ÿWPC| 6# UN %] 0(cw@‹4Ëß 1mî 0x[ 0DÓ 0cLzU:Æ 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ 0@A D3 B´ U>Ñ U* B)9 AQb Ƴ 0Dy 0D½ D/ B0DCM AMÝâ:ñv~+vÓ©˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Y îYDYUYYgY Y!YÓ€-Y0Y§aö"xúÿÿú, ú3|x0Y #,e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(((2¬5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;³º$´´Ô2,eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd((((7Border 1dd* /Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ûÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAugust€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð29„20„311,€„403€(1980€&€Supp.€1994).Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€'ÔContrary€to€the€Cityððs€argument€on€appeal,€previous€decisions€of€this€court€indicate€that,€inÏcalculating€the€pecuniary€value€of€a€decedentððs€life,€the€fact„finder€properly€may€consider€future€socialÏsecurity€benefits.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcClanahanóó,€1994€WL€248183,€at€*4;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBurrv.€Stateóó,€1987€WL€15842,€at€*7Ï(Tenn.€App.€Aug.21,€1987).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` p›XÓÔ€'ÔÑ7€¶|XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€*ÙßR€01/A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌBRUCE€HUTTON,€Administratorà à)Ìof€the€Estates€of€Floyd€Hutton€andà à)ÌLena€Hutton,€Deceased,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,ò òà à)Ìà àà àó óà àà àà àà àò ò)€€Hardin€Circuit€No.€2403Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9612„CV„00314Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€SAVANNAH,€TENNESSEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.ò òà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€HARDIN€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SAVANNAH,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JULIAN€P.€GUINN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJAMES€A.€HOPPERÌó óSavannah,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òEDWARD€L.€MARTINDALE,€JR.ÌDREW€AND€MARTINDALE,€P.C.Ìó óJackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SR.€J.ó óà àÌÑ7€ærXXdðXXdì7ÑÓÓà àIn€this€wrongful€death€action,€Defendant€City€of€Savannah€appeals€the€trialÏcourtððs€final€judgment€awarding€$260,000€to€Plaintiff/Appellee€Bruce€Hutton,Ïadministrator€of€the€estates€of€his€parents,€Floyd€and€Lena€Hutton.€€For€the€reasonsÏhereinafter€stated,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€but€we€modify€the€amount€of€theÏjudgment.ÌÌà àOn€the€morning€of€March5,€1995,€Floyd€and€Lena€Hutton€were€killed€in€a€carÏaccident€at€the€intersection€of€Highway69€and€Airport€Road€in€Hardin€County.€TheÏweather€was€cloudy€and€rainy€that€morning.€€Employees€of€the€City€of€Savannah€wereÏrepairing€a€broken€water€line€near€the€intersection€when€the€accident€occurred.€€A€stopÏsign€positioned€at€the€intersection€required€traffic€on€Airport€Road€to€stop€beforeÏcrossing€Highway69,€while€vehicles€on€Highway69€were€not€required€to€stop.€€A€CityÏemployee€served€as€the€flagman€directing€traffic€on€Airport€Road€past€the€constructionÏsite€and€through€the€intersection.€€The€flagman€first€saw€the€Huttonsðð€vehicle,€whichÏwas€driven€by€Floyd€Hutton,€when€it€was€still€fifty€to€sixty€feet€away.€€The€HuttonsððÏvehicle€proceeded€west€on€Airport€Road€toward€the€intersection€at€a€speed€of€aboutÍten€miles€per€hour.€€As€the€Huttonsðð€vehicle€proceeded€through€the€intersection,€it€wasÏstruck€by€a€tractor„trailer€traveling€south€on€Highway69.€€The€Huttons€were€killedÏinstantly.€ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiff€subsequently€brought€this€wrongful€death€action€against€the€City€ofÏSavannah.€€At€trial,€the€parties€presented€conflicting€evidence€as€to€the€flagmanððsÏactions€just€prior€to€the€accident.€€The€Cityððs€flagman€testified€that€his€flag€wasÏpositioned€for€traffic€on€Airport€Road€to€stop€as€the€Huttons€approached€theÏintersection.€€After€he€turned€to€check€the€flow€of€traffic€on€Highway69,€he€realized€thatÏthe€Huttonsðð€vehicle€had€not€stopped€at€the€flag€but€had€entered€the€intersection.€€TheÏPlaintiff,€on€the€other€hand,€presented€evidence€that€the€flagman€waved€the€HuttonsÏthrough€the€intersection€without€making€sure€that€no€traffic€was€approaching€onÏHighway69.€€The€driver€of€the€tractor„trailer€testified€that,€shortly€after€the€accident,€theÏflagman€admitted€that€he€flagged€the€Huttons€through€the€intersection€and€that€he€didÏnot€see€the€tractor„trailer€approaching.€Ìà àA€dispute€also€arose€as€to€whether€the€City€had€positioned€its€constructionÏvehicles€alongside€Highway69€so€as€to€block€the€driversðð€views.€€City€employeesÏtestified€that€no€construction€vehicles€were€parked€along€the€east€side€of€Highway69.€ÏThe€tractor„trailer€driver,€however,€testified€that€there€were€vehicles€alongside€theÏhighway€and€that€City€employees€moved€the€vehicles€before€the€police€arrived.€€OtherÏwitnesses€also€testified€that€they€observed€City€vehicles€parked€along€Highway€69.€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€their€deaths,€Floyd€Hutton€was€seventy„nine€years€of€age€andÏLena€Hutton€was€seventy.€€Floyd€Hutton€had€retired€from€Paris€Manufacturing€when€heÏwas€in€his€early€sixties,€and€Lena€Hutton€was€a€homemaker€throughout€the€marriage.€ÏBoth€were€active€and€in€good€health.€€Floyd€Hutton,€who€had€a€life€expectancy€of€6.53Ïyears,€received€social€security€payments€of€$428€each€month.€€Lena€Hutton,€whose€lifeÏexpectancy€was€13.37€years,€received€$427€in€social€security€payments€each€month.€ÏThe€Plaintiff€and€his€wife€and€two€children€lived€next€door€to€the€Huttons.€€The€HuttonsÏhelped€the€Plaintiff€by€feeding€and€seeing€the€children€off€to€school€each€morning€andÏby€picking€up€the€Plaintiffððs€son€from€school€every€afternoon.€€Additionally,€FloydÏHutton€worked€plowing€gardens€for€himself,€his€neighbor,€and€the€Plaintiffððs€brother„in„law.€In€the€summers€Lena€Hutton€engaged€in€gardening€and€canning,€and€in€theÏwinters€she€quilted.€€The€parties€stipulated€that€each€of€the€Huttonsðð€estates€incurredÏ$5,224.47€in€funeral€expenses€and€$157.50€for€ambulance€services.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€final€judgment,€which€awarded€each€of€theÏHuttonsðð€estates€the€maximum€recovery€permitted€by€law,× ƒ2 ××  ×€the€City€presents€theÏfollowing€issues€for€this€courtððs€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àISSUE€NO.1:à à[Whether€the]€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€in€this€case€is€that€the€Huttons€were€guilty€of€moreÏthan€50%€negligence€in€this€accident,€which€negligenceÏwould€bar€them€from€any€recovery.ÌÌà8 àà8 àISSUE€NO.2:à à[Whether€the]€Huttonsðð€recovery€isÏexcessive€and€shocking€under€the€proof€in€this€case,€in€thatÏthere€was€no€proof€presented€by€the€Huttons€of€theÍpecuniary€value€of€each€of€their€lives€as€required€byÏ[Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section]€20„5„113,€i.e.,€futureÏincome€offset€by€reasonable€and€anticipated€livingÏexpenses.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àInasmuch€as€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€below€sitting€without€a€jury,€thisÏcourtððs€review€on€appeal€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€AppellateÏProcedure13(d),€which€directs€us€to€review€the€case€òòde€novoóó.€€òòRobertsv.€RobertsonÏCounty€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€692€S.W.2d€863,€865€(Tenn.€App.€1985);€òòHaverlahv.€MemphisÏAviation,€Inc.óó,€674€S.W.2d€297,€300€(Tenn.€App.€1984);€T.R.A.P.13(d).€€In€conducting€aÏòòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€below,€however,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€correct.€€Under€this€standard€of€review,€we€must€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€unless€the€trial€court€committed€an€error€of€law€affecting€the€resultÏor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòRobertsóó,€692ÏS.W.2d€at€865.€€In€this€regard,€when€a€conflict€in€testimony€requires€the€trial€court€toÏmake€a€determination€regarding€the€credibility€of€a€witness€or€witnesses,€such€aÏdetermination€is€ð ðbinding€on€the€appellate€court€unless€from€other€real€evidence€theÏappellate€court€is€compelled€to€conclude€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòHudsonv.€Cappsóó,€651ÏS.W.2d€243,€246€(Tenn.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€standard,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€liabilityÏissue.€€The€trial€court€found€that€evidence€of€the€Cityððs€negligence€was€overwhelming,Ïand€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€of€liability€against€the€City.€€In€making€this€finding,€the€trial€court€necessarilyÍmust€have€resolved€any€conflict€in€testimony€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiff.€€After€carefullyÏreviewing€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€the€evidence€does€not€compel€aÏcontrary€conclusion.ÌÌà àThe€more€difficult€issue€presented€by€this€case€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏawarding€the€Plaintiff€$130,000€for€each€of€the€Huttonsðð€deaths,€given€the€limitedÏevidence€presented€at€trial€regarding€the€pecuniary€value€of€the€Huttonsðð€lives.€€In€aÏwrongful€death€action€brought€in€Tennessee,€the€plaintiff€has€the€right€to€recover€for€theÏfollowing€damages:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€mental€and€physical€suffering,€loss€of€time,€andÏnecessary€expenses€resulting€to€the€deceased€from€theÏpersonal€injuries,€and€also€the€damages€resulting€to€theÏparties€for€whose€use€Ô&  Ôand€benefit€the€right€of€action€survivesÏfrom€the€death€consequent€upon€the€injuries€received.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð20„5„113€(1994).Ô'  ÔÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€damages€for€the€Huttonsðð€mental€and€physical€sufferingÏwere€not€at€issue€because€the€parties€stipulated€that€the€Huttons€died€instantly.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMcClanahanv.€Claytonóó,€No.01A01„9308„CV„00371,€1994€WL€248183,€at€*3€(Tenn.ÏApp.€June10,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Aug.29,€1994).€€Accordingly,€theÏPlaintiffððs€recovery€was€limited€to€the€necessary€expenses€resulting€from€the€HuttonsððÏinjuries,€which€the€parties€stipulated€to€be€$5,381.97€apiece,€and€the€pecuniary€valueÏof€the€Huttonsðð€lives.€€When€a€plaintiffððs€recovery€is€based€upon€the€pecuniary€value€ofÏthe€decedentððs€life,€the€trial€court€must€make€this€determination€upon€a€consideration€ofÍseveral€factors,€including€the€decedentððs€life€expectancy,€ð ðage,€condition€of€health€andÏstrength,€capacity€for€labor€and€for€earning€money€through€skill€in€any€art,€trade,Ïprofession,€and€occupation€or€business.ðð€€òòThrailkillv.€Pattersonóó,€879€S.W.2d€836,€841Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€The€resulting€amount€should€then€be€reduced€by€deducting€theÏdecedentððs€probable€living€expenses€had€the€decedent€lived.€€òòWallacev.€Couchóó,€642ÏS.W.2d€141,€144€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àCiting€òòMcClanahanv.€Claytonóó,€No.01A01„9308„CV„00371,€1994€WL€248183Ï(Tenn.€App.€June10,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Aug.29,€1994),€the€CityÏcontends€that€the€award€of€damages€in€this€case€should€be€reversed€based€upon€theÏPlaintiffððs€failure€to€prove€the€pecuniary€value€of€the€Huttonsðð€lives.€€In€òòMcClanahanóó,€asÏin€the€present€case,€the€plaintiffsðð€elderly€parents€were€killed€in€an€automobileÏaccident.€€Mrs.€McClanahan€died€instantly,€and€Mr.€McClanahan€died€without€everÏregaining€consciousness,€so€the€primary€issue€at€trial€was€the€pecuniary€value€of€eachÏof€the€decedentððs€lives.€€òòIdóó.,€at€*3.€€The€plaintiffs€presented€proof€concerning€theirÏparentsðð€ages,€life€expectancies,€health,€and€personal€habits.€€òòIdóó.,€at€*4.€€The€plaintiffsÏalso€presented€evidence€that€their€parents€provided€them€with€certain€domesticÏservices,€such€as€babysitting€the€plaintiffsðð€children€(the€decedentsðð€grandchildren).€€òòIdóó.€ÏThe€plaintiffs€failed,€however,€to€present€any€proof€of€the€parentsðð€actual€earningÏcapacity.€€òòIdóó.€€Specifically,€the€plaintiffs€did€not€present€any€proof€concerning€theirÏparentsðð€retirement€income,€such€as€social€security€benefits,€nor€did€they€demonstrateÏthe€value€of€any€of€the€domestic€services€provided€by€the€decedents.€€òòIdóó.€€Based€on€theÏplaintiffsðð€failure€to€prove€the€pecuniary€value€of€their€parentsðð€lives,€the€trial€courtÍlimited€damages€to€the€deceased€parentsðð€medical€expenses€and€funeral€bills.€€òòIdóó.,€atÏ*1.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€this€court€affirmed,€reasoning:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€life€of€every€person€has€value.€€The€value€is€not,Ïhowever,€always€economically€quantifiable.€€Many€times€itÏrests€on€the€emotional€bonds€and€attachments€that€bindÏfamily€members€together.€€Personal€worth€is€not€measuredÏmerely€by€material€accumulations€but€rather€by€a€personððsÏcharacter,€deeds,€and€contributions€to€family,€friends,€andÏthe€community.€€This€appeal€does€not€concern€itself€with€theÏpersonal€value€of€the€lives€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€McClanahan€butÏrather€with€the€narrow€issue€of€the€ð ðpecuniary€valueðð€of€theirÏlives€for€the€purpose€of€[Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection]€20„5„113.€€While€we€have€no€doubt€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏMcClanahanððs€inestimable€value€to€their€family,€we€concurÏwith€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€their€[childrenððs]Ïproof€concerning€the€Ô&  Ôð ðpecuniary€valueðð€of€their€lives€isÏinsufficient€to€warrant€a€monetary€recovery€under€[section]Ï20„5„113.ÌÌòòÓÓMcClanahanóó,€1994€WL€248183,€at€*4.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àThis€courtððs€òòMcClanahanóó€decision€suggests€that,€in€order€for€pecuniary€value€toÏbe€recoverable€under€the€wrongful€death€statutes,€the€value€must€be€ð ðeconomicallyÏquantifiable.ðð€€òòMcClanahanóó,€1994€WL€248183,€at€*4.€€In€the€present€case,€as€inÏòòMcClanahanóó,€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€present€proof€of€the€value€of€the€domestic€servicesÏprovided€to€the€Plaintiff€by€the€decedents,€such€as€feeding€and€seeing€the€PlaintiffððsÏchildren€off€to€school€each€morning€and€picking€up€the€Plaintiffððs€son€from€school€eachÏafternoon.€€The€only€evidence€quantifying€the€pecuniary€value€of€the€Huttonsðð€lives€wasÏthat€Floyd€Hutton€had€a€life€expectancy€of€6.53€years€and€received€social€securityÍpayments€of€$428€each€month,€while€Lena€Hutton€had€a€life€expectancy€of€13.37€yearsÏand€received€$427€in€social€security€payments€each€month.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€If€the€Huttonsðð€expectedÏincomes€are€added€to€their€stipulated€expenses,€this€evidence€justifies€awards€ofÏapproximately€$75,000€for€Lena€Huttonððs€estate€and€$40,000€for€Floyd€Huttonððs€estate,Ïwell€below€the€amounts€awarded€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€decline,€however,€to€interpret€òòMcClanahanóó€as€requiring€a€rigid€mathematicalÏcalculation€based€merely€on€the€decedentððs€earning€capacity€and€life€expectancy.€€TheÏassessment€of€damages€for€the€pecuniary€value€of€a€decedentððs€life€ð ðis€not€governedÏby€fixed€rules€of€mathematical€precision,ðð€but€is€a€matter€left€to€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€finder€of€fact.€€òòThrailkillv.€Pattersonóó,€879€S.W.2d€836,€841€(Tenn.€1994)€(citingÏòòWilkersonv.€Altizeróó,€845€S.W.2d€744,€749€(Tenn.€App.€1992));€òòaccordóó€òòStrotherv.€Laneóó,Ï554€S.W.2d€631,€636€(Tenn.€App.€1976)€(noting€that€there€is€no€set€rule€by€which€toÏmeasure€the€value€of€a€life);€òòCrowev.€Provostóó,€374€S.W.2d€645,€654€(Tenn.€App.€1963)Ï(amount€of€pecuniary€damages€is€not€governed€by€precise€mathematical€formula).€ÏDetermining€the€pecuniary€value€of€a€decedentððs€life,€therefore,€does€not€involveÏmerely€multiplying€the€decedentððs€annual€earning€capacity€by€the€decedentððs€lifeÏexpectancy.€€òòSeeóó€òòThrailkillóó,€879€S.W.2d€at€841€(concluding€that€pecuniary€value€ofÏdecedentððs€life€was€not€merely€what€wages€decedent€might€have€been€able€to€earnÏduring€life€expectancy);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBellamyv.€Sadleróó,€640€S.W.2d€20,€22€(Tenn.€App.Í1982)€(ð ðLife€expectancy€tables,€earnings€and€awards€in€other€cases€are€helpful€in€theÏdetermination€of€the€value€of€the€decedentððs€life.€However,€these€guides€only€shedÏsome€light€on€the€subject,€each€case€must€be€decided€upon€its€own€facts.ðð);ÏòòMartindalev.€Pillowóó,€1987€WL€11325,€at€*8€(Tenn.€App.€May27,€1987)€(concluding€thatÏpecuniary€value€of€decedentððs€life€ð ðcannot€be€made€the€subject€of€mere€mathematicalÏcalculation,€upon€the€basis€of€what€the€deceased€would€have€earned€during€hisÏexpectancy€of€lifeðð).€€Even€the€òòMcClanahanóó€decision€recognizes€that€the€permissibleÏrange€of€proof€of€the€pecuniary€value€of€a€decedentððs€life€ð ðis€very€broad€and€need€notÏbe€absolutely€precise€as€long€as€it€enables€the€jury€[or€other€fact„finder]€to€make€a€fairÏand€reasonable€assessment€of€damages.ðð€€òòMcClanahanóó,€1994€WL€248183,€at€*3.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€courts€of€this€state€have€recognized€that€human€lives€have€someÏintrinsic€pecuniary€value€beyond€the€market€value€for€their€services.€€In€an€action€by€aÏhusband€for€the€wrongful€death€of€his€wife,€for€example,€our€supreme€court€declined€toÏlimit€the€husbandððs€damages€to€the€wages€the€wife€might€have€been€able€to€earn€or€toÏthe€cost€of€hiring€another€to€perform€the€wifeððs€work€in€the€home.€€òòThrailkillv.€Pattersonóó,Ï879€S.W.2d€836,€841€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€court€reasoned€that€this€ð ðbasis€of€recoveryÏwould€overlook€the€value€of€the€wifeððs€personal€interest€in€the€affairs€of€the€home€andÏthe€economy€incident€to€her€services.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€another€case,€ð ðthe€deceased€was€a€53Ïyear€old€mentally€retarded€person€with€an€eighth€grade€education€who€had€neverÏbeen€employed.ðð€€òòReddv.€Lawrenceburg€Power€Sys.óó,€1986€WL€5034,€at€*9€(Tenn.ÏApp.€Apr.30,€1986).€€Although€the€evidence€suggested€that€the€decedent€had€noÏearning€capacity,€this€court€refused€to€hold€that€the€decedentððs€life€had€no€pecuniaryÍvalue€and,€in€doing€so,€declined€to€adopt€a€rule€ð ðwhich€would€declare€the€life€of€anyÏhuman€being€to€be€worthless.ðð€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€awarding€the€Huttonsðð€estates€the€maximum€allowable€recovery,€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€the€foregoing€principles.€€€As€in€òòThrailkillóó,€if€the€pecuniary€valuesÏof€the€Huttonsðð€lives€were€to€be€determined€merely€by€calculating€their€expectedÏearnings€over€the€remainder€of€their€lives,€the€damages€awarded€would€fail€to€reflectÏthe€value€of€the€Huttonsðð€personal€interest€in€caring€for€their€grandchildren€and€theÏeconomy€incident€to€their€services.€€òòSeeóó€òòThrailkillóó,€879€S.W.2d€at€841.€€Nevertheless,Ïwe€agree€with€the€Cityððs€contention€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€cannot€supportÏthe€amounts€awarded€by€the€trial€court,€even€when€we€consider€evidence€of€theÏHuttonsðð€services€to€the€Plaintiff€and€his€family.€€Accordingly,€we€modify€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€to€award€the€estate€of€Lena€Hutton€the€sum€of€$100,000€and€the€estate€ofÏFloyd€Hutton€the€sum€of€$55,000,€for€a€total€award€of€$155,000.€€ÌÌà àIn€modifying€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€we€reject€the€Cityððs€argument€that€theÏawards€should€be€reduced€further€based€on€what€the€Huttonsðð€reasonable€livingÏexpenses€would€have€been€had€they€survived.€€This€court€previously€has€held€that€anÏappellant€cannot€complain€of€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€make€a€deduction€for€theÏdecedentððs€living€expenses€where€the€appellant€fails€to€offer€proof€on€this€issue€at€trial.€ÏòòBradford€ex€rel.€Estate€of€Bradfordv.€Swainóó,€1989€WL€1221,€at€*5€(Tenn.€App.€Jan.13,Ï1989).€€Here,€the€City€had€ample€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€Plaintiff€regardingÏthe€amount€of€the€Huttonsðð€living€expenses€but€chose€not€to€do€so.€€€òòCf.€Wallacev.ÍCouchóó,€642€S.W.2d€141,€144€(Tenn.€1982)€(where€during€discovery€process€and€againÏat€trial€defendant€attempted€to€elicit€testimony€from€plaintiff€as€to€amount€of€decedentððsÏprobable€living€expenses).ÌÌà àAs€modified,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€the€City€of€Savannah,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌINMAN,€Sr.€J.