Opinion ID: 1060920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Latent Defective Conditions

Text: The City also argues that it is immune from suit because the plaintiffs did not prove that the closed valves and inoperable fire hydrants were patently defective conditions rather than latent defective conditions. We disagree. The most basic principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995). Legislative intent is to be ascertained whenever possible from the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used, without forced or subtle construction that would limit or extend the meaning of the language. Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993) (emphasis added). If the legislative intent is expressed in a manner devoid of contradiction and ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation or constructions, and courts are not at liberty to depart from the words of the statute. Id. Where the language contained within the four corners of a statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous, the duty of the courts is simple and obvious, to say sic lex scripta, and obey it. Id., quoting Miller v. Childress, 21 Tenn. (2 Hum.) 320, 321-22 (1841). The GTLA provides that [i]mmunity is not removed for latent defective conditions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-204(b) (1980 Repl.), the Act does not condition the removal of immunity upon proof that injury resulted from a patently dangerous or defective condition. The City's argument that immunity is removed only if a plaintiff proves that the injuries resulted from a patently defective condition is contrary to the plain language of the statute and is without merit. Moreover, latent defect has been defined as [a] hidden or concealed defect. One which could not be discovered by reasonable and customary inspection. Black's Law Dictionary, 794 (5th ed. 1979). The Utah Supreme Court, in construing a statute which, like our own, provided that governmental [i]mmunity is not waived for latent defective conditions, also held that a latent defect is [a] defect which reasonably careful inspection will not reveal. Vincent v. Salt Lake County, 583 P.2d 105, 107 (Utah 1978). The closed valves and inoperable fire hydrants in this case could have been discovered by reasonable and customary inspection. Accordingly, as a matter of law, they were not latent defective conditions for which the City retained immunity.