ÿWPCK# …# VUNa %¯ 0µUD¼ 4  0K# 0Dn ² 0#² e Õ 0Jßw) 0T? 0^“ 0hñ 0rY 0|Ë 0†G 0Í 1u]U,Ò 0dþU,bU>ŽU*̘öB)ŽDC· AMú BG D3dU*—îÁ 0@¯fïv~UvÓÓ AO¦!Æõ! 0D»" D/ÿ" B.#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ß Ñ$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XgØXXXÔÑ7€UXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP Regularv‡d 3|x9(û(3lã$¤¤Ý ƒ Ñ!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XõuXXXÔÑ7€õuXXdìdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(û3Ä$©©Ý ƒ Ñ!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XõuXXXÔÑ7€õuXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô5Ó€6Ó€72" 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ."ƒ BRUCE.OPN"ÔBRUCE.OPNÔ/  Ô% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ4,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÖ€%ÖÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ  ÑßL€(,';+'h|` ˆ, `€€Lßà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌà àà àÏ_______________________________________________ÌÌCAROLYN€BRUCE€and€husband,ÌJOHN€DAVID€BRUCE,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.No.Ï03A01„9509„CV„00310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxÏCircuit€No.€3„278„94Ìò òROBERT€OLIVE€AND€SANDRA€G.ÌOLIVE,€Individually€and€d/b/aÌOlive€and€Olive,€P.C.,ÌÌó óà àDefendants„Appellees.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€KNOX€CIRCUITÏCOURTÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WHEELERÏROSENBALM,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àLynn€M.€Lauderback€of€KingsportÌà@ àFor€Plaintiffs„AppellantsÌÌà@ àR.€Franklin€Norton,€Geoffrey€D.€Kressin,Ìà@ àNorton€&€Luhn,€P.C.,€of€KnoxvilleÌà@ àFor€Defendants„AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÑ€.ÑÇÓÓà àThis€is€a€legal€malpractice€case.€€Plaintiffs,€Carolyn€Bruce,€andÏhusband,€John€David€Bruce,€appeal€from€the€order€of€the€trial€courtÏgranting€summary€judgment€to€defendants,€Robert€Olive€and€Sandra€G.ÏOlive,€individually€and€d/b/a€Olive€&€Olive,€P.C..Ìà àPlaintiffs'€complaint€alleges€that€in€June,€1989,€Carolyn€BruceÏentered€into€a€contract€with€defendant,€Robert€S.€Olive,€of€Olive€&ÏOlive,€P.C.,€thereby€retaining€defendants€to€represent€her€in€aÏharassment€and€discrimination€suit€(underlying€litigation)€against€herÏemployer,€State€Farm€Mutual€Automobile€Insurance€Company.€€TheÏcontract€provided€that€Ms.€Bruce€would€pay€Olive€&€Olive€$90.00€perÏhour€for€legal€representation,€and€that€she€would€be€responsible€forÏexpenses€incurred.€€The€contract€was€subsequently€amended€to€provideÏfor€a€reduced€hourly€rate€and€a€contingency€fee€to€the€attorneys.€Ìà àThe€complaint€avers€that€Olive€filed€a€complaint€on€behalf€of€Ms.ÏBruce€in€the€Knox€County€Chancery€Court,€and€that€the€case€proceeded€toÏtrial.€€The€trial€lasted€thirty„six€days€and€involved€the€introduction€ofÏover€seven€hundred€exhibits€into€evidence.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏtrial,€judgment€was€entered€for€State€Farm,€and€the€costs€wereÍassessed€against€Ms.€Bruce.€€Plaintiff€avers€that€she€was€advised€thatÏshe€would€succeed€on€appeal,€and€on€the€advice€of€defendants,€theÏchancery€court€judgment€was€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€TheÏcomplaint€avers€that€plaintiff€paid€the€defendants€$20,320.00€toÏpurchase€the€forty„nine€volume€trial€transcript€in€order€to€file€theÏrecord€on€appeal.€€The€trial€record€was€filed€in€the€Court€of€Appeals€onÏFebruary€18,€1993,€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€entered€an€order€directingÏplaintiff„appellant€to€file€an€abridged€record€with€the€appellant's€briefÏon€or€before€March€22,€1993.€€The€complaint€further€avers€that€theÏdefendant€attorneys€€failed€to€timely€file€the€abridged€record€and€briefÏas€required,€but€they€sought€and€obtained€two€extensions€of€time€withinÏwhich€to€file€the€abridged€record€and€brief.€€Subsequently,€in€May,€1993,Ïdefendants€filed€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€a€third€motion€for€extensionÏof€time€to€file€the€record€and€brief.€€This€third€motion€was€denied€byÏorder€dated€May€25,€1993.€€Subsequently,€the€appellee€in€the€underlyingÏappeal€moved€to€dismiss€the€case€for€failure€to€file€the€brief,€and€theÏcase€was€dismissed€by€order€entered€on€November€1,€1993.€€ApplicationÏfor€Permission€to€Appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€was€denied.€€PlaintiffsÍaver€that€defendants€were€negligent€and€breached€their€contract€withÏplaintiffs€by€failing€to€timely€file€the€brief€and€abridged€record€therebyÏcausing€the€dismissal€of€the€appeal.€€Plaintiffs€seek€recovery€of€courtÏcosts€and€other€expenses€and€legal€fees€that€were€paid€to€theÏdefendants.€€Plaintiffs€also€seek€damages€for€pain,€suffering,Ïaggravation€of€pre„existing€medical€condition,€mental€anguish,€loss€ofÏconsortium,€and€punitive€damages.Ìà àDefendants'€answer€denies€the€material€allegations€of€theÏcomplaint,€denies€that€the€defendants€were€negligent€or€that€theyÏbreached€any€contractual€duty,€and€denies€that€negligence€or€a€breach€ofÏany€contractual€duty€on€their€part€caused€any€damages€to€plaintiff.€€TheÏanswer€also€alleges€that€plaintiffs€are€barred€from€recovery,€becauseÏthe€plaintiffs€were€fifty€percent€or€more€at€fault€in€causing€any€ofÏtheir€alleged€losses,€injuries,€and€damages.Ìà àDefendants€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€ground,Ïòòinter€alia,€óóthat€plaintiffs€suffered€no€damages€as€a€result€of€anyÏalleged€acts€or€omissions€on€the€part€of€defendants,€because€the€appealÏof€the€underlying€litigation€would€have€been€unsuccessful€as€a€matterÍof€law.Ìà àThe€plaintiffs€responded€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏwith,€inter€alia,€the€affidavit€of€John€M.€Foley,€a€practicing€attorney€inÏKnox€County,€Tennessee.€€In€his€affidavit,€Mr.€Foley€states€that€theÏdefendants'€failure€to€timely€file€the€appellants'€brief€and€the€abridgedÏrecord€in€the€underlying€litigation€constituted€a€deviation€from€theÏaccepted€standard€of€care€for€attorneys€practicing€in€Knox€County.€€TheÏResponse€to€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€also€asserts€that€theÏvery€fact€that€the€defendants€stated€in€their€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€that€the€appeal€in€the€underlying€litigation€would€have€failedÏas€a€matter€of€law,€proves€that€the€defendant€attorneys€had€knowledgeÏat€the€time€the€appeal€was€filed€that€the€appeal€was€meritless.€€TheÏplaintiffs'€response€further€asserts€that€there€are€genuine€issues€ofÏmaterial€fact€as€to€whether€the€defendants€acted€negligently€by€failingÏto€file€the€abridged€record€and€the€appellant's€brief.Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€defendants'€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€because€plaintiffs€€failed€to€produce€any€evidence€that€theÏplaintiffs€would€have€been€successful€in€their€appeal€of€the€underlyingÍlitigation.€€The€court€noted€that€plaintiffs€represented€to€the€court€thatÏthey€cannot€prove€error€in€the€underlying€litigation.€€The€court€held€thatÏwithout€proof€that€the€underlying€appeal€would€have€been€successful,Ïthe€plaintiffs€could€not€prove€that€they€suffered€any€damages€as€aÏresult€of€the€defendants'€alleged€negligence€and€therefore,€summaryÏjudgment€was€appropriate.Ìà àPlaintiffs€have€appealed€and€present€two€issues€for€review.€€AsÏstated€in€their€brief,€those€issues€are:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€grantingÏdefendant's€motion€for€summary€judgment€inÏthis€case€because€there€are€numerous€genuineÏfact€issues€regarding€defendant's€negligence€andÏplaintiff's€damages€suffered€as€a€result€of€thatÏneglect.ÌÌà8 àà8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€applyÏthe€doctrine€of€judicial€estoppel€in€favor€ofÏplaintiffs€to€justify€overruling€defendant'sÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€ifÏthe€movant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€materialÏfact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÍlaw.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€56.03;€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€TheÏparty€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstratingÏthat€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€ÏWhen€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€made,€the€court€must€considerÏthe€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€atÏthe€close€of€the€plaintiff's€proof;€that€is,€"the€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmovingÏparty,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€andÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence."€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€thereÏis€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,€theÏnonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€isÏa€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€aÏtrial.€[citations€omitted].€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannotÏsimply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÏforth€òòò òspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.Ì€à@ àÌÓÓòòò òIdó óóó.€at€211.€(emphasis€in€original).€€Ì€€€€€The€summary€judgment€process€should€only€be€used€as€a€means€ofÏconcluding€a€case€when€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact,Ïand€the€case€can€be€resolved€on€the€legal€issues€alone.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€210Ï(citing€òòò òBellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corpó óóó.,€749€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.Ï1988)).€€Summary€judgment€is€not€to€be€used€as€a€substitute€for€a€trialÏof€genuine€and€material€factual€issues.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210€(citingÏòòò òBlocker€v.€Regional€Medical€Ctró óóó.,€722€S.W.2d€660,€660„61€(Tenn.Ï1987)).€€Where€a€genuine€dispute€exists€as€to€any€material€fact€or€as€toÏthe€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€those€facts,€a€court€must€deny€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211€(citing€òòò òDunnó óóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€at€80).Ìà àTo€recover€in€a€legal€malpractice€suit,€a€plaintiff€must€show:€(1)Ïthe€employment€of€an€attorney,€(2)€neglect€by€the€attorney€of€aÏreasonable€duty,€and€(3)€damages€resulting€from€such€neglect.€Ïòòò òSammons€v.€Rotroffó óóó,€653€S.W.2d€740,€745€(Tenn.App.€1983).€€"TheÏburden€of€proving€that€damages€resulted€from€the€negligence€of€anÏattorney€.€.€.€in€connection€with€the€prosecution€or€defense€of€a€suitÏrests€upon€the€client€and€usually€requires€the€client€to€demonstrateÍthat,€but€for€the€negligence€complained€of,€the€client€would€have€beenÏsuccessful€in€the€prosecution€or€defense€of€the€action€in€question."€Ïòòò òGay€&€Taylor,€Inc.€v.€American€Cas.€Co.€of€Reading,€PAó óóó,€381ÏS.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.€App.€1963).Ìà àThere€is€no€dispute€that€defendants€were€employed€to€representÏplaintiff,€Carolyn€Bruce.€€John€Foley's€affidavit,€at€the€very€least,Ïcreates€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€defendants€wereÏguilty€of€negligence.€€€The€remaining€issue€is€whether€damages€resultedÏfrom€such€neglect.€€That€is,€whether€the€defendants'€failure€to€timelyÏfile€the€brief€and€abridged€record€caused€the€plaintiffs€to€incurÏdamages.€€Generally,€the€plaintiffs€must€demonstrate€that€the€appeal€ofÏthe€underlying€litigation€would€have€been€successful,€and€that€uponÏtrial€after€remand€they€would€have€obtained€a€recovery.€€òòò òSeeÏCommercial€Truck€&€Trailer€Sales€v.€McCampbelló óóó,€580€S.W.2dÏ765,€770€(Tenn.€1979);€òòò òAbles€v.€Lockett,€Slovis€&€Weaveró óóó,€No.Ï03A01„9402„CV„0074,€1995€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€9€(Tenn.€App.€W.S.€JanuaryÏ10,€1995).€€The€defendants'€negligence€must€have€been€the€factual€andÏproximate€cause€of€the€plaintiffs'€damages.€€òòò òGay€&€Taylor,€Inc.€v.ÍAmerican€Casualty€Co.€of€Reading,€PAó óóó,€381€S.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1963).€€In€effect,€the€plaintiffs€bringing€the€malpractice€actionÏmust€prove€a€case€within€a€case.Ìà àOnce€the€defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment,€the€plaintiffsÏfailed€to€produce€any€evidence€whatsoever€which€would€indicate€thatÏthe€underlying€appeal€would€have€been€successful.€€On€the€contrary,€theÏposition€of€the€plaintiffs€is€that€the€underlying€appeal€would€have€inÏfact€been€unsuccessful.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€summary€judgmentÏmotion,€the€plaintiffs€specifically€stated€that€they€were€notÏcomplaining€of€any€error€by€the€chancellor€in€the€underlying€trial,€theyÏwere€simply€attempting€to€recover€damages€for€the€defendants'Ïnegligence€in€failing€to€timely€file€the€brief€and€record.€€In€their€briefÏthe€plaintiffs€also€state€that€proving€the€underlying€appeal€would€haveÏbeen€successful€would€be€an€impossible€burden,€given€the€voluminousÏrecord.€€Ìà àAlthough€plaintiffs€do€not€seek€the€damages€they€sought€to€obtainÏin€the€underlying€litigation,€they€do€seek€recovery€for€the€expensesÏincurred€in€the€aborted€appeal,€as€well€as€damages€for€pain,€suffering,Ímental€anguish,€and€punitive€damages.€Ìà àWe€first€address€the€plaintiffs'€tort€claims€for€pain,€suffering,Ïmental€€anguish,€loss€of€consortium,€and€aggravation€of€a€pre„existingÏmedical€condition,€all€of€which€the€plaintiffs€allege€were€produced€as€aÏresult€of€the€defendants'€failure€to€prosecute€the€appeal.€€Historically,Ïit€has€been€the€general€rule€in€Tennessee€that€a€plaintiff€is€not€entitledÏto€€damages€where€the€defendant's€negligence€causes€mental€anguish,Ïwithout€accompanying€physical€injury€or€physical€consequences,€orÏwithout€other€independent€basis€for€tort€liability.€€òòò òLaxton€v.€OrkinÏExterminating€Co.,€Incó óóó.€639€S.W.2d€431,€433€(Tenn.€1982).€ÏTennessee€courts€have€recognized€certain€exceptions€to€theÏmanifestation€of€physical€injury€requirement.€€ò òòòSee€Laxtonó óóó,€639€S.W.2d.Ïat€433„34.€€The€òòò òLaxtonó óóó€court€noted€that€Tennessee€courts€have€beenÏextremely€liberal€in€allowing€recovery€for€mental€disturbance€and€haveÏallowed€recovery€even€in€cases€where€the€injury€was€"slight."€€òòò òIdó óóó.€atÏ433.€Ìà àIn€ò òòòCamper€v.€Minor,ó óóó€No.€03S07„9502„CV„00013€(Tenn.€Jan.€29,Ï1996),€our€Supreme€Court,€in€abolishing€the€"physical€injury€rule"Ístated:€€"[W]e€conclude€that€the€rule€shall€no€longer€be€used€to€test€theÏvalidity€of€a€prima€facie€case€of€negligent€infliction€of€emotionalÏdistress."€€ò òòòId.,€ó óóóslip€op.€at€20.€€The€Court€continued:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€negative€conclusion€logically€raises€itsÏpositive€counterpart:€€what€is€required€to€makeÏout€a€prima€facie€case?€€After€considering€theÏstrengths€and€weaknesses€of€the€options€used€inÏother€jurisdictions,€we€conclude€that€theseÏcases€should€be€analyzed€under€the€generalÏnegligence€approach€discussed€above.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€plaintiff€must€present€materialÏevidence€as€to€each€of€the€five€elements€ofÏgeneral€negligence€„„€duty,€breach€of€duty,Ïinjury€or€loss,€causation€in€fact,€and€proximate,Ïor€legal,€cause€ò òòòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantó óóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€594,€498€(Tenn.€1993);€ò òòòBradshaw€v.ÏDanieló óóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993)€„„€inÏorder€to€avoid€summary€judgment.€€Furthermore,Ïwe€agree€that€in€order€to€guard€against€trivial€orÏfraudulent€actions,€the€law€ought€to€provide€aÏrecovery€only€for€"serious"€or€"severe"€emotionalÏinjury.€€ò òòòBurgess€v.€Superior€Court€(Gupta),Ïó óóó831€P.2d€1197,€1200€(Cal.€1992);€ò òòòSt.€ElizabethÏHosp.€v.€Garrard,ó óóó€730€S.W.2d€649,€653€(Tx.Ï1987).€€A€"serious"€or€"severe"€emotional€injuryÏoccurs€"where€a€reasonable€person,€normallyÏconstituted,€would€be€unable€to€adequately€copeÏwith€the€mental€stress€engendered€by€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case."€€ò òòòRodrigues€v.ÏStateó óóó,€472€P.2d€509,€520€(Haw.€1970);€ò òòòPaugh€v.ÏHanksó óóó,€451€N.E.2d€759,€765€(Ohio€1983);Íò òòòPlaisance€v.€Texaco,€Inc.ó óóó,€937€F.2d€1004,Ï1010€(5th€Cir.€1991);€ò òòòProsser€and€Keeton€onÏthe€Law€of€Tortsó óóó,€ðð€54,€at€364„65,€n.60.€ÏFinally,€we€conclude€that€the€claimed€injury€orÏimpairment€must€be€supported€by€expert€medicalÏor€scientific€proof.€€ò òòòSee€Leong€v.€Takasakió óóó,Ï520€P.2d€758,€766„67€(Haw.€1974)("the€plaintiffÏshould€be€permitted€to€prove€medically€theÏdamages€occasioned€by€his€mental€responses€toÏdefendant's€negligent€act").ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó,€slip€op.€at€20„21.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€plaintiffs€submitted€in€opposition€to€theÏmotion€for€summary€judgment,€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Michael€L.€Pool,€aÏpsychiatrist.€€Dr.€Pool's€affidavit€states€that€he€commenced€seeingÏCarolyn€Bruce€in€March,€1989,€that€her€diagnosis€was€major€depressiveÏdisorder,€that€she€continues€to€suffer€from€this€disorder,€and€that€sheÏ"showed€dismay"€upon€losing€the€underlying€case€in€the€chancery€court.€ÏHe€states€that€"her€dismay€subsided€to€some€extent€after€legal€counselÏappealed€the€unfavorable€decision€.€.€.€."€€The€affidavit€states€that€Ms.ÏBruce€"was€quite€distraught€after€the€denial€of€her€appeal."€€Dr.€PoolÏopines€that€Ms.€Bruce's€medical€condition€deteriorated€upon€her€learningÏof€the€dismissal€of€her€appeal€in€this€Court€and€the€Supreme€Court,€andÍthat€her€previous€medical€condition€was€aggravated.€€He€further€opinedÏthat€the€denial€of€her€appeal€was€personally€devastating€to€her€andÏcaused€her€to€endure€mental€suffering.Ìà àFrom€this€affidavit,€it€appears€that€Dr.€Pool€is€testifying€that€theÏloss€of€the€underlying€case€in€the€trial€court€and€the€ultimate€loss€ofÏthe€appeal€was€the€cause€of€the€aggravation€of€Ms.€Bruce's€condition.€ÏThis€affidavit€indicates€that€if€Ms.€Bruce€had€lost€the€appeal€after€itÏwas€properly€handled,€she€would€have€been€in€the€same€mentalÏcondition;€therefore,€the€attorneys'€alleged€negligence€in€allowing€theÏappeal€to€be€dismissed€was€not€the€proximate€cause€of€Ms.€Bruce'sÏinjuries.€€There€is€nothing€to€indicate€that€Ms.€Bruce's€"emotionalÏinjuries"€were€caused€by€her€attorneys'€alleged€negligence€or€that€sheÏwould€not€have€suffered€these€injuries€if€the€appellate€court€had€heardÏthe€appeal€and€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€the€underlying€litigation.€€TheÏtrial€court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€on€plaintiffs'€claims€forÏpain,€suffering,€mental€anguish,€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€medicalÏcondition,€and€loss€of€consortium.Ìà àPlaintiffs'€complaint€also€alleges€a€breach€of€contract.€€TheÍattorney„client€relationship€creates€a€contract€that€the€attorney€willÏprosecute€a€client's€action€with€reasonable€skill€and€diligence.€Ïò òòòHillhouse€v.€McDowelló óóó,€219€Tenn.€362,€410€S.W.2d€162€(1966).€€AÏlawyer€is€an€agent€of€his€client.€€"It€is€universally€recognized€that€anÏagent€stands€in€a€fiduciary€relationship€to€his€principal€and€is€under€aÏduty€to€be€careful,€skillful,€diligent€and€loyal€in€the€performance€of€hisÏprincipal's€business€and€that€for€a€failure€so€to€act€he€subjects€himselfÏto€liability€to€his€principal€for€any€damages€naturally€and€proximatelyÏflowing€from€the€breach€of€duty."€€ò òòòGay€&€Taylor,€Inc.€v.€AmericanÏCas.€Co.€of€Reading,€PAó óóó,€281€S.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.€App.€1963).Ìà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€plaintiffs€contracted€with€defendants€forÏdefendants€to€obtain€appellate€review€of€the€trial€court's€decision€inÏthe€underlying€litigation.€€The€plaintiffs€did€not€get€that€reviewÏbecause€of€defendants'€breach€of€the€contract.€€That€is,€defendants'Ïpromised€to€perform€and€in€return€the€plaintiffs€monetarilyÏcompensated€the€defendants€and€incurred€expense€to€furnish€the€toolsÏfor€defendants'€performance€(such€as€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings).€ÏThe€fees€paid€and€expenses€incurred€by€the€plaintiffs€constituteÍdamages€naturally€flowing€from€the€breach€of€the€contract€forÏappellate€review.€€Ìà àWe€have€found€no€Tennessee€authority€precisely€on€point,€but€inÏò òòòFoster€v.€Dugginsó óóó,€695€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1985),€our€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€a€judgment€obtained€against€an€attorney€for€malpractice€inÏfailing€to€timely€file€a€negligence€action€was€not€required€to€beÏreduced€by€the€contingent€fee€the€attorney€would€have€received€if€heÏhad€obtained€a€recovery€in€the€underlying€litigation.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€plaintiffs€have€had€to€incur€additionalÏlegal€fees€to€pursue€this€malpractice€action,€andÏthey€should€not€be€required€to€assume€the€burdenÏof€twice€paying€for€legal€representation.€€ByÏtaking€into€account€the€legal€fees€whichÏplaintiffs€have€incurred€in€pursuing€thisÏmalpractice€action€we€are€not,€as€Mr.€DugginÏargues,€awarding€the€plaintiffs€their€attorneyÏfees.€€The€additional€fees€necessary€to€pursueÏthis€action€are€in€the€nature€of€incidentalÏdamages€flowing€from€Mr.€Duggin's€breach€of€theÏcontract.€€ò òòòSee€Winter€v.€Brownó óóó,€365€A.2d€381,Ï386€(D.C.€App.€1976).ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€527.ÌÌÓÓIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€expenses€incurred€by€Ms.€Bruce€to€pursue€theÍappeal€in€the€underlying€case€were€damages€flowing€from€a€breach€ofÏthe€contract€and€must€be€determined€upon€proper€proof.€€Ìà àWe€next€address€plaintiffs'€claim€for€punitive€damages.€€It€is€wellÏsettled€that€actual€damages€are€a€prerequisite€to€recovery€of€punitiveÏdamages.€€òòò òCullum€&€Maxey€Camping€Center,€Inc.€v.€Adamsó óóó,€640ÏS.W.2d€22€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€It€is€equally€well€settled€that€punitiveÏdamages€are€not€recoverable€in€a€contract€action.€€òòò òJohnson€v.ÏWoman's€Hospitaló óóó,€527€S.W.2d€133€(Tenn.€App.€1975).€€The€onlyÏdamages€which€the€plaintiffs€are€entitled€to€in€this€action€are€damagesÏresulting€from€the€defendants'€breach€of€contract.€€The€plaintiffs€areÏnot€entitled€to€any€damages€based€upon€their€tort€claims,€therefore,Ïthey€are€not€entitled€to€any€punitive€damages€against€the€defendants.Ìà àFinally€we€reach€the€plaintiffs'€issue€regarding€judicial€estoppel.€ÏThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€defendants€should€be€estopped€fromÏasserting€that€the€underlying€appeal€would€have€been€unsuccessful,Ïbecause€the€defendants,€by€filing€the€Motion€to€Late€File€Brief€andÏAbridged€Transcript€in€this€Court€and€an€Application€for€Permission€toÏAppeal€to€the€Supreme€Court,€represented€that€the€underlying€appealÍhad€merit€and€should€not€have€been€dismissed€by€this€Court.€€TheÏplaintiffs€argue€that€the€defendants€swore€to€a€state€of€facts€in€aÏformer€judicial€proceeding€(that€is,€that€the€appeal€had€merit),€and€thatÏthey€are€now€attempting€to€contradict€that€state€of€facts€in€a€laterÏjudicial€proceeding.€€Plaintiffs€assert€that€defendants€should€beÏestopped€from€asserting€that€the€underlying€appeal€would€have€failedÏas€a€matter€of€law.Ìà àGenerally,€a€litigant€is€not€allowed€to€take€an€inconsistentÏposition€in€judicial€proceedings.€€ò òòòStearns€Coal€&€Lumber€Co.€v.ÏJamestown€Ry.€Co.ó óóó,€141€Tenn.€203,€206€S.W.€334€(1918).€€In€ò òòòStearnsó óóó,Ïthe€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€While€the€law€of€judicial€estoppel€isÏordinarily€applied€to€one€who€has€made€oath€to€aÏstate€of€facts€in€a€former€judicial€proceedingÏwhich€in€a€later€proceeding€he€undertakes€toÏcontradict,€yet€it€is€frequently€applied,€where€noÏoath€is€involved,€to€one€who€undertakes€toÏmaintain€inconsistent€positions€in€a€judicialÏproceeding.€€ò òòòStamper€v.€Venableó óóó,€117€Tenn.,Ï557,€97€S.W.,€812.ÌÌ141€Tenn.€at€206.ÌÌÓÓà àWe€have€no€Tennessee€cases€addressing€the€precise€issue€ofÏwhether€an€attorney,€in€defending€a€malpractice€action,€may€take€aÏposition€inconsistent€with€the€position€that€he€took€on€behalf€of€hisÏclient.€€However,€a€somewhat€analogous€situation€was€involved€inÏò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€1995).€€ò òòòCarvelló óóó€dealt€withÏa€statute€of€limitations€question€in€a€malpractice€case€and€addressedÏthe€question€of€when€the€cause€of€action€for€malpractice€accrued.€ÏPlaintiffs€advanced€the€argument€that€to€require€the€client€to€bring€aÏmalpractice€action€against€an€attorney€before€the€appeal€in€theÏunderlying€case€was€concluded,€would€have€the€effect€of€forcing€theÏclient€to€take€inconsistent€positions€on€the€same€issue€in€differentÏlawsuits.€€Plaintiffs€argued€that€while€they€were€defending€a€breach€ofÏwarranty€suit€and€arguing€that€their€attorney€properly€drafted€aÏwarranty€deed,€they€should€not€have€to,€at€the€same€time,€file€suitÏagainst€the€attorney€alleging€malpractice€due€to€negligent€drafting€ofÏthe€deed.€€The€plaintiffs€argued€that€they€could€not€bring€theÏmalpractice€aciton€until€the€conclusion€of€the€underlying€case,€becauseÏthey€would€be€judicially€estopped€from€taking€contrary€positions€on€theÍsame€issue€in€different€lawsuits.€€Our€Supreme€Court,€in€answering€thisÏcontention,€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€At€first€blush,€these€contentions€appear€to€beÏvalid.€€However,€the€policies€undergirdingÏjudicial€estoppel€„„€that€of€preventing€a€partyÏfrom€gaining€an€unfair€advantage€by€takingÏinconsistent€positions€on€the€same€issue€inÏdifferent€lawsuits€„„€is€manifestly€absentÏwhere€a€client€seeks€to€defend€its€attorney'sÏactions€against€the€claims€of€a€plaintiff€whileÏsimultaneously€protecting€its€own€right€toÏrecover€against€the€attorney€in€the€event€thatÏthe€client€is€held€liable.€€Therefore,€we€concludeÏthat€the€judicial€estoppel€rule€does€not€apply€inÏthis€situation.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€Although€we€conclude€that€the€rule€is€notÏtechnically€applicable,€we€nevertheless€realizeÏthat€having€to€maintain€inconsistent€positions€inÏdifferent€lawsuits€is€somewhat€anomalous.ÌÌ900€S.W.2d€at€30.ÌÌÓÓWe€believe€the€same€principles€should€apply€to€an€attorney€defendingÏhis€actions€in€a€malpractice€case.€€We€agree€with€the€plaintiffs€that€byÏinstituting€the€appellate€process,€the€defendant€attorneys€representedÏthat€the€appeal€had€merit.€€However,€it€should€be€noted€that€theÏattorneys€made€this€representation€as€advocates,€not€party€litigants.€€Ìà àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€isÏreversed€insofar€as€it€applies€to€the€breach€of€contract€action.€€TheÏorder€is€affirmed€in€all€other€respects,€and€the€case€is€remanded€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€the€appealÏare€assessed€one„half€to€plaintiffs€and€one„half€to€defendants.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.Ìó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌó ó