` Incontrast,theCountypresentedthetestimonyoftwoexpertswhoopinedthat,in :3B theirrespectiveopinions,McKinney spropertyhadnotsufferedanydeclineinvalueasaresultofthe State sroadproject.TheseexpertsincludedJamesDanielWamble,alicensedsurveyorandcivil engineer,andJamesS.Baggett,arealestateappraiser.Wambleevensuggestedthatthepropertyhad ( benefittedfromtheState sroadprojectbecausethepropertynowhadbetteraccesstoahighway. WambleacknowledgedthatMcKinneywouldberequiredtobuildanaccessramptoHighway264, H @ buthetestifiedthatbuildingthenewrampwouldcostlessthanconstructinganaccessroadoverthe oldeasementwouldhavecost. h` ` Attheconclusionofalltheevidence,theCountyreneweditsmotiontodismissbased upontheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletoinversecondemnationactions.Thetrialcourt refusedtodismisstheactionand,withoutobjectionfromeitherparty,gavethejurythefollowing instructionstodetermineMcKinney sdamagesforthelossofhiseasement: 80 8 ` [T]helandownerhasarighttogotoandfromthelandowner s XP propertybyusingtheeasementthatwasthereavailable....Thisis calledtherightofaccessandispartofthevalueoftheproperty.The rightofaccessistheaccessthatisreasonablyrequiredforthe landowner sproperty,consideringalltheusesandpurposesforwhich x p thepropertyisadaptable,oravailable. @ 8 ` ` 8 ` Thelandownerisentitledtocompensationforlossorserious ! impairmentoftherightofaccess.Theamountofcompensationis !" measuredbythedifference,ifany,inthefaircashmarketvalueofthe `"X# landowner spropertyvaluedatimmediatelybeforeandimmediately (# $ afterlossorseriousimpairmenttothisrightofaccess. # % ` ` 8 ` Indeterminingthevalueofaccesstaken,youmayconsider %x ' whetherthepropertyhasotheraccessesorwhetheraccessiscreatedin H&@ ( thecourseoftheconstructionofthisproject. ' ) ` ` ` ThejuryreturnedaverdictfindingtheCounty liablefordamagestotheextentof 0*(#- $7,700. Afterthetrialcourtenteredajudgmentonthejury sverdict,McKinneyfiledamotionfor +$/ newtrialor,inthealternative,forsuggestionofadditur.Thetrialcourtconductedahearingon P-H&1 McKinney smotionand,inAugust1998,enteredanordersuggestinganadditurof$15,000,fora .'3 totalawardof$22,700.TheCountyacceptedtheadditurunderprotestandappealedthetrialcourt s p0h)5 decisiontothiscourt. 2*7 ` Onappeal,theCountycontendsthatthetrialcourterredin(1)failingtograntthe 5.; County smotiontodismissbasedupontheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsand(2)suggestingan 6/= additurof$15,000abovethejury sverdictof$7700. @881? 92A ` WeconcludethattheCountywaivedthestatuteoflimitationsissueforpurposesof appellatereviewbyfailingtofileaposttrialmotionraisingtheissue.TheCountyraisedthisissueat trialattheconclusionofalltheevidencebyrenewingitsmotiontodismissMcKinney sactionbased ( upontheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Inourview,theCounty srenewedmotiontodismiss satisfiedtherequirementthat,inordertotaketheinitialsteptopreservethisissueforappellate H @ review,theCountymakeamotionforadirectedverdictatthecloseofallthetrialevidence. See Cortezv.Alutech,Inc. ,941S.W.2d891,893(Tenn.App.1996)(indicatingthatrenewedmotionfor ld summaryjudgmentmadeatcloseofappellees proof obviously constitutedmotionfordirected verdictnecessarytopreserveissueforreviewonappeal). ` TheCountyfailed,however,toraisethestatuteoflimitationsissueafterthetrialby filingeitheramotionforanewtrialoramotionforajudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdict.This @8 courtrecentlyheldthatanappellant sfailuretofileeitheroftheseposttrialmotionsprecluded appellatereviewofadirectedverdictissue.Citing Cortezv.Alutech,Inc. ,941S.W.2d891(Tenn. `X App.1996),weexplainedthat 8 ` whentheallegederroristhefailureofthetrialcourttograntadirected verdict,eitheramotionforanewtrialoraposttrialmotionseeking ! entryofjudgmentinaccordancewithamotionfordirectedverdict !" madeattrial(judgmentn.o.v.)issufficienttopreservetheissuefor l"d# appeal.[ Cortezv.Alutech ,941S.W.2d]at89495.Failuretofile 4#, $ eitheroftheseposttrialmotions,however,denies thetrialjudgethe # % opportunitytoconsiderorreconsiderallegederrorscommittedduring $ & thecourseoftrial andprecludesappellatereviewofthatissue. Id .at % ' 89596.TherationaleforthisholdingissupportedbyRule36(a)[of X&P ( theTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure]whichprovidesthat ' ) [n]othinginthisruleshallbeconstruedasrequiringreliefbegranted ' * toaparty...whofailedtotakewhateveractionwasreasonably (!+ availabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror. x)p", ` ` Miresv.Clay ,____S.W.2d____,1999WL632823,at*5(Tenn.App.1999)(quoting ,%0 T.R.A.P.36(a)); seealso Sheddv.Hines ,1989WL71049,at*2(Tenn.App.June28,1989)( no ,.$'2 perm.app.filed )(holdingthatappellantwaivedobjectiontotrialcourt srefusaltoconsiderstatuteof /(4 limitationsdefensebyfailingtoincludeobjectioninmotionfornewtrial). T1L*6 ̀ ` HavingheldthattheCountywaivedthestatuteoflimitationsissueforpurposesof t4l-: appellatereview,weconcludethattheonlyissueproperlybeforethiscourtistheproprietyofthetrial 6.< court ssuggestionofadditurinthiscase.Tennessee sadditurstatuteauthorizesthetrialcourtto 70> suggestanadditurincaseswhere,inthecourt sopinion,thejury sverdictisnotadequateto $9 2@ compensatetheplaintiffforhisdamages.T.C.A.20-10-101(a)(1)(1994).Ifthedefendantaccepts theadditur,thestatuterequiresthetrialcourttoenterajudgmentthatincludestheadditur.T.C.A. 20-10-101(a)(2)(1994).Ifthedefendantrejectstheadditur,thestatuterequiresthetrialcourtto ( granttheplaintiff smotionforanewtrial uponpropermotionbeingmadebytheplaintiff. Id . Alternatively,ifthedefendantisdissatisfiedwiththetrialcourt ssuggestionofadditur,thestatute L D permitsthedefendanttoaccepttheadditurunderprotestandtoappealthetrialcourt sdecisiontothis court.T.C.A.20-10-101(b)(1)(1994). ld ` Inreviewingatrialcourt ssuggestionofadditur,thiscourtcustomarilyconductsa threepartanalysis. See Longv.Mattingly ,797S.W.2d889,896(Tenn.App.1990); seealso Lebovitzv.Bearden ,No.02A01-9211-CV-00308,1993WL471479,at*2(Tenn.App.Nov.16, 1993)( noperm.app.filed ).Theadditurstatutesetsforthonepartofthisanalysisbydirectingthis D< courttoreviewthetrialcourt ssuggestionofadditur usingthestandardofreviewprovidedforin Rule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedureapplicabletodecisionsofthetrialcourt h` sittingwithoutajury. T.C.A.20-10-101(b)(2)(1994).Thisstandardrequiresusto reviewthe proofofdamagestodeterminewhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt ssuggestion ofadditur. Phillipsv.Perot ,No.02A01-9704-CV-00094,1998WL117325,at*2(Tenn.App. Mar.17,1998)( noperm.app.filed )(citing Longv.Mattingly ,797S.W.2dat896). !" ` Iftheadditurissupportedbythetrialevidence,thiscourtthenconsiderstwoother $ & factorstodeterminewhethertheadditurwasproper: (1)thetrialcourt sreasonsfortheadditur,and `&X ( (2)therelationbetweentheamountoftheadditurandtheamountofthejury sverdict. Phillipsv. ' * Perot ,1998WL117325,at*2(citing Lynchv.Turner ,No.01A01-9109-CV-00325,1992WL )|", 23122,at*1(Tenn.App.Feb.12,1992)( noperm.app.filed ); Lebovitzv.Bearden ,No. +$. 02A01-9211-CV-00308,1993WL471479,at*2(Tenn.App.Nov.16,1993)( noperm.app.filed )). ,%0 Weexaminethetrialcourt sreasonsforsuggestingtheadditurbecause adjustmentsareproperonly @.8'2 whenthecourtdisagreeswiththeamountoftheverdict. Longv.Mattingly ,797S.W.2dat896. /(4 Weexaminetheamountofthesuggestedadditurbecause adjustmentsthat totallydestroy thejury s d1\*6 verdictareimpermissible. Id .(citing Fosterv.AmconInt l,Inc. ,621S.W.2d142,148(Tenn. 2+8 1981); Guessv.Maury ,726S.W.2d906,913(Tenn.App.1986)). 4-: ` Applyingthisthreepartanalysisinthepresentcase,wefirstconcludethatthe 70> evidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt ssuggestionofadditurbecausetheadditur <942@ resultedinajudgmentthatremainedwithintherangeofthevaluationevidencepresentedattrial. TheCounty sexpertwitnessestestifiedthat,intheirrespectiveopinions,theState sroadprojecthad notnegativelyaffectedthevalueofMcKinney sproperty.McKinney sexpertwitness,ontheother ( hand,opinedthatMcKinney spropertyhaddeclinedinvalueby$7750.McKinneyhimselftestified thathebelievedthepropertyhaddeclinedinvaluefrom$51,000to$5,000,adifferenceof$46,000. H @ Thus,thedamageestimatesintroducedattrialrangedfromzeroto$46,000. ` Thejury sverdictof$7700approximatedtheamountofdamagesestimatedby McKinney sexpert,andthetrialcourt sadditurof$15,000effectivelyincreasedthejury sverdictto $22,700.Althoughthefinaljudgmentof$22,700significantlyexceededthejury sverdict,the judgmentstillremainedwellwithintherangeofthedamageestimatesintroducedattrial. Accordingly,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt ssuggestionofadditur. 80 Reevesv.Olsen ,691S.W.2d527,531(Tenn.1985); Wilderv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. , 912S.W.2d722,727(Tenn.App.1995); Burchfieldv.State ,774S.W.2d178,183(Tenn.App. \T 1988). ` Asforthethirdpartoftheanalysis,wefurtherconcludethatthesuggestedadditur doesnottotallydestroythejury sverdict.Theappellatecourtsofthisstatehaveexpressedtheir !" reluctancetoestablishanumericalstandardforreviewingadditurandremittiturcases. Fosterv. 0#( $ AmconInt l,Inc. ,621S.W.2d142,148n.9(Tenn.1981); Guessv.Maury ,726S.W.2d906,913 $ & (Tenn.App.1986); Lebovitzv.Bearden ,No.02A01-9211-CV-00308,1993WL471479,at*4(Tenn. X&P ( App.Nov.16,1993)( noperm.app.filed ).Nevertheless,inexaminingtherelationbetweenthe ' * amountoftheadditurandtheamountofthejury sverdict,courtsinvariablyquantifytheratiothatthe )x", resultingjudgmentbearstotheoriginaljuryverdict. # 2 ׀In Lynchv.Turner ,No. +$. 01A01-9109-CV-00325,1992WL23122,at*2(Tenn.App.Feb.12,1992)( noperm.app.filed ),for ,%0 example,wenotedthat mostofthereportedcasesdealwithadditursintherangeofonetotwotimes thejuryverdict. There,weaffirmedasuggestedadditureventhoughtheresultingjudgmentwas fourtimeslargerthanthejury sverdict.Similarly,in Ledfordv.French ,No. ( 02A01-9106-CH-00102,1992WL1144,at*2(Tenn.App.Jan.7,1992)( noperm.app.filed ),we affirmedanadditureventhoughtheresultingjudgmentwasapproximatelyfivetimeslargerthanthe P H jury sverdict.And,in Phillipsv.Perot ,No.02A01-9704-CV-00094,1998WL117325,at*2(Tenn. App.Mar.17,1998)( noperm.app.filed ),weaffirmedallofthetrialcourt ssuggestedadditurs tl wherethelargestadditurwasroughlyfiveandonehalftimesgreaterthanitscorrespondingverdict. Ineachofthesecases,weconcludedthattheamountofthesuggestedadditurdidnotdestroythe verdict sintegrity. Cf . Fosterv.AmconInt l,Inc. ,621S.W.2d142,148(Tenn.1981)(reversing ( additurthatwasthirtytimesjury sverdict); Lebovitzv.Bearden ,No.02A01-9211-CV-00308,1993 WL471479,at*4(Tenn.App.Nov.16,1993)( noperm.app.filed )(reversingadditurthatwasmore PH thantwentytimesjury sverdict). ` Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourt sadditurresultedinafinaljudgmentthatwasalmost threetimesgreaterthanthejury sverdict.Basedupontheforegoingdecisionsofthiscourt,we cannotsaythatthetrialcourt ssuggestedadditurboresolittlerelationtothejury sverdictthatit $ totallydestroyedtheverdict. !" ` Whenweexaminethetrialcourt sreasonfortheadditur,however,weconcludethat $ & thelawdoesnotsupportthesuggestionofadditurmadeinthiscase.AtthehearingonMcKinney s d&\ ( motionfornewtrialoradditur,thetrialcourtexpresseditsdissatisfactionwiththejury sverdictfor ' * thefollowingreason: )|", 8 ` Butmyconcern,Iguess,andreviewingalltheproofand!well, ,%0 Ithinkit sjustthecostofbuildingarampdowntotheproperty!Ido l-d&1 knowtheheightofthepropertyandelevationtoit,andthefactit 4.,'2 doesn thaveanyaccesstothepropertyanylonger,thatcausesthecourt .'3 someconcernastowhatitwouldcosttoactuallygetfromthenew /(4 roadway,eventhoughhehas!hispropertyabutsthe!doesn tabutthe 0)5 newroad.It sjustthecostofbuildingasuitablerampfromthe T1L*6 roadwaydowntothatproperty,andthat swhatcausesthecourtsome 2+7 concern.ThatiswhatIhaveaconcernabout. 2+8 ` ` 8 ` SoIwantyoutogetthetranscriptandbriefthiswholething, t4l-: andlet slookatthewholethingatafuturedate.Butthat sone <54.; concernthatIhave,andtheStateneedstobeawareof,isthefactit 6.< doesn thaveanyfrontage!itdoeshavefrontage,buthowdoyouget 6/= fromanelevatedroadwaydowntothelotitself,thepropertyitself? 70> & X Thatcausesmesomeconcern. \8T1? ` ` 8 ` ....' X\8kk 92A ` ` Ї8 ` Well,anyway,whatIwanttodoisgetthetranscript,lookat that.IwanteveryonetounderstandthatI mnotsomuchconcerned aboutthevaluespeopleplacedonit.Myconcerniswhatitwouldcost tomakeanadequateentrancetothepropertyfromanabutting& roadway. ` X Okay? ( ` ` 8 ` ....' ` em ` ` 8 ` ...[M]yconcernisthecostofconstructingasuitableentrance H @ tothispropertyfromtheadjacentroad. ` ` ` Asindicatedbythetrialcourt scomments,thecourtwasnotconcernedthatthejury s 0( verdictwasinadequatetocompensateMcKinneyforthedecreaseinvalueofhisproperty.Rather, thetrialcourtwasconcernedthatthejury sverdictfailedtocompensateMcKinneyforthecostof PH constructinganaccessroadtothepropertytoreplacetheeasementthatwastakenbytheState. Apparently,thetrialcourtbelievedthatMcKinneywasentitledtorecoverdamagesbothforthe ph decreaseinvalueofMcKinney spropertyandforthecostofconstructinganaccessroadtoreplace theeasement.Inasmuchasthetrialcourt scommentsrevealamistakenviewoftheapplicablelawof damages,wereversethetrialcourt ssuggestionofadditurandremandthiscaseforanewtrial. ` Tennesseehaslongrecognizedthatalandownerwhoseeasementofaccesshasbeen @ 8 takenorimpairedbytheStatemaybringanactionforinversecondemnationagainsttheState. ! ShelbyCountyv.Barden ,527S.W.2d124,127(Tenn.1975); Tatev.MonroeCounty ,578S.W.2d `"X# 642,644(Tenn.App.1978).Asoursupremecourthasexplained, # % 8 ` [t]hepropositionthatthediminutionordeprivationofaccessto ' ) privatepropertybytheStateisacompensabletakinghardlyrequires ' * citation.Rightsofingressandegresshavelongbeenrecognizedby (!+ Tennesseecourtsaspropertyrightsforwhichjust& compensationisdue. l)d", ` ` Blevinsv.JohnsonCounty ,746S.W.2d678,68182(Tenn.1988).' l)u ,%0 ` Inaninversecondemnationaction,themeasureofdamagestothelandowneristhe /(4 sameasthatawardedinanycondemnationsuit. ShelbyCountyv.Barden ,527S.W.2dat127; @18*6 Tatev.MonroeCounty ,578S.W.2dat645.Asageneralrule,thecorrectmeasureofdamagesin 2+8 suchcasesisthedifferencebetweenthefairmarketvalueoftheplaintiff spropertypriortothetaking h4`-: orimpairmentoftheaccessandtheproperty svalueafterthetakingandtheconstructionofthe 5.< projectforwhichthepropertyrightwastaken. ShelbyCountyv.Barden ,527S.W.2dat12728; 70> EastParkUnitedMethodistChurchv.WashingtonCounty ,567S.W.2d768,771(Tenn.App. 92@ 1977); Stokelyv.SouthernRy.Co. ,418S.W.2d255,260(Tenn.App.1967). ` Theappellatecourtsofthisstatehaverecognizedthattheavailabilityofotheraccess , $ tothepropertyor,alternatively,thecostofobtainingorconstructingnewaccesstothepropertymay berelevanttothedeterminationoftheproperty sdiminutioninvalue. ShelbyCountyv.Barden ,527 L D S.W.2dat128; Tatev.MonroeCounty ,578S.W.2dat645; Stokelyv.SouthernRy.Co. ,418 S.W.2dat260; CityofLebanonv.Merryman ,No.01A01-9005-CV-00157,1990WL177348,at*3 tl (Tenn.App.Nov.16,1990), perm.app.denied (Tenn.Jan.28,1991).Historically,however,this courtrefusedtoincludethecostofrestoringaccesstothepropertyinitscalculationofdamages. See, e.g. , BrooksideMills,Inc.v.Moulton ,404S.W.2d258,264(Tenn.App.1965); CityofLebanonv. 0( Merryman ,1990WL177348,at*3. ` Inrecentyears,thiscourthasheldthatthecosttorestoreapropertyowner saccessto apublicstreetmaybeapropermeasureofdamagesineitheracondemnationcaseoraninverse xp condemnationcase. Bettyv.MetropolitanGov t ,835S.W.2d1,7(Tenn.App.1992)(inverse condemnation); Stateexrel.Comm rofDep tofTransp.v.Vanatta ,728S.W.2d341,342(Tenn. App.1986)(condemnation).Thesemorerecentdecisions,however,donotstandfortheproposition 0 ( thatthelandownermayrecoverbothdiminutioninvalueandcostofrestorationforthesametaking. !" Rather,aswereadthesedecisions,theyholdthatthelandownermayrecovereitherforthediminished P#H $ valueofhispropertyorforthecosttorestoreaccess,whicheverisless. See Bettyv.Metropolitan $ & Gov t ,835S.W.2dat7(holdingthat [p]ropertyownersmayrecoverforthediminishedvalueoftheir t&l ( propertyorforthecostofrepairs,whicheverisless ); Statev.Vanatta ,728S.W.2dat343(holding ( !* thatstatehad theoptionofprovidingreasonableaccesstothedefendantsorcompensatingthemfor )", thedenialofaccess ); seealso Fullerv.OrkinExterminatingCo. ,545S.W.2d103,108(Tenn. ,+$$. App.1975)(holdingthat themeasureofdamagesforinjurytorealestateisthedifferencebetween ,%0 thereasonablemarketvalueofthepremisesimmediatelypriortoandimmediatelyafterinjurybutif P.H'2 thereasonablecostofrepairingtheinjuryislessthanthedepreciationinvalue,thecostofrepairis /(4 thelawfulmeasureofdamages ). # 3 p1h*6 ` Inourview,thetrialcourt scommentsinthepresentcasereflectedthecourt s 4-: mistakenassumptionthatMcKinneywasentitledtorecoverbothforthediminutioninvalueofhis propertyandforthecosttorestoreaccesstotheproperty.Thetrialcourtapparentlybelievedthatthe jury sverdictcompensatedMcKinneyonlyforthediminutioninvalueoftheproperty,andthecourt ( suggestedanadditurinanefforttocompensateMcKinneyforthecostofrestoringaccesstothe property.InasmuchasMcKinneywasnotentitledtorecoverbothoftheseelementsasdamages,we H @ concludethatthesuggestionofadditurcannotstandandthatthiscasemustberemandedforanew trialondamages. See Fosterv.AmconInt l ,621S.W.2dat149; Lebovitzv.Bearden ,1993WL h` 471479,at*4. ` Thetrialcourt sjudgmentisreversed,andthiscauseisremandedforfurther proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoMcKinney,forwhich executionmayissueifnecessary. <4 ` h _______________________________________ \T ` h FARMER,J. $ _________________________________ D < CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. _________________________________ ,#$ $ LILLARD,J.# X9) X X X9)q # # %