ÿWPC[ ¤\uõØ3”xdã`lÖ¤:óär¾" 0ó×µT, Šâ‘ýC›|ôÓ£K”ö ók->­lÌ£„ 3.Gq¡1› 'sšz‹ˆ°Ä§ƒbÁ¼õ×É6£1wåœ{UÙ°"üw"mbJÔ#SNJ£Q^é5•’Y«ÍtàïËK02 Éf¬£fa?q¸&@yÎù~ù7KQ¹¹,Sv£ÛûL©wÝ;éÙJ–ÅÕÿs“T°¨„§S½4LY©4dŠ·˜ê°fÀn Ë¿¼ÓÁ9è[Ë<c+Éêï§}¹ð‡S úʱQçd'ž¡Ô,2jE„}”ñÂ’ ÙóÉ»û¤Ð‰ú—Vûw–rF‹–T O‚7†ñêÑŸìLÇÎ=d"àBu>P›%’¼> €FÑTt}îÒ¦@1\Ò8M¶o¬Ò–×ÔíC»º¯ù‰­üUi¸%g¯O'»"_Í@œ%H"a=:ò¬õD¥†ëÍî©S´`n`TÑÐôÙŒY¦&´€#ÁœŒÇ´åg,¤*¡¼fØžDèºG´hBrÓ®‡ŒACpŒBŸ[ÓRp¬ç}R,‹.>S3Ä#¿2åž "÷Å5ƒK[=Y I2d#!xUN™ %ç 0¿íUH¬ wô 4ø   # N) ) ) ^ + 7 m9 nP U:¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ 0Ûø D5Ó B AQ%Æv 0Û< 0D˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(uHš Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(—/Ã$¡¡Ô€X,VXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY(3Ø' LetterY(3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular{Z='d3|xH0hž1'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ dÝ ƒb¤ÿ"ÝÔ€X¼ÓXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XùXXX¼ÓÔÔ€èhXXùÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XùXèhÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA¯Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(³3¤ÿ$££Ý ƒ/Ã!ÝÔ€X¼ÓXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý\\\\)ÿÿ!dxdx dabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(³3¤ÿ$¢¢Ý ƒ/Ã!ÝÔ€X¼ÓXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ/Ã!ÝÔ€X¼ÓXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XžãXXX¼ÓÔò òÔ‡¼‡¡»XXžãÔÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ LegalXà3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' LetterTÑÑ8€žãXdìdÈ8ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÔ_Ôßx€`[B2.jz+£`  `€€@ÿEóg` 8ttxP+Äð £ xßÔ_ÔAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†XžãX»¼‡¡ä#Ôó óÐ Ä ÐÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌROBERT€C.€JONES,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)à  à01A01„9901„CV„00019Ð t Ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)Ìà  àPlaintiff„Appellant,à  àà h àà À à€€)Ð L œ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)à  àAppeal€As€Of€Right€From€TheÐ 8ˆ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)à  àWARREN€CO.€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ $t  Ðv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)Ð `  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)ÌRANDY€LEE€PEARL,à  àà h àà À à€€)à  àJUDGE€CHARLES€D.€Ô_ÔHASTONÔ_ÔÐ Ô$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)Ìà  àDefendant„Appellee.à  àà h àà À à€€)Ð ¬ü ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€the€Appellant:à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àFor€the€Appellee:óóó óÐ  \ ÐÌKEITH€S.€Ô_ÔSMARTTÔ_Ôà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ_ÔBYRANÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔESSARYÔ_ÔÐ ä4 ÐÔ_ÔMcMinnvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennesseeòòò òà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àóóó óNashville,€TennesseeÐ Ð  Ðò òòòà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óóóEDWARD€A.€Ô_ÔHADLEYÔ_ÔÐ ¨ ø Ðòòò òà  àóóó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TennesseeÐ ”!ä ÐÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€&€REMANDEDà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÔ_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.Ð 'l"% ÐÌÓ  ÓÌÌà @ àò òòòOPINIONóóó óÐ Ì*&) ÐÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àThis€litigation€arises€out€of€a€motor€vehicular€accident€in€Warren€County,€Tennessee.€ÌPlaintiff„Appellant,€Robert€C.€Jones€("Plaintiff"),€was€driving€a€pick€up€truck€with€an€attached€trailer,Ïand€the€Defendant„Appellee,€Randy€L.€Pearl€("Defendant"),€was€operating€a€tractor€trailer€when€theÏtrucks€collided.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€apportioning€one€hundred€percent€of€the€Ô_ÔneligenceÔ_Ô€toÏPlaintiff.€€Plaintiff's€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied€by€the€Trial€Court.€€€The€issues€to€beÏaddressed€in€this€Opinion€are:€€(1)€whether€the€Trial€Judge€applied€the€correct€standard€of€review€inÏhis€role€as€the€thirteenth€juror€in€denying€the€Plaintiff's€motion€for€new€trial,€and€(2)€if€the€answerÐ  8ð38 ÐÔ_Ôto€issue€number€one€is€yes,€is€the€jury's€verdict€supported€by€material€evidence?€€For€the€reasonsÏherein€stated,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.ÌÓ  Óò òòòÓÓFACTSÐ `° Ðóóó óÌÓÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àOn€October€2,€1995,€at€approximately€6€a.m.,€with€visibility€of€200€ft.,€Plaintiff€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðdriving€his€pickup€truck€€in€Warren€County,€Tennessee.€€€Defendant€was€driving€a€tractor€trailer€withÐ  ` Ða€top€heavy€load€which€required€that€he€drive€below€the€speed€limit€and€come€to€an€almost€completeÐ è 8  Ðstop€before€making€any€turn.€€Both€vehicles€were€eastbound€on€Highway€70S€which€had€two€lanesÐ À  Ðeastbound,€two€westbound,€and€one€center€lane€for€turning.€€Defendant's€tractor€trailer,€65€feet€long,Ð ˜è  Ðwas€in€front€of€Plaintiff's€truck.€€Defendant€was€turning€right€into€a€hospital€driveway€16€feet€wide.€òòÐ pÀ ÐóóPlaintiff€saw€the€Defendant's€truck€turning€right€into€the€hospital€driveway€and€tried€to€stop,€leavingÐ H˜ Ðskid€marks€of€118€feet.€€Plaintiff€was€unable€to€stop€his€truck€which€hit€the€rear€right€side€ofÐ  p ÐDefendant's€tractor€trailer€and€slid€down€the€right€side€of€the€trailer.€€Both€vehicles€sustainedÐ øH Ðextensive€damage.€€Plaintiff€sustained€$2,500€in€medical€expenses€and€his€orthopedic€physicianÐ Ð  Ðassessed€25%€permanent€partial€disability€to€the€right€upper€extremity€and€opined€he€could€no€longerÐ ¨ø Ðwork€as€a€concrete€finisher.€Ð €Ð ÐÓ  Óòòò òDISCUSSIONó óóóÐ X ¨ ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àIt€is€necessary€that€we€first€address€whether€the€Trial€Judge€appropriately€dischargedÐ 0"€  Ðhis€duty€as€the€thirteenth€juror€in€denying€€Plaintiff's€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€answer€to€that€issueÐ $X" Ðis€yes.€€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiff€contends€that€the€Trial€Judge€did€not€apply€the€appropriate€standard€inÐ ¸'#& Ðdenying€Plaintiff's€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€Trial€Judge€commented€that€heÐ )à$( Ðwould€not€disturb€the€jury€verdict€unless€he€was€convinced€that€the€jury€had€acted€arbitrarily€orÐ h+¸&* Ðcapricious€in€arriving€at€its€decision.€€In€support€of€this€position,€Plaintiff€relies€upon€the€followingÐ @-(, Ðstatement€made€by€the€Trial€Judge€after€Plaintiff's€argument€on€his€motion€for€a€new€trial:€€Ð /h*. ÐÓÓà8  àThank€you.€€Mr.€Smartt,€everything€you've€argued€are€pure€factual€issues€which€wereÐ ð0@,0 Ðargued€before€the€jury€and€presented€to€them€and€the€only€time€that€I€am€inclined€orÐ Ü1,-1 Ðprompted€to€intervene€with€a€jury's€decision€is€if€I€am€shown€that€they€actedÐ È2.2 Ðcapriciously€or€arbitrarily€and€I€don't€see€that€here,€Mr.€Smartt.€€It€seems€to€me€likeÐ ´3/3 Ðthe€jury€just€would€not€buy€your€theory€or€your€argument€as€well€as€it€was€delivered.€Ð  4ð/4 ÐThis€is€purely€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€and€that's€what€they're€there€for.€€I€don'tÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðthink€the€fact€in€and€of€itself€that€they€find€absolutely€no€contributory€negligence€„Ð x6È16 Ðthat's€what€we€used€to€call€it€„€on€behalf€of€one€of€the€parties€involved€in€and€of€itselfÐ d7´27 Ðindicates€to€me€the€jury€acted€arbitrarily€or€without€fully€considering€all€the€facts.€Ð P8 38 ÐThey€just€did€not€buy€your€theory.€€I€overrule€your€motion€and€let€it€stand.€€AnythingÐ <9Œ49 Ðfurther?€Ð(:x5:Ð Ð  ЇÓÓà  àà ` àIf€this€were€the€end€of€the€story,€Plaintiff's€position€on€this€issue€would€be€a€strongÐ ° Ðone.€€The€weakness€in€Plaintiff's€argument€is€that€the€Trial€Judge€made€additional€commentsÐ ˆØ Ðconcerning€his€review€and€determination€of€Plaintiff's€motion€for€new€trial.€€Specifically,€the€TrialÐ `° ÐJudge€responded€to€a€question€asked€by€Defendant's€attorney€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓÓà8  àMr.€Essary:à ¸ àIf€I€can€have€an€expressed€finding€on€the€record,€your€Honor,€thatÐ  ` Ðyou've€independently€reviewed€the€evidence€and€approved€à È àtheir€verdict.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court:€à ¸ àYes,€sir.€€I€have.€€I€have€made€an€independent€examination€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€presented€and€conclude€that€it€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€verdict€from€theÐ À  Ðjury€and€consequently€overrule€the€motion.€€I€believe€that's€the€correct€language.€€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àA€Tennessee€trial€judge€has€a€required€duty€to€serve€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÓÓà8  àIn€this€state€the€trial€judge€is€the€thirteenth€juror€and€no€verdict€is€valid€until€approvedÐ \¬ Ðby€the€trial€judge.€òò€Mize€v.€Skeenóó,€63€Tenn.€App.€37,€468€S.W.2d€733€(1971).€€In€thisÐ H˜ Ðcapacity€the€trial€judge€is€under€a€duty€to€independently€weigh€the€evidence€andÐ 4„ Ðdeterminine€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€or€against€the€verdict.€Ð  p ÐòòMcLaughlin€v.€Broyles,óó€36€Tenn.€App.€391,€255€S.W.2d€1020€(1952);€òòTiffany€v.Ð  \ ÐShipleyóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€539,€161€S.W.2d€373€(1941).ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€in€discharging€his€duty€as€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€judge€makes€commentsÐ Ð  Ðthat€indicate€that€he€has€misconceived€his€duty€or€clearly€has€not€followed€it,€thisÐ ¼  Ðcourt€must€reverse€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial€[the€material€evidence€ruleÐ ¨ø Ðnotwithstanding].€€òòSee€Nashville,€C€&€St.€L.R.R.€v.€Neelyóó,€102€Tenn.€700,€52€S.W.Ð ”ä Ð167,€168€(Tenn.€1899);€òòHolden€v.€Rannickóó,€682€S.W.€2d€903€(Tenn.€1984).ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€the€order€overruling€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€the€trial€court€expresslyÐ X ¨ Ðstated€that€"the€court€finds€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€did€not€preponderate€againstÐ D!” Ðthe€jury's€finding€that€defendant€Ramsey€was€not€negligent€and€in€its€capacity€asÐ 0"€  Ð'thirteenth€juror'€approves€the€jury€verdict€in€favor€of€the€defendants€in€all€respects."Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€plaintiff€insists,€however,€that€the€trial€judge's€comments€from€the€benchÐ ô$D # Ðwhen€ruling€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€demonstrated€that€he€misconceived€his€dutyÐ à%0!$ Ðas€the€thirteenth€juror.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€insistence.€€The€record€reflects€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€trial€judge€repeatedly€stated€that€his€duty€was€to€weigh€the€evidence€and€toÐ ¸'#& Ðdetermine€if€it€preponderated€against€the€verdict.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐòòÌShivers€v.€Ramseyóó,€937€S.W.2d€945,€947€(Tenn.€App.€1996).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌÓÓThis€was€further€refined€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€a€recent€decision€when€it€stated€thatÐ T,¤'+ Ð"[a]s€the€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€court€must€grant€a€new€trial€if€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weightÐ ,.|)- Ðof€evidence.€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.06."€€Ô% € ÔòòTurner€v.€Jordan,€óó957€S.W.2d€815,€823€(Tenn.€1997).€€If,€asÐ 0T+/ Ðhappened€here,€a€trial€court€does€make€comments€in€fulfilling€its€role€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€theÐ Ü1,-1 ÐAppellate€Court€must€examine€those€comments,€but€".€.€.only€for€the€purpose€of€determining€whetherÐ ´3/3 Ðthe€trial€court€properly€reviewed€the€evidence,€and€was€satisfied€or€dissatisfied€with€the€verdict."€òòÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðâ âMiller€v.€Doeóó,€873€S.W.€2d€346,€347€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ð d7´27 Ðà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Judge's€comment€here€that€he€was€inclined€to€intervene€with€the€jury'sÐ ° Ðâ âdecision€only€if€he€were€shown€that€the€jury€acted€capriciously€or€arbitrarily€does€not€correctlyÐ ˆØ Ðdescribe€his€role€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€If€this€were€the€only€statement€of€the€Trial€Judge€in€theÐ `° Ðrecord€relevant€to€this€issue,€this€Court€would€be€compelled€to€find€that€the€Trial€Judge€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðmisconceived€his€duty€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€However,€that€is€not€all€we€have€before€us.Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àDefendant's€attorney€apparently€realized€the€potential€problem€with€the€Trial€Judge'sÐ è 8  Ðstatement€concerning€his€inclination€and€the€jury's€not€having€acted€capricously€and€arbritrarily€andÐ À  Ðtook€action€to€correct€any€problem€by€asking€the€Trial€Judge€the€question€and€receiving€the€answerÐ ˜è  Ðas€set€forth€earlier€in€this€Opinion.€€The€Trial€Judge's€response€to€that€question€was€clear€andÐ pÀ Ðunequivocal€that€he€had€made€an€independant€examination€of€the€evidence€and€concluded€that€itÐ H˜ Ðpreponderates€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict.Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àWhile€the€Trial€Judge's€statement€concerning€his€normal€inclination€as€to€when€toÐ øH Ðintervene€or€not€to€intervene€with€a€jury's€decision€is€troublesome,€it€is€not€what€is€at€issue.€€WhatÐ Ð  Ðis€at€issue€is€what€did€the€Trial€Judge€do€in€this€case,€not€what€his€usual€inclination€is€or€is€not.€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àThis€Court's€role€€is€to€examine€all€the€comments€of€the€Trial€Judge€to€determineÐ €Ð Ðwhether€€he€properly€reviewed€the€evidence€and€was€satisfied€or€dissatisfied€with€the€verdict.€€òòMillerÐ X ¨ Ðóóat€347.€€The€Trial€Judge's€later€specific€statement€that€he€had€made€an€independent€examination€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€evidence€presented€and€concluded€that€it€preponderated€in€favor€of€the€verdict€states€what€wasÐ $X" Ðrequired€of€him€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€Taken€as€a€whole,€the€Trial€Judge's€remarks€do€not€show€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€misconstrued€his€duty€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€but€instead€show€that€he€fullfilled€that€duty.€€TheÐ ¸'#& ÐTrial€Judge's€comments,€all€of€them€taken€together,€€clearly€show€that€the€Trial€Judge€did€weigh€theÐ )à$( Ðevidence€independently,€pass€upon€the€issues,€and€decide€that€the€verdict€was€supported€by€€theÐ h+¸&* Ðevidence,€all€as€required€of€€him€to€satisfy€his€obligations€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€òòSee€Ladd€v.€HondaÐ @-(, ÐMotor€Co.€LTDóó.€939€S.W.2d€83,€105€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€Plaintiff's€argument€that€the€Trial€JudgeÐ /h*. Ðfailed€to€perform€his€duties€as€the€thirteenth€juror€is€without€merit.€€Ð ð0@,0 Ðà  àà ` àWe€now€turn€to€the€next€issue€raised€by€Plaintiff,€was€the€jury€verdict€against€theÐ È2.2 Ðweight€of€the€evidence.€€€Since€we€have€determined€that€the€Trial€Judge€properly€fulfilled€his€dutyÐ  4ð/4 Ðas€the€thirteenth€juror,€our€standard€of€review€is€limited€to€a€determination€as€to€whether€there€is€anyÐ x6È16 Ðmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€jury€verdict.€€òòSee€Turner€óóat€824;€òòShivers€óóat€947;€see€Rule€13(d)Ð P8 38 ÐT.R.A.P.€€Ð (:x5: Ðà  àà ` àIn€the€record€before€us,€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€jury's€verdict.€€TheÐ ° Ðevidence€in€this€record€is€that€the€Defendant,€in€turning€off€the€highway€into€the€hospital€driveway,Ð ˆØ Ðhad€limited€choices.€€There€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€it€was€necessary€for€the€Defendant€to€bringÐ `° Ðhis€truck€to€a€complete€or€near€complete€stop€before€making€the€turn€to€avoid€turning€the€trailer€over.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThere€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€Defendant€turned€his€blinker€on,€checked€his€mirror€forÐ  ` Ðtraffic€approaching€from€behind,€did€not€see€any€headlights€or€any€other€signs€of€traffic,€and€thenÐ è 8  Ðbegan€his€right€turn€into€the€hospital€entrance.€€Defendant€testified€that€this€was€the€only€way€heÐ À  Ðcould€make€the€right€turn€from€the€highway€into€the€hospital€entrance€because€of€the€size€of€hisÐ ˜è  Ðtractor€trailer.€€The€record€also€contains€evidence€that€this€was€the€only€access€available€to€theÐ pÀ Ðhospital€for€the€Defendant.€€Evidence€in€the€record€shows€that€Plaintiff's€truck€left€skid€marks€of€118Ð H˜ Ðfeet€up€to€the€point€of€impact€of€his€truck€with€Defendant's€truck.€€Further,€there€was€evidence€thatÐ  p Ðeven€after€the€Plaintiff's€pickup€truck€struck€the€Defendant's€vehicle,€it€continued€down€the€side€ofÐ øH Ðthe€Defendant's€tractor€trailer€causing€substantial€damage€to€the€trailer.€€While€there€may€be€otherÐ Ð  Ðevidence€in€the€record€that€supports€Plaintiff's€claim,€certainly€there€is€material€evidence€to€supportÐ ¨ø Ðthis€jury€verdict.€€Plaintiff's€argument€on€this€issue€is€without€merit€as€well.Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àWe€considered€an€additional€issue€presented€by€Plaintiff.€€We€conclude€that€thisÐ X ¨ Ðadditional€issue€lacks€merit€and€no€discussion€is€warranted,€given€our€ruling€on€the€other€issues.Ð 0"€  ÐÓ  Óòòò òCONCLUSION€ó óóóÐ $X" ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ à%0!$ ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings,€if€any,€as€may€be€required€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€adjudged€against€the€Plaintiff„Appellant.Ð )à$( ÐÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ È2.2 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€J.Ð ´3/3 ÐÌÌò òÌÌÌÌÐ (:x5: ЇÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ó óÐ $ t ÐÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ À  ÐHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€P.J.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ 4„ ÐHERSCHEL€P.€FRANKS,€J.