ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š ™ U:¡ Û 0Jã 0T- 0^ 0hß 0rG 0|¹ 0†5 0» 1uK 0dÀ AM$áqU>RU*B)ºDCã B& AMCv~vÓ D3á 0X AOlÆ» 0D D/Å Bô˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ¥¦§¨©ª«Àe¬U­Ó€·DÒ D’“3|x·Â"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ×Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌAugust€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << GÿÿPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ Xñ XXdêdÈ7Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌPAUL€A.€DUNLAP€and€wife,à àà à)ÌMARGIE€DUNLAP,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€Rutherford€Circuit€No.€33269Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9610„CV„00491ÌœßR€ $A1-j|À¡` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSMYRNA/RUTHERFORD€COUNTYà à)ÌAIRPORT€AUTHORITY€andà àà à)ÌRUTHERFORD€COUNTY€d/b/aà àà à)ÌRUTHERFORD€COUNTY€AIRPORTà à)ÌAUTHORITY,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MURFREESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DON€R.€ASH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌò òWARREN€M.€SMITHÌGLASGOW€&€VEAZEYÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌò òJAMES€R.€TOMKINSÌJENNINGS€&€TOMKINSÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òD.€KIRK€SHAFFERÌNANCY€A.€VINCENTÌSTOKES€&€BARTHOLOMEW,€P.A.ó óÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€J.€€€€ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÑ7€ Xñ XXdê XXdê7Ñó óÓÓà àIn€this€negligence€action,€Paul€A.€Dunlap€and€Margie€Dunlap€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€filedÏsuit€against€the€Defendant,€Smyrna/Rutherford€County€Airport€Authority,€for€damagesÏthat€their€aircraft€sustained€as€a€result€of€its€landing€gear€falling€into€a€manhole€coverÏon€property€under€the€control€and€ownership€of€the€Defendant,€Smyrna/RutherfordÏCounty€Airport€Authority.€€Ìà àAfter€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€of€voluntary€dismissal,€dismissing€theÏDefendant,€Rutherford€County,€the€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏDefendant,€Smyrna/Rutherford€County€Airport€Authority,€holding€that€the€inspectionÏand€maintenance€of€the€manhole€covers€was€a€discretionary€function€for€whichÏimmunity€was€not€removed€under€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€andÏthat€the€Defendant,€Smyrna/Rutherford€County€Airport€Authority€(ð ðDefendantðð)€did€notÏhave€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€the€dangerous€and€defective€condition€of€theÏmanhole€cover,€thus€relieving€the€Defendant€of€liability€under€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act.€€Plaintiffs€appeal€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€arguingÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€DefendantÍbecause€the€Defendant€did€have€actual€and/or€constructive€knowledge€of€theÏdangerous€and€defective€condition€of€the€manhole€cover.€€For€the€reasons€statedÏhereafter,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌò òà@ àFACTSÌÌó óà àOn€September€28,€1993,€Plaintiffs€gave€their€express€permission€to€LawrenceÏJorash€(ð ðJorashðð),€a€certified€pilot€and€Director€of€Operations€and€General€Manager€forÏthe€Defendant,€to€maintain€and€test„fly€their€aircraft.€€On€the€same€day€at€approximatelyÏ5:15€p.m.,€as€Jorash€was€proceeding€down€the€taxiway€with€Plaintiffsðð€aircraft,€theÏaircraft€rolled€over€a€slotted€manhole€cover€which€collapsed€causing€the€aircraftððs€rightÏmain€landing€gear€to€fall€into€the€manhole.€€As€a€result€of€the€manhole€coverððsÏcollapse,€Plaintiffsðð€aircraft€sustained€damage.€ÌÌà àSometime€before€5:15€p.m€on€September€28,€1993,€two€other€airplanes€taxiedÏacross€the€same€manhole€without€incident.€ÌÌà àPrior€to€Plaintiffsðð€accident,€no€manhole€covers€had€ever€cracked,€collapsed€orÏfailed€on€Defendantððs€property,€and€no€other€aircraft€had€been€damaged€as€a€result€ofÏtaxing€across€a€manhole€cover€on€Defendantððs€property.€€€The€Defendant€neverÏreceived€any€complaints,€problems,€or€requests€for€maintenance€or€replacementÏregarding€any€of€the€manhole€covers€on€Defendantððs€property€prior€to€September€28,Ï1993.€Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendant€had€not€adopted€or€implemented€a€policy€requiring€it€specially€toÏinspect,€repair€or€replace€the€manhole€covers€on€or€around€its€runways€prior€to€theÏaccident.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€bring€this€action€against€the€Defendant€for€the€dangerous€andÏdefective€condition€of€Defendantððs€airport€facility€pursuant€to€the€TennesseeÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€specifically€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„204.ÌÌò òà@ àLAWÌÌó óà àThe€issues€before€this€Court€are€as€follows:€Ìà à1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏDefendant;Ìà à2)€Whether€the€Defendant€is€immune€from€liability€based€upon€the€discretionaryÏfunction€exception€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„205(1)€and€(4);Ìà à3)€Whether€the€condition€of€the€manhole€cover€was€latent,€thus€relieving€theÏDefendant€of€liability€in€this€case;Ìà à4)€Whether€the€Defendant€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€allegedlyÏdangerous€and€defective€condition€of€the€manhole€which€caused€the€Plaintiffððs€injuries;Ìà à5)€Whether€the€negligence€of€the€Plaintiffs€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€theÏDefendantsðð€negligence,€thus€barring€the€Plaintiffs€from€recovery€in€this€case;€andÌà à6)€Whether€the€complaint€fails€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted.ÌÌà àThe€standards€governing€our€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€action€on€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€ofÏlaw,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€taskÏis€confined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Rule€56Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€have€been€met.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,Ï744€(Tenn.€1991);€òò€Foley€v.€St.€Thomas€Hosp.óó,€906€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1995);€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructures,€A€Division€of€Textron,€Inc.óó,€874€S.W.2d€579,Ï582€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.03€provides€thatÏsummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€only€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€and€(2)€theÏmoving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€ÏòòCarvellóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòAndersonÏv.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€hasÏthe€burden€of€proving€that€the€motion€satisfies€these€requirements.€€òòDownen€v.€AllstateÏIns.€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àWhile€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€not€a€substitute€for€trial,€it€goes€to€theÏmerits€of€the€complaint€and€should€not€be€taken€lightly.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210;ÏòòJones€v.€Home€Indem.€Ins.€Co.óó,€651€S.W.2d€213,€214€(Tenn.€1983);€òòFowler€v.€HappyÏGoodman€Familyóó,€575€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.€1978);€òòFoleyóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€452.€€It€hasÏbeen€repeatedly€stated€by€the€appellate€courts€of€this€state€that€the€purpose€of€aÍsummary€judgment€proceeding€is€not€the€finding€of€facts,€the€resolution€of€disputedÏfactual€issues€or€the€determination€of€conflicting€inferences€reasonably€to€be€drawnÏfrom€the€facts.€€òòBellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óó,€749€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.€1988).€€ÏRather,€the€purpose€of€summary€judgment€is€to€resolve€controlling€issues€of€law.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€evaluating€the€propriety€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€we€view€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€draw€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€A€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€conclusionsÏdrawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€but€one€conclusion.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àThe€case€at€bar€falls€into€the€category€of€cases€covered€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„204Ïwhich€states:ÌÓÓà8 àòòà8 àRemoval€of€immunity€for€injury€from€dangerous€structures„„„Exception„„„Notice€required.„„„Ìóóà8 àà8 à(a)€Immunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entity€is€removedÏfor€any€injury€caused€by€the€dangerous€or€defectiveÏcondition€of€any€public€building,€structure,€dam,€reservoir€orÏother€public€improvement€owned€and€controlled€by€suchÏgovernmental€entity.Ìà8 àà8 à(b)€Immunity€is€not€removed€for€latent€defective€conditions,Ïnor€shall€this€section€apply€unless€constructive€and/orÏactual€notice€to€the€governmental€entity€of€such€condition€beÏalleged€and€proved€in€addition€to€the€procedural€noticeÏrequired€by€ðð€29„20„302.ÌÌT.€C.€A.€ðð€29„20„204€(1980).ÌÌÌÌà àÓÓThe€legislature€specifically€made€the€removal€of€immunity€under€this€statuteÍconditional€upon€allegation€and€proof€that€the€governmental€entity€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€of€the€condition€of€its€public€improvement€causing€the€damages€at€issue.€€ÏPlaintiff€has€the€responsibility€of€establishing€that€the€defect€in€the€manhole€cover€wasÏa€latent€one€and€that€the€Defendant€had€constructive€and/or€actual€notice€of€thisÏcondition.€€òòSeeóó€òòLee€v.€City€of€Clevelandóó,€859€S.W.2d€347,€349€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);ÏòòSmith€v.€City€of€Covingtonóó,€734€S.W.2d€327,€329€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985),€òòaffððdóó,€1987€WLÏ12494€(Tenn.€June€22,€1987).€€Thus,€if€Plaintiff€is€unable€to€prove€that€the€DefendantÏhad€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€defective€and€dangerous€condition,€then€theÏDefendant€is€immune€from€suit.€€òòIdóó.€€This€statutory€requirement€appears€to€be€inÏaccordance€with€common„law€principles€governing€premises€liability€cases.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòUnderwood€v.€HCA€Health€Servs.€of€Tennessee,€Inc.óó,€892€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1994)€(stating€that,€in€order€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€premises€liability,Ïplaintiff€must€show€that€defendant€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€a€dangerous€orÏdefective€condition).ÌÌà àIn€dealing€with€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Plaintiff€is€responsible€forÏshowing€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€relative€to€whether€or€not€theÏDefendant€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€the€defective€and€dangerousÏcondition.€€òòBarnett€v.€Gallatin€Depððt€of€Elec.óó,€1991€LEXIS€833,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.ÏOctober€23,€1991).€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòHolifield€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€1990€LEXIS€675€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€September€27,Ï1990),€this€Court€faced€the€same€issue€as€in€the€case€at€bar.€€After€Holifield€slippedÍand€fell€on€a€defective€grate€covering€a€water€drain€in€a€city€park,€this€Court€addressedÏthe€issue€of€whether€the€City€of€Memphis€had€either€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€theÏdefective€grate.€€In€support€of€its€motion€to€dismiss,€the€city€offered€the€affidavit€of€itsÏclaims€agent,€who€had€the€responsibility€of€receiving€claims€filed€against€the€city.€òòIdóó.€*2.€ÏThe€cityððs€claims€agent€testified€that€her€office€had€never€received€any€notice€of€a€claimÏconcerning€the€grate€in€question.€òòIdóó.€€The€city€also€offered€the€affidavit€of€its€technicalÏsystems€advisor€for€the€general€services€division€of€the€city,€who€had€the€responsibilityÏof€retaining€records€of€maintenance€or€defects€in€the€fountain€of€which€the€grate€was€aÏpart.€òòIdóó.€*2„3.€€He€testified€that€he€personally€checked€the€records€of€the€generalÏservices€division€and€found€no€record€of€any€alleged€defects€in€the€grate.€€òòIdóó.€*3.€€UponÏconsideration€of€the€affidavits€offered€by€the€city,€this€Court€held€that€the€City€ofÏMemphis€was€without€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€and€defectiveÏcondition€of€the€grate;€that€the€cityððs€immunity€had€not€been€removed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„204;€and€that€the€city€was€therefore€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€in€this€case€that€Defendant€was€entitled€to€immunity€basedÏupon€its€performance€or€€failure€to€exercise€a€discretionary€function€pursuant€to€T.C.A.Ïðð€29„20„205.€€It€should€be€noted,€however,€that€Plaintiffððs€complaint€was€broughtÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðððð€29„20„203€and€29„20„204.€€These€provisions€indicate€that€aÏgovernmental€entity€is€liable€for€injury€caused€by€the€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerousÏcondition€of€any€street,€alley,€sidewalk€or€highway€controlled€by€such€entity€and,Ïfurther,€that€the€governmental€entity€is€liable€for€injury€caused€by€the€dangerous€orÏdefective€condition€of€any€public€€ð ðstructure.€.€.or€other€public€improvementðð€owned€andÍcontrolled€by€such€entity,€provided€in€each€case€that€there€is€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice€of€such€condition€to€the€governmental€entity.€€There€is€no€immunity€under€theseÏprovisions,€and€the€trial€court€was€in€error€to€apply€the€discretionary€function€exceptionÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„205.€€See€òòSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€743€S.W.2d€174€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1987).ÌÌà àDefendant€had€a€duty€to€maintain€its€premises€in€a€reasonably€safe€conditionÏand€this€duty€included€the€obligation€to€discover€reasonably€observable€dangerous€orÏdefective€conditions.€€It€is€clear€that€Defendant€did€not€have€actual€notice€of€aÏdangerous€or€defective€€condition.€€The€question€is€whether€Plaintiffs€met€the€burden€ofÏshowing€that€Defendant€had€constructive€notice€of€a€dangerous€or€defective€conditionÏso€as€to€effect€the€removal€of€immunity€herein.€€ÌÌà àDefendant€offered€the€deposition€of€Steve€Fitzhugh,€the€Defendantððs€airportÏdirector,€in€support€of€its€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€In€his€deposition,€FitzhughÏstated€that€he€had€been€working€as€the€Defendantððs€airport€director€since€May€15,Ï1991.€€Fitzhugh€testified€that€the€Defendant€never€received€any€complaints,€problemsÏor€requests€for€maintenance€or€replacement€regarding€any€of€the€manhole€covers€onÏDefendantððs€property€prior€to€Plaintiffððs€accident;€that€none€of€the€manhole€covers€onÏDefendantððs€property€had€ever€cracked,€collapsed€or€failed;€and€that€no€other€aircraftÏhad€been€damaged€as€a€result€of€taxiing€across€a€manhole€cover€on€DefendantððsÏproperty.€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Plaintiffs€contend€that€the€Defendant€had€actual€and/or€constructiveÏnotice€of€the€dangerous€and€defective€condition€of€the€manhole€cover€in€question.€€InÏsupport€of€their€argument,€Plaintiffs€state€that€the€Defendant€found€three€visibly€crackedÏmanhole€covers€on€its€property€within€one€month€after€the€Plaintiffsðð€accident;€that€theÏremains€of€at€least€two€manhole€covers€were€found€at€the€bottom€of€the€manhole€inÏquestion€after€Plaintiffsðð€accident;€that€photographs€of€the€manhole€cover€in€questionÏrevealed€noticeable€cracks€and€obvious€accumulations€of€rust€at€the€crack€sites;€andÏthat€ð ðsimple€logic€mandates€the€conclusion€that€the€deterioration€and€cracks€wouldÏhave€developed€over€a€long€period€of€time.ðð€€€Plaintiffs€offered€no€proof,€however,€toÏestablish€the€applicable€standard€of€duty€incumbent€upon€Defendant€in€theÏexamination,€inspection,€and€discovery€of€latent€defects€of€manhole€grates€located€inÏthe€taxi„way,€nor€was€there€proof€that€a€reasonable€visual€inspection€would€haveÏrevealed€that€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€existed€for€aircraft€utilizing€theseÏareas.€€Because€Plaintiffððs€assertions€fail€to€show€that€the€Defendant€had€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€of€the€defective€nature€of€the€manhole€cover€in€question€before€theÏaccident,€Plaintiffsðð€arguments€are€insufficient€to€show€that€Defendant€had€constructiveÏnotice€of€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition.ÌÌà àThe€record€contains€no€evidence€revealing€that€the€Defendant€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€of€the€dangerous€and€defective€condition€of€the€manhole€cover€whichÏcaused€the€Plaintiffsðð€accident.€€€Prior€to€the€accident,€Defendant€never€received€anyÏcomplaints€or€requests€for€maintenance€or€replacement€regarding€any€of€the€manholeÏcovers€on€Defendantððs€property;€no€manhole€covers€had€ever€cracked,€collapsed€orÍfailed€on€Defendantððs€property;€and€no€other€aircraft€had€been€damaged€as€a€result€ofÏa€manhole€cover€on€Defendantððs€property.€€In€consideration€of€this€evidence,ÏDefendant€was€without€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€defective€and€dangerousÏcondition€of€the€manhole€cover€which€caused€Plaintiffsðð€accident.€€Therefore,€theÏremoval€of€immunity€provided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„204€does€not€apply€to€the€defectiveÏcondition€of€the€manhole€cover€which€caused€the€damage€to€Plaintiffsðð€aircraft,€and€theÏDefendant€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà àBecause€of€our€disposition€of€the€foregoing€issues,€we€need€not€address€theÏremaining€issues€on€appeal.̛̜œÌ›œÌ›œà à›Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏAppellant€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.