Court Opinion

ID: 9684343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:54:17.853615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:55.169228
License: Public Domain

HENRY, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion because this appeal presents the narrow and limited question of the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to the State of Tennessee, its agencies and departments. I agree that it does not apply.
My concurrence, however, is prompted by the fact that § 23-3302 T.C.A., containing definitions, is somewhat ambiguous. Reference to the legislative debates clears up the ambiguity and leaves no doubt that this legislation embraces only cities, counties, and other subordinate governments.
If I accepted the spurious “arm of the state” theory of governmental immunity, consistency of approach would demand a different conclusion. See dissenting opinion, Cooper v. Rutherford County, 531 S.W.2d 783 (Tenn.1975). This necessarily follows from the fact that the “arm of the state” theory proceeds upon the assumption that cities and counties are “political subdivisions” of the state, and, hence, the state’s immunity trickles down to them, while acting in their governmental capacity. Under this theory, § 23-3302 T.C.A. would encompass all “political subdivisions” of the state, to include agencies and departments thereof, and the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act would be applicable also to the State. This follows from the fact that the statute would be facially unambiguous and there could be no resort to the legislative debates. H. Wetter Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 458 F.2d 1033 (6th Cir. 1972).
But I do not accept the specious “arm of the state” argument and, therefore, concur in the results reached by the majority without being in full agreement with their reasoning.
I emphasize that this appeal does not fairly raise the issue of the sovereign immunity of the state. There is no necessity for this Court to address the meaning of the constitutional declaration that
Suits may be brought against the state .
Nor is it necessary or appropriate to comment upon the constitutionality of § 20-1702 T.C.A. or any other statutory enactment in derogation of Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of Tennessee.