ÿWPCg ó6Ti·Ö ÷6ÈãÀå$ä?EM‡Trn tw¸Þ`ê5¹j`m9- H’l;¯G,<‰"ÔrL–½]¼ù @)Aò[ú¸ü¥ã¾Þ»R®´Ø÷úÕ LÇ ¤jjß 8[Ÿ‘"}ƱoáПù0¬&†© {Û„Úø_5ÞÐîb ¡6Jãè”ãCæâà›¯ä4…°0•åÚÀôàð¸NNƒIG5]¿ACI|õ=tö¶ÈJ"ï_¾¶ßW0€rôÚœ•áré È©VNƒC§¡ ¹m“š]7!Gž.KÍ#— néYL<Ë´x"an´¡]"ª‘F7àð…p5G6p’¬OøY÷α—¸j\[ËdîR ¯‹uð¡Ó·K÷×(’bß5ºëb¨X ÛÍÐ¤Žƒ§ ýuö÷v­UÝ#Ùroq Ö(4ù¬ýae®ª'óöçÂ{ÃÔ›œ>°0áàæO"¹,›?³a’ ÄP¶÷W~6‡«ñ »é=:`pñ ÌØjW“\ëånÍðGŸŠ $Œù3ã²eOžxbEËß>ƒ"µ$7-í¢msÊ‚ïŸ 0%>~ú w(ß9ƒ.×i=ßüºW0«}Ó€Y9ÞŒÙâï·ºœôÏÈUiuôïQ¤Pjx_a#!NU No %½ 0äÃ^ § w.³ 4á õ  m UN Nk 1‡m 72ô 1u& 72› 0cÍ 1‡0 72· 1‡é 72p¢f¸U:xXU:ÐÐÐx U:‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚ AQ¼Æ  0Ó 0Ó 0DÓÓ D3 BJ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(¼Õ!$¡¡ÑTR[ð AØ'ÿ LegalXà3Ø' Letter  AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÓÓÑ8€é7XXdìXXdì8ÑÔUSUS.,Ôð¢'L EEEEtpO'"3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀxÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 1.##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Ñ ° Ñ \Ý ƒ[A%"ÝÓ  ÓÓÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xò­XXXÔÔ€èy-çXXò­ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€!Žçèy-ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€16,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA¨Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular nÝ ƒ[A%"ÝÓ  ÓÓÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xò­XXXÔÔ€èy-çXXò­ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔÓÓFILEDÔ€!Žçèy-ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€16,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA¨Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular nÝ ƒ[A%"ÝÓ  ÓÓÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xò­XXXÔÔ€èy-çXXò­ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔÓÓFILEDÔ€!Žçèy-ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€16,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA¨Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ø3A%$¢¢Ý ƒÕ!!ÝÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÓÓÑ8€ÔXXdìdì8ÑÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(Ø3A%$££Ý ƒÕ!!ÝÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÓÓÑ8€ÔXXdìdì8ÑÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó````'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒÕ!!ÝÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÓÓÑ8€ÔXXdìdÈ8ÑÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÓÓÑ€OYÑññÔ_ÔÔ_Ôññà@  ìàÔ‡¼m~»XXÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐññÔ_ÔÔ_Ôññà@cc$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†XÔX»¼m~I#ÔññÐ Ä Ðññó óññÌÌññññßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜±” tt¨¬Ð° ] vßññññññßr€Y_<,(j : `€€@ÿE˜±Žtt¨¦Ð° Wrßññññññññßu€Y_?/+j: `€€@ÿE˜ÅŽtt¨¦ÐÄ Wußññññññññññññññà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àññññà È àà  àÐ Ä Ðññññ\ññññÐ Ä ÐññˆÐ Ä ÐÌÌMARGARET€H.€€Ô_ÔCRUZEÔ_Ô,à0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)€€Ð°À(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€à0  à03A01„9907„CV„00245М ì(#(# Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appelleeà0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)Ј ØÀ(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€à0  àAppeal€As€Of€Right€From€TheÐt Ä(#(# Ðvs.à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)€à0À(#À(#àÔ_ÔGRAINGERÔ_Ô€CO.€€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ` °(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌññÔ_Ôßw€Y_A1-jzØÿë `€€@ÿEp#Žtt¨¦¨[ wßÔ_ÔññFORD€MOTOR€COMPANY,à0 h àà0Àh(#h(#à)€à0À(#À(#àHON.€€DALE€YOUNGÐ8ˆ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à0  à€JUDGEÐ$t (#(# Ðà  àDefendant/Appellantà0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)Ð` À(#À(# Ðandà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)ÐüL À(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌDEBORAH€Ô_ÔBOWLINÔ_Ô,à0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)ÐÔ$À(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àDefendant/Appellee.à0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à)ЬüÀ(#À(# ÐÒ°ÒÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à ¸ àà  àà h àFor€the€Appelleeà p àà È àà  àFor€the€AppelleeÐ 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àMargaret€H.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô:à È àà  àDeborah€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô:Ð  p Ðó óóóJ.€€Randolph€Bibb,€Jr.à0 ¸ àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àSidney€W.€€Ô_ÔGilreathÔ_Ôà0ph¾#h¾#àà0Èp¾#p¾#àà0 Ⱦ#Ⱦ#àKeith€F.€€BlueÐ \ ¾# ¾# ÐÔ_ÔKarynÔ_Ô€C.€€Bryantà0 ¸ àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àDianne€E.€€Ô_ÔLashmitÔ_Ôà0ph¾#h¾#àà0Èp¾#p¾#àà0 Ⱦ#Ⱦ#àJENKINS€&€JENKINSÐøH ¾# ¾# ÐÔ_ÔBOULTÔ_Ô,€CUMMINGS,à0  àà0h¾#¾#àÔ_ÔGILREATHÔ_Ô€&€ASSOCIATESà0 h¾#h¾#àKnoxville,€TN€37929Ðä4 ¾# ¾# ЀCONNERS€&€BERRY,€PLCà0 h àKnoxville,€TN€37902à0ph¾#h¾#àà0Èp¾#p¾#àà0 Ⱦ#Ⱦ#àÐÐ  ¾# ¾# ÐNashville,€TN€37219à0 ¸ àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àм h¾#h¾# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àCharles€R.€€TerryÌOF€COUNSEL:à0 ¸ àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àTERRY,€TERRY€&€STAPLETONД!äh¾#h¾# ÐCraig€A.€€Morganà0 ¸ àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àÔ_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô,€TN€37815„0724Ѐ"Ð h¾#h¾# ÐJessie€A.€€AmosÌBROWN,€Ô_ÔMcCARROLLÔ_Ô€&Ì€OAKS€Ô_ÔHARTLINEÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_ÔÌAustin,€TN€78701ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà0 ` àà0¸ ` ¾#` ¾#àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àà0Àh¾#h¾#àà0À¾#À¾#àà0p¾#¾#àà0Èp¾#p¾#àà0 Ⱦ#Ⱦ#àÔ_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.Ðà)0%( ¾# ¾# ÐÌÌà@ˆˆ%7àò òòòÔ‡¼m~»XXÔÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XÔX»¼m~[#ԈР¤,ô'+ ÐÌÓÓà  àóó€òòó óóó€€€€€€€€€€€This€is€a€personal€injury€case€arising€out€of€a€two„car€collision€between€Margaret€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_ÔÐ ¤.ô)- Ð(Plaintiff/Appellee)€and€Deborah€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€(Defendant/Appellee).€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€sued€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€and€Ford€MotorÏCompany€(Defendant/Appellant),€alleging€negligence€by€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€in€causing€the€accident.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€suedÏFord€under€the€theory€of€negligence€and€strict€product€liability€concerning€alleged€defects€in€FordððsÏpassenger€restraint€system€on€her€1994€Fort€Escort.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€a€directed€verdict€thatÏDefendant€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€was€negligent€in€the€operation€of€her€vehicle€and€submitted€to€the€jury€the€questionsÏÔ_Ôof€the€allocation€of€fault€between€Defendants€Ford€and€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€and€the€total€amount€of€PlaintiffððsÐ ¼9 59 ÐÔ_Ôdamages.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€Cruze€in€the€amount€of€$6.56€million€and€apportioned€10%Ïto€Bowlin€and€90%€to€Ford.€€Bowlin€has€not€appealed.€€Ford€appeals€and€states€the€issues€on€appealÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!à1.à0¸ ` ` àWhether€the€trial€court€violates€a€defendantððs€right€to€jury€trialÐ À  Ðwhen€it€submits€the€case€in€a€form€that€requires€the€jury€toÏallocate€fault€for€all€of€the€plaintiffððs€damages€either€to€thatÏdefendant,€or€to€a€co„defendant,€or€to€both,€and€does€not€permitÏthe€jury€any€other€option.Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà0¸ ` ` àà ` à2.à ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€commits€reversible€error€when€itÐ \¬ Ðsubmits€a€ð ðcrashworthinessðð€product€liability€case€in€a€form€thatÏdoes€not€ask€the€jury€to€determine€the€amount€of€the€damagesÏ(out€of€all€those€the€plaintiff€suffered€in€the€accident)€for€whichÏthe€product€manufacturer€should€share€fault€with€the€tort„feasorÏwho€caused€the€accident.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÓb€ (Uh83bÓØØÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` f!f!àÝ‚3£ÿÝÔ2UhÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€commits€reversible€error€in€a€productÐ ä4 Ðliability€case€when€it€refuses€to€instruct€the€jury€that€complianceÏwith€government€standards€for€vehicle€occupant€crashÏprotection€creates€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€vehicle€wasÏnot€unreasonably€dangerous€in€that€respect,€where€the€plaintiffÏalleges€that€the€product€was€in€a€defective€condition€and€that€theÏmanufacturer€was€negligent.݃3£ÿJ݌Р¸ ¸  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` f!f!àÝ‚3£ÝÔ2UhÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€judgment€in€a€product€liability€case€should€beÐ X ¨ Ðreversed€where€the€liability€question€was€submitted€to€the€juryÏwith€instructions€limiting€that€question€to€a€claim€of€negligenceÏand€where€the€evidence€did€not€identify€a€specific€error€in€theÏproductððs€design€or€manufacture,€or€link€any€such€error€with€theÏmanufacturerððs€lack€of€due€care.݃3£Û݌Р¸ ¸  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓÓFor€the€reasons€stated€below,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.ÌÓ  Óòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÓO"Óò òó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Cruze€€was€leaving€a€nursing€home€in€her€1994€Ford€Escort,€headed€north€on€HighwayÐ |*Ì%) Ð11W€in€Grainger€County€when€Bowlin,€traveling€south€on€11W,€made€a€left€turn€in€her€path.€€BowlinððsÏPontiac€Grand€Am€collided€with€Cruzeððs€Ford€Escort,€with€the€initial€impact€at€the€Fordððs€left€frontÏbumper.€€Bowlin€sustained€minor€injuries.€€Bowlinððs€4„year„old€child,€a€passenger€in€her€car,€sufferedÏno€injuries,€and€her€mother,€also€a€passenger,€suffered€injuries€requiring€five€daysðð€hospitalization.€ÏCruze€was€wearing€a€manual€lap€seat€belt€with€an€automatic€shoulder€harness,€which€were€in€placeÏwhen€the€emergency€crew€arrived€to€assist€her.€€Her€car€was€also€equipped€with€a€driver„side€air€bag,Ïwhich€had€deployed.€€She€suffered€a€cervical€fracture€at€C6„7,€resulting€in€quadriplegia.€€Ìà  àà ` àIt€is€uncontested€that€Cruze€was€not€at€fault.€€Both€Cruze€and€Bowlin€alleged€thatÐ <9Œ49 ÐCruzeððs€injury€was€due€to€a€defect€in€the€Fordððs€air€bag€system.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€and€Ford€both€presented€to€theÐ ° Ðjury€considerable€expert€testimony.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€expert€testified€that€the€injury€was€caused€by€the€lateÐ ˆØ Ðdeployment€of€the€air€bag€and€that€there€could€be€no€other€reasonable€explanation.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€alsoÐ `° Ðpresented€expert€engineer€testimony€that€the€late€deployment€of€the€air€bag€was€caused€by€designÐ 8 ˆ Ðchanges€in€the€air€bag€crash€sensor€system€utilized€by€Ford€and€because€this€particular€unit€wasÐ  ` Ðdefective.ò òó ó€€He€was€also€critical€of€Fordððs€crash€testing€methods,€which€he€opined€should€have€predictedÐ è 8  Ðthis€unfortunate€injury€if€the€testing€had€been€more€comprehensive.Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àFordððs€experts€attempted€€to€show€that€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€broken€neck€did€not€result€from€the€airÐ ˜è  Ðbag€but€from€the€violence€of€the€collision€and€the€fragile€nature€of€her€body.€€One€expert€testified€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€injury€occurred€because€of€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€age€(she€was€76€years€old)€and€Ô_ÔosteoarthriticÔ_Ô€bones.€€MedicalÐ H˜ Ðexpert€Dr.€Robert€Ô_ÔMendelsohnÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€had€never€seen€an€injury€exactly€like€this€but€he€wasÐ  p Ðconfident€that€the€air€bag€had€played€no€role€in€causing€it.€€Verne€Roberts€testified€that€the€absence€ofÐ øH Ðbroken€ribs€shows€the€air€bag€did€not€hit€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€with€the€force€she€contends.€€Fordððs€expert€testified€thatÐ Ð  Ðone€cannot€get€seriously€injured€by€an€inflating€air€bag€unless€she€is€within€an€inch€of€the€air€bag€coverÐ ¨ø Ðwhen€it€initiates,€and€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€could€not€have€been€in€that€position€with€her€seat€belts€on.€€If€that€muchÐ €Ð Ðpressure€had€been€applied€by€the€air€bag,€it€would€have€collapsed€the€steering€wheel.€€A€Ford€accidentÐ X ¨ ÐÔ_ÔreconstructionistÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€crash€itself€could€not€have€slowed€down€the€activation€of€the€air€bag.€Ð 0"€  ÐFordððs€experts€also€defended€the€quality€of€its€crash€testing.Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àAt€the€close€of€the€evidence,€and€prior€to€the€jury€charge,€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€amended€her€complaintÐ à%0!$ Ðto€rely€solely€on€her€negligence€claims€and€on€the€strict€liability€theory€of€defective€condition,Ð ¸'#& Ðwithdrawing€her€ð ðunreasonably€dangerousðð€theory.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€a€directed€verdict€in€Ð )à$( ÐFordððs€favor€on€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€claims€for€breach€of€warranty€and€failure€to€warn,€and€granted€a€directedÐ h+¸&* Ðverdict€in€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€favor€that€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€had€been€negligent.€€The€Court€then€submitted€the€case€to€the€jury,Ð @-(, Ðwhich€found€that€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€had€sustained€$6,565,864.84€in€damages€and€apportioned€90%€of€the€fault€toÐ /h*. ÐFord,€resulting€in€a€judgment€against€Ford€in€the€amount€of€$5,909,278.36.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€was€apportionedÐ ð0@,0 Ð10%€of€the€fault,€resulting€in€a€judgment€of€$656,586.48€against€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô,€which€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€does€notÐ È2.2 Ðappeal.Ð  4ð/4 Ѐ€ò òòòóóà@ÓÓ&7àòòDISCUSSIONˆÐ x6È16 Ðà  àà ` àòòóóóóó óOur€standard€of€review€as€to€findings€of€fact€by€a€jury€in€a€civil€action€is€limited€toÐ X8¨38 Ðdetermining€whether€or€not€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.€Ð 0:€5: ÐThe€appellate€courts€do€not€determine€the€credibility€of€witnesses€or€weigh€evidence€on€appeal€fromÐ ° Ða€jury€verdict.€€Where€the€record€contains€material€evidence€supporting€the€verdict,€the€judgment€basedÐ ˆØ Ðon€that€verdict€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€€òòReynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.,€óó887€S.W.2d€822Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€€1994).€€A€Trial€Courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novoóó€review.€€òòCampbell€vóó.Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòFlorida€Steel€Corpóó.,€919€S.W.2d€26,€28€(Tenn.€1996).Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àUnder€Tennessee€law,€we€review€the€jury€charge€in€its€entirety€and€consider€it€as€aÐ è 8  Ðwhole€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€Trial€Court€committed€prejudicial€error.€€The€charge€will€notÐ À  Ðbe€invalidated€as€long€as€it€fairly€defines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€the€case€and€does€not€mislead€theÐ ˜è  Ðjury.€€òòOtis€v.€€Cambridge€Mut.€€Fire€Ins.€€Co.,€óó850€S.W.2d€439,€446€(Tenn.€€1992).Ð pÀ Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€Under€Rule€3(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure:Ð H˜ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àin€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€beÐ  p Ðpredicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€òòjuryÐ  \ Ðinstructions€granted€or€refused,óó€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€orÐ øH Ðcounsel,€or€other€action€committed€or€occurring€during€the€trial€of€theÐ ä4 Ðcase,€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€sameÐ Ð  Ðwas€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issuesÐ ¼  Ðwill€be€treated€as€waived.€[òòEmphasis€addedóó].Шø` `  ÐÓ¦?Óà@77+7àˆÌà@PP!7àò òòòThe€Jury€Verdict€Formòòóóó óˆÐ l¼ Ðà  àà ` àóóFordððs€issues€1,€2€and€4€relate€to€the€jury€verdict€form.€€In€summary€form,€Ford€claims:Ð D!” Ð(1)€that€the€form€denied€its€right€to€a€jury€trial€because€it€did€not€give€the€jury€the€option€of€decidingÐ #l! Ðthat€òòneither€óó€defendant€was€at€fault,€(2)€that€the€form€did€not€separate€damages€for€enhanced€injuriesÐ ô$D # Ðfrom€those€that€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€would€have€suffered€anyway€from€the€accident,€and€(3)€that€the€form€did€notÐ Ì&"% Ðinclude€a€specific€reference€to€strict€liability,€therefore€the€jury€verdict€was€based€on€negligence,€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€supportòò€óóa€negligence€verdict€against€Ford.òòÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àóóWe€reproduce€the€verdict€form€complained€of:Ð T,¤'+ ÐÓÓà8  àòòóóà ` à1.à8¸ f!f!àConsidering€all€of€the€fault€at€100%,€what€percentage€ofÐ ,.|)- Ðthe€total€fault€is€chargeable€to€each€of€the€followingÐ /h*. Ðdefendants:Ð0T+/¸ ¶¸ ¶ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àFord€Motor€Companyà0 À àà0À¾#À¾#àà0p¾#¾#à_________%à0 p¾#p¾#àà0x ¾# ¾#à(0„100%)ÐÜ1,-1x¾#x¾# Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àDeborah€S.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ôà0Àf!f!àà0Àf!Àf!àà0pf!f!à_________%à0 pf!pf!àà0x f! f!à(0„100%)ÐÈ2.2xf!xf! Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à€€€òò100%д3/3f!f! Ðà8  àà ` àóó2.à8¸ f!f!àWithout€considering€the€percentage€of€fault€found€inÐ  4ð/4 ÐQuestion€One,€what€total€amount€of€damages,€if€any,€doÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðyou€find€were€sustained€by€the€Plaintiff,Ðx6È16¸ ¶¸ ¶ ÐÓ1FÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àMargaret€H.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôà0 À àà0À¾#À¾#àà0p¾#¾#àà0Èp¾#p¾#à$__________Ðd7´27Ⱦ#Ⱦ# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àWe€address€the€first€issue,€stated€by€Ford€as€follows:€Ð <9Œ49 ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àWhether€the€trial€court€violates€a€defendantððs€right€to€jury€trial€when€itÐ ° Ðsubmits€the€case€in€a€form€that€requires€the€jury€to€allocate€fault€for€allÐ œì Ðof€the€plaintiffððs€damages€either€to€that€defendant,€or€to€a€co„defendant,Ð ˆØ Ðor€to€both,€and€does€not€permit€the€jury€any€other€opinion.ÐtÄ` `  ÐÌÓüKÓFord€argues€that,€since€the€jury€was€never€given€the€option€of€deciding€that€òòneitheróó€defendant€was€atÐ L œ Ðfault,€ð ð[t]he€Trial€Courtððs€submission€amounted€to€an€improper€directed€verdict€that€deprived€Ford€ofÐ $ t Ðits€right€to€a€jury€trial.ðð€€Ford€argues€that€the€verdict€form€required€the€jury€to€allocate€100%€of€faultÐ ü L  Ðto€Ford€and/or€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€and€did€not€allow€the€jury€to€allocate€0%€of€fault€to€both€Ford€and€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô.€€FordÐ Ô$  Ðcontends€that€the€jury€could€have€found€the€accident€unforeseeable,€in€which€case€neither€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðwould€have€been€liable,€citing€òòFord€Motor€Co.€€v.€€Eads,€óó457€S.W.2d€28,€32€(Tenn.€€1970),€but€the€juryÐ „Ô  Ðwas€not€given€this€option.€€Ford€argues€the€Trial€Court€should€have€followed€the€verdict€formÐ \¬ Ðsuggested€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€€Balentine,€óó833€S.W.2d€52,€59€(Tenn.€€1992),€whichÐ 4„ ÐAppellant€says€requires€a€three„step€analysis:€(1)€was€defendant€negligent?€òòò òó óóó(2)€was€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðnegligence€a€proximate€cause€of€plaintiffððs€injury?€òò€óó(3)€what€are€the€percentages€of€fault€among€theÐ ä4 Ðparties€found€to€be€at€fault?€€In€this€case,€Ford€argues€it€requested€this€procedure€be€followed,€and€thatÐ ¼  Ðitsòòóó€ð ðconstitutional€right€to€jury€trial€was€prejudiced€when€the€Trial€Court€simply€announced€that€CruzeÐ ”ä Ðòòwouldóó€obtain€a€judgment€for€all€her€damages€from€the€defendants€.€.€.€.ððÐ l¼ Ðà  àà ` àÔ_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€says€this€issue€is€not€properly€before€this€Court€because€Ford€never€argued€in€itsÐ D!” ÐMotion€for€New€Trial€that€Ford€was€denied€its€right€to€a€jury€trial€because€of€the€verdict€form.€Ð #l! ÐÔ_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€Rule€3(e).€€Further,€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€maintains€that€Ford€was€not€deprived€of€a€right€to€jury€trial€becauseÐ ô$D # Ðthe€Trial€Courtððs€instructions€and€the€verdict€form€clearly€state€that€the€jury€could€find€Ford€zeroÐ Ì&"% Ðpercent€at€fault.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€also€argues€that€the€Ô_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ô€need€not€be€able€to€foresee€theòò€exact€manneròòóóóó€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhich€the€injury€takes€place,€but€merely€theòò€general€manner,óó€citing€òòÔ_ÔMcClenahanÔ_Ô€v.€€Cooley,€óó806Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€€1991).Ð T,¤'+ Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€We€have€reviewed€the€record€for€evidence€of€the€partiesðð€discussions€as€to€the€TrialÐ ,.|)- ÐCourtððs€proposed€instructions€and€verdict€form,€which€required€the€jury€to€find€that€Ford€and/or€BowlinÐ 0T+/ Ðwere€100€percent€at€fault.€€Since€we€find€Ford€objected€to€the€verdict€form,€both€before€it€was€givenÐ Ü1,-1 Ðand€in€its€post„verdict€motion,€the€issue€is€properly€before€this€Court.€€Therefore,€we€must€determineÐ ´3/3 Ðwhether€the€Trial€Courtððs€use€of€this€verdict€form€in€light€of€its€jury€instructions€had€the€effect€ofÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðdepriving€Ford€of€its€constitutional€right€to€a€jury€trial.Ð d7´27 Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€Ford€argues€that€ð ð[w]hen€a€trial€court€submits€a€case€to€the€jury€in€a€fashion€that€doesÐ <9Œ49 Ðnot€give€it€the€option€of€returning€a€verdict€for€the€defendants,€it€effectively€grants€a€directed€verdictÐ ° Ðand€violates€the€defendantsðð€constitutional€right€to€jury€trial,ðð€and€cites€òòLorentz€v.€€Deardan,€óó834Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€316€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€for€this€proposition.€€We€quote€the€holding€of€that€case€as€pertinentÐ `° Ðhere:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àà8¸ ` ` àIn€spite€of€the€above€holding,€we€find€it€necessary€toÐ  ` Ðreverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€thisÐ ü L  Ðcase€for€a€new€trial.€€In€its€instructions€to€the€jury,€theÐ è 8  Ðtrial€court€indicated€that€the€plaintiffs€were€entitled€toÐ Ô$  Ðrescission€under€the€theories€of€fraud,Ð À  Ðmisrepresentation,€or€mutual€mistake€or,€alternatively,Ð ¬ü  Ðviolation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€Ð ˜è  ÐOn€the€verdict€form€submitted€to€the€jury,€the€trial€courtÐ „Ô  Ðrefused€to€include€an€option€where€the€jury€could€findÐ pÀ Ðfor€the€defendants.€€Apparently,€the€trial€judge€was€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€opinion€that€the€defendants€could€not€prevail€underÐ H˜ Ðany€theory€which€they€had€advanced.€€The€effect€ofÐ 4„ Ðthese€instructions€was€to€direct€a€verdict€for€theÐ  p Ðplaintiffs€even€though€they€had€not€moved€for€such.€€òòSeeÐ  \ ÐMorgan€v.€€Tennessee€Central€Railway€Co.,€óó31€Tenn.€Ð øH ÐApp.€€409,€421,€216€S.W.2d€2d€32,€37€(1948).Ðä4¸ ¶¸ ¶ ÐòòÌà8  àà@uu$7f!f!à*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€ˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` f!f!àà8¸ ` ` àóóWe€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€theÐ ”ä Ðjury€as€to€each€of€the€theories€of€the€defendants,€andÐ €Ð Ðfailure€to€include€an€instruction€that€gave€the€jury€theÐ l¼ Ðoption€of€returning€a€verdict€for€the€defendants,Ð X ¨ Ðconstituted€prejudicial€error€requiring€a€new€trial.€Ð D!” ÐòòMemphis€Transit,€óó218€Tenn.€at€316,€403€S.W.2d€at€301.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòSee€also€Marsh€v.€€Parton,€óó61€Tenn.€€App.€€416,€454Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€385€(1969).€Ð$X"¸ ¶¸ ¶ ÐÓ-]ÓÌà  àà ` àThis€Courtððs€holding€in€òòLorentzóó€was€based€on€the€fact€that€none€of€the€defendants€inÐ Ì&"% ÐòòLorentzóó€could€have€prevailed.€€€In€òòLorentz,€óóboth€defendants€appealed€and€complained€that€the€jury€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot€given€the€opportunity€to€return€a€verdict€in€their€favor.€€In€this€case,€the€jury€òòdidóó€have€the€optionÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€returning€a€verdict€for€Ford.€€To€do€so,€the€jury€merely€had€to€find€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€responsible€for€100%€ofÐ T,¤'+ Ðplaintiffððs€injury€and€Ford€responsible€for€0%,€which€the€jury€certainly€could€have€done.€€This€optionÐ ,.|)- Ðwas€not€available€to€the€jury€in€òòLorentzóó.€€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€has€not€appealed.€€€Ð 0T+/ Ðà  àà ` àTaking€into€consideration€the€fact€that€the€parties€agree€that€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€should€€be€assessedÐ Ü1,-1 Ð0%€of€the€fault,€we€find€that€the€verdict€form€and€the€Trial€Courtððs€jury€instructions€did€give€the€juryÐ ´3/3 Ðthe€option€of€delivering€a€verdict€completely€exonerating€Ford,€and€therefore€Fordððs€constitutionalÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðright€to€a€jury€trial€was€not€violated.€€For€these€reasons,€Fordððs€first€issue€is€without€merit.Ð d7´27 Ðà  àà ` àFord€states€its€second€issue€as€follows:Ð <9Œ49 ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àWhether€the€trial€court€commits€reversible€error€when€it€submits€aÐ ° Ðð ðÔ_ÔcrashworthinessÔ_Ôðð€product€liability€case€in€a€form€that€does€not€ask€theÐ œì Ðjury€to€determine€the€amount€of€the€damages€(out€of€all€those€theÐ ˆØ Ðplaintiff€suffered€in€the€accident)€for€which€the€product€manufacturerÐ tÄ Ðshould€share€fault€with€the€tort„Ô_ÔfeasorÔ_Ô€who€caused€the€accident.Ð`°` `  ÐÌÓêjÓFord€complains€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€submission€to€the€jury€did€not€permit€separating€damages€for€any€ððenhancedÐ 8 ˆ Ðinjuriesðð€from€those€that€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€would€have€suffered€anyway.ðð€€Ford€argues€that,€in€Tennessee,€suchÐ  ` Ðcases€as€this€are€to€be€determined€in€accordance€with€òòÔ_ÔEllithorpeÔ_Ô€v.€€Ford€Motor€Co.,€óó503€S.W.2d€516,Ð è 8  Ð519€(Tenn.€€1973).€€Ford€argues€that€it€did€not€cause€the€crash,€and€itððs€liability€should€be€limited€toÐ À  Ðthe€ð ðsecond€accidentðð€injuries,€i.e.,€those€injuries€resulting€from€problems€with€the€vehicle€after€theÐ ˜è  Ðinitial€collision€(or,€ð ðcrash€worthinessðð).€€Ford€says€the€jury€was€not€properly€instructed€that€they€mustÐ pÀ Ðfirst€take€out€the€damages€caused€by€the€collision,€for€which€Ford€has€no€liability,€then€Ford€ð ðsharesÐ H˜ Ðresponsibilityðð€for€only€the€ð ðsecond€accidentðð€injuries.€€Ford€contends€that,€since€the€jury€instructionÐ  p Ðgiven€in€this€case€did€not€permit€such€a€calculation,€the€only€solution€is€a€new€trial.Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àÔ_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€argues€that,€under€òòWhitehead€v.€€Toyota€Motor€Corp.,€óó897€S.W.2d€684,€694Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€€1995),€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]nyÔ_Ô€claim€for€ððenhanced€injuriesðð€is€nothing€more€than€a€claim€for€injuries€that€wereÐ ¨ø Ðactually€and€proximately€caused€by€the€defective€product.ðð€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€argues€that€since€fault€includesòòóóÐ €Ð Ðproximate€or€legal€cause,€the€jury,€by€assessing€90%€of€the€fault€against€Ford€in€question€1,€alreadyÐ X ¨ Ðdetermined€that€Ford€proximately€caused€90%€of€Mrs.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€damages.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àThe€trial€record€shows€the€parties€discussed€this€issue€at€length€before€the€jury€wasÐ $X" Ðinstructed,€with€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€arguing€that€the€jury€instructions€as€given€correctly€informed€the€jury€that€ð ðtheÐ à%0!$ Ðfault€portion€covers€both€the€negligence€and€the€enhanced€injuries,ðð€therefore€the€verdict€form€shouldÐ ¸'#& Ðsimply€ask€for€a€percentage€of€fault€against€Ford€and€a€percentage€of€fault€against€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô,€to€avoidÐ )à$( Ðconfusing€the€jury€and€resulting€in€an€inconsistent€verdict.€€Ford,€on€the€other€hand,€argued€that€theÐ h+¸&* Ðverdict€form€must€include€ð ðhow€much€of€Fordððs€fault€or€how€much€of€her€damages€are€over€and€aboveÐ @-(, Ðthose€that€she€would€have€otherwise€received€in€the€accident.€€Fordððs€position€is€she€got€them€allÐ /h*. Ðbecause€of€the€accident.ðð€€Plaintiff€responded,€ð ðYouððre€assuming€that€theyððre€not€going€to€listen€to€thatÐ ð0@,0 Ðpart€of€the€charge€which€says€theyððre€only€responsible€for€the€enhanced€injuries€they€caused€.€.€.€.ðð€€TheÐ È2.2 ÐTrial€Court,€after€considering€these€arguments,€specifically€applied€òòWhitehead€v.€€Toyota,óó€as€citedÐ  4ð/4 Ðabove,€and€denied€Fordððs€request€to€provide€a€more€detailed€or€complex€verdict€form.Ð x6È16 Ðà  àà ` àOur€Supreme€Court€has€provided€an€example€of€an€appropriate€special€verdict€form€inÐ P8 38 Ðcases€involving€strict€products€liability€and€other€theories€such€as€negligence.€€òòOwens€v.€Ô_ÔTruckstopsÔ_ÔÐ (:x5: Ðof€America,€óó915€S.W.2d€420€(Tenn.€1996).€€For€comparison,€we€reproduce€the€òòOwensóó€example€besideÐ ° Ðthe€verdict€form€used€in€this€case.Ð ˆØ ÐÓÓò òòòóóó óà0  àð ðFN17.€€The€following€special€verdict€form,€as€adopted€to€the€specific€allegations€of€the€case,Ð`°¾#¾# Ðmay€be€used€in€cases€where€liability€is€predicated€upon€strict€products€liability€and€other€theories€Ð L œ Ðsuch€as€negligence:ò òòòÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌOwens€Verdict€Form:óóó óà0  àà0h¾#¾#àà0Àh¾#h¾#àà0À¾#À¾#àà0p¾#¾#àò òòòCruz€Verdict€Form:óóó óÐ `p¾#p¾# Ðà8  àÐ f!f! ÐUsing€100€percent€as€the€total€combined€harm,à  à1.à0 p àConsidering€all€the€fault€at€100%,Ðè 8 p¾#p¾# Ðfind€from€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€the€à0  à€à0p¾#¾#àwhat€percentage€of€the€total€faultÐÔ$ p¾#p¾# Ðpercentage€of€the€plaintiffððs€injuries€or€damages€à0  àà0p¾#¾#àis€chargeable€to€each€of€the€followingÐÀ p¾#p¾# Ðproximately€caused€by:à0  àà0h¾#¾#àà0Àh¾#h¾#àà0À¾#À¾#àà0p¾#¾#àdefendants:Ьü p¾#p¾# Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àÐ ` `  ÐThe€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerousÐ „Ô  ÐÓc|ÓÓÓproduct€(Defendants€A€and€B)__________%à0  àà0p¾#¾#àFord€Motor€Co.à0xp¾#p¾#à__________%ÐpÀx¾#x¾# Ðà  àà ` àÌDefendant€Xà0 ` àà0¸ ` ¾#` ¾#àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#à__________%à0¾#¾#àà0p¾#¾#àDeborah€S.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ôà0xp¾#p¾#à__________%ÐH˜x¾#x¾# ÐÌDefendant€Yà0 ` àà0¸ ` ¾#` ¾#àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#à__________%à0¾#¾#àà0p¾#¾#àà0Èp¾#p¾#àà0 Ⱦ#Ⱦ#àà0x ¾# ¾#à€€€€€òò100%óóÐ px¾#x¾# ÐÌPlaintiffà0 ` àà0¸ ` ¾#` ¾#àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#à__________%à0¾#¾#àÐøH¾#¾# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à2.à0 p àWithout€considering€the€percentage€ofÐä4p¾#p¾# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àfault€found€in€Question€One,€whatÐ Ð  Ðà  à(Total€must€equal€100%)à0 h àà0Àh¾#h¾#àà0À¾#À¾#àà0p¾#¾#àtotal€amount€of€damages,€if€any,€doм p¾#p¾# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àyou€find€were€sustained€by€the€Plaintiff,Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌSignature€of€Foreman____________________ððà  àà p àMargaret€H.€€Cruzà0 x à$____________ЀÐx¾#x¾# ÐÌÓcÓÓÓÌÓÓà  àà ` àTaking€into€consideration€the€fact€that,€in€this€case,€the€parties€agree€that€MargaretÐ D!” ÐÔ_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€fault€was€zero€percent,€we€think€the€verdict€form€in€light€of€the€jury€instructions€given,€wasÐ #l! Ðsatisfactory€and€enabled€the€Trial€Court€to€render€judgment.€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€recently€held:Ð ô$D # ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àWell„settled€law€requires€courts€to€construe€the€terms€of€a€verdict€in€aÐ Ì&"% Ðmanner€that€upholds€the€juryððs€findings,€if€it€is€able€to€do€so.€€òòSeeÐ ¸'#& ÐÔ_ÔBriscoeÔ_Ô€v.€€Allison,€óó200€Tenn.€€115,€125„126,€290€S.W.2d€864,€868Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(1956).€€Even€if€a€verdict€is€defective€in€form,€it€is€to€be€enforced€if€itÐ )à$( Ðsufficiently€defines€an€issue€in€such€a€way€as€to€enable€the€court€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðintelligently€articulate€a€judgment.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔArcataÔ_Ô€Graphics€Co.€€v.€Ð h+¸&* ÐHeidelberg€Harris,€Inc.,€óó874€S.W.2d€522,€527€(Tenn.€€App.€€1993).ÐT,¤'+` `  ÐÌòòConcrete€Spaces,€Inc.€€v.€€Henry€Sender,€et€al,€óóNo.€€01S01„€9812„CH„00224€(Tenn.,€filed€August€30,Ð ,.|)- Ð1999,€for€publication.)Ð /h*. ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àIn€òòConcrete€Spaces,óó€our€Supreme€Court€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial€because€theÐ ð0@,0 Ðverdict€form€used€required€the€Court€to€speculate€ð ðthat€compensatory€damages€were€awarded€solelyÐ È2.2 Ðon€a€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€and€that€the€award€of€punitive€damages€wasÐ  4ð/4 Ð[therefore]€improper.ðð€€The€verdict€form€used€ð ðleaves€open€the€possibility€that€the€jury€wronglyÐ x6È16 Ðawarded€punitive€damages€in€conjunction€with€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€rather€than€in€connectionÐ P8 38 Ðwith€a€common€law€claim€for€recovery.ðð€€Ð (:x5: Ðà  àà ` àNo€such€problem€exists€with€the€jury€instructions€and€verdict€form€used€in€this€case.€Ð ° ÐThe€jury€was€asked€to€assess€damages€totaling€100%€against€either€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€or€Ford,€or€both.€€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðverdict€form€cannot€be€considered€without€also€looking€at€the€instructions€given€by€the€€Trial€CourtÐ `° Ðto€the€jury.€€We€must€presume€that€the€jury€followed€the€instructions.€€òòPerkins€v.€Ô_ÔSadlerÔ_Ôóó,€826€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð439,€443(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Specifically,€the€Trial€Court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€FordððsÐ  ` Ðpossible€€fault€for€any€enhanced€injuries€as€follows:Ð è 8  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àAccordingly,€Ford€Motor€Company€is€not€responsible€for€any€injuriesÐ À  Ðexcept€those€proximately€caused€by€Ford€Motor€Company.€€Ford€MotorÐ ¬ü  ÐCompany€can€only€be€responsible€for€any€enhanced€injuries.Иè ` `  ÐÌà8  àà8` f!f!àNow,€enhanced€injuries€refers€to€the€plaintiffððs€injuries,€if€any,€thatÐ pÀ Ðwere€caused€by€defects,€if€any,€in€the€1994€Fort€Ô_ÔExcortÔ_Ô,€or€because€ofÐ \¬ ÐFordððs€negligence,€if€any,€over€and€above€those€injuries€that€probablyÐ H˜ Ðwould€have€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€accident€absent€any€defect€causedÐ 4„ Ðby€Ford.Ð p` `  ЀÌÓ“Óà  àà ` àThe€fallacy€of€Fordððs€position€concerning€its€second€issue€is€evident€from€the€languageÐ øH Ðused€by€Ford€in€stating€the€second€issue.€€In€its€second€issue,€Ford€says€that€the€Trial€Court€committedÐ Ð  Ðreversible€error€by€not€submitting€a€verdict€form€that€would€ð ð.€.€.ask€the€jury€to€determine€the€amountÐ ¨ø Ðof€damages€(out€of€all€of€those€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€suffered€in€the€accident)€for€which€the€product€manufacturerÐ €Ð Ðshould€share€fault€with€the€tort„Ô_ÔfeasorÔ_Ô€who€caused€the€accident.ðð€€Ford€maintains€that€the€submissionÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€jury€did€not€allow€the€jury€to€separate€damages€for€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€ð ðenhanced€injuriesðð€from€anyÐ 0"€  Ðdamages€that€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€would€have€suffered€anyway.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€did€not€sue€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€and€Ford€asking€forÐ $X" Ðdamages€resulting€from€a€multitude€of€injuries.€€Rather,€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€sued€for€damages€resulting€only€fromÐ à%0!$ Ðone€injury,€the€cervical€fracture€at€C6„7€which€resulted€in€her€quadriplegia.€€The€jury€instructions€givenÐ ¸'#& Ðby€the€Trial€Court€and€the€verdict€form€used€asked€the€jury€to€determine€the€amount€of€fault,€if€any,€Ð )à$( Ðwhich€Ford€should€share€with€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€for€the€one€injury€complained€of€by€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô.€€Under€theÐ h+¸&* Ðinstructions€given€to€the€jury€and€the€verdict€form€submitted€to€the€jury,€the€jury€would€haveÐ @-(, Ðdetermined€that€Ford€had€no€fault€for€the€one€injury€suffered€by€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€if€they€had€decided€that€it€wasÐ /h*. Ðnot€an€ð ðenhanced€injury.ðð€€The€jury€determined€otherwise.€Accordingly,€we€find€that€Fordððs€secondÐ ð0@,0 Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð È2.2 Ðà  àà ` àFord€states€its€fourth€issue€as€follows:Ð  4ð/4 ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àWhether€the€judgment€in€a€product€liability€case€should€be€reversedÐ x6È16 Ðwhere€the€liability€question€was€submitted€to€the€jury€with€instructionsÐ d7´27 Ðlimiting€that€question€to€a€claim€of€negligence€and€where€the€evidenceÐ P8 38 Ðdid€not€identify€a€specific€error€in€the€productððs€design€or€manufacture,Ð <9Œ49 Ðor€link€any€such€error€with€the€manufacturerððs€lack€of€due€care.Ð(:x5:` `  ЇÓ¥žÓFord€argues€that€ò òòòó óóóð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€as€the€case€wasÐ ° Ðsubmitted€to€the€jury.ðð€€Ford€contends€the€jury€instructions€only€charged€negligence,€not€strict€liability,Ð ˆØ Ðand€negligence€was€not€proven€against€Ford.€Ð `° Ðò òòòà  àà ` àó óóóÔ_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€contends€that,€nowhere€in€Fordððs€Memorandum€of€Law€in€support€of€its€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðverdict€motion€did€Ford€raise€the€issue€that€negligence€was€the€only€claim€that€went€to€the€jury€and€thatÐ  ` Ðthere€was€not€sufficient€evidence€to€support€a€verdict€on€negligence.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€argues€that€under€Rule€3(e)Ð è 8  Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€Ford€cannot€raise€this€issue€on€appeal.€€Further,€€FordÐ À  Ðrequested€Special€Instruction€No.€€8,€so€it€cannot€now€complain€that€the€Court€gave€that€instruction.€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àMore€importantly,€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€contends€that€the€instructions€as€a€whole€sufficiently€presented€Ð pÀ Ðher€strict€liability€theory€for€the€juryððs€consideration,€and€the€trial€court€properly€performed€its€role€asÐ H˜ Ð13òòthóó€juror.€€Therefore,€this€Court€must€uphold€the€juryððs€verdict€if€there€is€òòanyóó€material€evidence€toÐ  p Ðsupport€the€verdict,€citing€€òòEllis€v.€€White€Freightliner€Corp.,€óó603€S.W.2d€125€(Tenn.€€1980).Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àWe€again€examine€Fordððs€post„verdict€motion€to€determine€whether€this€issue€isÐ Ð  Ðproperly€before€us,€since€ð ðit€is€well„settled€that€issues€not€raised€at€trial€may€not€be€raised€for€the€firstÐ ¨ø Ðtime€on€appeal.ðð€€òòSimpson€v.€€Frontier€Community€Credit€Union,€óó810€S.W.2d€147,€153€(Tenn.€€1991)òò;Ð €Ð ÐÔ_ÔDHSÔ_Ô€v.€€Ô_ÔDeFrieceÔ_Ô,€óó937€S.W.2d€954,€960€(Tenn.€€Ct.€€App.€€1996).€€We€find€Fordððs€post„verdict€motionÐ X ¨ Ðdid€raise€this€issue,€and€it€is€therefore€properly€before€us.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àOn€the€issue€of€whether€the€jury€instructions€charged€both€negligence€and€strict€liability,Ð $X" Ðthe€record€in€this€case€shows€that€Defendantððs€Special€Instruction€No.€€1€was€given,€as€follows:Ð à%0!$ Ð(Underlining€occurs€in€the€original.)Ð ¸'#& ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àòòSPECIAL€INSTRUCTION€NO.€€1€„€Ô_ÔT.P.I.Ô_Ô€2.40€„€PREPONDERANCEÐ )à$( ÐOF€THE€EVIDENCE€(MODIFIED):óóÐ|*Ì%)` `  ÐÌà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ àIn€this€action,€the€plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€establishing€by€aÐ T,¤'+ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€all€of€the€facts€necessary€to€prove€òòherÐ @-(, Ðclaims€against€Defendant€Deborah€S.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€and€Defendant€FordÐ ,.|)- ÐMotor€Company.Ð/h*.` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ àAs€I€will€instruct€you€in€greater€detail€hereafter,€the€Court€hasÐ 0T+/ Ðdetermined€as€a€matter€of€law€that€Defendant€Deborah€S.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô€actedÐ ð0@,0 Ðnegligently€in€causing€the€accident€in€which€Mrs.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€was€injured.€Ð Ü1,-1 ÐTherefore,€with€respect€to€Mrs.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ô,€you€must€only€determine€Mrs.€Ð È2.2 ÐÔ_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€damages,€if€any,€legally€caused€by€Mrs.€€Ô_ÔBowlinÔ_Ôððs€negligence.д3/3` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€Defendant€Ford€Motor€Company,€PlaintiffÐ  4ð/4 Ðmust€prove€the€following:ÐŒ5Ü05` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ à1.€€That€the€1994€Ford€Escort€designed€and€manufactured€byÐ x6È16 ÐDefendant€Ford€Motor€Company€was€in€a€defective€condition€when€itÐ d7´27 Ðleft€Fordððs€control;€or€Ford€was€negligent€in€the€design,€manufacture€orÐ P8 38 Ðtesting€of€the€product.Ð<9Œ49` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ à2.€€That€the€1994€Ford€Escort€was€expected€to€and€did€reachÐ (:x5: ÐPlaintiff€without€substantial€change€to€its€condition€after€it€left€FordððsÐ ° Ðpossession;Мì` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ à3.€€The€defective€condition€or€negligence€was€the€legal€cause€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€damages€sustained€by€Plaintiff.ÐtÄ` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àà ¸ àóóThe€term€ð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidenceðð€means€that€amountÐ `° Ðof€evidence€that€causes€you€to€conclude€that€an€allegation€is€probablyÐ L œ Ðtrue.€€To€prove€an€allegation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðparty€must€convince€you€that€the€allegation€is€more€likely€true€than€notÐ $ t Ðtrue.€€If€the€evidence€on€a€particular€issue€is€equally€balanced,€that€issueÐ  ` Ðhas€not€been€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€the€partyÐ ü L  Ðhaving€the€burden€of€proving€that€issue€has€failed.€€You€must€considerÐ è 8  Ðall€of€the€evidence€on€each€issue.ÐÔ$ ` `  Ðà8  àà8` f!f!àAUTHORITY:à0h` ` àÔ_ÔT.P.I.Ô_Ô€2.40€(MODIFIED);€Tenn.€€Code€Ann.€ÐÀ hh Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àðð€29„28„105.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€also€charged€the€jury€as€follows:Ð „Ô  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àWith€respect€to€the€defendant,€Ford€Motor€Company,€the€plaintiff€mustÐ \¬ Ðprove€these€following€things.€€First€of€all,€that€the€1994€Ford€EscortÐ H˜ Ðdesigned€and€manufactured€by€the€defendant,€Ford€Motor€Company,Ð 4„ Ðwas€in€a€defective€condition€when€it€left€Fordððs€control,€or€Ford€wasÐ  p Ðnegligent€in€the€design,€manufacture,€or€testing€of€that€particularÐ  \ Ðproduct.€€Second€of€all,€that€the€1994€Ford€Escort€was€expected€to€andÐ øH Ðdid€reach€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€without€substantial€change€to€its€condition€after€it€leftÐ ä4 ÐFordððs€possession.€€And€third,€that€the€defective€condition€or€theÐ Ð  Ðnegligence€of€Ford€was€the€legal€cause€of€the€damages€sustained€byÐ ¼  ÐMrs.€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô.€Ð¨ø` `  ÐÌÓ%¸Óà  àà ` à€These€are€but€a€portion€of€the€instructions€given€to€the€jury€by€the€Trial€Court€thatÐ €Ð Ðpertained€to€the€strict€liability€claim€of€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€against€Ford.€€We€find€that€the€jury€instructions,€takenÐ X ¨ Ðas€a€whole,€do€present€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ôððs€theory€of€strict€liability€as€well€as€her€theory€of€negligence.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àEven€if€Ford€were€correct€that€the€liability€question€was€submitted€to€the€jury€only€withÐ $X" Ðinstructions€pertaining€to€a€claim€of€Fordððs€negligence,€Fordððs€argument€would€still€fail.€€Findings€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðfact€by€a€jury€in€a€civil€action€shall€be€set€aside€only€if€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€theÐ ¸'#& Ðverdict.€€Rule€13(d),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€As€discussed€earlier€in€this€opinion,Ð )à$( Ðthe€record€before€us€contains€material€evidence,€the€Plaintiffððs€expertsðð€testimony,€to€support€a€findingÐ h+¸&* Ðby€the€jury€of€negligence€by€Ford.€€For€these€reasons€and€those€discussed€above,€we€find€Fordððs€fourthÐ @-(, Ðissue€to€be€without€merit.Ð /h*. Ðà@h h 7àò òòòApplicability€of€ð ðFederal€Motor€Vehicle€Safety€Standardsððóóó óˆÐ ð0@,0 Ðà  àà ` àFord€states€its€third€issue€as€follows:Ð È2.2 ÐÓÓà8  àà8` f!f!àWhether€the€trial€court€commits€reversible€error€in€a€product€liabilityÐ  4ð/4 Ðcase€when€it€refuses€to€instruct€the€jury€that€compliance€withÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðgovernment€standards€for€vehicle€occupant€crash€protection€creates€aÐ x6È16 ÐÔ_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption€that€the€vehicle€was€not€unreasonably€dangerousÐ d7´27 Ðin€that€respect,€where€the€plaintiff€alleges€that€the€product€was€in€aÐ P8 38 Ðdefective€condition€and€that€the€manufacturer€was€negligent.Ð<9Œ49` `  ÐÐ (:x5: ÐÓ¯ÁÓà  àà ` àFord,€in€short,€contends€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€trial€court€erroneously€refused€to€instruct€the€juryÐ ° Ðon€the€Ô_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption€arising€from€compliance€with€government€standards.ððò òòòó óóó€Ô‡ Xþ8XXXþ8Ô€€Ford€argues€thatÐ ˆØ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†Xþ8XX Xþ8oÅ#Ô€29„28„104€(1980)€establishes€that€compliance€with€an€applicable€governmentÐ `° Ðstandard€creates€a€rebuttal€presumption€that€the€product€is€not€unreasonably€dangerous,€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€was€undisputed€that€the€Ford€Escort€was€in€compliance.€€Although€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€withdrew€her€claimÐ  ` Ðthat€the€Ford€Escort€was€unreasonably€dangerous€during€the€charge€conference€and€that€claim€was€notÐ è 8  Ðsubmitted€to€the€jury,€Ford€contends€this€did€not€preclude€submission€of€the€requested€instruction,Ð À  Ðsince€ð ðwhere€a€special€instruction€that€has€been€requested,€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€law,€is€notÐ ˜è  Ðincluded€in€the€general€charge,€and€is€supported€by€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial,€the€court€shouldÐ pÀ Ðgive€the€instruction.ðð€€òòUnderwood€v.€€Ô_ÔWaterslidesÔ_Ô€of€Mid„Am.,€Inc.,€óó823€S.W.2d€171,€178€(Tenn.€€Ct.Ð H˜ ÐApp.€€1991).Ð  p Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„104€refers€to€performance€standards,€notÐ øH Ðdesign€standards€in€this€case,€because€the€applicable€standards,€ð ðFederal€Motor€Vehicle€SafetyÐ Ð  ÐStandards,ðð€prescribe€minimum€standards€for€ð ðperformanceðð€and€specifically€exclude€ð ðdesign.ððÐ ¨ø ÐTherefore,€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€argues€the€special€instruction€requested€was€inapplicable€to€these€facts€and€shouldÐ €Ð Ðnot€have€been€charged€to€the€jury.€€The€10òòthóó€Cir.€€has€ruled,€based€on€a€similar€Kansas€statute,€that€ifÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Ô_ÔFMVSSÔ_Ô€does€not€cover€the€allegedly€defective€component,€then€the€manufacturersðð€complianceÐ 0"€  Ðwith€the€standard€does€not€entitle€them€to€the€Ô_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption.€€òòCompton€v.€€Subaru€of€America,Ð $X" ÐInc.,€óó82€F.3d€1513€(10òòthóó€Cir.€€1996).Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àFurther,€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€argues€that,€€in€Tennessee,€legislative€history€shows€that€Ô‡ Xþ8XXXþ8Ôthe€ð ðTennesseeÐ ¸'#& ÐProducts€Liability€Act€of€1978ðð€creates€liability€on€the€part€of€the€manufacturer,€under€Tenn.€CodeÐ )à$( ÐAnn.€ððÔ#†Xþ8XX Xþ8®Î#Ô€29„28„105(a)€when€the€product€is€òòdefective€ò òOR€ó óunreasonably€dangerous,óó€which€is€an€intendedÐ h+¸&* Ðdeparture€by€our€legislature€from€the€402A€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€rule€requiring€both€defectÐ @-(, Ðand€unreasonably€dangerous.€€òòRay€v.€€Bic€Corp.,€óó925€S.W.2d€527,€529€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_Ô€contendsÐ /h*. Ðthat€her€claim€as€shown€by€the€proof€was€that€the€air€bag€was€defective,€and€a€jury€charge€about€aÐ ð0@,0 ÐÔ_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption€that€the€air€bag€was€not€unreasonably€dangerous€was€not€appropriate.Ð È2.2 Ðà  àà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„105(a)€does€provide€for€liability€on€the€part€of€a€manufacturerÐ  4ð/4 Ðwhere€the€product€is€either€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous.€€It€does€not€require€both.€€Ô_ÔCruzeÔ_ÔÐ x6È16 Ðwithdrew€her€claim€that€Fordððs€product€was€unreasonably€dangerous.€€The€jury€was€not€faced€with€theÐ P8 38 Ðtask€of€deciding,€based€upon€the€evidence€before€them,€whether€or€not€Fordððs€product€wasÐ (:x5: Ðunreasonably€dangerous.€€Fordððs€requested€instruction€that€compliance€with€the€government€standardsÐ ° Ðby€Fordððs€vehicle€created€a€Ô_ÔrebuttableÔ_Ô€presumption€that€the€vehicle€was€not€unreasonably€dangerousÐ ˆØ Ðwas€related€to€an€issue€that€did€Ô_ÔnotÔ_Ô€go€to€the€jury.€€€The€Tennessee€Legislature€has€determined€thatÐ `° Ðunder€Tennessee€product€law,€recovery€is€available€for€defective€products€or€for€unreasonablyÐ 8 ˆ Ðdangerous€products.€€A€product€need€not€satisfy€both€criteria€in€this€state.€€Fordððs€requested€juryÐ  ` Ðinstruction€would€have€improperly€negated€this€legislatively€enacted€standard.Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àThe€jury€did€not€have€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€the€Ford€Escort€was€unreasonablyÐ À  Ðdangerous€submitted€to€it.€€The€failure€of€the€Trial€Court€to€issue€Fordððs€requested€jury€instructionsÐ ˜è  Ðconcerning€compliance€with€government€safety€standards€was€not€error.€€Fordððs€third€issue€is€withoutÐ pÀ Ðmerit.Ð H˜ Ðà@‘‘&7àò òòòCONCLUSIONˆÐ  p Ðóóó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€The€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ øH ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings,€if€any,€as€may€be€required,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ Ð  Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€Ford.Ð ¨ø ÐÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________________Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€J.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð @-(, ÐÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________Ð Ü1,-1 ÐÔ_ÔHERSHELÔ_Ô€P.€€FRANKS,€J.Ð È2.2 ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________Ð (:x5: ÐCHARLES€D.€€SUSANO,€JR.,€J.Ð ° ÐÌòò