ÿWPC“" ;UBJ %Œ®’ 0t@ 0Å´ 0\y 0Õ 0rb 0Ô D+a ÆŒ 0R 0=ß 0 AQ© 0¶ú 0D°U:ô.n> 0rAw@³4óLS D3[ 0JŽ 0TØ B, 0^I 0h§ 0r 0| 0†ý 0ƒ 1u 0dˆU *ìB)DC? AK‚ÍgÛv~BvÓÀô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Í The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ<5Tÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓP††ÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔV!ÿÿ:footnote texfootnote textÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô`‰‰ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ(e2q¹$©©Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô>'ôôôÔÔ€ô>'ôôô>'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2q¹$££Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô>'ôôôÔÔ€ô>'ôôô>'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(e2q¹$¢¢Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô>'ôôôÔÔ€ô>'ôôô>'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý   Cþÿ<< cÿÿ(f(3»¬$¤¤Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô>'ôôôÔÔ€ô>'ôôô>'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular3|x«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTomanTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(Jä$¡¡Ô€ô~4ôôôÔÔ€ô~4ôôô~4ÔÓ  Ó gîDU  g D  Ó€Œƒ*#VC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT$$$$'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2, 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd 5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òSeptember€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€3ÔDeBerryððs€complaint€also€named€the€City€of€Lexington€and€Central€State€Bank€as€defendants;Ïhowever,€both€of€these€defendants€were€dismissed€from€the€lawsuit€prior€to€trial.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ ` Ü›XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€3ÔÔ€3XÔ›Ñ7€n0ôôdÈXXdð7Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌRICHARD€LANE€DEBERRYà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Henderson€Circuit€No.€90„057Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)̜ـ ÙßR€675A1-j|Åù·` Å `€€@ÿRß›VS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9610„CV„00257Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLEXINGTON€ELECTRIC€SYSTEM,à à)ÌCENTRAL€STATE€BANK,€and€theà à)ÌCITY€OF€LEXINGTON,€TENNESSEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€HENDERSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€LEXINGTON,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€CHARLES€McPHERSON,€JUDGE,€BY€DESIGNATIONÌÌÌÌÌÌò òWILLIAM€M.€JETERÌTIM€EDWARDSÌGLASSMAN,€JETER,€EDWARDS€AND€WADE,€P.C.Ìó óMemphis,€Tennesseeò òÌó óAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òLARRY€L.€CASHÌSTRANG,€FLETCHER,€CARRIGER,€WALKER,ÌHODGE€&€SMITH,€PLLCÌó óChattanooga,€TennesseeÌò òKEN€WALKERÌWALKER€LAW€OFFICEÌó óLexington,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€œAppellees›ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœó ó›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óà àœÌÑ7€.AXXdðôôdÈ7ÑÓÓà àIn›€this€governmental€tort€liability€action,€Plaintiff€Richard€Lane€DeBerry€appealsÏthe€trial€courtððs€judgment€which€limited€DeBerryððs€recovery€to€$130,000,€the€maximumÏamount€awardable€under€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(GTLA).€ÏDefendant/€Appellee€Lexington€Electric€System€(LES)€cross„appeals,€challenging€theÏmerits€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€liability€against€LES.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àIn€April€1990,€DeBerry€was€seriously€injured€when€he€accidentally€came€intoÏcontact€with€a€high„voltage€power€line€which€had€been€installed€and€maintained€byÏLES.€€œDeBerry›€was€a€supervisor€and€job€estimator€for€DeBerry€Roofing€Company.€€AtÏthe€time€of€his€injury,€DeBerry€was€working€on€the€roof€of€Central€State€Bank€inÏLexington,€Tennessee.€€œAfter›€lunch€one€day,€DeBerry€noticed€that€a€ten„foot„longÏtermination€bar€along€the€roof€parapet€was€ð ðturned€around€backwards,ðð€so€DeBerryÏpicked€up€the€bar€and€flipped€it€over.€€œWhile›€DeBerry€was€in€the€process€of€flipping€theÏaluminum€bar,€the€bar€came€into€contact€with€the€power€line.€€œDeBerryððs›€injuries€fromÏthe€electric€shock€included€the€loss€of€one€arm€below€the€elbow€and€the€loss€of€part€ofÏone€foot.€ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€accident,€DeBerry€knew€of€the€existence€of€the€power€line€on€theÏside€of€the€building,€and€DeBerry€had€worked€around€high„voltage€power€lines€before.€ÏœDeBerry›€had€observed€the€line€a€few€months€previously€when€he€inspected€the€roof€toÏgive€a€job€estimate.€€œDeBerry›€assumed€that€the€power€line€was€a€safe€distance€fromÏthe€edge€of€the€roof,€and,€in€any€event,€he€planned€to€bring€up€materials€from€the€backÏof€the€building€away€from€the€power€line.€€œAccordingly,›€DeBerry€did€not€consider€theÏpower€line€to€be€a€threat€to€workers,€and€he€did€not€contact€LES€prior€to€beginning€theÏroofing€job.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€at€trial€established€that€the€power€line€was€erected€in€1939.€ÏœBetween›€1979€and€1982,€the€bank€building€underwent€renovations,€including€theÏaddition€of€the€parapet€to€the€roof€of€the€building.€€œDuring›€the€course€of€the€renovations,ÏLES€offered€to€insulate€the€power€line€to€protect€people€doing€work€on€the€building,€butÏthe€contractor€performing€the€renovations€did€not€accept€LESððs€offer.€€œThe›€addition€ofÏthe€parapet€brought€the€roof€of€the€building€at€least€a€foot€closer€to€the€power€line.€€œLES›Ïlast€performed€work€on€the€power€line€in€1980€when€a€line€pole€was€replaced.€€€TheÏline€poles€were€inspected€in€1981,€and€the€power€line€itself€was€inspected€in€1988€orÏ1989,€approximately€one€or€two€years€before€DeBerryððs€accident.€ÌÌà àShortly€after€DeBerryððs€accident,€measurements€revealed€that€the€horizontalÏclearance€between€the€power€line€and€the€building€was€3'3ðððð€and€that€the€verticalÏclearance€was€7'3".€€œThe›€horizontal€clearance€was€obtained€by€measuring€from€theÍpower€line€to€the€nearest€point€on€the€plane€formed€by€the€side€of€the€building.€ÏSimilarly,€the€vertical€clearance€was€obtained€by€measuring€from€the€power€line€to€theÏnearest€point€on€the€plane€formed€by€the€roof€of€the€building.€€œThe›€actual€distanceÏbetween€the€power€line€and€the€closest€point€on€the€roof€was€7'11ðððð.€€œWitnesses›Ïobserved€that€the€line€pole€nearest€the€bank€building€was€leaning€toward€the€building,Ïmoving€the€power€line€at€least€two€feet€closer€to€the€building.€€œAn›€expert€witness€forÏDeBerry€testified€that€this€condition€probably€would€have€taken€longer€than€two€yearsÏto€develop€and,€thus,€should€have€been€identified€by€LES€during€its€inspection€in€1988Ïor€1989.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€a€dispute€arose€as€to€which€version€of€the€National€Electric€SafetyÏCode(NESC)€applied€and€as€to€whether€or€not€LES€had€a€continuing€duty€to€upgradeÏits€power€lines€to€conform€to€the€current€code€version.€€œAt›€the€time€the€power€line€wasÏinstalled€in€1939,€the€line€apparently€conformed€to€then€applicable€codes€andÏstandards.€€œOver›€the€years,€however,€the€NESC€was€revised€to€expand€the€horizontalÏand€vertical€clearances€required€between€power€lines€and€nearby€buildings.€€œThe›Ïcode€in€effect€in€1960€required€a€horizontal€clearance€of€three€feet.€€A€newer€version€ofÏthe€NESC,€which€took€effect€in€1977,€required€a€horizontal€clearance€of€five€feet€forÏareas€considered€accessible€to€pedestrians,€such€as€the€bank€building€roof€which,Ïaccording€to€the€testimony,€was€accessible€by€a€permanently€installed€ladder€leadingÏup€to€the€roof.€ÌÌà àLESððs€expert€witness,€FrancisM.€Wells,€opined€that€the€1960€version€of€theÏNESC€applied€to€the€power€line€because€this€was€the€code€version€in€effect€the€lastÏtime€substantial€work€was€done€on€the€power€line.€€œThis›€work€occurred€in€1971€whenÏthe€power€line€was€upgraded.€€œWells›€stated€that€the€pole€replacement€work€done€inÏ1980€would€not€have€required€LES€to€upgrade€the€line€to€conform€to€the€1977€codeÏversion€because€the€pole€replacement€was€not€considered€a€substantial€alteration€toÏthe€line.€€œThus,›€LES€took€the€position€that€it€had€no€duty€to€upgrade€its€line€unless€itÏwas€rebuilding€the€line€or€making€substantial€improvements€thereto.€ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€DeBerryððs€expert€witness,€JohnT.€Butters,€testified€that€the€1977ÏNESC€applied€to€the€power€line€at€the€time€of€DeBerryððs€accident.€€œThe›€1977€codeÏapplied€to€all€new€installations,€alterations,€reconstructions,€and€extensions€of€powerÏlines.€€œIn›€Buttersðð€opinion,€the€NESC€imposed€a€duty€on€LES€to€bring€its€power€linesÏinto€compliance€with€later€code€versions€if€LESððs€alterations,€modifications,€orÏinspections€of€the€lines€revealed€any€areas€of€noncompliance.€€œSpecifically,›€in€alteringÏor€inspecting€its€power€lines,€LES€had€a€duty€to€review€the€linesðð€proximities€to€nearbyÏstructures.€œIn›€accordance€with€this€interpretation,€Butters€testified€that€the€poleÏreplacement€work€performed€in€1981€would€have€required€LES€to€bring€the€power€lineÏinto€compliance€with€the€1977€code.€€œInasmuch›€as€the€1977€code€required€a€horizontalÏclearance€of€five€feet€between€the€power€line€and€the€bank€building,€the€power€line€inÏquestion,€which€had€a€horizontal€clearance€of€only€3'3ðððð,€did€not€comply€with€theÏNESC.€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€trial€court€entered€a€memorandumÏopinion€in€which€it€ruled€in€favor€of€DeBerry€on€most€of€the€issues.œ× ƒ8 ××  ×›€€Specifically,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€1977€version€of€the€NESC€applied€in€this€case;€that€the€powerÏline€did€not€comply€with€the€NESCððs€clearance€requirements;€that€LES€had€both€actualÏand€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition€caused€by€its€power€line;€and€thatÏLES€was€negligent€in€failing€to€maintain€the€line.€€œApplying›€comparative€negligenceÏprinciples,€the€trial€court€determined€that€LESððs€comparative€fault€was€seventyÏpercent(70%)€and€that€DeBerryððs€fault€was€thirty€percent(30%).€€œThe›€trial€court€foundÏDeBerryððs€damages€to€be€$650,000,€but€concluded€that€DeBerryððs€recovery€wasÏlimited€by€the€statutory€amount€of€$130,000.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€DeBerry€presents€the€following€issue€for€this€courtððs€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhether€a€recovery€under€the€[GTLA]€is€limited€to€the€sum€ofÏ$130,000.00€when€the€governmental€entity€has€purchasedÏinsurance€in€an€amount€sufficient€to€fund€the€full€amount€ofÏthe€judgment.€ÌÓÓÌà àOn€cross„appeal,€LES€has€raised€the€following€additional€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA.à0 à[Whether€the]€Court€Erred€in€Denying€the€Motion€toÏDismiss€made€by€LES€at€the€Close€of€Plaintiffððs€CaseÏin€Chief.ÌÌà8 àà8 àB.à0 à[Whether€the]€Plaintiff€Lane€DeBerry€is€guilty€ofÏcomparative€fault€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€fault€ofÏLES.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€first€address€LESððs€substantive€issues€regarding€its€liability€for€DeBerryððsÏinjuries.€€Regarding€its€first€issue,€LES€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€itsÏmotion€to€dismiss€because€DeBerry€failed€to€present€evidence€that€LES€had€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€of€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€as€required€by€sectionÏ29„20„204€of€the€GTLA€and,€alternatively,€because€LES€was€immune€from€suit€underÏsection€29„20„205(4)€of€the€GTLA.ÌÌà àThe€GTLA€removes€a€governmental€entityððs€immunity€from€suit€ð ðfor€any€injuryÏcaused€by€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€any€public€building,€structure,€dam,Ïreservoir€or€other€public€improvement€owned€and€controlled€by€such€governmentalÏentity.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð29„20„204(a)€(1980).€€In€order€to€prevail€under€this€section,€the€plaintiffÏmust€prove€that€the€governmental€entity€had€ð ðconstructive€and/or€actual€noticeðð€of€theÏdangerous€or€defective€condition.€€T.C.A.€ðð29„20„204(b)€(1980);€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòLeev.€CityÏof€Clevelandóó,€859€S.W.2d€347€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòSmithv.€City€of€Covingtonóó,€734ÏS.W.2d€327€(Tenn.€App.€1985),€òòaffððdóó,€1987€WL€12494€(Tenn.€June22,€1987).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€we€conclude€that€DeBerry€presented€sufficient€evidenceÏfrom€which€the€trial€court€could€have€found€that€LES€had€actual€and/or€constructiveÏnotice€of€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€power€line.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcGaughyv.€City€ofÏMemphisóó,€823€S.W.2d€209,€215€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€The€evidence€showed€that€LESÏinspected€the€line€in€1988€or€1989,€when€it€should€have€been€apparent€that€one€of€theÏnearby€poles€supporting€the€power€line€was€leaning€toward€the€bank€building€and€thatÏthe€resulting€horizontal€clearance€between€the€power€line€and€the€building€was€onlyÍabout€three€feet.€€œLESððs›€knowledge€of€this€dangerous€condition€was€further€supportedÏby€the€testimony€of€LESððs€own€witness,€who€indicated€that,€when€the€bank€buildingÏwas€remodeled€sometime€between€1979€and€1982,€LES€offered€to€insulate€the€line€toÏprotect€people€working€on€the€building.€ÌÌà àWe€also€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€rejected€LESððs€claim€of€immunityÏunder€section€29„20„205€of€the€GTLA.€€Section€29„20„205,€which€generally€removes€aÏgovernmental€entityððs€immunity€from€suit€for€injuries€caused€by€its€negligence,€does€notÏremove€immunity€if€the€injury€ð ð[a]rises€out€of€a€failure€to€make€an€inspection,€or€byÏreason€of€making€an€inadequate€or€negligent€inspection€of€any€property.ðð€€T.C.A.Ïðð29„20„205(4)€(1980);€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòJohnsonv.€EMPE,€Inc.óó,€837€S.W.2d€62€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992)€(dismissing€cause€of€action€which€was€based€on€cityððs€failure€to€inspect€sewerÏproject);€òòMowdyv.€Kellyóó,€667€S.W.2d€489€(Tenn.€App.€1983)€(dismissing€action€whichÏwas€based€on€countyððs€failure€to€inspect€bridge).€€Citing€section€29„20„205(4),€LESÏcontends€that€its€immunity€was€not€removed€in€this€case€because€DeBerryððs€cause€ofÏaction€was€predicated€on€LESððs€negligent€inspection€of€the€power€line.ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€LESððs€argument€misconstrues€the€nature€of€the€evidence€presentedÏby€DeBerry.€€The€evidence€that€LES€inspected€the€power€line€in€1988€or€1989€wasÏintroduced,€not€to€show€that€LES€failed€to€inspect€the€line€or€that€it€negligentlyÏinspected€the€line,€but€to€show€that€LES€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€lineððsÏdangerous€condition€by€virtue€of€its€inspection.€€Stated€another€way,€DeBerryððs€theoryÏof€recovery€in€this€case€was€based,€not€on€evidence€that€LES€performed€a€negligentÍinspection€of€the€power€line,€but€on€evidence€that€LES€conducted€an€adequateÏinspection€of€the€line€in€1988€or€1989,€at€which€time€it€observed€the€lineððs€dangerouslyÏclose€proximity€to€the€bank€building€but€failed€to€take€action€to€correct€the€danger.€ÏMoreover,€we€note€that€evidence€of€the€1988€or€1989€inspection€was€not€the€onlyÏevidence€introduced€to€support€DeBerryððs€theory€of€actual€or€constructive€noticeÏbecause,€as€previously€indicated,€other€evidence€established€that€LES€had€offered€toÏinsulate€the€power€line€sometime€between€1979€and€1982.ÌÌà àAs€for€LESððs€second€issue,€LES€contends€that€DeBerry€was€barred€fromÏrecovery€because€his€own€negligence€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€that€of€LES€andÏbecause€DeBerry€was€guilty€of€negligence€òòper€seóó€when€he€violated€the€terms€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€68„103„102€and€68„103„105.€€Inasmuch€as€thisÏcase€was€tried€by€the€court€below€sitting€without€a€jury,€this€courtððs€review€on€appeal€isÏgoverned€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(d),€which€directs€us€to€reviewÏthe€case€òòde€novoóó.€€òòRobertsv.€Robertson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€692€S.W.2d€863,€865Ï(Tenn.€App.€1985);€òòHaverlahv.€Memphis€Aviation,€Inc.óó,€674€S.W.2d€297,€300€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984);€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€In€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€below,Ïhowever,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€correct.€ÏUnder€this€standard€of€review,€we€must€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€unless€the€trialÏcourt€committed€an€error€of€law€affecting€the€result€or€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòRobertsóó,€692€S.W.2d€at€865.ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€standard,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€establishingÏseventy€percent(70%)€as€LESððs€comparative€fault€for€DeBerryððs€injuries.€€LESÏcontends€that€DeBerry€was€negligent€because€he€knew€of€the€existence€of€the€powerÏline,€was€aware€of€the€danger€to€anyone€who€came€into€contact€with€the€line,€andÏfailed€to€exercise€due€care€to€avoid€contact€with€the€line.€€œWe›€conclude,€however,€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€considered€these€arguments€when€it€assigned€thirtyÏpercent(30%)€as€DeBerryððs€comparative€fault€for€the€accident.€€œWe›€further€concludeÏthat€the€decision€in€òòCity€of€Chattanoogav.€Shacklefordóó,€298€S.W.2d€743€(Tenn.€App.Ï1956),€cited€by€LES,€is€distinguishable€from€the€present€case€because€òòShacklefordóóÏwas€decided€at€a€time€when€any€contributory€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiffÏbarred€him€from€recovery.€€òòIdóó.€at€746.ÌÌà àWe€likewise€decline€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€provisionsÏof€section€68„103„102€and€68„103„105€have€no€application€to€this€case.€€ThoseÏsections€provide€that€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àNo€person,€firm,€or€corporation,€or€agent€of€same,€shallÏrequire€or€permit€any€employee€to€perform€any€function€inÏproximity€to€high„voltage€lines;...€unless€and€until€dangerÏfrom€accidental€contact€with€such€high„voltage€lines€hasÏbeen€effectively€Ô&  Ôguarded€against€in€the€manner€hereinafterÏprescribed.ÌÌÓÓœand›€thatÔ'  ÔÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€any€operations€are€to€be€performed,€tools€orÏmaterials€are€to€be€handled,€or€equipment€is€to€be€moved€orÏoperated€within€six€feet(6')€of€any€high„voltage€line,€theÏperson€or€persons€responsible€for€the€work€to€be€done€shallÏpromptly€notify€the€operator€of€the€high„voltage€line€of€theÍwork€to€be€performed,...€before€proceeding€with€any€workÏwhich€would€impair€the€aforementioned€clearance.ÌÌÓÓœT.C.A.›€ðððð68„103„102,€68„103„105€(1983).€€LES€contends€that€these€sections€imposedÏa€duty€upon€DeBerry€to€contact€LES€before€beginning€any€roofing€work€on€the€bankÏbuilding.€€Ìà àœThis€provision€was€not€intended€to€relieve€a€company€transmitting€deadlyÏenergy€through€uninsulated€wires€from€the€consequences€of€its€negligence,€but€it€wasÏdesigned€merely€as€an€additional€safety€measure.€€òòMartin€v.€Town€of€McMinnvilleóó,€369ÏS.W.2d€902,€906€(Tenn.€App.€1962).€€DeBerry€did€not€anticipate€that€operations€orÏequipment€would€be€within€six€feet€of€a€high„voltage€line€in€that€he€had€planned€toÏbring€up€materials€from€the€back€of€the€building€away€from€the€power€line.€€We€are€inÏagreement€with€the€trial€court€that€these€sections€are€inapplicable€to€the€facts€of€thisÏcase.€›ÌÌà àHaving€addressed€the€substantive€issues€raised€by€LES€on€cross„appeal,€weÏnow€turn€to€the€initial€issue€presented€by€DeBerryððs€appeal,€that€of€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€limiting€DeBerryððs€recovery€in€this€case€to€$130,000€when€LES€hadÏpurchased€insurance€coverage€in€an€amount€sufficient€to€fund€the€$650,000€inÏdamages€as€found€by€the€trial€court.€€In€accordance€with€this€courtððs€decision€inÏòòCoburnv.€City€of€Dyersburgóó,€774€S.W.2d€610€(Tenn.€App.€1989),€we€answer€thisÏquestion€in€the€negative€and€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àSection€29„20„403€of€the€GTLA€establishes€minimum€limits€of€$130,000€ð ðforÏbodily€injury€or€death€of€any€one(1)€person€in€any€one(1)€accident,€occurrence€or€act.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€ðð29„20„403(b)(2)(B)€(Supp.€1989).€€Section€29„20„311€prohibits€any€judgmentÏor€award€in€excess€of€the€minimum€amounts€of€insurance€coverage€specified€inÏsection€29„20„403,€ð ðunless€such€governmental€entity€has€secured€insurance€coverageÏin€excess€of€said€minimum€requirements.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð29„20„311€(1980).ÌÌà àThe€governmentððs€procurement€of€excess€insurance€coverage,€however,€doesÏnot€end€the€inquiry.€€Before€a€plaintiff€may€recover€a€judgment€in€excess€of€theÏminimum€limits,€section€29„20„404€imposes€another€requirement:€€The€governmentalÏentity€must€have€expressly€waived€the€minimum€limits€of€liability€and€such€waiver€mustÏbe€contained€in€the€entityððs€insurance€policy.€€As€pertinent,€section€29„20„404Ïprovides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€governmental€entity€or€the€insurer€of€such€governmentalÏentity€shall€not€be€held€liable€for€any€claim€arising€underÏstate€law€for€which€the€governmental€entity€has€immunityÏunder€the€provisions€of€this€chapter€unless€theÏgovernmental€entity€has€expressly€waived€such€immunity.€ÏòòA€governmental€entity€or€the€insurer€of€such€governmentalÏentity€shall€not€be€held€liable€for€any€judgment€in€excess€ofÏthe€limits€of€liability€set€forth€in€ðð29„20„403,€unless€theÏgovernmental€entity€has€expressly€waived€such€limits.€€TheÏwaiver€of€such€immunity€or€such€limits€of€liability€by€aÏgovernmental€entity€shall€only€be€valid€if€such€waiver€isÏexpressly€contained€in€the€provisions€or€endorsement€of€aÏpolicy€or€contract€of€insurance€authorized€by€this€chapter€Ô&  ÔtoÏcover€its€liability€under€this€chapter.óóÌÌÓÓœT.C.A.›€ðð29„20„404(a)€(Supp.€1989)€(emphasis€added).Ô'  ÔÌÌà àIn€òòCoburnv.€City€of€Dyersburgóó,€774€S.W.2d€610€(Tenn.€App.€1989),€this€courtÏconstrued€the€foregoing€sections€of€the€GTLA:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€logical€and€reasonable€reading€of€these€threeÏCode€sections€seems€to€us€to€be€as€follows:€€For€the€bodilyÏinjury€or€death€of€any€one€person€in€any€one€accident,Ïðð29„20„403€establishes€minimum€limits...;€a€judgmentÏrendered€against€a€governmental€entity€may€not€exceed€theÏminimum€amounts€of€insurance€coverage€specified€inÏðð29„20„403€unless€the€insurance€coverage€is€in€excess€ofÏthe€minimum€requirements;€and€finally,€the€governmentalÏentity€or€its€insurer€will€not€be€held€liable€for€any€judgment€inÏexcess€of€the€ðð29„20„403€limits€of€liability€unless€it€hasÏwaived€those€limits€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€ofÏðð29„20„404.ÌÌÓÓœòòCoburnóó,›€774€S.W.2d€at€613.€€Inasmuch€as€the€City€of€Dyersburg€and€DyersburgÏElectric€System€had€not€waived€their€limits€of€liability,€this€court€held€that€the€plaintiffððsÏrecovery€was€limited€to€the€minimum€limits€set€forth€in€section€29„20„403.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€it€was€undisputed€that€LES€had€secured€insuranceÏcoverage€in€excess€of€the€minimum€requirements€of€section€29„20„403.€The€trial€courtÏfound,€however,€and€the€parties€do€not€dispute,€that€the€insurance€policies€in€questionÏcontained€no€specific€language€waiving€LESððs€limits€of€liability.€€œWe›€conclude,Ïtherefore,€that€the€resolution€of€this€issue€is€governed€by€òòCoburnóó€and€that€DeBerryððsÏrecovery€was€limited€to€the€minimum€requirements€set€forth€in€section€29„20„403.€ÏòòCoburnóó,€774€S.W.2d€at€613;€òòaccordóó€òòGoffv.€Howellóó,€No.01A01„9401„CV„00024,€1994ÏWL€317542,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€July6,€1994)€(ð ðTo€waive€either€the€immunity€or€the€limitsÏof€liability€the€governmental€entity€must€do€so€expressly,€and€the€waiver€of€either€willÏbe€valid€only€if€it€is€expressly€contained€in€a€policy€of€insurance€covering€the€liability.ðð);ÍòòREN€Corp.v.€Metropolitan€Nashville€Airport€Auth.óó,€No.01A01„9104„CV„00123,€1992ÏWL€17896,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Jan.29,€1992)€(ð ð[T]he€existence€of€insurance€coverage€inÏexcess€of€[the€minimum]€limits€does€not€constitute€an€express€waiver€of€immunity.ðð),Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€May4,€1992).ÌœÌÌÌÌÌ›à àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÏone„half€to€the€Plaintiff€and€one„half€to€the€Defendant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏœnecessary.Ô€3ôÔÔ€ÔÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÔ€3ÔÔ€3XÔHIGHERS,€J.€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóFARMER,€J.Ì›