WPCT 2ϗ/w1U^ԁB<$Rz_k>EwQ%^ &w&4&*&b9&A& mC& 0FZ& 06' 00( 0* 0* 0H+ 0n+ 0T, 0, 0r- 0. 0:. 0. 0B|/ 0/ 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 0v8 0z9 0K; 0= 0> 0@ 0_B 0D 0E 0G 01HU2IU6NIU,I BIU*I 0I D3J D-J 0KJHFK ASLL 0M 0DKN AN:O:O:OO 0DQRRSHP LaserJet 8000 Series PCL 602G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default ParaXXXXXX\  `&Times New Romanx( gI(bk1 &3|x- -U6~ 4heading 1       ?W%2A`Arial?     XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  6v }4heading 2  ?W%2A`Arial?   XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  6s z4heading 3  ?W%2A`Arial?   XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  64 '4heading 4     XXX  67 *4heading 5     XXX  64 '4heading 6  &&&   XXX  <:annotation rXXX<$$:annotation t  XXX  :008Body Text 2  X XXX  X XXX0;;.header   !XXX   !XXX0;;.footer   !XXX   !XXX:8page number<$$:footnote tex  XXX  <:footnote ref<M1J :Outline001_1  X /%4 4 <DL/d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <J1J :Outline001_2   ," <DL,d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <G1J :Outline001_3 j  ) <DL)d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2 j <D1J :Outline001_4  ` &<<DL&d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <A1J :Outline001_5   #DL#d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <>1J :Outline001_6 j   DL d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2 j <;1J :Outline001_7  h DDLd23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <81J :Outline001_8   Ld23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <51J :Outline001_9 j   Ld23  d..  2( 4 <DL2 j <M1J :Outline002_1   /%` ` <DL/d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <1 :Outline002_2   ," <DL,dXXXKT<6X9`(Courier NewK23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_3  4 ) <DL)dXXXGSKr`WingdingsG23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_4   &hhDL&dXXXAU(\ Y`SymbolA23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_5   #DL#dXXXKT<6X9`(Courier NewK23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_6  <  DL dXXXGSKr`WingdingsG23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_7   ppLdXXXAU(\ Y`SymbolA23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_8   LdXXXKT<6X9`(Courier NewK23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  <1 :Outline002_9  D    LdXXXGSKr`WingdingsG23  d..  2( 4 <DL2XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS  ({2$ !.8ZDd d 8     (|G2V$ !.8ZDd d 8         0  ;Kr`Wingdings<6X9`(Courier New(\ Y`Symbol d%2A`Arial(|3 $ !.8ZDd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   > Q)   _ @ X-X)X XXX-; @ ! !X!)X X X)X   @ ;  Q*^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8ZDd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK RV$      1  =`   _ Piercev.Woods ,597S.W.2d295(Tenn.1980).  RV$      2  =`   _) =`Wedecided _Rothstein_ afterthepartiesfiledtheirbriefs.Weassumetheplaintiffswouldmakethesame  argumentswithrespectto     _Rothstein_ .#=` )~#(#$  0    RV$      3  =`   _) =`Wenotethat _Rothstein_ wasinthesamepostureaswere Hill and McCracken ,i.e.,itwastriedbeforethe   Jordan decisionwasreleased.#=` )~#  RV$      4  =`   _Itisnotclearfromthepleadingswhetherthedeathofthedeceasedoccurredonthesamedayasthealleged  negligence. !.8Qd d8     _  Q8-XXdd 8  @ `QINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#Q` #Ԉ    May2000Session 8 X-XQ #QXX-#X-XQTIMOTHYP.HANCOCK,#QXX-3#etal.asnextfriendsandparentsoftheminorX-XQ . _BREANNA_ԀHANCOCKv.THECHATTANOOGAHAMILTONCOUNTYHOSPITAL  < AUTHORITY,d/b/a_T.C._ԀTHOMPSONCHILDRENSHOSPITAL,etal. #QXX-#  & @@ InterlocutoryAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty   @@No.94CV2355SamuelH.Payne,Judge  *  filedJuly27,2000 F  @@*AV) ` dE<` A T  @@TTNo.E199900169_COA_ԄR9CV !q  AV) ` dE<<` A =    X-XQTheissuesinthismedicalmalpracticecaseturnonwhethertheholdingoftheSupremeCourtinthe X caseof Jordanv.BaptistThreeRiversHospital ,984S.W.2d593(Tenn.1999)appliestothefacts B nowbeforeus.Becausethecauseofactionintheinstantcaseaccruedpriortothereleaseofthe ,| SupremeCourtsopinionin Jordan ,weconcludethattheholdinginthatcasecannotbe f retrospectivelyappliedtotheinstantcase.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment P dismissingthatportionoftheamendedcomplaintseekinglossofconsortiumdamages.#QXX-#X-XQ :  Tenn.R.App.P.9AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt  Affirmed;CaseRemanded     #QX- #X-X.QCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, | _P.J._,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. f GeorgeE._Koontz_ԀandJohnD._McMahan_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellants,TimothyP. :! HancockandTinaM.Hancock. $"t  Robert_Boehm_ԀandDanielM._Stefaniuk_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TheChattanooga #H" HamiltonCountyHospitalAuthority,d/b/a_T.C._ԀThompsonChildrensHospital. $2 # ArthurP.Brock,JohnB.Bennett,and_Stephany_ԀS._Pedigo_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee, &"% KennethPlatt,M.D. '"&   OPINION #QXX- # t)$(    j+&* X-XQ  I.Background  X\  Theplaintiffs,TimothyP.Hancockandhiswife,TinaM.Hancock,filedthisactionon  December15,1994.Thecomplaintallegesthatthedefendants,KennethPlatt,M.D.,andThe n ChattanoogaHamiltonCountyHospitalAuthority,doingbusinessas_T.C._ԀThompsonChildrens X Hospital( _CHCHA_),werenegligentintheirtreatmentoftheplaintiffsdaughter,_Breanna_ B  Hancock.Thecomplaintallegesthatthedefendantsnegligenceresultedin_Breanna_sdeathon , | January20,1994.Withrespecttodamages,thecomplaintallegesthat  f   8 ` [_a]s_Ԁadirectandproximateresultofthedefendantsnegligenceand/or  :  recklessconduct,theplaintiffshavesufferedandcontinuetosuffer  $  fromextremementalanguishandemotionaldistress.Theplaintiffs,   asnextbest[sic]friendsandlegalguardiansof_Breanna_ԀHancock,   furtheralleges[sic]asdamages,thepecuniaryvalueoftheir   daughterslife.| ` x` x   OnJanuary25,1999,theSupremeCourtreleaseditsopinioninthecaseof Jordanv.Baptist P ThreeRiversHospital ,984S.W.2d593(Tenn.1999). Jordan dealswiththequestionof whether : claimsforlossof_spousal_ԀandparentalconsortiuminwrongfuldeathcasesareviableinTennessee $t under[_T.C.A._]205113. Id .at595.TheSupremeCourt,expresslyoverruling Davidson ^ BenedictCo.v._Severson_ ,109Tenn.572,72_S.W._Ԁ967(Tenn.1903),heldin Jordan  that H consortiumtypedamagesmaybeconsideredwhencalculatingthepecuniaryvalueofadeceaseds 2 life. Id .at60001.    FollowingreleaseoftheSupremeCourtsopinionin Jordan ,theplaintiffsamendedtheir  complaintbyaddingthefollowinglanguage:    8 ` Asaproximateanddirectresultofthenegligenceofthedefendants, ^ _Breanna_ԀHancockdied.Inadditiontodamagesforthepecuniary H valueofthelifeof_Breanna_ԀHancock,plaintiffssuethedefendantsfor 2 consortiumlossesincluding,butnotlimitedto,lossofthe  l companionship,comfort,society,guidance,solaceandloveof !V _Breanna_ԀHancocktoherparentsandfamilyasadirectresultofher !@  wrongfuldeath."*!` x` x   Dr.Plattsubsequentlymovedforajudgmentonthepleadings,and_CHCHA_Ԁmovedto $# dismisstheamendment.OnOctober19,1999,thetrialcourtdismissedtheamendmentonwhatit % $ consideredtobethreeindependentlysufficientgrounds: &!% 8  8`   Thisisamedicalmalpracticecase.Theplaintiffsamendmentistime V(#' barredpursuanttothestatuteofreposesetforthatTennesseeCode @)$( Annotated2926116.Theamendment,filedJuly20,1999,states **z%) aclaimnotheretoforepleaded.TheCourtfindsthatthecaseaccrued +d&* _nolaterthanJanuary20,1994,andallclaims,regardlessofthedate  ofdiscovery,weretohavebeenbroughtbyJanuary20,1997.` x` x 8  8`   Intheinstantwrongfuldeathcase,theplaintiffsareparentsseeking n torecoverthelossofconsortiumoftheirdeceasedchild.TheCourt X in Jordanv.BaptistThreeRiversHospital,etal., 984S.W.2d593 B  (Tenn.1999),explicitlystatedthatthe Jordan decisionwasnot , | applicableinacasewhereinparentsseekthelossofconsortiumof  f theirdeceasedchild. Jordanv.BaptistThreeRiversHospital,etal. ,  P 984S.W.2dat595596.Therefore,the Jordan decisiondoesnot  :  applytotheinstantwrongfuldeathcaseandthedamageswhichmay  $  berecoveredintheinstantcasearegovernedbythecaselawasit   existedpriorto Jordan . ` x` x    ` 8  8`   Theinstantcaseaccruedbefore Jordan wasdecided. Jordan may |  notbeappliedretrospectivelytotheinstantcase.f ` x` x   Theplaintiffsappeal,challengingthecorrectnessofeachofthetrialcourtsbasesfor : dismissingtheamendment.Wewillfocusonthetrialcourtsthirdgroundthat Jordan cannotbe $t retrospectivelyappliedaswefinditdispositiveofthisappeal. ^   II.StandardofReview  2  ~%  Becausetheissuesbeforeusarequestionsoflaw,ourreviewisdenovowithnopresumption  ofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.  1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).    III.Analysis ^ <'  Aspreviouslystated,  theSupremeCourtin Jordan overruled DavidsonBenedictCo.v. 2 Severson ,109Tenn.572,72S.W.967(Tenn.1903)andheld thatconsortiumtypedamagesmay  l beconsideredwhencalculatingthepecuniaryvalueofadeceasedslife. Id .at60001.This !V holding [did]notcreateanewcauseofactionbutmerelyrefine[d]thetermpecuniaryvalue. Id . !@  at601. "*!   Werecentlyaddressedthequestionofwhether Jordan canbeappliedretrospectivelyin $#  Rothsteinv.OrangeGroveCenter,Inc. ,C/ANo.E199900900COAR3CV,2000WL682648 % $ (Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedMay25,2000).Inthatcase,westatedthefollowing: &!% 8  8`   ArticleI,20oftheConstitutionofTennesseeprovidesthat no V(#' retrospectivelaw,orlawimpairingtheobligationsofcontracts,shall @)$( bemade.In Blankv.Olsen ,662S.W.2d324(Tenn.1983),the **z%) SupremeCourtsaid,quotingwithapproval,Am.Jur.2dCourt234, +d&* thattheoverrulingofajudicialconstructionofastatutewillnotbe  givenretrospectiveeffectwhererightsarevested,andthedecision  willbetreatedasineffectalegislativechangeofastatutoryrule.  Clearly, Jordan overruledapriorjudicialconstructionofastatute n establishingrightsofparties,bringing Jordan withinthe X constitutionalprohibition.Thisruleissometimesconfusedwiththe B  commonlawrule,whichtheCourtmay,ifitsoexpresses,makeits , | rulingretrospectivewhenmakingchangesinthecommonlaw.This  f isbecauseasageneralrulerightsarenotvestedundercommonlaw  P principles,andaresubjecttobechangedbythecourts. : ` x` x  Rothstein ,2000WL682648at*2.     Ourdecisionin Rothstein isinaccordwithtwoearlierdecisionsfromtheWesternSection   ofthisCourt.See Hillv.CityofGermantown ,C/ANo.02A019803CV00078,1999WL142386 |  (Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filedMarch17,1999),perm.app.grantedSeptember20,1999; McCracken f  v.CityofMillington ,C/ANo.02A019707CV00165,1999WL142391(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S., P filedMarch17,1999).Inthosecases,theCourt,speakingthroughJudgeFarmer,quotedthe : followinglanguagefrom Blankv.Olsen ,662S.W.2d324,325(Tenn.1983) : $t   8 ` Thereisnothingsaidin[thecaseb f#  1      ׀underdiscussionin Blank ]   H indicatingitistohaveretrospectiveeffect,andintheabsenceofsuch 2 anexpressedintenttheruleis...thatthedecisionoverrulingajudicial  constructionofastatutewillnotbegivenretroactiveeffect.` x` x  Hill ,1999WL142386at*11; McCracken ,1999WL142391at*17  .Findingthat Jordan didnot  includeanylanguageexpresslyprovidingforitsretrospectiveapplication,theWesternSectionheld t thatitcouldnotbesoapplied. Hill ,1999WL142386at*11; McCracken ,1999WL142391at*17. ^   Theplaintiffsconcedethat Hill and McCracken arecontrarytotheirposition.eX f#  2      ׀Theyattempt 2 toavoidtheeffectofthesecasesinavarietyofways:(1)byminimizingtheirprecedentialvalue;  l (2)bydistinguishingthosecasesfromtheinstantcase;(3)bychallengingtherationaleof Hill and !V  McCracken ;and(4)byarguingthatadifferentruleappliestotheinstantcase. !@    Theplaintiffsfirstattempttominimizetheprecedentialvalueof Hill and McCracken by #" emphasizingthattheyareunpublishedopinionsandthattheyarenotthefinalwordonthematter $# becausetheSupremeCourthasgrantedpermissiontoappealinthe Hill case.Thisisalltrue,of % $ course,butitisoflittleconsequence.Inourjudgment,theholdingsin Hill and McCracken ,aswell &!% astheholdingin Rothstein ,arebasedonwellestablishedlegalprinciples.TheSupremeCourts  decisiontograntpermissiontoappealin Hill doesnotpersuadeusthatweshouldignorethe  commonholdinginthosethreecases.    Theplaintiffsalsoarguethattheinstantcaseisdistinguishablefrom Hill and McCracken  X inthatthosecaseswerefiledandtriedbefore Jordan wasdecidedwhiletheinstantcasewasfiled, B  butnotyettriedatthetimethe Jordan decisionwasreleased.g f#  3      ׀Theplaintiffsemphasizetheportion , | ofthe Hill and McCracken opinionsstatingthat wemustreviewtherulingofthetrialcourtunder  f thelawinexistenceatthetimeoftrial. Hill ,1999WL142386at*11; McCracken ,1999WL  P 142391at*17.  :    Weareoftheopinionthatthisdistinctioniswithoutsignificance.Thecriticaldateinthe   currentanalysisisthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccrued. MidlandBank&TrustCo.v.   Olsen ,717S.W.2d580,584(Tenn.1986);seealso Nuttv.ChampionIntlCorp. ,980S.W.2d365,   368(Tenn.1998)(indiscussingtheretroactivityofaworkerscompensationstatute,theSupreme |  Courtstatedthat thestatuteineffectatthedateoftheworkersinjurygovernstherightsofthe f  partiesunderworkerscompensationlawabsentanindicationofthelegislaturescontraryintent.). P ThecauseofactionintheinstantcaseaccruednolaterthanJanuary20,1994,thedatethatthe : plaintiffsdaughterdied.See,e.g., Craigv.R.R.Street&Co. ,794S.W.2d351,355(Tenn.Ct.App. $t 1990)  ( Acauseofactionforwrongfuldeathaccruesasofthedateacauseofactionaccruesforthe ^ injurywhichresultedinthedeath.). Jordan wasnotdecideduntilJanuary25,1999,somefive H yearsaftertheplaintiffscauseofactionaccrued.Therefore,inorderfor Jordan toapplytothe 2 instantcase,itwouldhavetoapplyretrospectively.Thefactthatthiscasewillbetriedafterthe  releaseofthe Jordan decisiondoesnotmaketheinstantcaseeligibleforthe prospective  applicationof Jordan .    Theplaintiffsnextchallengetheholdingof Hill and McCracken totheeffectthat,ofseveral t litigantssimultaneouslyarguingforthechangeintheconstructionofthewrongfuldeathstatutes ^ ultimatelyadoptedbytheSupremeCourtin Jordan ,onlythefirsttotheSupremeCourtrealizesthe H benefitofhisorhereffort.This,accordingtotheplaintiffs,isnotfair.  2    Wedonotconsiderthistobeasufficientreasontofindthatthetrialcourterredindismissing !V theamendments.Aswestatedpreviously,theruleisthat Jordan isnottobeappliedretrospectively. !@  Thatthe Jordan plaintiffsreceivethebenefitofthechangeintheconstructionofthewrongfuldeath "*! statutewhileothers,whoaresimilarlysituatedthosewhosecausesofactionalsoaccruedpriorto #" thedateof Jordan 󀄄donot,ismoreofanecessaryexceptiontotheruleofnonretroactivitythan $# anendorsementofaruleofretroactivity.AsJusticeHenryexplainedin CumberlandCapitalCorp. % $ v.Patty ,556S.W.2d516,542(Tenn.1977), thepartywhobringsaboutthechangeinlawmaynot &!%  properlybedeprivedofthefruitsofhisvictory.(Citationsomitted).JusticeHenryalsoquoted l'"&  Stovallv.Denno ,388U.S.293,301,87S.Ct.1967,1972,18L.Ed.2d1199,1206(1967),which  said:   8  8`   Inequityarguablyresultsfromaccordingthebenefitofanewruleto n thepartiesinthecaseinwhichitisannouncedbutnottoother X litigantssimilarlysituatedinthetrialorappellateprocesswhohave B  raisedthesameissue.Butweregardthefactthatthepartiesinvolved , | arechancebeneficiariesasaninsignificantcostforadherenceto  f soundprinciplesofdecisionmaking. P` x` x Therefore,wedonotfindthisargumentsufficienttocompelafindingthatthetrialcourterredinits  $  applicationofthelaw.     Theplaintiffsfinalargumentbuildsonthegeneralrulethat [a]changeinthejudicial   constructionofastatutebecomesapartofthestatuteitselfandthushasthesameeffectasachange |  inthelawbylegislation. Hill ,1999WL142386at*10; McCracken ,1999WL142391at*16;see f  also Blank ,662S.W.2dat325; Rothstein ,2000WL682648at*2.Withthisgeneralruleinmind, P theplaintiffsarguethatbecause Jordan overruledapriorjudicialconstructionofthewrongfuldeath : statute,notonlydotherulesrelatingtolegislativechangesinthelawapply,butsotoomustthe $t exceptionstothoserules. ^   Thegeneralrulerelatingtostatutesisthatthey arepresumedtooperateprospectivelyunless 2 thelegislatureclearlyindicatesotherwise. Nuttv.ChampionIntlCorp. ,980S.W.2d365,368  (Tenn.1998).Anexceptiontothegeneralrule,however,isthat remedialor proceduralstatutes  mayapplyretrospectively. Id .Aproceduralstatuteisonethatdefinesthemannerbywhichaparty  mayenforcealegalright. Doev.Sundquist ,2S.W.3d919,923(Tenn.1999).Aremedialstatute  isonethat providesthemeansbywhichacauseofactionmaybeeffectuated,wrongsaddressed, t andreliefobtained. Id .However, [s]tatutesthatcreateanewrightofrecoveryorchangethe ^ amountofdamagesrecoverableare...deemedtohavealteredthepartiesvestedrightsandthusare H notconsideredremedial.   Shellv.State ,893S.W.2d416,420(Tenn.1995).(Emphasisadded). 2   Theplaintiffsrightsinthiscasearose,atthelatest,onthedateoftheirdaughtersdeath.i f#  4      ׀ !V Cf. Crismonv.Curtiss ,785S.W.2d353,354(Tenn.1990)(statingthatanautomobileaccident !@  victimsrightsaroseonthedateoftheaccident).Onthatdate,thestateofthelawwassuchthatthe "*! plaintiffscouldnotclaimlossofconsortiumasacompensableinjuryunderthewrongfuldeath #" statutes.The Jordan decisionchangedthisrulesomefiveyearslaterand,ineffect,alteredthetypes $# ofdamagesthatarerecoverableinawrongfuldeathaction.Thus,thischangemustbedeemedto % $ havealteredavestedrightandcannotbeconsideredremedial.Itfollowsthattheexceptiontothe &!% generalruleofnonretroactivitycannotapply,andthattherefore, Jordan cannotberetrospectively l'"& appliedtothefactsoftheinstantcase. V(#' Ї  Therefore,wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindismissingtheplaintiffs  amendmentonthegroundthat Jordan doesnotapplyretrospectively.Becauseourdecisiononthe  retroactivityissueisdispositiveofthisappeal,theremainingissuesarepretermitted.    IV.Conclusion X J^  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings , | consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellants.  f 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#  ___________________________________ (#(#    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE