ÿWPCâ 6# UN %] 0ccU<Æw@4BVe AQm 0§¾ 0Je 0T¯ 0^ 0ha 0rÉ 0|; 0†· 0= 1uÍ 0dB 0@¦ D3æ 0D U>] B)› DCÄ B Æ$ 0Dê 0D. D/r B¡ AM¾ U* a5b–™øv~‘vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL,Î(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman 678U9U:U;U< î=>Ó€JB\J#ÔD\3|xJ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(W(3Ñ$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XtIXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò))))'ÿÿdxd(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd* (Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ16,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€extraneous€matters€were€presented€to€and€considered€by€theÏtrial€court,€the€motion€was€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgment.€ÏTenn.R.Civ.P.€12.02.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€€In€reliance€on€the€recent€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€case€of€òòò òHelton€v.ÏKnox€Countyó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€877€(Tenn.€1996),€plaintiffs€argue€that€summaryÏjudgment€was€improper€because€whether€a€road€is€defective,€unsafe€orÏdangerous€is€a€question€of€fact.€€Even€though€there€may€be€òòthatóó€question€of€factÏfor€trial,€the€plaintiffs€cannot€survive€a€summary€judgment€motion€withoutÏestablishing€an€issue€of€fact€with€regard€to€the€essential€element€of€notice.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€LéXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€*ÙßR€/1(A1-j|õô` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òJESSIE€W.€JONES€and€wife,€ÌMELISSA€A.€JONES,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,€ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02a01„9704„CV„00090Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTipton€Law€No.€4368Ìò òTIPTON€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€TIPTON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àW.€Timothy€Hayes,€Jr.;€The€Hardison€Law€FirmÌà@ àof€Memphis,€for€AppelleeÌÌà@ àRaleigh€E.€Sanford,€Jr.€of€RosemarkÌà@ àFor€AppellantsÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÓ€ÓÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌDISSENTS€by€Separate€Opinion:ÌÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌ›ÓÓà àThis€case€involves€a€suit€filed€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€GovernmentalÏTort€Liability€Act€(TGTLA).€€Plaintiffs€Jessie€and€Melissa€Jones€appeal€the€orderÏof€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€to€defendant€Tipton€County,ÏTennessee.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€Jessie€Jones€was€injured€when€he€lost€control€of€his€pickup€andÏran€off€the€road€and€into€a€tree.€€Plaintiffs€filed€a€suit€for€damages€under€theÏTGTLA,€with€Jessie€Jones€seeking€compensation€for€his€injuries€and€MelissaÏJones€seeking€compensation€for€loss€of€€her€husbandððs€services,€companionship,Ïand€society.€€Plaintiffsðð€complaint€alleges€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à4.€€That€on€or€about€September€15,€1994,€plaintiffÏJessie€W.€Jones€was€the€owner€and€operator€of€a€1969ÏChevrolet€Pickup€proceeding€south€on€Lucado€RoadÍnear€the€intersection€with€Tracy€Road€in€TiptonÏCounty,€Tennessee€at€approximately€7:30€p.m.€ÏPlaintiff€driver€was€exercising€due€care€and€caution€forÏthe€safety€of€himself€and€others€properly€upon€theÏaforementioned€roadway€and€ran€over€a€large€potholeÏor€sinkhole€in€the€road€negligently€allowed€to€remainÏby€the€defendant,€causing€plaintiffððs€vehicle€to€run€off€Ïthe€road€and€violently€collide€with€a€tree€causingÏserious€and€permanent€personal€injuries€to€beÏhereafter€set€out€in€more€particularity.ÌÌà8 àà8 à5.€€That€the€defendant€is€charged€with€the€duty€ofÏmaintaining€the€streets€and€thoroughfares€of€theÏCounty€of€Tipton€and€that€the€defendant€had€actualÏknowledge€of€the€defective,€unsafe€or€dangerousÏcondition€on€Lucado€Road€and/or€that€the€conditionÏof€the€road€had€been€there€for€such€a€length€of€time€asÏto€place€the€defendant€upon€constructive€notice€of€theÏdefective€condition.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à6.€€That€the€actions€of€the€defendant€were€theÏproximate€cause€of€this€accident€and€that€the€countyÏwas€guilty€of€common€law€negligence€which€was€theÏproximate€cause€of€the€injuries€to€the€plaintiffs€in€theÏfollowing€particulars:Ìà àà8 àÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àA.€€That€the€defendant€failed€to€properlyÏmaintain€and€repair€the€street€owned€andÏcontrolled€by€the€county.Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àB.€€That€the€defendant€failed€to€properlyÏnotify€the€plaintiff€that€a€dangerousÏcondition€existed€in€the€street€owned€andÏcontrolled€by€the€county.Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àC.€€That€the€defendant€was€guilty€ofÏnegligence€in€violating€state€statutes€ofÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€and€ordinances€ofÏthe€County€of€Tipton.Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àD.€€That€the€defendant€violated€theÏforgoing€common€laws€of€negligenceÏwhich€were€the€direct€and€proximateÏcause€of€the€injuries€and€damages€to€theÏplaintiffs.ÌÌÓÓThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€along€with€the€affidavit€of€David€ð ðRipððÏSmith,€the€Assistant€Director€of€Public€Works€for€Tipton€County.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€TheÏaffidavit€states:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAs€part€of€my€investigation€into€this€lawsuit,€I€haveÏreviewed€the€files€of€Tipton€County€and€haveÏdetermined€that€the€Tipton€County€Public€WorksÏDepartment€had€no€notice€of€any€problems€orÏdangerous€conditions€on€Lucado€Road€near€TracyÏRoad€prior€to€September€15,€1994.€€.€.€.€€The€onlyÏrecord€of€any€€complaint€concerning€this€area€is€datedÏSeptember€28,€1994€and€the€problem€was€fixed€theÏvery€same€day.ÌÓÓÌTipton€County€argued€in€its€supporting€memorandum€that€the€exception€whichÏprovides€for€removal€of€governmental€immunity€for€injuries€from€unsafe€streetsÏand€highways€was€not€applicable€because€there€was€no€showing€that€the€countyÏhad€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€allegedly€dangerous€condition€of€theÏroad.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€€€ðð€29„20„203€(Supp.€1996).€€€€In€response€to€defendant'sÏmotion€to€dismiss,€Mr.€Jones€filed€an€affidavit€in€which€he€stated€in€part:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€was€proceeding€south€on€Lucado€Road€in€TiptonÏCounty€at€approximately€dusk.€I€went€over€a€hill€at€aÏspot€where€the€road€curves€to€left.€€The€road€isÏextremely€narrow€at€this€point€with€no€lane€markingsÏon€the€right€side€of€the€lane.€€There€were€no€signsÏwarning€of€hill€or€curves€at€this€spot.€€It€is€my€beliefÏthat€I€hit€a€pothole€extending€into€right€hand€sideÏlane€which€caused€me€to€lose€control€of€vehicle.€€It€isÏmy€belief€that€the€road€was€unreasonably€dangerous€inÏthat€there€was€inadequate€signage€œ[sic]€and›€roadÏmarkings€and€the€road€was€unsafe€due€to€the€fact€thatÏthere€was€a€dangerous€drop„off€to€the€shoulder€of€theÏroad€and€there€were€no€guardrails€at€the€overpassÏwhere€my€vehicle€left€the€road.ÌÌÓÓIn€addition,€the€plaintiffs€submitted€the€affidavit€of€an€individual€who€lives€nearÏthe€accident€site.€€Mr.€Ray€Armstrong€stated€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€am€familiar€with€the€location€of€the€accident.€€AtÏthe€location€of€the€accident,€Lucado€goes€over€a€hill€atÏa€spot€where€the€road€curves€to€the€left.€€The€road€isÏextremely€narrow€at€this€point€with€no€lane€markingsÏon€the€right€side€of€the€lane.€€There€are€no€signsÏwarning€of€hill€or€curves€at€this€spot.€€There€is€also€aÏdrop„off€to€the€shoulder€of€the€road€at€this€spot€andÏthere€are€no€guardrails€at€the€overpass€where€theÏvehicle€involved€in€the€accident€left€the€road.€.€.€.ÏThere€have€been€other€accidents€at€this€same€location.€ÏIn€particular,€there€was€a€previous€accident€where€aÏwoman€suffered€very€serious€injuries.ÌÌÓÓà à€The€trial€court€granted€defendant€summary€judgment€and€plaintiffs€haveÏappealed.€€One€issue€is€presented€for€review:€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€summary€judgment€to€œdefendant›€based€upon€a€finding€that€theÍdefendant€had€no€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€any€dangerous€or€defectiveÏcondition€of€the€roadway.Ìà à€A€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€theÏmovant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€thatÏthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.Ï56.03;€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgmentÏbears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.Ïòòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€When€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€made,€theÏcourt€must€consider€the€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directedÏverdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiff's€proof;€that€is,€"the€court€must€takeÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,Ïallow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence."€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€partyÏmust€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discoveryÏmaterials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€[citations€omitted].€€In€thisÏregard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€partyÏcannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÏforth€òòò òspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuineÍissue€of€material€fact€for€trial.Ì€à@ àÌòòò òÓÓIdó óóó.€at€211.€(emphasis€in€original).€Where€a€genuine€dispute€exists€as€to€anyÏmaterial€fact€or€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€those€facts,€a€courtÏmust€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211€(citingÏòòò òDunnó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€80).Ìà àThe€general€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,ÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„20„101€et€seq.,€immunize€governmental€entities€from€suits€forÏinjury€resulting€from€activities€engaged€in€while€exercising€governmental€orÏproprietary€functions.€€However,€the€Act€provides€for€removal€of€immunity€ifÏinjury€is€ð ðcaused€by€a€defective,€unsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€of€any€street,Ïalley,€sidewalk€or€highway,€owned€and€controlled€by€such€governmental€entity.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€This€exception€ð ðshall€not€apply€unlessÏconstructive€and/or€actual€notice€to€the€governmental€entity€of€such€conditionÏbe€alleged€and€proved.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„203(b)€(Supp.€1996).€€Ìà àDefendant€admits€it€owns€and€controls€the€road€in€question.€Therefore,€ifÏwe€assume€for€purposes€of€review€that€the€road€is€defective,€unsafe€orÏdangerous,€summary€judgment€can€be€granted€only€if€the€plaintiffs€have€failed€toÏcreate€an€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€the€defendant€had€actual€or€constructiveÍknowledge€of€the€alleged€defects€in€the€roadway.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€We€agree€with€the€trial€judgeÏthat€the€affidavits€submitted€by€the€plaintiffs€are€insufficient€to€demonstrateÏthat€Tipton€County€had€either€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€theÏexistence€of€the€pothole€on€Lucado€Road.€€Mr.€Armstrongððs€affidavit€mentionsÏprior€accidents€in€that€area€but€does€not€even€mention€the€existence€of€aÏpothole.€€The€mere€occurrence€of€prior€accidents,€without€more,€is€insufficientÏto€impute€notice€to€Tipton€County€of€a€dangerous€condition.€€The€priorÏaccidents€could€have€resulted€from€myriad€reasons€unrelated€to€any€defect€inÏthe€road.€€Ìà àSimilarly,€the€affidavit€of€plaintiff€Jessie€Jones€is€insufficient€to€create€aÏquestion€of€actual€or€constructive€notice€with€regard€to€the€pothole€thatÏallegedly€caused€the€accident.€€Mr.€Jones€stated:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDefendant€should€have€had€either€actual€orÏconstructive€knowledge€of€the€pothole€in€question€dueÏto€the€fact€that€other€accidents€had€occurred€as€aÏresult€of€this€pothole€and/or€due€to€the€fact€that€theÏpothole€was€so€obvious€and€had€been€there€so€longÏthat€Defendant€should€be€charged€with€constructiveÏknowledge€of€its€presence.€ÌÌÓÓSimple€statements€such€as€defendant€ð ðshould€have€known,ðð€or€that€the€potholeÏð ðhad€been€there€so€long,ðð€are€not€sufficient€òòspecific€factsóó€to€overcome€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€€Ìà àIt€should€be€noted,€however,€that€both€of€the€affidavits€discuss€the€lack€ofÏroad€signs,€lane€markings,€and€guardrails€which€could€create€a€question€of€factÏas€to€whether€the€road€was€negligently€designed€or€constructed.€€€PlaintiffsÏpoint€to€the€case€of€òòò òGlover€v.€Hardeman€Countyó óóó,€713€S.W.2d€73€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986)€decided€by€this€Court€for€the€proposition€that€if€a€road€is€defectivelyÏconstructed€the€defendant€would€be€charged€with€notice€from€the€time€of€theÏoriginal€defective€construction.€€While€that€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€law€itÏis€inapplicable€to€this€case€because€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€alleges€onlyÏnegligent€maintenance€of€Lucado€road,€and€not€that€it€was€negligently€designedÏor€constructed.€€The€complaint€is€quite€specific€in€stating€that€plaintiffs€ð ðranÏover€a€large€pothole€or€sinkhole€in€the€road€negligently€allowed€to€remain€by€theÏdefendant€òòcausingóó€plaintiffððs€vehicle€to€run€off€the€road€and€collide€with€a€tree.ðð€Ï(emphasis€supplied).€Ìà àWhile€it€is€true€that€in€considering€a€motion€to€dismiss,€the€court€mustÏconstrue€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€it€is€also€true€that€anÏadverse€party€is€entitled€to€sufficient€notice€to€inform€him€of€allegations€he€isÍcalled€to€answer.€€òòò òJasper€Engine€&€Transmission€Exch.€v.€Millsó óóó,€911€S.W.2d€719,Ï720€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Similarly,€a€court€has€no€duty€to€create€a€claim€theÏpleader€does€not€spell€out€in€his€complaint.€€òòò òBrown€v.€City€of€Manchesteró óóó,€722ÏS.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€Plaintiffsðð€complaint€is€insufficient€to€state€aÏcause€of€action€for€negligent€construction€of€Lucado€Road,€therefore,€plaintiffsððÏmust€show€that€Tipton€County€had€either€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€ofÏthe€pothole€in€question.€€This€the€plaintiffs€have€not€done.€€The€order€of€theÏtrial€court€granting€summary€judgment€and€dismissing€the€complaint€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€appellants.ÌÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó óÌœò ò____________________________________›ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌœò ò____________________________________›ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óœ