ÿWPC  &# $U:/ %i 0ûow@j4ª¾ 0?Í 0D  0JP 0Tš 0^î L 0hR º 0rÀ 0|2 ® 0†¶ 0< 1uÌ 0dA U*¥ NÏ •v~² B0vÓM˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5E,,,,0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó­$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XXXXÔÑ7€.íXXdðXXdð7Ñ ¼½¾D¿ÀÁÂÃDÄ ÊÅÊ„‘!3|xÅ(ï(3Ü$¤¤Ý ƒ­!ÝÑ   ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€X9~XXXÔÑ7€9~XXdðXXdð7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÈR26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔHR2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝStatement€of€counsel€is€not€evidence.€€But€Pope€had,€from€the€first,Ïadamantly€insisted€that€the€decedent€had€no€coverage€and€that€Pope€had€noÏliability€in€the€case.€€Superimposed€is€the€fact€that€Pope€had€not€affirmativelyÏpleaded€the€Act€as€a€defense€to€the€tort€action.Ì ‹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝNone€of€the€grounds€of€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€presented€as€an€issueÏfor€review.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ®  dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓÓò òÓ  ÓÔ% € ÔÞ ÞÌÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓó óÌNATRICE€WILLIAMSON€DOUGLAS,à à)Ìindividually€and€as€next€of€kinà àà à)Ìof€her€son,€JOHN€CAYLON€DOUGLAS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€CIRCUITà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€€03A01„9606„CV„00283ÌE€&€C€CARROLL€ENTERPRISES,€INC.,)Ìd/b/a/€E€&€C€CONSTRUCTION,à àà à)ÌX.€S.€SMITH,€INC.,€and€POPEððSà àà à)ÌPLANT€FARM,€INC.,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellantsà àà à)à àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌThomas€G.€McCroskey€and€L.€Lee€Kull,€Maryville,€For€the€Appellant,€Popeððs€PlantÏFarm,€Inc.ÌÌDavid€T.€Black,€Maryville,€For€the€Appellee€Natrice€Williamson€Douglas.ÌFrancis€A.€Cain€and€Robert€L.€Kahn,€Knoxville,€for€the€Defendant,€X.€S.€Smith,€Inc.ÌJoe€Nicholson,€Maryville,€for€the€Defendant€Below,€E€&€C€Carroll€Enterprises,€Inc.ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óóóINMAN,€Senior€Judge›à àœÌà àThis›€is€an€action€for€damages€for€the€alleged€wrongful€death€of€the€plaintiffððsÏdecedent€who€was€electrocuted€while€erecting€a€greenhouse€at€Popeððs€Plant€FarmÍin€Blount€County.Ìòòò òÓ  ÓThe€PleadingsÌÓ  Óó óóóà àThe€complaint,€as€amended,€filed€May€16,€1995,€alleges€that€Popeððs€PlantÏFarm€[Pope]€contracted€with€T.€S.€Smith,€Inc.€[Smith]€for€the€purchase€andÏconstruction€of€greenhouses€on€the€property€of€Pope,€and€that€Smith€employed€E.€&ÏC.€Carroll€Enterprises,€Inc.,€d/b/a€E€&€C€Construction€[Carroll]€for€the€constructionÏwork.ÌÑ  Ñà àIt€is€further€alleged€œthat:›€œÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓÓÓ  Óð ðpursuant›€to€the€doctrine€of€òòrespondeat€œsuperior›€óóand€as€employerÏon€the€job€œsite›€.€.€.€Smith€is€liable€for€any€and€all€acts€of€negligenceÏof€the€defendant€Carroll.€€Alternatively,€plaintiff€avers€that€PopeÏemployed€for€the€construction€and€pursuant€to€the€doctrine€ofÏòòrespondeat€superioróó€and€as€employer€on€this€job€site€the€defendantÏPope€is€liable€for€the€negligence€of€the€defendant€Carroll,€œand€their›Ï[sic]€own€œnegligence.ððÌÌ›ÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àIt€is€further€alleged€that€on€August€12,€1994€the€plaintiffððs€decedent€wasÏelectrocuted€on€a€construction€site€at€Popeððs€and€was€engaged€in€construction€workÏwithin€the€meaning€of€the€Tennessee€Occupational€Safety€and€Health€Act,€òòTenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ððóó€50„3„101,€òòet.€seq.€óó€€The€decedent€was€using€a€power€tool€furnished€byÏCarroll,€supplied€with€power€through€an€extension€cord€plugged€into€an€outlet€whichÏwas€not€grounded,€while€standing€on€a€metal€ladder€provided€by€Pope.€€TheÏconnection€between€the€extension€cord€and€power€tool€partially€separated€and€theÏexposed€prongs€came€into€contact€with€the€metal€ladder.€€The€decedent€touched€theÏframe€work€of€the€greenhouse€and€was€electrocuted.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€alleges€that€the€defendants€failed€to€provide€the€decedent€a€safeÏplace€to€work€and€provided€unsafe€electrical€service,€since€there€was€no€groundÏfault€interceptor€protection,€in€violation€of€the€National€Electric€Code€which€requiresÏthat€all€125€volt€receptacle€outlets€shall€have€ground€fault€circuit€interrupterÏprotection€for€personnel,€and€that€portable€ladders€shall€have€non„conductive€sideÏrails.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€further€alleges€ð ðthat€the€defendants€have€failed€to€secureÏpayments€of€workersðð€compensation€as€required€by€the€Tennessee€WorkersððÏœCompensation›€Law€and€that€accordingly€the€defendants€may€not€assert€variousÏdefenses€as€provided€by€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„111.ððÌà àPope€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€alleging€only€that€there€was€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€and€that€it€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€James€Michael€Pope,€its€President.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€contracted€Smith,€manufacturer€of€greenhouses,€and€orally€agreed€toÏpurchase€a€number€of€greenhouses€to€be€supplied,€delivered€and€installed€byÏSmith,€who€in€turn€agreed€to€subcontract€the€installation€to€a€construction€firm€it€hadÏused€on€other€occasions.€Ìà àPope€testified€that€he€learned€the€identity€of€the€construction€firm,€Carroll,Ïwhen€the€job€began€in€July€1994.€€He€further€testified€that€although€Carroll€had€aÏnumber€of€aluminum€ladders,€he€had€no€objection€to€one€of€his€being€used,€andÏoffered€no€objections€to€the€use€of€the€electrical€outlets€in€Popeððs€warehouses€toÏoperate€equipment.€€He€admitted€that€one€outlet€used€by€the€decedent€had€noÍground€fault€circuit€interruption€protection,€and€testified€that€Popeððs€exercised€noÏcontrol€over€the€erection€of€the€greenhouses.Ìà àThe€motion€was€overruled€and€Pope€filed€its€answer,€denying€all€allegationsÏof€negligence€or€liability€based€on€òòrespondeat€superioróó.€By€a€separate€paragraph,ÏPopeÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓÓÓ  Óð ð€.€.€.€would€show€that€it€has,€and€did€have€at€the€time€of€this€project,Ïworkersðð€compensation€coverage€for€its€own€employees,€but€thatÏthis€coverage€would€not€inure€to€the€benefit€of€œplaintiff,›€and€that€itÏwould€not€be€required€to€have€such€coverage.ðð€€ÌÌÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ K ÓÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€Smith€admitted€that€it€contracted€with€Pope€to€sell€it€aÏgreenhouse,€but€denied€that€it€subcontracted€with€Carroll€as€alleged.€€It€alleged€thatÏit€€merely€advised€Pope€that€Carroll€constructed€greenhouses€and€was€competent€toÏdo€so.Ìà àThe€defendant€Carroll€alleged€that€it€constructed€the€greenhouses€for€Pope,Ïbut€that€the€decedent€was€an€independent€contractor€on€the€particular€job.€€Ìà àCarroll€alleged€that€Pope€had€workersðð€compensation€coverage€and€hadÏmade€demand€upon€it€to€pay€a€portion€of€the€premiums€therefor,€and€œaverred:›ÌÓÓÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  Óð ð€.€.€.€that€in€the€event€Pope€received€a€workersðð€compensationÏpolicy€that€said€policy€inured€to€the€benefit€of€the€plaintiff€and€wouldÏbe€the€plaintiffððs€exclusive€remedy€.€.€.€ð ðÌÌÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àBy€particular€paragraph,€CarrollÌÓÓÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  Óð ð€.€.€.€denies€that€it€is€liable€to€the€plaintiff€and€further€avers€that€theÏplaintiffððs€exclusive€remedy€at€law€is€the€workersðð€compensationÏinsurance€coverage€and€benefits€provided€by€Popeððs€Plant€Farm,ÏInc.ððÌÌÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓThe€EvidenceÌÓ  Óà àó óóóPope€purchased€a€number€of€greenhouses€from€Smith,€who€recommendedÏCarroll€as€a€reliable€installer.ÌÑ  Ñà àSmith€delivered€the€greenhouses€to€Pope€in€Blount€County,€and€CarrollÏbegan€then€the€installation.€€Smith€took€no€part€in€the€installation.Ìà àWhile€there€was€some€evidence€that€Carroll,€a€corporation,€was€anÏindependent€contractor,€there€was€also€evidence€that€it€was€a€sub„contractor,€andÏalso€some€evidence€that€its€employees€were€employees€of€Pope,€since€Pope€paidÏthem€directly,€and€controlled€the€performance€of€their€work€to€a€substantial€extent.Ìà àCarroll€borrowed€a€ladder€from€Pope,€and€received€permission€to€utilize€theÏelectrical€outlets€in€the€warehouse€to€operate€power€hand€tools.€€One€of€theseÏoutlets€had€no€ground„fault€interceptor€protection.€€The€decedent€was€standing€on€aÏladder€using€a€power€tool€connected€by€an€extension€cord€to€an€electrical€outletÏwhen€the€connection€between€the€tool€and€the€cord€separated,€exposing€the€bareÏprongs€which€somehow€came€into€contact€with€the€ladder.€€The€decedent€touchedÏthe€grounded€greenhouse€frame€and€received€a€shock€which€killed€him.Ìà àOn€all€construction€sites,€the€Tennessee€Occupational€Safety€and€Health€ActÏrequires€electrical€outlets€to€be€equipped€with€a€ground€fault€interrupter€switch.€Ìò òòòÓ  ÓThe€JudgmentÌÓ  Óà àó óóóThe€case€was€submitted€to€a€jury€which€returned€a€special€verdict€awardingÏdamages€of€$475,000€and€apportioned€fault€as€follows:Ìà àThe€decedentà àà à5%Ìà àPopeà àà àà àà à80%Ìà àCarrollà àà àà à15%Ìà àSmith€was€dismissed€from€the€case€upon€motion€for€a€directed€verdict,€andÏno€œÌfurther›€pleadings€were€filed€against€this€defendant.€€Carroll€filed€no€motion€for€aÏnew€trial,€and€hence€no€notice€of€appeal.€€Ìò òòòÓ  ÓThe€IssuesÌÓ  Óó óóóà àWe€rephrase€the€first€two€issues€as:Ìà à1.€€Whether€Pope€pleaded€the€bar€of€the€workersðð€compensation€law€as€anÏaffirmative€defense.ÌÑ  Ñà à2.€€Whether€Pope€was€entitled€to€introduce€evidence€that€œTOSHA›€issued€noÏcitations€for€its€alleged€negligence€resulting€in€the€death€of€the€plaintiffððs€decedent.Ìò òòòÓ  ÓAnalysisÌÓ  Óó óóóà àThis€is€a€wrongful€death€action€wherein€Popeððs,€òòinter€alia,€óóis€essentiallyÏalleged€to€have€been€the€employer€[principal€contractor]€of€the€decedent,€and€that€ð ðitÏfailed€to€secure€payments€of€workersðð€compensation€as€required€by€law,€œthus›Ïentitling€the€plaintiff€to€proceed€at€common€œlaw.ðð›€Ìà àPope€filed€its€answer€denying€liability€for€the€death€of€the€decedent€under€anyÏtheory,€and€that€ð ð€.€.€.€€it€has€and€did€have€at€the€time€of€this€project,€workersððÏcompensation€coverage€for€its€own€employees,€but€that€this€œcoverage›€would€notÏœinure›€to€the€benefit€of€plaintiff,€and€that€it€was€not€required€to€have€such€coverage.ððÌà àOne€of€the€major€issues€at€trial€was€whether€the€decedent€was€an€employeeÏof€Popeððs€or€whether€Pope€was€the€principal€contractor€and€thus€liable€under€òòTenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„113.Ìà àThe€jury€was€instructed€to€determine€œif€ð ðPope›€is€vicariously€liable€for€the€deathÏof€the€decedent.ðð€€The€jury€responded€that€Pope€was€vicariously€liable€for€theÏnegligence€of€Carroll.€€In€this€connection€we€note€that€there€is€evidence€that€PopeÏwas€the€òòdirectóó€employer€of€the€decedent,€e.g.,€Pope€paid€his€wages,€controlled€theÏmanner€of€his€work,€and€made€demand,€according€to€Carroll,€that€Carroll€pay€aÏportion€of€the€workersðð€compensation€premiums€attributed€to€the€employment€of€theÏdecedent.Ìà àThe€accuracy€of€the€instructions€is€not€presented€for€review.Ìà àThe€relationship€of€master„servant€was€found€to€exist€between€Pope€and€theÏdecedent,€thus€directly€implicating€the€workersðð€compensation€law€if€Pope,€theÏmaster„employer,€affirmatively€pleaded€the€exclusive€remedy€thereby€afforded.ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓ  Óà àPope€raised€the€issue€directly€in€its€motion€for€a€new€trial,Ïalleging€that€œthe:›ÌÓÓð ðcomplaint,€the€answer€of€Pope€and€Carroll€and€the€extensiveÏargument€over€the€availability€of€certain€statutory€defenses€underÏworkersðð€compensation€during€trial€itself€show€that€the€applicabilityÏand€availability€of€workersðð€compensation€was€at€issue€in€thisÏœmatter€.€.€.€the›€juryððs€œdecision,›€based€on€that€proof€and€arguments,Ïshows€this€to€be€an€action€governed€by€the€Tennessee€WorkersððÏCompensation€Statutes€and,€accordingly,€plaintiffððs€sole€andÏexclusive€remedy€is€under€that€statutory€œscheme.ððÌÌ›ÌÒ ½ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àWe€readily€agree€that,€properly€pleaded€and€proved,€workersðð€compensationÏwas€the€exclusive€remedy€available€to€the€plaintiff.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„108,€òòet.Ïseq.óó€so€provide€in€the€clearest€language.€€There€is€evidence€that€Pope€was€aÏstatutory€employer€of€the€decedent,€and€hence€would€ordinarily€be€immune€from€tortÏliability.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„113.€€òòœMathis›€v.€œBowater›,€Inc.,óó€985€F.2d€277€(6th€Cir.Í1993);€òòLiberty€œMut›.€œIns›.€Co.€v.€œStevenson›,óó€368€S.W.2d€760€(Tenn.€1963);€òòClayton€v.ÏPizza€Hut,€Inc.,óó€673€S.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1984).Ìà àThe€appellees€argue€that€since€Pope€pleaded€that€the€decedent€was€not€itsÏemployee,€and€that€its€workersðð€compensation€coverage€ð ðwould€not€inure€to€theÏbenefit€of€the€plaintiff,ðð€that€it€waived€the€defense€of€exclusive€remedy,€òòRule€12,€Tenn.ÏR.€œCiv›.€Pro.,óó€and€cannot,€for€the€first€time,€raise€the€defense€in€a€new€trial€motion.€€Ìà àDuring€the€charge€conference,€œhereafter€discussed,€counsel›€for€the€plaintiffÏstated€to€the€Court€ð ðWe€think€as€a€matter€of€law€under€the€proof€introduced€in€thisÏcase€that€Pope€was€the€òòprincipal€contractor.ðð€€€óóThis€statement€implicates€òòTenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ððóó€50„6„113€which€provides€that€a€principal€contractor€shall€be€liable€forÏcompensation€to€any€employee€injured€while€in€the€employ€of€any€subcontractorÏòòBrown€v.€Canterbury€Corp.,€óó844€S.W.2d€124€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ìà àœIf›€Pope€did€not€affirmatively€œand€specifically€plead›€the€Act€as€a€defense,€mayÏwe€look€œto€the›€entire€record€to€determine€if€it€may€fairly€be€construed€as€raising€theÏissue€of€whether€Pope€was€immune€from€tort€liability,€i.e.,€whether€workersððÏcompensation€was€the€exclusive€remedy€for€the€œplaintiff?›Ìà àIt€is€worth€repeating€that€counsel€œfor›€the€plaintiff€argued€„€and€the€trial€courtÏagreed€„€that€Pope€was€the€òòprincipal€œcontractor€;óó›€apparently,€it€was€thought€that€thisÏconcession,€or€argument,€was€a€predicate€for€the€plaintiffððs€theory€that€Pope€wasÏð ðvicariously€liableðð€for€the€death€of€the€decedent,€which€was€adopted€by€the€jury€as€aÏspecial€verdict.€€But€if€Pope€was€the€principal€contractor,€it€was,€òòipso€œfactoóó,›€liable€forÏworkersðð€compensation€benefits,€as€we€have€seen,€to€the€plaintiff,€had€the€Act€beenÍpleaded€and€proved.€€òòSee,€œMathis›€v.€œBowater›,€Inc.,óó€985€S.W.2d€277€(6th€Cir.€1995);ÏòòBrown,€supra.Ìóóà àThe€issue€of€whether€Pope€was€immune€from€tort€liability€arose€from€time€toÏtime€during€the€trial,€usually€in€the€œcontext›€that€the€pleadings€alluded€to€the€fact.€€OnÏone€occasion,€during€a€colloquy€with€counsel,€as€the€trial€wound€œdown›€and€theÏissue€of€fault€apportionment€emerged,€counsel€for€the€plaintiff€broached€the€subjectÏof€workersðð€compensation€coverage€and€assured€the€Court€there€was€none.Ìà àCounsel€for€Pope€stood€mute.€€At€any€rate,€he€offered€no€rebuttal€to€theÏstatement€by€counsel€for€the€plaintiff,€and€the€Court€said€ð ðunder€these€circumstancesÏthe€Court€is€compelled€to€find€that€there€is€no€workersðð€compensation€coverage.ðð× ƒ! ××  ×Ìà àThis€ruling€was€apparently€made€on€the€basis€of€the€statement€by€theÏplaintiffððs€counsel€to€the€exclusion€of€counsel€for€Pope,€as€we€have€seen.€ÏSuperimposed€is€the€curious€fact€that€on€the€day€prior€to€trial€the€plaintiff,€by€motionÏòòin€limineóó,€asked€the€Court€to€exclude€any€testimony€regarding€workersððÏcompensation€insurance.€€This€motion€was€granted,€apparently€without€argument.€€ItÏwas€apparently€predicated€on€the€fact€that€Pope€had€not€affirmatively€pleaded€theÏdefense€of€the€Act.Ìà àThe€pleadings€are€not€artful,€and€œwere›€never€amended€after€it€became€clearÏœthat€the›€issue€of€tort€immunity€remained€relevant€and€viable.€€òòRule€8.03,€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.ÏPro.,óó€requires€a€party€to€set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€plain€terms€constituting€anÍaffirmative€defense,€and€8.06€requires€that€all€pleadings€shall€be€construed€as€to€doÏsubstantial€justice.Ìà àPope€argues€that€the€complaint,€its€answer,€Carrollððs€answer,€the€extensiveÏcomments€ð ð€.€.€show€that€the€applicability€and€availability€of€workersðð€compensationÏwas€at€issue€in€this€matter,ðð€and€that€the€plaintiff€should€have€a€judgment€ð ðfor€theÏstatutorily€prescribed€workersðð€compensation€exclusive€remedy.ðð€€Ìà àœThe›€Act€must€be€affirmatively€pleaded.€€òòœHammett›€v.€Vogue,€Inc.,€óó165€S.W.2dÏ577€(Tenn.€1942);€òòœPikeville›€Fuel€Co.€v.€Marsh,óó€232€S.W.2d€789€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1948),€and€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€prove€the€applicability€of€the€Act.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€initially€raised€the€issue€of€workersðð€compensation€by€allegingÏthat€the€defendants€ð ðòòfailed€to€secure€payments€of€workersðð€compensation€asÏrequired€óóby€the€Tennessee€Workersðð€Compensation€Law€.€.€.€œð ðòò›Ìóóà àIn€its€motion€for€summary€judgment€Pope€merely€alleged€the€language€of€theÏRule,€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact,€entitling€it€to€judgment€asÏa€matter€of€law.€€Supporting€documents€do€not€reference€workersðð€compensation.Ìà àPope€then€filed€its€answer,€œas€we€have€seen,€and›€alleged€that€it€has,€and€didÏhave€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€workersðð€compensation€coverage€for€its€ownÏemployees,€ð ðbut€that€this€coverage€would€not€inure€to€the€benefit€of€plaintiff€.€.€.€ð ðÌà àPope€obviously€did€not€plead€the€affirmative€defense€available€to€it.€€Ìà àThe€only€rational€view€of€the€quoted€answer€is€that€Pope€was€not€liable€to€theÏplaintiff€for€workersðð€compensation€benefits€since€the€decedent€was€not€anÏemployee€and€otherwise€was€owed€no€duty€œby›€Pope.Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€all€the€evidence,€the€Court€conferred€with€counsel€aboutÏjury€instructions.€€The€plaintiff€insisted€that€no€percentage€of€fault€should€beÏapportioned€to€the€decedent€because€of€the€ð ðfailure€of€the€defendants€to€haveÏworkersðð€compensation€insurance€coverage.ðð€€Counsel€for€the€plaintiff€stated:ÌÒ ½ ÒÒ r ÒÒ ` ÒÒ r ÒÓÓÓ  Óð ðClearly,€both€of€these€employers€[Pope€and€Carroll]€had€more€thanÏfive€employees.€€Clearly,€they€were€required€to€have€workersððÏcompensation€coverage€and€did€not.ðð€€œÌÌFurther,ÌÌ›€ð ð€.€.€.€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€50„6„113€talks€[sic]€about€a€principal€orÏintermediate€contractor€or€subcontractor€shall€be€liable€forÏcompensation€to€any€employee€while€injured€.€.€.€and,€of€course,€asÏyour€Honor€knows,€a€principal€can€rely€upon€the€defense€of€workersððÏcompensation€insurance€coverage€to€avoid€liability€.€.€.€œð ðÌÌ›ÌÑ  ÑÒ ½ ÒÒ r ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€argument€is€curious€since€the€Court,€upon€the€plaintiffððs€motion,Ïexcluded€proof€of€workersðð€compensation€insurance,€while€the€defendant€is€taken€toÏtask€because€it€failed€to€ð ðhave€insurance€œcoverage.ðð€€To›€all€of€which€counsel€forÏPope€responded:ÌÒ ½ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÓ  Óð ð€.€.€.€thereððs€a€big€question€about€whether€my€client€is€subject€toÏthe€workersðð€compensation€laws€here€.€.€.€we€submit€that€.€.€.€PopeÏwas€under€no€requirement€whatsoever€to€provide€workersððÏcompensation€for€the€employer€or€the€workers€of€this€constructionÏcompany.€€Pope€has€workersðð€compensation€for€their€own€people,Ïtheyððve€always€had€it.€€Theyððre€not€supposed€to€have€to€have€[sic]€itÏin€this€case€.€.€.€But€its€a€dispute€here,€a€factual€dispute,€as€toÏwhether€Pope€was€required€to€provide€workersðð€comp,€whether€theÏworkersðð€comp€laws€apply€to€Pope€in€this€case.ððÌÌÒ ½ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àCounsel€for€Pope€continued:ÌÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓÓÓ  Óð ð€.€.€.€the€juryððs€got€to€determine€whether€or€not€OSHA€applies€toÏPope,€whether€or€not€workersðð€comp€applies€to€Pope.€€YouððveÏdetermined€that€workersðð€comp.€applies€to€Pope€if€you€donððt€allowÍMr.€Douglasðð€name€on€that€verdict€form.€€It€has€to€be€on€thereÏbecause€by€not€allowing€it€on€there,€you€have€said€yes,€it€applies,Ïand€no,€Pope,€you€donððt€have€that€defense€of€comparative€fault.ððÌÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓÓÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àWe€have€examined€the€charge,€and€workersðð€compensation€is€not€mentioned.€ÏNo€special€request€was€tendered,€and€no€objection€was€made€to€the€charge.Ìà àPope€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial,€complaining€(1)€of€the€refusal€of€the€trialÏjudge€to€allow€evidence€that€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Labor€had€never€citedÏPope€for€an€OSHA€violation,€(2)€of€the€dismissal€of€Smith€by€motion€for€directedÏverdict,€(3)€of€the€submission€to€the€jury€the€issue€of€Popeððs€vicarious€liability,€(4)€theÏadmission€of€hearsay€testimony,€(5)€the€failure€to€grant€Popeððs€motion€for€a€directed€œÌverdict.›Ìà àCoupled€with€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€a€motion€for€judgment€NOV,Ïwhich€we€reproduce€òòin€haec€verba:ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ½ Òò òÓÓÓ  Óóóœð ðII.›€€FOR€JUDGMENT€NOTWITHSTANDING€THE€VERDICTÏDUE€TO€THE€EXCLUSIVE€REMEDY€PROVISIONS€OFÏTENNESSEE€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€STATUTES:ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAlternatively,€Popeððs€is€entitled€to€a€JudgmentÏNotwithstanding€the€Verdict€either€dismissing€plaintiffððs€tort€actionÏagainst€it€for€lack€of€jurisdiction€or€entering€a€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€the€verdict€and€finding€this€to€be€a€workers€[sic]Ïcompensation€matter,€for€which€jurisdiction€as€a€civil€tort€case€doesÏnot€lie,€and€giving€plaintiff€judgment€instead€for€the€statutorilyÏprescribed€workers€compensation€exclusive€remedy€for€wrongfulÏdeath€with€no€dependents.€€The€Plaintiffððs€Complaint,€the€Answer€ofÏPopeððs€and€of€E&C€and€the€extensive€argument€over€the€availabilityÏof€certain€statutory€defenses€under€workers€compensation€duringÏtrial€itself€show€that€the€applicability€and€availability€of€workersÏcompensation€was€at€issue€in€this€matter.€€Plaintiffððs€and€E&CððsÏpresentation€of€evidence€and€able€arguments€to€this€Court€and€toÏthe€jury€demonstrate€without€reservation€the€plaintiffððs€position€thatÏPopeððs€was€a€ð ðstatutory€employerðð€of€the€decedent,€subject€to€theÏworkers€compensation€statutes.€€The€juryððs€decision,€based€on€thatÍproof€and€arguments,€shows€this€to€be€an€action€governed€by€theÏTennessee€Workerððs€Compensation€statutes,€and€accordingly,Ïplaintiffððs€sole€and€exclusive€remedy€is€under€that€statutory€œscheme.ðð›ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ  ÒÒ 9 ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àIn€its€motion€for€judgment€NOV,€Pope€squarely€presented€the€issue€it€nowÏrelies€on,€and€we€reluctantly€hold€that€the€defense€was€never€properly€pleaded.€€WeÏagree€that€the€complaint,€the€answer€of€Pope,€the€answer€of€Carroll€and€theÏarguments€raised€the€tort€immunity€issue€to€an€extent,€but€Pope€never€pleaded€theÏAct€as€an€affirmative€defense;€neither€did€it€offer€evidence,€or€make€an€offer€of€proof,Ïthat€its€workersðð€compensation€liability€was€involved,€as€required€by€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.Ïððóó€50„6„405€òòet.€seq.óóÌà àWe€are€frank€to€say€that€aspects€of€the€case€are€troubling,€especially€theÏòòmotion€in€limineóó€to€exclude€evidence€of€workersðð€compensation€coverage.€€But€PopeÏdid€not€plead€in€the€alternative,€made€no€offer€of€proof,€and€made€no€motion€toÏamend.€€The€motion€for€summary€judgment€did€not€raise€the€issue,€and€we€hold€thatÏPope€waived€the€defense€of€the€Act.€€òòœHammett›,€supra;€œPikeville›€Fuel,€supra,óó€and€allÏof€the€cases€available€to€us€hold€that€the€defendant€must€raise€the€exclusiveÏworkersðð€compensation€remedy€as€an€affirmative€defense€or€waive€it.€€òòœKaley›€v.ÏCatalina€Yachts,óó€187€Cal.€App.€œ3rd›€1187€(1986);€òòœDeRosa›€v.€Albert€F.€Ambling€Co.,óóÏ404€œN.E.›€2d€564€(Ill.€1980);€òòTurner€Const.€Co.€v.€œHebner›,óó€419€A.2d€488€(Pa.€1980);ÏòòœAmmons›€v.€Hood,óó€341€œS.E.2d›€816€(S.C.€App.€1986);€òòMurray€v.€City€of€N.Y.€óó372ÏœN.E.2d›€560€(N.€Y.€1977);€òòGordon€v.€œNKC›€Hosp.,€Inc.,óó€887€S.W.2d€360€(Ky.€1994)Ï(after€a€judgment€was€rendered€in€favor€of€plaintiff,€defendant€sought€to€raise€theÏexclusive€remedy€of€workersðð€compensation€as€a€defense.€€The€Court€held€that€theÏdefense€must€have€been€plead€and€proven€at€trial.)Ìà àWe€will€briefly€respond€to€the€third€issue€which€complains€of€the€refusal€of€theÏtrial€judge€to€allow€Pope€to€present€evidence€that€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏLabor€took€no€punitive€action€against€it€for€any€OSHA€violation.€€The€matter€wasÏchiefly€discretionary,€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€œMut›.€Fire€œIns›.€Co.,€óó850€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.Ï1992),€and€it€involved€proof€of€the€negative,€largely€irrelevant.× ƒ" ××  ×€€òòSee,€Williams€œv.›ÏBrown,€óó860€S.W.2d€854€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant€and€the€case€œisÌÌ›€remanded.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌœCharles›€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌœ›Ô% € Ô