Danny Hale v. State of Tennessee, E2016-00249-COA-R3-CV

Terry Releford, convicted of aggravated rape and other violent offenses, had a judgment that did not include the lifetime community‑supervision notation required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‑13‑524; TDOC requested a corrected judgment but none was ever entered and Releford was released in May 2012 without lifetime supervision.
After release Releford married Tammy Hale; in May 2013 he murdered Hale (who was pregnant) and raped one of her daughters.
Hale’s father, Danny Hale (Claimant), sued in the Tennessee Claims Commission under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9‑8‑307(a)(1)(E) for negligent care, custody, and control, alleging TDOC (and earlier judicial/prosecutorial officials) negligently failed to obtain the corrected judgment imposing lifetime supervision.
The Claims Commissioner dismissed claims against judicial/prosecutorial officials (immunity / abandoned) and treated the remaining claim as effectively a claim for negligent deprivation of statutory rights based on failure to comply with § 39‑13‑524, which does not create a private right of action; Commissioner alternatively found lack of foreseeability for a negligent‑control theory.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: the substantive allegations were predicated on failure to follow § 39‑13‑524 (no private right of action), so the Claims Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim under the negligent‑control category.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appeal should be dismissed for failure to challenge basis of dismissal	Claimant generally appeals denial of relief	State: Claimant did not contest the Commissioner’s primary ground (claim is negligent deprivation of statutory rights; § 39‑13‑524 confers no private right)	Not dismissed; appellate review allowed because a valid issue was presented
Whether judicial/prosecutorial officials are immune	Claimant: officials entitled only to qualified immunity and were not performing prosecutorial functions here	State: claims against officials were abandoned in amended complaint; immunity applies	Waived/abandoned; dismissal affirmed
Whether TDOC is liable under § 9‑8‑307(a)(1)(E) for negligent care/custody/control	Claimant: TDOC assumed duty to secure corrected judgment; breach foreseeably led to Hale’s death and child’s rape	State: Claim is actually negligent deprivation of statutory rights dependent on § 39‑13‑524, which supplies no private cause of action	Held for State: claim is grounded in failure to enforce § 39‑13‑524 (no private right), so Claims Commission lacks jurisdiction; negligent‑control theory also rejected on foreseeability grounds

Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000) (sovereign immunity and limits on suits against the State)
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000) (sovereign immunity principles)
Jones v. L & N R.R. Co., 617 S.W.2d 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (sovereign immunity is constitutional/statutory and courts cannot amend it)
Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. 1991) (Claims Commission factual findings review standard)
Crew One Prods., Inc. v. State, 149 S.W.3d 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (questions of law reviewed de novo in Claims Commission appeals)
Mosely v. State, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (claims framed as negligent control but premised on failure to follow statute are properly treated as negligent deprivation of statutory rights)