ÿWPCŸY ZÓg Ê62:6¡¿V²1L®B±†àìeÁP¸DÜw¯+gNr÷–´mNF]ž^ª–’È[ yˆÜ+p“F‰cõJÓ¥¡i²öÈÚµœCJ?mÄ)PS’+ÌH3fö Û}sìB¥¯]BrW!­=«|€éG‡oLCÍ-£Ò@Ú»v‚JøÄìÈ„ ?+Šzt—âna¯Ð± „C;ÓH8»hƒK÷öëÃ_]9pF_XGK¿P"Ö™ÃÊ;¯d›8¼1 ‹ÎwÔOY‡¬9Í[aþòñt0½óëÄX”CV f!…Bꘪ% ›ÄA,{S77 Ê_誢ªxŒ‚CÌ6­Z.\Í K°¬V¤õ %?ê£ÍøN42”}Nü9_~€óçÝrÛ ØC6YCVóQì‡ ÉZb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ w· U=N» 4 z Ò— i x mz z Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã ¤©NM¹OU @EH 0îJ 0ë8 0è## 0å  0âð 0ßÒ 0ܱ 0Ù 0Öf! 0Ü<" 0Ù# 0Öñ# 0ÓÇ$ 0К% 0Íj& 0Ê7' 0Ç( 0ÄÈ( 0ÛŒ) 0 Dg* 0Ø«* 0Õƒ+bX, 0Ò`, 0Ï2- 0Ì. 0ÉÍ. 0Æ–/ 0Ã\0\0\0\0¼111UNÛ3F)4)4o;o;—oAoAoAoAoAoAoAoAÛ EEEÅáN¦Q¦Q¦Qê®Q®Q®Q 0 í˜T˜T˜T˜T B…U…U 0¤¢U D5FV D-{V 0K¨V¨V ASóVÆFW 0¤ X 0D°X A«ôX˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Ì{”) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)ôР ˜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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 šÝ ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€plaintiff€originally€filed€his€claim€on€June€23,€1992,€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€in€the€Division€ofÐ ° ÐClaims€Administration.€€In€this€original€claim,€the€plaintiff€alleged€two€separate€grounds€for€relief€against€the€State:€(1)Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ô€ð ðTrooper€Ray€was€negligent€in€failing€to€call€a€wrecker€to€tow€in€the€disabled€vehicleðð;€Ô_ÔandÔ_Ô€(2)€that€Ray€wasÐ 8ˆ Ðnegligent€in€ð ðfailing€to€warn€on„coming€traffic€of€highway€obstructions.ðð€€The€Division€of€Claims€took€no€action€on€theÐ üL Ðclaim,€and€the€claim€was€forwarded€to€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€on€September€21,€1992.Ð À Ðà  àIn€the€complaint€filed€before€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission,€the€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€State€ð ðwas€guiltyÐ „Ô Ðof€the€following€specific€acts€of€negligenceðð:€(1)€ð ðÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ô€the€State€of€Tennessee€did€not€properly€control€the€arrest€sceneðð;Ð H ˜ Ð(2)€ð ðÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ô€the€State€of€Tennessee€should€not€have€instructed€the€claimant€to€attempt€to€move€the€vehicle€in€the€fashion€heÐ  \ Ðwas€directed€toðð;€(3)€ð ðÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ô€the€State€Highway€Patrol€Officer€at€the€scene€did€not€have€proper€equipment€or€manpowerÐ Ð  Ðavailable€to€adequately€control€and€maintain€the€arrest€sceneðð;€Ô_ÔandÔ_Ô€(4)€ð ðthat€the€State€Highway€Patrol€Officer€wasÐ ” ä  Ðnegligent€in€not€calling€an€authorized€wrecker€to€remove€the€automobile€in€question€from€the€roadway.ððÐ X ¨  Ðà  àThe€plaintiff€also€filed€a€claim€for€damages€against€Lewis€County€and€the€Lewis€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÐ  l  Ðin€the€Lewis€County€Circuit€Court.€€This€claim€against€these€two€defendants€was€later€settled,€and€the€only€issue€beforeÐ à 0  Ðthe€Claims€Commission€was€that€of€the€Stateððs€alleged€negligence.€€ ¯Ý ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIn€his€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€the€commissioner€acknowledged€that€the€officers€in€this€caseÐ ° Ðð ðall€deferred€to€each€otherðð€and€that€ð ðthere€wasnððt€Ô_Ôany[oneÔ_Ô]€in€charge€out€there.ðð€€The€commissioner€also€made€a€specificÐ tÄ Ðfinding€of€fact€that€Trooper€Ray€was€ð ðnot€in€charge€that€night,ðð€concluding€that€ð ð[t]he€question€is€not€that€[Ray]€was€inÐ 8ˆ Ðcharge.€€He€was€not€in€Ô_Ôcharge€.€.€.€.Ô_Ôðð€(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman 2G+J ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+J ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+J ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó ²Ý ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔEven€Trooper€Ray€admitted€that€because€he€was€the€first€on€the€scene,€he€was€the€person€who€was€in€controlÐ ° Ðof€the€arrest.€€Ray€later€stated,€though,€that€whatever€ð ðcontrolðð€he€possessed€disappeared€as€soon€as€the€arrest€wasÐ tÄ Ðcomplete€and€the€vehicle€was€released€to€a€competent€driver.€€Ray€testified,€and€we€agree,€that€after€the€vehicle€wasÐ 8ˆ Ðreleased,€the€county€deputies€then€assumed€control€over€the€former€arrest€scene€by€moving€the€car€to€the€oppositeÐ üL Ðshoulder€themselves.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular <Ý ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòSee€alsoóó€òòCoghlan€v.€Beta€Theta€Pi€Fraternityóó,€€987€P.2d€300,€312€(Idaho€1999)€(ð ðThis€Court€has€recognizedÐ ° Ðthat€ððit€is€possible€to€create€a€duty€where€one€previously€did€not€exist.€€€If€one€voluntarily€undertakes€to€perform€an€act,Ð tÄ Ðhaving€no€prior€duty€to€do€so,€the€duty€arises€to€perform€the€act€in€a€non-negligent€manner.ðð€€Generally,€the€questionÐ 8ˆ  Ðwhether€a€duty€exists€is€a€question€of€law.ðð);€òòMorales€v.€Fansleróó,€€258€Cal.€Rptr.€96,€98€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(ð ð[T]he€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€determined€that€the€only€material€issue€presented€was€whether€the€above€described€[defendants]€voluntarilyÐ tÄ Ðassumed€[a]€legal€duty€.€.€.€.€€Appellants€are€in€error€when€they€contend€the€issue€of€legal€duty€is€a€question€of€fact.ðð).Ð 8ˆ Ðà  àWe€note€that€Indiana€courts€apparently€hold€that€ð ð[a]lthough€the€determination€of€whether€a€duty€exists€isÐ üL Ðgenerally€a€question€of€law,€whether€a€party€assumed€a€duty€and€the€extent€of€that€duty€are€questions€for€the€fact-finder.ðð€Ð À ÐòòSizemore€v.€Templeton€Oil€Co.óó,€724€N.E.2d€647,€651€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€Even€under€this€approach,€though,€theÐ „Ô Ðmaterial€facts€giving€rise€to€an€assumed€duty€in€this€case€are€undisputed,€and€as€such,€the€question€of€whether€a€duty€toÐ H ˜ Ðcontrol€county€deputies€was€assumed€by€Trooper€Ray€in€this€case€remains€one€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€(ð ðWe€may€decide€whetherÐ  \ Ð[the€defendant]€assumed€a€duty€toward€the€[plaintiffs]€only€if€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact.ðð). öÝ ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€commissioner€was€quite€clear€in€his€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€that€Trooper€RayÐ ° Ðwas€not€negligent€in€failing€to€call€a€tow€truck.€€The€commissioner€found€that€at€the€time€of€the€release,€the€Nova€wasÐ tÄ Ðin€working€order,€and€although€the€car€had€slipped€out€of€gear,€this€condition€did€not€prevent€the€car€from€being€driven.€Ð 8ˆ ÐThe€commissioner€also€found€that€Trooper€Ray€had€no€discretion€to€tow€a€car€in€this€case€because€the€car€created€noÐ üL Ðsafety€hazard€and€because€the€release€was€made€according€to€the€wishes€of€the€driver.€€Therefore,€as€soon€as€theÐ À Ðcommissioner€found€that€Ray€neither€possessed€nor€assumed€a€duty€to€control€the€disposition€of€the€car€after€its€properÐ „Ô Ðrelease,€he€should€have€dismissed€the€claim€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€at€least€in€so€far€as€section€9„8„Ð H ˜ Ð307(a)(1)(F)€provided€the€basis€for€such€jurisdiction.€€Accordingly,€because€Trooper€Ray€acted€with€due€care€in€releasingÐ  \ Ðthe€car,€and€because€Trooper€Ray€did€nothing€as€a€matter€of€law€to€reassume€custody€or€control€of€the€vehicle,€we€findÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€permitting€jurisdiction€to€rest€upon€Trooper€Rayððs€alleged€negligence€in€failing€to€towÐ ” ä  Ðthe€Nova. Ý ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€commissioner€found€the€State€liable€for€Trooper€Rayððs€actions€ð ðbecause€[Ray]€could€have€and€ought€toÐ ° Ðhave€stepped€in€and€taken€charge€of€this€situation€more€strongly€than€he€did.ðð€€In€this€manner,€the€commissioner€concededÐ tÄ Ðthat€while€Trooper€Ray€was€not€under€a€specific€duty€to€act,€Ray€was€negligent€in€not€assuming€a€duty€to€act.€€While€weÐ 8ˆ Ðknow€of€no€rule€of€law€that€compels€a€person€to€assume€a€duty€to€act€that€is€not€otherwise€imposed€or€implied€by€law,Ð üL Ðin€liberally€construing€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission,€we€nevertheless€undertake€to€determine€whether€RayÐ À Ðvoluntarily€assumed€a€duty€to€control€other€deputies€at€the€arrest€scene. Ñ Ý ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔAhkeenÔ_Ô€v.€Parkeróó,€€No.€W1998-00640-COA-R3CV,€2000€WL€52771€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€10,€2000)€(statingÐ ° Ðthat€suit€under€section€„307(a)(1)(F)€provides€the€remedy€for€recovery€for€deprivation€of€personal€property);€òòÔ‡ô ]òòô ]ÔReid€v.Ð tÄ ÐStateóó,€No.€02A01-9807-BC-00191,€Ô#†ô ]òòô ]ž#ÔÔ‡ô ]òòô ]Ô1999€WL€528837€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€23,€1999)€(stating€that€section€„307(a)(1)(F)Ð 8ˆ Ðð ðgives€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€jurisdiction€over€monetary€claims€against€the€State€arising€from€the€care,Ð üL Ðcustody€and€control€of€personal€property€where€the€State€is€negligent€in€its€care,€custody€and€controlðð);€Ô#†ô ]òòô ]#ÔÔ‡ô ]òòô ]ÔòòDean€Ô_Ôv.Ô_ÔÐ À ÐCampbellóó,€No.€02A01„9704„CV„00077,€Ô#†ô ]òòô ]½#ÔÔ‡ô ]òòô ]Ô1997€WL€401960€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€17,€1997)€(noting€that€section€9„8„Ð „Ô Ð307(a)(1)(F)€ð ðhas€provided€adequate€procedures€to€assure€the€return€of€items€either€negligently€or€intentionallyÐ H ˜ Ðconvertedðð€by€state€prison€officials);€òòClark€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Tennessee€Claims€Commissionóó,€No.€01A01-9212-CH-00482;€Ô#†ô ]òòô ]d#ÔÔ_Ô1993€WLÐ  \ Ð286031€(Tenn.Ô_Ô€Ct.€App.€July€30,€1993)€(claim€for€negligent€loss€or€conversion€of€a€prisonerððs€television€converter€kit);€Ð Ð  ÐòòSpence€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Thomasóó,€No.€01A01-9105„CH„00161,€1991€WL€153220€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€14,€1991)€(dismissing€actionÐ ” ä  Ðfiled€in€chancery€court€for€the€recovery€of€personal€property€from€state€employees€because€Claims€Commission€hasÐ X ¨  Ðjurisdiction€over€these€claims€under€section€„307(a)(1)(F)).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔFossettÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02A01-9703-BC-00061,€1997Ð  l  ÐWL€714877€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€19,€1997)€(holding€Ô_Ôthat€child€support€paymentsÔ_Ô€assigned€to€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ à 0  Ðof€Human€Services€were€not€ð ðpersonal€propertyðð€within€the€meaning€of€section€„307(a)(1)(F)). »Ý ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„13„102(a)€provides€that€Ð ° Ðà8  à[n]o€court€in€the€state€shall€have€any€power,€jurisdiction,€or€authority€to€entertain€any€suit€against€theÐ tÄ Ðstate,€or€against€any€officer€of€the€state€acting€by€authority€of€the€state,€with€a€view€to€reach€the€state,Ð 8ˆ Ðits€treasury,€funds,€or€property,€and€all€such€suits€shall€be€dismissed€as€to€the€state€or€such€officers,€onÐ üL Ðmotion,€plea,€or€demurrer€of€the€law€officer€of€the€state,€or€counsel€employed€for€the€state.  àÝ ƒRë $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔAt€the€hearing€of€this€case€in€the€Claims€Commission,€the€plaintiff€argued€that€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(A)Ð ° Ðapplied€to€give€the€Commission€jurisdiction€to€hear€these€claims.€€The€parties€do€not€argue€before€this€Court€that€thisÐ tÄ Ðsection€applies,€and€we€find€no€allegations€in€either€the€original€or€amended€complaint€that€Trooper€Ray€ever€actuallyÐ 8ˆ Ðoperated€or€maintained€the€1974€Nova.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€Claims€Commission€was€also€withoutÐ üL Ðjurisdiction€to€hear€this€case€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(A).(|I2ë $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‘»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]ò»»Ô€€ d(|3‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‘»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‘»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‘»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼‘»»»ÔÑ8€ÄÉXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î‚t‘ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼‘»îî‚t #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€4,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÌÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉñ#Ôò òLARRY€W.€STEWART€€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ó óÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉc#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÌò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Middle€SectionÐ ú J ЀÔ#†¼‘»XXÄɺ#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔTennessee€Claims€Commission,€Middle€DivisionÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€10917201€€€€€Hon.€W.R.€Baker,€CommissionerÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00304„SC„R11„CVÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉT#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘Ô€„€Filed€December€20,€2000Ð ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓIn€this€case,€we€determine€whether€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€properly€asserted€jurisdictionÐ P  Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€9„8„307(a)(1)(E)€and€„307(a)(1)(F)€for€the€allegedÐ <Œ Ðnegligence€of€a€state€highway€patrol€officer€in€failing€to€properly€control€county€police€authoritiesÐ (x Ðat€an€arrest€scene.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€Commissionððs€exercise€of€jurisdiction,€andÐ d Ðthe€State€requested€permission€to€appeal€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€Claims€Commission€properlyÐ P Ðasserted€jurisdiction€and€whether€the€plaintiff,€who€stepped€into€the€road€before€being€hit€by€theÐ ì< Ðtruck,€was€fifty€percent€(50%)€or€more€at€fault€for€his€accident.€€We€hold€that€the€ClaimsÐ Ø( ÐCommission€lacked€jurisdiction€in€this€case€under€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôeither€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôsection€9„8„307(a)(1)(E)€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔorÔf  ÔÔg Ô€section€9„8„Ð Ä Ð307(a)(1)(F)Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€and€becauseÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€Claims€Commission€possessed€no€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€plaintiffððsÐ ° Ðclaims,€we€decline€to€reach€the€issue€of€whether€the€plaintiff€was€more€than€fifty€percent€(50%)€atÐ œì Ðfault€for€his€accident.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€finding€proper€jurisdictionÐ ˆØ Ðis€reversed,€and€the€plaintiffððs€claim€against€the€State€is€dismissed.Ô#†¼‘»XXÄÉÂ#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÐ tÄ ÐÓlÓÌò òÔ#†¼‘»XXÄɦ #ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ L œ ÐAppeals€Reversed;€Claim€DismissedÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉ #ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘Ôó ó€Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼‘»àXÄÉÛ #ÔÔ‡XÄÉX.¼‘ÔWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€óóòòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,€óóandòòÐ #d" ÐFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€òòJróó.,€and€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð $P# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Laura€T.Ð Ø%(!% ÐÔ_ÔKidwellÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼‘»XXÄÉF #ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÐ Ä&"& ÐÌRandy€Ô_ÔHillhouseÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLawrenceburgÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Larry€W.€Stewart.Ô#†¼‘»XXÄÉ·#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÐ œ(ì#( ÐÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉœ#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉó#ÔÔ‡XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÐ `+°&+ ÐÌÐ 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†¼‘»XXÄÉf#ÔÔ€XÄÉX»¼‘ÔÓ  Óà  àShortly€before€midnight€on€September€20,€1991,€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€Officer€Billy€RayÐ ° Ðwas€on€duty€in€Hohenwald,€Tennessee,€when€he€received€a€radio€dispatch€from€the€Lewis€CountyÐ œì ÐSheriffððs€Department€notifying€him€that€a€blue€1974€Chevy€Nova€was€speeding€on€Highway€99.€Ð ˆØ ÐTrooper€Ray€set€up€a€radar€station,€and€within€minutes,€he€saw€the€car€speed€by€at€about€80€miles€perÐ tÄ Ðhour.€€Ray€activated€his€emergency€lights€and€siren,€and€he€stopped€the€car€on€an€incline€headingÐ `° Ðwest€away€from€Hohenwald.€€Trooper€Ray€parked€his€patrol€car€behind€the€Nova.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAfter€arresting€the€driver€of€the€Nova€for€speeding€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€RayÐ $ t Ðplaced€him€in€the€back€seat€of€his€cruiser.€€In€the€meantime,€two€deputies€and€three€reserve€deputiesÐ  ` Ðfrom€the€Lewis€County€Sheriffððs€Department€arrived€in€two€patrol€cars€and€parked€behind€RayððsÐ ü L  Ðvehicle€on€the€right€shoulder€of€the€highway.€€Although€Trooper€Ray€had€not€summoned€the€otherÐ è 8  Ðcounty€deputies€or€otherwise€requested€their€assistance,€the€deputies€stated€that€they€were€respondingÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€same€dispatch€that€was€received€by€Ray.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€driver€of€the€Nova€was€arrested,€he€requested€that€Ray€release€the€Nova€into€theÐ ˜è  Ðcustody€of€the€passenger€in€the€car.€€Trooper€Ray€complied€with€the€driverððs€request€after€confirmingÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€passenger€had€a€valid€driverððs€license€and€was€otherwise€competent€to€drive.€€As€Ray€wasÐ pÀ Ðin€the€process€of€releasing€the€Nova€into€the€custody€of€the€passenger,€the€Nova€slipped€out€of€gearÐ \¬ Ðand€began€to€roll€backwards€down€the€incline€toward€Rayððs€cruiser.€€A€Lewis€County€deputy€leapedÐ H˜ Ðinto€the€car€and€applied€the€brake,€thereby€preventing€a€collision€with€Rayððs€patrol€car.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€passenger€then€asked€the€Lewis€County€deputy,€who€was€still€in€the€car,€to€steer€the€NovaÐ  \ Ðto€the€opposite€shoulder€of€the€highway€so€that€she€could€drive€the€car€to€its€owner€in€Hohenwald.€Ð øH ÐIn€the€process€of€turning€the€Nova€around,€the€Nova€stalled€in€the€middle€of€the€highway€and€wouldÐ ä4 Ðnot€restart.€€Three€of€the€county€deputies,€including€the€plaintiff,€reserve€deputy€Larry€Stewart,€thenÐ Ð  Ðpushed€the€stalled€car€to€the€other€shoulder.€€After€the€deputies€tried€unsuccessfully€to€restart€the€car,Ð ¼  ÐTrooper€Ray€permitted€the€former€driver€of€the€car€to€attempt€to€start€the€car,€but€he€was€alsoÐ ¨ø Ðunsuccessful.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àBecause€the€car€was€now€parked€on€a€downward€slope,€the€county€deputies,€who€were€unsureÐ l¼ Ðas€to€whether€the€car€would€slip€out€of€gear€again,€decided€to€roll€the€car€to€the€bottom€of€the€hillÐ X ¨ Ðwhere€it€could€rest€safely.€€Apparently,€one€of€the€deputies€was€steering€the€car,€one€deputy€wasÐ D!” Ðpushing€the€car€from€behind,€and€the€plaintiff€was€pushing€the€car€somewhere€near€the€driverððs€sideÐ 0"€  Ðdoor.€€As€the€car€was€being€pushed€to€the€bottom€of€the€hill,€the€passenger€asked€one€of€the€countyÐ #l! Ðdeputies€to€take€her€into€Hohenwald€to€notify€the€owner€of€the€car€of€its€condition.€€Trooper€Ray€thenÐ $X" Ðprepared€to€pull€his€patrol€car€in€behind€the€Nova€to€provide€any€needed€assistance€once€the€ownerÐ ô$D # Ðarrived.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€Nova€reached€the€bottom€of€the€incline,€the€plaintiff€started€to€walk€backÐ ¸'#& Ðacross€the€road€when€he€was€struck€by€a€pick„up€truck€traveling€into€town.€€The€impact€knocked€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðplaintiff€almost€ninety€feet€away€into€a€guard€rail.€€Although€the€plaintiff€miraculously€survived€theÐ )à$( Ðimpact,€he€suffered€substantial€injuries€to€his€head€resulting€in€permanent€and€irreversible€brainÐ |*Ì%) Ðdamage.€€The€plaintiff€also€suffered,€among€other€things,€a€severe€fracture€to€his€spine€and€significantÐ h+¸&* Ðinjuries€to€his€kidneys.€€After€the€plaintiff€was€struck,€Trooper€Ray€notified€the€dispatcher€to€sendÐ ° Ðan€ambulance,€and€he€pulled€his€patrol€car€behind€the€Nova€on€the€other€side€of€the€road.€€In€theÐ œì Ðmeantime,€county€deputies€notified€the€city€police€department€and€diverted€traffic€away€from€theÐ ˆØ Ðaccident€site.€€Less€than€six€minutes€had€elapsed€from€the€time€of€Trooper€Rayððs€release€of€the€NovaÐ tÄ Ðto€the€plaintiffððs€accident.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€July€21,€1993,€the€plaintiff€filed€his€formal€claim€with€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÐ 8 ˆ Ðalleging€that€his€injuries€were€proximately€caused€by€Trooper€Rayððs€negligence€in€not€calling€a€tow„Ð $ t Ðtruck€for€the€disabled€car€and€in€failing€to€properly€control€traffic€around€the€arrest€scene.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€EightÐ  ` Ðmonths€later€in€March€of€1994,€the€State€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€claim€for€failure€to€allege€anyÐ ü L  Ðgrounds€of€liability€within€the€permissible€categories€of€claims€listed€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ è 8  Ðsection€9„8„307(a)(1).€€In€response,€the€plaintiff€moved€to€amend€his€claim€to€allege€that€the€officerððsÐ Ô$  Ðalleged€negligence€fell€within€three€specific€categories€of€liability:€(1)€negligent€care,€custody,€orÐ À  Ðcontrol€of€personal€property€under€section€„307(a)(1)(F)€based€on€Rayððs€ð ðnegligent€release€of€custodyÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€vehicleðð€and€negligence€ð ðin€refusing€to€call€a€wrecker€to€remove€the€carðð;€(2)€negligentÐ ˜è  Ðoperation€or€maintenance€of€any€motor€vehicle€under€section€„307(a)(1)(A)€ð ðsince€the€operation€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€vehicle€by€the€deputies€was€under€the€direction€and€supervision€of€the€Tennessee€HighwayÐ pÀ ÐPatrolðð;€and€(3)€actions€resulting€in€a€dangerous€condition€on€state„maintained€highways€underÐ \¬ Ðsection€„307(a)(1)(J)€based€on€Rayððs€ð ðfailure€to€adequately€control€and€maintain€an€arrest€scene.ðð€Ð H˜ ÐThe€Commission€granted€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€amend€and€denied€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss,Ð 4„ Ðfinding€that€a€sufficient€jurisdictional€basis€had€been€alleged.Ð  p ÐÌà  àOver€four€years€later,€the€plaintiffððs€claim€was€heard€before€the€Commission.€€After€hearingÐ øH Ðtestimony€from€several€witnesses,€the€commissioner€concluded€that€the€issue€of€whether€Trooper€RayÐ ä4 Ðwas€in€control€of€the€arrest€scene€had€to€be€determined€by€the€ð ðactual€facts€of€what€went€on€outÐ Ð  Ðthere.ðð€€He€then€concluded€that€no€one€was€in€charge€ð ð[b]ecause€these€people€all€knew€each€other,Ð ¼  Ðand€they€all€deferred€to€each€other.ðð€€The€commissioner€also€concluded€that€Trooper€Ray€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðnegligent€in€failing€to€call€a€tow€truck€because€a€general€order€from€the€Department€of€SafetyÐ ”ä Ðdirected€Ray€to€follow€the€wishes€of€the€driver€in€disposing€of€the€vehicle.€€Finally,€the€commissionerÐ €Ð Ðconcluded€that€the€car€was€not€in€the€custody€of€Trooper€Ray€at€the€time€of€the€plaintiffððs€accidentÐ l¼ Ðbecause€Ray€had€previously€released€custody€and€control€of€the€car€pursuant€to€the€driverððs€wishes.€Ð ° ÐÌÌà  àDespite€concluding€that€Trooper€Ray€had€no€actual€control€over€the€scene€and€that€Ray€didÐ tÄ Ðnot€have€actual€custody€of€the€car€at€the€time€of€the€plaintiffððs€accident,€the€commissioner€assessedÐ `° Ðten€percent€(10%)€fault€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€the€ð ðnegligence€of€Mr.€Ray€because€heÐ L œ Ðcould€have€and€ought€to€have€stepped€in€and€taken€charge€of€this€situation€more€strongly€than€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðdid.ðð€€The€commissioner€also€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€only€thing€more€that€Mr.€Ray€could€have€done€thatÐ $ t Ðhe€ought€to€have€done€that€he€failed€to€have€done€.€.€.€is€to€say€to€a€bunch€of€volunteer€deputies€in€theÐ  ` Ðmiddle€of€the€night,€you€all€shut€up€and€go€sit€down€.€.€.€.ðð€€Although€he€found€liability€on€the€partÐ ü L  Ðof€the€State,€the€commissioner€did€not€specify€the€provision(s)€of€section€9„8„307(a)(1)€under€whichÐ è 8  Ðhe€was€imposing€liability.€€Finally,€the€commissioner€found€the€plaintiffððs€damages€to€be€$300,000,Ð Ô$  Ðand€he€assessed€the€remaining€fault€as€follows:€seventy€percent€(70%)€to€the€driver€of€the€pickupÐ À  Ðtruck€which€struck€the€plaintiff;€twelve€percent€(12%)€to€the€plaintiff;€and€eight€percent€(8%)€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðother€Lewis€County€deputies.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€State€argued€that€any€negligence€of€a€state€trooper€inÐ pÀ Ðfailing€to€supervise€county€deputies€did€not€fall€within€any€provision€of€section€9„8„307(a)(1),€andÐ \¬ Ðthat€as€such,€the€Claims€Commission€was€without€jurisdiction€to€assess€fault€against€the€State.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðintermediate€court€disagreed,€holding€that€the€findings€of€the€commissioner€fell€within€the€categoryÐ 4„ Ðof€ð ðnegligent€care,€custody,€and€control€of€personsðð€under€section€„307(a)(1)(E)€and€within€theÐ  p Ðcategory€of€ð ðnegligent€care,€custody€or€control€of€personal€propertyðð€under€section€„307(a)(1)(F).€Ð  \ ÐThe€Court€of€Appeals€also€found€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€supported€the€commissionerððsÐ øH Ðfindings€that€Trooper€Ray€was€negligent,€that€such€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€theÐ ä4 Ðplaintiffððs€injuries,€and€that€the€evidence€did€not€preponderate€against€the€commissionerððsÐ Ð  Ðapportionment€of€fault€to€the€plaintiff.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€State€then€requested€permission€to€appeal€to€this€Court,€which€was€granted€on€theÐ ”ä Ðfollowing€three€issues:€(1)€whether€the€State€can€be€held€liable€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ €Ð Ðsection€9„8„307(a)(1)(E)€for€the€failure€of€a€state€trooper€to€adequately€supervise€sheriffððs€deputiesÐ l¼ Ðat€the€scene€of€the€arrest;€(2)€whether€the€State€can€be€held€liable€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ X ¨ Ðsection€9„8„307(a)(1)(F)€for€personal€injuries€suffered€by€a€deputy€sheriff€arising€out€of€a€stateÐ D!” Ðtrooperððs€negligent€control€of€personal€property€(a€disabled€car);€and€(3)€whether€the€evidenceÐ 0"€  Ðpreponderates€against€the€assessment€of€twelve€percent€(12%)€fault€to€the€plaintiff.€€For€the€reasonsÐ #l! Ðgiven€herein,€we€hold€that€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€improperly€exercised€jurisdictionÐ $X" Ðunder€either€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(E)€or€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(F)€to€award€a€monetary€claim€againstÐ ô$D # Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee.€€Because€we€hold€that€the€Claims€Commission€was€without€jurisdiction€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthis€case,€we€decline€to€reach€the€question€of€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcommissionerððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€was€twelve€percent€(12%)€at€fault€for€his€own€injuries.€Ð ¸'#& ÐAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€dismiss€the€plaintiffððs€claimÐ ¤(ô#' Ðagainst€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð )à$( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓJURISDICTION€OF€THE€CLAIMS€COMMISSIONó óÐ h+¸&* ÐÓø@ÓÌÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔà  àIt€is€a€well„settled€principle€of€constitutional€and€statutory€law€in€this€state€that€ð ð[t]he€StateÐ œì Ðof€Tennessee,€as€a€sovereign,€is€immune€from€suit€except€as€it€consents€to€be€sued.ðð€€òòBrewington€v.Ð ˆØ ÐBrewingtonóó,€215€Tenn.€475,€480,€387€S.W.2d€777,€779€(1965).Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉRA#ÔÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔ€€This€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunityÐ tÄ Ðð ðhas€been€a€part€of€the€common€law€of€Tennessee€for€more€than€a€century€and€[it]€provides€that€suitÐ `° Ðmay€not€be€brought€against€a€governmental€entity€unless€that€governmental€entity€has€consented€toÐ L œ Ðbe€sued.ðð€€òòHawks€v.€City€of€Westmorelandóó,€960€S.W.2d€10,€Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉÖB#ÔÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔ14€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉ…D#ÔÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔDespite€this€generalÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrant€of€immunity,€however,€the€courts€of€this€state€have€frequently€recognized€that€the€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐConstitution€has€modified€this€rule€of€absolute€sovereign€immunity€by€providing€that€ð ð[s]uits€mayÐ  ` Ðbe€brought€against€the€State€in€such€manner€and€in€such€courts€as€the€Legislature€may€by€law€direct.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€17;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòKirby€v.€Macon€Countyóó,€892€S.W.2d€403,€406€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€its€constitutional€power€to€provide€for€suits€against€the€state,€the€legislatureÐ À  Ðcreated€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€in€1984€Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉÙD#ÔÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔto€hear€and€adjudicate€certain€monetary€claimsÐ ¬ü  Ðagainst€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€9-8-301€to€-307€(1999).€€While€the€ClaimsÐ ˜è  ÐCommission€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€hear€claims€arising€against€the€state,€òòcf.óó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð „Ô  Ððð€20-13-102(a)€(1994),׃K×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€this€jurisdiction€is€limited€only€to€those€claims€specified€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnnotated€section€9„8„307(a).€€Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉáG#ÔIf€a€claim€falls€outside€of€the€categories€specified€in€section€9„8„Ð \¬ Ð307(a),€then€the€state€retains€its€immunity€from€suit,€and€a€claimant€may€not€seek€relief€from€theÐ H˜ Ðstate.€€òòCf.óó€òòHill€v.€Beeleróó,€199€Tenn.€325,€329,€286€S.W.2d€868,€869€(1956)€(stating€that€ð ðexcept€asÐ 4„ Ðthe€Legislature€of€the€State€consents€there€is€no€jurisdiction€in€this€Board€of€Claims€to€entertain€suitsÐ  p Ðagainst€the€Stateðð).Ð  \ ÐÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔÌà  àThe€courts€of€this€state€have€traditionally€held€that€any€statute€granting€jurisdiction€to€hearÐ ä4 Ða€claim€against€the€state€must€be€strictly€construed,€as€any€such€statute€is€in€derogation€of€theÐ Ð  Ðcommon€law€rule€of€sovereign€immunity.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòNorman€v.€Tennessee€State€Bd.€of€Claimsóó,€533Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€719,€722€(Tenn.€1975)€(ð ðWe€further€recognize€that€the€statutory€provisions€governing€theÐ ¨ø ÐBoard€of€Claims€have€been€strictly€construed,€in€view€of€the€fact€that€they€do€represent€anÐ ”ä Ðencroachment€upon€the€sovereign€immunity€and€upon€the€assets€of€the€State.ðð);€òòState€ex€rel.€AllenÐ €Ð Ðv.€Cookóó,€171€Tenn.€605,€609,€106€S.W.2d€858,€860€(1937)€(ð ðStatutes€passed€by€the€Legislature,Ð l¼ Ðunder€the€authority€of€article€1,€section€17,€of€the€Constitution,€permitting€suits€against€the€state,Ð X ¨ Ðbeing€in€derogation€of€the€sovereignððs€exemption€from€suits,€must€be€strictly€construed.ðð).€Ð D!” ÐNevertheless,€in€1985,€the€General€Assembly€amended€section€9„8„307(a)€to€express€its€intention€asÐ 0"€  Ðto€the€jurisdictional€reach€of€the€Claims€Commission:€ð ðIt€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€jurisdiction€of€the€claims€commission€be€liberally€construed€to€implement€the€remedial€purposesÐ $X" Ðof€this€legislation.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9-8-307(a)(3).Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉUL#Ô€€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àHence,€although€we€have€traditionally€given€a€strict€construction€to€the€scope€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âCommissionððs€jurisdiction,€we€also€recognize€that€our€primary€goal€in€interpreting€statutes€is€ð ðtoÐ œì Ðascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intention€and€purpose€of€the€legislature.ðð€òòGleaves€v.€Checker€CabÐ ˆØ ÐTransit€Corp.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€799,€802€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòCarson€Creek€Vacation€Resorts,€Inc.Ð tÄ Ðv.€State€Depððt€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.1993)).€€If€the€legislature€intends€that€its€statutesÐ `° Ðwaiving€sovereign€immunity€are€to€ð ðÔ‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔbe€liberally€construed,ðð€Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉUU#Ôthen€the€courts€should€generally€deferÐ L œ Ðto€this€expressed€intention€in€cases€where€the€statutory€language€legitimately€admits€of€variousÐ 8 ˆ Ðinterpretations.€€A€Ô‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔpolicy€of€liberal€construction€of€statutes,€however,€only€requires€this€Court€to€giveÐ $ t Ðð ðthe€most€favorable€view€in€support€of€the€petitionerððs€claim,ðð€€òòBrady€v.€Reedóó,€186€Tenn.€556,€563,Ð  ` Ð212€S.W.2d€378,€381€(1948),€and€such€a€policy€ð ðdoes€not€authorize€the€amendment,€alteration€orÐ ü L  Ðextension€of€its€provisions€beyond€[the€statuteððs]€obvious€meaning.ðð€€òòPollard€v.€Knox€Countyóó,€886Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€759,€760€(Tenn.€1994).€€Moreover,€ð ð[w]here€a€right€of€action€is€dependent€upon€theÐ Ô$  Ðprovisions€of€a€statute...we€are€not€privileged€to€create€such€a€right€under€the€guise€of€a€liberalÐ À  Ðinterpretation€of€it.ðð€€òòHamby€v.€McDanielóó,€559€S.W.2d€774,€777€(Tenn.€1977).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€when€deciding€whether€a€claim€is€within€the€proper€statutory€scope€of€theÐ „Ô  ÐCommissionððs€jurisdiction€to€hear€and€decide€claims€against€the€State€of€Tennessee,€we€will€give€aÐ pÀ Ðliberal€construction€in€favor€of€jurisdiction,€òòóóÔ#†XÄÉXXXÄÉwV#Ôbut€only€so€long€as€(1)€the€particular€grant€of€jurisdictionÐ \¬ Ðis€ambiguous€and€admits€of€several€constructions,€and€(2)€the€ð ðmost€favorable€view€in€support€of€theÐ H˜ Ðpetitionerððs€claimðð€is€not€clearly€contrary€to€the€statutory€language€used€by€the€General€Assembly.€Ð 4„ ÐòòCf.óó€òòNorthland€Ins.€Co.€v.€Stateóó,€__€S.W.3d€__,€__€(Tenn.€2000)€(ð ðThe€statuteððs€liberal€constructionÐ  p Ðmandate€allows€courts€to€more€broadly€and€expansively€interpret€the€concepts€and€provisions€withinÐ  \ Ðits€text.ðð).€€Furthermore,€because€Ô‡XÄÉXXXÄÉÔissues€of€statutory€construction€are€questions€of€law,€òòseeóó€òòWakefieldÐ øH Ðv.€Crawleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€442,€445€(Tenn.€1999)Ô#†XÄÉXXXÄÉ•]#Ô;€òòJordan€v.€Baptist€Three€Rivers€Hosp.óó,€984€S.W.2d€593,Ð ä4 Ð599€(Tenn.€1999),€we€review€the€issues€involving€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€òòde€novoóóÐ Ð  Ðwithout€any€presumption€that€the€legal€determinations€of€the€commissioner€were€correct.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¼  ÐòòNorthland€Ins.€Co.óó,€__€S.W.3d€at€__;€òòArdis€Mobile€Home€Park€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€863,€865€(Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCt.€App.€1995).Ð ”ä Ðà  àÌÓ  ÓòòLiability€for€Negligent€Care,€Custody,€and€Control€of€PersonsóóÐ l¼ ÐÓ^`ÓÌà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€Claims€Commission€properly€exercised€jurisdiction€in€thisÐ D!” Ðcase€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(E),€which€authorizes€claimsÐ 0"€  Ðagainst€the€state€for€the€ð ð[n]egligent€care,€custody€and€control€of€persons.ðð€€According€to€theÐ #l! Ðintermediate€court,€the€evidence€supported€the€commissionerððs€finding€that€Trooper€Ray€wasÐ $X" Ðnegligent€in€failing€ð ðto€take€sharper,€firmer€controlðð€of€the€county€deputies€at€the€arrest€scene,€andÐ ô$D # Ðthat€as€such,€the€trooperððs€negligence€clearly€supported€jurisdiction€under€section€„307(a)(1)(E).€Ð à%0!$ ÐBefore€this€Court,€the€State€argues€that€a€claim€of€negligent€supervision€of€county€deputies€by€a€stateÐ Ì&"% Ðtrooper€cannot€fall€within€this€grant€of€jurisdiction€because€there€is€simply€no€duty€on€the€part€of€aÐ ¸'#& Ðstate€trooper€to€assume€control€over€local€police€authorities€at€the€scene€of€an€arrest.€€We€agree€withÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€State.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àNo€provision€of€section€9„8„307(a)(1)€specifically€defines€under€what€circumstances€the€stateÐ ° Ðâ âmay€be€held€liable€for€injuries€resulting€from€the€ð ð[n]egligent€care,€custody€and€control€of€persons.ðð€Ð œì ÐAn€examination€of€the€cases€dealing€with€this€grant€of€jurisdiction,€though,€makes€clear€that€liabilityÐ ˆØ Ðmay€be€imposed€for€injuries€to€persons€confined€in€penal€institutions,€residences,€or€health€facilitiesÐ tÄ Ðmaintained€by€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòLearue€by€Learue€v.€Stateóó,€757€S.W.2d€3,€5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€ItÐ `° Ðis€also€well€established€that€liability€may€be€imposed€for€injuries€to€third€persons€caused€by€thoseÐ L œ Ðpersons€for€whom€the€state€has€responsibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€925€S.W.2d€513,€517€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1996);€òòCox€v.€Stateóó,€844€S.W.2d€173€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€question€in€this€case,€therefore,€becomes€whether€Trooper€Ray€had€a€legal€duty€toÐ ü L  Ðexercise€reasonable€care€in€the€care,€custody,€and€control€of€county€deputies€at€an€arrest€scene.€€TheÐ è 8  ÐState€first€argues€that€unlike€other€subsections€in€section€„307(a)(1),€section€„307(a)(1)(E)€is€wordedÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€conjunctive€with€the€word€ð ðandðð;€therefore€for€jurisdiction€to€exist€in€this€case,€the€StateÐ À  Ðcontends€that€Trooper€Ray€must€have€been€negligent€in€his€care€of€the€deputies,€in€his€custody€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdeputies,€òòandóó€in€his€control€over€the€deputies.€€òòCf.óó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(F)€(listing€theÐ ˜è  Ðrequirements€in€the€disjunctive€with€the€word€ð ðorðð);€„307(a)(1)(G)€(listing€the€requirements€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðdisjunctive€with€the€word€ð ðorðð).€€The€State€then€argues€that€because€the€plaintiff€does€not€allege€thatÐ pÀ ÐTrooper€Ray€had€responsibility€for€the€care€or€custody€of€the€local€deputies,€the€Claims€CommissionÐ \¬ Ðcould€not€have€properly€exercised€jurisdiction.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€State€is€correct€in€asserting€that€statutory€phrases€separated€by€the€word€ð ðandðð€are€usuallyÐ  p Ðto€be€interpreted€in€the€conjunctive.€€òòCf.óó€òòTennessee€Manufactured€Hous.€Assððn€v.€Metropolitan€GovððtÐ  \ Ðof€Nashvilleóó,€798€S.W.2d€254,€257€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)€(stating€that€the€word€ð ðððandðð€is€aÐ øH Ðconjunctive€article€indicating€that€the€portions€of€the€sentence€it€connects€should€be€construedÐ ä4 Ðtogetherðð).€€Nevertheless,€this€Court€has€also€recognized€that€the€word€ð ðandðð€can€also€be€construedÐ Ð  Ðin€the€disjunctive€where€such€a€construction€is€necessary€to€further€the€intent€of€the€legislature.€€òòCityÐ ¼  Ðof€Knoxville€v.€Gervinóó,€169€Tenn.€532,€541,€89€S.W.2d€348,€352€(1936)€(ð ðThe€word€ððandðð€isÐ ¨ø Ðfrequently€construed€as€meaning€ððor.ðð€These€words€are€interchangeable€in€the€construction€of€statutesÐ ”ä Ðwhen€necessary€to€carry€out€the€legislative€intent.ðð).€€Although€we€generally€presume€that€theÐ €Ð ÐGeneral€Assembly€purposefully€chooses€the€words€used€in€statutory€language,€òòFederal€Express€Corp.Ð l¼ Ðv.€Tennessee€State€Bd.€of€Equalizationóó,€717€S.W.2d€873,€874€(Tenn.€1986),€it€is€difficult€to€conceiveÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€legislature€intended€to€deny€jurisdiction€in€cases€where€negligent€control€of€a€person€by€aÐ D!” Ðstate€employee€resulted€in€injury,€even€though€the€injured€person€was€not€actually€within€the€care€orÐ 0"€  Ðcustody€of€the€state€employee.€€Liberally€construing€this€statute,€therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÐ #l! ÐClaims€Commission€could€properly€assert€jurisdiction€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(E)€if€Trooper€RayÐ $X" Ðhad€a€legal€duty€to€control€local€police€authorities€at€an€arrest€sceneð"ðirrespective€of€whether€he€hadÐ ô$D # Ðactual€care€and€custody€over€the€deputiesð"ðand€if€he€was€negligent€in€the€fulfillment€of€that€duty.€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòóóÌà  àFrom€our€review€of€the€relevant€legal€authorities,€however,€it€seems€clear€that€Trooper€RayÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€under€no€general€legal€duty€to€control€local€law„enforcement€officials€at€an€arrest€scene.€€To€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsure,€Trooper€Ray€did€have€a€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€care€with€regard€to€his€own€actions€at€theÐ )à$( Ðarrest€scene,€but€the€Claims€Commission€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€essentially€held€that€Trooper€RayÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€negligent€by€not€controlling€the€actions€of€others€at€the€scene.€€We€have€been€unable€to€find€anyÐ h+¸&* Ðstatute€or€regulation€that€imposes€upon€state€highway€patrol€officers€the€duty€or€obligation€to€controlÐ ° Ðlocal€police€authorities€at€an€arrest€scene,€and€we€are€unable€to€find€any€statute€or€regulation€thatÐ œì Ðcompels€county€law„enforcement€officials€to€submit€to€the€control€of€state€highway€patrol€officersÐ ˆØ Ðat€the€scene€of€an€arrest.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€we€have€found€no€case€from€any€court€in€this€state€suggesting€that€Trooper€RayÐ L œ Ðwas€under€a€common„law€duty€to€control€or€supervise€county€police€authorities€at€the€arrest€scene,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€we€are€reluctant€to€impose€such€duty€in€this€case€without€some€precedential€authority€to€do€so.€Ð $ t ÐAs€we€have€recognized€before,€the€imposition€of€a€legal€duty€ð ðreflects€societyððs€contemporaryÐ  ` Ðpolicies€and€social€requirements€concerning€the€right€of€individuals€and€the€general€public€to€beÐ ü L  Ðprotected€from€anotherððs€act€or€conduct.ðð€€€òòMcClung€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnershipóó,€937€S.W.2dÐ è 8  Ð891,€894€(Tenn.€1996).€€Plainly€stated,€Trooper€Ray€was€in€no€better€position€than€any€of€the€otherÐ Ô$  Ðdeputies,€including€the€plaintiff,€to€prevent€the€plaintiffððs€harm.€€All€of€the€Lewis€County€deputiesÐ À  Ðwere€trained€in€law„enforcement€practices,€and€the€plaintiff€himself,€who€had€over€a€yearððsÐ ¬ü  Ðexperience€with€the€Sheriffððs€Department€before€his€accident,€admitted€to€receiving€forty€hours€ofÐ ˜è  Ðsuch€training.€€Moreover,€Ray€enjoyed€no€special€relationship€with€the€Lewis€County€deputies€thatÐ „Ô  Ðwould€result€in€the€law€imposing€a€duty€upon€Ray€to€control€the€actions€of€the€deputies.€€Given€theseÐ pÀ Ðcircumstances,€we€decline€to€find€that€ð ðsocietyððs€contemporary€policies€and€social€requirementsððÐ \¬ Ðmandate€imposing€upon€Trooper€Ray€a€common„law€duty€to€control€the€conduct€of€local€policeÐ H˜ Ðauthorities€at€an€arrest€scene.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àTo€say€that€Trooper€Ray€was€under€no€general€legal€duty€to€assert€control€over€the€countyÐ  \ Ðofficers€in€this€case,€however,€is€not€to€say€that€Trooper€Ray€was€incapable€of€assuming€such€a€duty.€Ð øH ÐBecause€any€ð ðdetermination€of€the€stateððs€liability€in€tort€shall€be€based€on€traditional€tort€conceptsÐ ä4 Ðof€duty,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(c),€the€Claims€Commission€may€properly€exercise€jurisdictionÐ Ð  Ðin€cases€in€which€a€state€highway€patrol€officer€has€assumed€a€duty€to€control€local€law„enforcementÐ ¼  Ðofficials€and€is€negligent€in€the€discharge€of€that€assumed€duty.€€òòCf.óó€òòMarr€v.€Montgomery€ElevatorÐ ¨ø ÐCo.óó,€922€S.W.2d€526,€529€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(ð ðOne€who€assumes€to€act,€even€thoughÐ ”ä Ðgratuitously,€may€thereby€become€subject€to€the€duty€of€acting€carefully.ðð).׃@×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€is€the€case€generallyÐ €Ð Ðwith€questions€of€whether€a€duty€has€been€imposed€by€law,€the€question€of€whether€one€has€assumedÐ l¼ Ða€duty€to€act€is€also€a€question€of€law.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòÔ‡;XÄÉXXXÄÉÔCastro€v.€Brownððs€Chicken€&€Pasta,€Inc.óó,€732Ð X ¨ ÐN.E.2d€37,€42€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€2000)€(ð ðWhether€a€defendant€has€voluntarily€undertaken€a€legal€duty€toÐ D!” Ða€plaintiff€seeking€to€bring€a€negligence€action€is€a€question€of€law€.€.€.€.ðð).׃<(×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XÄÉXX;XÄÉÏ…#ÔÐ 0"€  Їà  àFrom€our€examination€of€the€undisputed€facts€in€the€record,€we€find€that€as€a€matter€of€law,Ð ° ÐTrooper€Ray€did€not€assume€any€such€duty€to€control€the€Lewis€County€police€deputies.€€First,Ð œì ÐTrooper€Ray€did€not€summon€the€Lewis€County€deputies€to€the€arrest€scene€or€otherwise€request€anyÐ ˆØ Ðassistance€from€the€Lewis€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€In€fact,€by€the€time€most€of€the€deputiesÐ tÄ Ðarrived,€the€driver€of€the€Nova€had€already€been€arrested€and€placed€in€the€back€of€Rayððs€policeÐ `° Ðcruiser.€€In€addition,€it€was€undisputed€that€Trooper€Ray€did€not€order,€instruct,€or€request€that€theÐ L œ Ðdeputies€perform€any€specific€duties,€nor€did€he€attempt€to€prevent€the€deputies€from€performingÐ 8 ˆ Ðtheir€own€tasks€during€this€time.€€Although€the€plaintiff€argues€that€all€of€the€witnesses€agreed€thatÐ $ t ÐTrooper€Ray€was€ð ðin€controlðð€of€the€arrest€scene€as€Ray€was€the€first€officer€on€the€scene,׃88 ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€actionsÐ  ` Ðof€the€deputies€do€not€confirm€this€belief.€€For€example,€the€deputies€neither€sought€Rayððs€instructionÐ ü L  Ðnor€his€permission€to€undertake€various€tasks,€such€as€moving€the€Nova€to€the€other€side€of€the€road,Ð è 8  Ðestablishing€roadblocks€and€directing€traffic€around€the€accident€scene,€or€requesting€furtherÐ Ô$  Ðassistance€after€the€accident€from€the€Hohenwald€Police€Department.×ƒÔ ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€because€weÐ À  Ðconclude€as€a€matter€of€law€that€Trooper€Ray€neither€possessed€nor€assumed€a€legal€duty€to€controlÐ ¬ü  Ðlocal€police€authorities€at€the€arrest€scene,€we€hold€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€finding€that€theÐ ˜è  ÐClaims€Commission€had€jurisdiction€over€the€plaintiffððs€claim€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ „Ô  ÐAnnotated€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(E).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓLiability€for€Negligent€Care,€Custody,€or€Control€of€Personal€PropertyóóÐ H˜ ÐÌÓøÓà  àAs€an€alternative€basis€for€jurisdiction,€the€Court€of€Appeals€also€found€that€the€ClaimsÐ  p ÐCommission€possessed€jurisdiction€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(F),€which€authorizes€claims€againstÐ  \ Ðthe€state€for€the€ð ð[n]egligent€care,€custody€or€control€of€personal€property.ðð€€Although€its€decisionÐ øH Ðis€unclear€on€this€point,€the€intermediate€court€seems€to€have€found€that€Trooper€Ray€was€negligentÐ ä4 Ðin€failing€to€call€a€tow€truck€to€remove€the€1974€Nova€and€in€allowing€the€disabled€car€to€be€movedÐ ° Ðto€the€other€side€of€the€road€by€the€county€deputies.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔBasedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€on€our€review€of€the€cases€interpretingÐ œì Ðsection€„307(a)(1)(F),€we€observe€that€no€court€in€Tennessee€has€held€that€this€section€permits€aÐ ˆØ Ðclaim€for€personal€injury€òòcaused€by€óóthe€negligent€care,€custody,€or€control€of€personal€property.€Ð tÄ ÐRather,€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôvirtually€every€case€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôthat€has€interpretedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€section€„307(a)(1)(F)€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôhas€construed€that€statute€toÐ `° Ðpermit€claims€against€the€state€only€when€the€negligence€of€a€state€employee€in€the€care,€custody,€orÐ L œ Ðcontrol€of€personal€property€has€resulted€in€the€damage€or€loss€of€that€particular€item€of€personalÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperty€itself.׃H×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔThis€having€been€said,€however,€the€precise€issue€of€whetherÔf  ÔÔg Ô€section€„307(a)(1)(F)Ð $ t ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôpermits€claims€for€damage€to€persons€òòcaused€by€óóthe€negligent€care,€custody,€or€control€of€personalÐ  ` Ðproperty€was€not€addressed€by€any€of€these€opinions,€and€it€remains€an€issue€of€first€impression€inÐ ü L  Ðthis€state.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€urges€this€Court€to€applyÔf  ÔÔg Ô€a€liberal€construction€to€this€subsectionÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€andÔf  ÔÔg Ô€allowÐ À  Ðclaims€of€personal€injury€resulting€fromÔf  ÔÔg Ô€theÔf  ÔÔg Ô€negligent€care,€custody,€or€control€of€personal€property.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔBecauseÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôlanguage€ofÔf  ÔÔg Ô€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(F)€is€subject€to€various€interpretations,€and€becauseÐ ˜è  Ðthe€plaintiffððs€interpretation€is€not€clearly€contrary€to€the€language€of€the€statute,€a€liberalÐ „Ô  Ðconstruction€of€this€statute€counsels€against€construing€it€strictly€to€apply€only€to€claims€for€damageÐ pÀ Ðto€the€property€itself.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€plaintiff€that€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(F)€doesÐ \¬ Ðpermit€claims€against€the€state€for€damages€òòcaused€by€óóthe€negligent€care,€custody€or€control€ofÐ H˜ Ðpersonal€property€by€state€employees.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€response,€the€State€argues€that€such€a€construction€would€render€inoperative€two€otherÐ  \ ÐspecificÔf  ÔÔg Ô€grants€of€jurisdictionÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô:Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€section€„307(a)(1)(A)Ôf  ÔÔg Ô,€whichÔf  ÔÔg Ô€permits€claims€arising€from€theÐ øH Ðð ðnegligent€operation€or€maintenance€of€any€motor€vehicle,ðð€and€section€„307(a)(1)(M)Ôf  ÔÔg Ô,€whichÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ ä4 Ðpermits€claims€arising€from€the€ð ð[n]egligent€operation€of€machinery€or€equipment.ðð€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔWe€disagree.€Ð Ð  ÐIn€the€typical€case,€the€proof€needed€to€satisfy€the€element€of€negligent€òòmaintenance€óóor€òòoperationóó€ofÐ ¼  Ðautomobiles€or€machinery€is€much€different€than€the€proof€needed€to€establishÔf  ÔÔg Ô€care,€custody,€orÐ ¨ø Ðcontrol€of€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôthose€same€itemsÔf  ÔÔg Ô€ofÔf  ÔÔg Ô€personal€property.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔIndeed,€as€can€be€seen€in€this€case,€the€element€ofÐ ”ä Ðcontrol€simply€does€not€equate€to€that€of€operation€or€maintenance,€because€while€Trooper€Ray€hadÐ €Ð Ðcontrol€of€the€Nova€prior€to€his€release€of€the€car,€he€was€not€involved€in€its€maintenance€orÐ l¼ Ðoperation.€€Because€section€„307(a)(1)(F)€contemplates€a€different€type€of€liability€than€either€sectionÐ ° Є307(a)(1)(A)€or€section€„307(a)(1)(M),€we€conclude€that€a€liberal€construction€of€section€9„8„Ð œì Ð307(a)(1)(F)€will€not€render€any€other€provision€of€the€act€unnecessary€or€mere€surplusage.€€As€such,Ð ˆØ Ðthis€Court€may€liberally€construe€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€under€this€provision€andÐ tÄ Ðstill€give€effect€to€the€remaining€grants€of€jurisdiction€in€section€9„8„307(a).€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àNevertheless,€even€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôapplying€a€liberal€constructionÔf  ÔÔg Ô€toÔf  ÔÔg Ô€section€„307(a)(1)(F)€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôto€permit€claimsÐ 8 ˆ Ðarising€from€the€negligent€control€of€personal€property,€we€find€that€jurisdiction€is€still€notÔf  ÔÔg Ô€presentÐ $ t Ðunder€this€provision€in€this€case.€€As€soon€as€Trooper€Ray€properly€released€the€vehicle,€which€wasÐ  ` Ðin€operating€condition€at€the€time€of€the€release,€hisÔf  ÔÔg Ô€legalÔf  ÔÔg Ô€duty€as€to€the€care,€custody,€and€controlÐ ü L  Ðof€that€vehicle€ended.€€When€the€vehicle€later€stalled€in€the€middle€of€the€road,€the€person€to€whomÐ è 8  Ðthe€car€was€released€requested€that€the€òòdeputiesóó,€not€Trooper€Ray,€assist€her€in€moving€the€car.€€It€isÐ Ô$  Ðundisputed€that€the€deputies€did€not€seek€permission€from€Ray€in€order€to€move€the€car,€and€no€oneÐ À  Ðtestified€that€Ray€gave€any€instructions€to€do€so.€€When€the€deputies€complied€with€this€request,Ð ¬ü  Ðtherefore,€they€alone€assumed€the€duty€of€reasonable€care€with€regard€to€the€stalled€car.€€BecauseÐ ˜è  ÐTrooper€Ray€did€not€reassume€control€or€custody€of€the€Nova€at€any€point€after€his€proper€and€lawfulÐ „Ô  Ðrelease€of€the€car,€he€cannot€be€said,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€owe€a€duty€to€others€to€exercise€reasonableÐ pÀ Ðcare,€custody,€or€control€of€that€car.׃>×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€Claims€Commission€was€alsoÐ \¬ Ðwithout€jurisdiction€to€hear€and€adjudicate€the€plaintiffððs€claim€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(F).׃Oü ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òALLOCATION€OF€FAULTó óÐ  p ÐÌÓ׬Óà  àBecause€we€have€concluded€that€the€Claims€Commission€was€without€jurisdiction€over€theÐ øH Ðplaintiffððs€claims€against€the€State,€the€issue€of€whether€the€plaintiff€was€fifty€percent€(50%)€or€moreÐ ä4 Ðat€fault€for€his€accident€has€been€rendered€moot.€€Therefore,€we€reach€no€determination€as€to€theÐ Ð  Ðpropriety€of€the€commissionerððs€findings€in€this€regard.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ ”ä ЇÓà®Óà  àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€in€this€case€was€withoutÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€to€award€monetary€claims€against€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Because€we€conclude€as€aÐ œì Ðmatter€of€law€that€Trooper€Ray€neither€possessed€nor€assumed€a€legal€duty€to€control€local€policeÐ ˆØ Ðauthorities€at€the€arrest€scene,€we€hold€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€finding€jurisdiction€underÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(E),€which€permits€claims€against€the€state€for€theÐ `° Ðð ð[n]egligent€care,€custody,€and€control€of€persons.ðð€€Moreover,€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôwhile€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(F)Ð L œ ÐappliesÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€claims€for€damage€or€loss€to€personal€propertyÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€as€well€asÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€claims€for€personal€injuryÐ 8 ˆ Ðòòcaused€by€óónegligent€control€of€personal€property,€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€finding€that€theÐ $ t ÐClaims€Commission€possessed€jurisdiction€under€this€section€as€well.€€Finally,€as€we€have€concludedÐ  ` Ðthat€the€Claims€Commission€was€without€jurisdiction€over€the€plaintiffððs€claims,€we€decline€to€reachÐ ü L  Ðthe€issue€of€whether€the€plaintiff€was€more€than€fifty€percent€(50%)€at€fault€for€his€accident.€Ð è 8  ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€finding€that€the€Claims€Commission€properlyÐ Ô$  Ðexercised€jurisdiction€is€reversed,€and€the€plaintiffððs€claim€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€isÐ À  Ðdismissed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€plaintiff/appellee,€Larry€W.€Stewart,€for€whichÐ „Ô  Ðexecution€shall€issue€if€necessary.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________________Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICE