OPINION
This case involves a challenge to the sovereign immunity of the State of Tennessee and its departments or agencies. The appellant, Maureen Sweeney, was involved in a single-car accident on U.S. Highway 41Á west of Sewanee, Tennessee, which left her paralyzed from the neck down. The driver of the automobile in which the appellant was a passеnger lost control of the vehicle while rounding a sharp curve. Approximately two years before the accident, the State Department of Transportation had redesignеd and reconstructed that section of the highway. The appellant contends that the rеconstruction resulted in an unsafe and dangerous condition which proximately caused thе accident and her injuries.
Ms. Sweeney sued the State of Tennessee Department of Trаnsportation, alleging that the Department had negligently created and willfully maintained a dеfective, unsafe and dangerous highway condition which posed a nuisance to the publiс. The State Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdic
Ms. Sweeney appeals the dismissal of her action, contending that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be judicially abolished or that the State is liable despite its immunity because the condition of the highway constituted a trap. The appellant further contends оn appeal that the Tennessee Claims Commission is unconstitutional under Article 1, § 17 and Article 6, § 4 оf the Tennessee Constitution.
Article 1, § 17 states, in relevant part, “Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.” Our Supreme Court has held that this section must be strictly construed.
State ex rel. Allen v. Cook,
Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a) clеarly and unequivocally expresses the Legislature’s position on this question.
(a) No court in the state shall have any power, jurisdiction, or authority to entertain any suit against the state, or against any officer of the state acting by authority of the state, with a view to reach thе state, its treasury, funds, or property, and all such suits shall be dismissed as to the state or such officers, on motion, plea, or demurrer of the law officer of the state, or counsel emрloyed for the state.
Not only has the Legislature declined to authorize suits against the State, it has unequivocally stated that the courts have no power, jurisdiction or authority to entеrtain such suits, regardless of the merits of the case. As this court said in
Jones v.L& N Railroad Co.,
The appellant also asserts that the Tennessee Claims Commission is unconstitutional because its members are not elected by the qualified voters of the district or circuit as required by Article 6, § 4 of the Tennessee Constitution for judges of the Circuit, Chancery, and other inferior courts. However, that issue was not raised and tried in the court below, although the trial judge did offer his opinion on the mаtter as gratis dictum.
The jurisdiction of this court is appellate only. Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-4-108,
John Weis, Inc. v. Reed,
It has long been the general rule that questions not raised in the trial court will not be entertained on appeal аnd this rule applies to an attempt to make a constitutional attack upon the vаlidity of a statute for the first time on appeal unless the statute involved is so obviously unconstitutional on its face as to obviate the necessity for any discussion. City of Elizabethton v. Carter County,204 Tenn. 452 ,321 S.W.2d 822 (1958); Veach v. State, Tenn.,491 S.W.2d 81 (1973); Harrison v. Schrader, Tenn.,569 S.W.2d 822 (1978); Dorrier v. Dark, Tenn.,537 S.W.2d 888 , rehearing540 S.W.2d 658 (1976).
The statute creating the Tennessee Claims Commission is not so obviously un
The judgment of the court below dismissing the appellant’s claim is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Davidson County for any further proceedings necessary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.