under Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(C). In ruling upon the Rule 12.02(6) motion, the court declined to assume that the exceptions to the statutory immunity conferred by Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 70-7-101 et seq. would not apply. ANALYSIS Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ Complaint The State argues that the plaintiffs’ claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The State’s argument is premised upon the contention that the recreational use statute creates the plaintiffs’ cause of action. The State therefore argues that the complaint must allege one of the exceptions to immunity provided in the recreational use statute. We disagree. The statutory right against the-State as a landowner is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(C). See Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). The State generally may be held liable for
holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties recognizing that section 8227082 of the kansas statutes codifies the lost volume recovery for the sale of goods recognizing that tenncode ann  98307alc removes the states immunity and codifies the common law obligations of the owner or occupier of land holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute