhen€a€statute€which€creates€a€right€of€action€expressly€limits€the€time€in€which€suitÐ ü L  Ðto€enforce€the€right€may€be€brought,€time€is€of€the€essence€of€the€right€and€theÐ è 8  Ðlimitation€of€the€remedy€is€a€limitation€of€the€right.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌId.€at€49„50,€122€S.W.2d€at€458.€€Accordingly,€Tennessee€law€views€the€twelve„month€limitationÐ ¬ü  Ðperiod€for€bringing€an€action€under€the€GTLA€as€a€condition€precedent€which€must€be€met.€€If€suitÐ ˜è  Ðis€not€filed€within€the€statutory€period,€both€the€right€and€the€remedy€is€extinguished.€€Clearly,€then,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€general€rule€in€Tennessee€is€that€savings€statutes€may€not€be€applied€to€extend€the€period€withinÐ pÀ Ðwhich€an€action€must€be€filed€under€the€GTLA.€€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔNanceÔ_Ôóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€631„32;€òòÔ_ÔRaelÔ_Ôóó,€769Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€at€213„14;€òòWilliamsóó,€773€S.W.2d€at€523.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€this€rule€is€consistent€with€the€overall€structure€of€the€GTLA.€€Moreover,€itÐ  p Ðapplies€with€even€more€force€when€the€savings€statute€relied€upon€was€not€enacted€by€the€TennesseeÐ  \ ÐGeneral€Assembly€ð!ð€€the€only€legislative€body€vested€with€the€constitutional€power€to€direct€theÐ øH Ðmanner€in€which€suits€may€be€brought€against€the€State.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourt€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€correctly€found€that€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€is€time„barred€by€the€one„Ð Ð  Ðyear€GTLA€statute€of€limitations.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionóóó óˆÐ ”ä Ðà  àHaving€concluded€that€the€one„year€GTLA€statute€of€limitations€was€not€tolled€during€theÐ €Ð Ðminority€of€the€decedentððs€children€nor€during€the€pendency€of€the€action€in€federal€court,€we€affirmÐ l¼ Ðthe€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€dismissing€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€as€time„Ð X ¨ Ðbarred.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#à___________________________________€Ð¤(ô#'h(#h(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFRANK€F.€Ô_ÔDROWOTAÔ_Ô,€III,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÐ )à$( Ð