WPCI  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0@9 D39 0J :w@U: 0T: 0^: 0hG; 0r; 0|!< 0< 0#= 1u= 0d(>U6>B)>DC> AM.?U*{??v~@v>B AOH`H 0D&I D/jI BIV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dڃ"$(G.2i$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  DeskinsBeulahDeskinsesseSheltonMcClard ReidWoodfinInselHornecoeffecient Insrayed("$    GGGG'dxd2 0Indent123  DDEEӀ2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  SVWXYZ[\ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dffff7Border 1ddMgC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#e  ii   YYY FILEDiX September9,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.iAppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva MC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . e    7*MXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  f u` RhjgA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONRANDALLE.DESKINS,etux.@ @ ) SEVIERCOUNTY@ ) 03A019701CV00023 PlaintiffsAppellants  @ )@ )@ ) v.  @ ) HON.REXHENRYOGLE,̀@ ) JUDGE@ ) @ BEULAHM.WILLIAMS) AFFIRMEDINPART;REMITTITUR@ ) SUGGESTEDINPART;and  DefendantAppellee @ ) REMANDED@ ROBERTL.OGLE,JR.,OFSEVIERVILLEFORAPPELLANTSJAMESY.(BO)REEDOFKNOXVILLEandDWIGHTE.STOKESOFSEVIERVILLEFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  RandallE.DeskinsandhiswifeThelmaJeanDeskins,appealajudgmentoftheCircuitCourtforSevierCounty,enteredpursuanttoajuryverdict,whichdismissedtheirclaimagainstBeulahM.WilliamsforpersonalinjuriessufferedbyMr.DeskinsandlossofconsortiumandservicesbyMrs.Deskins,resultingfromanautomobileaccidentoccurringonJune3,1989.Mr.DeskinsalsoappealsajudgmentinfavoroftheoriginalDefendantandCounterPlaintiff,BeulahM.Williams.  ThejuryfoundMr.Deskinstobe100percentatfaultintheaccidentandthatMs.Williamshadsuffereddamagesintheamountof$20,000asaresultoftheinjuriesshereceived.  TheDeskinsesappealraisingthefollowingissues:       I. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINITSRULINGSRELATIVETOTHEFORTYFIVE(45)MPHSPEEDSIGNBEINGPROPERLYERECTEDAFTERTHEAPPELLANTSRAISEDTHEQUESTIONOFTHEAUTHENTICITYANDNONCOMPLIANCEOFT.C.A558152,ETSEQ.II. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINNOTEXCLUDINGTHETESTIMONYOFTHESTATETROOPERSRELATIVETOTHESPEEDOFAPPELLANTS'VEHICLE.III. WHETHERTHEREISNOMATERIALEVIDENCETOSUPPORTTHEVERDICTINTHATTHEPHYSICALFACTSCANNOTBERECONCILEDWITHTHEDIRECTTESTIMONYOFTHEAPPELLEEANDHERWITNESSES.IV. WHETHERTHEVERDICTOFTHEJURYFINDINGTHATTHEAPPELLANT,DESKINS,WASGUILTYOFONEHUNDRED(100%)PERCENTNEGLIGENCETHATCAUSEDTHEACCIDENTANDNOTFINDINGTHEAPPELLEECOMPARATIVELYNEGLIGENTINANYAMOUNTINDICATESPREJUDICEAGAINSTTHEAPPELLANTSANDUNACCOUNTABLECAPRICEONTHEPARTOFTHEJURY.APPELLEESHOULDHAVEBEENGUILTYOFNEGLIGENCEASAMATTEROFLAW.V. WHETHERTHEREWASMATERIALEVIDENCETOSUPPORTTHEEXORBITANTJUDGMENTRENDEREDBYTHEJURY,INFAVOROFAPPELLEE,INTHEAMOUNTOFTWENTYTHOUSAND($20,000.00)DOLLARS.         Theaccidentgivingrisetothisappealoccurred,asalreadynoted,onJune3,1989,about9:00a.m.Thesunwasshining,theroadwasdry,andtheweatherplayednofactorinitscausation.  Ms.WilliamswasdrivingavehicleinanortherlydirectiononJonesCoveRoad,alsoknownasStateRoute339.JonesCoveRoadintersectsinaTintersectionwithOldNewportHighway,alsoknownasoldU.S.Route411,atthesceneofthisaccident.Mr.Deskins,drivinga1987Mercedesautomobile,wasproceedinginaneasterlydirectiononOldNewportHighwayand,aftercrestingahillsome100yardsfromtheintersection,wasunabletostopbeforethefrontofhisvehiclecollidedwiththeleftfrontofMs.Williams'vehicle,whichwasproceedingnorthonJonesCoveRoadandhadpulledintotheintersectionintendingtoturnleft,orwest,onOldNewportHighway.  Mr.Deskins'svehicleleftskidmarksof130feetpriortostrikingMs.Williams'vehicle.  AccordingtoMs.Williams,shestoppedatthestopsignfacingheronJonesCoveRoad,droveuptoawhitelinesomefewfeetnorthofthestopsign,stoppedagain,thenproceededintotheintersectionafterlookingbothwaysandobservingnotraffic.Shetestifiedthataftertheimpacthervehiclewasknockedbackwardand,upontravelinginhalfcirclecourse,ultimatelycametorestagainsttheoutsidewallofHoward'sGrocery,whichwaslocatedinthesouthwestquadrantoftheintersection.(SeeAppendix.)  AdisinterestedwitnesstestifiedthatMs.Williams,uponobservingMr.Deskinsbearingdownuponher,stopped,putthevehicleinreverse,and,afterimpact,backeditagainsttheHowardGroceryStoreBuilding.  Theproofwasalsoinsharpdisputeastowhetherthecarwasindriveatthetimeithitthebuilding,asMs.Williamstestified,orwasinreverse,astestifiedbythedisinterestedwitness,whoalsotestifiedthataftertheaccidentheplacedthegearinparkandremovedthekeys.  Althoughmuchofthetestimony,asabovenoted,isindispute,theevidenceisalmostunanimousthatatthetimeMs.Williamsstartedpullingintotheintersection,Mr.Deskinsvehiclewasnotinsight.  Aproposofthefirstissue,theDeskinsescontendtheTrialCourtwasinerrorinchargingthejurythattheareainquestionwassubjecttoa45milespeedlimitandthatifMr.Deskinswastravelinginexcessof45milesperhourhewasguiltyofnegligenceperse.Theybasetheircontentionontheproofdevelopedintheirmotioninliminewhichshowedthatinsofarastherecordswereavailablenoactionwastakenbythepropercountyorstateofficialstoreducethegeneralstatewidespeedlimitwhich,atthetimeoftheaccident,was55milesperhour.  BothpartiescitethecaseofThomasv.Harper,53Tenn.App.549,564,385S.W.2d130,138(1964),which,aspertinenttothisappealstatedthefollowing:        T.C.A.59853[now558153],amongotherthingsauthorizesthelegislativeauthorityoftownsandcitiestoprescribespeedlimitswithincertainareasorzonesorondesignatedhighways,avenues,streetsintheirrespectivejurisdictions,andtoerectappropriatesignsandtrafficsignals.Wheretheproofistherewasaspeedsign,andnoquestionmadewithrespecttoitsregularity,thepresumptionofregularityandcompliancewithlawwhichappertainsuntilthecontraryisshownwouldmakethefactofitspresenceadmissible.         Alatercase,authoredbyJudgeFranks,Johnsonv.Calfee,anunreportedopinionofthisCourt,filedinKnoxvilleonApril21,1988,alsoinvolvedaTintersectionandtheapplicabilityofaspeedzonesign.Theproofinthatcaseshowedthatasignwaserectedsomemileormileandahalffromthesceneoftheaccident,buttheHighwayPatrolmanwhoinvestigatedtheaccidentcouldnottestifythatitwasvalidlypostedorwhetheritappliedtothesectionoftheroadwheretheaccidentoccurred.Additionally,therewastestimonyfromtheBradleyCountyClerk,whohadheldthispositionfor25years,thathesearchedtheminutesofthelegislativeenactmentsofBradleyCountyandfoundnolegislativeenactmentauthorizingthereductionofthespeedlimit.  UnderthesecircumstancesweheldtheTrialCourthadnotsufficientlychargedthejuryregardingthedisputedquestionofspeedlimit,andindoingsostatedthefollowing:        Wheretheviolationofthestatutoryrulesoftheroadisatissueandthereisevidencefromwhichthejurycouldfindaviolationofoneormorestatutoryrulesthesubmissionofeachofthestandardsshouldbemadewithaclearandconciseexplanation.Moreover,itiswellsettledthatapartyisentitledtohavehistheoryofthecaseandtheapplicablelawsubmittedtothejury.McClardv.Reid,190Tenn.337,229S.W.2d505(1950). Wherethereisevidenceofapostedspeedlimitandnoquestionismadeastoitsregularityorvaliditythereisapresumptionthatthepostedspeedisincompliancewiththelaw.Thomasv.Harper,55Tenn.App.594,385S.W.2d130(1964).However,ifthepostedspeedsignwasplacedwithoutstatutoryauthority,thefailureofamotoristtoheeditsrestrictionscouldbenegligencebutheshouldnotbepenalizedwiththeconsequencesoftheruleofnegligenceperseofviolatingastatute,seeWoodfin,etal.v.Insel,etal.,13Tenn.App.493(1931),sinceastatutorilyestablishedspeedlimitprevailsoverspeedsignserectedwithoutstatutoryauthority.Hornev.Palmer,38Tenn.App.354,274S.W.2d372(1954). Thespeedofplaintiff'svehicleasitrelatedtothelawfulspeedlimitwascrucialtothedeterminationbythetrieroffactastowhetherplaintiffwasnegligent.Accordingly,thetrialcourtshouldhaveinstructedthejuryonthestatutespertainingtoestablishingspeedlimitsandtheplaintiff'sdutiesthereunder,leavingtothejurythedeterminationofthelawfulspeedwheretheaccidentoccurredasdeterminedfromthelawasgivenbythecourtandtheevidenceofferedbytheparties.         Inthecaseatbartheonlyproofastoofficialactiontakentoreducethespeedlimitwasthatofstateandcountyofficialswhosaythat,insofarastheirrecordsareavailable,noformalactionhadbeentakentoreducethespeedlimitastothisarea.However,theproofisundisputedthata45milespeedzonesignhadbeeninplacesinceatleast1974,andhadbeenmaintainedandreplacedfromtimetotimebystateofficials.Giventhisproofandthefurtherfactthatthespeedlimitsignwasa"standard"one,weconcludethatthepresumptionmandatedinThomashasnotbeenovercomeandthattheTrialJudgewasnotinerrorinhischargetothejury.  Withregardtothesecondissue,onlythreewitnessestestifiedastothespeedofMr.Deskins'vehicleinmilesperhour,althoughMs.Williams'mother,whowassittingonthepassengersideofthefrontseat,didstatethatwhentheDeskinscarcameoverthehillit"lookedlikeitwasairborne."TwoofthethreewitnesseswhosetestimonyareassailedareStateTrooperswhotestifiedthatuponconductingwhatisknownasadragtestthenextdayaftertheaccident,theyconcludedthespeedofMr.Deskins'vehicleexceeded45milesperhour.Thedevicethatwasusedtoconductthetestisaportionofacartire(approximatelyonefourth),whichwasattachedtoasetofscalesandpulledalongthepavementatthesceneoftheaccident.Bytheuseofthisdevicetheywereabletocalculatethecoeffecientoffrictionbetweentheroadandthetire.Uponcorrelatingthecoeffecientoffriction,thelengthoftheskidmarksandaformuladevisedbytheTrafficInstituteofNorthwesternUniversity,theywereabletoarriveatthespeedofthevehicle.  Oneoftheobjectionstotheirtestimonyisthattheywerenotsufficientlytrainedtoconductsuchatest.Inthisregard,oneofthetroopershada10weekbasictrainingcourse,consistingoftwoweeksofaccidentinvestigationschool.Additionally,hehadattendedatwoweekschoolonadvancedaccidentinvestigation.Hehadinvestigatedover100automobileaccidentsandhadbeentrainedintheuseofthedragtesttodeterminespeed.  TheothertrooperhadbeenamemberoftheHighwayPatrolfor18andonehalfyears.HehadattendedtheNorthwesternInstituteUniversityofNorthFlorida.Hehadabasictrainingforthreeweeksandadvancedtrainingforanadditionalthreeweeksand,stillfurther,reconstructionstudiesforanadditionaltwoweeks.Hehadinvestigatedover200accidentsandhadbeentrainedintheuseofthedragtest.  Thethirdwitnesswasaseniorvehicleaccidentreconstructionist.Althoughhedidnotconductthetests,heusedtheresultsthereoftoformanopinionastothespeedoftheDeskinsvehicle.  Giventhewidediscretionaccordedatrialjudgeinadmittingorrejectingexperttestimony,Otisv.CambridgeMutualFireIns.Co.,850S.W.2d439(Tenn.1992);Buchananv.Harris,902S.W.2d941(Tenn.App.1995),weconcludehedidnotabusehisdiscretioninadmittingtestimonyofthethreeexpertsassailedbyissuetwo.  Inreachingourdecisionwearenotunmindfulthatthetestemployedwastheleastaccurateofthosethatmightbeused(avehicleofthesamemodelorarubbertiredsled),orthatintheirinitialtestimonythewitnesseswerenotdeductingthe10footwheelbaseofMr.Deskins'vehiclefromthelengthofskidmarks.However,allthreewitnessesweresubjecttorigorouscrossexaminationwhichpointedouttothejurythedeficienciesoftheirtestimonyandthetestemployed.Finally,weobservethattheDeskinsvehicleonlystoppedaftercrashingintotheWilliamsvehicle,andundoubtedlytheskidmarkswouldhavebeenlongerhadthecollisionnotoccurred.  Astoissuesthreeandfour,wefindthereissubstantialmaterialevidencethatMs.Williamsstoppedatthestopsign,proceededfurther,stoppedagain,andthattheDeskins'vehiclewasnotinsightwhensheenteredtheintersection.Whetherheractionsinattemptingtoextricateherselffromanemergencysituationconstitutednegligencewasanissueforthejury,whichresolvedthequestioninherfavor.  Astothefinalissue,theproofshowsthatMs.Williamsincurredmedicalexpensesof$1135.75.Shereceivedonlyminorinjurieswhichshe,astheonlywitnesstestifyingwithregardthereto,detailedasfollows:        Q. Allright.Now,aftertheimpactwhathappenedwithyourvehicle?AftertheimpactwithMr.Deskins'vehicle,whathappenedtoyourvehicle? A. Itwentbackwardsintothestore. Q. Didyouhaveanimpactwiththestore? A. Yes. Q. Okay,physicallywhathappenedtoyouatthetimeoftheinitialimpactwithMr.Deskins'vehicle? A. Ihitmyheadandeverythingwasjustsortofblurrysincethen. Q. WhatsensationsdidyouhaveaftertheimpactwithMr.Deskins'vehicle,intheimmediate? A. ThatIwasspinning.Thecarwasspinning. Q. Wereyouawareofwhenyourcarfinallycametorestorhitthestoreitself? A. Yeah,mymotherspoketome. Q. Whatdidyoudothenaftertheimpactagainstthestore? A. Itriedtoputthecaringearanditwouldn'tgo,itwasstillindrive.AndIturnedthemotoroffandthekeywouldn'tcomeoutandwegotoutofthecar. Q. Okay.Whatdidyoudothen? A. Wewentintothestoreforafewminutes,comebackoutandwenttothehospital. Q. Didanambulancecome? A. Yes. Q. AnddidyoudidthesameambulancetakeyouandMr.Deskins? A. Yes.  Q. AndwasthereanythingsaidbetweenyouandMr.Deskinsatthattime? A. Yes.Iwascryingandhetoldme,don'tworryaboutit,itwouldbeallright. Q. Wasthereanythingelsethatwassaid? A. No. Q. Andwereyoubothsomewhatshakenupatthattime? A. Yes. Q. Andwhathappenedwithyouatthehospital? A. TheyrunaCATscanandxraysandletmego. Q. Andwhatwasyourconditionwhatallwerehurtwithyou? A. Justthebangontheheadandafewcutsandscrapes. Q. Wheredidyouhaveyourcutsandscrapes? A. Ihadsomeonmyleftshoulder. Q. Andasfarasyourheadwasconcerned,overthenextcoupleofdays,whathappenedwithyou?Wasthereanybruisesthatdevelopedoranymarkings? A.Well,myeyesturnedblackandswelleduparoundthem. Q. Okaydidyougobacktothedoctor? A. Yes.  Q. Andwhodidyougoseethen? A. Iwentbacktotheemergencyroom. Q. Andwhatwasdoneatthattime? A. Theyxrayeditagainandsaiditwasprobablycausedbymyglassespressingintomyface. Q. Okay.Ms.Williams,basicallyafterthatdidyougetokay? A. Yes. Q. Areyoubearinganyrepercussionstodayfromtheaccidentatall? A. No. Q. Withinaperiodofjustdaysorweeksaftertheaccidenthadyourecoveredfromtheaccident? A. Yes. Q. Afterthatsecondtimewhenyouwentbacktothehospitaltocheckaboutbeingblackaroundyoureyesandall,andthey'retakingthosexrays,didyouhavetoseekanyothermedicalattention? A. No.         UnderT.C.A.2010103(a),thisCourthasauthoritytograntaremittiturifitfindsanawardtobe"beyondtherangeofreasonableness."Smithv.Shelton,569S.W.2d421(Tenn.1978).Whilerecognizingsuchadeterminationisforthemostpartsubjective,weneverthelessconcludeunderthefactsofthiscasetheawardof$20,000wasbeyondtherangeofreasonablenessandaremittiturof$10,000issuggested.Ms.Williamswillhave30daysafterremandtotheCircuitCourtwithinwhichtoaccepttheremittitur.Ifshedoesnot,anewtrialwillbegrantedonthequestionofdamages.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtastotheoriginalcomplaintisaffirmed,andastothecrosscomplaintaremittiturissuggested.ThecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtforSevierCountyforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinionandcollectionoftheremittedjudgment,ifaccepted,andofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalfagainsttheDeskinsesandonehalfagainstMs.Williams.     _______________________________     HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.̀