### An“allision ” refers to co ntact b etweena vessel an d a statio n aryo b je ct , suchas a 1 

### pier. T his is co mparedto “collisio n,” wh ich refers to contact betw een two movin g v essels.

I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 1 1 - CA- 0 0 8 1 9 - S CT ELI I NV ESTM EN TS, LLC, A M

I SS I SS I PPI L I M I T ED L I AB I L I T Y C OM

P AN Y
v. S I L V ER S L I P P ER C A S I NO V EN T U R E, L L C

, A DELAW ARE L I M I TED L I ABI LITY C OM

PANY; S I LVER S LI PP ER GAM

I NG, LL C, A LI

M I TED LI ABI LITY C OM

PANY; AND BROADW ATER DE VELO PM

EN T, LLP
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 13/ 2011 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. ROGER T
. CLARK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: RO BERT T. SCHW AR TZ J EF F REY W . BER TUCCI LAU REN CE E. BEST AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : J OE L J . HE NDE RS ON E DW AR D D. L AM AR NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 07/ 25/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. E l i I nves t m ent s , L L C , s ued Si l verSl i pperCasi no V entur e, L L C , and Si l verSl i pper G a m b lin g , L L C (c o llec tiv e ly “ S ilv e r S lip p e r” ), an d B ro a d w a ter D e v e lo p m e n t, L L C , to
re c o v e r fo r d a m a g e s s u sta in e d to E li’s B ilo x i h o tel w h e n S ilv e r S lip p e r’s c a sin o a lli d e d w ith 1

### Bla ck’s La w D iction ary83 (8thed. 2 00 4). “A llide” is th e verb form o f “allision .”

“Tid eland s” refers to lan d b etweenthe h igh -water an d lo w-w ater tide lin es that is 2 

### un cov ered bythe natural ebb andflowof tid al waters. Bla ck’s La w D iction ary893 (8th ed. 20 04 ). “Fa st lands”re fe rs to t

he l and abovethe high- wat er tidelineand that , whe n fl ooded 3 

### bya go vernment p roject, is subjectedto a g ov ernme ntal takin g. Bla ck’s La w D iction ary 15 20 (8thed. 2 00 4). Silver Slipper Cas ino Ve nture, LLC, maint ained thecas ino prope rty, inc luding the 4 

### moorings that s ec ure d theca sino’s barge. Si lve r Slipper Gaming, LLC, operat ed theca sino to en sure co mplian ce withGamin g C ommissio n reg ulatio ns. 2 itd u ri n g H u rri ca n e K atri n a. T h e tri al co u rtg ran ted S il v er S li p p er’s an d B roa d w a ter ’s
m ot i ons f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . E l i now appea l s the tr i al cour t ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm ent t o Si l verSl i pper . Fi ndi ng t hatE l i has pr es ent ed a ge nui ne di s put e of m at er i al f

actr egar di ng Si l verSl i pper ’ s ne gl i gence , w e r ever s e the tr i al court ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm entt o Si l ver S lip p e r a n d re m a n d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . F ACT S & PROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. I n A pr i l of 2005, Si l ver Sl i pper pur chas ed the Pr es i dent C as i no, a cas i no bar ge, and ent er ed i nt o a l eas e of

the t i del ands and f

astl ands m aki ng up the B r oadw at erB eac h M ar i na 2 3
ar ea i n B i l oxi , M i s s i s s i ppi , f r om B r oadw at erD evel opm ent , L L C
. T he Pr es i dentC as i no w as 4
n o t em p lo y e d as a m o b ile v e ss e l, b u t w a s s e c u re d to th e m a rin a b y a m o o rin g sy ste m o f six fo u r-le g g e d m o o rin g “ d o lp h in s” a n d p e rm a n e n t co u p lin g s. T h is s y ste m w a s d e s ig n e d to al l ow the ca s i no t o r i s e s ecur el y w i th the t i de t o a he i ghtof betw een f

i f t een a nd tw enty f

eet
a b o v e n o rm a l tid e le v e ls
. ¶ 3
. O n A u g u st 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , th e M iss iss ip p i G a m in g C o m m iss io n o rd e re d S ilv e r S lip p e r to cl os e the Pr es i dentCasi no t o pr epar e f orthe i m m i nentl andf

al l of H urr i cane K atr i na. A tthat

### 3

t i m e, oper at i ons atthe Pr es i dentC as i no w er e di s cont i nued, pat r ons w er e es cort ed f r om the
cas i no, al l ut i l i t i es w er e di s connec t ed, and the bar ge’ s acc es s r amp w as r ai s ed. ¶4
. H u rri ca n e K atri n a m ad e land fall o n the M issi ssipp i G u lf C o ast in the m o rnin g h o u rs
o f A u g u st 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e h u rric a n e ’s p e a k sto rm su rg e a n d p e a k w in d g u sts o c c u rre d n e a rly
s i m ul t aneous l y ar ound t he t i m e of l andf al l
. T he st or m sur ge i n B i l oxi r eport edl y r eac hed a hei ghtof tw enty- f i ve f eetabove mean s ea level , b ut w as hi gheri n s om e ar eas . D ur i ng the
s t or m s ur ge, the Pr es i dentCasi no bar ge f l oat ed f r ee of i t s m oor i ngs and tr avel ed r oughl y one
m i l e i n a w es t - nor thw es t er l y di r ect i on, f i nal l y al l i di ng w i th and com i ng t o re s ton t op of the B i l oxi B eachfr ontH ot el , w hi ch w as ow ned by El i
. E l i cl ai m s the al l i s i on des tr oyed the h o tel’s m a in b u ild in g a n d c a u se d e x ten siv e d a m a g e to o th e r p a rts o f th e h o tel. ¶5. In 200 7, E l i fi l ed suitagainstS i l ver Sli pp er and B roadw at er f or negli gen ce and gross
n e g lig e n t co n d u c t. E li cla im e d S ilv e r S lip p e r h a d fa iled to m a in tain th e c a sin o b a rg e p ro p e rly p rio r to a n d d u rin g H u rric a n e K a trin a . E li a lso cla im e d tha t B ro a d w a ter h a d faile d to p ro p e rly
m a in ta in th e d o c k s ite a n d m o o ri n g s y s te m th a t it le a s e d to S ilv e r S lip p e r. ¶6. I n 2010, Si l ver Sl i pper and B r oadw at er m oved f or s um m ary j udgm ent . I n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on , S i l verSl i ppercl ai m ed thatany duty i tow ed t o E l i w as s etby G ami ng C om m i ssi on regul at i on s. B ecause the Presi den tC asi no m et the se m oo ri ng requi rem ents , Si l verSl i ppercont ended i thad meti t s duty t o E l i
. Si l verSl i pperal so asser t ed the “A ctof G od” def ens e, ar gui ng thati tc oul d notha ve pr event ed thr ough a ny r eas onabl e m eas ur es the d a m a g e c a u s e d b y H u rr ic a n e K a tr in a ’s u n p re c e d e n te d s to rm s u rg e a n d w in d g u s ts . ¶7. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed s um mary j ud gmen tt o Si l ve rSl i ppe r , f i ndi ng thatSi l ver Sl i pper h ad take n rea so n ab le pre ca u ti o n s to p rev en t f o rese ea b le i n

juri es to n ea rby p rop erty o w n ers

### 4

b y co m p lying w ith th e G am ing C o m m issi o n ’s l icen sing regu lat ion s. In ad d it ion , th e c o u rt fo u n d th a t K a trin a w a s a n “ ‘A c t o f G o d ,’ u n fo re se e a b le in its fu ry a n d th e d e str u c tio n it
c a u s e d .” 

### The tri alcourt al so grante d summ ar y judgme nt t o Broa dwat er . El i di d not a ppea l thegra nt of summary j udgme nt in favor of Broa dwat er . ¶8. E l i t i m el y appea l ed t o thi s C our tthe t r i al cour t ’ s gra ntof s um m ary j udgm entt o Si l ver S l i pp er. E l i rai ses the fol l ow i ng i ssues: I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed i n ho l d i n g that no genui ne i s s ues o f m a ter ial f

a ct e x ist ed re g a rd ing S il v er S li p p er ’s b re a ch o f it s d u ty to ta k e r ea so n a b le p re ca u ti o n s to p ro tec t t h o se in clos e p ro x im it y of t he P res i dent C as i no. II. W h ether the circuit cou rt erred b y ap p l ying the A ct of G od D efense t o Si l ve r Sl i ppe r , gi ve n t he que s t i ons of f ac t r ai s e d by El i r e ga r di ng Si l ver Sl i pper’ s negl i gence.

S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 9
. A tr ia l c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is re v ie w e d d e n o v o . D avis v. Hoss , 869 S o. 2d 39 7, 40 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 ). S u m m ary j ud gm ent i s proper “i f the p l eadings, dep osi t i on s,
ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and admi s s i ons on f i l e, t ogetherw i th t he af f i davi t s , i f

any, s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat er i al f actand the movi ng p arty i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” M i ss. R . C i v. P. 56( c)
. T he evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n the lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to th e p a rt y o p p o s in g th e m o tio n . D a v is , 869 So. 2d at401. DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 0
. T o p rov e n eg li g en ce , the p lai n tiff h a s th e b u rde n to estab li sh (1) the ex ist en ce o f a duty ow ed t o i tby the def endant ; ( 2) a br eac h of

thatduty; ( 3) a caus al connec t i on betw een th e b re a c h o f d u ty a n d th e a lle g e d in ju ry to th e p la in tif

f; a n d (4 ) i n

ju ry a n d d a m a g e s . R e in

### 5

v. B en ch m ark C on str. Co. , 865 So. 2d 1134, 1143-44 ( M i s s . 2004). If a t r i abl e i s s ue of

f act
re g a rd in g e a c h o f th e s e e le m e n ts e x is ts , th e n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m u s t b e re v e rs e d
. L yle v. Mladini ch , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 9 7 , 3 9 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ). ¶11. T he exi s t ence vel non o f a leg a l d u ty is a q u e stio n o f law to b e d e c id e d b y th e c o u rt. R e in , 865 So. 2d at1143. H er e, the tr i al courtcorr ect l y f ound thatSi l verSl i pper“ow ed a duty t o ow ner s i n cl os e pr oxi m i ty t o t ake r eas onabl e meas ur es t o pr eventf or es eea bl e i nj ur i es in the ev en t of a h u rri ca n e.” Itis al so clea r fr o m the re co rd th at th e P reside n t C asin o ’s
unm oor i ng caus ed damage t o E l i ’s p r operty. T he ques t i on, then, i s w hetherE l i of f er ed
su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to c re a te a d isp u te o f fa c t as to w h e th e r S ilv e r S lip p e r b re a c h e d th a t d u ty to tak e re a so n a b le m e a su re s to p re v e n t fo re se e a b le h a rm to E li. I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed i n holdi n g t hat no genui ne i s s ues of f act exi s t ed regar di ng Si l ver Sl i pper’ s breach of i t s d ut y t o t ake r e as ona bl e pr e c aut i ons t o pr ot e c t t hos e i n c l os e pr ox i m i t y t o t he P res i dent C as i no. ¶ 1 2
. W h e th e r t h e d e fe n d a n t b re a c h e d its d u ty to th e p la in ti f f i s a q u e s tio n o f f

a c t. L y le , 584 So. 2d at400. T he s t andar d of car e appl i cabl e t o negl i gen ce case s i s w hetherthe def endant“ac t ed as a re as onabl e and prudentper s on w oul d have undert he s ame ors i m i l ar ci r cumst ance s . ” D onald v. A m oco Prod. Co. , 735 So. 2d 161, 175 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t at i ons
om i t t ed). T h e d efe nd ant m ustt ake reasonab l e m easures t o rem ov e or prot ectagainst “f or es eea bl e haz ar ds ” thathe know s aboutors houl d know abouti n the exe r ci s e of due ca r e. Mille rs o f J a c kso n , Me a do w b ro o kR o a d , In c ., v. N

e w e ll , 3 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 7 6 ). ¶13. V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o E l i , as thi s C our tm us tdo w hen
re v iew in g a g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w e fin d th a t E li h a s o ffe re d su ffic ien t p ro o f to

### 6

cr eat e a ge nui ne di s put e of m at er i al f

actr egar di ng Si l verSl i pper ’ s br eac h of i t s duty t o t ake
r eas onabl e pr eca ut i ons t o pr ot ectthos e i n cl os e pr oxi m i ty t o the Pr es i dentC asi no dur i ng H urr i cane K atr i na. E l i pr ovi ded the tr i al c our tw i th the af f i davi tof G r eg S. Per ki n, P. E . , w ho i ns pect ed the Pr es i dentC as i no’ s m oor i ng s ys t em af t erH urr i cane K atr i na. Per ki n opi ned that the s t or m s ur ge ca us ed by H urr i cane K atr i na w as f or es eeabl e t o Si l verSl i pp er i n l i ghtof pr i ors t or m hi s t ory i n the G ul f of M exi co, and thatSi l verSl i pperf ai l ed to cons i derw hat
w oul d happ en i f t he cas i no bar ge enc ount er ed a s i gni f i cants t or m s ur ge. Per ki n’ s opi ni on
w as s uppor t ed by s t a t i s t i c s f r om the N a t i on a l O c e a ni c a ndA tmos ph e r i c A dmi ni s tr a t i on ci t i ng
a t lea st th re e h u rric a n e s w ith sto rm su rg e s o f g re a ter tha n fiftee n fe e t in th e M iss iss ip p i G u lf C o a st p rio r to H u rric a n e K a trin a . S e c o n d , P e rk in o p in e d th a t th e m o o rin g s ty p ica lly u se d to
r es tr ai n a ves s el i n pos i t i on al ong a dock i n a mar i na w er e notsuff i ci ent t o r es tr ai n the Pr es i dentC as i no i f

i tencount er ed a s i gnif i cant s t or m s ur ge, as exper i ence d al ong the M is s is s ip p i G u lf

C o a s t d u ri n g p ri o r h u rr ic a n e s . ¶ 1 4
. In re sp o n se , S ilv e r S lip p e r p ro v id e d th e c o u rt w ith th e a ffid a v it o f H e n ry R . S e a w e ll, I I I , P . E , w ho i ns pect ed t he Pre s i dentC as i no and i t s m oor i ng sys t em i n 2005. Seaw el l opi ned thatthe Pre s i dentC as i no w as adequa t el y m oor ed t o compl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi G ami ng C om m i s s i on R egul at i on I I ( B ) ( 10)
. T he r egul at i on r equi r es thatal l f l oat i ng cas i no bar ges be
m oor ed “t o w i ths t and a Cat egory 4 hurr i cane w i th 155 m i l e perhourw i nds and 15 f oott i dal
su rg e ” a s a c o n d iti o n o f lice n su re . M iss . A d m in . C o d e 1 3 -1 -3 :II-B , § 1 0 . N e x t, S e a w e ll
o p ined that itw o u ld n o t hav e b ee n fea sib le to att em p t t o m o v e the ca sino to a s afe h arb o r, due t o the mi ni m al amount of t i m e bet w een the f i r s thurr i cane w arni ng and H urr i cane K atr i na’ s l andf

al l
. Fi nal l y, Seaw el l opi ned thatt he Pre s i dentC as i no di d notfl oatf r ee f r om

### 7

i t s m oor i ngs unt i l s om e ti m e aft erH urr i cane K atr i na’ s s t or m s ur ge r eac hed hi gherthan fifte e n fe e t, w h ich w a s h ig h e r th a n th e G a m in g C o m m iss io n re g u latio n s p ro tec ted a g a in st. N o th in g in S e a w e ll’s a ffid a v it co n tra d icts P e rk in ’s a ss e rtio n tha t th e m e teo ro lo g ica l ef fe c ts
o f H u rri ca n e K atri n a w ere fore see ab le t o S il v er S li p p er. ¶15. W e f

i nd thatSeaw el l ’ s and Perki n’ s di f f er i ng o pini on s est abl i s hed a “ batt l e of the expert s ” on the i s s ue of

w hetherSi l verSl i ppert ook r eas onabl e s t eps t o s ecur e the Pr es i dent C as i no t o pr eventf

or es eea bl e harm t o ne arby pr operty ow ner s . T hi s Courthas hel d thatthe
w in n e r i n a b a ttle o f th e e x p e rt s is to b e d e c id e d b y th e ju ry . H ill v. Mill s , 26 So. 3d 322, 330 ( M i s s . 2010)
. M or eover , Si l verSl i pper ’ s al l eged c om pl i ance w i th G ami ng C om m i s s i on
r egul at i ons does notaut om at i cal l y shi el d i tfr om l i abi l i ty. “[ S] t at e boar ds and comm i s s i ons
ar e cr eatur es of

s t atut e and ha ve no pow er s otherthan those d el egat ed t o [ them] by the L egi s l atur e. ” How ar d v. E s tate of H ar per , 94 7 So
. 2d 85 4, 85 9 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) ( c i t i ng Mas onite Cor

p. v. State O il

& G as B d. , 240 So. 2d 446, 449 ( M i s s . 1970) )
. I ti s cl earthat R egul at i on I I ( B ) ( 10) w as enac t ed mer el y as a condi t i on of l i cens ur e, notas a conc l us i ve st and ard of car e foral l casi no s i n all ci rcum st ances. ¶16
. S i l ver S l i pp er has off ered evidence that i t act ed reas on ably un der the cir cum st ances. E l i has of

f er ed compet i ng evi dence thatSi l verSl i pperf ai l ed t o moor the Pr es i dentC as i no ad eq u ately to w ith stan d H u rri ca n e K atri n a. “ Issu es o f fac t sufficient to re q u ir e d en ial o f a
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entobvi ous l y ar e pr es entw her e one pa r ty s w ear s t o one ver s i on of the mat t eri n i s s ue and a no t her s ays the oppos i t e. ” Mantachie N atural G as D is t

. v. Mis s is s i pp iVal le y G as C o. , 594 S o. 2d 1170, 1172 ( M i s s . 1992) ( quot i ng Clark v. Moo re Mem ’l U nited Met

hodis t Church , 538 So. 2d 760, 762 ( M i s s . 1989) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons

### 8

om i t t ed) )
. B eca us e El i has s how n a genui ne di s put e of m at er i al f

actconce rni ng a br eac h of S il v er S li p p er’s du ty, w e h o ld th at th e tr ial co u rterred i n gran ti n g sum m ary jud g m e n t to S il v er S li p p er. II. W h ether the circuit cou rt erred b y a p p l ying the A ct of G od d efense t o Si l ve r Sl i ppe r , gi ve n t he q ue s t i ons of fac t ra i s e d by E l i r e ga r di ng Si l ver Sl i pper’ s negl i gence. ¶ 1 7 . T h e trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t S ilv e r S lip p e r w a s e x c u se d fro m lia b ility fo r d a m a g e s to E l i ’ s pr operty beca us e H urr i cane K atr i ana w as an “A ctof G od, ” u nfor es eea bl e i n the des truct i on i tcaus ed. E l i a r gues thatthe A ctof G od def ens e i s notavai l abl e t o Si l verSl i pper b e c a u s e S ilv e r S lip p e r’ s n e g lig e n c e s e rv e d a s th e in te rv e n in g c a u s e o f E li’ s d a m a g e s . ¶ 1 8
. T h e Ac to f

Go d d e f e n s e i s a n a f

f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e t o t h e e l e m e n to f

c a u s a t i o n . “ No
one i s l i abl e f

ora n i nj ury pr oxi m at el y c aus ed by a n a ctof G od[
. ] ” Ci t

y o f Jackson v. B ru m m e tt , 8 0 S o . 2 d 8 2 7 , 8 2 9 (M iss
. 1 9 5 5 ). A n A c t o f G o d is a n in ju ry d u e e x c lu siv e ly to f or ces of natur e, w i t ho ut human i nt ervent i on, w hi ch coul d nothave be en pr event ed by the
u s e o f d u e c a r e a n d re a s o n a b le fo re s ig h t. B ru m m e tt , 80 So. 2d at829. T he A ctof G od def ens e appl i es t o “eve nt s i n natur e s o extr aor di nary thatthe hi s t ory of cl i m at i c var i at i ons
a n d o th e r c o n d itio n s in th e p a rt ic u la r l o c a lity a ff o rd s n o re a s o n a b le w a rn in g o f t h e m .” McFar land v. E nter

gy Mis s is s i

ppi , I nc. , 919 So. 2d 894, 904 ( M i s s . 2004)
. H ow ever , an i nj ury w hi ch coul d have be en pr event ed thr ough the us e of or di nary c ar e i s notan A ctof G od
w h ic h w o u ld r e m o v e th e to rt fe a s o r f ro m lia b ility
. Cit

y of H atties burg v. H

il l m an , 76 So. 2 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 0 (M is s . 1 9 5 4 ). ¶19. W e have f

ound t hatt her e exi s t s a genui ne di s put e of m at er i al f

actas t o w hether Si l ver Sl i pperw as negl i genti n m oor i ng the P r es i dentC as i no adequa t el y t o w i ths t and H urr i cane

### 9

K a tr ina. If a j u ry find s tha t Sil v er S li p p er, th rou g h the e x erc ise o f reaso n ab le ca re, co u ld h a v e p re v e n te d th e d a m a g e to E li’ s p ro p e rt y , th e A c t o f G o d d e fe n s e w ill n o t a p p ly
. See B iloxiY acht Club, I nc. v. G r and Cas inos of Mis s is s i ppi , I nc. -B iloxi(de n y ing d efe n d an t’ s
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entba s ed on A ctof G od de f ens e w hen a di s put e of

f actexi s t ed
a s to w h e th e r d e fe n d a n t w a s n e g lig e n t in d e s ig n in g its c a s in o b a rg e ’s m o o ri n g s .) A ccor di ngl y, w e f

i nd thatSi l verSl i pperi s n ot ent i t l ed t o s um m ary j udgm entbas ed on the A ctof G od def ens e. CO NC L US I ON ¶20
. T he tr i al cou rterr ed in grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent i n favor of Si l ver Sli pp er becau se E l i pr es ent ed s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o cr eat e a gen uine di s put e of m at er i al f

actas t o w hether S ilv e r S lip p e r b re a c h e d its d u ty to tak e re a so n a b le m e a su re s to p re v e n t fo re se e a b le h a rm to
n ea rby p rop erty o w n ers. A cc o rdin g ly, th is C o u rtrev erse s the tr ial co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j ud gm ent and rem and s this case t o the H arr i son C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtforfur ther pr ocee di ngs. ¶ 2 1
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.