ÿWPCH 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9w@a4¡µÄ 0lÌ 0D8 0D| 0JÀ 0T  0^^ 0h¼ 0r$ 0|– 0† 0˜ 1u( 0d 0@ D3A U>t B)² DCÛ AM U*k • AQ– Æç B­ 0DÊ D/ B=¬Zñv~÷vÓu˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ šU› œ  ž Ÿ£ ¡¢Ó€®äzz!3|x®((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 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  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò++++'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMay€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó* ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMrs.€Browderððs€claim€was€for€loss€of€consortium.Ì çÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellees€Morris,€Castleberry€and€General€Accident€have€adopted€the€arguments€ofÏAppellants€for€purposes€of€this€appeal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌCHARLES€R.€BROWDER€andó óà à)à àShelby€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òœÙ€*ÙßR€&(%A1-j|µ|` Å `€€@ÿRß›TERESA€NOLAND€BROWDERó ó,à à)à àNo.€63317€T.D.Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9602„CV„00039Ìà à)Ìò òJERRY€C.€MORRIS€andó óà à)Ìò òCHRIS€CASTLEBERRY,€ET€ALó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€Wyeth€Chandler,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òRandall€J.€Fishmanó ó,Ìò òMark€A.€Mesleró ó,ÌBALLIN,€BALLIN€&€FISHMAN,€P.C.,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌò òJ.€Cecil€œMcWhirteró ó,›ÌMcWHIRTER€&€WYATT,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€Jerry€C.€Morris€and€Chris€Castleberry.ÌÌò òÌJames€W.€Cookó ó,ÌCARD,€COOK€&€HOLT,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€General€Accident€Group.ÌÌò òÌRobert€L.€Mooreó ó,€ÌTHOMAS,€HENDRIX,€HARVEY,€JOHNSON€&€MITCHELL,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Paul€Davis€Systems,€Inc.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ›ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓœà àThis€is€an€interlocutory€appeal€by€appellants,€Charles€R.€and€Teresa€NolandÏBrowder,€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€seeking€to€amend€their€complaint€to€name€anÏadditional€party€defendant€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€20„1„119.€€The€statute€was€enacted€in€response€toÏthe€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòò òMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóóó ó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€whichÏabolished€the€doctrine€of€contributory€negligence€in€Tennessee€and€adopted€principles€ofÏcomparative€fault.€€The€statute€allots€a€plaintiff€in€cases€of€comparative€fault€additional€time€beyondÏthe€normal€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations€within€which€to€join€a€previously€unnamedÏdefendant€by€either€amendment€of€the€complaint€or€institution€of€a€separate€action.€€The€issueÏpresented€here€is€whether€the€statute€as€enacted€contemplates€the€joinder€of€a€third€party€defendantÏwhose€liability,€if€any,€is€vicarious€only.ÌÌà àThe€following€facts€are€before€us:€On€July€25,€1994,€the€appellants€filed€suit€againstÏJerry€C.€Morris€and€Chris€Castleberry€for€injuries€Mr.€Browder€allegedly€sustained€in€anÏautomobile€accident€with€Morris€on€July€26,€1993.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€complaint€alleges€that€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident,€Morris€was€operating€a€vehicle€owned€by€Castleberry€ð ðwith€the€consent,€permission,Ïauthority,€and€about€the€business€of€Mr.€Castleberry.ðð€€The€named€defendants€as€well€as€theÏappellantsðð€liability€insurer,€General€Accident€Insurance€Company,€filed€answers€to€the€complaint.€ÏGeneral€Accidentððs€answer€was€filed€on€September€19,€1994.€€Upon€motion,€the€trial€courtÏallowed€General€Accident€to€amend€its€answer,€to€conform€with€certain€facts€made€known€duringÏdiscovery,€and€assert€that€at€the€time€of€the€accident€Morris€was€operating€an€automobile€owned€byÏCastleberry,€but€was€on€or€about€the€business€of€his€employer,€Paul€Davis€Systems,€and€that€PaulÍDavis€Systems€was€an€unnamed€defendant.€€General€Accidentððs€first€amended€answer€was€filedÏOctober€19,€1995.€€On€November€2,€1995,€the€appellants€moved€to€amend€their€complaint€toÏspecifically€name€Paul€Davis€Systems€as€an€additional€defendant.€€As€noted,€the€motion€was€deniedÏwith€this€appeal€resulting.ÌÌà àThe€issue€on€appeal€as€framed€by€Appellants€is€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€PlaintiffsððÏmotion€to€seek€leave€of€court€to€file€an€Amended€Complaint€againstÏPaul€Davis€Systems,€Inc.,€where€the€Defendant,€General€AccidentÏInsurance€Company,€filed€an€Amended€Answer,€naming€Paul€DavisÏSystems€as€an€unnamed€defendant,€and€where€the€Plaintiffs€thenÏsought€to€name€this€party€as€a€defendant€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€20„1„119?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€statute€provides,€as€here€pertinent:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òComparative€fault€„„€Joinder€of€third€party€defendantsó ó.€„„Ï(a)€In€civil€actions€where€comparative€fault€is€or€becomes€an€issue,€ifÏa€defendant€named€in€an€original€complaint€initiating€a€suit€filedÏwithin€the€applicable€statute€of€€limitations,€or€named€in€an€amendedÏcomplaint€filed€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,€alleges€inÏan€answer€or€amended€answer€to€the€original€or€amended€complaintÏthat€a€person€not€a€party€to€the€suit€caused€or€contributed€to€theÏinjury€or€damage€for€which€the€plaintiff€seeks€recovery,€and€if€theÏplaintiffððs€cause€or€causes€of€action€against€such€person€would€beÏbarred€by€any€applicable€statute€of€limitations€but€for€the€operationÏof€this€section,€the€plaintiff€may,€within€ninety€(90)€days€of€theÏfiling€of€the€first€answer€or€first€amended€answer€alleging€suchÏpersonððs€fault,€either:Ìà8 àà à(1)€Amend€the€complaint€to€add€such€person€as€a€defendantÏpursuant€to€Rule€15€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€andÏcause€process€to€be€issued€for€that€person;€orÌà8 àà à(2)€Institute€a€separate€action€against€that€person€by€filing€aÏsummons€and€complaint.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà à(b)€A€cause€of€action€brought€within€ninety€(90)€daysÏpursuant€to€subsection€(a)€shall€not€be€barred€by€any€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€This€section€shall€not€extend€any€applicable€statute€ofÏrepose,€.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà à(c)€This€section€shall€neither€shorten€nor€lengthen€theÏapplicable€statute€of€limitations€for€any€cause€of€action,€other€than€asÏprovided€in€subsection€(a).Ìà8 àà à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà à(e)€This€section€shall€not€limit€the€right€of€any€defendant€toÏallege€in€an€answer€or€amended€answer€that€a€person€not€a€party€toÏthe€suit€caused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€for€which€the€plaintiffÏseeks€recovery.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€agreed€that€resolution€of€the€issue€requires€a€proper€interpretation€of€theÏlanguage€ð ðcaused€or€contributed€toðð€as€utilized€within€the€statute.€€Appellants€assert× ƒ0 ××  ×€that€the€statuteÏshould€not€be€so€narrowly€construed€as€to€prohibit€the€joining€of€those€defendants€who,€it€isÏalleged,€share€only€financial€responsibility€for€a€plaintiff€ððs€alleged€injuries.€€Appellants€rely€uponÏthe€legislative€history€of€the€statute€as€supporting€their€position.€€To€the€contrary,€Paul€DavisÏSystems,€on€whose€behalf€a€brief€has€been€filed€with€this€Court,€argues€that€the€statute€was€notÏintended€to€apply€to€those€who€share€only€vicarious€responsibility€as€that€person€or€entity€ð ðhasÏdone€nothing€to€contribute€to€the€circumstances€giving€rise€to€the€injury€suffered€by€the€plaintiff.€.€.Ï.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€cardinal€rule€of€statutory€construction€is€to€effectuate€the€legislative€intent,€withÏall€rules€of€construction€being€but€aides€to€that€end.€€òòò òLocust€v.€Stateóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€716,€718Ï(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€€We€must€initially€look€to€the€language€of€the€statute€itself€in€determining€theÏintent€of€the€legislature.€€Courts€are€restricted€to€the€natural€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€languageÏused€by€the€legislature€within€the€four€corners€of€the€statute,€unless€an€ambiguity€requires€resortÏelsewhere€to€ascertain€legislative€intent.€€òòò òAustin€v.€Memphis€Publððg€Co.óóó ó,€655€S.W.2d€146,Ï148€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€statute€is€ambiguous€if€it€is€capable€of€conveying€more€than€one€meaning.€Ïòòò òIn€re€Conservatorship€of€Claytonóóó ó,€914€S.W.2d€84,€90€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€We€mustÏconsider€the€language€employed€in€context€of€the€entire€statute€without€any€forced€or€subtleÏconstruction€which€would€extend€or€limit€its€meaning.€€òòò òWeaver€v.€Woodsóóó ó,€594€S.W.2d€693,Ï695€(Tenn.€1980);€òòò òWilson€v.€Johnson€Countyóóó ó,€879€S.W.2d€807,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€areÍto€assume€that€the€legislature€used€each€word€in€the€statute€purposely€and€that€the€use€of€theseÏwords€conveys€some€intent€and€has€a€meaning€and€purpose.€€òòò òLocustóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€at€718.€€WhereÏwords€of€the€statute€are€clear€and€plain€and€fully€express€the€legislatureððs€intent,€there€is€no€room€toÏresort€to€auxiliary€rules€of€construction,€€òòò òRoberson€v.€University€of€Tennesseeóóó ó,€912ÏS.W.2d€746,€747€(Tenn.€App.€1995),€and€we€need€only€enforce€the€statute€as€written.€€òòò òClaytonóóó ó,Ï914€S.W.2d€at€90.€€ÌÌà àWith€these€basic€rules€of€statutory€construction€in€mind,€we€hold€the€statute€beforeÏus€is€amenable€to€but€one€interpretation€and,€thus,€unambiguous.€€It€is€assumed€that€the€legislatureÏcarefully€chose€and€purposely€used€the€words€ð ðcaused€or€contributed€to.ðð€€These€words€must€beÏconstrued€to€mean€what€they€say.€€òòò òRobersonóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€at€747.€€Under€their€plain€meaning,Ïthe€statute€limits€a€plaintiff€to€additionally€name€only€those€defendants€who€allegedly€ð ðcaused€orÏcontributed€toðð€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€€By€definition,€one€who€is€ð ðvicariouslyðð€liable€is€not€oneÏwho€has€ð ðcaused€or€contributed€toðð€anotherððs€injuries.€€We€find€no€other€language€in€the€fourÏcorners€of€the€statute€to€suggest€an€alternative€or€expansive€meaning.€€As€we€have€determined€theÏstatute€unambiguous€in€this€respect,€it€is€unnecessary€and,€indeed,€improper€to€refer€to€theÏlegislative€history€offered€for€explanation€by€Appellants.€€òòò òSee€Tennessee€Valley€Auth.€v.ÏHillóóó ó,€437€U.S.€153€(1978);€òòò òD.€Canale€&€Co.€v.€Celauroóóó ó,€765€S.W.2d€736,€738€(Tenn.Ï1989).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€denying€the€appellantsððÏmotion€to€amend€their€complaint€to€join€Paul€Davis€Systems€as€an€additional€defendant€as€theÏparties€agree€that€its€liability,€if€any,€is€vicarious€only.€€Paul€Davis€Systems€neither€caused€norÏcontributed€to€Plaintiffsðð€injuries€or€damages.€€We€remand€this€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€herewith€consistent.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Charles€R.€and€Teresa€NolandÏBrowder,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à___________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)›