From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 16:51:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7D780.D5606AC0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7D780.D5606AC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83637 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 24,=20 2007.

 

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =        =20

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-06-00475-CV

____________

 

RAUL G.=20 GARZA, = Appellant

 

V.

 

THE CITY OF=20 HOUSTON, = Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 151st District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 05-03994

 

 

M E M O R=20 A N D U M    O P I N I O N

Appellant,=20 Raul G. Garza, appeals the trial court=3Ds granting=20 of summary judgment in favor of the City of Houston.  In two = issues=20 Garza argues (1) the trial court erred in granting summary = judgment and=20 (2) there is a material fact at issue that should have been = presented to a=20 jury.  We affirm.

Responding=20 to a Code 1BAassault in=20 progress with weapon@Bcall,=20 Officer Arthur Carbonneau of the Houston Police Department = (AHPD@) drove=20 east on West Little York with his overhead lights, siren, and air = horn=20 activated.[1] =20 At the Antoine intersection, he had a red light.  According = to=20 Carbonneau, he came to a complete stop, observed the traffic yield = to him,=20 and then proceeded through the intersection, where he was hit by=20 Garza=3Ds=20 car.  Carbonneau=3Ds car was=20 pushed across the intersection where it collided with a traffic = signal=20 pole.  According to the witness statements on the police = report,=20 Garza=3Ds car=20 struck the patrol car in the center of the driver=3Ds=20 side.  All the witnesses agreed Carbonneau slowed or came to = a=20 rolling stop before entering the intersection.  All the = witnesses=20 agreed the patrol car=3Ds overhead=20 red lights and siren were activated as Carbonneau drove through = the=20 intersection.  One witness stated Carbonneau did everything = he could=20 to avoid the accident.

Garza=20 contends he had a green light and was almost through the = intersection when=20 Carbonneau hit his car.  Garza sued the City for negligence = under the=20 Texas Torts Claim Act (ATTCA@),=20 specifically, Section 101.021(1).  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' = 101.021(1) (Vernon 2005).[2] =20 Garza argues the City is liable for the damages caused by its = agent. =20 Tex. Civ. Prac. & = Rem. Code=20 Ann. ' = 101.0215(a)(1) (Vernon 2005).  The trial court granted = summary=20 judgment in favor of the City based on the affirmative defense of=20 sovereign immunity.

We review=20 the trial court=3Ds summary=20 judgment de novo.  Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, = 164=20 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).  In reviewing a summary = judgment, we=20 take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we = indulge every=20 reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the = nonmovant=3Ds=20 favor.  Id.  Summary judgment is proper if the = defendant=20 disproves at least one element of each of the = plaintiff=3Ds claims,=20 or establishes all the elements of an affirmative defense to each=20 claim.  Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, = 425 (Tex.=20 1997). 

The State,=20 its agencies, and subdivisions, such as cities, generally enjoy=20 governmental immunity from tort liability unless immunity has been = waived.  Tex. Civ. = Prac.=20 & Rem.Code ''=20 101.001(3)(A) & (B) (Vernon=20 2005), 101.025 = (Vernon=20 2005); Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. = Political Subdivisions Prop./Cas. Joint Self-Ins. Fund, 212 = S.W.3d=20 320, 324 (Tex. 2006).  The TTCA provides a limited waiver of=20 sovereign or governmental immunity, allowing suits to be brought = against=20 governmental units only in certain, narrowly defined = circumstances. =20 Tex. Dep=3Dt of=20 Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51=20 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Tex. 2001).  The TTCA specifically provides = this=20 limited waiver in three areas: (1) use of a publicly owned = automobile; (2)=20 premise defects; and (3) injuries arising out of conditions or use = of=20 property.  Tex. = Civ. Prac.=20 & Rem.Code Ann. ' = 101.021; Tex. Dep=3Dt of Parks=20 & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133=20 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tex. 2004).  A plaintiff must affirmatively=20 demonstrate the court=3Ds=20 jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity.  = Dallas Area=20 Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. = 2003). =20

Although=20 Section 101.021(1) of the TTCA waives immunity for claims arising = from the=20 use of a motor-driven vehicle by a governmental employee, the = government=20 retains its immunity from suit if one of the exceptions to the = waiver of=20 immunity in the TTCA applies.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' = 101.021(1); Tex. Dep=3Dt. of=20 Transp. v. Garza, 70=20 S.W.3d 802, 806 (Tex. 2002).  An exception to the = waiver  for=20 emergency action is found in Section 101.055 of the Civil = Practices and=20 Remedy Code.[3] =20 Tex. Civ. Prac. & = Rem. Code=20 Ann. ' = 101.055(2) (Vernon 2005).  Section 101.055(2) excludes the=20 Aoperation=20 of emergency vehicles in emergency situations from the general = waiver of=20 immunity for negligent operation of governmental = vehicles.@ =20 City of Amarillo v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. = 1998). =20 Therefore, liability is waived only if the operator committed an = act that=20 the operator knew or should have known posed a high degree of risk = of=20 serious injury.[4] =20 Id. 

Official=20 immunity is an affirmative defense that protects governmental = employees=20 from personal liability.  Telthorster v. Tennell, 92 = S.W.3d=20 457, 460 (Tex. 2002).  AA=20 governmental employee is entitled to official immunity for (1) the = performance of discretionary duties (2) that are within the scope = of the=20 employee=3Ds=20 authority, (3) provided that the employee acts in good = faith.@ =20 Id. at 461 (citing City of Lancaster v. Chambers, = 883 S.W.2d=20 650, 653 (Tex. 1994)).  When official immunity shields a = government=20 employee from liability, the government employer is shielded from=20 liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  = University of=20 Houston v. Clark, 38 S.W.3d 578, 580 (Tex.=20 2000).

It is=20 undisputed that, at the time of the accident, Carbonneau was an = on-duty=20 police officer, in an HPD patrol car, responding to an emergency=20 call.  Thus, he was performing a discretionary act within the = scope=20 of his authority.  See Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 655, = 658=20 (finding on-duty police officer=3Ds high=20 speed chase a discretionary act within scope of his authority);=20 Weatherly v. Derby, No. 14-01-00548-CV, 2002 WL 1789701, at = *1=20 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] Aug. 1, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for = publication)=20 (stating discharge of duties generally assigned to police officer=20 responding to emergency call is discretionary act within scope of = his=20 authority).  Therefore, having met the first two prongs of = the=20 official immunity test, the City is entitled to summary judgment = if the=20 evidence establishes as a matter of law Carbonneau=3Ds response=20 to the Code 1 call was in good faith.  See Wadewitz v.=20 Montgomery, 951 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex. 1997) (finding = government=20 employee has immunity from actions performed within his = discretionary=20 duties if employee acts in good faith).  Good faith depends = on how a=20 reasonably prudent police officer would have assessed both the = need for=20 the officer=3Ds response=20 and the risks of the officer=3Ds course=20 of action.  Id. at 467 (applying Chambers, 883 = S.W.2d=20 at 656).

In his=20 affidavit, Carbonneau addressed the need/risk balancing test as=20 follows:

Due to my years of = experience=20 with the police department and responding to emergency calls, I = have=20 developed a good understanding of how dangerous calls involving = weapons=20 can be and the need to have officers present to deescalate [sic] = the=20 situation.  At the time of the accident, I believed in good = faith=20 that the need to get to the scene outweighed the minimal risk of=20 accident.  I properly assessed the need for me to get to the = scene of=20 the assault involving weapons quickly against the risk of accident = by=20 entering the intersection and in good faith determined that my = lights were=20 clearly visible, my siren was clearly audible, and that vehicles = were=20 properly yielding right of way to me. 

Carbonneau=20 decided the risk, based on his emergency lights and siren being = activated=20 and the cars yielding to his vehicle, to be outweighed by the need = to=20 respond to the assault with a Aweapon=20 call.@ =20 Thus, Carbonneau established he assessed the need for his action = by=20 considering the seriousness of the situation and the necessity of = his=20 immediate presence to control the situation and prevent injury or = loss of=20 life versus the possibility of an accident.  See = Clark, 38=20 S.W.3d at 581 (stating an officer acts in bad faith only if he = could not=20 have reasonably reached the decision that the need to respond = outweighed=20 the clear risk to the public of harm).  The only question = remaining=20 is whether no reasonably prudent police officer would agree with=20 Carbonneau=3Ds=20 assessment.

Sergeant=20 Tymniak of the Metro Police Department, who was in the first car = in the=20 turn lane at the intersection, observed the entire incident.  = He saw=20 Carbonneau=3Ds=20 approach, his entrance into the intersection, and the = accident.  In=20 his deposition, Tymniak stated he was a Metro officer; had = completed the=20 240-hour academy for peace officers under the Texas Commission on=20 Education StandardsBOfficer=20 Standards and Education; had previously been a police officer in = the City=20 of Jersey Village; and had received training in emergency = response. =20 Tymniak explained Carbonneau slowed to a Arolling=20 stop@ = of less=20 than 5 miles per hour, assessed the situation, and then = accelerated as he=20 proceeded through the intersection.[5] =20 He also stated Carbonneau=3Ds car=20 approached and entered the intersection with the emergency lights = and=20 siren engaged, and that the cars at the intersection yielded, = except for=20 Garza=3Ds. =20 Further questions revealed:

Q:  Would it = be=20 B would you say that = the HPD=20 officer approached the intersection recklessly?

A:  No, = ma=3Dam.

Q:  In your = opinion, how=20 would you characterize how he approached the = intersection?

A:  Based on = prior=20 observations of other type [sic] situations, the officer exercised = due=20 caution.  He reduced his speed to a reasonably and prudent = speed=20 prior to entering the intersection.

He made, = apparently, an=20 assumption that traffic was going to let him pass through because = cars had=20 stopped.  And immediately, he started to accelerate once he = entered=20 the intersection.  Not prior but once he entered the=20 intersection. 

And at that point = in time,=20 the impact occurred.

Q:  And which=20 B how did the = vehicles impact=20 in the intersection?  Which one struck which one?

A:  Mr.=20 Garza=3Ds vehicle, a red = vehicle,=20 entered the intersection and struck the officer=3Ds vehicle, who was = already in=20 the intersection, as he was accelerating.  Left side of the=20 officer=3Ds vehicle.[6]

* * *

Q: Would you say, = based on=20 your life=3Ds experience and = your=20 profession, whether or not Officer Carbonneau was driving and = operating=20 his B an emergency = vehicle=20 appropriately at the time of the accident?     =

A: = Yes.

Thus, the=20 City presented summary judgment evidence that a reasonably prudent = police=20 officer, in the same or similar circumstances, could have believed = that=20 the actions Carbonneau performed were reasonable.  =

In his=20 response to the City=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment, Garza presented no evidence to contradict = any=20 material fact.  In his brief, Garza concluded Carbonneau = acted=20 Ahaphazardly,@ = but the=20 record offers no controverting evidence that no reasonably = prudent=20 officer could have believed the facts justified = Carbonneau=3Ds=20 conduct.  See Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 657 (holding = nonmovant=20 must show no reasonable person in the officer=3Ds position=20 could think officer=3Ds actions=20 justified).  In his affidavit, Garza claims he did not see = the patrol=20 car=3Ds=20 emergency lights or hear the sirens; he did not directly state = that=20 Carbonneau was not running his emergency lights, siren, and = horn.  See Burke v. Satterfield, 525 S.W.2d 950, 955 = (Tex.=20 1975) (stating an affidavit must be direct, unmistakable, = and=20 unequivocal as to the facts sworn to, so that perjury can be = assigned upon=20 it).  Similarly, Garza=3Ds=20 affidavit states that when he Awas about=20 to reach the other end of the intersection,@ = Carbonneau Acame out=20 of nowhere without warning and crashed into my = vehicle.@  It=20 continues that as Garza Awas about=20 to reach the other end of the intersection,@ = he looked=20 right and saw Carbonneau Arunning=20 through the intersection@ = and that=20 Carbonneau never Astopped=20 nor appeared to slow down.@ =20 However, these comments appear to pertain to when Carbonneau was = already=20 in the intersection and accelerating, not as he approached the=20 intersection and was slowing.  Therefore, Garza offered no = proof as=20 to Carbonneau=3Ds approach=20 to the intersection or the reasonableness of his assessment of the = situation.  Thus, Garza did not raise an issue of material = fact=20 challenging Carbonneau=3Ds good=20 faith.

Garza=20 contends an issue of material fact exists as to whether his car = hit=20 Carbonneau=3Ds, or=20 Carbonneau=3Ds car hit=20 his car.  We first observe that this issue is not dispositive = of=20 whether Carbonneau was acting in good faith when he entered the=20 intersection.  Moreover, in his affidavit, Garza states he = entered=20 the intersection with a green light.  He argues that the = logical=20 inference is Carbonneau=3Ds light=20 was red.  However, emergency vehicles have the privilege of=20 proceeding through a red light in emergency situations.=20  Martin, 971 S.W.2d at 431.  AIn=20 operating an authorized emergency vehicle, the operator may . . . = proceed=20 past red or stop signal or stop sign after slowing as = necessary for=20 safe operation.@ =  Tex. Transp. Code = Ann.=20 ' = 546.001(2) (Vernon 1999) (emphasis added).  Based on the = competent=20 summary judgment evidence, it is uncontested Carbonneau slowed = before=20 proceeding through the intersection.

Further,=20 Garza claims he was almost through the intersection when = Carbonneau hit=20 his car.  However, the damage to Garza=3Ds car was=20 directly to its front, while the damage to the patrol car was in = the=20 center of the driver=3Ds=20 side.  The police report and eyewitness statements = corroborated=20 Carbonneau=3Ds=20 assertion that Garza hit the patrol car.  Garza=3Ds=20 affidavit claiming the patrol car hit his car is self-serving and=20 conclusory, supported by no independent facts and, therefore, does = not=20 raise an issue of material fact.  See Purcell v. = Bellinger,=20 940 S.W.2d 599, 602 (Tex. 1997) (finding that conclusory = statements=20 unsupported by facts are not proper summary judgment proof); = Brownlee=20 v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984) (finding=20 affidavits consisting only of conclusions insufficient to raise = issues of=20 fact).

After=20 examining the record, we find the City established an exception to = the=20 waiver of immunity under the TTCA.  Accordingly, Carbonneau = is=20 protected by official immunity and the City is entitled to = governmental=20 immunity.  We therefore overrule Garza=3Ds two=20 issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

 

 

 

/s/     =20 J. Harvey Hudson

Justice

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 24, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Hudson and=20 Guzman.

Do Not=20 Publish C = Tex. R. App. P.=20 47.2(b).


[1]  Carbonneau is no longer a Houston = Police=20 Officer as he resigned for reasons unrelated to this=20 incident.

[2]  Although not included within his = Third=20 Amended Petition, Garza would also be required to prove  that = Apersonal injury and death so caused by a = condition=20 or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental = unit=20 would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant = according to=20 Texas law.@  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 101.021(2).

[3]  Section 101.055(2) states in = pertinent=20 part:

This chapter does not apply to a claim=20 arising:

***

(2) from the action of an employee while = responding to an emergency call or reacting to an emergency = situation if=20 the action is in compliance with the laws and ordinances = applicable to=20 emergency action, or in the absence of such a law or ordinance, if = the=20 action is not taken with conscious indifference or reckless = disregard for=20 the safety of others;  . . .

Tex. Civ. = Prac. &=20 Rem. Code Ann. ' 101.055(2).

 

[4]  Additionally, the law applicable = to=20 emergency action in this context is Section 546.005 of the Texas=20 Transportation Code.  Tex.=20 Transp. Code Ann. ' 546.005 (Vernon 1999).  In = interpreting the=20 predecessor of section 546.005, the Texas Supreme Court held that = although=20 this provision imposes a duty to drive with due regard for others = by=20 avoiding negligent behavior, it only imposes liability for = reckless=20 conduct.  Martin, 971 S.W.2d at 431; City of = Amarillo v.=20 Pruett, 44 S.W.3d 702, 705 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, pet. denied). =

[5]  Garza=3Ds brief contends the difference between = a complete=20 stop, as Carbonneau states in his affidavit, and a Arolling stop@ as stated in Tymniak=3Ds deposition, constitutes a fact = question for the=20 jury.  However, the difference is of no consequence.  = The City,=20 for the purpose of this appeal, concedes Carbonneau made a rolling = stop.  Also, Tymniak reached his conclusions, pertaining to a = reasonable police officer=3Ds actions, based on the fact that = Carbonneau=20 executed a Arolling stop.@

[6]  Tymniak added that Garza was = driving=20 approximately 35 miles per hour, and did not appear to be slowing = down at=20 the time of=20 impact.

------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7D780.D5606AC0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7D780.D5606AC0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7D780.D5606AC0--