ÿWPC÷ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX U,Í 0dù U,]U>‰B)ÇDCð AM3U*€ªǪv~qvÓï D3 Bõ 0@ AORÆ¡ 0Dg D/« BÚ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ `Ua b c d ef£ghÓ€tyJÚ K3|xt((3üÝ$¤¤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 öÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òAugust€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ½Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Daileysðð€suit€against€the€Batemans€was€bifurcated.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  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  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌMELINDA€H.€SCOTT€DAILEYó óà à)à àCarroll€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òand€husband,€THOMAS€DAILEYó ó,à à)à àNo.€2893Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9505„CV„00111ÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|7'` ¤ `€€Lßà à)Ìò òLOIS€J.€BATEMAN€and€husband,ó óà à)Ìò òRICKY€BATEMANó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendantsà à)Ìà à)ÌANDà à)Ìà à)Ìò òCITY€OF€McKENZIE,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellant.à à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Carroll€County€at€Huntingdon.Ìò òHonorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€Judge€€ó óÌÌÌÌò òW.€Gary€Blackburnó ó,ÌBLACKBURN,€SLOBEY,€FREEMAN€&€HAPPELL,€Nashville,€Tennessee€ÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant,€City€of€McKenzie.ÌÌÌÌò òCharles€L.€Hickesó ó,€Camden,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellees.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àMelinda€H.€Scott€Dailey€and€husband,€Thomas€Dailey€(the€ð ðDaileysðð€orÏð ðPlaintiffsðð)€sued€the€City€of€McKenzie€(the€ð ðCityðð€or€ð ðDefendantðð)€under€the€GTLA,€T.C.A.€ððððÏ29„20„101„407€(1980€&€Supp.€1995)€for€damages€arising€from€an€automobile€accident€thatÏoccurred€within€the€City.€€Plaintiffs€also€sued€Lois€J.€Bateman€and€Ricky€Bateman.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Ms.€BatemanÏmade€claim€against€the€City€for€property€damage.ÌÌà àCity€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€finding€City€60%€at€fault€and€Lois€J.ÏBateman€40%€at€fault.€€The€trial€court€found€Melinda€Scott€Daileyððs€damages€to€be€$20,000€andÏher€husbandððs€to€be€$1,000.00.€€Judgment€was€awarded€against€the€City€for€$12,000€in€favor€ofÏMs.€Dailey€and€$600€in€favor€of€Mr.€Dailey.€€Based€on€the€courtððs€finding€that€Lois€BatemanÏsustained€damages€of€$2,525,€judgment€was€entered€in€her€favor€against€the€City€for€$1,515.ÌÌà àThe€following€facts€are€undisputed:€€On€December€20,€1992,€Mrs.€Dailey€wasÏtraveling€south€on€North€Park€Street.€€At€the€same€time,€Mrs.€Bateman€and€her€thirteen€year„oldÏson,€Jachin€Bateman,€were€traveling€east€on€Locust€Avenue€in€the€City.€€Traffic€on€Locust€AvenueÏis€directed€to€stop€before€proceeding€through€the€intersection€of€Locust€Avenue€and€North€ParkÏStreet€by€a€stop€sign€placed€at€the€southwest€corner€of€the€intersection.€€However,€traffic€on€NorthÏPark€Street€is€not€interrupted.€€Mrs.€Bateman€did€not€stop€before€entering€the€intersection€andÍcollided€with€Mrs.€Daileyððs€vehicle€as€it€proceeded€through€the€intersection.€€As€a€result€of€theÏcollision,€Mrs.€Dailey€was€injured.€€ÌÌà àThere€were€no€other€eyewitnesses€to€the€accident.€€An€investigation€of€the€accidentÏconducted€immediately€after€the€accident€by€Sgt.€Gene€D.€Owen€of€the€City€police€departmentÏrevealed€that€the€stop€sign,€which€had€been€placed€by€the€City€at€the€southwest€corner€of€theÏintersection,€was€lying€in€a€drainage€ditch€adjacent€to€the€intersection.€€It€appeared€to€Sgt.€OwenÏthat€the€sign€had€been€down€prior€to€the€accident.€€ÌÌà àIn€their€complaint,€the€Daileys€alleged€that€Mrs.€Bateman€was€liable€for€theirÏdamages€that€were€proximately€caused€by€the€negligent€operation€of€her€vehicle€and€her€violationÏof€traffic€laws.€€The€Daileys€further€alleged€that€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203€the€City€was€liableÏfor€damages€proximately€caused€by€its€negligence€in€allowing€a€dangerous€condition€to€exist€at€theÏintersection.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€Daileys€presented€Sgt.€Owen,€who€testified€that€he€had€been€employedÏby€the€City€police€department€for€approximately€sixteen€and€one„half€years.€€He€testified€that€whenÏhe€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€accident€he€found€the€stop€sign€lying€in€a€ditch€adjacent€to€theÏintersection.€€He€further€stated€that€it€was€obvious€to€him€that€the€sign€and€the€pole€had€not€beenÏknocked€down€as€a€result€of€the€accident€between€Mrs.€Dailey€and€Mrs.€Bateman.€€He€could€notÏtell€how€long€the€sign€had€been€down.€€However,€Sgt.€Owen€testified€that€he€did€not€rememberÏmaking€any€statements€at€the€hospital€to€Mr.€Dailey€or€to€Mr.€Daileyððs€uncle,€Richard€R.ÏThompson,€about€the€condition€of€the€stop€sign€prior€to€the€accident.€€ÌÌà àAfter€Sgt.€Owen€stated€that€he€did€not€remember€speaking€with€anyone€at€theÍemergency€room€after€the€accident,€the€Daileys€presented€Richard€R.€Thompson,€who€testified€thatÏhe€had€a€conversation€with€Sgt.€Owen€in€the€emergency€room€on€the€date€of€the€accident.€€Mr.ÏThompson€stated€that€during€that€conversation€Sgt.€Owen€told€him€that€the€stop€sign€had€beenÏdown€for€a€ð ðcouple€of€days.ðð€€After€Mr.€Thompson€completed€his€testimony,€Mr.€Dailey€wasÏrecalled€and€he€testified€that€he€had€spoken€with€Sgt.€Owen€at€the€suggestion€of€Mr.€Thompson.€ÏMr.€Dailey€testified€that€during€this€conversation,€Sgt.€Owen€told€him€ð ðthat€the€stop€sign€wasÏdown€and€that€it€had€been€laying€in€the€ditch€for€several€days€and€that€they€knew€that€it€was.ðð€€ÌÌà àFor€its€proof,€the€City€presented€Joe€Curtis,€Public€Works€Director€for€the€City,Ïwho€testified€that€his€duties€included€replacing€stop€signs.€€Mr.€Curtis€also€testified€that€he€wasÏfamiliar€with€this€particular€stop€sign€because€it€was€adjacent€to€the€public€works€building€where€heÏis€employed.€€Mr.€Curtis€testified€that€he€had€driven€through€the€intersection€of€Locust€Avenue€andÏNorth€Park€Street€at€4:00€p.m.€on€Friday,€December€18,€1992.€€He€stated€that€to€the€best€of€hisÏknowledge€the€stop€sign€was€in€place€at€that€time.€€He€further€testified€that€the€Public€WorksÏDepartment€is€closed€over€the€weekend€and€that€he€did€not€have€knowledge€that€the€stop€sign€wasÏdown€until€the€following€Monday€after€the€accident.€ÌÌà àThe€City€next€offered€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Jim€Sydnor,€the€chief€of€police€for€theÏCity,€who€testified€that€City€police€officers€are€instructed€to€report€defective€street€signs€to€theÏpolice€dispatcher.€€He€testified€that€the€dispatcher€is€instructed€to€make€a€record€of€all€of€theseÏreports€and€convey€them€to€the€City€street€department.€€Chief€Sydnor€testified€that€there€were€noÏCity€records€concerning€the€stop€sign€in€question€for€the€period€prior€to€the€accident.€€Ìà àÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€City€had€both€actual€and€constructive€notice€that€theÏstop€sign€had€been€down€at€the€intersection€for€several€days€prior€to€the€accident.€€The€court€alsoÍfound€that€Sgt.€Owen€had€made€an€appropriate€report€to€appropriate€authorities.€€The€court€wasÏapparently€referring€to€the€post€accident€report€as€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Sgt.€OwenÏreported€the€stop€sign€down€prior€to€this€accident.ÌÌà àThe€City€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€presenting€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Whether€the€Court€erred€in€finding€that€the€City€ofÏMcKenzie€had€adequate€and€timely€notice€of€a€defect€in€a€street€orÏhighway.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Whether€the€[trial€courtððs]€finding€of€$20,000€in€damagesÏfor€[Mrs.€Dailey]€is€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€its€first€issue,€the€City€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€theÏCity€had€adequate€and€timely€notice€of€the€defective€stop€sign.€€Under€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203€(Supp.Ï1995):€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(a)€Immunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entity€is€removedÏfor€any€injury€caused€by€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€conditionÏof€any€street,€alley,€sidewalk€or€highway,€owned€and€controlled€byÏsuch€governmental€entity.€€"Street"€or€"highway"€includes€trafficÏcontrol€devices€thereon.Ìà8 àà à(b)€This€section€shall€not€apply€unless€constructive€and/orÏactual€notice€to€the€governmental€entity€of€such€condition€be€allegedÏand€proved€in€addition€to€the€procedural€notice€required€by€Sec.Ï29„20„302€[repealed].ÌÌÌÌÓÓUnder€this€statute,€a€party€must€prove€that€a€governmental€entity€had€actual€or€constructive€noticeÏof€a€defective,€unsafe€or€dangerous€condition€before€sovereign€immunity€can€be€waived.€ò òòòLee€v.ÏCity€of€Clevelandóóó ó,€859€S.W.2d€347,€349€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€ò òòòSmith€v.€City€of€Covingtonóóó ó,€734ÏS.W.2d€327,€329€(Tenn.€App.1985).ÌÌà àIn€òòò òKirby€v.€Macon€Countyó óóó,€892€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1994),€the€court€definedÏð ðactual€noticeðð€as€ð ðknowledge€of€facts€and€circumstances€sufficiently€pertinent€in€character€toÏenable€reasonably€cautious€and€prudent€persons€to€investigate€and€ascertain€as€to€the€ultimateÏfacts.ðð€€òòò òKirby,ó óóó€892€S.W.2d€at€409.€(citing€òòò òTexas€Co.€v.€Aycockó óóó,€190€Tenn.€16,€27,€227€S.W.2d€41,Ï46€(Tenn.€1950)).€€In€the€same€case,€the€Court€defined€ð ðconstructive€noticeðð€as€ð ðinformation€orÏknowledge€of€a€fact€imputed€by€law€to€a€person€(although€he€may€not€actually€have€it),€because€heÏcould€have€discovered€the€fact€by€proper€diligence,€and€his€situation€was€such€as€to€cast€upon€himÏthe€duty€of€inquiring€into€it.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€409€(citing€òòò òBlack's€Law€Dictionaryó óóó,€1062€(6th€ed.€1990)).Ìà àÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€City€had€both€actual€andÏconstructive€notice€that€the€sign€was€down€prior€to€the€accident.€€The€City€argues€that€the€DaileysÏfailed€to€present€sufficient€proof€of€either€actual€or€constructive€notice.€€Since€this€case€was€tried€byÏthe€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòò òde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏfindings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€Rule€13(d)€T.R.A.P.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Sgt.€Owen€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€speaking€with€Mr.€Dailey€orÏMr.€Thompson€at€the€hospital.€€However,€Sgt.€Owen€did€not€deny€that€the€conversations€tookÏplace.€€Mr.€Thompson€and€Mr.€Dailey€testified€about€the€contents€of€their€conversations€with€Sgt.ÏOwen.€€Mr.€Dailey€testified€that€Sgt.€Owen€told€him€at€the€hospital€that€ð ðthe€stop€sign€was€downÏand€that€it€had€been€laying€in€the€ditch€for€several€days€and€that€they€knew€that€it€was.ðð€€€ÌÌà àThe€City€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€in€determining€that€Sgt.ÏOwenððs€prior€inconsistent€statement€could€be€used€as€substantive€evidence€to€show€that€the€CityÍhad€actual€notice€of€the€defective€sign.€€The€City€contends€that€this€evidence€should€have€beenÏconsidered€for€impeachment€purposes€only€and€should€not€have€been€considered€as€substantiveÏevidence€that€the€City€had€actual€notice€of€the€defective€sign.€€The€City€further€argues€that€theÏadmission€of€such€proof€as€substantive€evidence€is€reversible€error€in€this€case€since€the€DaileysððÏonly€proof€of€actual€notice€on€behalf€of€the€City€was€Sgt.€Owenððs€prior€inconsistent€statements.€€ÏThe€Daileys,€on€the€other€hand,€argue€that€the€prior€inconsistent€statements€of€Sgt.€Owens€can€beÏconsidered€as€substantive€evidence€of€notice€because€they€are€an€admission€against€interest€madeÏby€an€agent€of€the€City.€€€ÌÌà àIt€is€settled€in€this€State€that€prior€inconsistent€statements€of€a€witness€areÏadmissible€for€the€purposes€of€impeachment€and€testing€the€credibility€of€the€witness,€but€are€notÏto€be€considered€as€substantive€evidence€of€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€therein.€€òòò òJones€v.ÏLenoir€City€Car€Worksó óóó,€216€Tenn.€351,€392€S.W.2d€671€(1965);€òòò òRhea€v.€Stateó óóó,€208€Tenn.€559,Ï347€S.W.2d€486€(1961);€òòò òKing€v.€Stateó óóó,€187€Tenn.€431,€215€S.W.2d€813€(1948);€òòò òMoseley€v.ÏGoodmanó óóó,€138€Tenn.€1,€195€S.W.€590€(1917).€€It€is€further€settled€that€evidence€of€priorÏinconsistent€statements€can€be€offered€for€the€purpose€of€impeachment€when€the€witness€does€notÏadmit€or€deny€making€a€contradictory€statement,€but€merely€testifies€that€he€does€not€rememberÏmaking€the€statement.€€òòò òPuckett€v.€Lasteró óóó,€56€Tenn.€App.€66,€405€S.W.2d€35€(1965).ÌÌà àBut,€ð ð[a]ny€statement,€whether€oral€or€written,€made€by€or€attributable€to€a€party€toÏan€action,€which€constitutes€an€admission€against€his€interest€and€tends€to€establish€or€disprove€anyÏmaterial€fact€in€the€case,€is€competent€evidence€against€him€in€such€action.ðð€€ò òòòJones,€ó óóó392€S.W.2d€atÏ673.€ÌÌà àThus,€it€is€clear€that€the€alleged€prior€inconsistent€statement€of€Sgt.€Owen€couldÍhave€been€considered€substantive€evidence€if€it€did€in€fact€constitute€an€admission€attributable€to€theÏCity.€€Under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€statements€made€by€a€partyððs€agent€may€beÏadmissible€as€admissions€of€a€party€under€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€found€in€RuleÏ803(1.2)(D).€€Under€Rule€803(1.2)(D),€the€hearsay€rule€does€not€apply€to€ð ða€statement€by€an€agentÏor€servant€concerning€a€matter€within€the€scope€of€the€agency€or€employment€made€during€theÏexistence€of€the€relationship€under€circumstances€qualifying€the€statement€as€one€against€theÏdeclarant's€interest€regardless€of€declarant's€availability.ðð€€T.R.E.€803(1.2)(D).ÌÌà àTo€qualify€under€section€(D),€the€statement€(1)€€must€concern€a€matter€within€theÏscope€of€the€declarantððs€agency€or€employment;€(2)€must€have€been€made€while€the€agency€orÏemployment€relationship€existed;€and€(3)€must€be€against€the€declarant's€interest€when€made.€ÏT.R.E.€803(1.2)(D).€€We€do€not€believe€that€Sgt.€Owenððs€statement€constitutes€€an€admissionÏagainst€the€City€under€this€rule€because€we€are€unable€to€see€how€the€statement€was€against€his€Ïpersonal€interest€when€it€was€made.€€Consequently,€we€hold€that€Sgt.€Owenððs€statement€is€not€anÏadmission€against€the€interest€of€the€City.€€As€such,€Sgt.€Owenððs€prior€inconsistent€statement€couldÏnot€be€properly€used€as€substantive€evidence€of€actual€notice€on€behalf€of€the€City.€€€€€€ÌÌà àInasmuch€as€Sgt.€Owenððs€prior€€inconsistent€statement€was€the€only€evidence€ofÏactual€notice€to€the€City,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€City€had€actualÏnotice€of€the€defective€sign.€€We€turn€now€to€the€question€of€whether€there€was€sufficient€proof€toÏsupport€a€finding€of€constructive€notice€on€behalf€of€the€City.€€We€find€that€there€was€no€competentÏproof€of€constructive€notice€offered.€€While€Jachin€Bateman€testified€in€his€deposition€that€the€signÏhad€been€down€for€a€month€prior€to€the€accident,€he€later€testified€on€direct€examination€that€he€didÏnot€remember€whether€the€sign€was€down€a€month€prior€to€the€accident€or€not.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€he€might€have€been€going€down€a€different€road€when€he€saw€the€downed€sign.€€He€alsoÍtestified€on€cross„examination€that€he€had€not€seen€the€sign€immediately€prior€to€the€accidentÏbecause€he€had€been€looking€down€at€the€moment€that€he€and€Mrs.€Bateman€were€approaching€theÏintersection.€€On€the€other€hand,€€Mr.€Curtis,€Public€Works€Director€for€the€City,€testified€that€heÏhad€driven€through€the€intersection€at€4:00€p.m.€on€Friday,€December€18,€1992.€€He€stated€that€toÏthe€best€of€his€knowledge€the€stop€sign€was€in€place€at€that€time.€€He€further€testified€that€the€PublicÏWorks€Department€is€closed€over€the€weekend€and€that€he€did€not€receive€any€notice€that€the€stopÏsign€was€down€until€the€Monday€following€the€accident.€€ÌÌà àWe€are€unable€to€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€the€City€had€constructive€notice€of€the€defective€sign.€€€As€such,€the€claims€under€theÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act€must€fail.€€Consequently,€we€deem€it€unnecessary€to€addressÏDefendantððs€second€issue.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏAppellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.€(Concurs)