Curtis Pierce v. State of Tennessee
M2020-00533-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jun 25, 2021Background:
- On June 9, 2019, two-year-old Steven Pierce drowned at Cummins Falls State Park after a sudden flash flood; his parents Curtis and Hannah Pierce sued the State for negligence and gross negligence.
- Plaintiffs sued in the Tennessee Claims Commission invoking § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) (dangerous conditions on state property) and (E) (care, custody, control of persons), and alleged the State assumed duties (per § 9-8-307(c)).
- The complaint alleged prior 2017 flash-flood deaths at the park, a promised but uninstalled stream gauge system, life jackets located at the falls (not at the Trail Waypoint), and emergency instructions by rangers that changed during the event.
- The State moved to dismiss based on Tennessee’s Recreational Use Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-101 et seq.), arguing it immunized the State from the Pierces’ claims and that (E) did not cover mere visitors.
- The Claims Commission dismissed the complaint: holding the recreational use statute barred the claims, that the Pierces were not within § 9-8-307(a)(1)(E), and that assumed-duty allegations did not avoid recreational-use immunity.
- The Pierces appealed; the Court of Appeals reviews de novo and affirms dismissal for the reasons below.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102 (recreational-use immunity) bars recovery under § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) for dangerous conditions on state land. | Pierces: activity was recreational but exceptions apply (gross negligence and § 70-7-104(a)(2) exception), so immunity should not bar recovery. | State: recreational-use immunity applies; exceptions don't, because the hazardous condition (floodwaters) was created by forces of nature and § 70-7-104(a)(2) is inapplicable. | Held: Immunity applies; gross-negligence exception inapplicable where dangerous condition was created by forces of nature; § 70-7-104(a)(2) does not rescue plaintiffs. |
| Whether § 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) (negligent care, custody, control of persons) gives Claims Commission jurisdiction for Steven’s death. | Pierces: State assumed duties and thus had custody/care/control over park visitors. | State: Steven was a visitor, not in State’s care/custody/control; (E) targets persons actually under State control. | Held: (E) does not apply; Steven was not in State care/custody/control, so no jurisdiction under that provision. |
| Whether voluntary/assumed duties by a landowner can negate recreational-use immunity (i.e., plaintiff reliance on State’s assumed duties to warn/install gauges/lifesaving measures). | Pierces: State undertook duties (promised gauge system, provided life jackets, gave instructions) so assumed-duty liability should allow recovery despite RUS. | State: Allowing liability for gratuitous undertakings would nullify the RUS, discourage precautions, and the statute contains no exception for assumed duties tied to risks the statute immunizes. | Held: Assumed-duty theory does not overcome the recreational-use immunity here; the statute does not permit waiver for voluntary undertakings of duties that RUS immunizes. |
| Whether the recreational-use affirmative defense may be resolved on a motion to dismiss. | Pierces: (implicit) exceptions may exist and need development. | State: RUS is an affirmative defense that plainly appears on the complaint’s face, so dismissal is proper. | Held: Because the complaint’s allegations admit the elements of the recreational-use defense and no applicable exception is pleaded, dismissal on that basis was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parent v. State, 991 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1999) (adopts two‑pronged test for recreational‑use immunity: whether activity is recreational and whether statutory exceptions apply)
- Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000) (Claims Commission may have jurisdiction based on assumed duties under § 9-8-307)
- Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010) (discusses overlap among care, custody, and control language)
- Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2012) (affirmative defenses can justify dismissal only if they clearly appear on the complaint’s face)
- Cagle v. United States, 937 F.2d 1073 (6th Cir. 1991) (interpreting Tennessee recreational-use provision and the ambiguity over exceptions for third‑party acts)
- Klepper v. City of Milford, 825 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1987) (refusing to apply common‑law gratuitous‑undertaking liability to circumvent a recreational‑use statute)
- Palmer v. United States, 945 F.2d 1134 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejects volunteer‑duty exception to recreational‑use immunity; finds such exception would disincentivize safety measures)
- Stann v. Waukesha County, 468 N.W.2d 775 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991) (refuses to allow assumed‑duty claims to avoid recreational‑use immunity)