ÿWPCž$ …# VUNa %¯ 0µU:Ñ 4  0Ã. 0Dñ 0²5 0Jç1w 1 0T; 0^ 0hí 0rU 0|Ç 0†C 0É 1uYU,Î 0dú B^U,{U>§U*åU*B)9DCb AM¥¼ò D3®‡áv~h 0@ævÓ& AOù"ÆH# 0D$ D/R$ B$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ô%$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XhXXXÔÓÓÑ7€hXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular»~g ÿÿ!3|xÉ(s(2ïÂ$¤¤Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¸„XXXÔÓÓÑ7€…pXXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  ÝѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÔ€òªòXX¸„Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(s2³$¥¥Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¸„XXXÔÓÓÑ7€…pXXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  ÝѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ°„ÒÔ€òªòXX¸„ÔÓ  ÓÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô¾Ó€2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ²Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ15,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó!!!!'ÿÿdxd }Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓAt€the€time€of€the€accident,€Ms.€Harvey€was€driving€an€automobile€owned€by€her€father,€HoidÏQuarles.€€Mr.€Quarles'€claim€for€property€damage€to€his€automobile€was€settled€and€his€claim€was€dismissed.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T 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'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ÔÓÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÑ7€…pXXdìXXdì7ÑÓ  ÓÓÓÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€Lßà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌÌÌSTACY€P.€JARRETT€HARVEYà àà à)Ìand€HOID€QUARLES,€€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àò ò)€€Hamilton€Circuit€No.Ï92CV0551Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.Ï03A01„9505„CV„00277Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌANDREW€GUY€FULMER€andà àà à)ÌRHETT€BUTLER€TRUCKING,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellants.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUITÏCOURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€CHATTANOOGA,ÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€M.ÏSUMMITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJOHN€T.€RICEó óÌChattanooga,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òCLAYTON€M.€WHITTAKERÌó óChattanooga,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee€Stacy€P.€Jarrett€HarveyÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àó óPlaintiff„Appellee,€Stacy€P.€Jarrett€Harvey,× ƒ+ ××  ×€sued€Defendants„Appellants,ÏAndrew€Ñ7€¸„XXdæXXdì7ÑGuy€Fulmer€and€Rhett€Butler€Trucking,€Inc.,€for€injuries€sustained€in€anÏautomobile€accident€which€occurred€in€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee.€€The€lower€courtÏdirected€a€verdict€against€the€Appellants€on€the€issue€of€liability€and€sent€the€case€toÏthe€jury€on€the€issue€of€damages€only.€€The€jury€returned€with€a€verdict€of€$40,000€inÏfavor€of€Ms.€Harvey.€The€trial€court€overruled€Appellants'€Motion€for€a€New€Trial€andÏRemittitur.€€This€appeal€followed.€€Ì€ò òÌó óà àThe€automobile€accident€which€gave€rise€to€the€present€suit€occurred€on€March€Ï7,€1991.€€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€Fulmer€was€driving€southbound€on€I„75€in€a€1983ÏInternational€18€wheel€tractor„trailer€truck.€Ms.€Harvey€entered€I„75,€also€travelingÏsouthbound,€in€a€1981€Pontiac€Lemans.€€She€looked€through€her€left€window€to€seeÍwhether€there€was€any€oncoming€traffic.€€She€saw€Mr.€Fulmer's€truck€in€the€distanceÏbehind€her.€€Harvey€stated€that€she€entered€the€expressway€in€the€right€hand€lane€andÏdid€not€change€lanes.€€She€alleges,€and€Appellants€do€not€dispute,€that€Fulmer€movedÏinto€the€right€hand€lane,€damaging€Harvey's€car€where€the€lug€nuts€of€his€front€driveÏwheel€made€contact€with€the€left€front€well€of€her€automobile.€€ÌÌà àBoth€parties€pulled€off€the€interstate€after€the€accident.€€Harvey€stated€that€sheÏdid€not€feel€hurt,€just€upset.€€She€went€to€work€later€that€day,€but€left€at€5:00€p.m.,Ïcomplaining€of€headache€and€nausea.€€Harvey€saw€her€personal€physician,€Dr.€Drake,Ïthat€night.€€€The€next€day€Ms.€Harvey€visited€Chiropractor€Methvin,€in€Atlanta.€€PlaintiffÏcontinued€to€see€Dr.€Methvin€until€July,€1991.€In€November,€1991,€Harvey€came€underÏthe€care€of€Chiropractor€Lindsay€Hathcock.€€She€quit€seeing€Chiropractor€Hathcock€inÏearly€1992€due€to€pregnancy.€Ms.€Harvey€had€a€child€on€June€16,€1992.€€She€beganÏseeing€Chiropractor€Ronald€Free€two€weeks€later€and€continued€to€see€him€untilÏDecember,€1993.€At€the€advice€of€Chiropractor€Free,€Harvey€began€seeing€Dr.€WalterÏKing€in€October,€1992.€€€Dr.€King€gave€Harvey€a€10%€permanent€impairment€rating.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Harvey€sought€damages€for€an€alleged€509€days€of€work€missed€andÏ$19,700€in€wages€lost€as€a€result€of€the€accident.€€€Although€there€was€some€evidenceÏthat€she€missed€work€due€to€family€considerations,€the€majority€of€the€proof€showedÏthat€her€inability€to€work€was€due€to€pain€and€sleeplessness€caused€by€the€accident.€€ÏMs.€Harvey€also€sought€damages€for€medical€expenses€related€to€the€accident€and€forÏpast€and€anticipated€pain€and€suffering.€€ÌÌà àAppellants€present€seven€issues€on€appeal.€€The€first€issue€is€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€failing€to€allow€each€Appellant€four€peremptory€challenges,€for€a€total€ofÏeight€challenges,€as€permitted€by€T.C.A.€ðð€22„3„105(b)€(Michie€1994).€€That€statuteÏprovides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€the€event€there€is€more€than€one€(1)€party€plaintiff€or€moreÏthan€one€(1)€party€defendant€in€a€civil€action,€four€(4)Ïadditional€challenges€shall€be€allowed€to€such€side€or€sidesÏof€the€case;€and€the€trial€court€shall€in€its€discretion€divideÏthe€aggregate€number€of€challenges€between€the€parties€onÏthe€same€side€which€shall€not€exceed€eight€(8)€challengesÏto€the€side,€regardless€of€the€number€of€parties.€€Even€whenÏtwo€(2)€or€more€cases€are€consolidated€for€trial€purposes,Ïthe€total€challenges€shall€be€(8),€as€herein€provided.€€ÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòTuggle€v.€Allright€Parking€Systems,€Inc.óó,€No.€02A01„9306„CV„00136,€1994ÏWL€587081€(Tenn.€App.€W.S.€Oct.€18,€1994),€òòperm.€to€app.€grantedóó,€Jan.€30,€1995,€€thisÏCourt€considered€the€effect€of€a€trial€court's€failure€to€allow€a€party€the€number€ofÏperemptory€challenges€permitted€by€statute.€€We€stated:€€"[W]here€plaintiffs€wereÏaffirmatively€denied€the€number€of€peremptory€challenges€to€which€they€were€entitledÏby€statute,€a€new€trial€must€be€granted."€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.€€However,€òòTuggleóó€does€not€changeÏthe€longstanding€rule€that€in€order€to€object€to€a€trial€court's€failure€to€grant€the€properÏnumber€of€peremptory€challenges,€the€party€must€first€request€additional€challengesÏand€be€denied.€€òòMfg.€Co.€v.€Morrisóó,€105€Tenn.€654,€58€S.W.2d€651€(1900).€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€that€Appellants'€counselÏaffirmatively€requested€an€additional€challenge.€ÌÌà àCounsel€for€both€the€Appellants€and€the€Appellee€refer€to€the€fact€thatÏAppellants'€counsel€mentioned€his€right€to€four€additional€challenges€at€an€unrecordedÏbench€conference.€€As€counsel€for€the€Appellee€states,€this€Court€has€no€way€ofÏknowing€whether€Appellants€failed€to€receive€the€appropriate€number€of€challenges,€orÏwhether€counsel€for€the€Appellants€merely€failed€to€properly€request€the€additionalÏchallenges.€The€only€reference€to€Appellants'€alleged€request€for€additionalÏchallenges€is€in€Appellants'€Motion€for€a€New€Trial.€€There€is€no€record€of€Appellants'Ïrequest€for€additional€challenges€in€the€actual€transcript€of€the€proceedings.€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€may€only€review€matters€that€appear€in€the€record.€òòRichmond€v.ÏRichmondóó,€690€S.W.2d€534,€535€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€€€It€is€well€settled€that€"a€motion€forÏa€new€trial€is€a€pleading€and€it€is€not€evidence€of€what€occurred€on€the€trial."€€òòKoehn€v.ÏHooperóó,€193€Tenn.€417,€246€S.W.2d€68€(Tenn.€1952)€(citations€omitted).€€Accordingly,Ïstatements€of€counsel€contained€in€the€Motion€for€a€New€Trial€may€not€be€reviewed€byÏthis€Court€on€appeal.€€We€hold€that€on€the€record€before€us,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏfailing€to€allow€Appellants€four€additional€peremptory€challenges.€ÌÌà àAppellants'€second€issue€presented€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏgranting€Appellants€a€new€trial€as€a€result€of€affirmative€jury€misconduct.€€AppellantsÏargue,€based€on€a€juror's€affidavit,€that€the€jury's€verdict€was€influenced€by€Juror€#79'sÏcomments€about€his€personal€experiences€with€pain.€€ÌÌà àBefore€this€Court€may€consider€whether€alleged€jury€misconduct€occurred,€weÍmust€have€competent€evidence€on€that€issue.€€Affidavits€concerning€jury€deliberationsÏare€admissible€only€in€limited€circumstances,€as€defined€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b)Ï(Michie€1995),€which€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àInquiry€into€the€Validity€of€Verdict€or€Indictment.€„„€Upon€anÏinquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€or€indictment,€a€juror€mayÏnot€testify€as€to€any€matter€or€statement€occurring€during€theÏcourse€of€the€jury's€deliberations€or€to€the€effect€of€anythingÏupon€any€juror's€mind€or€emotion€as€influencing€that€juror€toÏassent€to€or€dissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictment€orÏconcerning€the€juror's€mental€processes,€except€that€a€jurorÏmay€testify€on€the€question€of€whether€extraneousÏprejudicial€information€was€improperly€brought€to€the€jury'sÏattention,€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperlyÏbrought€to€bear€upon€any€juror,€or€whether€the€jurorsÏagreed€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotient€or€gamblingÏverdict€without€further€discussion;€nor€may€a€juror's€affidavitÏor€evidence€of€any€statement€by€the€juror€concerning€aÏmatter€about€€which€the€juror€would€be€precluded€fromÏtestifying€be€received€for€these€purposes.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòCaldararo€v.€Vanderbilt€Universityóó,€794€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€thisÏCourt€considered€whether€the€alleged€misconduct€of€Mr.€Hicks,€the€jury€foreman€in€thatÏcase,€contaminated€the€verdict.€€òòCaldararoóó€involved€alleged€malpractice€on€the€part€of€ÏCaldararo's€nurses.€€Mr.€Caldararo,€who€was€a€chronic,€insulin„dependent€diabetic,Ïwent€to€the€hospital€to€receive€treatment€for€an€infection€in€his€foot.€€òòIdóó.€at€740.€€After€heÏreturned€to€his€room,€he€went€into€cardiopulmonary€arrest.€€òòIdóó.€€Before€his€doctors€wereÏable€to€restore€his€circulation€and€breathing,€Mr.€Caldararo€suffered€brain€damage€dueÏto€lack€of€oxygen.€€òòIdóó.€€Caldararo's€wife€sued€the€hospital,€alleging€that€the€failure€of€herÏhusband's€attending€nurses€to€diagnose€his€condition€caused€a€delay€in€care€whichÏresulted€in€brain€damage€to€Mr.€Caldararo.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àMr.€Hicks'€wife€was€a€surgical€nurse€at€the€time€Caldararo€was€a€patient€atÏVanderbilt.€€Although€counsel€were€aware€of€that€fact,€Hicks€was€seated€in€the€jury.€òòIdóó.Ïat€741.€€During€deliberations,€Hicks€told€the€jurors€that€nurses€know€how€to€tell€whetherÏa€patient€is€not€breathing€properly,€or€whether€difficulty€in€breathing€is€due€to€theÏpatient's€diabetes.€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellants€in€òòCaldararoóó,€with€the€support€of€juror€affidavits,Ïsought€to€invalidate€the€verdict,€urging€that€Hicks'€comments€constituted€"external"Ïinformation€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b).ÌÌà àThe€òòCaldararoóó€court€found€that€the€jurors'€affidavits€were€not€competentÏevidence€because€they€failed€to€allege€facts€which€constituted€external€influence.€€€TheÏcourt€stated€that€external€influences€include€"(1)€exposure€to€new€items€about€the€trial,Ï(2)€consideration€of€facts€not€admitted€in€evidence,€and€(3)€communications€with€non„jurors€about€the€case."€€òòIdóó.€at€742.€€Internal€influences,€which€would€not€invalidate€aÏjury's€verdict,€include€"(1)€discussions€among€jurors,€(2)€intimidation€or€harassment€ofÏone€juror€by€another,€(3)€a€juror's€personal€experiences€not€directly€related€to€theÏlitigation,€and€(4)€a€juror's€subjective€thoughts,€fears,€and€emotions.€€òòIdóó.€€The€òòCaldararoóóÏcourt€found:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àNone€of€the€statements€attributed€to€Mr.€Hicks€indicate€thatÏhe€had€any€prior€or€extraneous€knowledge€of€the€parties€orÏof€the€events€that€gave€rise€to€this€suit.€€At€most,€he€claimedÏto€have€some€specialized€knowledge€about€diabetics€andÏproper€resuscitation€procedures,€presumably€because€heÏwas€married€to€a€nurse.€€This€is€not€the€type€of€extraneousÏinformation€that€requires€us€to€overturn€a€verdict.€€òòÌÌIdóó.€at€744.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àMuch€like€Mr.€Hicks€in€òòCaldararoóó,€Juror€#79€in€the€case€at€bar€did€not€claim€toÏhave€prior€or€extraneous€knowledge€about€the€parties€or€the€lawsuit€generally.€€LikeÏMr.€Hicks,€he€had€"specialized€knowledge"€about€a€factor€in€the€case,€long€term€pain,Ïthat€derived€from€personal€experience.€€€ÌÌà àTrial€courts€cannot€prevent€jurors€from€being€influenced€by€their€ownÏbackgrounds€and€experiences,€as€well€as€the€backgrounds€and€experiences€of€fellowÏjurors.€€These€facts€are€the€"very€human€elements€that€constitute€one€of€the€strengths€ofÏthe€jury€system."€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€McKinneyóó,€429€F.2d€1019,€1022„23€(5thÏCir.€1970),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€401€U.S.€922,€91€S.€Ct.€910,€27€L.Ed.2d€825€(1971)).€€We€holdÏthat€the€affidavit€concerning€the€statements€of€Juror€#79€does€not€contain€evidence€ofÏextraneous€prejudicial€information.€€Thus,€the€affidavit€is€€incompetent€under€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€609(b)€and€does€not€provide€a€basis€for€invalidating€the€verdict.€€€ÌÌ€à àWe€consider€Appellants'€third€and€sixth€issues€together.€€Appellants'€third€issueÏis€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€directing€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiffs€on€the€issueÏof€liability.€€Appellants'€sixth€issue€concerns€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€both€failingÏto€direct€a€verdict€in€Appellants'€favor€and€in€its€procedure€regarding€directed€verdicts.€ÌÌà àA€trial€court€may€grant€a€party's€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€where€"theÏevidence,€viewed€reasonably,€supports€one€conclusion.€.€.€.€They€are€inappropriateÏwhere€the€material€facts€are€in€dispute€or€when€substantial€disagreement€existsÏconcerning€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence."€òòPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882ÍS.W.2d€783,€788€(Tenn.€App.€1994)€(citations€omitted).€€In€examining€whether€or€notÏthe€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€party's€motion€for€a€directed€verdict,€the€role€of€anÏappellate€court€is€not€to€reweigh€the€evidence€presented€at€trial;€rather,€it€is€to€take€"theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€motion's€opponent,€allow€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€that€favor€the€opponent,€and€disregard€allÏevidence€to€the€contrary."€€òòIdòòóó.ÌÌ€€óóà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€granted€Appellee's€Motion€for€a€Directed€VerdictÏon€the€issue€of€liability.€€€The€evidence€reveals€that€Harvey€entered€the€right€hand€laneÏof€I„75€traveling€at€approximately€fifty„five€miles€per€hour.€€€She€did€not€change€lanes.€ÏFulmer,€who€had€been€in€the€left€hand€lane,€looked€in€his€mirror,€gave€the€properÏsignal,€and€began€to€move€into€the€right€hand€lane.€€€He€did€not€see€Harvey€becauseÏshe€was€in€his€blind€spot.€€€There€is€no€evidence€that€either€party€was€speeding.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòLangford€v.€Arnoldóó,€707€S.W.2d€521€(Tenn.€App.€1985),€this€Court€consideredÏan€automobile€accident€involving€facts€similar€to€the€case€at€bar.€€The€plaintiff€inÏòòLandfordóó€was€traveling€in€the€left€hand,€or€inside€lane€of€Highland€Avenue,€a€four€laneÏhighway€in€Jackson,€Tennessee.€€òòIdóó.€€Defendant€entered€Highland€Avenue€from€I„40,Ïmerging€into€the€right€hand,€or€outside€lane.€€òòIdóó.€at€522.€€An€ambulance€enteredÏHighland€Ave.€behind€the€defendant,€then€passed€her€on€the€right€hand€side€of€whatÏremained€of€the€merger€lane€from€I„40€onto€Highland€Ave.€€òòIdóó.€€Defendant€alleges€thatÏthe€ambulance's€action€caused€her€to€swerve€into€the€left€hand€lane,€where€sheÏcollided€with€the€plaintiff,€whose€automobile€was€almost€parallel€with€defendant'sÍautomobile.€€Defendant€stated€that€she€did€not€see€plaintiff's€automobile€until€after€theÏaccident.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àThe€issue€on€appeal€in€òòLangfordóó€was€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructingÏthe€jury€on€the€issue€of€contributory€negligence.€€This€Court€held€that€there€was€noÏevidence€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€plaintiff:€€"The€proof€is€uncontroverted€that€Ms.ÏLangford€was€at€all€times€in€question€in€her€proper€lane,€with€her€automobile€underÏcontrol,€and€maintaining€a€proper€look„out."€òòIdóó.€€We€held€that,€in€cases€where€there€isÏno€proof€of€negligence,€it€is€error€to€instruct€the€jury€on€that€issue.€òòÌÌà àPostelle€v.€Mercieróó,€1988€WL€86495€(Tenn.€App.€E.S.,€Aug.€19,€1988),€is€aÏsimilar€case€involving€an€accident€caused€because€of€a€driver's€blind€spot.€€In€thatÏcase€the€proof€showed€that€the€accident€occurred€because€defendant€failed€to€seeÏplaintiff's€vehicle,€which€was€in€defendant's€blind€spot.€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.€€This€Court€held€that,Ïin€the€absence€of€proof€of€negligence€by€the€plaintiff,€the€jury€should€not€gave€beenÏinstructed€to€consider€plaintiff's€remote€contributory€negligence.€€òòIdóó.€at€*3.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€lower€court€found€that€Harvey's€actions€were€free€ofÏnegligence.€€Appellee's€counsel€did€not€move€for€a€directed€verdict€on€that€issue€untilÏthe€trial€judge€indicated€that€he€found€no€evidence€of€negligence.€€However,€the€factÏthat€the€trial€judge€prompted€counsel€to€move€for€a€directed€verdict€does€not€implyÏerror,€as€Appellants€suggest,€for€it€is€well€established€that€a€trial€judge€may€grant€aÏdirected€verdict€on€his€own€motion.€€òòEwell€v.€Ruckeróó,€28€Tenn.€App.€156,€187€S.W.2dÍ644€(1945).€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€directing€a€verdict€in€Harvey'sÏfavor€on€the€issue€of€liability.ÌÌà àAppellants€also€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€a€directedÏverdict€on€the€following€issues:€€the€amount€of€days€Harvey€was€unable€to€workÏbecause€of€her€injuries,€the€amount€of€Harvey's€medical€bills,€and€the€nature€of€Ms.ÏHarvey's€permanent€impairment€due€to€the€accident.€€We€find€that€there€wasÏsubstantial€disagreement€as€to€these€issues€and€the€conclusions€that€might€be€drawnÏfrom€the€parties'€evidence.€€Thus,€Appellants€were€not€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict.€ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€50;€€òòPettusóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€788.€€Because€Appellants€were€not€entitledÏto€a€directed€verdict,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€byÏnot€allowing€Appellants'€counsel€to€argue€Appellants'€right€to€a€directed€verdict€on€theÏaforementioned€issues.ÌÌà àAppellants'€fourth€contention€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏcertain€medical€testimony€and€records€into€evidence€which€Appellants€allege€were€notÏsupported€by€expert€testimony€regarding€the€content€of€the€record,€as€to€whether€theÏcharge€was€reasonable€or€necessary,€and€as€to€the€bill's€relation€to€Harvey's€ÏComplaint.€€à àOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€following€medical€expensesÏwere€admitted€into€evidence:€€Dr.€James€Drake,€$65,€Chiropractor€Lindsay€L.ÏHathcock,€$112,€€and€Dr.€Walter€King,€$641.€€There€was€evidence€that€each€of€theÏforegoing€medical€expenses€was€necessary.€€ÌÌà àExhibits€one€through€eight,€which€contain€documentation€of€Harvey's€medicalÏexpenses€totaling€$5,224.70,€were€marked€for€identification.€€Harvey€identified€the€billsÏcontained€in€exhibits€one€through€eight€at€trial.€€Counsel€for€the€Appellants'€did€notÏobject€to€Ms.€Harvey€identifying€the€medical€bills,€and€stated€that€"[the€bills]€can€comeÏin€at€the€proper€time."€€€€However,€the€bills€were€never€admitted€into€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€contains€no€proof€that€the€jury€saw,€or€improperly€considered,€Ïevidence€of€Harvey's€medical€expenses€that€was€not€admitted€as€evidence.€€Moreover,Ïthere€is€no€evidence€that€counsel€for€the€Appellants€objected€to€Harvey€identifying€theÏrecords€of€her€medical€expenses,€nor€is€there€evidence€that€Appellants'€counselÏrequested€a€limiting€jury€instruction€with€regard€to€the€medical€proof.€€Counsel€cannotÏraise€an€objection€to€the€trial€court's€admission€of€evidence,€€òòWright€v.€United€ServicesÏAuto€Assn.óó,€789€S.W.2d€911,€914€(Tenn.€App.€1990),€nor€to€the€trial€court's€jury€charge,ÏòòJohnson€v.€Lawrenceóó,€720€S.W.2d€50,€59„60€€(Tenn.€App.€1986),€€òòappeal€after€remandóó,ÏNo.€89„142„II,€1990€WL€20123€(Tenn.€App.€Mar.€7,€1990),€òòaff'd€and€remandedóó,€No.€01„S„01„9006„CV00054,€1991€WL€147362€(Tenn.€Aug.€5,€1991),€for€the€first€time€onÏappeal.€€€€ÌÌà àAppellants'€fifth€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏsustain€their€Motion€for€Remittitur€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€20„10„102€(Michie€1994).€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€jury's€verdict€of€$40,000.€€There€is€materialÏevidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€jury's€conclusion€that€Harvey€lost€509€days€ofÏwork€because€of€the€accident,€and€that€her€lost€wages€amounted€to€$19,700.€€Dr.ÍWalter€King€treated€Ms.€Harvey.€€He€testified€that€she€had€a€permanent€impairment€ofÏ10%.€€Dr.€King€stated€that€Harvey€had€suffered€pain€in€the€past€and€would€suffer€painÏin€the€future€because€of€the€accident.€€Finally,€$818€of€Harvey's€medical€expensesÏwere€admitted€into€evidence.€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Electric€Co„opóó,€868€S.W.2d€630,€640€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993),€this€Court€stated:€€"When,€as€here,€a€trial€judge€has€approved€a€jury€award,Ïour€review€is€subject€to€the€rule€that€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€theÏaward€it€should€not€be€disturbed."€€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€we€find€that€there€isÏmaterial€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€jury's€award.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏfailing€to€sustain€the€Motion€for€Remittitur.ÌÌà àAppellants'€final€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏAppellee's€counsel€to€read€into€evidence€Appellants'€responses€to€Appellee's€RequestÏto€Admit,€promulgated€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€36.€€The€Request€to€Admit€askedÏAppellants€to€admit€to€the€authenticity€of€certain€documents€concerning€Mr.€Fulmer'sÏemployment€at€Rhett€Butler€Trucking.€€Appellants'€response€€admitted€that€theÏdocuments€were€authentic,€but€objected€to€the€admissibility€of€the€documents€on€theÏgrounds€of€relevancy€and€materiality.€€€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objections€ofÏAppellants'€counsel.€€Ìà àWe€find€that€Fulmer's€status€at€Rhett€Butler€Trucking,€that€is,€whether€he€was€anÏemployee€or€an€independent€contractor,€was€both€material€and€relevant€to€theÏoutcome€of€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€403.€€The€purpose€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€36€is€toÍreduce€the€number€of€issues€that€must€be€proven€at€trial€by€establishing€the€matterÏprior€to€trial.€€€òòTenn.€Dep't€of€Human€Servs.€v.€Barbeeóó,€714€S.W.2d€263,€267€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€The€òòBarbeeóó€court€stated:€€"Unlike€responses€to€other€discovery€proceduresÏwhich€are€evidentiary€and€are€obtained€for€the€purpose€of€introduction€at€trial€andÏsubject€to€contradiction€at€trial,€a€Rule€36€admission,€unless€it€is€allowed€to€beÏwithdrawn€or€amended,€concludes€that€matter€and€avoids€any€need€for€proof€at€trial."€ÏòòIdóó.€at€266.€€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€permitÏAppellee's€counsel€to€read€Appellants'€responses€to€its€Request€to€Admit.ÌÌÌÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€lower€court.€€CostsÏare€taxed€to€Appellants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à