ÿWPCX …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ýw@ 4Y m U D| 0lÀ 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl Ô 0rÜ 0|N 0†Ê 0P 1uà U,U 0dU,åU>B)ODCx AM»U* B2 D3O#‚}¥ 0@"v~bvÓà AO³Æ 0DÈ D/  B;˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman EUUUîÓ€$Gav Bu ÔôŒ3|x$8 ±ZŠ,Century-WP Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d))))'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌApril€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔT.C.A€Ô€ Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô55„8„133€(1993)€provides:Ìà8 àà8 àò òÔ€ Ô55„8„133.Ô€Ô€€Pedestrians€subject€to€trafficÏregulationsó ó.€„€(a)€Pedestrians€shall€be€subject€toÏtraffic„control€signals€at€intersections€as€providedÏin€ðð€55„8„110,€and€at€all€other€places,€pedestriansÏshall€be€accorded€the€privileges€and€shall€beÏsubject€to€the€restrictions€stated€in€this€chapterÏand€chapter€10,€parts€1„5€of€this€title.Ìà8 àà8 àÌà àT.C.A€Ô€ Ô€ðð€Ô€ Ô55„8„135€(1993)Ô€Ô€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 àà8 àò ò55„8„135.€€Crossing€at€other€thanÏcrosswalks.ó 󀄀(a)€Every€pedestrian€crossing€aÏroadway€at€any€point€other€than€within€a€markedÏcrosswalk€or€within€an€unmarked€crosswalk€at€anÏintersection€shall€yield€the€right„of„way€to€allÏvehicles€upon€the€roadway.ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ7€E{XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙßL€'+&;+'h|Õ` ç `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òRILEY€E.€TURNER,€AS€ADMINISTRATORÌOF€THE€ESTATE€OF€MARGARET€BENEFIELD,€ó óÌÌà àClaimant„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClaims€Commission€#205294ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9508„BC00371ÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€TENNESSEE€CLAIMS€COMMISSIONÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€C.€E.€MURRAY,€COMMISSIONERÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àJ.€P.€Bradley€of€WaverlyÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àGeorge€H.€Coffin,€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDó óÌÌà@ àóóOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÓÓ›à àPlaintiff€Riley€E.€Turner,€administrator€of€the€estate€of€MargaretÏBenefield,€appeals€from€the€order€of€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÏthat€dismissed€his€suit€for€the€wrongful€death€of€Ms.€Benefield.€€Ìà àMs.€Benefield,€a€pedestrian,€was€killed€when€she€was€struck€by€aÏvehicle€driven€by€Ms.€Joyce€Davis.€€The€accident€occurred€on€FebruaryÏ24,€1992,€after€dark€at€approximately€6:25€p.m.€at€the€intersection€ofÏCooley€Street€and€State€Highway€70€(Bypass)€in€Waverly,€Tennessee.€€œAtÏthis€intersection,€the€Bypass›€œis›€a€divided€highway.€€The€intersection€isÏcontrolled€by€traffic€control€signals,€but€there€are€no€designatedÍcrosswalks,€no€street€lights,€and€no€pedestrian€signal€lights€or€otherÏpedestrian€accommodations.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€Ms.€Davis€wasÏproceeding€in€the€left€lane€of€the€œtwo„lane›€eastbound€œroadway.€€AtÏtrial,€Ms.€Davis€testified›€that€a€traffic€light€controlling€eastboundÏtraffic€was€green€for€some€œtime€prior€to€her€approach€and€entrance€intoÏthe›€intersection.€€œMs.€Davis€testified›€that€she€saw€Ms.€Benefield€only€anÏinstant€before€impact.€€The€record€reflects€that€Ms.€Benefield€wasÏcrossing€the€Bypass€Highway€from€the€north€to€the€south€in€a€diagonalÏmanner,€and€she€was€struck€approximately€in€the€middle€of€theÏintersection.€€A€diagram€of€the€scene€of€the€accident,€including€theÏapproximate€position€of€the€Davis€vehicle€and€Ms.€Benefield,€wasÏintroduced€into€evidence€and€is€attached€as€an€addendum€to€this€œopinion.Ô€ Ô›€Ìà àÔ€ÔThe€Highway€70€Bypass€is€a€"limited€access"€highway,€and€theÏtraffic€signal€system€on€the€Bypass€is€designed€so€that€traffic€on€theÏBypass€will€continually€flow.€€The€Bypass€traffic€signals€which€controlÏboth€the€œeastbound›€and€the€œwestbound›€traffic€are€designed€to€stayÏcontinually€green€unless€a€vehicle€enters€one€of€the€streets€whichÏintersect€the€Bypass.€€Once€a€vehicle€reaches€a€certain€proximity€to€anÏintersection€of€the€Bypass,€a€sensor€in€the€pavement€changes€the€lightsÍfacing€motorists€on€the€Bypass€from€green€to€red€thereby€allowingÏtraffic€from€the€intersecting€street€to€cross€the€Bypass.€€TheÏtestimony€at€trial€indicates€that€traffic€on€the€Bypass€is€stopped€forÏvarying€lengths€of€time€depending€upon€the€number€of€vehicles€whichÏcross€the€Bypass.€€The€length€of€the€green€light€stopping€the€œeast„west›Ïtraffic€on€the€Bypass,€and€allowing€the€œnorth„south›€traffic€€on€CooleyÏœStreet›€to€cross€the€Bypass,€operated€on€the€"sensor"€system.€€That€is,Ïthe€length€of€the€€red€lights€facing€the€œeast„west›€Bypass€trafficÏdepended€upon€the€number€of€cars€on€Cooley€Street€attempting€to€crossÏthe€Bypass;€the€length€of€the€red€light€had€nothing€to€do€with€pedestrianÏcrossings.€Ô€ Ô€€€ÌÔ€ Ôà àÔ€ÔPrior€to€the€accident,€Ms.€Benefield€was€walking€from€her€home€inÏthe€Richland€Avenue€community€apparently€attempting€to€reachÏdowntown€Waverly.€€Richland€Avenue€community€is€a€small€communityÏpredominately€consisting€of€€lower€income€families€and€the€elderly.€ÏDue€to€the€economic€situation€in€the€Richland€community,€many€of€theÏresidents€do€not€own€automobiles€and€therefore,€walk€to€the€businessÏdistrict.€€Ìà àBefore€the€Bypass€was€constructed€and€opened€to€traffic,ÍRichland€Avenue€directly€connected€with€the€Waverly€business€district,Ïand€residents€of€the€Richland€community€would€walk€on€RichlandÏdirectly€to€the€downtown€area.€€The€Bypass€traverses€Richland€Avenue,Ïand€once€it€was€opened,€it€cut€off€Richland€Avenue€from€the€downtownÏbusiness€district.€€When€the€œBypass›€was€opened,€Richland€AvenueÏsimply€ended€at€the€Bypass,€and€Richland€was€fenced€off.€€The€recordÏindicates€that€there€was€also€a€fence€surrounding€the€Cooley„BypassÏintersection,€and€that€the€fence€was€apparently€designed€to€preventÏpedestrians€from€crossing€the€œBypass€in€the€vicinity€of€theÏintersection.›Ì€à àApparently,€the€citizens€of€the€Richland€community€and€WaverlyÏelected€officials€were€very€concerned€about€the€closing€of€the€RichlandÏAvenue€route€to€downtown€Waverly,€because€it€was€the€most€directÏroute€to€downtown€œfor€pedestrians.›€€As€a€result€of€this€concern,€theÏHumphreys€County€Commission€passed€a€resolution€in€1989€resolvingÏthat€the€county€executive€extend€to€city€and€state€officials€theÏcitizens'€concerns€and€their€desire€for€a€pedestrian€overpass€or€otherÏmeans€of€access€to€downtown€Waverly€from€Richland€Avenue.€€Acting€onÏthe€resolution,€Humphreys€County€Commissioner€Robert€Reid€wrote€aÍletter€to€then€Department€of€Transportation€Commissioner€James€M.ÏEvans€requesting€that€Richland€Avenue€remain€a€through€street€in€orderÏto€avoid€"severe€problems€for€the€residents€of€.€.€.€[Richland€Avenue]."€ÏThe€letter€is€undated,€but€was€apparently€written€prior€to€the€death€ofÏMs.€Benefield.€€Ìà àThe€Mayor€of€Waverly,€Jess€S.€Bowen,€also€wrote€a€letter€datedÏMay€9,€1989,€to€Commissioner€Evans€requesting€that€additional€lightingÏbe€installed€on€the€Bypass€in€order€to€ensure€public€safety€atÏthoroughfares.€€By€letter€dated€June€12,€1989,€œCommissioner›€EvansÏresponded€that€a€safety€study€would€be€made€after€the€œBypass€was›Ïœopened›€to€traffic.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€record€as€to€whether€stateÏengineers€actually€performed€a€safety€study€once€the€Bypass€wasÏopened.à àÔ€ Ô€ÌÔ€Ôà àThe€testimony€at€trial€indicates€that€there€is€a€viaductÏapproximately€225€yards€from€the€Bypass€and€Cooley€StreetÏintersection,€and€that€the€viaduct€is€€essentially€a€œbridge›€œwith€aÏsidewalk€which›€crosses€over€the€Bypass.€€The€viaduct€is€on€œState›ÏœHighway›€13€which€intersects€with€Richland€Avenue.€€The€proofÏindicates€that€a€pedestrian€œcould›€reach€the€viaduct€bridge€œfromÍRichland€Avenue€by›€walking€between€a€quarter€and€a€half€mile€œsouth€on›ÏRichland€to€the€point€where€Richland€intersects€with€Highway€13.€€AÏpedestrian€could€€then€walk€œnorth€another›€quarter€to€a€half€mile€onÏHighway€13€to€the€viaduct€and€safely€cross€the€Bypass.€€A€pedestrianÏcould€also€reach€the€viaduct€by€walking€225€yards€west€of€the€Cooley„Bypass€intersection€to€the€embanked€base€of€the€viaduct€and€thenÏwalking€thirty€to€forty€feet€up€an€inclined€embankment.€€There€is€proof€Ïthat€pedestrians€living€in€the€Richland€Avenue€community€did€not€useÏthe€viaduct€route,€because€it€was€not€"directly€on€the€path€to€go€throughÏtown."€€à àÌà àFollowing€Ms.€Benefield's€death,€her€administrator€brought€thisÏsuit€alleging€that€the€œstate›€was€negligent€in€designing,€planning,€andÏœmaintaining›€the€Highway€70€Bypass€and€Cooley€Street€intersection,Ïbecause€the€œstate›€knew€that€pedestrians€frequently€crossed€theÏintersection,€yet€no€pedestrian€accommodations€were€ever€installed€orÏconstructed€in€order€to€ensure€the€safety€of€pedestrians.€€After€aÏhearing,€the€commissioner€dismissed€the€plaintiff's€claims,€holdingÏthat€the€œstate›€was€not€negligent€in€the€planning,€maintenance,€or€designÏof€the€Bypass€and€intersection,€because€it€was€not€foreseeable€that€aÍpedestrian€would€circumvent€a€barrier€fence€and€attempt€to€cross€aÏlimited€access€highway€that€was€not€designed€for€pedestrian€traffic.€ÏThe€commissioner€also€found€that€Ms.€Davis,€the€driver€of€the€van,€wasÏdriving€in€a€"safe€legal€manner"€and€was€not€negligent€in€connectionÏwith€the€accident.€€The€commissioner€concluded:ÌÓÓÔ€ Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€ÔThe€record€reflects€that€a€pedestrian€crossingÏ(overpass)€had€been€built€at€the€time€of€theÏHighway€70€By„Pass€construction€toÏaccommodate€pedestrian€traffic€from€one€sideÏof€that€limited€access€highway€to€the€other.€ÏThis€overpass€is€located€approximately€1/8€toÏ1/4€mile€to€the€West€of€the€accident€scene€atÏthe€intersection€of€Cooley€Street€and€HighwayÏ70€By„Pass.€However,€Ms.€Benefield€would€beÏrequired€to€walk€a€considerable€additionalÏdistance,€some€of€which€was€uphill,€from€herÏhome€to€use€the€crossing€provided€for€œand›Ïdesigned€for€the€use€of€pedestrians.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€It€is€concluded€Ms.€Benefield€elected€toÏattempt€crossing€the€limited€access€Highway€70ÏBy„Pass€at€a€point€not€designed€for€pedestrianÏcrossing,€rather€than€proceed€to€and€use€the€safeÏpedestrian€crossing€provided,€even€though€itÏwould€have€added€considerable€distance€to€herÏtravel€route€across€Highway€70€By„Pass.€€HerÏchoice€to€proceed€along€a€dangerous€path,€withÏwhich€she€was€familiar,€as€opposed€to€the€moreÏlengthy€but€safe€path,€is€concluded€to€haveÏresulted€in€this€tragic€accident.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€It€is€concluded€that€Ms.€Benefield's€actionsÏconstituted€negligence€amounting€to€more€thanÏ49€percent€of€the€negligence€resulting€in€thisÏaccident.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€Therefore€claimant€is€barred€from€recoveryÏunder€the€doctrine€of€comparative€negligenceÏestablished€by€the€Court€in€ò òòòMcIntyre€v.ÏBalentineó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(1992).ÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€has€appealed,€and€the€only€issue€presented€for€review€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€ruling€that€the€state€was€negligentÏin€the€construction€and€design€of€the€intersection.€€Ìà àAfter€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€do€not€find€that€theÏissue€presented€for€review€is€the€dispositive€issue€in€this€appeal.€€TheÏdispositive€issue€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€œMs.€Benefield€was€more€than€forty„nineÏpercent€at€fault€in€casuing€the€accident€that€resulted€in€her€death.€€Ìà àThis€is€a€direct€appeal€from€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÏand€is€governed€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€T.C.A.€ððÏ9„8„403(a)(1)(1992).€€Our€review€of€the€commissioner's€findings€is€òòdeÏnovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€commission€with€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€commissioner's€factual€findings.€€We€must€affirmÏthe€decision€of€the€commissioner,€unless€there€is€an€error€of€law€or€theÍevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€commissioner.ÏT.R.A.P.€13(d);€òòò òSanders€v.€Stateó óóó,€783€S.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€Ì€à àT.C.A.€Ô€ Ôðð€Ô€ Ô9„8„307(a)(1)(I)(Supp.€1995)€Ô€Ôprovides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)(1)€The€commission€or€each€commissionerÏsitting€individually€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€toÏdetermine€all€monetary€claims€against€the€stateÏfalling€within€one€(1)€or€more€of€the€followingÏcategories:€€ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 à(I)€Negligence€in€planning€and€programming€for,Ïinspection€of,€design€of,€preparation€of€plansÏfor,€approval€of€plans€for,€and€construction€of,Ïpublic€roads,€streets,€highways,€or€bridges€andÏsimilar€structures;€and€negligence€inÏmaintenance€of€highways,€and€bridges€andÏsimilar€structures,€designated€by€theÏdepartment€of€transportation€as€being€on€theÏstate€system€of€highways€or€the€state€system€ofÏinterstate€highways€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€Ô€ Ô9„8„307(a)(1)(C)€Ô€Ôprovides€that€a€party€suing€under€thisÏsubsection€"must€establish€the€foreseeability€of€the€risks€and€noticeÏgiven€to€the€proper€state€officials€at€a€time€sufficiently€prior€to€theÏinjury€for€the€state€to€have€taken€appropriate€measures.€.€.€."€€TheÏstate's€liability€"shall€be€based€on€the€traditional€tort€concepts€of€dutyÏand€the€reasonably€prudent€person's€standard€of€care."€€T.C.A.Ô€ Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô9„8„307(c)(Supp.€1995).€€To€prevail€in€a€€suit€for€negligence,€a€plaintiffÏmust€establish€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;Ïconduct€falling€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€amounting€to€aÏbreach€of€that€duty;€injury;€causation€in€fact;€and€proximate€causation.€Ïòòò òBradshaw€v.€Danieló óóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àThe€commissioner€found€that€plaintiffððs€decedent€was€negligentÏin€crossing€at€this€particular€intersection,€because€the€intersectionÏwas€at€least€partially€fenced€to€pedestrian€traffic.€€The€commissionerÏalso€noted€that€there€was€a€viaduct€across€the€Bypass€in€fairly€closeÏproximity€to€the€accident€intersection,€and€that€Ms.€Benefield€wasÏnegligent€because€she€ð ð[chose]€to€proceed€along€a€dangerous€path€withÏwhich€she€was€familiar,€as€opposed€to€the€more€lengthy€but€safe€pathÏ[i.e.,€the€viaduct].ðð€€We€€could€discuss€at€some€length€theÏreasonableness€or€the€unreasonableness€of€the€alternative€route€andÏperhaps€try€to€more€precisely€determine€plaintiffððs€negligence€forÏfailure€to€utilize€the€alternative€route.€€However,€it€is€›unnecessaryœ€toÏreach€these€issues,€because€the€proof€is€uncontroverted€that€Ms.ÏBenefield€was€crossing€the€Bypass€highway€against€a€red€traffic€signal.Ìà àMs.€Davis,€the€driver€of€the€van,€testified€that€at€the€time€sheÍapproached€the€intersection€and€at€the€time€she€drove€through€theÏintersection€immediately€prior€to€colliding€with€Ms.€Benefield,€€theÏintersection€light€facing€eastbound€traffic€was€green.€€TheÏcommissioner€apparently€found€Ms.€Davis's€testimony€to€be€credible,Ïbecause€in€his€order€dismissing€plaintiff's€claim,€he€specifically€foundÏthat€Ms.€Davis€crossed€Cooley€Street€under€a€green€light.€€Implicit€inÏthis€finding€is€that€the€lights€facing€northbound€and€southbound€trafficÏon€Cooley€Street€were€red€at€the€time€of€the€collision.€The€recordÏindicates€that€Ms.€Benefield€was€crossing€the€intersection€diagonallyÏfrom€northwest€to€southeast,€thus€she€proceeded€€in€a€partiallyÏsouthern€direction€when€the€light€facing€southbound€traffic€was€red.€ÏPedestrians€are€subject€to€traffic€signals€at€intersections,× ƒ, ××  ×›€and€Ms.ÍBenefield's€decision€to€cross€the€intersection€against€a€red€light€wasÏnegligent€which€was€at€least€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€negligence,€ifÏany,€of€the€State.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€claims€commissioner€is€affirmed.€€ÏCosts€of€œthis€ÌÌÌappeal›€are€assessed€against€œappellant.€€ÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó óœÔ€ÔÔ€Ô