ÿWPC&  Ùp¨ô˜lJ 2e|–0)í >šHYBeMVzHÄ ­L…®ÒIìN&²ú… zøŸñÈÕJÏvÙD¾%ü¾ì¶õº¼Ä‰Hž¢O€ûbºØK0á:ÀE¿—Ù¦úw®ÛŽçëÈHý£KòbÀ6}ÓLË? 5ˆñîy”*šÛ\õÌ~¦º |wJ® îš­Ãý$Õë¯ýåàÍÚóÊ|ì°zfŽÏî3"r´,ûVÆXŽn’´ 9oÞrH»ÿÀ‘føõµl‘Ú¬ äcj*#D.+ÕN•ðHµ^XÄ|÷Àÿª€÷ÈêÝ9Æ Ú¸ô 2úŒô(5‡A/#ÑWqÞÀ!ÍÂÐ<5,ãØŽ—¿Â¤¤ú©nw¤VÌÖÔØá–¾~]ìqþJ†—ºìÁk ío-ùt ’ :F”ï?{¹"¼1®’ß¹¶òÏ wñ‰¾=aóÄý;£Ã}Ǻ#8¦x˜w+õ;XEU".7ÃÚØß”j{-gOV¨Å”23VÆvõs¢#Q±c“ðŒFõ²4Ó¼¨˜l+;¿þðŽ*‹¥ñ¨¯dÇ+”‡ÛÖ¾&÷Ô›%€a™NùŒì‚Û Š¨íz`@ž"=W*# LUNW %¥ 0(«w@Ó4'6->kU:mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm AQ§Æø 0D¾ 0D 0DF F D/Š B¹ BÖ D3ó ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ «U¬D­D®D¯°D±²D³Ó€½©yË&,,,,,,3|x½ #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ øÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X,eXXXÔÔ€ ó%X X,eÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X,eX ó%ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҼ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ-¼äd†XœÔ‘X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€ úÑœñ½ññ½ññ½ññ³ñœñ³ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ½ññ³ññ³ññ½ññ½ñDR.›€&€MRS.€WENTWORTH€S.€à  à)Ð ° Ðñ½ñœßt€ )>.*jxL%` `€€@E@å` 8ttxPxÀ4 % tß›ñ½ñMORRISà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)Ð À Ðand€à  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)Ð Ð  ÐMARY€€MAURICIA€MORRIS,à  à)€Ð à0 Ðà  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)ÌÓ?¼8d‚X,X¼äd†XœÔ‘X?Óà  àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð  P Ðà  àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9809„BC„00468Ð  ` Ðv.à  àà  à)à  àà  àÐ  p Ðà  àà  à)à  àTennessee€Regulatory€€Ð 0 € ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à  à)à  àAuthority€Nos.€Ð @  Ðà  àà  à)à  à101452€and€101807Ð P   Ðà  àDefendant/Appellee.à  à)Ð `°  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€TENNESSEE€REGULATORY€AUTHORITY€FORÌœÌDAVIDSON›€COUNTYÌœÌAT›€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌñ½ñœñ½ñÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌHELEN€LOFTIN€CORNELLÌ3635€Woodmont€BoulevardÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37215Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌMEREDITH€DEVAULTÌCivil€Rights€and€Claims€DivisionÌCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243Ìà  àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌñ³ñÑ úÑÑ7€6oXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ññ³ñÌÓ  ÓWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:0639 ÐÑ úÑÑ7€6oXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ññ³ñÑ úÑÑ7€Ö]XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ññ³ñÓ  ÓÔ€„{Є¼¼ÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌà  àÔ€¼¼„„{ÐÔThis€case€involves€the€claims€of€a€husband€and€wife€and€their€adultÐ  p Ðdaughter€who€were€all€three€living€together€in€one€home.€€Following€an€incidentÏinvolving€the€discharge€of€a€firearm,€the€adult€daughter€was€arrested€andÏdelivered€to€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€("MTMHI")€for€forensicÏexamination€to€determine€her€competence€to€stand€trial.€€After€her€release€fromÏMTMHI,€the€daughter€filed€claim€with€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÏalleging€rape,€unlawful€confinement,€physical€abuse€and€drug€abuse.€€The€parentsÏlikewise€filed€claim€with€the€Claims€Commission€alleging€loss€of€companionship,Ïsociety€and€services,€together€with€medical€and€other€expenses€relative€to€theirÏadult€daughter.€€Almost€seven€years€later,€the€Claims€Commission€grantedÏsummary€judgment€to€the€State€on€the€claims€of€the€parents€and€dismissed€withÏprejudice,€under€Rule€41(.02),€the€claim€of€the€daughter€for€failure€to€prosecuteÏher€claim€and€failure€to€comply€with€discovery€requirements.€€All€the€claimantsÏhave€appealed€to€this€court€where€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€allÏrespects.ÌÌI.€€à  àFACTSÐ  !ð# Ðà  àDr.€Wentworth€S.€Morris,€a€retired€professor€from€Austin€Peay€StateÏUniversity,€lived€with€his€wife,€Mary€Eva€Morris,€and€adult€daughter,€MaryÏMauricia€Morris,€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee.€€Mary€Mauricia€Morris,€who€wasÏborn€September€19,€1962,€attained€a€Bachelor's€Degree€in€Mass€CommunicationsÏfrom€Austin€Peay€State€University.€€While€living€with€her€parents,€Mary€MauriciaÏworked€at€Wal„Mart,€The€Record€Bar€and€Radio€Station€WJZM.ÌÌà  àIn€August€of€1990,€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€was€standing€in€the€yard€of€herÏhome€with€her€mother€when€two€motorcyclists€drove€into€their€driveway.€€SheÏfired€two€shots€into€the€air€and€was€shortly€thereafter€arrested€and€charged€withÏreckless€endangerment€and€unlawful€possession€of€a€firearm.€€On€August€24,Ï1990,€following€the€gunfire€incident,€Mary€Mauricia€was€ordered€by€the€court€toÏundergo€outpatient€forensic€testing,€and€three€weeks€later€an€order€was€enteredÏfor€a€maximum€thirty€day€confinement€at€MTMHI.€€Her€confinement€should€haveÏexpired€on€October€13,€1990,€but€for€some€reason€she€remained€in€confinementÐ ˆ9Ø4A Ðat€MTMHI€until€October€25,€1990.ÌÌà  àOn€August€23,€1991,€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€filed€her€claim€with€theÏDivision€of€Claims€Administration€alleging€that€she€had€suffered€medicalÏmalpractice,€assault€and€rape€at€the€hands€of€MTMHI€employees.€€Thereafter,€Dr.Ïand€Mrs.€Morris€filed€their€claims€alleging€loss€of€companionship,€society€andÏservices€of€their€adult€daughter,€together€with€medical€and€other€expenses.€€TheseÏclaims€were€transferred€to€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€and€consolidated.€ÏOn€March€2,€1994,€based€on€admission€by€the€defendant,€summary€judgment€wasÏgranted€on€the€issue€of€liability€to€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€for€illegal€confinementÏfor€the€period€October€14,€1990€through€October€25,€1990.€€On€all€other€issuesÏher€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€overruled.€€After€voluminous€proceedings,Ïon€July€28,€1998,€€the€Claims€Commission,€in€an€extensive€€memorandum,Ïdisposed€of€all€issues€in€the€consolidated€cases€by€granting€the€State's€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€as€to€the€claims€of€Dr.€and€Mrs.€Wentworth€S.€Morris€andÏdismissing€the€claim€of€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€under€Rule€41.02€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure€for€failure€to€prosecute.ÌÌII.à  àTHE€CASE€OF€DR.€AND€MRS.€WENTWORTH€S.€MORRIS€Ð `!°$ Ðà  àSummary€judgment€having€been€granted€by€the€Claims€Commission,€thisÏcourt€on€appeal€cannot€weigh€the€evidence€but€must€require€the€moving€party€toÏdemonstrate€the€absence€of€any€genuine€and€material€factual€issue.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ð (&x!* Ð847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€If€after€considering€the€facts€established€byÏthe€record€and€all€legitimate€inferences€to€be€drawn€therefrom€in€favor€of€the€non„¼moving€party,€€the€court€finds€that€a€material€issue€of€fact€is€presented€or€if€thereÏis€doubt€as€to€whether€or€not€such€fact€issue€is€presented,€this€court€must€vacateÏthe€summary€judgment.€€òòEvco€Corp.€v.€Rossóó,€528€S.W.2d€20,€24„25€(Tenn.€1975).Ð  .p)4 ÐÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€in€this€record€that€at€the€time€this€chain€of€events€beganÏMary€Mauricia€Morris€was€an€adult€college€graduate€with€gainful€employmentÏhistory.€€The€repeated€reference€to€her€in€the€pleadings€of€this€claimant€as€anÏ"unemancipated€adult€child"€are€meaningless€in€the€absence€of€evidence.€ÏÓB¼8d‚X z ,X¼8d‚X,XBÓTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€1„3„113(a)€provides:ÌÓ€Óœñ«ñÐ H9˜4B Ðñ«ñ›à8  àà8  ü! ü!àNotwithstanding€any€laws€to€the€contrary,€any€personÏwho€is€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age€or€older€shall€have€theÏsame€rights,€duties,€and€responsibilities€as€a€person€whoÏis€twenty„one€(21)€years€of€age,€except€as€provided€inÏsubsection€(b)€relative€to€the€rights€to€purchase,€possess,Ïtransport,€and€consume€alcoholic€beverages,€wine,€orÏbeer€as€those€terms€are€defined€in€title€57.Ð    ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àEmancipation€may€occur€by€operation€of€law.€€òòGlover€v.€Gloveróó,€44€Tenn.Ð @  ÐApp.€712,€720,€319€S.W.2d€238,€241€(1958).€€The€enactment€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€1„3„113(a)€completely€emancipated€those€over€eighteen€yearsÏof€age€from€the€control€of€their€parents.€€òòGarey€v.€Gareyóó,€482€S.W.2d€133,€135Ð X Ð(Tenn.€1972).€€Accordingly,€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€became€completelyÏemancipated€when€she€became€eighteen€years€old,€even€though€she€continued€toÏlive€in€her€parents'€home.€€òòGlover€v.€Gloveróó,€44€Tenn.€App.€at€725,€319€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€243€(noting€that€complete€emancipation€can€occur€even€though€the€childÏcontinues€to€live€with€his€or€her€parents).€€Where€emancipation€of€a€minor€isÏcomplete,€the€parent's€right€to€maintain€action€for€loss€of€services€due€to€injuriesÏis€cut€off.€€òòMemphis€Steel€Constr.€Co.€v.€Listeróó,€138€Tenn.€307,€197€S.W.€902Ð 0€ Ð(Tenn.€1917).ÌÌà  àThere€is€no€evidence€in€this€record€that€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€was€diseasedÏor€disabled€at€the€time€she€reached€her€majority.€€Case€law€exists€which,€underÏsuch€circumstances,€would€make€Dr.€and€Mrs.€Morris€responsible€for€her€upkeepÏand€perhaps€give€them€a€corresponding€right€to€recover€for€medical€expenses€andÏloss€of€society€and€services.€€òòSee€Sayne€v.€Sayneóó,€39€Tenn.€App.€422,€284€S.W.2dÐ X)¨$+ Ð309€(1955)€(finding€that€a€twenty„seven€year€old€daughter€who€had€been€disabledÏsince€childhood€and€lived€in€the€parental€home€was€not€emancipated€such€that€theÏcourt€could€order€her€father€to€pay€child€support).€€Indeed,€the€only€evidence€inÏthis€record€consistent€with€non„emancipation€is€the€fact€that€Mary€MauriciaÏMorris€continued€to€live€in€the€home€of€her€parents.€€This€is€insufficient€toÏestablish€non„emancipation.€€òòGlover€v.€Gloveróó,€44€Tenn.€App.€at€725,€319€S.W.2d€Ð è28.7 Ðat€243.ÌÌà  àClaimant€relies€on€òòRoddy€Manufacturing€Co.€v.€Dixon,óó€21€Tenn.€App.€81,Ð °73= Ð105€S.W.2d€513€(1936),€to€support€her€position.€€That€case€involved€the€loss€ofÐ H9˜4? Ðservices€of€a€19€year€old€son€impaired€by€tort€injury€and€thus€limited€in€his€abilityÏto€perform€farm€labor€on€his€father's€farm.€€The€son€was€19€years€of€age€at€theÏtime€when€the€law€provided€that€emancipation€by€attainment€of€majority€did€notÏoccur€until€age€21.€€Chapter€162€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1971,€codified€in€part€inÏsection€1„3„113(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Code,€reduced€the€age€at€which€one€reachedÏmajority€from€age€21€to€age€18.€€In€August€1990,€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€was€28Ïyears€of€age,€well€past€the€age€of€majority.ÌÌÓ€Óà8  àà  àIt€is€fundamental€that€once€a€child€reaches€the€age€of€majorityÏthere€is€a€complete€emancipation€of€the€minor€from€the€protectiveÏbonds€of€parental€control.€€At€the€time€of€complete€emancipation€theÏparents'€legal€duty€to€support€the€child€is€terminated.€€Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌà8  àà  àIn€Section€3€of€Chapter€162€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1971€theÏGeneral€Assembly€has€conferred€the€status€of€adulthood€on€personsÏ18€years€of€age€or€older.€€By€lowering€the€age€of€majority€from€21Ïto€18€years€of€age€the€Legislature€has€completely€emancipated€theÏminor€from€the€control€of€the€parents€and€relieved€the€parents€ofÏtheir€attendant€legal€duty€to€support€the€child.€Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌòòGarey€v.€Gareyóó,€482€S.W.2d€133,€135€(Tenn.€1972)€(citations€omitted).Ð 0€ ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àTo€the€extent€that€the€complaint€of€Dr.€and€Mrs.€Morris€seeks€recovery€forÏloss€of€society€and€companionship€of€an€adult€child,€we€find€that€there€is€no€basisÏfor€such€an€action.€€While€a€growing€minority€of€sister€jurisdictions€seem€toÏrecognize€such€a€cause€of€action,€òòHoward€Frank,€M.D.,€P.C.€v.€Superior€Courtóó,Ð °&"& Ð722€P.2d€955€(Ariz.€1986);€òòMasaki€v.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€780€P.2d€566Ð H(˜#( Ð(Hawaii€1989),€the€majority€rule€does€not€recognize€such€an€action.€€òòBoucher€v.Ð à)0%* ÐDixie€Med.€Ctr.óó,€850€P.2d€1179€(Utah€1992).€€The€majority€rule€is€grounded€inÐ x+È&, Ðpublic€policy€and€was€well€stated€by€the€Wisconsin€Supreme€Court€in€òòEstate€of€óóÐ -`(. ÐòòWells€v.€Mount€Sinai€Medical€Center€óóin€a€context€similar€to€the€case€at€baròò.€€óóTheÐ ¨.ø)0 Ðissue€in€òòWells€óówas€whether€a€parent€can€recover€for€loss€of€society€andÐ @0+2 Ðcompanionship€of€an€adult€child€whose€injuries€allegedly€resulted€from€medicalÏmalpractice.€€Citing€òòHass€v.€Chicago€&€North€Western€Railway€Co.óó,€179€N.W.2dÐ p3À.6 Ð885,€888€(Wis.€1970),€the€court€in€òòWellsóó€stated:Ð 5X08 ÐÓ€Óà8  àIt€is€recognized€by€this€and€other€courts€that€even€where€the€chainÏof€causation€is€complete€and€direct,€recovery€against€the€negligentÏtortfeasor€may€sometimes€be€denied€on€grounds€of€public€policyÏbecause€the€injury€is€too€remote€from€the€negligence€or€too€'whollyÐ Ð9 5= Ðout€of€proportion€to€the€culpability€of€the€negligent€tort„feasor,'€orÏin€retrospect€it€appears€too€highly€extraordinary€that€the€negligenceÏshould€have€brought€about€the€harm,€or€because€allowance€ofÏrecovery€would€place€too€unreasonable€a€burden€[on€negligent€tort„¼feasors],€or€be€too€likely€to€open€the€way€for€fraudulent€claims,€orÏwould€'enter€a€field€that€has€no€sensible€or€just€stopping€point.'Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓEstate€of€Wells€v.€Mount€Sinai€Med.€Ctr,€óó515€N.W.2d€705€(Wis.€1994)€(quotingÐ  p ÐòòHassóó,€179€N.W.2d€at€888)€(quoting€òòColla€v.€Mandellaóó,€85€N.W.2d€345€(Wis.Ð ¸   Ð1957))òò.óó€€No€Tennessee€case€has€recognized€a€parental€cause€of€action€for€loss€ofÐ P   Ðsociety€and€companionship€of€an€emancipated€adult€child.€€The€majority€rule€inÏsister€jurisdictions€is€persuasive€that€no€such€cause€of€action€is€viable.ÌÌà  àThe€evidence€in€the€case,€primarily€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Morris,€clearlyÏshows€that€neither€he€nor€his€wife€Mary€Eva€Morris,€knew€anything€first€handÏabout€what€happened€to€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€while€she€was€at€MTMHI.€€NoÏevidence€in€the€record€approaches€the€serious€emotional€injury€required€to€effectÏrecovery€under€òòRamsey€v.€Beaversóó,€931€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1996).€€TheÐ ` Ðundisputed€facts€and€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€those€facts€in€this€case€wouldÏpermit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€Dr.€and€Mrs.€MorrisÏcannot€prevail€as€a€matter€of€law€in€any€of€their€claims€before€the€ClaimsÏCommission€in€this€case.€€Summary€judgment€was€properly€granted.€€òòByrd€v.Ð p"À# ÐHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).Ð $X% ÐÌIII.à  àTHE€CASE€OF€MARY€MAURICIA€MORRISÐ 8'ˆ") Ðà  àRule€41.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€€Civil€Procedure€is€a€mirror€imageÏof€the€federal€rule.€€This€being€true,€federal€authorities€provide€helpful€guidanceÏin€our€interpretation€of€the€Tennessee€rule.€€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2d€284,Ð ,P'/ Ð287€(Tenn.€1991);€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2d€527,€530€(Tenn.€1977).€€RuleÐ ˜-è(1 Ð41.02€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà  àUnless€the€court€in€its€order€for€dismissal€otherwise€specifies,Ïa€dismissal€under€this€subdivision€and€any€dismissal€not€providedÏfor€in€this€Rule€41,€other€than€a€dismissal€for€lack€of€jurisdiction€orÏfor€improper€venue€or€for€lack€of€an€indispensable€party,€operatesÏas€an€adjudication€upon€the€merits.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€41.02(3).€€While€an€involuntary€dismissal€with€prejudice€isÏreviewed€on€appeal€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€òòLink€v.€Wabash€Ry.Ð À84= ÐCo.óó,€370€U.S.€626,€82€S.Ct.€1386,€8€L.Ed.2d€734€(1962),€it€is€likewise€true€thatÐ ° Мñ¯ñdismissal€with€prejudiceñ¯ññ°ñthis›€powerñ°ñ›€should€be€œñ±ñdoneñ±ññ²ñusedñ²ñ›€sparingly.€€òòHarris€v.€Baptist€Mem'lÐ H˜ ÐHosp.,óó€574€S.W.2d€730,€731€(Tenn.€1978).Ð à0 ÐÌà  àThe€following€chronology€of€events€in€the€Claims€Commission€isÏindispensable€in€determining€if€the€Claims€Commission's€action€of€involuntaryÏdismissal€with€prejudice€was€an€abuse€of€discretion:ÌÌà  à1.à  àThe€claimants€filed€claim€with€the€Division€of€Claims€AdministrationÐ pÀ  Ðon€August€23,€1991€alleging€negligence,€medical€malpractice,€assault,€battery€andÏintentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress.Ìà  à2.à  àThis€claim€was€transferred€to€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€onÐ 8ˆ ÐDecember€2,€1991€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„402Ï(c).Ìà  à3.à  àThe€claimants€filed€a€joint€complaint€with€the€Tennessee€ClaimsÐ P ÐCommission€on€March€3,€1992.Ìà  à4.à  àDefendant€denied€the€allegations€of€the€complaint€on€June€23,€1992.Ð 0€  Ðà  à5.à  àOn€motion€of€the€claimants,€a€trial€date€was€set€for€April€23,€1993.Ð È" Ðà  à6.à  àThe€Commission€continued€the€trial€because€of€failure€of€theÐ `!°$ Ðclaimant,€Mary€Mauricia€Morris,€to€respond€to€interrogatories.Ìà  à7.à  àOn€November€22,€1993,€the€claimants€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ $à( Ðjudgment.Ìà  à8.à  àOn€March€2,€1994,€Commissioner€Murray€granted€partial€summaryÐ À'#, Ðjudgment,€holding€that€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€had€been€improperly€confined€forÏthe€period€October€14,€1990€through€October€25,€1990.€€In€all€other€respects,€theÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€by€the€claimants€was€denied.Ìà  à9.à  àFollowing€a€number€of€motions€essentially€unrelated€to€theÐ  .p)4 Ðcontrolling€question,€Commissioner€Baker,€by€order€entered€May€28,€1996,Ïordered€that€the€deposition€of€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€be€taken€by€the€defendantÏon€July€24,€1996€at€10:00€a.m.Ì€€€€€€10.à  àThe€deposition€did€not€take€place€and€Commissioner€Baker€orderedÐ €4Ð/< Ðher€to€appear€for€deposition€on€November€12,€1996.Ì€€€€€€11.à  àOn€November€8,€1996,€a€subpoena€was€issued€by€the€AdministrativeÐ °73@ ÐClerk€of€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€requiring€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€toÐ H9˜4B Ðappear€for€her€scheduled€deposition€on€November€12,€1996.Ì€€€€€€12.à  àThis€subpoena€was€served€upon€claimant€by€her€own€attorney,€HelenÐ H˜ ÐCornell,€on€November€11,€1996.Ì€€€€€€13.à  àMary€Mauricia€Morris€failed€to€appear€for€her€deposition€either€onÐ x È ÐNovember€12€or€November€13,€1996.Ì€€€€€€14.à  àOn€November€15,€1996,€defendant€noticed€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€andÐ ¨ ø  Ðher€mother€Mary€Eva€Morris€to€appear€for€depositions€on€December€10,€1996.Ì€€€€€€15.à  àOnce€again,€the€deposition€did€not€take€place€and€on€December€13,Ð Ø(  Ð1996,€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€Mary€Mauricia€Morris'€claim€for€failureÏto€cooperate€in€discovery.Ì€€€€€€16.à  àOn€January€31,€1997,€counsel€for€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€filed€herÐ  ð Ðown€affidavit,€along€with€the€affidavit€of€her€paralegal,€Carey€Hambrick,€Jr.,Ïrelative€to€their€efforts€to€get€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€to€appear€for€the€NovemberÏ12,€1996€deposition.€€The€affidavit€of€Hambrick€provides:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà  à1.à z àI€am€a€paralegal€in€the€law€office€of€Helen€Cornell,Ð P ÐAttorney.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  à2.à z àOn€November€10,€1996€I€went€with€Ms.€Cornell€toÐ  p ÐClarksville€to€the€Montgomery€County€Sheriff's€Department€and€toÏthe€residence€of€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€at€Vacation€Motor€Hotel€inÏClarksville,€attempting€to€serve€a€subpoena€upon€M[s].€Morris€forÏher€presence€at€her€deposition€on€November€12,€1996.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  à3.à z àOn€November€10th€Ms.€Cornell€requested€sheriff€serviceÐ p"À# Ðof€this€subpoena.€€She€further€put€a€copy€of€the€subpoena€underÏM[s].€Morris'€door€and€she€left€a€copy€of€the€subpoena€in€the€doorÏof€the€law€office€of€Stacey€Turner,€the€criminal€defense€attorney€forÏMary€Mauricia€Morris.Ð  ü! ü! Ѐà8  àà  à4.à z àOn€November€12,€1996€I€went€with€Ms.€Cornell€to€theÐ À'#( Ðresidence€of€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€at€Vacation€Motor€Hotel,Ïoffering€to€transport€Ms.€Morris€to€the€Deposition.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  à5.à z àWe€further€asked€Ms.€Stacey€Turner€at€the€MontgomeryÐ ð*@&+ ÐCounty€Courthouse€to€call€M[s].€Morris€or€to€bring€Ms.€Morris€toÏthe€deposition,€all€of€which€Ms.€Turner€refused€to€do.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  à6.à z àEvery€effort€was€made€by€Ms.€Cornell€and€me€to€secureÐ  .p). ÐClaimant€Mary€Morris'€presence€at€the€deposition.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  à7.à z àIn€addition,€Ms.€Cornell€and€I€picked€up€Dr.€and€Mrs.Ð @0+0 ÐMorris€in€Indian€Mound,€Tennessee€and€took€them€to€theirÏdepositions€on€November€13,€1996€and€returned€them€to€their€homeÏin€Indian€Mound.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€Ó€€€€€€€17.à  àOral€argument€on€all€pending€motions€was€heard€January€31,€1997,Ð 5à05 Ðand€on€February€18,€1997,€the€Commissioner€entered€an€order€providing€in€partÏas€follows:€€"[i]t€is€ordered€that€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€will€be€given€two€moreÐ À849 Ðchances€to€appear€for€her€deposition,€that€the€defendant€subpoena€Mary€MauriciaÏMorris€to€appear€for€her€deposition€on€February€24,€1997€and€February€25,€1997Ïat€10:00€a.m.€at€Austin€Peay€State€University€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee."€€Ì€€€€€€€18.à  àOn€February€25,€1997,€Commissioner€Baker€appeared€with€counselÐ x È Ðfor€the€parties€for€the€scheduled€deposition€of€Mary€Mauricia€Morris.€€She€onceÏagain€failed€to€appear€and€the€Commissioner€by€order€of€March€5,€1997€held€thatÏHelen€Cornell€no€longer€represented€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€and€that€theÏAdministrative€Clerk€for€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€should€send€a€copyÏof€the€order€directing€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€to€respond€to€the€court€within€thirtyÏdays€and€that€her€failure€to€do€so€would€indicate€to€the€court€that€she€hadÏabandoned€her€claim€and€would€constitute€grounds€for€the€State€to€move€forÏdismissal€of€her€lawsuit€on€the€basis€of€her€abandonment€of€the€claim.Ì€€€€€€€19.à  àNo€response€was€forthcoming€from€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€and€onÐ Ð  ÐApril€16,€1997,€defendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€claim€of€Mary€Mauricia€MorrisÏunder€Rule€41.02(1)€for€failure€to€prosecute.Ì€€€€€€€20.à  àFinally,€on€October€23,€1997,€Commissioner€Baker€dismissed€herÐ ˜è Ðclaim€under€Rule€41.02(1)€for€failure€to€prosecute.Ì€€€€€€€21.à  àOn€November€18,€1997,€the€claimant€filed€a€motion€under€Rule€52.02Ð È" Ðand€Rule€59.04€asking€the€Commission€to€amend€its€findings€of€fact€and€makeÏadditional€findings,€and€also€to€alter€or€amend€its€judgment.€€This€wasÏaccompanied€by€a€Rule€60€motion€to€reinstate€the€partial€summary€judgment€onÏliability€issued€by€Commissioner€Murray€on€February€28,€1994.Ì€€€€€€€22.à  àOn€July€28,€1998,€Commissioner€Baker€overruled€all€motions€pendingÐ À'#, Ðand€from€this€order€claimants€appeal.ÌÌà  àThe€patience€and€restraint€of€the€Commissioner€in€this€case€isÏcommendable.€€It€is€difficult€to€imagine€how€he€could€have€been€more€lenientÏwith€the€totally€unexplained€refusal€of€Mary€Mauricia€Morris€to€pursue€her€ownÏclaim.€€She€refused€to€appear€for€depositions€even€after€her€own€lawyer€served€aÏproper€subpoena€on€her€to€appear.€€By€any€analysis€associated€with€logic,€she€hasÏdeliberately€failed€and€refused€to€prosecute€her€claim.€€Like€any€other€party,€sheÏis€required€to€submit€to€discovery€and€it€is€her€obligation€to€timely€pursue€herÏown€claim.ÌÐ H9˜4B Ðà  àThe€belated€effort€by€her€counsel€to€resurrect€the€case€because€of€the€partialÏsummary€judgment€granted€in€1994€by€Commissioner€Murray€is€of€no€avail.€ÏDamages€are€an€indispensable€element€of€a€tort€claim€and€it€was€her€duty€toÏprosecute€this€part€of€her€claim€to€its€conclusion€just€as€it€was€her€duty€to€pursueÏall€other€elements€of€her€claim€upon€which€summary€judgment€was€not€granted.€Ï"As€to€the€Plaintiff's€insistence€that€the€jury€was€required€to€return€a€verdict€of€atÏleast€nominal€damages€for€loss€of€consortium,€we€note€that€in€negligence€casesÏwherein€damages€are€an€element€of€the€right€to€recover,€nominal€damages€areÏnever€proper."€€òòSkoretz€v.€Cowdenóó,€707€S.W.2d€529,€532€(Tenn.€App.€1985).Ð pÀ  ÐÌà  àThe€action€of€the€Commissioner€in€dismissing€the€claim€of€Mary€MauriciaÏMorris€with€prejudice€under€Rule€41.02(1)€is€certainly€not€an€abuse€of€discretionÏunder€the€facts€of€this€case.€€òòSee€Hutchins€v.€A.€G.€Edwards€&€Sons,€Inc.óó,€116Ð Ð  ÐF.3d€1256€(8th€Cir.€1997);€òòPalmieri€v.€Defariaóó,€88€F.3d€136€(2d€Cir.€1996);òòÐ h¸ ÐDorsey€v.€Scott€Wetzel€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€84€F.3d€170€(5th€Cir.€1996);€òòMorgan€v.€CityÐ P Ðof€Marmadukeóó,€958€F.2d€207€(8th€Cir.€1992);òò€Woods€v.€Union€Pacific€R.R.€Co.óó,Ð ˜è Ð957€F.2d€548€(8th€Cir.€1992);€òòFigueroa€v.€Alegriaóó,€896€F.2d€645€(1st€Cir.€1990).€Ð 0€  ÐThe€judgment€of€the€Claims€Commission€is€in€all€respects€affirmed€with€costsÏassessed€jointly€against€the€claimants.ÌÌÌÓ€ÓÓB¼8d‚X z À,X¼8d‚X z ,XBÓà  àà  àà z àà À à______________________________________Ìà  àà  àà z àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌœñ¬ññ¥ñÌñ¥ññ¬ñCONCUR:›Ìœñ­ññ¥ñÌñ¥ññ­ñ›ÌÌ____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€œñ®ñÌ›à , à›€›Ì›Ì›Ìñ®ñ›ÌÌœñ²ñÔ†ÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôñ²ñ