ÿWPCÔ' …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµw@ 4C W bf 0Ùn 0DG J‹ ÆÕ 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s† 1u‰U,þ 0d*U,ŽU>ºB)øDC! Bd AM D3Î 0j 0@kU*«BÕ^:u­¯v~\vÓÚ D+­$ AMØ$Æ%% 0Dë% AO/&Æ~& 0DD' D/ˆ' B·'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (í€"  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù +Ž+DD‘Se’U“U”U•Ó€ŸnnG n RegÔ3|xŸ- ù-(‰(2Lf$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X”»X¼¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó QuamSchaalClarksvilleCreswellBowlin2dPivnickDonohoeIsuzuF.R.D.2A S.W.CawthonWhitakerVarnelltortfeasorsBalentineLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 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  ÔBrooks v. Davis - Concurring Opinion (Todd) Ì -% ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd d€,'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(((('ÿÿdxd(B3wÕ$¢¢Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÔ€%¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÔ€-ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌMarch€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÔ€%¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€Brooks€believed€erroneously€that€Ms.€Schaalððs€mother€was€the€owner€of€the€car.Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÔ€%¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€initially€entered€the€judgment€against€the€unknown€defendant€andÏAllstate€Insurance€Company.€€Allstate€moved€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment,€pointing€out€thatÏMs.€Brooks€had€not€complied€with€the€service€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„1206(b)€(1994)€or€the€proof€requirements€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„1201(e)(1)€(1994).€TheÏtrial€court€granted€Allstateððs€motion€and€entered€an€amended€judgment€against€only€theÏunknown€defendant.€€Ms.€Brooks€has€not€taken€issue€on€this€appeal€with€Allstate's€removalÏfrom€the€amended€judgment.Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÔ€%¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€America,óó€App.€No.€01„S„01„9408„CV„00077,€slip€op.€at€13„14,€21€T.A.M.€6„1€(Tenn.€Jan.€29,€1996)€(Opinion€designated€"For€Publication").ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd?,@7Aýÿ<< Cÿÿ„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$••ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó€,‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€%¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€þ¬¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќԀ%„Ô›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEó óÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€).';+'h|cýØ` ç `€€Lß›ÌÌÔ€%¼ÔÌANGIE€BROOKS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€ÌKIMBERLY€J.€QUAM€DAVIS€andà à)à àMontgomery€CircuitÌGAYLE€SCHAAL,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€ÌANDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à01„A„01„9509„CV„00402ÌERICA€BROOKS,€a€minor€b/n/fà à)ÌANGIE€BROOKS,€mother€andà àà à)Ìnatural€guardian,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMontgomery€CircuitÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌKIMBERLY€J.€QUAM€DAVIS€andà à)ÌAMY€SCHAAL,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌÓ€ÓÔ€%„ÔÌà@ àò òòòCONCURRING€OPINIONóóó óÌÔ€%¼ÔÌà àTwo€persons€injured€in€a€one„car€accident€sued€the€driver€of€the€car€inÏwhich€they€were€riding.€€After€obtaining€an€essentially€worthless€judgmentÏagainst€the€unknown€driver€of€another€car,€the€passengers€perfected€thisÏappeal€to€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€permit€their€driver€to€relyÏon€a€ð ðphantom€automobileðð€defense€even€though€she€had€not€included€thisÏdefense€in€her€answer.€€The€majority€has€determined€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€permitted€the€driver€to€assert€this€defense€and€to€amend€herÏpleadings€to€conform€to€the€proof.€€While€I€concur€with€the€majorityððsÏdecision€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€I€have€prepared€this€separateÏopinion€to€avoid€leaving€a€mistaken€impression€that€the€driverððs€answerÏcomplied€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€It€did€not;€however,€the€error€does€notÏundermine€the€juryððs€verdict€in€this€case.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àAngie€Brooks€became€friends€with€Kimberly€Quam€(now€Davis)€andÏAmy€Schaal€when€she€and€her€husband€moved€to€the€Clarksville€area€in€1989.€ÏOn€the€evening€of€February€2,€1991,€Ms.€Schaal,€accompanied€by€Ms.€Davis,Ïdrove€to€Ms.€Brooksðð€house€and€invited€Ms.€Brooks€to€drive€with€Ms.€SchaalÏto€work€and€then€to€accompany€Ms.€Davis€to€a€local€shopping€mall.€€Ms.ÏBrooks€accepted€the€invitation,€and€she€and€her€two€small€children€joined€herÏtwo€friends€in€Ms.€Schaalððs€car.ÌÌà àMs.€Davis€took€over€the€driving€responsibilities€after€they€dropped€offÏMs.€Schaal€at€the€fast€food€restaurant€where€she€worked.€€After€spending€someÏtime€at€the€mall,€Ms.€Davis€and€Ms.€Brooks€set€out€in€search€of€the€home€of€aÍman€Ms.€Davis€had€recently€met.€€Ms.€Brooks€joined€Ms.€Davis€in€the€frontÏseat€and€held€her€infant€son€on€her€lap,€leaving€Erica,€her€two„year„oldÏdaughter,€in€the€back€seat€by€herself.€€While€returning€to€pick€up€Ms.€Schaal,ÏMs.€Davis€drove€the€car€off€the€road€and€into€a€dirt€embankment.€€Ms.€BrooksÏdid€not€see€what€happened€because€she€was€tending€to€Erica€who€had€gotten€ð ðaÏlittle€rowdyðð€in€the€back€seat.€ÌÌà àOn€January€29,€1992,€Ms.€Brooks€filed€suit€against€Ms.€Davis€and€Ms.ÏSchaalððs€mother× ƒ/ ××  ×€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County.€€She€later€filedÏa€separate€suit€on€behalf€of€her€daughter€against€Ms.€Davis€and€Ms.€Schaal.€ÏMs.€Brooks€served€copies€of€both€complaints€against€Allstate€InsuranceÏCompany,€her€uninsured€motorist€carrier.ÌÌà àMs.€Davis€answered€the€complaints€in€September€1992.€€She€admittedÏthat€ð ðshe€was€driving€the€vehicle€at€the€time€and€place€mentioned,€that€sheÏsuddenly€lost€control€of€the€vehicle,€ran€off€the€road€and€struck€anÏembankment,ðð€but€she€denied€that€she€was€negligent€in€any€way.€€During€herÏdeposition€on€December€17,€1992,€Ms.€Davis€explained€that€she€lost€control€ofÏthe€car€because€ð ð[t]here€was€another€car€over€in€my€lane.€€And€I€went€over€toÏmove,€you€know,€to€miss€it€and€went€off€in€the€ditch.ððÌÌà àThe€record€provides€little€insight€into€the€events€occurring€betweenÏDecember€1992€and€October€1994€when€this€case€was€tried.€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€summary€judgments€dismissing€the€claims€against€both€Ms.€Schaal€andÏher€mother€and€consolidated€Ms.€Brooksðð€and€her€daughterððs€complaints€forÍtrial.€€Accordingly,€the€only€claims€tried€in€October€1994€were€the€negligenceÏclaims€against€Ms.€Davis.€€Allstate€did€not€participate€in€the€trial.ÌÌà àMs.€Davisðð€assertion€that€she€lost€control€of€the€car€while€attempting€toÏavoid€an€oncoming€car€was€a€central€issue€at€trial€from€the€very€beginning.€ÏEven€before€the€proof€began,€Ms.€Davisðð€lawyer€informed€the€jury€that€Ms.ÏDavis€would€testify€that€she€lost€control€of€the€car€while€attempting€to€avert€aÏcollision€with€another€car.€€During€the€first€day€of€trial,€Ms.€Brooksðð€witnessesÏwere€examined€and€cross„examined€about€the€other€car€and€Ms.€DavisððÏstatements€about€it.€€At€the€end€of€the€first€day€of€trial,€Ms.€Davisðð€lawyerÏinformed€the€trial€court€that€his€client€would€testify€the€following€day€aboutÏthe€other€car€and€that€he€intended€to€move€to€conform€the€pleadings€to€theÏproof€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.02€following€her€testimony.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€morning€of€the€second€day€of€trial,€Ms.€Brooksðð€lawyer€objectedÏto€permitting€Ms.€Davis€to€testify€about€the€other€car€because€she€had€waivedÏher€right€to€assert€this€defense€by€failing€to€include€it€in€her€answer.€The€trialÏcourt,€concluding€that€this€testimony€was€not€a€surprise€because€it€wasÏconsistent€with€Ms.€Davisðð€December€1992€deposition,€ruled€that€Ms.€DavisÏwould€be€permitted€to€testify€about€the€other€car€and€that€her€lawyer€would€beÏpermitted€to€amend€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€this€proof.€€Ms.€BrooksððÏlawyer€did€not€request€a€continuance€in€order€to€better€prepare€to€cross„examine€Ms.€Davis€or€to€obtain€rebuttal€proof.ÌÌà àMs.€Davis€was€examined€and€cross„examined€about€her€efforts€to€avoidÏthe€oncoming€car€and€whether€she€had€mentioned€the€other€car€to€Ms.€Brooks,Íthe€investigating€officer,€or€the€lawyer€who€prepared€her€answer.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€Ms.€Davisðð€proof,€the€trial€court€granted€her€motion€to€amendÏher€answer€to€conform€her€pleadings€to€her€testimony.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏpermitted€Ms.€Brooksðð€lawyer€to€choose€whether€the€case€should€be€submittedÏto€the€jury€on€Ms.€Davisðð€negligence€alone€or€whether€the€jury€should€beÏinstructed€to€apportion€fault€between€Ms.€Davis€and€the€unknown€driver€of€theÏother€car.€€Ms.€Brooksðð€lawyer€requested€that€the€jury€be€instructed€€toÏapportion€fault€between€Ms.€Davis€and€the€unknown€driver€of€the€other€car.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€should€determine€whether€Ms.ÏDavis€was€at€fault€and€that€it€should€also€apportion€the€fault€between€Ms.€DavisÏand€the€unknown€driver€of€the€other€car.€€The€jury€returned€with€a€verdictÏthat€no€fault€was€chargeable€to€Ms.€Davis€and€that€100%€of€the€fault€wasÏchargeable€to€the€ð ðAlleged€Unknown€Other€Driver.ðð€€The€jurors€also€assessedÏMs.€Brooksðð€damages€at€$25,000€and€Erica€Brooksðð€damages€at€$10,000.€ÏThereafter,€the€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€against€the€unknown€defendant.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àThe€linchpin€of€Ms.€Brooksðð€argument€is€that€Ms.€Davisðð€testimony€thatÏshe€was€reacting€to€a€sudden€emergency€when€she€ran€off€the€road€was€anÏaffirmative€defense.€€She€insists€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€required€Ms.€DavisÍto€include€this€defense€in€her€answer€and€that€her€failure€to€plead€this€defenseÏspecifically€should€have€prevented€her€from€relying€on€it€at€trial.€€We€must,Ïaccordingly,€construe€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.02.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àPrior€to€July€1993,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€provided,€in€part,€that:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ 4 ÒÓÓà àIn€pleading€to€a€preceding€pleading,€a€partyÏshall€set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€short€and€plainÏterms€relied€upon€to€constitute€accord€andÏsatisfaction,€arbitration€and€award,€assumption€ofÏrisk,€contributory€negligence,€discharge€inÏbankruptcy,€duress,€estoppel,€failure€ofÏconsideration,€fraud,€illegality,€injury€by€fellowÏservant,€laches,€license,€payment,€release,€resÏjudicata,€statute€of€frauds,€statute€of€limitations,Ïwaiver,€and€any€other€matter€constituting€anÏavoidance€or€affirmative€defense.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ€ÓRecognizing€the€mandatory€nature€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03,€the€courts€haveÏconsistently€held€that€affirmative€defenses€that€are€not€properly€raised€areÏwaived.€€òòThompson,€Breeding,€Dunn,€Creswell€&€Sparks€v.€Bowlin,óó€765ÏS.W.2d€743,€744€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);òò€Barrton€Scientific,€Inc.€v.€Moss,óó€542ÏS.W.2d€375,€379€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975);€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.08.ÌÌà àThe€defenses€specifically€listed€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€are€not€the€onlyÏdefenses€to€which€the€rule€applies.€€The€rule€also€applies€to€ð ðany€other€matterÏconstituting€an€avoidance€or€affirmative€defense.ðð€€Even€though€these€termsÏare€not€defined,€their€meaning€can€be€gleaned€from€the€fact€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€8.03€is€a€lineal€descendant€of€the€common„law€pleadings€in€confession€andÍavoidance.€€òòSeeóó€5€Charles€A.€Wright€&€Arthur€R.€Miller,€òòFederal€Practice€andÏProcedureóó€ðð€1270€(2d€ed.€1990).€€This€court€has€thus€defined€an€affirmativeÏdefense€asÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ 4 ÒÓÓone€that€wholly€or€partly€avoids€the€cause€of€actionÏasserted€by€the€preceding€pleading€by€new€allegationsÏthat€admit€part€or€all€of€the€cause€of€action,€butÏavoids€liability€because€of€a€legally€sufficient€excuse,Ïjustification,€or€other€matter€negating€the€allegedÏbreach€or€wrong.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ€ÓòòThompson,€Breeding,€Dunn,€Creswell€&€Sparks€v.€Bowlin,óó€765€S.W.2d€at€744Ï(quoting€Lawrence€A.€Pivnick,€òòTennessee€Circuit€Court€Practiceóó€ðð12„4€(2d€ed.Ï1986)).€€ÌÌà àThe€difference€between€a€general€defense€which€is€not€required€to€beÏspecifically€pled€and€an€affirmative€defense€is€that€a€general€defense€negates€anÏelement€of€the€plaintiffððs€prima€facie€case,€while€an€affirmative€defenseÏexcuses€the€defendantððs€conduct€even€if€the€plaintiff€is€able€to€establish€a€primaÏfacie€case.€€òòDonohoe€v.€American€Isuzu€Motors,€Inc.,óó€155€F.R.D.€515,€518Ï(M.D.€Pa.€1994).€€Thus,€any€defense€that€does€not€tend€to€contradict€theÏopposing€partyððs€prima€facie€case€as€determined€by€the€applicable€substantiveÏlaw€should€be€pleaded€and€is€not€put€in€issue€by€a€general€denial€madeÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.02.€€òòSeeóó€2A€James€W.€Moore,€òòMooreððs€FederalÏPracticeóó€ðð€8.27[3]€(2d€ed.€1995).ÌÌà àDefenses€predicated€on€the€doctrines€of€sudden€emergency€orÏunavoidable€accident€are€not€affirmative€defenses€because€they€negate€anÏessential€element€of€the€plaintiffððs€prima€facie€case.€€These€defenses,€in€effect,Ïassert€that€the€defendant€was€not€negligent€because€of€the€existence€of€anÍemergency.òò€€Moody€v.€Gulf€Ref.€Co.,óó€142€Tenn.€280,€293,€218€S.W.€817,€820Ï(1920);€òòCawthon€v.€Mayo,óó€45€Tenn.€App.€610,€646,€325€S.W.2d€629,€645Ï(1958).€€Accordingly,€this€court€has€noted€that€defenses€of€ð ðsuddenÏemergencyðð€and€ð ðunavoidable€accidentðð€are€not€affirmative€defenses€requiredÏto€be€pled€specifically€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€òòWhitaker€v.€Harmonóó,€879ÏS.W.2d€865,€870€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòBraden€v.€Varnellóó,€871€S.W.2d€690,Ï692„93€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àMs.€Davis'€answer€and€deposition€testimony€demonstrate€that€she€wasÏnot€claiming€that€the€unknown€driver€of€the€oncoming€car€was€contributorilyÏnegligent.€€She€was€simply€denying€that€she€had€acted€negligently€when€she€ranÏoff€the€road€because€she€was€acting€like€any€reasonable€person€would€act€whenÏconfronted€with€a€similar€emergency.€€Accordingly,€she€was€making€a€generalÏdefense€as€opposed€to€a€special€defense,€and€her€answerððs€general€denial€ofÏnegligence€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.02€was€sufficient.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àEven€if€Ms.€Davis€was€not€required€to€specifically€plead€her€defenseÏpredicated€on€the€unknown€driver€when€she€filed€her€answer,€Ms.€BrooksÏargues€that€the€July€1993€amendment€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€required€her€toÏamend€her€answer€to€include€this€defense.€€While€I€agree€that€Ms.€DavisÏshould€have€filed€an€amended€answer€in€this€case,€I€do€not€agree€that€herÍfailure€to€do€so€under€the€facts€of€this€case€should€have€prevented€her€fromÏtestifying€about€the€unknown€driver€of€the€oncoming€car.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€replaced€the€doctrine€of€contributoryÏnegligence€with€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentine,óóÏ833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€Accordingly,€an€amendment€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï8.03€that€took€effect€on€July€1,€1993,€replaced€ð ðcontributory€negligenceðð€withÏð ðcomparative€fault€(including€the€identity€or€description€of€any€other€allegedÏtortfeasors).ðð€€This€amendment€requires€defendants€intending€to€assert€that€theÏplaintiffððs€injuries€were€caused,€in€whole€or€in€part,€by€another€person€toÏinclude€this€defense€in€their€answer€and€to€identify€the€other€person.€ÏIncluding€this€defense€in€the€answer€is€an€essential€ingredient€of€the€newÏcomparative€fault€scheme€because€it€is€the€only€way€to€trigger€the€plaintiffððsÏlimited€opportunity€to€assert€claims€directly€against€these€other€parties€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€(1994).€ÌÌà àMs.€Brooks,€arguing€for€a€strict€interpretation€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03,Ïasserts€that€the€amended€version€of€the€rule€required€Ms.€Davis€to€file€anÏamended€answer€asserting€that€the€conduct€of€the€unknown€driver€caused€herÏto€swerve€off€the€road.€€The€majority€recognizes€the€present€version€of€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€8.03€requires€defendants€to€include€comparative€fault€defenses€inÏtheir€answers€but€has€declined€to€apply€it€in€this€case€apparently€because€theÏamendment€to€the€rule€did€not€take€effect€until€July€1,€1993,€nine€months€afterÏMs.€Davis€filed€her€answer.€€This€reasoning€is€unsound.ÌÌÌÌà àBoth€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó€and€the€amendment€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03Ïapplied€to€all€cases€awaiting€trial€in€July€1993.€€Thus,€as€things€stood€at€thatÏtime,€Ms.€Davis'€lawyer€should€have€filed€an€amended€answer€stating€that€theÏconduct€of€the€unknown€driver€of€the€oncoming€car€caused€or€contributed€toÏthe€injuries€sustained€by€Ms.€Brooks€and€her€daughter.€€Ms.€Davis€did€notÏamend€her€answer€until€trial€when€she€moved€to€conform€her€pleadings€to€theÏproof.€€Thus,€the€question€before€us€is€whether€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€toÏpermit€this€testimony€was€improperly€prejudicial€to€Ms.€Brooks€and€herÏdaughter.ÌÌà àEven€though€the€amended€version€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€applied€to€thisÏcase,€Ms.€Davis'€failure€to€file€an€amended€answer€did€not€prevent€her€fromÏtestifying€about€the€other€car.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€should€not€be€interpretedÏas€formalistically€as€suggested€by€Ms.€Brooks.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏhas€pointed€out€that€the€"failure€to€[specifically€plead€an€affirmative€defense]Ïdoes€not€result€in€a€waiver€of€the€defense€if€the€opposing€party€is€given€fairÏnotice€of€the€defense€and€an€opportunity€to€rebut€it."€€òòSands€v.€State,óó€903ÏS.W.2d€297,€299€(Tenn.€1995)€(statute€of€limitations€defense).€€The€fair€noticeÏin€òòSands€v.€Stateóó€came€from€the€pleadings€themselves.€€Although€Ms.€Davis'Ïanswer€simply€denied€that€she€was€negligent,€her€testimony€at€the€DecemberÏ1992€deposition€gave€fair€notice€of€her€assertions€about€the€other€car.€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€permitting€Ms.€Davis€to€testifyÏabout€the€other€car€at€the€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àIf€the€trial€court€properly€permitted€Ms.€Davis€to€testify€about€the€otherÏcar,€it€necessarily€follows€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€her€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€15.02€motion€to€amend€her€answer€to€conform€to€the€evidence.€€TrialÏcourts€have€broad€discretion€over€amendments€to€the€pleadings.€€òòArcataÏGraphics€Co.€v.€€Heidelberg€Harris,€Inc.óó,€874€S.W.2d€15,€22€(Tenn.€€Ct.€€App.€Ï1993);€òòMerriman€v.€Smithóó,€599€S.W.2d€548,€559€(Tenn.€€Ct.€€App.€€1979).€ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.01€states€that€ð ðleave€[to€amend€a€pleading]€shall€be€freelyÏgiven€when€justice€so€requires.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courts€should€permitÏparties€to€amend€their€pleadings€in€the€absence€of€undue€delay,€bad€faith,€orÏprejudice€to€the€nonmoving€party.€€òòGardiner€v.€Word,óó€731€S.W.2d€889,€891„92€(Tenn.€1987);€òòKemmons€Wilson,€Inc.€v.€Allied€Bank,óó€836€S.W.2d€104,€107Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€The€mere€possibility€that€the€defense€included€in€theÏamended€answer€might€succeed€is€not€the€type€of€prejudice€that€requires€theÏdenial€of€the€motion€to€amend.€€òòGuarantor€Partners€v.€Huff,óó€830€S.W.2d€73,Ï77€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòGarthright€v.€First€Tennessee€Bank,€óó728€S.W.2d€7,Ï9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àMs.€Davis€testified€in€her€December€1992€deposition€that€she€lostÏcontrol€of€the€car€on€February€2,€1991€while€attempting€to€avoid€a€head„onÏcollision€with€an€oncoming€car€that€had€crossed€over€the€center€line€into€herÏlane.€€Thus,€Ms.€Brooksðð€lawyer€had€known€about€this€testimony€for€twenty„two€months€by€the€time€of€the€October€1994€trial.€€His€protestations€ofÏsurprise€and€prejudice€at€trial€accordingly€do€not€ring€true.ÌÌà àThis€record€contains€no€indication€of€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€Ms.€DavisÏor€undue€prejudice€to€Ms.€Brooks.€€Accordingly,€the€only€remaining€questionÏis€whether€Ms.€Davis€delayed€unduly€by€moving€to€amend€her€answer€at€trialÏto€conform€to€the€proof.€€If€this€case€had€arisen€after€the€effective€date€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119,€I€would€hold€that€she€waited€too€long.€€In€thisÏtransitional€case,€however,€I€would€find€that€Ms.€Davis€did€not€wait€too€longÏto€amend€her€answer€for€three€reasons.€€First,€the€amendment€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€8.03€created€some€ambiguity€about€the€status€of€Ms.€Davisðð€defense.€ÏSecond,€Ms.€Brooks€had€known€about€the€defense€since€December€1992€andÏthus€had€ample€time€to€prepare€her€case.€€Third,€Ms.€Brooks€would€not€haveÏbeen€entitled€to€assert€a€claim€against€the€unknown€driver€because€the€statuteÏof€limitations€on€this€claim€had€already€expired€when€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€became€effective.× ƒ1 ××  ×̛̜œÌ›Ìà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àIn€summary,€I€have€concluded€that€Ms.€Davis€did€not€waive€her€right€toÏassert€a€defense€based€on€the€conduct€of€the€unknown€driver€because€Ms.ÏBrooks€had€fair€notice€of€the€defense€and€an€opportunity€to€rebut€it.€€I€haveÏalso€concluded€that€Ms.€Davis€did€not€delay€unduly€when€she€amended€herÏanswer€at€trial€to€conform€to€her€testimony€about€the€unknown€driver.€€IÏwould€affirm€the€trial€court€on€these€grounds.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌ