WPC w)Kq=X:o s P%C=bm-8&,b lt>e1 jy@D!T^G]#m`Ր|[z>¡9 1zM񋉇ϙ%EM9F BKrЁE\ȩ-|nFHD; pq$DY&I~ynߒTq"E&]Dӭ *t /7sIE%J,,]o<Zƹי^"Ԟ!Q~Ps~#=Օo7q\IM .>;_ t# F UNQ % 0( U F wL 4_ s UP U F  . 0l 0D^UFUF>UF6|UFU:77LLLLL BTTTTTTTTTTT D3qqq 0D AO77 0D D/A BpHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular * U+ P, E- . E/ E0 U1 V2 D3 a4 V5 Ӏh&3|x@ &@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<: 9Z .Courier New Regular `    $    2    XXXXXXXBlalockevidentlyamendedhercomplainttoaddaclaimforproperty P  damage;however,thetrialcourtultimatelyfoundthatclaimtobebarredundertheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,T.C.A.2920305.Blalockdoesnotappealthisoranyotheraspectofthetrialcourtsjudgment.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    1    XXXXXXXTheCityapparentlydidnotallegeattrial,nordoesitallegeon P  appeal,anynegligenceonthepartofBlalock.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    3    XXXXXXXStoneciphersclaimagainstWimpeeandCannonwassubsequentlysettled P  bytheparties.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    4    XXXXXXXThepartiesdonotdisputethattherescuetruckisan authorized P  emergencyvehiclewithinthemeaningofthestatute.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular X0"XXXXX0"   Ad FILED   July28,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular    d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  XXTXXXԛ7XXdXXd7TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T OќP5 5 5 r*<,(j 8 `@E tt0"Hrߛ5 @| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLEYVONNEWIMPEECANNON, h   )C/ANO.03A019901CV00023 .    `     h   )  Plaintiff/CounterDefendant)  Appellee,    h   ) `  М+   + +  ` + +  + +   + +  h + +   + , +   + , - 񀀀)- * * v.   `     h   )  \     `     h   )CITYOFCHATTANOOGA, h   )      `     h   )  Defendant/CounterPlaintiff)  Appellant.   h   ).  :  Л   `     h   ).  :     `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )CHARLOTTEBLALOCK,Individually)andasguardianandnextfriend)ofAMBERSTONECIPHER, h   ) >    `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE  PlaintiffAppellee, h   )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT :    `     h   )v.   `     h   )     `     h   )JAMESWIMPEEandYVONNEWIMPEE)CANNON, `     h   ) h    `     h   )  Defendants,   h   )     `     h   )RICHARDA.PHILLIPS, h   ) p     `     h   )  Defendant,   h   ) !l"    `     h   )and   `     h   ) "$    `     h   )CITYOFCHATTANOOGA, h   ) t$&    `     h   )HONORABLEL.MARIEWILLIAMS,  DefendantAppellant.  )JUDGE  &p!( ForAppellant    h     ForAppelleeYvonne x)$,    `     h     WimpeeCannonKENNETHO.FRITZMICHAELA.McMAHAN   h     CONRADFINNELL +J'/ SpecialCounsel   h     ConradFinnell,P.C.& , (0 Chattanooga,Tennessee h     Associates -(1    `     h     Cleveland,Tennessee   `     h     ALVINY.BELL   `     h     Bell,Turner&Hobbs   `     h     Chattanooga,Tennessee   `     h     ForAppelleeCharlotteBlalock   `     h     JEFFREYW.RUFOLO   `     h     Summers&Wyatt,P.C.   `     h     Chattanooga,Tennessee5 5 @$ XyXXXT  bL X XyOPINION  ]   bL XTX  ]Ԉ Z94? ̜/ / 0 0 5 0  O`    O `   0 5 .  O`   . /  D<7B / /  O`   / / ̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛/ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.1  D<7B  O`   1 2 2 3 P ` X3 1  O`   1 /  O`   /    ` Thiscasearisesoutofanautomobileaccident0  O`   0 involvinganemergencyrescuevehicle( therescuetruck)andthreeothervehicles.TherescuetruckwasdrivenbyRichardA.Phillips( Phillips),anemployeeofthedefendant/counterplaintiff,theCityofChattanooga( theCity).TheothervehiclesinvolvedinthecollisionwereaFordRangertruckdrivenbyJamesWimpee( Wimpee)andownedbyWimpeesmother,plaintiff/counterdefendantYvonneWimpeeCannon( Cannon);aMercedesdrivenbyplaintiffCharlotteBlalock( Blalock);andaFordExplorerdrivenbyanunidentifiedindividualwhoisnotapartytothislawsuit.   ` Followingabenchtrial,thecourtfoundthatPhillips,asthedriveroftherescuetruck,was100%atfaultfortheaccident;italsoheldthatPhillipsnegligencewasimputedtotheCity.Accordingly,thetrialcourtfoundthattheCitywasliabletoCannonforthedamagestohervehicleintheamountof$3,500.ThetrialcourtheldtheCityliablefordamagesof$18,500onBlalocksindividualclaimforinjuriessustainedintheaccident,and$6,500onBlalocksclaimonbehalfofhergranddaughter,AmberStonecipher( Stonecipher),whowasalsoinjuredintheaccident.ThetrialcourtalsodismissedacounterclaimfiledbytheCityagainstCannon.TheCityappeals,contendingthatthetrialcourterredinassigning100%oftheϜfaulttoit,infailingtoapportionanypercentageoffaultto/ P    P    / . P    . Wimpee,andindismissingitscounterclaimagainstCannon.We/ P    / . P    . affirm./ P    / / P    /   9.8 P    ћ@l l I.FactsandProceduralHistory P     ` OnFebruary14,1996,Phillips,anEMTfirefighterwiththeChattanoogaFireDepartment,wasdispatchedwithhisrescueteamtothesceneofanautomobileaccidentattheintersectionofInterstates24and75.Drivingasixwheel,fivepassengerrescuetruck,PhillipsenteredInterstate24East,enroutetotheaccident.Atallpointsrelevanttotheinstantcase,Interstate24Eastconsistedofthreelanesoftravel.PriortoenteringtheInterstate,Phillipshadengagedthetrucksemergencylightsandsiren.Aftermovingintotheleftlane,Phillipsobservedthatallthreelanesoftrafficwerecongestedandthattrafficwasslowingdownaheadofhim.Phillipstestifiedthathethendecided,inanefforttomaneuveraroundthetraffic,tomoveleftintothe breakdownlaneasixtosevenfootwideareabetweentheleftlaneoftrafficandtheconcretebarrierthatseparatedtheeastboundandwestboundlanesofInterstate24.   ` Inthemeantime,WimpeewasdrivingCannonspickuptruckintheleftlaneofI24East,ashortdistanceaheadofPhillips.Wimpeetestifiedthatastrafficbeganslowing,heheardasirenfrombehind.Wimpeetestifiedthathelookedinhisrearviewmirrorforthesourceofthesiren,andthatashelookedbackinfrontofhim,traffichadcometoastop.Unsurewhetherhecouldstopintimetoavoidcollidingwiththevehicleinfrontofhim,andhopingtoavoidanypotentialcollisionfrombehind,Wimpeeappliedhisbrakesandpulledovertotheleft,i.e.,intothebreakdownarea.Hewasabletomakethismaneuver 70-6 withoutstrikingthevehicleinfrontofhim. 89.8 Ї   ` XXX XPhillipstestifiedthat,uponenteringthebreakdown P  lane,heslowedtoabout35milesperhourandwasabletopassoneortwovehiclesthatweretravelingintheleftlane.HestatedthathethensawWimpeestruckpulloutinfrontofhimintothebreakdownlane.Phillipsinitiallysteeredtherescuetrucktotheright,collidingwithBlalocksMercedes.Heappliedhisbrakes# XXXXT/#ԀbutimpactedtherearofWimpeestruck,as X  wellasthatoftheFordExplorer,approximatelytwosecondslater.Phillipsestimatedthathistruckwasgoing25to30milesperhouratthetimeofthecollision.   ` Followingtheaccident,CannonfiledsuitagainsttheCitytorecoverfordamagesto,andthelossofuseof,hertruck.TheCityfiledacounterclaimagainstCannon,allegingthatCannonwasliableforWimpeesnegligence,which,accordingtotheCity,hadbeentheproximatecauseoftheaccident. #  1      ׀ d# BlalockfiledsuitaswellbothindividuallyandasguardianandnextfriendofStonecipheragainstCannon,Wimpee,PhillipsandtheCity,seekingtorecoverforinjuriessustainedbyherandbyhergranddaughter.  #  2      ׀BlalocksclaimagainstCannon *& andWimpeewasdisposedofpriortotrial.x #  3       +p!(    ` Afterconsolidationbyorderofthetrialcourt,thetwocasesproceededtotrial,atwhichtimetheparties 0t&. stipulatedthatPhillipswasanemployeeandagentoftheCityandthathehadbeenactinginthecourseandscopeofhisemploymentatthetimeoftheaccident.   ` Atsomepointduringtheproceedings,thetrialcourtdismissedtheCityscounterclaimagainstCannon,findingnobasisforimputinganyliabilitytoher.   ` Attheconclusionofthetrial,thecourtfound,amongotherthings,thatPhillipshadviolatedT.C.A.558108byfailingtodrivewithdueregardforthesafetyofotherpersons;thatPhillips couldhaveanticipatedsuddenstopsandmovesofthosetravelingintraffic;thatPhillips inabilitytokeephisvehicleundersufficientcontrolinlightofthesecircumstanceswasnegligence;andthatPhillipsactions whichareimputedtotheCityofChattanooga[were]thesolecauseoftheaccident....Accordingly,thetrialcourtassigned100%ofthefaulttotheCity.Itawardeddamagesof$3,500toCannononherpropertydamageclaim.FindingthatBlalockandStonecipherhad eachsufferedpermanentinjuryintheaccidentand[had]incurredreasonableandnecessarymedicalbillsandexpenses,thetrialcourtenteredjudgmentinfavorofBlalockintheamountof$18,500astoherindividualclaimand$6,500astoherclaimonbehalfofhergranddaughter.@xx!II.ApplicableLaw 4)2    ` XXX XOurreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovouponthe 70-6 recordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestous 89.8 withapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898   S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; Wright ,898S.W.2dat181 ;Union   CarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).The   trialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaccordedthesamedeference. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26, d  35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn. 0  1993).# XXXX0<#XXX X     ` # XXXX@#XXX XOurdenovoreviewisalsosubjecttothewell T establishedprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); $  Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).# XXXXs@# %     ` TheSupremeCourthasalsonotedthat [a]trialcourtactingastrieroffacthasconsiderablelatitudeinallocatingpercentagesoffaulttonegligentparties.... Colnv.Cityof ,\"( Savannah ,966S.W.2d34,44(Tenn.1998)(quoting Wright ,898 x.($* S.W.2dat181.)Anappellatecourtmayalterthetrialcourtsallocationoffaultwherethelowercourtsactionis clearlyerroneous. Coln ,966S.W.2dat44;XXX X Wright ,898S.W.2dat181.# XXXXD# 3L)0    ` Theappropriatepercentageoffaulttobeapportionedtoeachparty isultimatelydependentuponallthecircumstances 8p.6 ofthecase. Eatonv.McLain ,891S.W.2d587,593(Tenn.1994). P  Factorstobeconsideredbythetrieroffactinclude,butarenotlimitedto,thefollowing:  8 ` (1)therelativeclosenessofthecausalrelationshipbetweentheconductofthedefendantandtheinjurytotheplaintiff;(2)thereasonablenessofthepartysconductinconfrontingarisk,suchaswhetherthepartyknewoftherisk,orshouldhaveknownofit;(3)theextenttowhichthedefendantfailedtoreasonablyutilizeanexistingopportunitytoavoidtheinjurytotheplaintiff;(4)theexistenceofasuddenemergencyrequiringahastydecision;(5)thesignificanceofwhatthepartywasattemptingtoaccomplishbytheconduct,suchastosaveanotherslife;and(6)thepartysparticularcapacities,suchasage,maturity,training,education,andsoforth. ` `   Coln ,966S.W.2dat44; Eaton ,891S.W.2dat592. ,     ` TherelevantstatutoryprovisionsarefoundatT.C.A.558108and132.Section558108confersuponauthorizedemergencyvehiclessuchastherescuetruckinthiscase #  4      ׀ &" certainexemptionsfromnormal rulesoftheroad,whensuchvehiclesarerespondingtoanemergencycallandoperatingtheiremergencyaudioandvisualequipment.SeeT.C.A.XXX X558108# XXXXK#(a) ,!( through(c).Thestatutealsoprovides,however,that  8 ` [t]heforegoingprovisionsshallnotrelievethedriverofanauthorizedemergencyvehiclefromthedutytodrivewithdueregardforthesafetyofallpersons,norshallsuchprovisionsprotectthedriverfromtheconsequencesofthedriversownrecklessdisregardforthesafetyofothers. ` `  mL 6,5 T.C.A.558108(d).SectionXXX X558132provides,inpertinent P  part,asfollows:  8 ` (a)Upontheimmediateapproachofanauthorizedemergencyvehiclemakinguseofaudibleandvisualsignals...: ` `    8 ` (1)Thedriverofeveryothervehicleshallyieldtherightofwayandshallimmediatelydrivetoapositionparallelto,andascloseaspossibleto,therighthandedgeorcurboftheroadwayclearofanyintersection,andshallstopandremaininsuchpositionuntiltheauthorizedemergencyvehiclehaspassed,exceptwhenotherwisedirectedbyapoliceofficer. ` `  # XXXX#N#NT.C.A.558132(a)(1).@#III.Analysis 6 @ A.TheTrialCourtsApportionmentofFault !n 4Q   ` TheCitycontendsthatthetrialcourterredinassigning100%ofthefaulttoitandnonetoWimpee.ItinsiststhatsomepercentageoffaultmustbeassignedtoWimpee,inviewofhisfailuretoyieldtherightofwaytotheemergencyvehicle,asrequiredbyT.C.A.558132(a)(1).   ` Uponreviewoftherecord,weareoftheopinionthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdeterminationthattherescuetruckwastravelingataspeedthatwasunreasonableunderthecircumstancesandtrafficconditions.TheevidencelikewisedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatPhillipsfailedtoexercisedueregardforthesafetyofotherdriversontheroad,asrequiredbyT.C.A.558108.DespitetheCitysargumentstothecontrary,itis :/9 clearthatPhillipsnegligencewastheproximatecauseoftheaccident.Althoughthewidthoftherescuetruckwasnotmeasured,itisobviousfromthephotographsintroducedasexhibitsattrialthatthetruckwassignificantlywiderthanthesixtosevenfootbreakdownlanethroughwhichPhillipsattemptedtonegotiate.Inhistestimonyattrial,Phillipsacknowledgedthattherescuetruckwaswiderthanthebreakdownlane;thathehadnotpreviouslyattemptedtodrivethistypeoftruckthroughthebreakdownlane;andthatimmediatelypriortotheaccident,hehadaviewaheadofabout2,000feet,andcouldseethetrafficslowingdownandthenstopping.Furthermore,Phillipsadmittedthathehadhadtheoptionofbrakingandremainingintheflowoftraffic,buthaddecidedtoattempttomaneuverhistruckbetweenthelefthandlaneandtheconcretebarrier.   ` Giventheforegoing,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; XXX XWright ,898S.W.2dat181# XXXXY#.Bythesametoken, &l" wecannotsaythat,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thetrialcourtsallocationof100%oftheliabilitytotheCity,asPhillipsemployer,wasclearlyerroneous. XXX XColn ,966S.W.2dat +!( 44;# XXXXZ#XXX X Wright ,898S.W.2dat181; Eaton ,891S.W.2dat593# XXXX:[#XXX X.# XXXX[# -\#* @ B.DismissaloftheCitysCounterclaim N0%-    ` TheCityalsocontendsthatthetrialcourterredindismissingitscounterclaimagainstCannon.Inthiscontext,theCityarguesthatCannonwastheownerofthetruckdrivenbyWimpeeandthatshehadgivenhersonexpresspermissiontousethevehicle forthefamilysconvenience.Incontendingthat 96/8 CannonshouldbeheldliableforWimpeesactions,theCityreliesuponthefamilypurposedoctrine,whichwasrecentlydescribedbytheSupremeCourtasfollows:  8 ` ...theheadofahouseholdwhomaintainsamotorvehicleforthegeneraluseandconvenienceofthefamilyisliableforthenegligenceofanymemberofthefamilydrivingthevehicle,providedthedriverreceivedexpressorimpliedconsent. ` `    8 ` Thefamilypurposedoctrineisapplicablewhentworequirementshavebeensatisfied.First,thehead   ofthehouseholdmustmaintainanautomobilefor f  thepurposeofprovidingpleasureorcomfortforhisorherfamily.Second,thefamilypurposedrivermusthavebeenusingthemotorvehicleatthetimeoftheinjury infurtheranceofthatpurposewiththepermission,eitherexpressedorimplied,oftheowner. ` `  _ Camperv.Minor ,915S.W.2d437,447(Tenn.1996)(citations   omitted)(emphasisadded).   ` Intheinstantcase,theproofestablishedthatalthoughCannonwastheownerofthevehicledrivenbyhersonatthetimeoftheaccident,shewasnottheheadofhishousehold.Therefore,thefamilypurposedoctrineisinapplicabletothefactsbeforeus,andwefindtheCitysargumentonthispointtobewithoutmerit.Inanyevent,wehavealreadyheldthatthetrialcourtproperlyassignedallofthefaultfortheaccidenttotheCity;thus,thereisnoliabilityattributabletoWimpeethatcouldbeimputedtoCannon.WeholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindenyingtheCityscounterclaimagainstCannon.̜4  v8&.7 4 @0 0 IV.DamagesforFrivolousAppeal3 3  P  3 3 ̛   ` AppelleeCannonsrequestfordamagesforafrivolousappealunderT.C.A.271122isfoundtobewithoutmeritandisherebydenied.Theissuesraisedbytheappellantwerefairlydebatable.See Colev.Dych ,535S.W.2d315,323(Tenn.1976). h  3 3 @#V.Conclusion 0  Л   ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallrespectsaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthejudgmentandthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.