ÿWPCÆ& ¾# t U: %¹ 0û¿ w@º 4ú   # )/ 0J7 0T 0^Õ 0h3 0r› 0|  0†‰ 0 1uŸ 0dU*x B¢B)¿DCè AM+¤xY D3uÞ¨‡† 0@ v~MvÓË AOž"Æí" 0D³# D/÷# B&$ 0?C$ 0D‚&˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó~Ð$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ LegalLˆhÐ (Avery 4167 Post Card AØ'ÿ LegalhÐ (Avery 4167 Post CardTÑÔ€Xm¢XXXÔÑ7€¥3XXdìXXdæ7Ñ YÊÕÊ{ Ê Ó€Úƒç"@3|xÈHÈ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ24,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¼$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSomewhat€mystifying€since€the€plaintiff,€in€his€motion€for€partial€summaryÏjudgment,€alleged€that€òòLenoir€City€owned€this€land;€óómoreover,€the€plaintiff,€in€hisÏòòRuleóó€59€motion,€asked€the€Court€to€òòlimit€the€dismissal€of€his€complaint€to€Corlew€andÏLenoir€City€Company.óóÌ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¼$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€the€City€attorney,€òòno€street€or€right€of€wayóó€in€Lenoir€City€hadÏever€been€dedicated€.€.€.€,€a€point€not€crucial€to€a€resolution€of€this€case.Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¼$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝExcept€for€the€affidavit€of€Johnson€wherein€he€stated€a€legal€conclusion.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(ï(3-$¤¤Ý ƒ~Ð!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XzŽXXXÔÑ7€zŽXXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›ÓÓò òÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›EASTERN€SECTIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓó óHUEY€A.€HOWELL,à àà àà à)à àLOUDON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€03A01„9704„CH„00127Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€LENOIR€CITY,€TN,€ET€AL,à à)à àHON.€FRANK€V.€WILLIAMS,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appelleesà àà à)à àREVERSED€in€part;Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMED€in€part,€andÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àREMANDEDÌÌÌÌWayne€A.€Ritchie,€II,€Knoxville,€for€AppellantÌÌPamela€L.€Reeves,€Knoxville,€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiff€was€injured€when€a€large,€long„dead€tree€fell€from€anÏembankment€onto€the€top€of€his€automobile€as€he€was€driving€on€First€Avenue€[RockÏSprings€Road]€in€Lenoir€City,€Tennessee.Ìà àIn€his€twice„amended€complaint€filed€in€the€Circuit€Court€the€plaintiff€seeks€toÏrecover€damages€for€his€injuries.€€He€alleged€that€the€tree€was€situated€on€propertyÏowned€by€the€defendant€œLenoir›€City€which€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€itsÍdangerous€condition€or€the€danger€it€posed€to€the€public,€and€therefore€enjoyed€noÏimmunity€pursuant€to€T.€C.€A.€ðð€29„20„203(b).€€Alternately,€the€plaintiff€alleged€thatÏthe€defendant€œLenoir›€City€Company€owned€the€land€on€which€the€tree€was€situated;Ïstill€alternatively,€the€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€defendant€Martha€Corlew€owned€saidÏland,€and€that€the€defendants€jointly€and€severally€had€actual€or€constructive€noticeÏof€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€tree€and€negligently€failed€to€remove€it.Ìà àœÌÌÑ  Ñà àThe›€Lenoir€City€Company€filed€its€answer€in€course,€and€denied€ownership€ofÏthe€property€on€which€the€tree€was€situated.€€The€answer€was€followed€shortly€by€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€Phyllis€V.€Edwards,ÏSecretary€of€Lenoir€City€Company,€Inc.,€who€testified€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àð ð€.€.€.€it€appears€that€the€residence€of€the€defendant€Martha€Corlew€isÏlocated€on€part€of€the€acreage€of€Lenoir€City€Company,€Inc.€sold€to€J.ÏL.€Boggs€on€July€1,€1907€.€.€.€I€can€find€no€records€indicating€that€theÏproperty€described€in€the€complaint€is€owned€by€the€Lenoir€CityÏCompany,€Inc.ððÌà àÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€Lenoir€City€filed€no€answer€so€far€as€the€record€reveals.€€ItÏfiled€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€alleging€(1)€that€the€property€upon€which€theÏtree€was€located€is€not€the€property€of€the€City;€(2)€that€said€property€was€notÏmaintained€or€used€by€the€City,€and€for€these€reasons€the€ð ðCity€had€no€authority€toÏenter€onto€this€land€and€cut€or€trim€this€tree€and€further€had€no€notice€either€actual€orÏconstructive€of€the€tree.ðð€€This€motion€was€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€Terry€Vann,ÏCity€Attorney,€who€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€the€public€record€and€ð ðthat€thereÏhas€never€been€any€dedication€of€city€streets€or€public€rights€of€way€to€Lenoir€City,ÍTennessee.€€There€are€no€rights€of€way€recognized€in€the€Registrar€œ[sic]€of›€DeedsÏOffice.ðð€€He€further€testified€that€the€records€do€not€reflect€that€the€property€adjacentÏto€Rock€Springs€Road€ð ðbelongs€to€Lenoir€City,ðð€or€ð ðthat€Lenoir€City€has€any€right€ofÏway€adjacent€to€the€street.ðð€€The€motion€was€supported€further€by€the€affidavit€ofÏJohn€R.€Johnson,€head€of€the€Lenoir€City€Street€Department,€who€testified€that€theÏCity€œð ðdoes›€not€have€any€right€of€way€over€the€portion€of€the€embankment€where€thisÏtree€stood,ðð€and€that€ð ðwe€did€not€trim€or€mow€that€portion€of€the€embankmentðð€andÏthat€his€Department€ð ðhas€no€record€of€receiving€any€notice€of€any€problems€with€theÏtree€in€question.ððÌà àThe€defendant€Martha€Corlew€filed€no€answer€so€far€as€the€record€revealsÏbut€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€supported€by€her€affidavit€that€she€did€notÏown€the€land€on€which€the€tree€stood,€and€further€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€aÏsurveyor,€David€B.€Gibson,€that€he€made€a€survey€of€Corlewððs€property€and€that€theÏfallen€tree€was€not€located€thereon,€but€appeared€to€have€been€ð ðòòlocated€on€propertyÏowned€by€Lenoir€City.ððÌÌœóóThe›€òòplaintiffóó€filed€a€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€alleging€thatÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà8 àð ðthe€land€upon€which€the€subject€tree€is€located€is€ownedÏby€the€City€of€Lenoir€City,€Tennessee.ððÌÌÓÓÓ  Ó€à àThis€motion€was€supported,€òòon€the€issue€of€liability,óó€by€the€affidavit€of€DavidÏB.€Gibson,€heretofore€referenced.€€The€plaintiff€thereafter€submitted€the€affidavit€ofÏDoyle€Arp,€property€assessor€of€Loudon€County,€who€testified€that€ð ðno€taxes€haveÏbeen€assessed€or€solicited€to€be€paid€for€said€property,ðð€referring€to€the€strip€of€landÍbetween€the€Corlew€property€and€the€paved€portion€of€First€Avenue€on€which€theÏtree€was€located.€€The€affidavit€of€Don€Lane,€former€Mayor€of€Lenoir€City,€was€alsoÏsubmitted.€€He€testified€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€subject€property,€and€that€œÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àð ðprior›€to€and€at€the€time€of€subject€accident€the€City€was€in€the€habit€ofÏwaiting€until€tree€limbs,€debris,€etc.€had€fallen€and€needed€to€beÏremoved€from€said€property€before€the€City€would€take€any€action€.€.€.Ïthe€City€did€not€take€any€preventive€action€to€address€the€problem€ofÏdecaying€trees€on€the€embankment€.€.€.€œð ðÌ›ÌÓÓÓ  Óà àòòBy€agreed€order,óó€the€case€was€transferred€to€the€Chancery€Court€ð ðfor€a€rulingÏupon€the€issue€of€ownership€of€the€real€estate,ðð€if€the€parties€could€not€otherwiseÏagree.Ìà àThey€did€not€agree,€and€the€Circuit€Court€œthereupon›€entered€an€òòOrder€ofÏTransfer€and€Bifurcation,óó€which€œprovided€ð ðÔ% € Ô.›€.€.€òòthe€above€styled€matter€is€herebyÏbifurcated,€with€the€Circuit€Court€retaining€jurisdiction€over€the€tort€aspects€of€theÏcause€and€with€the€boundary€line€and€ownership€issues€to€be€determined€by€theÏLoudon€County€Chancery€Court€.€.€.€ð ðÌà àóóThe€case€was€heard€December€4,€1995€in€the€Chancery€Court€on€the€variousÏmotions€for€summary€judgment.€€A€judgment€was€rendered€dismissing€the€complaintÏas€to€òòallóó€defendants.€€Whereupon,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€òòRuleóó€59.04€motion€to€alter€orÏamend€the€judgment€dismissing€Lenoir€City€because€a€genuine€issue€of€materialÏfact€existed€as€to€the€liability€of€the€City€pursuant€to€the€œGovernment›€Tort€LiabilityÏAct,€ÌT.€C.€A.€ðð€29„20„101€òòet€seq.óó,€and€that€ð ðthe€òòjudgment€be€amended€to€apply€only€to€theÏdefendants€Martha€Corlew€and€Lenoir€City€Company.ððÌÌÌà àóóThe€òòRuleóó€59€motion€was€heard€November€22,€1996.€€The€Chancellor€filed€aÏcomprehensive€Opinion€to€ð ðrevisit€the€issues€and€clarify€the€earlier€ruling.ðð€€TheÏplaintiff€apparently€attempted€to€revitalize€his€theory€that€Martha€Corlew€owned€theÏland€between€her€residence€lot€and€First€Avenue,× ƒ) ××  ×€which€triggered€a€title€analysis€ofÏthe€Corlew€property.€€The€Chancellor€concluded€that€there€was€no€evidence€ofÏdedication€of€the€disputed€land€to€the€City,× ƒ+ ××  ×€nor€evidence€of€control,€and€that€theÏland€on€which€the€tree€stood€continues€to€be€titled€in€J.€L.€Boggs€or€his€heirs,ÏholdingÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àð ðmere€dedication€by€the€Lenoir€City€Company€or€Boggs€of€the€land€forÏuse€as€a€public€road€does€not€relieve€Boggs€of€responsibility€for€theÏundeveloped€and€unaccepted€portion€of€First€Avenue,€even€thoughÏthe€City,€òòby€reason€of€the€dedication,óó€has€the€option€of€eventuallyÏaccepting€the€òòentire€60„foot€easement.ððÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àóóThe€òòRuleóó€59€motion€was€denied,€and€the€case€was€dismissed€as€to€allÏdefendants.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€appeals€and€presents€for€review€the€propriety€of€the€dismissal€ofÏthe€action€against€all€three€(3)€defendants.Ìà àSince€the€plaintiff€alleged€in€his€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€that€theÏtree€stood€on€land€òòowned€by€Lenoir€City,óó€and€in€legal€effect€therefor€conceded€thatÍMartha€Corlew€and€the€Lenoir€City€Company€were€properly€dismissed,€we€willÏconsider€only€the€propriety€of€the€dismissal€of€Lenoir€City.€€Our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€onÏthe€record,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€since€the€issue€is€one€of€law.€ÏòòJohnson€v.€EMPE,€Inc.,€óó837€S.W.2d€62€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).Ìà àAt€the€outset,€we€do€not€consider€the€issue€of€the€òòfee€ownershipóó€of€the€subjectÏland€on€which€the€tree€stood€to€be€necessarily€determinative€of€the€liability€of€LenoirÏCity.€€It€is€not€disputed€that€the€tree€was€but€ten€feet€from€the€edge€of€the€pavementÏof€First€Avenue.€€Evidence€was€presented€that€the€width€of€the€right„of„way€of€FirstÏAvenue€is€60€feet,€which€places€the€tree€well€within€the€Cityððs€right€of€way.€€This€factÏappears€not€to€have€been€disputed,œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€and€substantially€negates€the€issue€of€whetherÏthe€land€on€which€the€tree€stood€had€ever€formally€been€dedicated€to€the€public.€ÏMoreover,€the€issue€of€whether€Lenoir€City€could€be€held€liable€œin€tort€Ô% € Ôfor›€failure€toÏcorrect€a€dangerous€condition€was€not€within€the€province€of€the€Chancery€Court.Ìà àThe€provisions€of€the€Government€Tort€Liability€Act,€T.€C.€A.€ðð€29„20„101€òòetÏseq.,óó€control€this€case.€€The€Act€grants€immunity€to€governmental€entities€withÏexceptions,€one€of€which€is€specified€in€T.€C.€A.€ðð€29„20„203.€€This€statute€providesÏthat€immunity€is€removed€for€any€injury€caused€by€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerousÏcondition€of€any€street€owned€or€controlled€by€the€governmental€entity.€€The€removalÏof€immunity€in€this€limited€context€creates€a€duty€of€reasonable€care€on€the€part€ofÏmunicipalities€to€keep€the€streets€safe.€€òòSee,€Kessell€v.€Ashe,€óó888€S.W.2d€430Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€Under€this€record,€since€the€City€has€an€easement€for€street€purposesÍwhich€encompasses€the€area€where€the€tree€stood,€the€city€enjoys€no€immunity€fromÏliability.Ìà àFinally,€it€must€be€observed€that€this€case€was€transferred€to€the€ChanceryÏCourt€„€more€or€less€by€agreement€„€for€the€purpose€of€ð ðruling€upon€the€issue€ofÏownership€of€the€real€estateðð€[first€order]€and€thereafter€bifurcated€[second€order]Ïwith€the€ð ðboundary€line€and€ownership€issues€to€be€determined€by€the€ChanceryÏCourt.ðð€€According€to€the€record,€as€we€have€twice€noted,€the€plaintiff€abandoned€hisÏclaim€against€Corlew€and€Lenoir€City€Company,€thereby€obviating€all€issues€saveÏthe€liability€of€Lenoir€City€under€the€Government€Tort€Liability€Act,€jurisdiction€ofÏwhich€was€retained€by€the€Circuit€Court.Ìà àAs€to€Lenoir€City,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€theÏChancery€Court€for€transfer€to€the€Circuit€Court.€€As€to€Martha€Corlew€and€LenoirÏCity€Company,€the€judgment€of€dismissal€is€affirmed.Ìà àCosts€are€assessed€to€the€plaintiff€and€Lenoir€City€equally.ÌÓÓÌà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌ_______________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÔ% € Ô€ÌÌ€ÌÌ