ÿWPC/ *b)sβDkø^ΰDÃõö܇ڠÇŸA¿KÀ5gC¦©>ŽEi,Ýó0Û_QrÌ[EáñuPWÚ*½?n±$›¯%ç$Æ,!VÑ5{èu”,ë‰ðP¬Ôƒ(ŒLíê[XuR•^( œ¥„¥ÕŒÛ±^€Ô¤~>Ö)&ÿŒ†uò¶'ø}¬¸)`J0ú« mÛ&лKnå´¥ôJÜÒ¡}°cùÊ­a,Ru¬yº[ö¦ÀráõKã/@›#§eº·QÔI€kë±ÄÚ^8Ë“‘Ψˆ8ûõjŠçåÑrãEî¥Pm{­î.xó(-b¤JšFï¬R]h}TjQX‰°ãp€àb˜^Ý5*çq*=3ÅùÄ!^IMB«$ߤû.IQ hž;R¼àc`µjCí®t?HšM O°Ÿç«ê[ o¥ÍÜw´Ç^Á¾#ìSé–)•'ßÑÍž­×©•p”«§HÁ€º¹ŠkÂ3=6´ÃoÃ1ÜKzøus@XÒ$ó£\…m›± –†ÆÌ¶àü˜‡ª“ˆ{QšÚÖo‚<9Ý)Xay õsÇnüs†Ê¼šnïù7ï‡{Ij} ,š”Ѫ©¼Rl0d—>¬|Ï6FúhkxŒ™å{_âb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚  ™ Æ¥ ÆkÆ1Æ÷ 0D½NE                        b"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0ë**** B 0¤2 D5Ö D-  0K88 ASƒÆÖ 0¤œ 0D@ A«„˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»†l/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒR­Z$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷Åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€action€remains€pending€against€the€co„defendants,€Marten€Transport,€Ô_ÔLTDÔ_Ô.€and€Fred€D.€Stanford..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR­Z$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷Åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò ò€€òòÔ_ÔCelotexÔ_Ô€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔCatrettÔ_Ôó óóó,€477€U.S.€317,€106€S.€Ct.€2548€(1986). - ù-(|G2­Z$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷Åò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_©»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼_©»»»ÔÑ8€ñXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îOT_©ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼_©»îîOT#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€6,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XñX»¼_©ÔÌò òÔ#†¼_©»XXñ#ÔPHILLIP€WATSON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€METRO€Ô_ÔGOVTÔ_Ô€OF€NASHVILLE€ANDÐ úJ ÐDAVIDSON€CO.,€TN.,€ACTING€BY€AND€THROUGH€THE€NASHVILLEÐ  ^ ÐELECTRIC€SERVICE€POWER€BOARD€(Ô_ÔNESÔ_Ô),€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XñX»¼_©Ôó óÐ " r ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ " r Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02C„683€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€JudgeÐ ^  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ` AßÐ Ò"  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00035„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€12,€2003ó óÔ#†¼_©»XXñU#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼_©Ôò òÐ Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€truck€snagged€a€cable€television€service€line€and€tore€it,€together€with€the€power€lines€of€Ô_ÔNESÔ_ÔÐ  ð Ðwhich€were€directly€above€the€television€line,€from€the€plaintiffsðð€residence.€€Liability€was€soughtÐ ŒÜ Ðto€be€fastened€on€Ô_ÔNESÔ_Ô€on€the€theory€that€its€service€power€lines€were€too€low.€€Ô_ÔNESÔ_Ô€relied€on€itsÐ xÈ Ðimmunity€from€suit€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„20„204(b)€because€it€had€no€actual€orÐ d´ Ðconstructive€notice€of€any€alleged€ð ðdangerous€or€defective€condition€of€a€structure€or€publicÐ P  Ðimprovement.ðð€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€response€to€the€motion€was€insufficient€and€dismissedÐ <Œ Ðthe€suit.€€We€affirm.Ð (x ÐÓ¢ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼_©»àXñ#ÔÔ‡XñX.¼_©ÔWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.Ô#†¼_©»àXñ³ #ÔÔ‡XñX.¼_©Ôóó€andÐ Ø( ÐòòWilliam€B.€Cain,€JJ.Ô#†¼_©»àXñv #ÔÔ‡XñX.¼_©Ôóó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌÔ_ÔThurmanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔThurstonÔ_Ô€McLean,€Madison,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€Appellants,€Phillip€Watson€and€LindaÐ œ ì ÐWatson.Ð ˆ!Ø  ÐÌAubrey€B.€Harwell,€III,€Aubrey€B.€Harwell,€Jr.,€Eugene€W.€Ward,€Gerald€Ô_ÔNeenanÔ_Ô€and€Laura€Ô_ÔIsrealÔ_ÔÐ `#°" ÐSmith,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€attorneys€for€Appellee,€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€andÐ L$œ# ÐDavidson€County,€Tennessee,€acting€by€and€through€the€Nashville€Electric€Service€Power€BoardÐ 8%ˆ $ Ð(Ô_ÔNESÔ_Ô).Ð $&t!% ÐÓ„ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_©»XXñë #ÔÔ‡XñX»¼_©ÔÐ ü'L#' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼_©»XXñ#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XñX»¼_©Ôà  àThe€parties€are€identified€in€the€style€of€the€case.€€During€the€evening€of€April€25,€2001€theÐ Ô)$%) Ðdefendant€Ô_ÔStandfordÔ_Ô,€driving€a€truck€owned€by€the€defendant€Martin€Transport,€Ô_ÔLTDÔ_Ô.,€snagged€aÐ À*&* Ðcable€television€line€connected€to€the€plaintiffsðð€residence.€€The€power€lines€of€Ô_ÔNESÔ_Ô€were€in€placeÐ ¬+ü&+ Ðdirectly€above€the€cable€television€line,€and€were€torn€from€the€plaintiffsðð€residence,€together€withÐ ˜,è', Ðthe€cable€television€service€line,€causing€a€loss€of€electricity€and€minor€property€damage.€€TheÐ „-Ô(-ý ÐÔ_Ôplaintiffs€filed€this€action€seeking€damages€from€NES,€Martin€Transport€LTD,€and€the€truck€driver,Ð ° ÐMr.€Standford.Ð œì ÐÌà  àNES€is€alleged€to€be€liable€under€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ tÄ Ð29„20„101€et€seq.,€ð ðfor€creating€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€a€public€structureðð€and€that€itÐ `° Ðð ðhad€constructive€notice€that€those€power€lines€were€hung€in€violation€of€the€National€ElectricalÐ L œ ÐCodes,ðð€i.e.,€at€insufficient€height€above€ground€level.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àNES€responded€that€it€had€neither€actual€nor€constructive€notice€of€any€alleged€dangerous€orÐ  ` Ðdefective€condition€or€placement€of€its€power€lines,€and€was€therefore€immune€from€liability€underÐ ü L  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204(b).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àBy€Order€entered€July€31,€2002,€all€interrogatories€were€ordered€to€be€served€by€SeptemberÐ À  Ð15,€2002,€and€answered€by€November€1,€2002.€€NES€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€onÐ ¬ü  ÐSeptember€20,€2002,€alleging€two€(2)€grounds,€the€second€of€which€is€dispositive€of€this€litigation:€Ð ˜è  Ðthat€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€are€barred€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204(b)€because€NES€did€not€haveÐ „Ô  Ðactual€or€constructive€notice€of€an€alleged€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€any€structure€or€publicÐ pÀ Ðimprovement€controlled€by€it.€€The€motion€was€supported€by€(1)€a€statement€of€undisputed€facts;€(2)Ð \¬ Ða€memorandum;€(3)€affidavit€of€Winston€Smith;€(4)€admission€of€the€plaintiffs.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àNES€gave€notice€that€the€motion€would€be€heard€on€November€1,€2002.€€By€òòagreed€orderóó,Ð  p Ða€hearing€on€the€motion€was€continued€to€November€15,€2002,€at€which€time€the€motion€was€grantedÐ  \ Ðand€the€action€against€NES€was€dismissed,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€the€asserted€reason€that€it€was€immune€from€suitÐ øH Ðbecause€it€had€no€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€a€dangerous€condition.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€appeal€and€present€for€review€the€propriety€of€the€dismissal€of€the€complaintÐ ¼  Ðagainst€NES.Ð ¨ø ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÐ €Ð ÐÓäÓÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€concede€that€NES€had€no€actual€notice€of€any€dangerous€or€defective€conditionÐ X ¨ Ðin€the€location€or€placement€of€its€power€lines€to€the€plaintiffsðð€residence.€€The€issue,€therefor,Ð D!” Ðdevolves€into€an€enquiry€of€whether€the€plaintiffs€adduced€proof€that€NES€had€constructive€noticeÐ 0"€  Ðof€a€dangerous€condition€which€would€remove€its€immunity€from€suit,€keeping€in€mind€that€theÐ #l! Ðmovant€NES€supported€its€motion€with€proof€that€it€had€no€constructive€notice.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€while€they€presented€no€affidavits,€they€submitted€ð ðsufficientÐ à%0!$ Ðinformation€through€discovery€responsesðð€to€create€a€genuine€issue€of€whether€NES€could€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðdiscovered€the€existence€of€a€dangerous€condition.€€The€record€does€not€clearly€reflect€the€ð ðdiscoveryÐ ¸'#& Ðresponsesðð€alluded€to.€€Appellants€argue€that€they€ð ðsubmitted€to€the€Court€responses€to€the€ððNESÐ ¤(ô#' ÐStatement€Of€Undisputed€Factsðð€by€disputing€Statement€No.€34,€and€adopting€by€referenceÐ )à$( ÐððPlaintiffsðð€Memorandum€Of€Law€In€Opposition€To€Motion€For€Summary€Judgmentðððð€which€createdÐ ° Ða€genuine€issue€of€a€material€fact.€€Statement€No.€34€is€a€request€for€admission€submitted€by€NESÐ œì Ðthat€it€had€no€constructive€notice€of€a€dangerous€condition€of€the€power€line;€the€plaintiffs€respondedÐ ˆØ Ðto€this€request€merely€by€stating€that€the€fact€of€constructive€notice€was€disputed.€€Plaintiffs€furtherÐ tÄ Ðargue€that€the€following€responses€by€NES€tend€to€counter€the€proof€submitted€by€NES:€ð ðNESÐ `° Ðemploys€line€inspectors€to€conduct€a€visual€inspection€of€the€poles,€wires,€and€equipment€to€identifyÐ L œ Ðand€report€any€problems€or€maintenance€issuesðð;€ð ðNES€lines€were€not€below€the€minimumÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablished€by€the€National€Electric€Safety€Code,€but€that€the€cable€television€lines€were€too€lowðð;Ð $ t Ðand€these€lines€were€required€by€the€National€Electric€Safety€Code€to€be€placed€below€the€NEWÐ  ` Ðpower€lines.€€The€appellants€then€argue€that€ð ðif€the€tractor„trailer€met€the€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ððÐ ü L  Ð55„7„202,€the€height€of€the€trailer€did€not€exceed€13€feet,€6€inches.ðð€€Appellants€argue€that€we€mayÐ è 8  Ðglean€from€these€data€that€the€television€line€was€less€than€13.5€feet€high,€and€since€NES€controlledÐ Ô$  Ðthe€ð ðlocation€of€all€other€lines€using€the€utility€pole,ðð€the€resulting€inference€created€a€genuine€issueÐ À  Ðof€a€disputed€fact,€òòi.e.óó,€that€the€power€line€lacked€sufficient€height.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àNES€filed€the€affidavit€of€Winston€Smith,€its€vice„president,€who€testified€that€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðpersonal€knowledge€of€the€matters€set€forth€in€his€affidavit;€that€he€had€reviewed€all€relevant€recordsÐ pÀ Ðof€NES€to€determine€if€NES€was€aware€of€any€problem€with€the€service€line€providing€electricÐ \¬ Ðcurrent€to€the€residence€of€the€plaintiffs,€and€that€the€records€revealed€no€problems,€and€no€report€ofÐ H˜ Ðany€problems,€and€the€NES€had€no€indication€that€the€service€line€was€too€low.€€He€further€testifiedÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€cable€television€line€would€hang€below€the€service€line.Ð  p ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ øH ÐÓÿ(ÓÌà  àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€areÐ Ð  Ðwell€settled.€€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ ¼  Ðattaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€is€confined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determineÐ ¨ø Ðwhether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSeeò ò€Hunter€v.€Brownóóó ó,€955€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð49,€50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòò òCrowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóóó ó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.Ð €Ð Ð1991).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriateÐ l¼ Ðwhere:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defenseÐ X ¨ Ðcontained€in€the€motion,€òòsee€ò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€the€movingÐ D!” Ðparty€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòSee€ò òAnderson€v.€StandardÐ 0"€  ÐRegister€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€thatÐ #l! Ðits€motion€satisfies€these€requirements.€€òòSee€ò òDownen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524Ð $X" Ð(Tenn.€1991).€€When€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properly€supported€motion,€theÐ ô$D # Ðburden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existence€of€disputed,Ð à%0!$ Ðmaterial€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee,€ò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmatively€negate€an€essentialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðelement€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòSeeò òÐ )à$( ÐMcCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Servóóó ó.,€960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€1998);€òòò òRobinson€v.€Omeróóó ó,€952Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997).€òòò òóóó ó€If€the€moving€party€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€theÐ h+¸&* Ðnon„moving€partyððs€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€for€trialÐ ° Ðis€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€ò òMcCarley€v.€West€QualityÐ œì ÐFood€Servóóó ó.,€960€S.W.2d€at€588;€òòò òRobinson€v.€Omeróóó ó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€If€the€moving€partyÐ ˆØ Ðsuccessfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„moving€party€may€not€simply€rest€uponÐ tÄ Ðthe€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summary€judgment€context€areÐ 8 ˆ Ðalso€well€established.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmovingÐ $ t Ðparty€and€must€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòSeeò ò€Robinson€v.Ð  ` ÐOmeróóó ó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€210„11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summaryÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonableÐ è 8  Ðperson€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòSeeò ò€McCall€v.€Wilderóóó ó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995):Ð Ô$  Ðòòò òCarvell€v.€Bottomsóóó ó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ð À  ÐÌà  àòòò òóóó óA€fact€is€ð ðmaterialðð€for€summary€judgment€purposes,€if€it€ð ðmust€be€decided€in€order€toÐ ˜è  Ðresolve€the€substantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motion€is€directed.ðð€€òòò òLuther€v.€Comptonóóó ó,€5Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.3d€635,€639€(Tenn.€1999)(quoting€òòò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€failure€of€the€appellants€to€file€counter„affidavits€is€not,€òòper€seóó,€fatal€to€their€cause.€Ð H˜ ÐNothing€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€requires€a€party€seeking€a€summary€judgment€to€ð ðdeny€under€oathÐ 4„ Ðthe€allegations€of€[its]€adversaryððs€complaintðð€or€to€support€its€motion€with€affidavits€or€otherÐ  p Ðevidentiary€materials.€€Tennessee€Rules€Civil€Procedure€56.01€and€56.02€permit€the€parties€to€seekÐ  \ Ðor€to€defend€against€summary€judgments€ð ðwith€or€without€supporting€affidavits,ðð€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð øH ÐP.€56.03€empowers€the€courts€to€grant€summary€judgments€ð ðif€the€pleadings,€depositions,€answersÐ ä4 Ðto€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€noÐ Ð  Ðgenuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact.ððÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€the€plain€language€of€Rule€56,€the€courts€are€virtually€unanimous€in€holding€thatÐ ”ä Ða€party€seeking€a€summary€judgment€need€not€support€its€motion€with€affidavits€or€other€evidentiaryÐ €Ð Ðmaterial.€€òòò òCelotex€v.€Catrettó óóó,€477€U.S.€at€323,€106€S.€Ct.€at€2553;€6€J.òò€Moore,€W.€Taggart,€J.Ð l¼ ÐWicker,€Mooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó,€para.€56.11[3],€at€56„114€(2d€ed.€1988);€10A€C.€òòWright,Ð X ¨ ÐA.€Miller€M.€Kane,€Federal€Practice€and€Procedure€óóðð€2722,€at€54„55€(2d€ed.€1983).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àParties€seeking€a€Celotex„type׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€summary€judgment€need€not€engage€in€discovery€of€their€ownÐ #l! Ðto€support€their€motion.€€They€may€carry€their€burden€of€demonstrating€that€their€adversaryððsÐ $X" Ðevidence€is€insufficient€simply€by€pointing€out€that€the€record€contains€absolutely€no€evidenceÐ ô$D # Ðestablishing€an€essential€element€of€their€adversaryððs€case.€€Once€they€do€so,€the€burden€of€goingÐ à%0!$ Ðforward€shifts€to€the€non„moving€party€either€to€demonstrate€how€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ Ì&"% Ðsubstantiates€their€case€or€to€supply€the€missing€evidence.€€We€have€recognized€that€a€complaint€mayÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€dismissed€on€summary€judgment€if€the€plaintiffs,€after€being€given€a€reasonable€opportunity,€areÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunable€to€establish€an€essential€element€of€their€case€on€which€they€will€have€the€burden€of€proof€atÐ )à$( Ðtrial.€€òòò òStanley€v.€Joslinóóó ó,€757€S.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€òòò òMoman€v.€Waldenóóó ó,€719€S.W.2d€531Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).Ð œì ÐÌà  àNES€offered€proof€respecting€its€lack€of€constructive€notice€of€any€dangerous€or€defectiveÐ tÄ Ðcondition€of€its€service€line,€thereby€obligating€the€plaintiff€to€produce€sufficient€countervailing€proofÐ `° Ðto€create€a€genuine€issue€of€a€material€fact.€€We€agree€with€the€Circuit€Court€that€the€plaintiffs€failedÐ L œ Ðto€do€so.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€next€address€the€argument€of€the€appellants€that€they€had€no€reasonable€opportunity€toÐ  ` Ðcomplete€discovery.€€The€argument€is€not€a€forcible€one,€and€understandably€so€in€light€of€the€factÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€plaintiffs€agreed,€without€objection,€to€the€date€of€the€hearing€of€the€motion€for€summaryÐ è 8  Ðjudgment.€€We€see€no€need€to€belabor€this€point€further.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àSovereign€immunity€provides€no€defense€from€liability€of€a€government€entity,€such€as€NES,Ð ¬ü  Ðif€injury€results€from€a€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€any€public€structure€or€improvementÐ ˜è  Ðowned€by€the€entity,€but€immunity€from€suit€is€not€removed€for€latent€defective€conditions€unlessÐ „Ô  Ðthe€entity€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€condition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204(a)(b).€Ð pÀ ÐThe€plaintiffs€offered€no€proof€that€NES€had€constructive€notice€of€any€defect,€and€it€results€thatÐ \¬ Ðimmunity€bars€the€claim.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellants.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE