ÿWPC[" …# VUNa %¯ 0µUD¼ 4  # w@# U<c 0KŸ 0Dê 0J.x 0T€ 0^Ô 0h2 0rš 0|  0†ˆ 0 1užU, 0d? B£U,ÀU>ìU**B)TDC} AMÀ D3 U*@ïj 0@YÌ™v~evÓã AO¶ Æ! 0DË! D/" B>"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ß Ñ$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XgØXXXÔÑ7€UXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularyJÚ 3|x) [TEUUîÓ€)-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman(û(3i$¤¤Ý ƒ Ñ!ÝÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XÖuXXXÔÑ7€ÖuXXdìdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ6,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÂÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔUnder€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€as€itÏexisted€in€1985,€governmental€entities€could€not€be€tried€by€a€jury,ÏT.C.A.€€ðð€29„20„307.€€Subsequently,€prior€to€the€1994€trial,€the€caseÏwas€bifurcated€to€allow€the€nongovernmental€defendant€a€jury€trial.€ÏThus,€Worsham€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ Ôà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÏOF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏJACKSONÌà àà àÏ_______________________________________________ÌÌLISA€GRIGGS,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNo.Ï02A01„9504„CV„00087ÌÙ€€ÙßL€),(;+'h|,Í` ˆ, `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Law€No.€11857Ìò òJAMES€P.€MIXON,€JIMMY€R.€WORSHAM,ÌGENE€BARKSDALE,€SHERIFF€OF€SHELBYÌCOUNTY,€TENNESSEE,€and€SHELBYÌCOUNTY,€TENNESSEE,€ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellants.Ì_________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OFÏSHELBY€COUNTYÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€KAY€S.ÏROBILIO,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àJohn€M.€Moore,€Kirpatrick,ÏMoore€&€Westbrook,€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Plaintiff„AppelleeÌÌà@ àM.€Dell€Stiner,€Assistant€Shelby€County€AttorneyÌà@ àFor€Defendants„AppellantsÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌÓÓÑ7€ÖuXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà àThis€is€a€governmental€tort€liability€case€arising€out€of€anÏautomobile€collision.€€Defendants,€James€P.€Mixon;€Gene€Barksdale,ÏSheriff€of€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€and€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,Ïappeal€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€plaintiff,€LisaÏGriggs,€damages€for€personal€injury.Ìà àIn€June,€1985,€plaintiff€sued€the€above„named€defendants€andÍdefendant€James€Worsham× ƒ. ××  ×€for€personal€injury€resulting€from€anÏautomobile€collision€which€occurred€November€7,€1984.€€After€a€nonjuryÏtrial€in€November,€1994,€the€court€assessed€plaintiffððs€damages€atÏ$110,000.00,€attributed€fifty„one€percent€fault€to€Mixon,€forty„nineÏpercent€to€Worsham,€and€awarded€judgment€against€Mixon,€the€Sheriff,Ïand€Shelby€County€in€the€amount€of€$56,100.00.€€Defendants€haveÏappealed€and€present€three€issues€for€review.Ìà àA€review€of€the€record€reveals€the€following€pertinent€facts:€€›€OnÏNovember€8,€1984,€at€approximately€8:55€p.m.,€€defendant€Mixon€and€hisÏpartner,€David€Gallagher,€reserve€officers€in€the€sheriffððs€department,Ïwere€patrolling€in€southeast€Memphis;€more€specifically,€the€areaÏencompassing€the€intersection€of€Winchester€and€Mendenhall.€€Mixon€andÏGallagher€received€a€general€broadcast€from€the€Shelby€CountyÏSheriffððs€dispatcher€requesting€that€all€units€be€on€the€lookout€for€aÍvehicle€with€stolen€plates€that€had€been€stopped€earlier€and€released.€ÏAfter€hearing€the€broadcast,€Mixon€and€Gallagher€pulled€into€the€ToddleÏHouse€parking€lot€near€the€northeast€corner€of€Winchester€andÏMendenhall.€€Soon€thereafter,€the€officers€heard€a€second€broadcastÏwhich€informed€them€that€a€fugitive€unit€had€located€the€car€with€theÏstolen€plates€near€the€intersection€of€Winchester€and€Getwell,Ïapproximately€one€mile€away€from€Mixonððs€location,€and€intended€toÏpull€it€over.€€Upon€hearing€that€information,€Mixon€called€the€dispatcherÏand€asked€whether€he€and€Gallagher€should€ð ðpull€over,ðð€a€œterm€in€policeÏparlance€which›€apparently€means€œto€initiate›€backup.€€According€to€theÏuncontradicted€testimony€of€Mixon,€the€dispatcher€stated:€ð ðcheck€showÏyou€pulling€œover,ðð€which€confirmed€that€they€should€perform€backupÏduties€for€the€other€officers.›€€Ìà àMixon€testified€that€he€turned€on€his€siren€and€flashing€blueÏlights€and€exited€the€Toddle€House€parking€lot,€turning€to€his€right,€orÏwestbound,€on€Winchester.€€While€the€testimony€of€all€of€the€eyeÏwitnesses€indicates€that€Mixonððs€lights€were€on,€there€is€conflictingÏtestimony,€as€discussed€òòinfraóó,€as€to€whether€his€siren€was€on,€and€ifÍso,€the€amount€of€time€that€it€was€on€prior€to€the€accident.€€MixonÏœtestified›€that€he€drove€the€patrol€car€to€within€five€to€ten€feet€of€theÏintersection€of€Mendenhall€and€Winchester,€where€the€light€was€red€forÏwestbound€traffic€on€œWinchester,€›€œstopped›€his€patrol€car,€ensured€thatÏthe€intersection€was€clear€of€traffic,€and€œthen€proceeded›€into€theÏintersection.€€Again,€there€is€conflicting€testimony€on€œwhether€heÏactually€stopped€or€slowed€his€vehicle,€but›€regardless,€it€is€clear€fromÏthe€record€that€Mixon€either€slowed€or€stopped€his€patrol€car€prior€toÏentering€the€intersection.Ìà àAfter€Mixon€advanced€œapproximately€twenty„eight›€œfeet€into›€theÏintersection,€his€patrol€car€collided€with€œa€black›€Grand€Prix€driven€byÏdefendant€œWorsham,€heading€north€on€Mendenhall.€€›€Worshamððs€vehicleÏhad€come€fifty„eight€feet€into€the€œintersection,€and€the›€front€end€ofÏMixonððs€car€struck€the€right€side€of€Worshamððs€vehicle.€Ì€à àAfter€the€initial€collision€involving€Worsham€and€Mixonððs€cars,ÏWorshamððs€€œcar€spun›€and€hit€the€automobile€driven€by€plaintiff,€a€1971ÏMaverick€stopped€in€the€left€hand€turn€lane€on€Mendenhall,€facingÏsouthbound.€€The€force€of€the€Worsham€vehicle€knocked€Plaintiffððs€carÍsixty„nine€feet,€causing€it€to€jump€the€curb€on€the€east€side€onÏMendenhall.€€All€three€vehicles€sustained€major€damage.€€Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€a€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,Ïwe€review€the€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absentÏerror€of€law.€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àAppellants€present€three€issues€on€appeal.€€We€will€considerÏappellantsðð€first€and€second€issues€together.€€Those€issues,€as€stated€inÏthe€brief,€are:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€not€making€a€findingÏthat€the€Sheriffððs€patrol€car€was€being€operatedÏpursuant€to€an€emergency?ÌÌà8 àà8 àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€not€making€a€findingÏthat€the€Sheriffððs€patrol€car€was€being€operatedÏwith€its€flashing€lights€and€siren€in€operation?ÌÌÓÓà àœThe€governmental€defendants€rely€on€T.C.A.€€ðð€55„8„108€(1993)€toÏjustify€the€failure€to€obey€the€red€traffic€control€signal€at€theÏintersection.€€A€police€vehicle€is€an€authorized€emergency€vehicle.€€ÍT.C.A.€ðð€55„8„101(2)(A)€(1993).€€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„8„108€provides,€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€The€driver€of€an€authorized€emergencyÏvehicle,€when€responding€to€an€emergency€call,Ïor€when€in€the€pursuit€of€an€actual€or€suspectedÏviolator€of€the€law,€or€when€responding€to€butÏnot€upon€returning€from€a€fire€alarm,€mayÏexercise€the€privileges€set€forth€in€this€section,Ïbut€subject€to€the€conditions€herein€stated.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€The€driver€of€an€authorized€emergencyÏvehicle€may:ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Proceed€past€a€red€or€stop€signal€or€stopÏsign,€but€only€after€slowing€down€as€may€beÏnecessary€for€safe€operation;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€Exceed€the€speed€limits€so€long€as€life€orÏproperty€are€not€thereby€endangered€.€.€.€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€The€exemptions€herein€granted€to€anÏauthorized€emergency€vehicle€shall€apply€onlyÏwhen€such€vehicle€is€making€use€of€audible€andÏvisual€signals€meeting€the€requirements€of€theÏapplicable€laws€of€this€state€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(d)€The€foregoing€provisions€shall€not€relieve€theÏdriver€of€an€authorized€emergency€vehicle€fromÍthe€duty€to€drive€with€due€regard€for€the€safetyÏof€all€persons,€nor€shall€such€provisions€protectÏthe€driver€from€the€consequences€of€the€driverððsÏown€reckless€disregard€for€the€safety€of€others.€€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€made€no€specific€findings€of€fact;€thus,€it€is€notÏclear€whether€the€court€allocated€51%€of€the€fault€to€Mixon€because€noÏemergency€existed,€because€Mixon€did€not€have€his€siren€on,€or€for€someÏother€reason.€€Our€review€of€the€record,€however,€indicates€that€anÏemergency,€as€contemplated€by€T.C.A.€ðð€55„8„108,€did€exist.€€Mixon€andÏGallagher€clearly€had€some€basis€to€treat,€and€did€treat,€the€situationÏas€an€emergency.€€€Mixon€testified€that€the€dispatcher€does€notÏdetermine€whether€a€particular€incident€is€an€emergency;€rather,€thatÏdetermination€is€up€to€the€individual€officer.€€The€definition€ofÏð ðemergencyðð€is€somewhat€subjective;€whether€a€true€emergency€existsÏmay€often€be€determined€only€by€hindsight.€€In€the€unique€situationsÏthat€officers€of€the€law€frequently€find€themselves,€what€appears€to€beÏof€little€consequence€may€later€be€considered€a€great€emergency,€andÏvice€versa.€€We€therefore€hold,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,Ïthat€Officer€Mixonððs€determination€that€an€emergency€existed€wasÍsufficient€to€call€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€55„8„108€into€play.Ìà àThe€next€question€is€whether€Officer€Mixon€complied€with€theÏrequirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€55„8„108;€that€is,€were€his€audible€and€visualÏsignals€working,€and€did€he€exercise€due€regard€for€the€safety€of€othersÏwhile€responding€to€the€emergency.€€Ìà àMixon€testified€that€his€blue€lights€and€siren€were€on€when€heÏleft€the€Toddle€House€parking€lot.€€Mixon€further€testified€that€heÏstopped€his€car€five€to€ten€feet€before€the€intersection,€ensured€theÏway€was€clear,€and€then€proceeded.€€Gallagher,€Mixonððs€partner,Ïcorroborated€Mixonððs€testimony€that€the€siren€and€blue€lights€were€onÏwhen€he€and€Mixon€left€the€Toddle€House,€and€that€Mixon€stopped€theÏpatrol€car€before€entering€the€intersection.€€Gallagher€testified€that€heÏsaw€Worshamððs€car€immediately€prior€to€the€accident€and€yelled€aÏwarning€to€Mixon,€however,€Mixon€did€not€see€Worshamððs€car€until€afterÏthe€accident.Ìà àEugene€Pennington,€a€witness€stopped€in€the€left€hand€turn€laneÏdown€the€street€from€the€intersection,€testified€that€he€heard€what€heÏbelieved€to€be€the€patrol€carððs€siren€€before€he€saw€the€blue€lights.€ÍPennington€also€testified€that€Mixonððs€car€either€paused€or€stoppedÏbefore€entering€the€intersection.€€Ìà àA€transcript€of€the€testimony€of€David€Futrell€and€Kelley€GuthrieÏin€a€prior€proceeding€was€introduced.€€They€testified€that€they€were€inÏa€corner€gas€station€and€saw€the€blue€lights€but€did€not€hear€the€patrolÏcarððs€siren€until€just€at€the€point€of€collision,€when€it€clicked€on€andÏthen€off€again.€€Both€Futrell€and€Guthrie€testified€that€Mixonððs€carÏslowed,€but€did€not€stop,€before€entering€the€intersection.Ìà àWorsham€told€the€investigating€police€officer€that€he€saw€OfficerÏMixonððs€lights,€but€did€not€hear€a€siren.€€€Officer€Jones€testified€thatÏMixon€said€he€ð ðchecked€upðð€at€the€intersection,€and€the€officerÏinterpreted€that€phrase€as€meaning€that€Mixon€ð ðdidnððt€come€to€a€totalÏstop€but€thought€he€had€control€of€the€intersection€and€then€proceededÏon.ðð€€€Ìà àRegarding€the€question€of€whether€Mixon€exercised€due€regard€forÏthe€safety€of€others€when€entering€the€intersection,€the€testimony€ofÏplaintiff,€Futrell,€Guthrie,€and€Pennington€that€all€of€the€traffic€at€theÏMendenhall/€Winchester€intersection€was€stopped€prior€to€the€time€thatÍMixon€and€Worsham€entered€the€intersection€is€significant.€€It€isÏapparent€from€the€testimony€of€these€eye€witnesses€that€they€were€allÏaware€of€the€presence€of€an€emergency€vehicle.€€Worsham,€however,Ïmade€the€following€statement€to€Officer€Jones€at€the€scene:€€ð ðI€startedÏto€stop€and€then€I€changed€my€mind€and€I€thought€it€would€be€better€toÏjust€go.ðð€€Significantly,€Officer€Jones€and€Officer€William€Howard,€aÏsecond€investigating€officer,€as€well€as€Pennington,€testified€€thatÏWorsham€smelled€of€alcohol,€was€swaying,€and€had€blood€shot€eyes.€ÏOfficer€Howard€stated:€ð ðWorsham€was€intoxicated.€€I€smelled€alcohol€onÏhim.€€I€spoke€with€him,€observed€his€speech€to€be€abnormal.€€I€observedÏhis€attempts€to€perform€simple€tests€to€measure€his€€level€ofÏintoxication€and€did€observe€a€breath€test€that€was€administered€to€himÏby€a€DWI€officer.ðð€€€The€record€shows€that€Worsham€admitted€that€heÏhad€been€drinking€and€was€arrested€following€the€accident.€€It€isÏunclear€to€what€extent€the€trial€court€relied€on€the€uncontrovertedÏproof€of€Worshamððs€intoxication.€€While€ruling€on€the€case,€the€trialÏcourt€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]t€is€unequivocal€through€the€testimony€ofÍJones€.€.€.€that€Mr.€Mixon€was€coming€forward€andÏthat€rather€than€the€Grand€Prix,€which€WorshamÏoccupied,€broadsiding€Mr.€Mixon,€Mr.€Mixon€isÏbroadsiding€Worsham,€and€Worsham€is€in€front€ofÏMr.€Mixon.€€€à àMr.€Mixon€says€he€never€sawÏhim€.€.€.€until€he€was€upon€him,€but€he€was€there,Ïand€Gallagher€did€see€him,€and€thatððsÏunequivocal.ÌÌÓÓà àAs€previously€stated,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€specificÏfindings€of€fact;€however,€it€is€clear€from€the€testimony€in€the€recordÏthat€Mixonððs€blue€lights€were€flashing.€€Whether€the€siren€was€on€isÏless€clear,€but€we€can€infer€that€the€trial€court€found€against€Mixon€onÏthis€point.€€Although€very€close,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€that€finding.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Ìà àAppellantsðð€final€issue€is€set€forth€below:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDid€the€evidence€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€Shelby€County€deputyÏsheriff€was€guilty€of€negligence€to€the€extent€ofÏ51%€of€the€comparative€fault?Ìà àÌà àà8 àA.€€Whether€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€were€Ìà8 àà àbased€on€sympathy€and€were€not€consistent€withÌà à€à àthe€evidence€or€the€law?ÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€apparent€from€the€testimony€and€the€physical€facts€thatÍWorshamððs€negligence€was€a€substantial€cause€of€the€accident.€€He€wasÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants,€he€was€driving€at€a€high€andÏexcessive€rate€of€speed€under€the€circumstances,€and,€according€to€hisÏown€testimony,€he€saw€the€Mixon€vehicle€but€decided€to€go€on€anyway.€ÏThe€issue€appellants€raise€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allocatingÏthe€percentages€of€fault€as€it€did.€€In€making€its€ruling,€the€trial€courtÏstated:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]tððs€a€very€close€call€on€this€I€will€certainlyÏsay,€very€close€call€and€not€easily€arrived€at,Ïand€the€Court€has€given€it€much€thought,€but€theÏCourt€is€placing€the€responsibility€for€thisÏaccident,€as€the€Court€is€required€to€doÏproportionally,€51€percent€to€Mr.€Mixon€and€49Ïpercent€to€Mr.€Worsham.€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àThe€Court€is€certainly€congizant€of€theÏfact€that€were€the€Court€not€to€do€that,€thereÏwould€be€no€recovery€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiff.€ÏWe€donððt€have€in€the€state€of€Tennessee€a€purelyÏpure€comparative€negligence€statute.€€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€facts€of€this€case€do€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏMixon€was€51%€at€fault,€and€the€statement€quoted€above€indicates€thatÏthe€trial€court€believed€it€had€to€allocate€51%€of€the€fault€to€Mixon€inÏorder€for€the€plaintiff€to€recover.€€We€must€respectfully€disagree€withÍthe€trial€courtððs€conclusion€concerning€the€application€of€theÏcomparative€fault€doctrine€in€Tennessee.€€ò òòòSee€McIntyre€v.€Balentineó óóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€52,€58€(Tenn.€1992)€(stating€that€in€cases€of€multipleÏtortfeasors,€plaintiff€will€be€entitled€to€recover€so€long€as€plaintiffððsÏfault€is€less€than€the€combined€fault€of€all€tortfeasors).€Ìà à€While€there€is€some€evidence€that€Mixonððs€siren€was€not€on,€theÏproof€is€clear€that€his€flashing€lights€were€on,€and€that€he,€at€aÏminimum,€slowed€his€vehicle€prior€to€entering€the€intersection.€€€MixonÏalso€testified€that€he€did€not€see€the€Worsham€vehicle€prior€to€theÏcollision,€although€his€partner€did.€€However,€it€does€not€follow€thatÏ51%€of€the€liability€should€be€attributed€to€Mixon.Ìà àInò òòò€Wright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€177€(1995),€theÏSupreme€Court€stated:€ð ðAlthough€it€is€true€that€the€trier€of€fact€hasÏconsiderable€›latitudeœ€in€allocating€percentages€of€fault€to€negligentÏparties,€ò òòòsee,€e.g.€Martin€v.€Bussartó óóó,€193€N.W.2d€134€(Minn.€1971),Ïappellate€courts€may€alter€those€findings€if€they€are€clearlyÏerroneous.ðð€€ò òòòWrightó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€181.€€We€find€that€this€is€such€aÏcase.€€We€€therefore€modify€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€and€hold€that€theÍnegligence€in€this€case€should€be€allocated€25%€to€Mixon€and€75%€toÏWorsham.€€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modifed€to€allocate€twenty„five€percent€fault€to€appellants€and€seventy„five€percent€to€WorshamÏand€to€award€damages€to€plaintiff€against€appellants€in€the€sum€ofÏ$27,500.00.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€appellants€and€one„half€to€appellee.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌ