Opinion ID: 2831207
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The GTLA

Text: The doctrine of sovereign immunity, which provides that suit may not be brought against the government unless the government has consented to be sued, Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tenn. 1996), originated in “feudal notions of the divine right of kings. In feudal England the King was at the very pinnacle of the power structure and was answerable to no court since „the King can do no wrong,‟” Cruse v. City of Columbia, 922 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tenn. 1996) (quoting Cooper v. Rutherford Cnty., 531 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Tenn. 1975) (Henry, J., dissenting)). This common law doctrine is now embodied in the Tennessee Constitution, which provides that “[s]uits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 17. In 1973, the Legislature enacted the GTLA, which reaffirmed generally the grant of sovereign immunity provided at common law and in the Tennessee Constitution by stating that “all governmental entities shall be immune from suit for any injury which may result from the activities of such governmental entities wherein such governmental entities are engaged in the exercise and discharge of any of their functions, governmental or proprietary.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201(a). However, in addition to reaffirming the general grant of immunity, the GTLA also enumerates certain statutory exceptions where governmental immunity is specifically removed. Id. § 29-20-202(a) (immunity removed for injuries resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or other equipment by a governmental employee in the scope of employment); id. § 29-20-203(a) (immunity removed for injuries caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition on a public roadway or sidewalk); id. § 29-20-204(a) (immunity removed for injuries caused by dangerous or defective conditions associated with public structures or improvements); id. § 29-20-205 (immunity removed for injuries caused by the negligence of governmental employees with certain exceptions). Furthermore, the GTLA also lists -5- specific types of claims for which immunity is not removed. Id. § 29-20-205(2) (immunity not removed for “[f]alse imprisonment . . . , false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional trespass, abuse of process, libel, slander, deceit, interference with contract rights, infliction of mental anguish, invasion of right of privacy, or civil rights”); Hughes v. Metro. Gov‟t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 369-70 (Tenn. 2011) (discussing the manner in which section 29-20-205(2) applies); Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 84 (Tenn. 2001) (same). Claims against governmental entities where sovereign immunity is removed by the GTLA have other restrictions imposed on them as well. Such claims must be brought within twelve months of when the cause of action arises. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-305. Furthermore, “circuit courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over any action brought under [the GTLA] and shall hear and decide such suits without the intervention of a jury.” Id. § 29-20-307.