ÿWPC‡ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i} 0lŒ 0Dø AQ< 0J 0T× 0^+ 0h‰ 0rñ 0|c 0†ß 0e 1uõ 0dj U>Î B) B5 ÆR 0D 0@\ 0Dœ DCà D/# AMR BŸ D3¼ U*ï ü !v~6vÓ´˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ † ‡ ˆ ‰ Š£‹ŒÓ€—˜zƒ=#<°(#3|x˜((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2 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`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd!#%Cþÿ << GÿÿüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial òÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌOctober€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAugust€12,€1994€was€a€Friday.€€In€response€to€interrogatories,€the€defendant€said€at€theÏtime€of€the€accident€food€promotions€were€conducted€approximately€one€per€week.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òJEWEL€DeGROOD€andó ó,à à)à àDavidson€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òFRANK€DeGROODó ó,à à)à àNo.€95C„2210Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€01A01„9701„CV„00031Ìà à)Ìò òÙ€!ÙßR€'+%A1-j|ý` ç `€€@ÿRßCROOKððS€SUPERMARKET,€INC.ó óà à)Ìò òd/b/a€STEVENððS€FOOD€STOREó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€at€Nashville.Ìò òHonorable€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òJohn€H.€Loweó ó,Ìò òSamuel€A.€Baronó ó,ÌLOWE€&€BARON,€Goodlettsville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌò òC.€Benton€Pattonó ó,€MANIER,€HEROD,€HOLLABAUGH€&€SMITH,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òLILLARD,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLEWIS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àJewel€DeGrood€and€Frank€DeGrood,€her€husband,€sued€Crookððs€Supermarket,ÏInc.,€d/b/a€Stevenððs€Food€Store€(Store)€alleging€injuries€and€damages€resulting€from€Mrs.ÏDeGrood€having€fallen€on€the€defendantððs€premises€on€August€12,€1994.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏthe€defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€the€issue€presented€by€the€plaintiffs€on€appeal€isÏwhether€or€not€the€trial€court€erred€in€doing€so.ÌÌà àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€materialÏfact.€€The€trial€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÏnonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence.€€If€there€is€such€a€dispute,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€It€is€not€theÏprovince€of€the€court€to€weigh€the€evidence.€€However,€once€it€is€shown€by€the€movant€that€there€isÏno€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€orÏdiscovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine€material€fact€dispute.€€The€respondent€cannot€simplyÏrely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€specific€facts€by€using€affidavits€or€other€discoveryÏmaterial.€€Rule€56.03€T.R.C.P.;€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).€€No€presumptionÏof€correction€attaches€to€decisions€granting€summary€judgment€as€they€involve€only€questions€ofÏlaw.€€On€appeal,€we€must€make€a€fresh€determination€as€to€whether€the€requirements€of€Rule€56ÏT.R.C.P.€have€been€met.€€òòò òCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóóó ó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744Ï(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àViewing€the€evidence€in€this€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiffs,€itÏdiscloses€that€Mrs.€DeGrood€slipped€and€fell€when€she€was€approximately€six€feet€from€theÏcheckout€counter€of€the€defendantððs€grocery€store.€€She€testified€that€one€of€the€store€employeesÏthat€came€to€her€assistance€said€that€it€looked€like€ice€cream€that€she€had€fallen€on.€€Mrs.€DeGroodÍhad€no€idea€how€the€ice€cream€got€on€the€floor.€€Mr.€DeGrood,€who€was€waiting€in€theirÏautomobile€in€the€parking€lot€while€his€wife€shopped,€was€summoned€to€the€store€after€the€fall.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€saw€ice€cream€on€the€floor€but€did€not€know€how€it€came€to€be€there.€€There€wasÏice€cream€on€her€shoes€and€pants.€€While€he€was€waiting€outside€in€the€car,€he€saw€some€childrenÏcoming€out€with€little€cones€of€ice€cream.ÌÌà àOn€the€date€of€the€fall,€a€food€promotion€was€being€conducted€in€the€store€byÏEddyððs€Ice€Cream.€€The€ice€cream€was€distributed€by€cone€and€the€promotion€was€located€in€theÏback€of€the€store.€€Trash€bags€were€located€by€the€display€and€at€the€front€of€the€store.€€CustomersÏwere€allowed€to€move€around€the€store€with€the€ice€cream€samples€in€hand.€€Sally€Owens,€assistantÏhead€cashier€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€testified€that€food€promotions€of€various€types€were€doneÏabout€€every€other€weekend.× ƒ, ××  ×€€She€further€testified€that€her€instructions€were€if€any€debris€was€seenÏon€the€floor€she€would€have€someone€get€a€ð ðwet€floorðð€sign,€clean€it€up€and€the€sign€would€remainÏthere€until€the€floor€was€dry.€€The€floor€was€checked€every€hour€on€the€hour.€€This€was€herÏresponsibility€as€well€as€that€of€the€store€manager€or€assistant€manager.€€If€anything€was€observedÏon€the€floor€between€the€hourly€checks€it€was€taken€care€of€immediately.€€When€food€promotionsÏwere€done,€the€instructions€were€to€go€back€and€check€on€the€promotions€to€make€sure€there€wereÏno€spills€and€to€make€sure€it€was€kept€clean.€€Prior€to€Mrs.€DeGroodððs€fall,€no€one€else€hadÏdropped€any€ice€cream€which€had€to€be€cleaned€up€off€the€floor.€€All€store€employees€were€to€keepÏa€lookout€for€anything€that€might€have€fallen€on€the€floor€while€a€food€display€was€in€process.€€SheÏchecked€around€the€store€as€soon€as€Mrs.€DeGrood€left€in€the€ambulance€to€see€if€there€wasÏanything€that€would€have€made€her€fall€and€saw€nothing.€€She€examined€the€bottom€of€Mrs.ÏDeGroodððs€shoes€and€saw€nothing€there.€€Other€than€samples€of€ice€cream,€all€the€ice€cream€orÏyogurt€sold€in€the€store€is€enclosed€or€in€sealed€containers.€€She€further€testified€that€the€store€wasÏwell€air€conditioned€to€the€point€that€she€felt€she€had€to€dress€warmly.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€affidavit€of€Ann€Mercer,€an€employee€of€the€store€on€the€date€ofÏthe€fall,€she€overheard€Mark€Lewis,€another€employee,€make€the€statement€that€ð ðsomebody€fell€onÏthe€ice€cream.ðð€€ÌÌà àSince€this€is€a€matter€of€summary€judgment,€we€will€presume€that€Mrs.€DeGroodÏfell€on€ice€cream.€€Before€the€owner€or€operator€of€a€premises€can€be€held€liable€for€negligence€inÏallowing€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€to€exist€on€the€premises,€it€must€be€shown€that€theÏcondition€(1)€was€caused€or€created€by€the€owner,€operator€or€his€agent,€or€(2)€if€the€condition€wasÏcreated€by€someone€other€than€the€owner,€operator,€or€his€agent,€there€must€be€actual€orÏconstructive€notice€on€the€part€of€the€owner€or€operator€that€the€condition€existed€prior€to€theÏaccident.€€òòò òChambliss€v.€Shoneyððs,€Inc.óóó ó,€742€S.W.2d€271,€273€(Tenn.€App.€1987);€òòò òBensonÏv.€H.€G.€Hill€Stores,€Inc.óóó ó,€699€S.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€We€find€no€evidence€in€thisÏrecord€that€the€defendant€created€this€condition€and€the€plaintiffs€concede€that€there€is€no€evidenceÏof€actual€notice.€ÌÌà àIf€liability€is€predicated€on€constructive€notice,€the€defective€condition€must€haveÏexisted€for€such€length€of€time€that€the€defendant€knew€or,€in€the€exercise€of€ordinary€care,€shouldÏhave€known,€of€its€existence.€€òòò òJones€v.€Zayre,€Inc.óóó ó,€600€S.W.2d€730,€732€(Tenn.€App.Ï1980).€€As€a€general€rule,€constructive€knowledge€cannot€be€established€without€some€showing€ofÏthe€length€of€time€the€dangerous€condition€had€existed.€€òòò òSelf€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óóó ó,€885ÏF.2d€336,€338€(6th€Cir.€1989);€òòò òHardesty€v.€Service€Merchandise€Co.,€Inc.óóó ó,€____€S.W.2dÏ____€(Tenn.€App.€1997).ÌÌà àAppellants€contend€that€the€ð ðlength€of€timeðð€requirement€of€constructive€notice€hasÏbeen€met€by€the€fact€that€the€ice€cream€was€on€the€floor€long€enough€to€melt.€€Their€brief€makes€noÏcite€to€the€record€to€support€that€the€ice€cream€had€melted€and€our€search€of€the€record€fails€to€revealÍsuch€evidence.€€òòò òSeeóóó ó€Rule€27(a)(7)€T.R.A.P.;€Court€of€Appeals€Rule€6(4).€€Where€there€is€noÏproof€as€to€when€and€how€the€dangerous€condition€came€about,€it€would€be€improper€to€permit€theÏjury€to€speculate.€€òòò òOgle€v.€Winn„Dixie€Greenville,€Inc.óóó ó,€919€S.W.2d€45€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995);€òòò òParadiso€v.€Kroger€Co.óóó ó,€499€S.W.2d€78€(Tenn.€App.€1973);€òòò òChamblissóóó ó,€742ÏS.W.2d€at€273.€ÌÌà àAppellants€further€rely€upon€the€theory€of€method€of€operation€whereby€theÏrequirements€of€constructive€notice€may€be€met€where€a€dangerous€condition€inside€a€self„serviceÏbusiness€is€not€an€isolated€one,€but€is€reasonably€foreseeable€to€the€owner€because€the€condition€isÏestablished€by€a€pattern€of€conduct,€a€recurring€incident,€or€a€general€or€continuing€condition€whichÏresults€in€injury€to€an€invitee.€€òòò òWorsham€v.€Pilot€Oil€Corp.óóó ó,€728€S.W.2d€19,€20€(Tenn.€App.Ï1987).ÌÌà àIn€òòò òHale€v.€Blue€Boar€Cafeteria€Co.,€óóó óan€unreported€opinion€of€this€Court€filedÏFebruary€21,€1980,€the€defendant€was€a€self„service€cafeteria€which€was€arranged€so€thatÏcustomers€selected€food€from€a€line€and€then€carried€it€to€tables€in€one€of€two€dining€areas.€ÏAlthough€servers€would€come€to€the€tables€to€take€drink€orders,€there€was€a€service€stand€whereÏcustomers€could€serve€themselves€from€a€drink€stand.€€It€was€a€common€occurrence€during€rushÏhours€for€spillage€of€drinks,€ice€or€bits€of€food€from€dirty€dishes€to€accumulate€in€varying€amountsÏon€the€floor€of€the€service€area.€€The€court€noted€that,€as€a€general€rule,€where€it€cannot€be€shownÏthat€the€defendant€put€a€substance€on€the€floor,€the€plaintiff€must€show€that€the€substance€was€thereÏlong€enough€that€the€defendant€knew€or€should€have€known€about€it.€€The€court€indicated,Ïhowever,€that€this€rule€applies€in€slip€and€fall€cases€involving€a€ð ðtransitory,€temporary€or€unusualÏdefect,€condition€or€accumulation€of€foreign€substances€on€floors.ðð€€òòò òHaleóóó ó,€slip€op.€at€5.€The€courtÏwent€on€to€say:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àHowever,€the€present€lawsuit€is€not€predicated€upon€aÏtransitory,€temporary€or€unusual€circumstance€which€allegedlyÍcaused€the€injury.€€If€a€proprietor€of€a€place€of€business€need€notÏhave€notice€of€a€defective€condition€caused€by€it€or€any€of€itsÏemployees,€it€appears€logical€not€to€require€notice€of€a€hazardousÏsituation€created€by€the€method€in€which€the€proprietor€chose€toÏoperate€its€business.€€We,€therefore,€hold€that€in€situations€of€thisÏnature€it€is€not€a€matter€of€knowledge€in€or€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice€to€the€proprietor.€€In€these€situations€the€questions€are:€(1)Ïwhether€the€condition€created€by€the€chosen€method€of€operationÏconstitutes€a€hazardous€situation€foreseeably€harmful€to€others,€(2)Ïwhether€the€proprietor€used€reasonable€and€ordinary€care€toward€itsÏinvitees€under€those€circumstances€and€(3)€whether€the€conditionÏcreated€was€the€direct€and€proximate€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury.€ÏOf€course,€the€customer€is€also€required€to€use€reasonable€care€forÏhis€or€her€own€safety.€€All€these€questions€are€issues€for€the€juryÏassuming€there€is€material€evidence€presented€from€which€the€juryÏcould€so€find.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òId.óóó ó€at€6.ÌÌà àIn€òòò òBledsoe€v.€Delta€Refining€Co.óóó ó,€an€unreported€decision€filed€in€this€CourtÏon€November€4,€1983,€the€plaintiff€sued€as€a€result€of€injuries€received€by€him€in€a€fall€on€someÏslippery€fuel„covered€concrete€at€the€defendantððs€petroleum€loading€dock,€a€self„service€type€ofÏoperation.€€The€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€any€fuel€spillage€on€the€partÏof€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€directed€a€verdict€for€the€defendant€and€this€Court€reversed.€€ÌÌà àFuel€truck€drivers€would€fill€their€tanker€trucks€at€defendantððs€loading€facility.€€TheÏonly€employee€of€the€defendant€present€was€located€in€a€small€house€at€the€entrance€to€the€facilityÏwhere€the€drivers€would€pick€up€a€card€to€be€used€for€the€purpose€of€activating€the€computerÏoperated€pumping€equipment.€€Gasoline,€diesel€fuel€and€jet€fuel€were€all€available€at€four€loadingÏlanes.€€The€plaintiff€had€filled€two€of€the€three€compartments€in€his€tanker€with€particular€grades€ofÏgasoline.€€In€order€to€fill€the€third€tank€with€a€different€grade,€it€was€necessary€for€him€to€step€upÏon€a€raised€concrete€island.€€It€had€been€raining€for€sometime€and€he€slipped€on€a€mixture€of€whatÏwas€testified€to€be€spilled€diesel€fuel€and€rainwater,€causing€him€to€fall.€€There€was€evidence€that€asÏmany€as€100€tanker€trucks€a€day€used€this€fuel€loading€facility.€€It€was€not€desirable€to€mix€oneÏkind€of€fuel€with€another.€€Therefore,€when€a€tank€had€residue€from€a€previous€load€it€wasÍcommon€practice€for€drivers€to€dump€this€residue€onto€the€concrete€pad.€€Although€defendantÏprovided€a€special€facility€for€dumping,€it€was€not€used€by€many€of€the€drivers.€€The€defendant€didÏnot€regularly€keep€an€employee€on€duty€at€the€loading€dock€for€the€purpose€of€keeping€them€cleanÏbut€rather€relied€upon€the€truck€drivers€to€wash€down€any€spills€with€a€water€hose€provided€onÏeach€island.ÌÌà àReiterating€the€decision€in€òòò òHale€v.€Blue€Boaróóó ó,€this€Court€reversed€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€and€stated€ð ðthere€can€be€no€doubt€from€the€proof€in€this€record€that€the€defendantÏwas€operating€a€self„service€petroleum„loading€facility.€.€.€.€€It€is€clear€that€the€defendant€in€the€caseÏat€bar€chose€a€self„service€method€of€marketing.€€Having€done€so,€he€must€accept€theÏresponsibilities€attendant€with€that€method.ðð€€òòò òBledsoeóóó ó,€slip€op.€at€10.ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€òòò òBeard€v.€SCOA€Industries,€Inc.óóó ó,€No.€88„358„II,€1989€WLÏ60360€(Tenn.€App.€June€7,€1989),€an€unreported€decision€filed€in€the€Middle€Section€of€this€CourtÏon€June€7,€1989,€is€analogous€to€the€present€case.€€There€the€defendant€sold€popcorn€from€aÏmachine€located€near€the€store€exit.€€Although€there€was€a€sign€requesting€that€customers€not€takeÏfood€or€drink€into€the€store,€it€was€admitted€that€the€policy€was€not€enforced.€€Although€theÏplaintiff€did€not€fall,€she€testified€that€she€injured€herself€in€twisting€in€an€effort€to€keep€from€hittingÏthe€floor€and€that€she€saw€popcorn€on€the€floor.€€The€floors€were€mopped€every€night€after€theÏstore€closed€and€on€an€as€needed€basis€throughout€the€day.€€Each€department€head€was€responsibleÏfor€keeping€his€or€her€area€clean€and€a€loss€prevention€manager€walked€through€the€store€everyday.€ÏIn€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€on€the€ground€that€there€was€no€proof€ofÏactual€or€constructive€notice,€this€Court€said:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€hold€that€the€òòò òBlue€Boaróóó ó€rule€does€not€apply€in€theÏpresent€case€because€there€is€no€material€evidence€that€theÏdefendantððs€method€of€operation€created€a€hazardous€condition.€ÏViewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiff,€the€record€showsÏthat€the€defendant€sold€popcorn€in€the€store€and€allowed€customersÏto€eat€the€popcorn€throughout€the€store€and€that€some€popcorn€spillsÍhad€occurred€prior€to€the€plaintiffððs€accident.€€Unlike€in€òòò òBlue€Boaróóó ó,Ïthere€is€no€evidence€that€spills€were€a€common€or€regularÏoccurrence.€€Moreover,€òòò òBlue€Boaróóó ó€involved€liquid€accumulatingÏon€the€floor€of€a€heavily€trafficked€area.€€The€facts€of€this€case€doÏnot€present€the€level€of€unsafety€or€the€regularity€of€recurrenceÏevident€in€òòò òBlue€Boaróóó ó.€€The€mere€possibility€of€occasional€popcornÏspills€is€not€enough€to€indicate€that€the€defendantððs€method€ofÏoperation€created€a€hazardous€condition.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òBeardóóó ó,€1989€WL€60360,€at€*5.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€presented€is€not€sufficient€to€go€to€a€jury€on€theÏquestion€of€constructive€notice.€€This€was€not€a€self„service€operation.€€There€is€no€evidence€of€aÏrecurring€incident,€or€a€general€or€continuing€condition€which€results€in€injury€to€an€invitee.€€ThereÏis€no€evidence€that€spills€were€a€common€or€regular€occurrence€or€of€the€level€of€unsafety€orÏregularity€of€recurrence€that€was€evident€in€òòò òBlue€Boaróóó ó.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Cost€are€taxed€to€the€appellants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLEWIS,€J.€(Concurs)Ì