ÿWPCƒ! …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµ 0Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , ; †C 0DÉ  m 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0d BgU>„B)ÂDCë D3. AMaU*® 0@Ø.!F&gv~vÓ  AOÞÆ- 0Dó D/7! Bf!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2zÞ$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X•TX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- © ª « D¬ D­ ¯ U° D± ² Ó€¼ DÒ Ô<XÔT 3|x¼ Amanda Smith v. Castner-Knott - opinion Í ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€'¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌApril€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€'¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTwo„way€mirrors€used€for€security€had€fallen€in€other€parts€of€the€¢Rivergate£€store;Ïhowever,€these€mirrors€were€not€attached€to€the€wall€with€mirror€mastic€but€were€supported€byÏa€frame€that€was€not€similar€to€the€metal€channels€that€held€in€place€the€mirrored€tiles€adjacent€toÏthe€beauty€salonððs€entrance.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€'¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€are€not€unmindful€that€Miss€Smith€and€her€parents€presented€the€affidavit€of€anÏarchitect€who€opined€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€had€the€duty€to€inspect€and€test€the€structural€stabilityÏof€the€mirrored€tiles.€€We€are€not€compelled€to€follow€this€opinion€because€the€existence€andÏscope€of€a€duty€is€a€question€of€law.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÔ€'¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€:¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àÔ€'„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE̜ـ€ÙßR€+.)A1-j|ºû[` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÔ€'¼ÔÌó óAMANDA€MARIE€SMITH,à àà à)ÌCHARLES€BRENT€SMITH,à àà à)Ìand€wife€CONNIE€SMITH,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€93C„3541ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9512„CV„00554ÌTHE€CASTNER„KNOTTà àà à)ÌDRY€GOODS€COMPANY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WALTER€C.€KURTZ€ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:à àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌRonald€H.€Bice,€Jr.à àà àà àà àD.€Randall€MantoothÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àLeitner,€Warner,€Moffitt,ÏWilliams,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDooley€&€NapolitanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€'„Ôò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€'¼ÔÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÑ ° ÑӀӜԀ'„Ô›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€'¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€concerns€a€seven„year„old€girl€who€was€injured€when€aÏdecorative€mirrored€tile€fell€from€a€wall€in€a€department€store.€€The€child€andÏher€parents€filed€a€negligence€action€against€the€department€store€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Davidson€County.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€department€storeððsÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€On€this€appeal,€the€child€and€her€parentsÏassert€that€summary€judgment€was€improper€because€of€factual€disputesÏconcerning€the€department€storeððs€knowledge€of€the€mirrored€tilesðð€conditionÏand€because€the€undisputed€facts€made€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€liability€underÏthe€doctrine€of€res€ipsa€loquitur.€€We€affirm€the€summary€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€ó óÌÌà àThe€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€Dry€Goods€Company€renovated€the€third€floor€of€itsÏ¢Rivergate£€store€in€1984.€€Part€of€these€renovations,€which€were€completed€inÏDecember€1984,€included€the€installation€of€mirrored€tiles€on€the€walls€andÏsoffits€€near€the€entrance€to€the€beauty€salon.€€The€mirrored€tiles€on€the€soffitsÏwere€approximately€20"€wide€and€30"€long€and€were€held€in€place€with€metalÏchannels€on€their€top€and€bottom€and€with€mirror€mastic€on€each€œcorner.›ÌÌà àThe€maintenance€crew€hired€by€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€to€clean€its€¢Rivergate£Ïstore€was€responsible€for€cleaning€the€mirrored€tiles€at€the€entrance€to€theÏbeauty€salon€every€four€to€six€weeks€and€for€reporting€any€conditionsÏrequiring€repair,€including€loose€œtiles,›€discovered€during€the€cleaning€process.€ÏWhile€the€cleaning€crew€never€reported€loose€tiles€in€the€salon€area€of€itsÏ¢Rivergate£€store,€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€was€aware€that€other€types€of€mirrored€tilesÍhad€fallen€in€other€parts€of€the€store€and€in€other€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€stores.ÏNeither€the€manager€of€the€¢Rivergate£€store€nor€the€employees€of€the€beautyÏsalon€had€ever€noticed€problems€with€the€mirrored€tiles€near€the€beautyÏsalonððs€entrance.ÌÌà àOn€June€22,€1993,€seven„year„old€Amanda€Marie€Smith€accompaniedÏher€brother€and€grandfather€to€the€beauty€salon€at€¢Castner£„¢Knott£ððs€¢Rivergate£Ïstore€in€search€of€a€present€for€her€mother.€€While€there,€one€of€the€mirroredÏtiles€attached€Ñ Ü Ñto€the€soffit€fell€and€struck€her€on€her€nose€and€left€cheek€belowÏher€eye,€leaving€a€severe€laceration.€€Neither€the€salon€employees€nor€MissÏSmith,€her€brother,€or€her€grandfather€observed€anything€unusual€about€theÏtile€before€it€fell.ÌÌà àMiss€Smith€and€her€parents€filed€œa€negligence›€action€against€¢Castner£„¢Knott£.€€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€filed€an€answer€denying€liability€and€asserting€that€theÏgeneral€contractor€who€performed€the€renovations€and€the€material€supplierÏwho€provided€the€mirrored€tiles€and€metal€channels€and€supervised€theirÏinstallation€were€responsible€for€Miss€Smithððs€injury.€€Thereafter,€Miss€SmithÏand€her€parents€filed€an€amended€complaint€naming€the€general€contractor€andÏmaterial€supplier€as€defendants€along€with€¢Castner£„¢Knott£.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€claims€against€the€general€contractor€andÏthe€material€supplier€based€on€the€four„year€statute€of€repose€forÏimprovements€to€real€property.€€Thereafter€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€moved€forÏsummary€œjudgment›€asserting€that€it€did€not€install€the€mirrored€tiles€and€that€itÏdid€not€have€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€their€condition.€€Miss€Smith€andÍher€parents€responded€by€amending€their€complaint€to€assert€res€ipsa€loquiturÏand€by€filing€their€own€affidavits.€€In€one€of€these€affidavits,€an€architectÏopined€that€the€mirrored€panels€ð ðshould€have€been€inspected€and€tested€forÏstructural€stability€on€a€regular€basisðð€and€that€ð ðwith€proper€maintenance€anyÏunstable€panel€would€have€been€detected€and€should€not€have€fallen.ðð€€AfterÏpermitting€additional€time€for€discovery,€the€trial€court€granted€¢Castner£„¢Knott£ððs€motion€and€dismissed€the€complaint.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Premises€Liability€Claimó óóóÌÌà àLiability€in€premises€liability€cases€does€not€arise€solely€from€theÏownership€or€control€of€the€premises.€€òòUnderwood€v.€¢HCA£€Health€¢Servs£.€ofÏTenn.,€Inc.,óó€892€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€It€arises€from€theÏsuperior€knowledge€the€person€in€control€of€the€premises€has€with€regard€toÏthe€condition€of€the€premises.€€òòMcCormick€v.€Waters,óó€594€S.W.2d€385,€387Ï(Tenn.€1980);€òòKendall€Oil€Co.€v.€Ñ d ÑPayne,óó€41€Tenn.€App.€201,€205,€293€S.W.2dÏ40,€42€(1955).€€Thus,€persons€seeking€to€prevail€with€a€premises€liability€claimÏmust€prove€that€the€person€in€possession€and€control€of€the€premises€eitherÏcreated€the€dangerous€condition€that€caused€the€damages€or€had€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€of€the€condition.€€òò¢Beske£€v.€¢Opryland£€USA,€Inc.,óó€923ÏS.W.2d€544,€545„46€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòOgle€v.€¢Winn£„Dixie€Greenville,ÏInc.,óó€919€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àThe€undisputed€evidence€demonstrates€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€lacked€actualÏor€constructive€notice€that€any€of€the€mirrored€tiles€near€the€entrance€to€theÏbeauty€salon€in€its€¢Rivergate£€store€had€loosened€to€the€point€where€they€couldÍfall€and€strike€persons€standing€below.€€No€one€connected€with€the€store€or€theÏbeauty€salon€could€recall€a€mirrored€tile€at€this€location€ever€becomingÏdislodged.€€Likewise,€the€store€personnel€were€not€on€constructive€notice€ofÏthe€condition€of€these€tiles€even€though€they€were€aware€that€other€types€ofÏmirrored€tiles€had€become€dislodged€in€other€locations€in€the€¢Rivergate£€storeÏand€at€a€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€store€in€another€state.€€These€other€tiles€were€dissimilarÏto€the€ones€involved€in€this€case€and€were€not€attached€in€the€same€manner.¢× ƒ/ ××  ×£ÌÌà àEven€when€we€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€MissÏSmith€and€her€parents,€we€find€no€genuine€factual€dispute€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£Ïneither€created€nor€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€condition€thatÏcaused€Miss€Smithððs€injury.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€properly€dismissedÏher€premises€liability€claim€on€summary€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌòòà@ àò òThe€Negligent€Failure€to€Inspect€and€Maintain€Claimó óóóÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€customary€premises€liability€claim,€Miss€Smith€andÏher€parents€assert€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€owed€a€duty€to€its€customers€to€inspectÏand€test€the€structural€integrity€of€the€mirrored€tiles€on€a€regular€basis€andÏthat€the€Ñ Ü Ñnegligent€failure€to€inspect€its€premises€was€a€proximate€cause€of€MissÏSmithððs€injury.€€We€have€determined€as€a€matter€of€law€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£Ïdoes€not€have€a€duty€to€monitor€the€structural€integrity€of€its€stores.ÌÌà àThe€existence€of€a€duty€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff€is€anÏessential€ingredient€in€every€negligence€case.€€òòDoe€v.€¢Linder£€Constr.€Co.,óó€845ÏS.W.2d€173,€183€(Tenn.€1992);€òòDooley€v.€Everett,óó€805€S.W.2d€380,€384Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€The€nature€and€scope€of€the€defendantððs€duty€in€aÏparticular€case€is€a€question€of€law.€€òò¢McClung£€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.ÏPartnership,óó€937€S.W.2d€891,€894€(Tenn.€1996);€òòBlair€v.€Campbell,óó€924ÏS.W.2d€75,€78€(Tenn.€1996).€€Accordingly,€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏis€an€appropriate€vehicle€for€determining€whether€a€particular€defendant€owedÏa€duty€to€a€particular€plaintiff.€€òò¢Nichols£€v.€¢Atnip£,óó€844€S.W.2d€655,€658€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àOwners€and€operators€of€business€establishments€are€not€insurers€ofÏtheir€customersðð€safety.€€òòJones€v.€¢Zayre£,€Inc.óó,€600€S.W.2d€730,€732€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1980).€€They€do,€however,€owe€a€duty€to€their€patrons€to€use€reasonableÏcare€under€all€the€œcircumstances.€›€òòBenson€v.€H.G.€Hill€Stores,€Inc.,€óó699ÏS.W.2d€560,€562€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€This€duty€includes€(1)€maintainingÏthe€premises€in€a€reasonably€safe€condition,€(2)€inspecting€the€premises€toÏdiscover€dangerous€conditions€reasonably€recognizable€by€common€experienceÏand€ordinary€prudence,€and€(3)€either€removing€dangerous€conditions€orÏwarning€patrons€of€their€presence.€€òòSmith€v.€¢Inman£€Realty€Co.,óó€846€S.W.2dÏ819,€823€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGraves€v.€œGradyððs›€Inc.,óó€906€S.W.2dÏ463,€œ465›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(stating€that€a€business€must€protect€itsÏcustomers€from€dangers€it€knows€about€or€might€discover€with€reasonableÏcare).ÌÌà àThe€risk€of€defective€construction€materials€or€of€the€negligentÏconstruction€of€improvements€to€real€property€should€not€be€placed€on€theÏowner€of€the€property€unless€the€owner€knew€of€and€accepted€the€defectiveÏmaterials€or€negligent€work.€€It€is€undisputed€in€this€case€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£Ïdid€not€design€or€install€the€mirrored€tiles€or€the€decorative€metal€channelsÏholding€them€in€place€and€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€had€no€reason€to€know€or€evenÏsuspect€that€the€mirrored€tiles€and€metal€channels€were€defective€orÏimproperly€installed.€As€the€owner€of€the€premises,€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€was€actingÏreasonably€by€assuming€that€its€contractor€and€material€suppliers€constructedÏimprovements€to€its€store€that€would€be€reasonably€safe€for€the€purposes€forÏwhich€they€were€intended.ÌÌà àAfter€the€construction€of€the€improvements€to€its€¢Rivergate£€store,Ï¢Castner£„¢Knott£€had€the€duty€to€protect€its€customers€from€dangers€that€could€beÏdiscovered€by€reasonable€inspection.€€It€is€undisputed€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£Ïemployees€conducted€general€visual€inspections€of€the€store€and€that€theÏcleaning€crew€hired€by€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€was€instructed€to€inform€the€store€ofÏany€dangerous€conditions€that€might€be€discovered€during€the€cleaningÏprocess.€€These€activities€were€reasonable€in€light€of€the€condition€of€theÏpremises€and€¢Castner£„¢Knott£ððs€experience€operating€department€stores.€€TheÏlaw€will€not€impose€a€duty€on€¢Castner£„¢Knott£€to€test€the€structural€integrity€ofÏmirrored€tiles€in€its€stores€without€some€credible€evidence€of€other€failures€ofÏthe€same€type€of€mirrored€tiles.¢œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›£ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Res€Ipsa€Loquitur€Claimó óóóÌÌà àAs€a€final€matter,€Miss€Smith€and€her€parents€insist€that€the€doctrine€ofÏres€ipsa€loquitur€should€have€been€sufficient€to€enable€them€to€avoid€theÏsummary€judgment€and€to€present€their€case€to€a€jury.€€We€have€determinedÏthat€the€doctrine€of€res€ipsa€loquitur€is€inapplicable€to€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€res€ipsa€loquitur€doctrine€is€nothing€more€than€a€specialized€vehicleÏfor€considering€the€strength€of€circumstantial€evidence€in€a€negligence€case.€ÏòòUnderwood€v.€¢HCA£€Health€¢Servs£.€of€Tenn.,€Inc.,óó€892€S.W.2d€at€426.€€PersonsÏrelying€on€the€doctrine€need€œnot›€prove€specific€acts€of€negligence,€œòò¢Summit£›€HillÏ¢Assocs£.€v.€Knoxville€¢Utils£.€Bd.,óó€667€S.W.2d€91,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983),€butÏmust€present€evidence€sufficient€to€enable€the€finder„of„fact€to€conclude€thatÏthe€damage€was€caused,€more€likely€than€not,€by€the€defendantððs€negligenceÏrather€than€by€any€other€cause.€€òò¢Stinnett£€v.€Wright,óó€59€Tenn.€App.€118,€126,Ï438€S.W.2d€357,€361€(1968).€€The€doctrine€does€not€apply€in€cases€where€theÏplaintiffððs€injury€could€reasonably€have€occurred€even€without€the€defendantððsÏnegligence.€€òòUnderwood€v.€¢HCA£€Health€¢Servs£.€of€Tenn.,€Inc.,óó€892€S.W.2d€atÏ427;€òòFulton€v.€¢Pfizer£€Hosp.€Prods.€Group,€Inc.,óó€872€S.W.2d€908,€912€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1993).€€ÌÌà àNegligence€cases€containing€only€a€spark€or€glimmer€of€evidence€needÏnot€be€submitted€to€the€jury.€€òòOgle€v.€¢Winn£„Dixie€Greenville,€Inc.,€óó919ÏS.W.2d€at€47.€€œThe›€undisputed€evidence€in€this€case€is€not€strong€enough€for€aÍreasonable€finder„of„fact€to€conclude€that€¢Castner£„¢Knott£ððs€negligence,€moreÏprobably€than€not,€caused€Miss€Smithððs€injuries.€€€It€is€equally€likely€that€theÏmirrored€tile€fell€either€because€it€was€installed€improperly€or€because€the€tileÏand€its€metal€supporting€channels€were€defective.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtÏproperly€concluded€that€the€evidence€would€not€permit€a€reasonable€finder„of„fact€to€conclude€that€Miss€Smith€would€not€have€been€injured€but€for€¢Castner£„¢Knott£ððs€negligence.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€summary€judgment€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€also€tax€the€costs€ofÏthis€appeal€to€Charles€Brent€Smith€and€his€surety€for€which€execution,€ifÏnecessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌœ_______________________________›ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€¢P.J.£,€M.S.€ÌÌÌœ________________________________›ÌBEN€H.€¢CANTRELL£,€JUDGE€œ›Ñ ° ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€Vɼ¼d¼¼d7Ñœ›