Penny Lawson v. Hawkins County, TN, E2020-01529-COA-R3-CV

Background

Feb. 21, 2019: Decedent died after his vehicle drove into a chasm where State Highway 70 on Clinch Mountain had washed out during a storm. Another motorist was also injured.
Before the crash, a citizen called 911 (~12:58 a.m.) reporting trees down and the road partly blocked; dispatch noted the hazard would cause motorists to "go off the road."
Officer Godsey, already on a stop, arrived on scene and repeatedly reported an active, large mudslide, sliding trees, and a swinging power pole; dispatchers spoke with TDOT, Holston Electric, and EMA, but no road closure or immediate preventive measures were taken for nearly an hour.
Plaintiffs alleged systemic failures (nepotism in hiring, inadequate training, withheld recordings, failure to act) by ECD‑911, Hawkins County, and the EMA, and sued under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness.
Trial Court granted defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, ruling (1) claims of recklessness could not proceed against governmental entities under the GTLA and (2) the public duty doctrine barred recovery because no special duty had been undertaken. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GTLA permits suits against governmental entities for employee conduct characterized as gross negligence or recklessness	Lawson: GTLA waives immunity for negligent acts and should allow suits when plaintiff pleads gross negligence/recklessness tied to entity failures	County/EMA: GTLA does not waive immunity for heightened negligence (gross negligence/recklessness); such claims cannot be sued against entities under GTLA	Court: GTLA permits suits based on heightened negligence when pled as failures of the governmental entity; Trial Court erred to the extent it held recklessness categorically barred
Whether plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim of recklessness/gross negligence	Lawson: Complaint alleges conscious awareness and disregard of a substantial, unjustifiable risk (delays, withheld recordings, systemic failures) sufficient for recklessness/gross negligence	County/EMA: Allegations amount to at most negligent judgment calls; plaintiffs’ characterizations are legal conclusions insufficient to establish recklessness	Court: On a motion on the pleadings, allegations (and reasonable inferences) suffice to state claims of recklessness and gross negligence
Whether public duty doctrine bars recovery or a special‑duty exception applies	Lawson: Third special‑duty exception (intent, malice, or reckless misconduct) applies because recklessness is alleged; immunity thus removed	County/EMA: Duties were to the public at large; no special duty undertaken to Decedent; public duty doctrine shields entities	Court: Public duty doctrine applies generally, but the third special‑duty exception (reckless misconduct) removes immunity here based on plaintiffs’ pleaded facts; Trial Court erred in dismissing on that ground

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Hamilton Cnty., 126 S.W.3d 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (special‑duty exception can remove immunity where government conduct is reckless/systemic failures)
Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011) (distinguishing intentional torts from negligence for GTLA waiver issues)
Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. 1995) (articulating the three special‑duty exceptions to the public duty doctrine)
Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of a negligence claim under Tennessee law)
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (definition of recklessness in Tennessee law)
Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1997) (standards for negligence claims under the GTLA)
Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (definition and discussion of gross negligence)
Moreno v. City of Clarksville, 479 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2015) (GTLA must be strictly construed as it waives sovereign immunity)