ÿWPCö ># tU: %¹ 0 4¿4ów@ 0³^ 0DbU 0J] 0T§ 0Pû 0^K 0h© 0r 0|ƒ 0†ÿ 0… 1u 0DŠ 0dÎ D32 AQe ƶ 0D| 0@À B D/ BL 1mi 0cÖ U*9úcB)]DC† AMÉ!¾7€õªu/WNv~¥vÓ#˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Óê‚_#tÔôÔô3|xÕ7 Â7Ã7ÀÄ7Å7IÆ7Ç7È7Ê7DË7Ó€Õ7(DG2 t$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ô8ÏôXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô((3¾¸$§§Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý2, 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)($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$$$$'ÿÿdxd!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd*#Je37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³É$´´Ô2JeÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à< Œ 9p`(Arial ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ'ÝÝ  Ýà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd!#4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌDecember€31,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€1ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€arguments€were€heard€in€this€case€on€October€8,€1997€in€Columbia,€MauryÏCounty,Tennessee,€as€part€of€this€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourtò ò€Aó ódvancingò ò€Ló óegalÏò òEó óducation€for€ò òSó ótudents)€project.Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€1ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó,Chapter€1200„5„1,€Regulations€for€Public€Water€Systems€and€Drinking€Water€Quality,ÏDivision€of€Water€Supply,€Tennessee€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€1ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€found€the€plaintiffs€had€sustained€real€and€personal€property€damage€in€theÏamount€of€$58,500€but€awarded€a€judgment€for€$50,000,€the€statutory€maximum.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€29„20„403€(1997€Supp.).Ì %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€1ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòCruse€v.€City€of€Columbiaóó,€922€S.W.2d€492,€495€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€cases).Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€1ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòJones€v.€City€of€Johnson€Cityóó,€917€S.W.2d€687€(Tenn.€App›.€1995);€òòœMowdy›€v.€Kellyóó,€667ÏS.W.2d€489€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1983).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€1ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñ›Ñ7€ÆXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÑ€ÑÖ€2ÖØ ØÓ&€X°d&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€1¼Ôò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE€Ô€1XÔó óÌà@ à(HEARD€AT€COLUMBIA)ÌÌÌÌÌTRACY€HAWKS€and€DALE€HAWKS,à à)à àà àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àœò òFiled:€December€31,Ï1997ó ó›Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àœSUMNER›€CIRCUITÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àHon.€Thomas€œGoodall›,ÌCITY€OF€œWESTMORELAND›,à àà à)à àà àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€à àÌà àœDefendant„Appellant.›à àà à)à àà àAppeal€No.à àÌÙ€!ÙœßR€564A1-j|°ÿ±` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àœ01S01›„9704„CV„00083Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appelleesóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:ÌBruce€N.€Oldhamà àà àà àà àà àJ.€Russell€œFarrar›ÌOldham€&€Dunning,€œLLC›à àà àà àà àDeborah€R.€œSowell›ÌœGallatin›,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àœFarrar›€&€BatesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌÌÌÔ€1„ÔÌÌÌÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€1XÔÌÌÌÌÖ€ÖCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àœDROWOTA›,€J.ÇÓÓœà àThe€primary€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€City€of€Westmoreland€hadÏð ðconstructive€noticeð ð€of€the€dangerous€and€defective€condition€of€the€fire€hydrantsÏwhich€resulted€in€the€total€fire€loss€of€the€home€of€the€plaintiffs,€Tracey€and€DaleÏHawks.€€Finding€that€the€inoperable€fire€hydrants€would€have€been€discoveredÏhad€the€City€performed€an€adequate€inspection,€the€lower€courts€charged€the€CityÏwith€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€and€defective€condition€and€held€itÏliable€to€the€€plaintiffs€for€the€damages€that€could€have€been€avoided€had€the€fireÏhydrants€been€operable.€€After€carefully€considering€the€record,€as€well€as€theÏbriefs€and€argument€of€counsel,€we€agree€that€the€City€should€be€charged€withÏconstructive€notice€and,€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏupholding€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs.× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÌ›à@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àOn€October€23,€1993,€at€approximately€3:45€a.m.,€the€WestmorelandÏVolunteer€Fire€Department€was€dispatched€to€extinguish€a€fire€of€unknown€originÍat€the€home€of€the€plaintiffs,€Tracey€and€Dale€Hawks,€located€at€1135€RainbowÏCircle€in€the€City€of€Westmoreland.€€The€plaintiffs€were€out€of€town€when€the€fireÏoccurred.ÌÌà àThough€a€portion€of€the€roof€was€ablaze€when€the€firefighters€arrived,€theÏfire€primarily€was€confined€to€the€middle€of€the€house.€€Utilizing€the€water€from€theÏtanks€on€the€fire€trucks,€the€fire€was€brought€under€control€within€fifteen€to€thirtyÏminutes€of€the€firefightersðð€arrival.€€When€the€water€supply€in€the€tanks€wasÏexhausted,€the€firefighters€attempted€to€obtain€water€from€the€two€fire€hydrantsÏnearest€the€burning€home.€€However,€the€hydrants€yielded€no€water€because€anÏunderground€valve€in€the€feeder€pipe€for€each€was€closed.€€Although€theÏfirefighters€had€with€them€tools€to€open€the€valve€in€the€hydrants,€they€did€notÏhave€with€them€the€six€foot€wrench€which€was€required€to€open€the€undergroundÏvalves.€€When€it€was€not€being€used€by€maintenance€employees€of€the€City€waterÏsystem,€that€tool€was€kept€at€the€public€works€building.ÌÌà àWhen€the€firefighters€realized€that€the€hydrants€were€inoperable,€they€sentÏtankers€to€the€civil€defense€building€to€obtain€more€water,€called€a€neighboringÏfire€department€for€backup€assistance,€and€dispatched€a€city€employee€to€retrieveÏthe€special€wrench€to€open€the€underground€valves.€While€the€firefighters€waitedÏfor€additional€water,€the€fire€gained€momentum.€€The€home€was€almost€totallyÏdestroyed€by€fire€before€either€additional€water€or€the€special€wrench€to€open€theÏvalves€arrived€at€the€scene.ÌÌà àThereafter,€the€plaintiffs€brought€this€lawsuit€€against€the€City€ofÏWestmoreland€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,Ïspecifically€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ29„20„204€(1980€Repl.),›€which€provides€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€Immunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entity€is€removed€for€anyÏinjury€caused€by€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€any€publicÏbuilding,€structure,€dam,€reservoir€or€other€public€improvementÏowned€and€controlled€by€such€governmental€entity.ÌÌà8 à(b)€Immunity€is€not€removed€for€latent€defective€conditions,€nor€shallÏthis€section€apply€unless€constructive€and/or€actual€notice€to€theÏgovernmental€entity€of€such€condition€be€alleged€and€proved€inÏaddition€to€the€procedural€notice€required€by€ðð€29„20„302.ÌÓÓÌ€à àThe€plaintiffs€sought€damages€from€the€City€for€the€total€fire€loss€of€theirÏhome€which€they€alleged€resulted€from€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€ofÏthe€fire€hydrants.€€While€the€parties€agreed€that€the€City€had€no€actual€knowledgeÏthat€the€fire€hydrants€were€inoperable,€the€plaintiffs€alleged€that€the€City€was€notÏimmune€from€suit€because€it€had€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€orÏdefective€condition.€The€City€denied€that€it€had€constructive€notice€and€alsoÏclaimed€that€the€closed€valves€and€inoperative€hydrants€were€latent€defectiveÏconditions€for€which€it€retained€immunity€from€suit€under€the€statute.ÌÌà àThe€proof€at€trial€established€that€the€œvalves›€which€were€closed€are€locatedÏin€an€underground€chamber€approximately€twelve€to€eighteen€inches€from€theÏfire€hydrants,€between€the€main€waterline€and€the€hydrants.€€The€chamber€isÏcovered€by€a€small€cap€about€the€size€of€a€coffee€can.€€To€close€the€valve,€it€isÏnecessary€to€pry€off€the€cap,€insert€the€special€wrench,€and€turn€the€valveÏclockwise.€€The€valves€can€not€be€closed€by€natural€causes,€and€the€specialÏwrench,€which€is€not€an€item€widely€available€to€the€public,€must€be€used€to€effectÍthe€closure.€€The€underground€valves€are€only€closed€by€City€employees€if€theÏadjacent€hydrants€are€leaking€and€in€need€of€repair.€€Otherwise,€the€undergroundÏvalves€should€be€open.€€It€was€undisputed€that€the€valves€should€have€beenÏopen€on€October€23,€1993,€when€the€plaintiffsðð€home€was€completely€destroyedÏby€fire.ÌÌà àThe€parties€stipulated€that€the€hydrants€and€water€line€at€issue€in€thisÏappeal€were€installed€as€part€of€a€water€system€improvement€project€which€wasÏcompleted€in€May€of€1991€and€which€was€constructed,€pursuant€to€a€contract,€forÏthe€City€by€Eatherly€Construction€Company.€€John€Coleman€Hayes,€P.C.,Ï(ð ðHayesðð)€was€employed€as€the€inspector€for€the€improvement€project,€and€DannyÏHawker,€an€employee€of€Hayes,€performed€the€inspection.€€Although€HawkerÏtestified€by€deposition€that€all€the€valves€near€the€hydrants€were€in€the€openÏposition€when€he€completed€the€inspection€of€the€project,€he€admitted€that€he€didÏnot€test€each€individual€hydrant.€€In€addition,€Hawkerððs€log€book€reflected€that€aÏleak€was€detected€at€Rainbow€Circle€on€February€29,€1991.€€On€March€1,€the€logÏbook€reflected€that€three€leaks€had€been€found€at€that€location.€€Additionally,€theÍlog€book€reflected€that€only€one€of€the€leaks€had€been€repaired.€€Hawker€testifiedÏthat€the€other€two€leaks€were€eventually€repaired€even€though€the€log€bookÏcontained€no€notation.€€Hawker€admitted,€however,€that€if€the€fire€hydrantsÏthemselves€were€leaking,€he€would€have€closed€the€underground€valves€toÏconduct€the€inspection€and€test€of€the€system.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€also€presented€proof€to€show€that€the€City€of€WestmorelandÏwas€required€by€State€lawœ× ƒ8 ××  ×›€to€establish€and€maintain€an€adequate€flushingÏprogram.€€The€purpose€of€the€flushing€program€is€to€insure€that€the€chlorine€levelÏin€the€water€supply€system€is€sufficient€to€kill€bacteria€and€provide€fresh€water.€ÏThe€flushing€program€is€not€designed€or€intended€to€test€and€insure€that€fireÏhydrants€are€functioning€properly.€€Under€the€state€law,€each€municipality€has€theÏdiscretion€of€choosing€the€method€and€frequency€of€flushing.€€œThe›€method€andÏœfrequency›€used€for€flushing€the€water€system€in€œWestmoreland€varied.›ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€offered€testimony€œto›€indicate€that€the€flushing€programÏutilized€by€the€City€was€inadequate€because€the€chlorine€level€in€the€water€wasÏnot€tested€at€each€individual€hydrant€on€a€regular€basis.€€Other€testimonyÏindicated€that€because€the€hydrants€were€on€an€open€line,€measuring€theÏchlorine€residual€levels€at€the€end€of€the€line€was€sufficient.€€However,€two€cityÏemployees€testified€that,€had€the€flushing€program€been€conducted€correctly,€theÏCity€would€have€discovered€the€closed€underground€valves€and€the€inoperableÏhydrants.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€Larry€œAkins›,€who€is€state€certified€in€water€distribution€and€whoÏcurrently€maintains€the€flushing€program€for€the€City€of€Westmoreland€œtestified›Ïthat€he€measures€the€chlorine€residual€level€at€each€of€the€sixty€fire€hydrants€inÏthe€City€once€every€three€months.€€In€response€to€questions€from€the€trial€court,ÏAkins€opined€œthat›€the€chlorine€residual€level€in€the€water€should€be€measured€atÏeach€individual€fire€hydrant€œat›€least€once€per€year.€€Akins€stated€œthat›€under€noÏcircumstances€would€he€forego€œtesting€the€chlorine€level€at€each€hydrant€for€twoÏyears.€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€the€two€hydrants€at€issue€in€this€case€had€been€inÍexistence€for€approximately€two€and€one„half€years€when€this€fire€occurred,€AkinsÏtestified€that€the€City€should€have€known€that€the€underground€valves€next€to€theÏhydrants€were€closed.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€proof€summarized€above,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€twoÏfire€hydrants€nearest€the€plaintiffs€home€were€in€a€dangerous€and€defectiveÏcondition€at€the€time€of€the€fire€on€October€23,€1993,€and,€as€a€result,€the€plaintiffsÏhad€sustained€additional€damage€to€their€home€which€otherwise€could€haveÏbeen€avoided.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€City€had€constructive€notice€ofÏthe€condition€of€the€fire€hydrants,€and€found€the€other€defenses€raised€by€the€CityÏinapplicable.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€found€the€City€liable€and€awarded€aÏjudgment€to€the€plaintiffs€in€the€amount€of€$50,000.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏaffirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€the€City€permission€toÏappeal€and,€for€the€reasons€that€follow,€now€affirm.ÌÌà àÌà@ àòòò òGOVERNMENTAL€TORT€LIABILITY€ACTóóó óÌà àThe€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity€derives€from€ð ðfeudal€notions€of€theÏdivine€right€of€kings.€€In€feudal€England€the€King€was€at€the€very€pinnacle€of€theÏpower€structure€and€was€answerable€to€no€court€since€ððthe€King€can€do€noÏwrong.ðððð€€òòCooper€v.€Rutherford€Countyóó,€531€S.W.2d›€783,€786€(Tenn.€1975)Ï(Henry,€J.,€dissenting).€€The€œdoctrine›€has€been€a€part€of€the€common€law€ofÏTennessee€for€more€than€a€century× ƒ: ××  ×€and€provides€that€suit€may€not€be€broughtÏagainst€a€governmental€entity€unless€that€governmental€entity€has€consented€toÏbe€sued.€€òòLucius€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€925€S.W.2d€522,€525€(Tenn.€1996).€€Indeed,Ïthis€longstanding€rule€of€sovereign€immunity€is€recognized€by€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€which€provides,€ð ð[œs]uits›€may€be€brought€against€the€State€in€suchÏmanner€and€in€such€courts€as€the€Legislature€may€by€law€direct.ðð€€Art.€I,€ðð€17,ÏTenn.€Const.ÌÌà àœIn›€1973,€the€General€Assembly€enacted€the€Tennessee€Governmental€TortÏLiability€Act€(ð ðthe€œGTLAðð),›€which€governs€claims€against€counties,€municipalities,Ïand€other€local€governmental€agencies,€but€does€not€apply€to€state€government.€ÏòòLuciusóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€525.€€The€Act€initially€reaffirms€the€general€common€lawÏrule€of€governmental€immunity,€stating,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àExcept€as€may€be€otherwise€provided€in€this€chapter,€allÏgovernmental€entities€shall€be€immune€from€suit€for€any€injury€whichÏmay€result€from€the€activities€of€such€governmental€entities€whereinÏsuch€governmental€entities€are€engaged€in€the€exercise€andÏdischarge€of€any€of€their€functions,€governmental€or€proprietary.ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(a)€œ(1980€Repl.€&€Supp.€1997).›€€The€Act€thenÏremoves€governmental€immunity€in€limited€and€enumerated€instances€for€certainÏinjuries.€€òòœEzell›€v.€œCockrell›óó,€902€S.W.2d€394,€399€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„202(a)€(1980€œRepl.€&€Supp.€1997)›€€through€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€29„20„205€(1980€&€œSupp.€1997);›€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòLuciusóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€525.€€TheÏœGTLA,›€therefore,€is€œa€comprehensive›€scheme€which€generally€governs€tortÏactions€against€governmental€entities.€€òòCruseóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€496.€ÌÌà àœAs€previously€stated,€the›€courts€below€found€the€City€of€WestmorelandÏœamenable€to€suit€in€this€case€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204€(1980ÏRepl.),€€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€Immunity€from€suit€of€a€governmental€entity€is€removed€for€anyÏinjury€caused€by€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€any€publicÏbuilding,€structure,€dam,€reservoir€or€other€public€improvementÏowned€and€controlled€by€such€governmental€entity.ÌÌà8 à(b)€Immunity€is€not€removed€for€latent€defective€conditions,€nor€shallÏthis€section€apply€unless€constructive€and/or€actual€notice€to€theÏgovernmental€entity€of€such€condition€be€alleged€and€proved€inÏaddition€to€the€procedural€notice€required€by€ðð€29„20„302.ÌÑ < ÑÓÓÌà àIn€this€Court,€the€City€argues€that€because€it€had€neither€actual€norÏconstructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€the€fire€hydrants,€itÏis€not€liable€to€the€plaintiffs.€The€City€argues€that€the€lower€courts€erred€in€basingÏtheir€finding€of€constructive€notice€upon€the€Cityððs€failure€to€inspect€the€hydrantsÏsince€governmental€immunity€under€the€GTLA€specifically€is€not€waived€forÏinjuries€arising€ð ðout€of€a€failure€to€make€an€inspection,€or€by€reason€of€making€anÏinadequate€or€negligent€inspection€of€any€property.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205(4)€(1980€Repl.€&€Supp.€1997).€€€The€City€also€€argues€that€it€is€not€liable€toÍthe€plaintiffs€because€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€fire€hydrants€were€€ð ðlatentÏdefective€conditionsðð€for€which€it€retains€immunity€from€suit€under€the€GTLA.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€respond€that€the€City€should€be€charged€with€constructiveÏnotice€since€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€hydrants€would€have€beenÏdiscovered€had€the€City€discharged€its€duty€to€inspect€the€hydrants€following€theirÏinstallation€and€over€the€course€of€the€ensuing€two€and€one„half€years.€€WhileÏagreeing€that€the€City€may€not€be€held€liable€for€injuries€resulting€from€a€failure€toÏinspect,€the€plaintiffs€nevertheless€argue€that€the€Cityððs€failure€to€inspect€can€andÏshould€be€considered€in€determining€whether€the€City€had€constructive€notice€ofÏthe€dangerous€or€defective€condition€which€resulted€in€the€loss€of€their€home.€ÏThe€plaintiffs€also€argue€that€this€case€does€not€involve€ð ðlatent€defectiveÏconditionsðð€for€which€the€City€retains€immunity€because€€the€closed€valves€andÏinoperable€fire€hydrants€could€have€been€discovered€by€a€reasonably€carefulÏinspection.ÌÌà àIn€resolving€these€issues,€we€review€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€òòdeÏnovoòòóó€óóòò€óóupon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÍfindings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings.€€We€reviewÏquestions€of€law€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€R.€App›.€P.Ï13(d);€òòLuciusóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€524.€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€Constructive€NoticeòòÌó óóóà àUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204,€the€Legislature€specifically€made€theÏremoval€of€governmental€immunity€conditional€upon€a€plaintiffððs€allegation€andÏproof€that€the€governmental€entity€knew€or€should€have€known€of€the€dangerousÏor€defective€condition€which€caused€the€plaintiffððs€injury.€€€òòSmith€v.€City€ofÏCovingtonóó,€734€S.W.2d€327,€329€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1985).€€In€other€words,€a€plaintiffÏmust€allege€and€prove€that€the€governmental€entity€had€either€actual€orÏconstructive€œnotice›€of€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition.€€Since€the€parties€inÏthis€case€have€agreed€that€the€City€did€not€have€actual€notice,€we€must€determineÏwhether€the€lower€courts€erred€in€concluding€that€the€City€had€constructive€noticeÏof€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€fire€hydrants.ÌÌà àð ðConstructive€noticeðð€has€been€defined€by€this€Court€as€ð ðððinformation€orÏknowledge€of€a€fact€imputed€by€law€to€a€person€(although€he€may€not€actuallyÍhave€it),€because€he€could€have€discovered€the€fact€by€proper€diligence,€and€hisÏsituation€was€such€as€to€cast€upon€him€the€duty€of€inquiring€into€it.ðððð€€òòœKirby›€v.ÏMacon€Countyóó,€892€S.W.2d€403,€409€(Tenn.€1994),€quoting€òòBlackððs€LawÏDictionaryóó,€1062€(œ6th›€ed.€1990).€€œApplying€that€definition,›€a€governmental€entityÏwill€be€charged€with€constructive€notice€€of€a€fact€or€information,€if€the€fact€orÏinformation€could€have€been€discovered€by€reasonable€diligence€and€theÏgovernmental€entity€had€a€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€diligence€to€inquire€intoÏthe€matter.€€Applying€that€rule€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€theÏlower€courts€correctly€charged€the€City€of€Westmoreland€with€constructive€noticeÏof€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€fire€hydrants.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€closed€valves€were€not€visible€without€removing€the€coverÏfrom€the€underground€chambers€in€which€they€were€œlocated,›€the€City€would€haveÏdiscovered€œthe›€valves€were€closed€if€it€had€fulfilled€its€duty€œto€exercise€reasonableÏdiligence.€€The€fire€hydrants€were€installed€by€direction€of€and€contract€with€theÏCity€as€part€of€a€water€system€improvement€project.€€Once€the€project€wasÏcompleted,€the€City€engaged€another€company€to€test€and€inspect€the€project.€ÏThe€inspector€admitted,€however,€that€each€individual€hydrant€was€not€tested.€ÍMoreover,€during€the€inspection,€three€leaks€were€detected€in€the€Rainbow€CircleÏarea€of€the€City.€€The€inspector€admitted€that€he€would€have€closed€theÏunderground€valves€if,€during€the€test€of€the€system,€the€fire€hydrants€wereÏleaking.€€Though€the€inspector€testified€that€all€of€the€leaks€eventually€wereÏrepaired,€the€log€book€reflects€that€only€one€of€the€three€leaks€were€repaired,Ïleaving€two€leaks€unrepaired€and,€potentially,€two€underground€valves€closed.€ÏAccording€to€the€trial€evidence,€the€fire€hydrants€at€issue€in€this€appeal€were€theÏonly€two€inoperable€fire€hydrants€in€the€Rainbow€Circle€area€and€indeed,€in€theÏwhole€City€of€Westmoreland.€€This€proof€clearly€supports€the€lower€courtsðð€findingÏthat€the€City€should€have€discovered€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€fireÏhydrants€as€a€result€of€the€initial€inspection€of€the€water€system€improvementÏproject€and€therefore€should€be€charged€with€constructive€notice€of€theÏdangerous€or€defective€condition.€€There€is€also€proof€in€the€record€that€the€CityÏwould€have€discovered€the€closed€valves€if€it€had€followed€proper€flushingÏprocedures€as€required€by€state€law.€€In€sum,€the€proof€fully€supports€and€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€the€City€had€constructiveÏnotice€of€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€of€the€hydrants.ÌÌà àThe€City€contends€that€basing€the€finding€of€constructive€notice€upon€itsÏfailure€to€inspect€the€hydrants€is€error€because€governmental€immunity€is€notÏwaived€for€injuries€arising€ð ðout€of€a€failure€to€make€an€inspection,€or€by€reason€ofÏmaking€an€inadequate€or€negligent€inspection€of€any€property.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€29„20„205(4)€(1980€Repl.€&€Supp.€1997)Ô€1ôÔ.Ô€1XÔ€We€disagree.€Section€205(4)Ïprovides€immunity€from€suit€when€a€governmental€entity€negligently€fails€toÏdischarge€an€existing€duty€to€inspect€€property€not€owned€by€the€City,€andÏthereafter,€injuries€arise€from€dangerous€or€defective€conditions€on€such€propertyÏwhich€would€have€been€discovered€had€the€governmental€entity€conducted€anÏadequate€inspection.€In€evaluating€whether€a€plaintiff€may€establish€constructiveÏnotice€under€Section€204€by€proof€that€a€governmental€entity€failed€to€adequatelyÏdischarge€its€duty€to€inspect,€we€are€not€bound€by€Section€205(4)€which€providesÏimmunity€from€suit€€for€injuries€resulting€from€ð ða€failure€to€make€an€inspection,€orÏby€reason€of€making€an€inadequate€inspection.ðð€€Any€authority€to€the€contrary€isÏhereby€overruled.× ƒ; ××  ×€ÌÌà àSection€204,€upon€which€the€plaintiffs€in€this€case€rely,€clearly€providesÏthat€a€governmental€entity€is€subject€to€suit€for€injuries€that€result€from€aÏdangerous€or€defective€condition€existing€on€publicly€owned€and€controlledÏproperty€or€improvements€if€the€governmental€entity€has€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice€of€the€condition.€€Proof€that€a€governmental€entity€failed€to€adequatelyÏinspect€property€or€improvements€which€it€owned€and€controlled€is€directlyÏrelevant€to€the€question€of€whether€it€had€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€orÏdefective€condition€resulting€in€injury.€€€To€hold€as€the€City€suggests,€andÏpreclude€the€plaintiffs€from€establishing€constructive€notice€under€Section€204(b)Ïby€proof€that€the€dangerous€or€defective€condition€would€have€been€discoveredÏhad€the€governmental€entity€discharged€its€duty€to€inspect€the€premises€under€itsÏcontrol,€would€have€the€effect€of€requiring€proof€of€actual€notice€in€every€case.€ÏSuch€an€interpretation€is€contrary€to€the€plain€language€of€Section€204€whichÏallows€a€recovery€upon€a€showing€of€òòeitheróó€actual€or€constructive€notice.€€ÏTherefore,€basing€the€finding€of€constructive€notice€in€this€case€upon€the€plaintiffsððÏproof€that€the€City€failed€to€inspect€the€fire€hydrants€is€not€error.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€Latent€Defective€Conditionsó óÌà àThe›€œCity›€œalso€argues›€that€it€is€œimmune€from€suit›€because€the€plaintiffs€didÏnot€prove€that€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€fire€hydrants€were€òòpatentlyóóÏdefective€conditions€rather€than€latent€defective€œconditions.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€most€basic€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertain€and€giveÏeffect€to€legislative€intent.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏLegislative€intent€is€to€be€ascertained€whenever€possible€from€the€natural€andÏordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used,€without€forced€or€subtle€construction€thatÏwould€òòlimitóó€or€extend€the€meaning€of€the€language.€€òòCarson€Creek€VacationÏResorts,€Inc.€v.€State,€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993)€(emphasisÏadded).€€€If€the€legislative€intent€is€expressed€in€a€manner€devoid€of€contradictionÏand€ambiguity,€there€is€no€room€for€interpretation€or€constructions,€and€courts€areÏnot€at€liberty€to€depart€from€the€words€of€the€statute.€€òòId.óó€€Where€the€languageÏcontained€within€the€four€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€and€unambiguous,Ïthe€duty€of€the€courts€is€simple€and€obvious,€ð ðto€say€sic€lex€scripta,€and€obey€it.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.,€quoting€òòMiller€v.€Childress›óó,€21€Tenn.€(2€Hum.)€319,€321„22€œ(1841).ÌÌà àThe€GTLA€provides€that€ð ð[i]mmunity€is€not€removed€for€latent€defectiveÏconditions,ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204(b)€(1980€Repl.),€the€Act€does€notÏcondition€the€removal€of€immunity€upon€proof€that€injury€resulted€from€a€òòpatentlyóóÏdangerous€or€defective€condition.€The›€Cityððs€argument€that€immunity€is€removedÏonly€if€a€plaintiff€proves€that€the€injuries€resulted€from€a€patently€defectiveÏcondition€is€contrary€to€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€and€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àMoreover,€ð ðlatent€defectðð€has€been€defined€as€ð ð[a]€hidden€or€concealedÏdefect.€€One€which€could€not€be€discovered€by€reasonable€and€customaryÏinspection.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó,€€794€(œ5th›€ed.€1979).€€The€Utah€SupremeÏCourt,€in€construing€a€statute€œwhich,€like€our€own,›€provided€that€governmentalÏð ð[œi]mmunity›€is€not€waived€for€latent€defective€conditions,ðð€œalso›€held€that€a€latentÏdefect€is€ð ð[a]€defect€which€reasonably€careful€inspection€will€not€reveal.ðð€€òòVincentÏv.€Salt€Lake€Countyóó,€583€P.œ2d›€105,€107€(Utah€1978).€€The€closed€valves€andÏinoperable€fire€hydrants€œin›€this€œcase›€œcould›€have€been€discovered€by€reasonableÏand€customary€inspection.€€Accordingly,€as€a€matter€of€law,€they€were€not€latentÏdefective€conditions€for€which€the€City€retained€immunity.ÌÌ€à@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€record€supports€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€the€CityÏhad€constructive€notice€of€the€closed€valves€and€inoperable€fire€hydrants€whichÏresulted€in€the€total€fire€loss€of€the€plaintiffsðð€home.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffsÏis€hereby€affirmed.€€à àÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€œDROWOTA›€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌò òœConcur:ó óÌAnderson,€C.€J.ÌReid›,€Birch,€Holder,€JJ.ÌÓÓœÌÌÌ