WPC" # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D 0J : 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` 0d B9U>VU6B)DC AM6U* v~v7 D3  0@= AO} 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ aDbcdDefEgDhijӀ "3|xu((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#!  &&   YYY FILED&X June27,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.&AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva 'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !  ݛ P 7,XXdd7\RA'\"  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIKET.HUNTER,   )C/ANO.03A019606CV00207̜R%'$A1-j|`  `@Rߛ      ) PlaintiffAppellee,  )      )      )v.      )      )      )DAMIANV.BURKE;and  )̜DONNIEWEARandJOEGUFFEY, )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEindividuallyanddoingbusiness)BRADLEYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTasJ&DAUTOSALES,   )      ) DefendantsAppellants, )      )and      )      )EDWINTHOMPSON,alsoknown )asEDWARDTHOMPSON,   )      )HONORABLEJOHNB.HAGLER,JR., Defendant.   )JUDGE@ OPINIONONPETITIONFORREHEARING  TheappellantsWearandGuffeyhavefiledapetitionforrehearinginwhichtheyarguethatouropinionoverlooksmaterialfactsintherecord.Theycontendthatthese overlookedfactsmadeoutaquestionforthejury;hence,sotheargumentgoes,thetrialjudgecommittederrorwhenhedirectedaverdictagainstthem.Theyalsoarguethatwewerewrongwhenweheldthatthefailureofthetrialjudgetoinstructthejuryregardingtheprinciplesofcomparativefaultwasharmless.  Specifically,theappellantscontendthatwefailedtoconsiderthefactthatGuffey,oneoftheownersofthecarlot,reported thetheftofthecartothelocalpolicedepartment.ϜTheyalsoassertthatwewerewrongwhenwesaidthattheperiodoftimeBurkewasinpossessionofthecardidnotgiverisetoaninferencethatBurkehadstolenthecarorhadtakenitoutmerelyforajoyride.Wedisagreeonbothpoints.WedidconsiderthatϜGuffeyreportedthecarstolen;however,inthiscase,thatreportdoesnotproveorleadtoareasonableinferencethatthecarwasϜinfactstolen.Onthesecondpoint,thereissimplynoevidencethatpriortotheaccidentBurkehadhadthecaroutforanunusuallengthoftime.ArehearingisnotwarrantedonthesetwoϜpoints.  Ontheissueofcomparativefault,thejuryfoundthatThompsonwasguiltyofnonegligence.Therefore,therewasnofaultonthepartofThompsontowhichthefaultofBurke/Wearand͜Guffeycouldbecompared.Thepetitionforrehearingonthispointislikewisefoundtobewithoutmerit.  Finally,theappellantscontendthatweoverlookedBurkesdepositiontestimony,readtothejury,whereinhestatedthathedidnotgoontothecarlotofWearandGuffey.TheyarguethatthistestimonymadeoutajuryquestionastowhetherBurkewasdriving withtheknowledgeandconsentofWearandϜGuffey.SeeT.C.A.5510311(a).Weagreethatweoverlookedthistestimony;however,wedisagreewiththeappellantsassertionthatitprecludesadirectedverdictfortheplaintiff.  Burkedidnottestifyinpersonatthetrial;however,thejurydid hearfromhimintwodifferentways.First,itlistenedtoatapeofBurkesunswornconfessiontothepolicefollowingtheaccident,inwhichhesaidthatbothheandThompsonwentonthelotandtookpossessionofthecarforatestdrive.ϜFollowingthattestimony,portionsofBurkessworntodepositionwerereadtothejury.Inthedeposition,BurketestifiedthatonlyThompsonwentonthelot;hefurthertestifiedthatThompsonpickedhimupatsomepointawayfromthecarlot,apparentlyoutofthesightofGuffey.ThusitcanbeseenthatBurkesaidhewentonthelotandthenhetestifiedthathedidnotgoonthelot.Hetestified bothways.AtnopointintherecorddoesBurkeattempttoexplainawaythisinconsistency.  TheappellantsurgeustofindthatBurkesdepositiontestimonyisevidencefromwhichajurycouldfindthatBurkedidnotgoonthecarlotandhencecouldnothavebeendriving withtheknowledgeandconsentofWearandGuffey.SeeT.C.A.5510311(a).Theyarguethatifajurysofound,thenitwouldhavetoconcludethatthevicariousliabilitypursuanttoT.C.A.5510311(a)doesnotapplytothiscase.  WebelievethetrialjudgewascorrectinignoringBurkesdepositiontestimony.SinceBurketestified,withoutexplanation,bothtotheaffirmativeandthenegativeofthematteratissuepresenceonthecarlot [t]hesecontradictorystatementseffectivelyeliminate[d]anytestimonyfromthiswitnessonthatfact. Cooperv.Austin ,837S.W.2d606,612(Tenn.App.1992).Seealso Bowersv.Potts ,617S.W.2d149,154(Tenn.App.1981); Taylorv.NashvilleBannerPub.Co .,575ϜS.W.2d476,48283(Tenn.App.1978).WhenBurkesinconsistentstatementsonthispointareeliminated,weareleftwiththetestimonyofotherstotheeffectthatBurkeandThompsonbothwentonthelot,gotthekeysfromGuffey,andleftthelotforatestdrive.Therefore,theelementsofthestatutearesatisfied,andthereisnoevidencetotakethiscaseoutoftheambitofthevicariousliabilityofT.C.A.5510311(a).  If,asthetestimonyoftheotherwitnessesshows,(1)BurkeandThompsonbothwentonthelot;(2)oneaskedtotakeacaroutforatestdrive;and(3)bothleftthelotinthecar,wedonotbelieveitisimportantwhoaskedforthekeysorwhowashandedthekeys.Intheabsenceofanyevidencetothecontrary,bothwouldhavehadthepermissionofGuffeytotestdrivethecar.  Thepetitionforrehearingisdeniedattheappellantscosts.  ITISSOORDERED.  ENTER:       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.