Day on Torts
The special duty exception to GTLA immunity did not apply where the police department in question owed a duty to investigate a crime to the public at large, and the plaintiff could not use the reckless misconduct special duty exception because the GTLA does not remove immunity for recklessness.
In Franklin v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, No. W2023-01142-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2025), the plaintiff was kidnapped and raped at gunpoint. She reported the crime to the local police immediately, but the plaintiff alleged that in the following months the police failed to investigate and pursue the case diligently. The plaintiff asserted in her complaint that the police had information pointing to the perpetrator but failed to make an arrest, and that they failed to process her rape kit in an expedited matter. When the rape kit was processed, the perpetrator was identified and arrested, but by that time he had already kidnapped and murdered another woman.
The plaintiff filed this claim under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”), asserting that the defendant city was liable for the police department’s negligence. The city moved for dismissal, which the trial court granted pursuant to the public duty doctrine of the GTLA. Dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
When a case is filed under the GTLA, the “threshold question is whether immunity has been removed under the GTLA.” (internal citation omitted). The trial court ruled that the GTLA “waived immunity for the negligent acts of the police department because the alleged acts were operational, not discretionary,” and the Court of Appeals accepted this determination as correct for purposes of considering the appeal.
Having determined that immunity was waived, the next consideration was whether the public duty doctrine acted as a defense for the city. The public duty doctrine “shields governmental entities and their employees from suits for injuries that are caused by the…breach of a duty owed to the public at large.” (internal citation omitted). The duty in this case, “to protect a citizen from harm and to arrest a suspected criminal,” are considered public duties. The plaintiff’s claim therefore failed unless the special duty of care exception to the public duty doctrine applied.
The Court wrote that the Tennessee Supreme Court has “adopted three scenarios that justify application of a special duty of care,” and that the plaintiff here alleged that two applied. First, a special duty of care can exist if the “officials, by their actions, affirmatively undertook to protect her and she relied upon the undertaking.” The Court found that this exception did not apply, however, because the complaint did not “indicate that the police department assumed a special duty to protect [the plaintiff] in particular.”
The second special duty of care exception that the plaintiff argued was applicable relates to when the complaint “alleges a cause of action involving intent, malice, or reckless misconduct.” While the trial court found that the complaint alleged reckless misconduct, the Court of Appeals explained that this allegation did not allow the plaintiff to proceed under the special duty exception. The Court looked to Lawson v. Hawkins County, 661 S.W.3d 54 (Tenn. 2023) and other previous cases. It explained that the GTLA does not waive immunity for recklessness, and that the special duty exception “cannot be used to remove immunity afforded by the GTLA.” The Court wrote that “based upon the law as it exists today, …[the plaintiff] cannot apply the special duty exception for recklessness.” The Court of Appeals held that because the plaintiff “cannot assert a claim for reckless misconduct against the City, she cannot avail herself of this method of satisfying the special duty exception.” Dismissal of the case was therefore affirmed.
This opinion points out the continued contradiction surrounding reckless misconduct and the special duty exception that plaintiffs may face when navigating GTLA claims, and it is an important read for GTLA claimants who may be thinking about alleging recklessness in their complaint.
This opinion was released five months after oral arguments.