ÿWPC¤' ß–Ç™í r«Á—¢Kì%eו^çewûÅ'HŒXn¸Ùázif @˜n"(e¦jFÀ-£çTùþ…;«w)@peñ}Z˜¦=Æ-í£èÍ.âxX‚C*™¯¿ÒfYÙ/éBóÇ'· ‹•úŒ+ØÏlãÐö³<¹r¢åòÑRƒÈÜ£Õõú#ÙåZR>gö'%âÆ؈àýä¿C¥‘µªœ,pªGØ-÷§Qˆ2›Þ1y‚Ö.^ºÛV$#+Ͷ”Š„ºì‹ÍÞ»yÿª›ÒýKOd°…î,,{Gºˆÿ„‡ø¼zëç.ÇæŽÙ½;ó†Ò“ë6vr‰6ñ§Ý¤ò©êîg[pÙt“»ã™(Ÿ? } ¾ÈŽ|SwíKÑ4‚Ï.¨wYפ⇊%6Ÿ l¿·°Áe±‹Ê~»ÙÇ2©öö‰´Î‘XIÖù!týúàoª¸{ ð-òÁdHEKÄ7©Û#¯¼¡Ø{ ÷¬âHdCi#'à+aVü†+êv$%ŽFb5©|áoÐõPœû06ЙWTÿ7eŸêX¹(Œ¬\cnˆI¢—Ê"nG;k8š!@Þ´w’dÃ[ç èXîšwÜü–b*[)Ý,# hUNs %Á 0(Ç 0 Áïw@°4ðb# 0 D° ²ô n¦ †Nš^ œ¨ mª 0DÁ.UN3±•2 ÇùÒ 0DËhw D3y B¬ AQÉÆ qà 0DQ#ó•#Sˆ$ D/Û%U: & BD&a&i&U:j'˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼($¡¡(q(2¸t$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝѰ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÞËX¼¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó õDö÷EøùúDûUüDýÓ€©yË&Bÿ<3|x- ù- ƒÝ ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDamages€for€impairment€of€earning€capacity€may€be€awarded€for€either€permanent€orÐ ° Ðtemporary€impairments.€€òòSee€Dingus€v.€Cainóó,€56€Tenn.€App.€294,€297,€406€S.W.2d€169,€171€(1966);Ð  ð ÐòòSouthern€Coach€Lines€v.€Wilsonóó,€31€Tenn.€App.€at€243,€214€S.W.2d€at€56.€€If€the€impairment€isÐ à Ðtemporary,€the€multiplier€should€be€the€duration€of€the€actual€impairment€rather€than€the€injuredÏpersonððs€work€life€expectancy.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¨Ý ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€stipulation€does€not€appear€in€the€record.€€Theoretically,€one€party€could€haveÐ ° Ðunderstood€that€the€stipulation€extended€only€to€the€authenticity€of€the€documents,€while€the€otherÏcould€have€assumed€that€the€stipulation€covered€both€authentication€and€admissibility.€€In€theÏabsence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary,€we€have€concluded€that€the€stipulation€extends€to€bothÏauthenticity€and€admissibility€because€Ms.€Overstreet€has€not€taken€issue€with€ShoneyððsÏcharacterization€of€the€issue. dÝ ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X޽X»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€courts€have€reached€similar€conclusions€with€regard€to€promising€athletes€whose€careersÐ ° Ðwere€cut€short.€€òòSee€Clinchfield€R.R.€v.€Forbesóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€at€185,€417€S.W.2d€at€215;òò€ConnollyÐ  ð Ðv.€Pre„mixed€Concrete€Co.óó,€319€P.2d€343,€___€(Cal.€1957);€òòHorton€v.€McCraryóó,€620€So.€2d€918,€931Ð à Ð(La.€Ct.€App.€1993),€òòrev'd€on€other€groundsóó,€635€So.2d€199€(La.€1994).€€overstreet v. shoneys - opinion Î 3 ' IB011T10IB011T1 .   ŸÏ&c"ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý $Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ X Ñ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular §Ý ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSpecifically,€the€trial€court€stated:Ð ° ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àAnd€I€want€to€explain€for€the€record€the€reason€that€I€have€excluded€thisÏexhibit.€€Itððs€the€type€of€information€that€begs€cross„examination.€€It€indicates€on€itÏbelow„average€initiative,€questionable€rehire,€below„average€dependability.€€It€doesÏnot€indicate€that€she€participated€in€the€evaluation€to€any€extent.€€She€could€notÏidentify€it.€€And€even€though€it€may€be€a€part€of€the€Cookeville€General€HospitalÏrecord,€itððs€hearsay€within€hearsay.€€Itððs€not€only€hearsay€within€hearsay,€but€itððsÏopinion€within€hearsay.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àAnd€it€would€be€my€judgment€that€it€would€„€„€to€permit€this€personnelÏchange€notice€to€be€introduced€to€the€jury€without€cross„examination,€withoutÐ P   Ðallowing€the€other€side€to€know€the€source€of€it,€to€face€the€person€who€made€theÏevaluation,€would€be€unfair€and€undue€prejudice€far€outweighing€any€relevance€itÏmight€have€to€this€case. ‹Ý ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€version€of€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€in€the€transcript€refers€to€ð ðincome€damages,ððÐ ° Ðwhile€the€trial€courtððs€written€instructions€in€the€technical€record€refer€to€ð ðeconomic€damages.ðð Ý ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔShoneyððs€has€not€raised€this€issue€on€appeal,€and€therefore,€we€have€not€addressed€it. ïÝ ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49.03€was€repealed€effective€July€1,€1997.€€òòSeeóó€Order,€Tenn.€DecisionsÐ ° Ðòòlviv,€lviii„lixóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€12,€1997);€Sen.€Res.€of€Apr.€21,€1997,€Sen.€Res,€No.€24,€1997€Tenn.€Pub.Ð  ð ÐActs€1323;€House€Res.€of€Apr.€28,€1997,€House€Res.€No.€47,€1997€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€1487.€($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ^Ý ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€some€unexplained€reason,€the€trial€court€did€not€charge€the€portion€of€T.P.I.€3€„€CivilÐ ° Ð14.01€stating€that€ð ð[e]ach€of€these€elements€of€damage€is€separate.€€You€may€not€duplicate€damagesÏfor€any€element€by€also€including€that€same€loss€or€harm€in€another€element€of€damage.ðð€€ShoneyððsÏdid€not€bring€this€omission€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€during€the€trial€and€has€not€raised€this€issueÏon€appeal. øÝ ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'¼ À¼¼¼ÔÔ€'ü×¼'¼ ÀÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€'XL X'ü×ÔÐ  ÐÌJune€23,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó'ÿÿdxd d!#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 gÝ ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€courts€have€reached€similar€conclusions€with€regard€to€promising€athletes€whose€careersÐ ° Ðwere€cut€short.€€òòSee€Clinchfield€R.R.€v.€Forbesóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€at€185,€417€S.W.2d€at€215;òò€ConnollyÐ  ð Ðv.€Pre„mixed€Concrete€Co.óó,€319€P.2d€343,€345„46€(Cal.€1957);€òòHorton€v.€McCraryóó,€620€So.€2d€918,Ð à Ð931€(La.€Ct.€App.€1993),€òòrev'd€on€other€groundsóó,€635€So.2d€199€(La.€1994).€€(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý éÝ ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Overstreet€was€earning€$33,000€per€year€when€she€was€injured. IÝ ƒ±Ò$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XέX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCertified€nurse€anesthetists€earn€approximately€$66,000€per€year,€and€nurses€with€graduateÐ ° Ðdegrees€earn€between€$40,000€and€$50,000€per€year.(('÷ÿ dxd,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial RegularüÿP Pd  ÷Ý ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+¼ À¼¼¼ÔÔ€+ü×¼+¼ ÀÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€+XL X+ü×ÔÐ  ÐÌJune€4,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial RegularÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€„ €„¼¼ÔÑ7€¶ÿ¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ€±÷Ññññýñßr€ <,(j 8` `€€@E Ý` 8ttxPXÜð  rßñýñññññßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E Ý` 8ttxPXÜð  rßññà@¡ ¡ Dàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÔ€¼¶ÿ¼„„ €Ôó óÌÌÌÌÓ-X‰Xœ^xXÿÿ°œX-ÓSARAH€BETH€CLINGAN€OVERSTREET,à œ à)Ð  ( Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à À àà0  àà0p€%€%àà œ à)Ð0T p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)à ^ àPutnam€CircuitÐ Fj  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà0 p àà0œp€%p€%à)à ^ àNo.€J„5125Ð\€ œ€%œ€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)à ^ àAppeal€No.Ð ˆ¬  ÐSHONEYððS,€INC.,à h àà À àà  àà0 p àà0œp€%p€%à)à ^ à01A01„9612„CV„00566О œ€%œ€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellant.à À àà0  àà0p€%€%àà œ à)ÐÊîp€%p€% ÐÌÌÌà@‚ ‚ DàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€PUTNAM€COUNTYˆÌà@ää#DàAT€COOKEVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@û û DàTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€TURNBULL,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à À àà  àà p àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:Ð ¼"à ÐÌJohn€K.€Maddin,€Jr.à h àà À àà  àà p àLawrence€E.€LevineÐ è$  ÐMalcolm€L.€McCuneà h àà À àà  àà p àLevine€Mattson€Orr€&€GeraciotiÐ þ%"  ÐMaddin€Miller€&€McCuneà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TennesseeÐ '8! ÐNashville,€TennesseeÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJim€H.€CampÌWilliam€A.€Cameronà h àà À àà  àà p àSparta,€TennesseeÐ V*z$! ÐCameron€&€ChaffinÌCookeville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@%Dàò òÔ€„ €„¼¼¶ÿÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óˆÐ 4@.* ÐÌÔ€¼¶ÿ¼„„ €ÔÌÌÌÌñýñѱ÷ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑX°ÑÑ  Ñѱ÷ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ X ÑÑ  Ññýñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ D;h50 Ðѱ÷ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑX°ÑÑ  Ññýñѱ÷Ñâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑX°Ñâ âÑ  ÑñýñѰÜÑÔ€„ €„¼¼¶ÿÔò òòòÑ  ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€¶ÿ¼¼d¼¼d7ÑÓ€ÓÓ  Óà@ÎÎ)DàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÔ€¼¶ÿ¼„„ €Ôà ` àThis€appeal€involves€a€freakish€accident€in€which€a€shard€from€a€broken€dinnerÐ è8 Ðplate€caused€a€restaurant€patron€to€lose€the€sight€in€her€left€eye.€€The€patron€and€herÏhusband€filed€suit€against€the€waitress€who€dropped€the€plate€and€the€restaurant€in€theÏCircuit€Court€for€Putnam€County€seeking€damages€for€her€injuries€and€for€his€loss€ofÏconsortium.€€Following€a€three„day€trial,€the€jury€awarded€the€patron€$2,013,000.€€OnÏthis€appeal,€the€restaurant€takes€issue€with€several€of€the€trial€courtððs€evidentiaryÏrulings,€the€trial€courtððs€verdict€form,€and€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€grant€a€remittitur.€ÏWe€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà@ùù.Dàò òI.ó óˆÐ ‘á ÐÌà ` àSarah€Beth€Clingan€Overstreet€received€her€graduate€nursing€degree€fromÏTennessee€Technological€University€in€Cookeville€in€May€1993.€€One€month€later,Ïshe€went€to€work€for€Cookeville€General€Hospital.€€Because€of€her€professors'Ïencouragement,€Ms.€Overstreet€planned€to€pursue€an€advanced€nursing€degree.€€SheÏwas€also€engaged€to€be€married€and€had€set€an€October€1993€wedding€date.ÌÌà ` àOn€July€22,€1993,€Ms.€Overstreet€and€her€fiancee€decided€to€eat€a€late€supperÏat€the€Shoneyððs€Restaurant€on€Willow€Road€in€Cookeville.€€Approximately€fifteenÏfeet€from€where€Ms.€Overstreet€was€seated,€a€server,€who€was€serving€otherÏcustomers,€held€an€iced€tea€pitcher€in€one€hand€and€a€serving€tray€with€two€ceramicÏdinner€plates€in€the€other.€€The€server€placed€the€pitcher€on€the€lid€of€a€partially€openÏice€bin.€€As€the€pitcher€began€to€fall€from€the€ice€bin,€the€server€grabbed€for€it,€and€inÏthe€process,€the€two€dinner€plates€fell€from€her€tray€and€broke€on€the€floor.€€A€shardÏfrom€one€of€the€broken€plates€struck€Ms.€Overstreet€in€her€left€eye.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Overstreet€heard€the€plates€fall€and€immediately€ð ðfelt€something€hot€in€myÏleft€eye.ðð€€At€first€she€thought€it€might€be€a€piece€of€food€or€her€contact€lens,€butÏwhen€she€saw€blood€on€her€napkin€and€her€white€blouse,€she€knew€she€had€been€cut.€ÏThe€wound€was€very€painful,€and€Ms.€Overstreet€went€into€shock.€€She€was€treatedÏinitially€in€the€emergency€room€at€Cookeville€General€Hospital€where€it€wasÏdiscovered€that€the€shard€had€cut€her€eye€and€that€vitreous€gel€was€protruding€fromÐ g;·6B Ðthe€wound.€€Ms.€Overstreet€was€quickly€transferred€to€Vanderbilt€University€HospitalÏwhere€surgeons€closed€the€laceration.€€She€remained€hospitalized€for€several€days€onÏa€regimen€of€antibiotics.ÌÌà ` àThe€Vanderbilt€physicians€feared€that€the€retina€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€left€eyeÏwould€become€detached€and€cause€blindness€in€that€eye.€€When€the€retina€eventuallyÏdetached,€Ms.€Overstreet€underwent€four€additional€surgeries€in€an€attempt€toÏstabilize€her€retina€and€save€the€sight€in€her€left€eye.€€The€scar€tissue€that€formed€afterÏeach€surgery€prevented€the€retina€from€remaining€in€its€normal€position.€€The€fourthÏsurgery€was€an€experimental€procedure€in€which€silicon€oil€was€injected€directly€intoÏthe€eye€through€tiny€incisions.€€Ms.€Overstreet€experienced€significant€pain€andÏdiscomfort€during€the€five„month€period€when€these€surgeries€were€being€performed.€ÏShe€also€suffered€psychologically€as€her€ability€to€see€through€her€left€eye€graduallyÏdeteriorated.€€As€she€described€it,€ð ð[t]he€last€time€that€I€saw€anything€was€a€little€bittyÏpinhole€of€light€in€motion€and€it€kept€getting€smaller€and€smaller€and€then€thereÏwasnððt€any€more.ððÌÌà ` àIn€March€1994,€Ms.€Overstreet€underwent€a€fifth€surgical€procedure€to€relieveÏher€pain€and€headaches€and€the€irritation€in€her€eye.€€The€physician€removed€theÏexperimental€silicon€oil€and€scraped€calcium€deposits€from€her€cornea.€€Today,€Ms.ÏOverstreet€is€blind€in€her€left€eye.€€Her€left€eye€also€looks€abnormal€because€it€is€redÏand€irritated€and€because€it€is€noticeably€smaller€than€her€right€eye.ÌÌà ` àThe€injury€to€Ms.€Overstreetððs€eye€affects€not€only€her€vision€but€also€her€life.€ÏHer€loss€of€vision€dealt€a€tremendous€blow€to€her€self„confidence€and€to€herÏperception€of€herself.€€Ms.€Overstreetððs€psychologist€diagnosed€her€as€suffering€fromÏpost„traumatic€stress€syndrome.€€For€her€part,€Ms.€Overstreet€stated€that€she€no€longerÏlikes€herself€and€that€she€has€changed€from€an€outgoing,€strong,€and€confident€personÏto€someone€who€does€not€want€to€leave€the€house.€€She€has€nightmares,€sleepÏdisorders,€crying€spells,€and€poor€concentration€and€low€self„esteem.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Overstreet€has€continued€to€work€as€a€nurse;€however,€her€clinical€skillsÏand€outlook€for€further€education€and€professional€advancement€have€dwindled.€ÏWhile€at€one€time€she€excelled€at€clinical€care,€she€now€finds€it€difficult€to€performÐ Ô:$6B Ðeven€the€most€basic€procedures.€€She€has€difficulty€measuring€medicines€or€givingÏintravenous€injections€because€of€her€loss€of€depth€perception.€€She€also€becomesÏfatigued€when€she€inputs€clinical€information€into€the€computer.€€She€now€works€theÏnight€shift€because€it€is€less€busy€than€the€day€shift€and€she€has€declined€offers€toÏtransfer€to€more€acute€care€areas€because€of€her€concern€that€one€of€her€errors€mightÏhurt€a€patient.€€An€expert€rehabilitative€counselor€has€determined€that€Ms.€OverstreetÏis€vocationally€disabled€in€light€of€the€physical€and€emotional€requirements€ofÏnursing.€€As€a€result€of€the€injury€to€and€disfigurement€of€her€eye,€Ms.€Overstreet€hasÏchanged€from€an€accomplished,€motivated,€and€confident€person€whose€prospectsÏseemed€endless€to€a€person€who€is€thankful€just€to€get€through€another€day.ÌÌà ` àIn€January€1994,€Ms.€Overstreet€and€her€husband€filed€a€negligence€action€inÏthe€Circuit€Court€for€Putnam€County€against€Shoneyððs€and€the€server€who€droppedÏthe€dishes.€€Prior€to€trial,€Ms.€Overstreet's€husband€also€voluntarily€dismissed€hisÏclaims€against€both€Shoneyððs€and€the€server€because€he€was€not€married€to€Ms.ÏOverstreet€when€she€was€injured.€€Ms.€Overstreet€likewise€voluntarily€dismissed€herÏclaims€against€the€server.€€Following€a€three„day€trialñùñ€in€March€Ô_Ô1996ñùñ,Ô_Ô€a€jury€returnedÏa€verdict€against€Shoneyððs€for€$2,013,000.€€Shoneyððs€perfected€this€appeal€after€theÏtrial€court€denied€its€motion€for€a€new€trial€and/or€a€remittitur.ÌÌà@ËË.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ €%Ð ( Ðà@  Dàòòò òThe€Sufficiency€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€Pleadingsó óóóˆÐ $'t"* ÐÌà ` àShoneyððs€first€seeks€to€undermine€the€verdict€by€attacking€the€sufficiency€ofÏMs.€Overstreetððs€pleadings.€€It€asserts€that€it€could€not€be€held€responsible€for€theÏnegligent€acts€of€its€server€because€Ms.€Overstreetððs€complaint€did€not€specificallyÏallege€the€doctrine€of€respondeat€superior.€€Shoneyððs€reasons€that€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏdecision€to€dismiss€her€claims€against€its€server€had€the€legal€effect€of€underminingÏher€claims€against€Shoneyððs.€€This€argument€is€without€merit€because€Shoneyððs€Ïstipulated€that€the€server€was€acting€within€the€scope€of€her€employment€when€Ms.ÏOverstreet€was€injured€and€that€any€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€server€wasÏchargeable€to€Shoneyððs.Ìâ âÐ 09€4@ Ðà ` àA€stipulation€is€an€agreement€between€counsel€regarding€business€before€theÏâ âcourt,€òòsee€State€v.€Fordóó,€725€S.W.2d€689,€691€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€which€isÐ T¤ Ðentered€into€mutually€and€voluntarily€by€the€parties.€€òòSee€State€v.€Morrisóó,€641€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð883,€Ô_Ôñïñ889ñïñÔ_ÔÔ_Ôñïñ___ñïñÔ_Ô€(Tenn.€1982).€€A€stipulation€obviates€the€need€for€evidence€regarding€theÏstipulated€matters.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.€Burkeóó,€958€S.W.2d€751,€755€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€Ð @  ÐAlthough€the€parties€may€not€stipulate€to€questions€of€law,€òòsee€Mast€Adver.€&€Publ'g,Ð ä 4  ÐInc.€v.€Moyersóó,€865€S.W.2d€900,€902€(Tenn.€1993),€stipulations€within€the€range€ofÐ ˆØ  Ðpossibly€true€facts€and€valid€legal€strategies€are€allowed.€€òòSee€Mast€Adver.€&€Publ'g,Ð ,|  ÐInc.€v.€Moyersóó,€865€S.W.2d€at€902.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àA€stipulation€regarding€an€agent€acting€within€the€scope€of€his€or€herÏemployment€may€be€based€on€a€partyððs€admissions€of€fact.€€òòSee€Steiner„Liff€Iron€andÐ ¼  ÐMetal€Co.€v.€Woodmont€Country€Clubóó,€480€S.W.2d€533,€537€(Tenn.€1972).€€OnÐ `° Ðappeal,€stipulations€are€binding€on€the€parties€and€may€not€be€altered.€€òòSee€BearmanÐ T Ðv.€Camatsosóó,€215€Tenn.€231,€236,€385€S.W.2d€91,€93€(1964);òò€First€Southern€Trust€Co.Ð ¨ø Ðv.€Sowellóó,€683€S.W.2d€680,€681€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).Ð Lœ ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Shoneyððs€stipulated€first€at€a€pre„trial€conference€and€then€at€trialÏthat€its€server€was€acting€within€the€scope€of€her€employment€with€Shoneyððs€whenÏMs.€Overstreet€was€injured€and€that€the€serverððs€negligence,€if€any,€could€beÏattributable€to€Shoneyððs€under€the€theory€of€respondeat€superior.€€This€issue€wasÏestablished€by€the€serverððs€undisputed€testimony€and€was€included€in€the€instructionÏto€the€jury€without€objection€from€Shoneyððs.€€Relying€on€this€stipulation,€Ms.ÏOverstreet€voluntarily€non„suited€her€claim€against€the€server.€€After€agreeing€toÏstipulate€this€issue€at€trial,€Shoneyððs€cannot€now€complain€that€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏpleadings€are€deficient.ÌÌà@-Dàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ü0L,6 Ðà@ª ª Dàòòò òThe€Trial€Courtððs€Evidentiary€Rulingsó óóóˆÐ  2ð-8 ÐÌà ` àShoneyððs€takes€issue€with€two€of€the€trial€courtððs€evidentiary€rulings.€€First,€itÏasserts€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€permitted€Ms.€Overstreet€to€presentÏevidence€concerning€her€plans€to€pursue€an€advanced€nursing€degree.€€Second,€itÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€preventing€it€from€cross„examining€Ms.€OverstreetÐ Ô:$6B Ðconcerning€the€results€of€an€evaluation€performed€when€she€was€an€extern€atÏCookeville€General€Hospital€between€her€second€and€third€years€of€nursing€school.€ÏWe€find€no€error€with€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€on€both€issues.ÌÌà ` àOne€of€the€trial€courtððs€essential€responsibilities€is€to€control€the€flow€ofÏevidence€to€the€jury€by€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€evidence,€controlling€the€orderÏof€the€proof,€and€determining€the€scope€of€examination€of€the€witnesses.€€òòSee€CastelliÐ ˆØ  Ðv.€Lienóó,€910€S.W.2d€420,€425€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€A€trial€court€has€a€wide€degreeÐ ,|  Ðof€latitude€in€making€these€decisions.òò€€€See€Hunter€v.€Burkeóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€755;Ð Ð  ÐòòSteele€v.€Ft.€Sanders€Anesthesia€Group,€Inc.óó,€897€S.W.2d€270,€275€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð tÄ Ð1994).€€Accordingly,€questions€concerning€the€admissibility€of€evidence€addressÏthemselves€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€and€the€appellate€courts€will€overturn€theÏtrial€courtððs€decisions€only€on€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€Otis€v.Ð `° ÐCambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€1992);€òòScott€v.€JonesÐ T ÐBros.€Constr.,€Inc.óó,€960€S.W.2d€589,€594€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ` àObjections€to€the€introduction€of€evidence€must€be€timely€and€specific.€€TheyÏmust€be€made€contemporaneously€with€the€objectionable€testimony,òò€see€Burchett€v.Ð ” ä" ÐStephensóó,€794€S.W.2d€745,€749€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòWachovia€Bank€&€Trust€Co.Ð 8"ˆ$ Ðv.€Glassóó,€575€S.W.2d€950,€955€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978),€and€they€must€state€the€specificÐ Ü#,& Ðground€on€which€they€are€based.òò€See€Continental€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bank€v.€First€Natððl€Bankóó,€108Ð €%Ð ( ÐTenn.€374,€379,€68€S.W.€497,€498„99€(1902);€òòBurton€v.€Farmersðð€Bldg.€&€Loan€Assððnóó,Ð $'t"* Ð104€Tenn.€414,€418,€58€S.W.€230,€231€(1900).€€Therefore,€they€cannot€be€raised€forÏthe€first€time€on€appeal.€òòSee€Street€Ry.€v.€Danóó,€102€Tenn.€320,€321„22,€52€S.W.€177,Ð l*¼%. Ð178€(1899);€òòHorner€v.€Grahamóó,€64€S.W.€316,€318€(Tenn.€Chan.€App.€1901).€€Ð ,`'0 Ðò òÌà@ÓÓ.DàA.ˆÌà@žžDàòòAdmission€of€Evidence€Concerning€Ms.€Overstreetððs€Career€Plansóó€ó óˆÐ ü0L,6 ÐÌà ` àOver€Shoneyððsðð€objections,€the€trial€court€permitted€Ms.€Overstreet€to€introduceÏevidence€regarding€her€plans€to€obtain€an€advanced€nursing€degree€and€to€becomeÏcertified€as€a€registered€nurse€anesthetist.€€Shoneyððs€asserts€that€admitting€thisÏevidence€was€error€because€the€damages€flowing€from€Ms.€Overstreetððs€inability€toÏearn€an€advanced€degree€were€speculative€and€because€the€admission€of€thisÐ Ô:$6B Ðtestimony€must€have€been€prejudicial€in€light€of€the€juryððs€decision€to€award€Ms.ÏOverstreet€$100,000€for€lost€earning€capacity.€ÌÌà@ìì.Dàò ò1.ó óˆÐ œ ì ÐÌà ` àThe€purpose€of€tort€damages€in€Anglo„American€law€is€to€compensate€theÏwronged€party€for€damage€or€injury€caused€by€the€defendantððs€conduct.€€òòSee€InlandÐ ˆØ  ÐContainer€Corp.€v.€Marchóó,€529€S.W.2d€43,€44€(Tenn.€1975);€òòLouisville,€Nashville€&Ð ,|  ÐGreat€Southern€R.R.€v.€Guinanóó,€79€Tenn.€98,€103€(1883);€òòVertrees€v.€Tennessee€AutoÐ Ð  ÐCorp.óó,€5€Tenn.€App.€140,€151€(1927).€€The€goal€of€awarding€damages€is€to€repair€theÐ tÄ Ðwronged€partyððs€injury€or,€at€least,€to€make€the€wronged€party€whole€as€nearly€as€mayÏbe€done€by€an€award€of€money.€€òòSeeóó€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€901,€cmt.€aÐ ¼  Ð(1979);€4€Fowler€V.€Harper,€et€al.,€òòThe€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€25.1,€at€493€(2d€ed.€1986)Ð `° Ð(ð ðHarperðð).ÌÌà ` àThe€party€seeking€damages€has€the€burden€of€proving€them.òò€€See€Inman€v.Ð Lœ ÐUnion€Planters€Natððl€Bankóó,€634€S.W.2d€270,€272€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€In€tortÐ ð@  Ðcases,€the€proof€of€damages€need€not€be€exact€or€mathematically€precise.€€òòSeeÐ ” ä" ÐProvident€Life€&€Accident€Ins.€Co.€v.€Globe€Indem.€Co.óó,€156€Tenn.€571,€576,€3Ð 8"ˆ$ ÐS.W.2d€1057,€1058€(1928);€òòAirline€Constr.€Inc.€v.€Barróó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€274€(Tenn.Ð Ü#,& ÐCt.€App.€1990).€€Rather,€the€proof€òòóómust€be€as€certain€as€the€nature€of€the€case€permitsÐ €%Ð ( Ðand€must€enable€the€trier€of€fact€to€make€a€fair€and€reasonable€assessment€of€theÏdamages.€€òòSee€Pinson€&€Assocs.€Ins.€Agency,€Inc.€v.€Krealóó,€800€S.W.2d€486,€488Ð È($, Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòWilson€v.€Farmers€Chem.€Assððnóó,€60€Tenn.€App.€102,€111,€444Ð l*¼%. ÐS.W.2d€185,€189€(1969).€€The€amount€of€damages€is€not€controlled€by€fixed€rules€ofÏlaw,€òòsee€Blalock€v.€Templeóó,€38€Tenn.€App.€463,€470,€276€S.W.2d€493,€497€(1954),€orÐ ´-)2 Ðmathematical€formulas.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Nullóó,€863€S.W.2d€425,€429„30€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð X/¨*4 Ð1993).€€It€is€instead€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee€Reeves€v.Ð ü0L,6 ÐCatignanióó,€157€Tenn.€173,€176,€7€S.W.2d€38,€39„40€(1928);€òòSholodge€Franchise€Sys.,Ð  2ð-8 ÐInc.€v.€McKibbon€Bros.,€Inc.óó,€919€S.W.2d€36,€42€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Ð D4”/: ÐÌà ` àDamages€may€never€be€based€on€mere€conjecture€or€speculation.òò€€See€WesternÐ Œ7Ü2> ÐSizzlin,€Inc.€v.€Harrisóó,€741€S.W.2d€334,€335„36€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€òòNashlandÐ 09€4@ ÐAssocs.€v.€Shumateóó,€730€S.W.2d€332,€334€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€However,€uncertainÐ Ô:$6B Ðor€speculative€damages€are€prohibited€only€when€the€existence,€not€the€amount,€ofÏdamages€is€uncertain.€€òòSee€Jennings€v.€Hayesóó,€787€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);Ð T¤ ÐòòCummins€v.€Brodieóó,€667€S.W.2d€759,€765€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€Evidence€requiredÐ øH Ðto€support€a€claim€for€damages€need€only€prove€the€amount€of€damages€withÏreasonable€certainty.€€òòSee€Airline€Constr.,€Inc.€v.€Barróó,€807€S.W.2d€at€274;€òòRedbudÐ @  ÐCoop.€Corp.€v.€Claytonóó,€700€S.W.2d€551,€561€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).Ð ä 4  ÐÌà ` àLoss€or€impairment€of€future€earning€capacity€is€an€element€of€damages€in€aÏpersonal€injury€action.€€òòSee€Wolfe€v.€Vaughnóó,€177€Tenn.€678,€687,€152€S.W.2d€631,Ð Ð  Ð635€(1941);€òòAcuff€v.€Vinsantóó,€59€Tenn.€App.€727,€733,€443€S.W.2d€669,€672€(1969).€Ð tÄ ÐEarning€capacity€refers€not€to€actual€earnings,€but€rather€to€the€earnings€that€a€personÏis€capable€of€making.€€òòSeeóó€òòSouthern€Coach€Lines€v.€Wilsonóó,€31€Tenn.€App.€240,€243,Ð ¼  Ð214€S.W.2d€55,€56€(1948)€(earning€capacity€refers€to€the€loss€of€the€power€to€earn);Ð `° Ðòòsee€also€Anderson€v.€Litzenbergóó,€694€A.2d€150,€161€(Md.€Ct.€Spec.€App.€1997);Ð T ÐRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€924(b)€(1979).ÌÌà ` àThe€extent€of€an€injured€personððs€loss€of€earning€capacity€is€generally€arrivedÏat€by€comparing€what€the€person€would€have€been€capable€of€earning€but€for€theÏinjury€with€what€the€person€is€capable€of€earning€after€the€injury.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.Ð 8"ˆ$ ÐHardnettóó,€405€S.E.2d€286,€288€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòLaFever€v.€Kemlite€Co.óó,€706Ð Ü#,& ÐN.E.2d€441,€455€(Ill.€1998);€òòBergquist€v.€Mackay€Engines,€Inc.óó,€538€N.W.2d€655,€659Ð €%Ð ( Ð(Iowa€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòWal„Mart€Stores€v.€Cordovaóó,€856€S.W.2d€768,€770€(Tex.€Ct.Ð $'t"* ÐApp.€1993);€òòKlink€v.€Cappellióó,€508€N.W.2d€435,€437€(Wis.€Ct.€App.€1993);Ð È($, ÐRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€924€cmt.€d€(1979).€€If€the€injury€is€permanent,׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€thisÐ l*¼%. Ðamount€should€be€multiplied€by€the€injured€personððs€work€life€expectancy,€and€theÏresult€should€be€discounted€to€its€present€value.€€òòSee€Conte€v.€Flota€Mercante€DelÐ ´-)2 ÐEstadoóó,€277€F.2d€664,€669€(2d€Cir.€1960);€òòAthridge€v.€Iglesiasóó,€950€F.€Supp.€1187,Ð X/¨*4 Ð1193€(D.D.C.€1996);€òòYosuf€v.€United€Statesóó,€642€F.€Supp.€432,€440€(M.D.€Pa.€1986);Ð ü0L,6 ÐòòMontgomery€Ward€&€Co.€v.€Greggóó,€554€N.E.2d€1145,€1164„65€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1990);Ð  2ð-8 ÐòòAnderson€v.€Litzenbergóó,€694€A.2d€at€162.Ð D4”/: ÐÐ è581< Ðà ` àThe€injured€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€or€her€impairment€of€earningÏcapacity€damages.€€òòSee€Sutton€v.€Overcashóó,€623€N.E.2d€820,€838€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1993);Ð T¤ ÐòòSouthwestern€Bell€Tel.€Co.€v.€Simsóó,€615€S.W.2d€858,€864€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€InÐ øH Ðorder€to€recover€these€damages,€the€injured€person€must€first€prove€with€reasonableÏcertainty€that€the€injury€has€or€will€impair€his€or€her€earning€capacity.€€òòSee€MoattarÐ @  Ðv.€Foxhall€Surgical€Assocs.óó,€694€A.2d€435,€439„40€(D.C.€1997);€òòBarnes€v.€Cornettóó,Ð ä 4  Ð213€S.E.2d€703,€705€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1975);€òòWahwasuck€v.€Kansas€Power€&€Light€Co.óó,Ð ˆØ  Ð828€P.2d€923,€931€(Kan.€1992);€òòYoung€v.€Stewartóó,€399€S.E.2d€344,€346„47€(N.C.€Ct.Ð ,|  ÐApp.€1991).€€Then,€the€injured€party€must€introduce€evidence€concerning€the€extentÏof€the€impairment€of€his€or€her€earning€capacity.ÌÌà ` àThe€proof€concerning€impairment€of€earning€capacity€is,€to€some€extent,Ïspeculative€and€imprecise.€€òòSee€Marress€v.€Carolina€Direct€Furniture,€Inc.óó,€785Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€121,€123€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAltman€v.€Alpha€Obstetrics€&Ð T ÐGynecology,€P.C.óó,€679€N.Y.S.2d€642,€643„44€(N.Y.€App.€Div.€1998);€òòShivers€v.Ð ¨ø ÐRineyóó,€695€P.2d€951,€955€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòBorder€Apparel„East,€Inc.€v.€Guadianóó,Ð Lœ Ð868€S.W.2d€894,€897€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1993);òòóó€4€Harper,€òòóóðð€25.8,€at€553;€2€Stuart€M.Ð ð@  ÐSpeiser,€et€al.,€òòThe€American€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€8:27,€at€625€(1985)€(ð ðSpeiserðð).€Ð ” ä" ÐHowever,€this€imprecision€is€not€grounds€for€excluding€the€evidence.òò€€See€TurriettaÐ 8"ˆ$ Ðv.€Wycheóó,€212€P.2d€1041,€1047„48€(N.M.€1949);€òòKaczkowski€v.€Bolubaszóó,€421€A.2dÐ Ü#,& Ð1027,€1037€(Pa.€1980).ÌÌà ` àThe€courts€have€found€competent€and€admissible€any€evidence€which€tends€toÏprove€the€injured€personððs€present€earning€capacity€and€the€probability€of€its€increaseÏor€decrease€in€the€future.€€òòSee€Martinez€v.€Jordanóó,€553€P.2d€1239,€1240€(Ariz.€Ct.Ð ,`'0 ÐApp.€1976);€òòAnderson€v.€Litzenbergóó,€694€A.2d€at€162;€òòTurrietta€v.€Wycheóó,€212€P.2dÐ ´-)2 Ðat€1047;€òòWilson€v.€B.F.€Goodrich€Co.óó,€627€P.2d€1280,€1282€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1981).€Ð X/¨*4 ÐThus,€the€courts€have€routinely€admitted€evidence€concerning€numerous€factors,Ïincluding€the€injured€personððs€age,€health,€intelligence,€capacity€and€ability€to€work,Ïexperience,€training,€record€of€employment,€and€future€avenues€of€employment.€€òòSeeÐ D4”/: ÐMarress€v.€Carolina€Direct€Furniture,€Inc.óó,€785€S.W.2d€at€123„24;€òòClinchfield€R.R.Ð è581< Ðv.€Forbesóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€174,€184„85,€417€S.W.2d€210,€215€(1966);€òòsee€alsoÐ Œ7Ü2> Ðâ âKwapien€v.€Starróó,€400€N.W.2d€179,€184€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€òòAllers€v.€Willisóó,€643Ð 09€4@ ÐP.2d€592,€595€(Mont.€1982);€òòSchaefer€v.€McCrearyóó,€345€N.W.2d€821,€824€(Neb.Ð ° Ð1984);€4€Harper,€ðð€25.8,€at€550;€2€Speiser,€ðð€8:27,€at€631„32.Ìâ âÌà ` àImpairment€of€earning€capacity€is€not€necessarily€measured€by€an€injuredÏpersonððs€employment€or€salary€at€the€time€of€the€injury.€€òòSee€Schaefer€v.€McCrearyóó,Ð @  Ð345€N.W.2d€at€824.€€It€is€not€uncommon€for€an€injured€person€to€assert€that€an€injuryÏhas€caused€him€or€her€to€abandon€plans€to€change€employment,€to€obtain€additionalÏeducation€or€training,€or€to€otherwise€advance€their€career.€€In€the€face€of€such€anÏassertion,€the€trier€of€fact€must€distinguish€between€persons€with€only€vague€hopesÏof€entering€a€new€profession€and€those€with€the€demonstrated€ability€and€intent€to€doÏso.€€òòSeeóó€Jacob€A.€Stein,€2€òòPersonal€Injury€Damagesóó€ðð€6:15,€at€6„55€(Gerald€W.Ð h ÐBoston,€ed.,€3d€ed.€1997).€€Often,€making€this€distinction€depends€on€the€steps€theÏperson€has€actually€taken€to€accomplish€his€or€her€educational€or€career€goals.ÌÌà ` àStudents€are€among€the€class€of€injured€persons€for€whom€educational€andÏcareer€plans€are€relevant€in€determining€impairment€of€earning€capacity.€€A€majorityÏof€courts€have€concluded€that€a€student€or€trainee€has€the€right€to€have€a€jury€considerÏhis€or€her€education,€training,€and€proposed€occupation€or€career€in€calculatingÏdamages€for€impaired€earning€capacity.€€Thus,€a€student€may€present€evidence€of€hisÏor€her€educational€accomplishments€and€plans€and€of€the€earning€potential€of€personsÏengaged€in€the€profession€or€career€the€student€intends€to€pursue,€as€long€as€theÏevidence€is€not€wildly€speculative.€€òòSee€Dickens€v.€United€Statesóó,€545€F.2d€886,€892„Ð $'t"* Ð93€(5th€Cir.€1977)€(a€medical€student€aspiring€to€be€a€surgeon€was€permitted€toÏpresent€evidence€of€his€academic€success,€his€medical€training,€and€his€clear€intentÏand€aptitude);€òòWhittle€v.€Schemmóó,€402€F.€Supp.€1294,€1299„1300€(E.D.€Pa.€1975)€(aÐ ,`'0 Ðfirst„year€junior€college€student€was€permitted€to€present€evidence€of€his€plans€toÏbecome€an€architect);€òòBowens€v.€Pattersonóó,€716€So.€2d€69,€87„88€(La.€Ct.€App.€1998)Ð X/¨*4 Ð(a€high€school€student€was€permitted€to€present€evidence€of€plans€to€attend€collegeÏand€graduate€with€a€degree€in€computer€science);òò€Lee€v.€USAA€Cas.€Ins.€Co.óó,€540€So.Ð  2ð-8 Ð2d€1083,€1091„92€(La.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(a€high€school€student€was€permitted€to€presentÏevidence€of€plans€to€attend€college€and€have€a€career€in€banking);€òòKenton€v.€HyattÐ è581< Ðâ âHotels€Corp.óó,€693€S.W.2d€83,€92„94€(Mo.€1985)€(a€second„year€law€student€wasÐ Œ7Ü2> Ðpermitted€to€present€evidence€concerning€her€plans€to€graduate€from€law€school€andÏhave€a€legal€career).ñðñ׃"×ñðññðñ׃×ñðñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð T¤ Ðâ âÌà@ìì.Dàò ò2.ó óˆÐ œ ì ÐÌà ` àFar€from€being€speculative,€Ms.€Overstreetððs€evidence€concerning€theÏimpairment€of€her€earning€capacity€is€compelling.€€She€demonstrated€with€aÏreasonable€degree€of€certainty€that€the€injury€to€her€eye€is€permanent€and€that€it€hasÏaffected€her€ability€to€advance€in€the€nursing€profession.€€Ms.€Overstreet,€herÏhusband,€her€nursing€professors,€and€her€rehabilitative€counselor€testified€at€trialÏconcerning€her€plans€to€pursue€an€advanced€nursing€degree.€€This€evidenceÏestablished€that€prior€to€her€injury,€Ms.€Overstreet€had€the€academic€preparation,Ïability,€and€perseverence€to€attain€an€advanced€nursing€degree€and€a€more€advancedÏlevel€of€specialization.ÌÌà ` àShe€graduated€from€high€school€with€honors€and€earned€baccalaureate€degreesÏfrom€Tennessee€Technological€University€in€both€psychology€and€nursing.€€Ms.ÏOverstreetððs€professors€described€her€as€diligent€and€committed€and€as€an€exceptionalÏstudent€who€was€an€excellent€candidate€for€an€advanced€degree€and€who€hadÏunlimited€opportunities€in€nursing.€€From€this€proof,€a€jury€could€reasonably€concludeÏthat€Ms.€Overstreet€had€the€motivation,€aptitude,€and€inclination€to€pursuing€furtherÏnursing€training€that€would€have€enhanced€her€earning€capacity.ÌÌà ` àShoneyððs€places€great€significance€on€the€fact€that€Ms.€Overstreet€had€not€yetÏapplied€to€a€graduate€nursing€program€when€she€was€injured€and€argues€that€herÏfailure€to€do€so€renders€her€plans€to€pursue€a€graduate€nursing€degree€speculative€atÏbest.€€We€disagree.€€An€injured€party€is€not€required€to€be€enrolled€in€an€educationalÏor€training€program€in€order€to€testify€about€his€or€her€future€educational€plans.€€òòSeeÐ ü0L,6 ÐWhittle€v.€Schemmóó,€402€F.€Supp.€at€1299„1300.€€Ms.€Overstreet€satisfactorilyÐ  2ð-8 Ðexplained€why€she€did€not€apply€to€a€graduate€nursing€program€immediately€uponÏreceiving€her€baccalaureate€degree€from€Tennessee€Technological€University.€€SheÐ è581< Ðpresented€uncontradicted€evidence€that€it€was€common,€and€even€recommended,€thatÏnurses€obtain€at€least€one€year€of€practical€clinical€experience€before€entering€aÏgraduate€nursing€program.€€ÌÌà ` àMs.€Overstreetððs€work€life€expectancy€was€at€least€another€thirty€years€whenÏshe€was€injured.€€She€testified€that€her€injury€has€made€it€difficult€for€her€to€performÏroutine€nursing€tasks,€such€as€measuring€medicines€and€giving€intravenous€injections.€ÏThus,€her€eye€injury€has€not€only€curtailed€her€plans€to€obtain€a€masters€degree€inÏnursing€or€to€become€a€certified€registered€nurse€anesthetist€or€neonatal€nurseÏpractitioner€but€has€also€impaired€her€ability€to€continue€to€work€as€a€registered€nurse.€ÏIn€light€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€work€life€expectancy,€the€evidence€of€her€salary€when€sheÏwas€injured,׃$×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€salaries€of€€nurses€with€graduate€degrees€and€certified€registeredÐ ¼  Ðnurse€anesthetists,׃%€×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€fact€that€the€jury€awarded€Ms.€Overstreet€$100,000€forÐ `° Ðimpairment€of€her€earning€capacity€is€consistent€with€the€evidence.ÌÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ˆÐ Lœ Ðà@  DàòòThe€Admission€of€the€1992€Extern€Evaluation€Formóóó óˆÐ ð@  ÐÌà ` àThe€second€evidence€question€involves€the€admission€and€use€of€a€hospitalÏpersonnel€change€notice€form€containing€an€evaluation€of€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏperformance€as€an€extern€in€1992.€€Shoneyððs€insists€that€the€trial€courtððs€actionsÏconcerning€the€admission€and€weight€of€the€document€were€prejudicial€in€two€ways.€ÏFirst,€it€argues€that€the€initial€decision€concerning€the€formððs€admissibility€preventedÏit€from€effectively€cross„examining€Ms.€Overstreet.€€Second,€it€argues€that€the€laterÏadmission€of€the€form€was€undermined€by€the€trial€courtððs€cautionary€instructionsÏconcerning€the€form.€€We€find€both€claims€without€merit.ÌÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@ìì.Dàò ò1.ó óˆÐ ü0L,6 ÐÌà ` àMs.€Overstreet€participated€in€a€ten„week€extern€program€at€CookevilleÏGeneral€Hospital€following€her€third€year€of€nursing€school.€€The€purpose€of€theÐ è581< Ðprogram€was€to€provide€nursing€students€with€additional€clinical€experience.€€EachÏextern€was€assigned€to€work€with€another€nurse€at€the€hospital.€€Ms.€Overstreet€wasÏassigned€to€a€nurse€working€on€the€night€shift.ÌÌà ` àFollowing€the€completion€of€the€summer€extern€program,€the€hospital€routinelyÏcompleted€a€ð ðpersonnel€change€noticeðð€form€for€each€extern€to€indicate€that€theirÏexternship€was€completed.€€For€employees€leaving€the€employment€of€the€hospital€„„Ïas€these€externs€were€„„€the€form€required€the€employeeððs€supervisor€and€otherÏmanagement€personnel€to€rate€the€departing€employeeððs€performance€and€to€indicateÏwhether€the€employee€was€eligible€to€be€rehired.€€The€form€also€contained€signatureÏlines€for€the€employeeððs€supervisor,€the€department€head,€and€the€hospitalÏadministrator.€€Departing€employees€did€not€receive€a€copy€of€this€form;€however,€aÏcopy€was€placed€in€their€hospital€personnel€file.ÌÌà ` àOn€September€14,€1992,€the€hospital€generated€a€personnel€change€notice€formÏfor€Ms.€Overstreetððs€externship€which€had€been€completed€on€July€31,€1992.€€TheÏsupervisor€of€nursing€signed€the€form€on€September€14,€1992€even€before€the€blanksÏfor€Ms.€Overstreetððs€performance€ratings€had€been€filled€in.€€These€blanks€were€notÏfilled€in€by€the€nurse€working€directly€with€Ms.€Overstreet,€but€rather€by€a€nurseÏmanager€who€was€working€on€the€orthopaedic€floor€during€the€day€shift€and€who€hadÏnever€worked€with€Ms.€Overstreet.€€The€nurse€manager€later€candidly€conceded€thatÏshe€had€no€direct€knowledge€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€performance€and€that€she€had€basedÏher€comments€on€information€supplied€by€others.€€On€the€form,€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏattendance€was€rated€ð ðabove€average;"€the€quality€of€her€work€and€her€generalÏefficiency€were€rated€as€ð ðaverage;ðð€and€her€dependability€and€initiative€were€rated€asÏð ðbelow€average.ðð€€The€nurse€manager€also€checked€the€box€indicating€that€Ms.ÏOverstreet€was€eligible€to€be€rehired.€€The€form€was€later€signed€by€the€hospitalÏadministrator€and€reviewed€by€the€hospitalððs€human€resources€director.€€The€humanÏresources€director€wrote€ð ðquestionable€rehireðð€on€the€form€to€remind€her€to€inquireÏinto€the€two€below€average€ratings€should€Ms.€Overstreet€decide€later€to€seekÏemployment€at€the€hospital.€€Thereafter,€the€form€was€placed€in€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏpersonnel€file.Ìâ âÐ 09€4@ Ðà ` àShoneyððs€obtained€a€copy€of€the€contents€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€hospitalÏâ âpersonnel€file€during€pretrial€discovery.€€The€file€contained€not€only€the€1992€externÏevaluation€but€also€later€evaluations€performed€after€Ms.€Overstreet€went€to€work€forÏthe€hospital€as€a€nurse.€€The€parties€apparently€stipulated€prior€to€trial€that€theseÏrecords€were€admissible€as€business€records€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6).׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€One€of€theÐ @  Ðattorneys€representing€Shoneyððs€cross„examined€Ms.€Overstreet€extensivelyÏconcerning€the€hospitalððs€evaluations€of€her€performance€after€she€accepted€full€timeÏemployment€with€the€hospital.€€Ms.€Overstreet€identified€these€post„evaluation€forms,Ïand€the€trial€court€admitted€them€into€evidence€without€objection.ÌÌà ` àShoney's€counsel€then€turned€his€attention€to€the€evaluation€of€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏperformance€as€an€extern€in€1992.€€Ms.€Overstreet€testified€that€she€did€not€rememberÏbeing€evaluated€during€her€externship€and€that€she€could€not€identify€the€SeptemberÏ1992€evaluation€form€because€she€had€never€seen€it€before.€€Following€an€off„the„¼record€bench€conference,€the€attorney€changed€the€direction€of€his€cross„examinationÏand€began€questioning€Ms.€Overstreet€about€her€plans€for€raising€a€family.€€The€cross„¼examination€concluded€a€few€questions€later.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€jury€for€the€day€following€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏtestimony.€€In€the€juryððs€absence,€the€trial€court€stated€for€the€record€what€hadÏtranspired€during€the€bench€conference.€€The€trial€court€explained€that€the€personnelÏchange€notice€form€could€be€marked€for€identification€but€that€the€form€could€not€beÏintroduced€into€evidence€through€Ms.€Overstreet€because€she€could€not€identify€it.׃0×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÈ($, ÐAt€that€point,€one€of€Shoneyððs€attorneys€stated€for€the€record€that€he€objected€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€refusal€to€permit€him€to€cross„examine€Ms.€Overstreet€using€the€form.€ÏHe€asserted€that€the€form€was€admissible€as€a€business€record€and€that€it€was€relevantÏð ðto€the€major€issue€in€this€case,€the€degree€of€her€[Ms.€Overstreetððs]€depression€beforeÏand€after€this€particular€accident.ððÌÌà ` àShoneyððs€later€called€three€witnesses€who€were€involved€in€the€preparation€andÏcustody€of€the€excluded€form.€€Each€witness€identified€the€document€and€explainedÏtheir€role€in€its€preparation.€€However,€each€witness€also€conceded€that€they€were€notÏpersonally€familiar€with€Ms.€Overstreetððs€performance€as€an€extern€and€that€theÏinformation€concerning€her€performance€was€obtained€from€others.€€At€this€juncture,Ïthe€trial€court€admitted€the€form€into€evidence€and€permitted€the€witnesses€to€beÏexamined€and€cross„examined€concerning€the€contents€of€the€form.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€also€gave€the€jury€a€cautionary€instruction€concerning€its€consideration€ofÏthe€information€on€the€form.€€Shoneyððs€did€not€attempt€to€recall€and€cross„examineÏMs.€Overstreet€about€the€form€after€it€was€admitted€into€evidence.ÌÌà@ìì.Dàò ò2.ó óˆÐ ” ä" ÐÌà ` àLawyers€and€judges€regard€cross„examination€as€an€essential€safeguard€of€theÏaccuracy€and€completeness€of€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€1€òòMcCormick€on€Evidenceóó€ðð€19,€at€78Ð €%Ð ( Ð(John€W.€Strong€ed.,€4th€Practitionerððs€ed.€1992).€€It€enables€the€trier„of„fact€to€assessÏa€witnessððs€demeanor,€sincerity,€and€ability€to€perceive,€recall,€or€narrate€past€events.€ÏSee€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€607.3,€at€338€(3d€ed.€1995).€Ð l*¼%. ÐIts€purpose€is€to€adduce€from€a€witness€any€information€that€may€clarify,€qualify,€orÏundercut€a€witnessððs€testimony€on€direct€examination,€impair€its€effectiveness,€orÏaffect€the€inferences€the€trier„of„fact€might€draw.€€See€Roberto€Aron,€et€al.,€òòCross„Ð X/¨*4 ÐExamination€of€Witnessesóó€ðð€2.06€(1989)€(quoting€Professor€Anthony€G.€Amsterdam).€Ð ü0L,6 ÐÌà ` àLawyers€should€be€accorded€wide€latitude€in€cross„examining€witnesses.€€òòSeeÐ D4”/: ÐCrunk€v.€Groomsóó,€60€Tenn.€App.€611,€620,€450€S.W.2d€15,€20€(1969);€òòUnionÐ è581< ÐTraction€Co.€v.€Todd,óó€16€Tenn.€App.€200,€208,€64€S.W.2d€26,€30€(1933).€€However,Ð Œ7Ü2> Ðdespite€its€salutary€purpose,€cross„examination€is€subject€to€reasonable€limitations€toÏprevent€obstruction€of€the€orderly€progress€of€a€trial.€€These€limitations€are€left€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€discretion.€€òòSee€Edwards€v.€Stateóó,€221€Tenn.€60,€66,€424€S.W.2d€783,€786Ð øH Ð(1968);€òòAustin€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€684€S.W.2d€624,€631€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);Ð œ ì ÐòòWagner€v.€Nivenóó,€46€Tenn.€App.€581,€598,€332€S.W.2d€511,€519€(1959).€€Thus,€theÐ @  Ðtrial€court€may€use€its€discretion€to€prevent€lawyer€misconduct,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð ä 4  Ð611(a),€to€avoid€unfair€prejudice,€confusion,€or€waste€of€time,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403,Ð ˆØ  Ðand€to€ensure€compliance€with€other€applicable€rules€of€evidence€and€procedure.€ÌÌà ` àThe€fact€that€these€decisions€are€characterized€as€discretionary€reflects€aÏrecognition€that€they€involve€a€choice€among€acceptable€alternatives.€€òòSee€Card€v.Ð h ÐTennessee€Civil€Serv.€Commððnóó,€981€S.W.2d€665,€666€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€It€alsoÐ ¼  Ðindicates€that€the€appellate€courts€will€not€interfere€with€a€trial€courtððs€decisionÏsimply€because€the€trial€court€did€not€choose€the€alternative€that€the€appellate€courtÏwould€have€chosen.€€òòSee€BIF€v.€Service€Constr.€Co.óó,€No.€87„136„II,€1988€WL€72409,Ð ¨ø Ðat€*€6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€13,€1988)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€ÌÌà ` àDiscretionary€decisions€are€not€entirely€immune€from€appellate€scrutiny€but€areÏsubjected€to€less€rigorous€appellate€scrutiny.€€òòSeeóó€Martin€B.€Louis,€òòAllocatingÐ 8"ˆ$ ÐAdjudicative€Decision€Making€Authority€Between€the€Trial€and€Appellate€Level:€AÏUnified€View€of€the€Scope€of€Review,€the€Judge/Jury€Question,€and€ProceduralÏDiscretionóó,€64€N.C.L.€Rev.€993,€1045„46€(1986);€Maurice€Rosenberg,€òòJudicialÐ $'t"* ÐDiscretion€of€the€Trial€Court,€Viewed€From€Aboveóó,€22€Syracuse€L.€Rev.€635,€667Ð È($, Ð(1971).€€Discretionary€decisions€must€take€applicable€law€into€account€and€must€beÏconsistent€with€the€facts€before€the€court.€€òòSee€Ballard€v.€Herzkeóó,€924€S.W.2d€652,Ð ,`'0 Ð661€(Tenn.€1996)€(holding€that€the€trial€court€must€give€due€consideration€to€theÏapplicable€law€and€facts).€€Thus,€the€appellate€courts€will€set€aside€a€trial€courtððsÏdiscretionary€decision€only€when€the€decision€is€based€on€a€misapplication€of€theÏcontrolling€legal€principles€or€on€a€clearly€erroneous€assessment€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeÐ  2ð-8 ÐAlside€Supply€Ctr.€v.€Smith€Heritage€Siding€Co.óó,€No.€03A01„9797„CH„00069,€1997Ð D4”/: ÐWL€414982,€at€*€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€25,€1997)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed)€(citing€òòCooter€&€Gell€v.€Hartmarx€Corp.óó,€496€U.S.€384,€405,€110Ð Œ7Ü2> ÐS.€Ct.€2447,€2461€(1990));€òòsee€also€James,€Cooke€&€Hobson,€Inc.€v.€Lake€HavasuÐ 09€4@ ÐPlumbing€&€Fire€Protectionóó,€868€P.2d€329,€332€n.4€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòCanalezÐ Ô:$6B Ðv.€Bobððs€Appliance€Serv.€Ctr.,€Inc.óó,€972€P.2d€295,€302€(Haw.€1999);€òòEmmons€v.Ð ° ÐPurseróó,€973€S.W.2d€696,€699€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòShiel€v.€Ryuóó,€506€S.E.2d€77,€82Ð T¤ Ð(W.€Va.€1998).€€ÌÌà ` àWhen€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€discretionary€decision,€appellate€courts€shouldÏbegin€with€the€presumption€that€the€decision€is€correct€and€should€review€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€decision.€€òòSee€In€re€Conservatorship€ofÐ ˆØ  ÐScharlesóó,€285€Cal.€Rptr.€325,€329€(Ct.€App.€1991);€òòCiticorp€Mortgage,€Inc.€v.€Burgosóó,Ð ,|  Ð629€A.2d€410,€412€(Conn.€1993);€òòOnwuteaka€v.€Gillóó,€908€S.W.2d€276,€280€(Tex.€Ct.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1995).€€Appellate€courts€should€permit€a€trial€courtððs€discretionary€decision€toÏstand€if€reasonable€judicial€minds€can€differ€concerning€its€propriety.€€òòSee€In€reÐ h ÐMarriage€of€Breueróó,€630€N.E.2d€1245,€1247€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòFusaro€v.€FirstÐ ¼  ÐFamily€Mortgage€Corp.óó,€897€P.2d€123,€132€(Kan.€1995);€òòT.D.J.€Dev.€Corp.€v.Ð `° ÐConservation€Commððn€of€N.€Andoveróó,€629€N.E.2d€328,€331„32€(Mass.€Ct.€App.Ð T Ð1994);€òòPhillips€v.€Deihmóó,€541€N.W.2d€566,€571€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòBridge€v.Ð ¨ø ÐKarlððs,€Inc.óó,€538€N.W.2d€521,€523€(S.D.€1995).€Ð Lœ ÐÌà@²²-Dàò ò3.ó 󀀈Ð ” ä" ÐÌà ` àShoneyððs€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€preventing€it€from€introducing€theÏ1992€personnel€change€notice€form€during€its€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Overstreet.€ÏIt€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€improperly€ð ðshifted€the€burdenðð€to€ShoneyððsÏto€lay€the€foundation€for€admission€of€the€exhibit.€€This€argument€overlooks€theÏdistinction€between€the€admissibility€of€documents€and€the€admissibility€of€theÏcontents€of€documents.ÌÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà ` àTennessee€has€long€recognized€the€ð ðEnglish€ruleðð€which€permits€the€scope€ofÏcross„examination€to€exceed€the€scope€of€the€witnessððs€direct€examination.€€òòSee€SandsÐ ü0L,6 Ðv.€Southern€Ry.óó,€108€Tenn.€1,€9,€64€S.W.€478,€480€(1901);€òòRay€v.€Hutchisonóó,€17€Tenn.Ð  2ð-8 ÐApp.€477,€483,€68€S.W.2d€948,€952€(1933).€€Thus,€litigants€may€prove€elements€ofÏtheir€own€case€during€the€cross„examination€of€their€opponentððs€witnesses.€€TheseÏcommon„law€precedents€are€now€embodied€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(b)€which€states,€inÏpart,€that€ð ð[a]€witness€may€be€cross„examined€on€any€matter€relevant€to€any€issue€inÏthe€case.ððÐ Ô:$6B Їà ` àCross„examination€is€not,€however,€a€ð ðuniversal€solventðð€that€somehow€rendersÏall€evidence€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€IIIA€John€H.€Wigmore,€òòEvidenceóó€ðð€878,€at€648Ð T¤ Ð(Chadbourne€rev.€1970).€€Substantive€evidence€introduced€during€cross„examinationÏmust€comply€with€the€same€requirements€as€evidence€introduced€during€directÏexamination.€€Thus,€litigants€seeking€to€admit€business€records€into€evidence€duringÏcross„examination€of€a€witness€must€satisfy€the€authentication€requirements€of€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€901€and€the€foundation€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403€&€803(6).€€If€theÏbusiness€record€contains€hearsay€statements,€the€litigant€seeking€to€introduce€theÏrecord€must€also€demonstrate€that€the€statements€in€the€record€are€likewiseÏadmissible.€€òòSee€Kanipes€v.€North€Am.€Phillips€Elecs.€Corp.óó,€825€S.W.2d€426,€428Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòButler€v.€Ballardóó,€696€S.W.2d€533,€536€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð h Ð1985).ÌÌà ` àThe€source€of€Shoneyððs€discontent€with€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€its€belief€thatÏthe€partiesðð€pre„trial€stipulation€rendered€the€contents€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€personnelÏfile€admissible.€€In€the€absence€of€proof€concerning€its€terms,€we€have€construed€theÏstipulation€to€extend€to€two€threshold€requirements€only.€€First,€the€parties€agreed€thatÏthe€copies€of€the€documents€taken€from€Ms.€Overstreetððs€hospital€personnel€file€wereÏtrue€and€accurate€copies€of€the€documents€actually€in€Ms.€Overstreetððs€file.€€ThisÏagreement€satisfied€the€authentication€requirements€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€901.€€Second,Ïthe€parties€agreed€that€the€documents€in€Ms.€Overstreetððs€personnel€file€were€recordsÏof€a€regularly€conducted€business€activity.€€This€agreement€satisfied€the€foundationÏrequirements€for€the€ð ðbusiness€recordsðð€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€in€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€803(6).€€ÌÌà ` àWe€find€no€indication€in€the€appellate€record€that€the€parties€stipulated€thatÏevery€record€in€Ms.€Overstreetððs€hospital€personnel€file€was€relevant€or€that€everyÏhearsay€statement€or€opinion€contained€in€these€business€records€would€beÏadmissible.€€Thus,€when€challenged,€Shoneyððs€had€the€burden€of€demonstrating€thatÏparticular€hearsay€statements€contained€in€the€records€in€Ms.€Overstreetððs€personnelÏfile€were€admissible.€€Shoneyððs€had€not€carried€this€burden€when€it€attempted€toÏintroduce€the€opinions€concerning€Ms.€Overstreetððs€performance€as€an€extern€duringÏits€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Overstreet.ÌÐ Ô:$6B Ðà ` àShoneyððs€intended€to€accomplish€two€things€by€cross„examining€Ms.ÏOverstreet€concerning€the€1992€personnel€change€notice€form.€€First,€it€desired€toÏplace€evidence€before€the€jury€that€Ms.€Overstreetððs€superiors€found€her€initiative€andÏdependability€to€be€ð ðbelow€averageðð€prior€to€the€accident.€€Second,€it€desired€toÏundermine€Ms.€Overstreetððs€credibility€and€favorable€appraisal€of€her€own€initiativeÏby€proving€that€her€co„workersðð€opinions€of€her€performance€in€1992€differed€fromÏher€own.€€Both€these€purposes€were€proper,€but€they€hinged€on€Shoneyððs€ability€toÏdemonstrate€that€the€statements€of€opinion€concerning€Ms.€Overstreetððs€performanceÏin€1992€were€admissible.€€Unfortunately€for€Shoneyððs,€Ms.€Overstreet€could€notÏprovide€the€necessary€foundation€for€this€strategy€to€be€successful.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Overstreet€did€not€refer€to€the€1992€form€during€her€direct€examination€andÏdid€not€use€it€to€refresh€her€memory€at€any€point€during€her€testimony.€€She€playedÏno€role€in€preparing€the€form€and€could€not€even€remember€being€evaluated€duringÏher€1992€externship.€€She€could€not€identify€the€1992€form€when€confronted€with€itÏduring€cross„examination.€€Likewise,€she€could€not€identify€the€person€or€personsÏwho€evaluated€her€or€whose€notations€appeared€on€the€form.ÌÌà ` àTrial€courts€should€not€permit€a€witness€to€be€cross„examined€concerning€theÏcontents€of€a€document€unless€the€document€has€already€been€admitted€into€evidenceÏor€unless€the€document€will€be€introduced€into€evidence€before€the€conclusion€of€theÏcross„examination.€€òòSee€Sharman€v.€Skaggs€Cos.óó,€602€P.2d€833,€837€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.Ð $'t"* Ð1979);€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€372€A.2d€133,€136€(Conn.€1976);òò€Henson€v.€Veteranððs€CabÐ È($, ÐCo.óó,€185€N.W.2d€383,€388€(Mich.€1971);€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€371€S.W.2d€249,€254€(Mo.Ð l*¼%. Ð1963);€òòLogan€v.€Gradyóó,€482€S.W.2d€313,€320€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1972);òò€see€alsoóó€81€Am.Ð ,`'0 ÐJur.€2d€òòWitnessesóó€ðð€829,€at€680€(1992);€98€C.J.S.€òòWitnessesóó€ðð€391,€p.€163€(1957).€Ð ´-)2 ÐAny€other€rule€would€effectively€prevent€the€other€parties,€including€the€party€whoÏcalled€the€witness,€from€examining€the€witness€concerning€the€contents€of€theÏdocument.ÌÌà ` àThis€record€contains€two€independently€sufficient€reasons€for€upholding€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€to€limit€Shoneyððs€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Overstreet€basedÏupon€the€contents€of€the€1992€personnel€change€notice€form.€€First,€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏanswers€to€questions€concerning€the€1992€form€conclusively€demonstrate€that€theÐ Ô:$6B Ðdocument€and€the€opinions€in€the€document€were€beyond€Ms.€Overstreetððs€personalÏknowledge.€€Accordingly,€she€could€not€have€provided€the€proper€foundation€forÏadmitting€the€document€into€evidence.€€Second,€the€lack€of€evidence€concerning€whoÏperformed€the€evaluation,€how€the€evaluation€was€performed,€and€the€basis€for€theÏevaluation€provided€the€trial€court€with€sufficient€basis€to€question€the€documentððsÏtrustworthiness€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6)€and€to€conclude€that€permitting€theÏintroduction€of€the€document€through€Ms.€Overstreet€would€unfairly€prejudice€Ms.ÏOverstreet€and€would€otherwise€confuse€the€issues€and€mislead€the€jury€under€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€403.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€declined€to€permitÏShoneyððs€to€introduce€the€1992€form€during€Ms.€Overstreetððs€cross„examination.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òC.ó óˆÐ ¼  Ðà@††#Dàòòò òThe€Limiting€Instructionsó óóóˆÐ `° ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€eventually€permitted€Shoneyððs€to€introduce€Ms.€OverstreetððsÏ1992€personnel€change€notice€form€after€Shoneyððs€called€three€witnesses€who€played€Ïa€role€in€the€preparation€of€the€form.€€However,€each€witness€conceded€that€theÏopinions€in€the€form€concerning€Ms.€Overstreetððs€performance€as€an€extern€wereÏformed€by€others€and€that€they€had€no€personal€knowledge€that€would€have€enabledÏthem€to€form€their€own€opinion€regarding€Ms.€Overstreetððs€initiative€during€theÏsummer€of€1992.€€Following€these€witnessesðð€testimony,€the€trial€court€instructed€theÏjury€that:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àMembers€of€the€jury,€I€have€admitted€Exhibit€23.€€I€wouldÏremind€you€that€any€opinion€expressed€on€that€form€is€toÏbe€received€under€the€same€standards€that€I€told€you€aboutÏexpert€opinion€before.€€In€other€words,€if€the€opinion€thatÏmight€be€expressed€on€that€form€is€not€backed€up€byÏevidence,€then€you€would€ignore€it.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓShoneyððs€now€argues€that€these€instructions€seriously€and€inappropriatelyÏundermined€the€value€of€the€exhibit.ò òó óÐ 2d-5 ÐÌà ` àNone€of€the€witnesses€who€testified€concerning€the€1992€evaluation€form€wereÏqualified€as€experts€in€human€behavior,€including€motivation€or€initiative.€€Thus,€theyÏwere€testifying€as€lay€persons€when€they€were€asked€about€Ms.€Overstreetððs€initiativeÏduring€her€1992€externship.€€As€lay€persons,€they€could€only€give€an€opinionÏconcerning€Ms.€Overstreetððs€initiative€if€their€opinion€was€ð ðrationally€basedðð€on€theirÐ ì;<7A Ðown€perceptions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701(a)(1).€€Thus,€their€opinions€concerning€Ms.Ð ° ÐOverstreetððs€initiative€must€have€been€based€on€their€personal€knowledge.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð T¤ ÐR.€Evid.€602;€òòsee€also€In€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€169,€172€(Tenn.€1987);€òòBillsÐ øH Ðv.€Lindsayóó,€909€S.W.2d€434,€439€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(holding€that€lay€opinionsÐ œ ì Ðconcerning€the€soundness€of€a€personððs€mind€must€be€based€on€conversations,Ïappearances,€and€conduct);€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€641,€648€(Tenn.€1976)€(layÐ ä 4  Ðopinions€concerning€a€personððs€sanity€must€be€based€on€personal€observation);ÏòòMcCandless€v.€Oak€Constructors,€Inc.óó,€546€S.W.2d€592,€598€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976)Ð ,|  Ð(lay€opinions€concerning€a€personððs€intoxication€must€be€based€on€personalÏobservation).ÌÌà ` àTenn.€R.€Evid.€701€requires€lay€witnesses€to€explain€the€basis€for€their€personalÏknowledge€of€the€facts€that€form€the€basis€of€their€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð `° ÐòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€701.3€(3d€ed.€Supp.€1998).€€Thus,€lay€opinions€that€are€Ð T ÐÔ_ÔñóñnotñóñÔ_ÔÔ_Ôñóñ€ñóñbasedÔ_Ô€on€facts€or€circumstances€not€in€evidence€must€be€rejected.€€òòSee€Pierce€v.Ð ¨ø ÐPierceóó,€174€Tenn.€508,€510,€127€S.W.2d€791,€792€(1939).€€In€our€view,€the€trial€courtÐ Lœ Ðwould€have€been€justified€in€excluding€Exhibit€23€because€none€of€the€witnesses€hadÏpersonal€knowledge€of€the€factual€basis€for€the€opinion€Exhibit€23€containedÏconcerning€Ms.€Overstreetððs€initiative.€€However,€the€trial€court€decided€to€admitÏExhibit€23€with€a€limiting€instruction.€€The€limiting€instruction€was€consistent€withÐ Ü#,& ÐòòPierce€v.€Pierceóó,€and,€therefore,€we€decline€to€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ €%Ð ( Ðdiscretion€by€giving€this€instruction€contemporaneously€with€the€admission€of€theÏexhibit.ÌÌà@¥¥.Dàò òIV.ó óˆÐ ,`'0 Ðà@NN'Dàòòò òThe€Verdict€Formó óóóˆÐ ´-)2 ÐÌà ` àShoneyððs€also€takes€issue€with€the€procedure€devised€by€the€trial€court€toÏfacilitate€the€juryððs€consideration€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€damage€claims.€€It€asserts€thatÏthe€trial€court€infringed€on€its€right€to€a€general€verdict€by€providing€the€jury€with€aÏð ðverdict€formðð€that€separately€itemized€each€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€damage€claims.€€ItÏalso€asserts€that€the€verdict€form€prompted€the€jury€to€award€duplicate,€overlappingÏdamages€for€the€same€injury.€€We€find€no€reversible€error€in€the€preparation€and€useÏof€the€verdict€form€in€this€case.Ð Ô:$6B Їà@ÓÓ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àPrior€to€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€provided€counsel€with€draftsÏof€its€proposed€jury€instructions€and€with€a€form€the€court€planned€to€provide€the€juryÏto€aid€in€its€deliberations.€€While€Shoneyððs€did€not€object€to€the€proposed€instructions,Ïit€objected€strenuously€to€the€proposed€verdict€form€which€itemized€each€of€the€typesÏof€damages€sought€by€Ms.€Overstreet.€€The€sole€basis€for€the€objection€was€that€theÏverdict€form€required€the€jury€to€render€a€series€of€special€verdicts€even€thoughÏShoneyððs€had€requested€a€general€verdict€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49.03.€ÏThe€trial€court€responded€that€it€intended€to€ask€the€jury€to€return€a€general€verdictÏand€that€the€verdict€form€was€intended€to€be€only€a€ð ðguideðð€for€the€juryððsÏdeliberations.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€instructions€contained€directions€regarding€the€process€forÏcalculating€the€damages€if€the€jury€decided€that€Ms.€Overstreet€was€entitled€to€recoverÏfrom€Shoneyððs.€€These€instructions,€for€the€most€part,€tracked€the€Tennessee€PatternÏJury€Instructions.€€Referring€first€to€ð ðnon„economic€damages,ðð€the€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€to€ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àdetermine€the€reasonable€compensation€for€any€physicalÏpain€and€suffering,€disfigurement,€permanent€impairmentÏand€loss€of€capacity€for€the€enjoyment€of€life€suffered€byÏthe€plaintiff€and€of€which€her€injury€was€the€legal€cause,Ïand€for€pain€and€suffering€and€loss€of€capacity€for€theÏenjoyment€of€life€in€the€past€and€those€which€more€likelyÏthan€not€will€be€experienced€in€the€future€from€the€sameÏcause.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓThen,€referring€to€ð ðeconomic€damages,ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€juryÐ ,`'- ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àshould€also€consider€what,€if€any,€income€damages€were€orÏwill€be€suffered.€€These€include:Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àNo.€1€is€the€reasonable€value€of€medical€care,Ïservices€and€supplies€reasonably€required€and€actuallyÏgiven€in€the€treatment€of€the€plaintiff€and€the€present€cashÏvalue€of€similar€services€reasonably€expected€to€beÏrequired€in€the€future€in€the€treatment€of€the€plaintiff;€and€Ïà  àSecond,€the€value€of€earning€capacity€loss€in€the€pastÏand€that€will€be€reasonably€expected€to€be€lost€in€the€futureÏas€a€result€of€the€injury€in€question€.€.€.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÐ ¤8ô39 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à*à À àà  à*à p àà œ à*Ð ° ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àYou€are€not€permitted€to€award€a€party€speculativeÏdamages€which€means€compensation€for€loss€or€harmÏwhich,€although€possible,€is€conjectural€or€not€reasonablyÏcertain.€€However,€if€you€determine€that€a€party€is€entitledÏto€recover,€you€should€compensate€for€loss€or€harm€whichÏhas€been€suffered€and€in€addition,€for€loss€or€harm€whichÏis€reasonably€expected,€more€probably€than€not,€to€beÏsuffered€in€the€[future]€as€a€legal€result€of€the€injury€inÏquestion.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÌÓ€Óà ` àFollowing€these€instructions,€the€trial€court€turned€to€the€verdict€form€and€theÏprocedure€for€reporting€the€verdict.€€The€verdict€form€the€court€provided€the€jury€wasÏas€follows:ÌÓ€ÓÔ‡XέX»¼Ú‡ÔÌà8 ` àÔ#†¼Ú‡»XXέeç#ÔÔ‡&& %»¼Ú‡Ôà ¸ àWe,€the€jury,€present€the€following€answers€to€the€questions€submitted€by€the€Court:ÐÄ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à1.€€Was€the€defendant€Shoneyððs€Inc.€guilty€of€negligence€which€was€the€legal€causeÏof€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff?€€€Yes_____à p àNo_____ÐX¨` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àIf€the€answer€to€Question€One€is€ð ðNoðð,€simply€sign€the€verdict€form,€and€you€[do]Ïnot€need€to€fill€out€Question€Two€since€you€will€have€found€the€issues€in€favor€of€theÏdefendant.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à2.€€If€so,€set€forth€the€amount€of€damages,€if€any,€you€find€have€been€proven€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€in€each€of€the€following€categories:Ð ` (#` (# Ðà ` àÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àa.à  àNON„ECONOMIC€DAMAGES:Ð#d ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à1.à  àPhysical€pain€and€suffering€„€pastà œ àà ^ àà x à$______ÐÌ$ "¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à2.à  àPhysical€pain€and€suffering€„€futureà œ àà ^ àà x à$______Ш%ø #¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à3.à  àPermanent€impairment€and/or€disfigurementà x àà @x à$______Є&Ô!$¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à4.à  àLoss€of€capacity€for€the€enjoyment€of€life€„€pastà x àà @x à$______Ð`'°"%¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à5.à  àLoss€of€capacity€for€the€enjoyment€of€life€„€futureà x à$______Ð<(Œ#&¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àb.à  àECONOMIC€DAMAGESÐô)D%(¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àÌà ` àà8 ¸ à1.à  àMedical€care€services€to€dateà p àà œ àà ^ àà x à$______Ь+ü&*¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à2.à  àFuture€medical€care€servicesà p àà œ àà ^ àà x à$______Ј,Ø'+¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à3.à  àValue€of€earning€capacity€lost€„€pastà ^ àà x àà @x à$______Ðd-´(,¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à4.à  àValue€of€earning€capacity€lost€„€futureà ^ àà x àà @x à$______Ð@.)-¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ àTOTALà x à$______Ð ø/H+/ ÐÌà ` àDate:€__________à h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à____________________Ð °1-1 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ àJURY€FOREPERSONÌÌÌÔ#†¼Ú‡» %&&´ç#ÔÓ€Óà ` àAfter€providing€the€jury€with€the€form,€the€trial€court€explained€that€ð ðà8 @Ò" àà8 @Ò" àinÐ  5p05 Ðreporting€your€verdict,€it€is€not€necessary€that€you€break€your€verdict€down€into€theÏindividual€elements€of€damages,€but€you€must€report€your€award,€if€any,€in€a€singleÏâ âsum.ðð€€Then€the€trial€court€explained€that€the€purpose€of€the€verdict€form€was€ð ðto€aidÐ  :\5; Ðyou€[the€jurors]€in€your€deliberations.ðð€€It€also€explained€that€if€the€jury€decided€thatÏShoneyððs€negligence€caused€Ms.€Overstreetððs€injuries,€it€mustÌâ âÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àset€forth€the€amount€of€damages,€if€any,€you€find€have€beenÏproven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€in€each€of€theÏfollowing€categories.€€And€then€I€have€the€categories€listedÏas€I€did€in€the€charge:€Physical€pain€and€suffering€in€theÏpast.€€Physical€pain€and€suffering€in€the€future.€€Permanent€Ïimpairment€and/or€disfigurement.€€Loss€of€capacity€for€theÏenjoyment€of€life€in€the€past.€€Loss€of€capacity€for€theÏenjoyment€of€life€in€the€future.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àAnd€then€the€income€[economic]€damages:€MedicalÏcare€for€services€to€date.€€Future€medical€care€services.€ÏValue€of€earning€capacity€lost€in€the€past.€€Value€of€earningÏcapacity€lost€in€the€future.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àThen€you€will€total€any€figures€that€you€have€foundÏon€any€of€those€items.€€And€then€youððll€date€the€form€andÏthe€jury€foreperson€will€sign€it.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àWhen€you€report€your€verdict,€any€figure€you€awardÏwould€be€the€total€of€all€the€damages€for€the€sum€of€anyÏfigures€for€elements€of€damages€that€you€have€calculated.€ÏThat€is€the€total€figure€if€any.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÌÓ€Óà ` àAfter€deliberating€for€approximately€two€and€one„half€hours,€the€jury€returnedÏa€general€verdict€against€Shoneyððs€for€$2,013,000.€€Notwithstanding€the€request€byÏcounsel€for€Shoneyððs€to€review€the€verdict€form,€the€trial€court€placed€the€form€underÏseal,€stating€that€"in€the€event€it€becomes€appropriate€to€open€it€at€some€future€time,Ïweððll€do€that.ðð€€Among€the€post„trial€motions€Shoneyððs€filed€was€a€motion€forÏpermission€to€examine€the€verdict€form.€€After€reviewing€the€verdict€form,€ShoneyððsÏpointed€out€that€the€juryððs€informal€calculations€on€the€back€of€the€verdict€form€wereÏ$200,000€less€than€the€damage€calculations€that€had€been€filled€in€on€the€front€of€theÏform.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€denied€the€post„trial€motions,€approved€the€juryððs€verdict,€andÐ ,`') Ðrendered€a€judgment€accordingly.ÌÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ ü0L,/ Ðà@n n Dàòòò òShoneyððs€Demand€for€a€General€Verdictó óóóˆÐ  2ð-1 ÐÌà ` àShoneyððs€argument€that€the€trial€courtððs€verdict€form€undermined€its€right€toÏa€general€verdict€is€flawed€for€two€reasons.€€First,€Shoneyððs€had€no€right€to€a€generalÏverdict€when€this€case€was€tried.€€Second,€the€trial€courtððs€verdict€form,€which€wasÐ 09€49 Ðthe€functional€equivalent€to€special€interrogatories,€did€not€prevent€the€jury€fromÏreturning€a€general€verdict.ÌÌà ` àA€general€verdict€is€nothing€more€than€a€composite€decision€of€the€jury€basedÏon€the€juryððs€determination€of€the€facts€and€its€application€of€the€law,€as€charged€byÏthe€trial€court,€to€the€facts.€€òòSeeóó€Lawrence€A.€Pivnick,€òòTennessee€Circuit€CourtÐ ä 4  ÐPracticeóó€ðð€26„3€(1998).€€It€is€a€unitary€finding€by€the€jury€on€all€the€issues€betweenÐ ˆØ  Ðthe€parties€including€damages.€€òòSee€Hulshof€v.€Noranda€Aluminum,€Inc.óó,€835€S.W.2dÐ ,|  Ð411,€420€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòGrumman€Credit€Corp.€v.€Rivair€Flying€Serv.,€Inc.óó,Ð Ð  Ð845€P.2d€182,€185€(Okla.€1992);€òòOwens€v.€McBrideóó,€694€P.2d€590,€593€(Utah€1984).€Ð tÄ ÐThe€amount€of€damages€is€expressed€as€a€total€sum.€€òòSee€ITT€Terryphone€Corp.€v.€Tri„Ð h ÐState€Steel€Drum,€Inc.óó,€344€S.E.2d€686,€691€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà ` àWhen€this€case€was€tried,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49.03׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€preserved€a€litigantððs€rightÐ T Ðto€demand€a€general€verdict€ð ðwhenever€such€right€is€given€by€the€Constitution€of€theÏState€of€Tennessee.ðð€€However,€ten€years€earlier,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏremoved€the€substance€of€this€rule,€rendering€it€a€hollow€shell.€€The€Court€held€thatÏcivil€litigants€do€not€have€a€constitutional€right€to€have€all€the€issues€decided€by€theÏjury€at€one€time€through€a€general€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòEnnix€v.€Clayóó,€703€S.W.2d€137,€139Ð 8"ˆ$ Ð(Tenn.€1986).€€Rule€49.03€only€protected€the€right€to€a€general€verdict€if€that€right€wasÏconstitutionally€mandated.€€Since€general€Ô_Ôverdictsñôñ,ñôñÔ_Ô€such€as€the€one€Shoney'sÏrequested,€are€no€longer€constitutionally€mandated,€Rule€49.03€was€meaningless€atÏthe€time€of€trial.€ÌÌà ` àThe€second€flaw€in€Shoneyððs€ð ðgeneral€verdictðð€argument€is€that€it€overlooks€theÏprerogative€of€the€trial€court€to€require€the€jury€to€answer€special€interrogatories€evenÏwhen€one€of€the€parties€has€requested€a€general€verdict.€€òòSee€Ladd€v.€Honda€MotorÐ X/¨*4 ÐCo.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€105€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€A€number€of€states,€either€by€statuteÐ ü0L,6 Ðor€judicial€decision,€now€require€or€permit€the€use€of€itemized€damage€verdictsÏsimilar€to€the€verdict€form€used€in€this€case.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Perry€v.€Allenóó,€720€So.2d€614,Ð D4”/: Ð614„15€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòShirley€v.€Smithóó,€933€P.2d€651,€655€(Kan.€1997);Ð è581< ÐòòTedeschi€v.€Burlington€Northern€R.R.óó,€668€N.E.2d€138,€140€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1996).€Ð Œ7Ü2> ÐContrary€to€the€assertions€in€Shoneyððs€brief,€we€find€nothing€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,Ð ° Ð833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992)€calling€into€question€the€use€of€itemized€verdict€formsÏto€aid€the€jury€in€calculating€damages.€€Reporting€a€verdict€in€this€manner,€whenÏpreceded€by€proper€instructions€on€damages,€actually€facilitates€the€trial€courtððsÏability€to€perform€its€role€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€as€well€as€the€appellate€courtððs€abilityÏto€review€the€verdict€for€consistency€and€conformance€with€the€evidence.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òC.ó óˆÐ ,|  Ðà@——&Dàòòò òDuplicative€Damagesó óóóˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà ` àShoneyððs€also€insists€that€the€itemization€of€damages€on€the€verdict€formÏpermitted€the€jury€to€award€duplicative€damages.€€Specifically,€it€asserts€that€theÏdamages€for€pain€and€suffering,€disfigurement,€and€loss€of€capacity€to€enjoy€lifeÏoverlap.€€Ms.€Overstreet€responds€that€Shoneyððs€should€not€be€permitted€to€raise€thisÏissue€on€appeal€because€it€did€not€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions€onÏdamages.ÌÌà ` àWe€will€first€consider€whether€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€prevents€Shoneyððs€fromÏraising€this€issue€on€appeal.€€It€would€have€been€better€practice€had€Shoneyððs€takenÏissue€with€the€trial€courtððs€damage€instructions€or€requested€additional€instructionsÏconcerning€the€components€of€each€element€of€damage€and€a€complete€instructionÏpatterned€after€T.P.I.€3€„€Civil€14.01.ñúñ׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñúñ€€However,€we€have€determined€that€not€raisingÏthese€matters€with€the€trial€court€does€not€prevent€Shoneyððs€from€challenging€theÏverdict€form.€€The€verdict€form,€more€so€than€the€instructions€themselves,€emphasizesÏthe€juryððs€prerogative€to€assign€a€separate€monetary€loss€for€each€type€of€damagesÏrequested€by€Ms.€Overstreet.€€Thus,€notwithstanding€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€the€termÏð ðif€anyðð€in€its€instructions€and€the€verdict€form,€the€verdict€form€is€more€conduciveÏto€duplicate,€overlapping€damage€awards€if€the€different€measures€of€damages€listedÏon€the€form€actually€overlap.€€We€have€determined,€however,€that€the€differentÏmeasures€of€damages€sought€by€Ms.€Overstreet€represent€separate€and€distinct€losses.ÌñûñÌÌÌÐ Ô:$6B Ðñûññüñà ` àñüñ‡à ` àIt€will€be€helpful€at€the€outset€to€define€each€of€the€non„economic€damages€thatÏthe€jury€awarded€ð!ð€€pain€and€suffering,€permanent€impairment€and/or€disfigurement,Ð T¤ Ðand€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life€ð!ð€both€past€and€future.€€Although€conceptually€they€allÐ øH Ðcan€be€encompassed€within€the€general€rubric€of€pain€and€suffering,€each€of€theseÏtypes€of€damages€are€separate€and€distinct€losses€to€the€victim.€€òòSee€Thompson€v.Ð @  ÐNational€R.R.€Passenger€Corp.óó,€621€F.2d€814,€824€(6th€Cir.€1980).€€The€drafters€ofÐ ä 4  Ðthe€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€have€reached€a€similar€conclusion.€€òòSee€óóT.P.I.Ð ˆØ  Ð3€„€Civil€14.10€through€€14.17.ÌÌà ` àPain€and€suffering€encompasses€the€physical€and€mental€discomfort€caused€byÏan€injury.€€òòSee€Rufino€v.€United€Statesóó,€829€F.2d€354,€359€n.8€(2nd€Cir.€1987);€òòKirkÐ h Ðv.€Washington€State€Univ.óó,€746€P.2d€285,€292€(Wash.€1987).€€It€includes€the€ð ðwideÐ ¼  Ðarray€of€mental€and€emotional€responsesðð€that€accompany€the€pain,€characterized€asÏsuffering,€òòSee€McDougald€v.€Garberóó,€504€N.Y.S.2d€383,€385€(N.Y.€Sup.€Ct.€1986);Ð T Ðsuch€as€anguish,€distress,€fear,€humiliation,€grief,€shame,€or€worry.€€òòSeeóó€Charles€T.Ð ¨ø ÐMcCormick,€òòDamagesóó€ðð€88,€at€315€(1935).€€The€extreme€discomfort€caused€by€lyingÐ Lœ Ðin€a€hospital€bed€in€a€leg€traction€device€with€holes€punched€in€oneððs€limbs€is€anÏexample€of€the€pain€and€suffering€for€which€damages€may€be€awarded.€€òòSee€Owen€v.Ð ” ä" ÐLockeóó,€650€S.W.2d€51,€52€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€Ð 8"ˆ$ ÐÌà ` àA€permanent€injury€differs€from€pain€and€suffering€in€that€it€is€an€injury€fromÏwhich€the€plaintiff€cannot€completely€recover.€€òòSee€Jordan€v.€Beroóó,€210€S.E.2d€618,Ð $'t"* Ð630€(W.€Va.€1974).€€It€prevents€a€person€from€living€his€or€her€life€in€comfort€byÏadding€inconvenience€or€loss€of€physical€vigor.€€òòSee€Wheeler€v.€Bennettóó,€849€S.W.2dÐ l*¼%. Ð952,€955€(Ark.€1993).€€Disfigurement€is€a€specific€type€of€permanent€injury€thatÏimpairs€a€plaintiffððs€beauty,€symmetry,€or€appearance.€€òòSee€Rapp€v.€Kennedyóó,€242Ð ´-)2 ÐN.E.2d€11,€13€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1968).€€Permanent€injury€may€relate€to€earning€capacity,Ïpain,€impairment€of€physical€function€or€loss€of€the€use€of€a€body€part,€òòsee€Yates€v.Ð ü0L,6 ÐBradleyóó,€396€S.W.2d€735,€738€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1965),€or€to€a€mental€or€psychologicalÐ  2ð-8 Ðimpairment.€€òòSee€Kerr€v.€Magic€Chef,€Inc.óó,€793€S.W.2d€927,€929€(Tenn.€1990);Ð D4”/: ÐòòInternational€Yarn€Corp.€v.€Cassonóó,€541€S.W.2d€150,€152€(Tenn.€1976).Ð è581< ÐÌà ` àDamages€for€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life€compensate€the€injured€person€for€theÏlimitations€placed€on€his€or€her€ability€to€enjoy€the€pleasures€and€amenities€of€life.€Ð Ô:$6B ÐòòSee€Thompson€v.€National€R.R.€Passenger€Corp.óó,€621€F.2d€at€824;€òòMartin€v.€SouthernÐ ° ÐRy.óó,€225€Tenn.€77,€80„81,€463€S.W.2d€690,€691€(1971)€(approving€an€award€for€theÐ T¤ Ðð ðintangible€elements€of€damage€such€as€pain,€suffering,€inconvenience,€andÏdeprivation€of€the€normal€enjoyments€of€lifeðð);€òòMariner€v.€Marsdenóó,€610€P.2d€6,€12Ð œ ì Ð(Wyo.€1980).€€This€type€of€damage€relates€to€daily€life€activities€that€are€common€toÏmost€people.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòNemmers€v.€United€Statesóó,€681€F.€Supp.€567,€575€(C.D.€Ill.Ð ä 4  Ð1988)€(going€on€a€first€date,€becoming€a€parent,€reading,€debating€politics);€òòDyer€v.Ð ˆØ  ÐUnited€Statesóó,€551€F.€Supp.€1266,€1281€(W.D.€Mich.€1982)€(sense€of€taste);€òòSweeneyÐ ,|  Ðv.€Car/Puter€Intððl€Corp.óó,€521€F.€Supp.€276,€288€(D.S.C.€1981)€(recreational€or€familyÐ Ð  Ðactivities).€€It€can€also€compensate€a€victim€for€the€loss€of€uncommon€individualÏpursuits€or€talents.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòDistrict€of€Columbia€v.€Woodburyóó,€136€U.S.€450,€459Ð h Ð(1890)€(contributing€articles€to€professional€journals);òò€McAlister€v.€Carlóó,€197€A.2dÐ ¼  Ð140,€145€(Md.€1964)€(inability€to€continue€in€a€particular€career);òò€Kirk€v.€WashingtonÐ `° ÐState€Univ.óó,€746€P.2d€at€292„93€(ballet).€€The€policy€underlying€the€award€of€loss€ofÐ T Ðenjoyment€damages€is€of€making€the€victim€whole€in€the€only€way€a€court€can€ð!ð€withÐ ¨ø Ðan€equivalent€in€money€for€each€loss€suffered.€€òòSee€Thompson€v.€National€R.R.Ð Lœ ÐPassenger€Corp.óó,€621€F.2d€at€824òò.Ð ð@  ÐÌà ` àóóMs.€Overstreet€received€$150,000€for€past€pain€and€suffering,€$100,000€forÐ 8"ˆ$ Ðfuture€pain€and€suffering,€$1,250,000€for€permanent€impairment€and/orÏdisfigurement,€$150,000€for€past€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life,€and€$100,000€for€futureÏloss€of€enjoyment€of€life.€€After€considering€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€we€haveÏdetermined€that€it€supports€each€element€of€the€juryððs€award€of€damages.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Overstreet€suffered€a€painful€injury€to€her€left€eye,€underwent€five€invasiveÏsurgical€procedures€involving€hospital€stays,€and€suffered€mental€anguish,€includingÏthe€uncertainty€of€not€knowing€whether€she€would€ever€see€out€of€her€left€eye€again.€ÏShe€was€required€to€wear€an€unattractive€eye€shield€and€to€suffer€through€theÏembarrassment€of€having€strangers€stare€at€her€disfigured€eye.€€When€the€surgicalÏattempts€to€re„attach€her€retina€failed,€she€had€to€accept€that€she€would€never€see€outÏof€her€left€eye€and€that€she€had€suffered€a€permanent,€career„ending€disability.€€HerÏeye€remains€red,€inflamed,€and€sensitive,€and€she€will€always€be€afraid€of€losing€theÏsight€in€her€right€eye€and€becoming€completely€blind.€€ÌÐ Ô:$6B Ðà ` àMs.€Overstreetððs€permanent€injuries€include€the€loss€of€vision€and€theÏaccompanying€disfigurement,€a€vocational€disability,€and€the€profound€impact€theÏinjury€has€had€on€her€psychological€health.€€Her€injury€translates€to€a€twenty„fiveÏpercent€impairment€to€her€visual€system€and€a€twenty„four€percent€impairment€to€herÏbody€as€a€whole.€€She€has€lost€vision€in€her€left€eye,€and€her€left€eye€is€now€disfiguredÏbecause€it€is€noticeably€smaller€than€the€right€eye€and€is€constantly€inflamed.€€HerÏefforts€to€use€a€scleral€shell€to€minimize€the€cosmetic€disfigurement€have€beenÏunsuccessful.€€Ms.€Overstreet€testified€that€the€shell€never€got€comfortable,€that€it€feltÏlike€it€was€scraping€her€eye,€and€that€when€she€removed€it€with€a€stopper€it€felt€likeÏð ðit€was€going€to€suction€my€eye€out.ðð€€Instead,€she€always€wears€glasses,€whichÏprotect€her€right€eye€from€injury.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Overstreetððs€injury€has€also€changed€her€personality€significantly.€€TheÏpsychological€effects€of€the€accident€have€affected€all€areas€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€lifeÏand€have€fundamentally€changed€her€self„perception.€€Prior€to€her€injury,€Ms.ÏOverstreet€was€self„assured,€motivated,€and€enthusiastic;€now,€she€is€fearful€andÏwithdrawn€and€has€no€self„confidence.€€The€deterioration€of€her€psychological€healthÏwas€noted€by€her€husband,€her€nursing€professors,€and€her€physicians,€all€of€whomÏtestified€to€her€feelings€of€despair€and€powerlessness.€€One€of€her€physicians,€whoÏprescribed€anti„depressants€for€Ms.€Overstreet,€testified€that€she€has€a€low€thresholdÏfor€self„destructing€and€lacks€self„confidence€since€the€injury.€€While€Ms.ÏOverstreetððs€psychologist€testified€that€she€was€no€longer€suicidal,€he€could€notÏpredict€an€end€to€her€treatment€for€post„traumatic€stress€disorder,€anxiety€attacks,€andÏdepression.ÌÌà ` àA€rehabilitative€counselor€who€evaluated€Ms.€Overstreet€concluded€that€herÏinjury€had€caused€a€vocational€disability€because€of€the€physical€and€emotionalÏrequirements€of€nursing.€Ms.€Overstreetððs€loss€of€depth€perception€makes€it€difficultÏfor€her€to€measure€medicines€and€to€give€intravenous€injections,€both€of€which€areÏnecessary€tasks€of€her€job.€€Her€potential€to€advance€in€her€career€has€been€hindered,Ïand€it€is€unlikely€she€will€be€able€to€reach€her€prior€career€goals.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€evidence€also€supports€the€award€for€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life.€€WhileÏwearing€her€eye€shield,€Ms.€Overstreet€could€not€swim€or€wash€her€own€hair,€and€sheÐ Ô:$6B Ðwas€forced€to€avoid€heavy€lifting€and€driving.€€Ms.€Overstreet€testified€that€she€cannotÏdo€much€of€her€housework€without€assistance€and€that€she€no€longer€enjoysÏsocializing€or€even€leaving€the€house.€€She€is€constantly€afraid€that€something€willÏhappen€to€her€right€eye€and€that€she€will€be€left€totally€blind.€€She€must€avoidÏlawnmowers€or€anything€else€that€could€ñõñbe€ñõñthrow€Ô_Ôprojectileñöñsñöñ,Ô_Ô€and€she€no€longer€swimsÏbecause€the€chlorine€and€salt€water€hurt€her€eye.€€Sometimes€she€burns€herself€whenÏshe€cooks€and€she€testified€that€she€will€not€risk€going€rafting,€canoeing,€or€playingÏtennis.€€Mr.€Overstreet€testified€that€his€wife€no€longer€wants€to€go€out€and€that€sheÏbumps€into€people€because€she€doesnððt€see€them€coming€on€her€left€side.€€He€alsoÏobserved€that€she€is€nervous€around€glass€objects€and€that€she€hates€going€to€workÏbecause€she€cannot€tolerate€the€stress.ÌÌà ` àIn€light€of€this€evidence,€we€find€no€evidence€of€duplicative€damages.€€Ms.ÏOverstreet€has€clearly€suffered€past€and€future€damages€of€pain€and€suffering,Ïpermanent€disfigurement€and€impairment,€and€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life€as€a€directÏresult€of€the€injury€and€loss€of€vision€in€her€left€eye.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òñíñIñíñV.ó óˆÐ ” ä" ÐÓNÓò òòòThe€Denial€of€a€New€Trial€and€Remittituróóó óÐ 8"ˆ$ ÐÓv9ÓÓ  ÓÌà ` àShoneyððs€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€properly€perform€its€function€asÏthirteenth€juror€because€it€failed€to€weigh€the€evidence€independently.€€Shoneyððs€alsoÏcontends€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€juryððs€award€of€$1,250,000€inÏdamages€for€Ms.€Overstreetððs€permanent€impairment€and/or€disfigurement€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€declining€to€suggest€a€remittitur€of€that€damage€award.€€We€doÏnot€agree.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.à @ àó óÐ ü0L,6 Ðòòò òThe€Trial€Courtððs€Duty€as€Thirteenth€Juroró óóóÐ  2ð-8 ÐÓ±;ÓÌà ` àShoneyððs€insists€that€the€trial€courtððs€comments€at€the€hearing€on€the€post„trialÏmotions€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€was€inappropriately€deferential€to€the€juryððsÏverdict€and€that€it€did€not€independently€evaluate€the€evidence.€€It€bases€this€assertionÏon€comments€such€as€ð ðproof€that€would€justify€a€jury€in€believing,ðð€ð ðthe€jury€had€anÐ Ô:$6B Ðadequate€basis,ðð€and€ð ðthe€jury€could€have€concluded.ðð€€While€these€comments€revealÏthe€trial€courtððs€respect€for€the€juryððs€conclusion,€they€do€not€indicate€that€the€trialÏcourt€abrogated€its€responsibility€as€thirteenth€juror.ÌÌà ` àThe€thirteenth€juror€rule€requires€the€trial€court€to€weigh€the€evidenceÏindependently,€to€determine€the€issues,€and€to€decide€whether€the€verdict€is€supportedÏby€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Ladd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€939€S.W.2d€at€105;€òòLoeffler€v.Ð ˆØ  ÐKjellgrenóó,€884€S.W.2d€463,€468„69€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€Although€we€mayÐ ,|  Ðconsider€any€comments€made€by€a€trial€judge€during€a€hearing€on€the€motion€for€newÏtrial,€òòsee€Ridings€v.€Norfolk€S.€Ry.óó,€894€S.W.2d€281,€289€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994),€weÐ tÄ Ðmust,€in€the€final€analysis,€determine€whether€the€trial€court€properly€reviewed€theÏevidence€and€agreed€or€disagreed€with€the€verdict.€€òòSee€Ladd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,Ð ¼  Ð939€S.W.2d€at€104;€òòHerbert€v.€Brazealeóó,€902€S.W.2d€933,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Ð `° ÐWe€cannot€review€the€accuracy€of€the€trial€courtððs€determination€as€thirteenth€juror.€ÏòòSee€State€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431,€435€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ` àAt€the€hearing€for€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€stated€that€ð ð[s]inceÏthe€time€of€this€trial,€I€have€reviewed€the€verdict€in€my€own€mind€and€reviewed€theÏevidence€of€damages€with€relationship€to€the€verdict€on€several€different€occasions.ðð€ÏThe€trial€court€added€that€it€believed€that€the€non„economic€damages€far€exceeded€theÏeconomic€damages€in€the€case€and€that€the€injury€had€had€a€significant€impact€on€Ms.ÏOverstreet.€€After€considering€all€the€elements€of€damages,€the€trial€court€concludedÏthat€it€did€not€disagree€with€the€$2,013,000€verdict€€and€that€each€element€of€damagesÏwas€supported€by€the€evidence€and€was€within€the€range€of€reasonableness.€€AfterÏconsidering€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€court€competently€Ïperformed€its€role€as€thirteenth€juror.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÐ ü0L,6 Ðòòò òà @ àThe€Trial€Courtððs€Refusal€to€Suggest€a€Remittiturà @À àó óóóÐ  2ð-8 ÐÌÓFÓà ` àShoneyððs€also€contends€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€suggested€a€remittitur.ÏIt€asserts€that€a€$1,250,000€award€for€permanent€disfigurement€or€impairment€isÏexcessive€because€Ms.€Overstreet€suffered€a€loss€of€vision€in€only€one€eye€andÏbecause€the€disfigurement€of€her€left€eye€was€minimal.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€Ð Ô:$6B ÐLike€the€trial€court,€we€are€impressed€by€the€evidence€of€the€profound€impact€thisÏinjury€has€had€on€Ms.€Overstreet.ÌÌà ` àActing€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€court€may€set€aside€a€juryððs€verdict€andÏorder€a€new€trial.€€òòSee€Hardesty€v.€Service€Merchandise€Co.óó,€953€S.W.2d€678,€681Ð @  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€When€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€amount€of€the€verdict€isÏexcessive€or€inadequate,€it€may€suggest€a€remittitur€or€an€additur€in€lieu€of€grantingÏa€new€trial.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„10„102€(1994);òò€Hardesty€v.€ServiceÐ ,|  ÐMerchandise€Co.,€Inc.óó,€953€S.W.2d€at€681.€€This€procedure€avoids€the€necessity€ofÐ Ð  Ðconducting€a€new€trial€with€its€added€expense€and€delay.€€òòSee€Foster€v.€Amcon€Intððl,Ð tÄ ÐInc.óó,€621€S.W.2d€142,€147€(Tenn.€1981).Ð h ÐÌà ` àHowever,€when€a€trial€court€approves€a€jury€verdict,€appellate€courts€may€onlyÏreview€the€record€to€determine€whether€it€contains€material€evidence€to€support€theÏjuryððs€verdict.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Reynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óó,€887Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€822,€823€(Tenn.€1994);€òòWhitaker€v.€Harmonóó,€879€S.W.2d€865,€867€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Lœ ÐApp.€1994).€€Appellate€courts€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence€and€consider€where€theÏpreponderance€lies.€€Instead,€they€determine€whether€there€is€any€material€evidenceÏto€support€the€verdict,€Ô_Ôandñ÷ñ€ñ÷ñ,Ô_Ô€if€there€is,€they€must€affirm€the€judgment.€€òòSee€ReynoldsÐ 8"ˆ$ Ðv.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.,€óó887€S.W.2d€at€823;òò€Pullen€v.€Textron,€Inc.óó,€845€S.W.2dÐ Ü#,& Ð777,€780€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€ÌÌà ` àThe€jury€bears€primary€responsibility€for€awarding€damages€in€a€personalÏinjury€action,€followed€closely€by€the€trial€court€in€its€role€as€thirteenth€juror.€€òòSeeÐ l*¼%. ÐCoffey€v.€Fayette€Tubular€Productsóó,€929€S.W.2d€326,€328€(Tenn.€1996);òò€SholodgeÐ ,`'0 ÐFranchise€Sys.,€Inc.€v.€McKibbon€Bros.,€Inc.óó,€919€S.W.2d€36,€41€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ´-)2 Ð1995).€€When€a€trial€court€approves€a€verdict€awarding€damages€in€a€personal€injuryÏaction,€our€review€is€subject€to€the€rule€that€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€award,€it€should€not€be€disturbed.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.€Burkeóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ  2ð-8 Ð751,€757€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).ÌÌà ` àWe€have€concluded€that€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€awardÏof€$1,250,000€for€permanent€impairment€and€disfigurement.€€Shoneyððs€hasÏunderestimated€the€significance€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€psychological€impairment€andÐ Ô:$6B Ðhas€minimized€the€effect€of€her€physical€disfigurement.€€Although€this€type€of€injuryÏmay€not€impact€every€person€in€such€a€profound€way,€in€Ms.€Overstreetððs€case,€theÏeffects€have€been€far„reaching.ÌÌà ` àA€former€nursing€instructor,€who€once€evaluated€Ms.€Overstreet€as€aÏcommitted,€exceptional,€and€positive€student,€testified€that€she€had€lost€these€qualitiesÏsince€the€injury.€€She€observed€that€Ms.€Overstreet€no€longer€bubbles€with€enthusiasmÏand€is€now€convinced€that€her€career€is€over.€€Ms.€Overstreetððs€psychologicalÏproblems€have€manifested€themselves€in€mistakes€at€work,€indecision€about€whetherÏshe€can€adequately€perform€her€job,€a€sixty„pound€weight€gain,€and€a€loss€of€interestÏin€daily€activities.€€Ms.€Overstreet€continues€to€suffer€from€post„traumatic€stressÏsyndrome,€anxiety€attacks,€and€depression,€even€though€she€is€no€longer€suicidal.ÌÌà ` àThe€timing€of€the€accident€intensified€the€psychological€impact€of€Ms.ÏOverstreetððs€injuries.€€It€occurred€just€as€Ms.€Overstreet€was€ready€to€begin€her€newÏcareer€and€her€married€life.€€She€was€about€to€realize€her€career€goals.€€Although€Ms.ÏOverstreet€continues€to€have€the€intellectual€ability€and€qualifications€to€pursue€aÏgraduate€degree,€she€no€longer€has€the€confidence€and€emotional€stability€that€post„¼graduate€nursing€education€would€require.€€She€testified€that€she€had€wanted€toÏpursue€her€masterððs€degree€after€a€year€of€practical€experience,€but€that€she€has€nowÏabandoned€these€plans€because€she€doubts€her€abilities.ÌÌà ` àAlong€with€the€loss€of€vision,€the€disfigurement€to€Ms.€Overstreetððs€left€eye€isÏsubstantial.€€Because€her€left€eye€is€red,€inflamed,€and€smaller€than€her€right€eye,€theÏinjury€detracts€from€the€symmetry€and€beauty€of€Ms.€Overstreetððs€face.€€The€eyeÏappears€as€if€it€is€half„closed€and€it€is€obvious€from€even€a€cursory€glance€that€her€eyeÏhas€been€injured.€€This€permanent€disfigurement€to€her€appearance€will€continue€toÏnegatively€affect€Ms.€Overstreetððs€self„image€for€the€rest€of€her€life.€€The€permanentÏimpairment€also€encompasses€Ms.€Overstreetððs€vocational€disability.€€She€will€beÏlimited€in€her€career€choices€and€in€the€opportunity€for€advancement€in€her€chosenÏvocation,€because€of€both€the€loss€of€vision€and€the€psychological€damage€from€theÏinjury.Ìâ âÐ 09€4@ Ðà ` àIn€summary,€we€have€concluded€that€the€record€contains€material€evidence€toÏâ âsupport€the€juryððs€decision€to€award€Ms.€Overstreet€$1,250,000€for€permanent€injuryÏand€disfigurement.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€decliningÏeither€to€set€this€award€aside€or€to€suggest€a€remittitur.€€ÌÌò òà@¥¥.DàVñîñIñîñ.ˆÐ ä 4  ÐÌó óà ` àWe€affirm€the€judgment€awarding€Ms.€Overstreet€$2,013,000€in€damages€andÐ ,|  Ðremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€ÏWe€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€Shoneyððs,€Inc.€and€its€surety€for€which€execution,Ïif€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEñøñ€ò òó óÐ  €%Ð $ ÐÑ8€zï¼»d¼»d8ÑÔ‡ &?!»¼zïÔà@  Dàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ZZ)DàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼zï»! &?‘`#ÔÔ‡„]€„»¼zïԈРòB ÐÔ#†¼zﻄ„]€@a#Ôó óÌÌSARAH€BETH€CLINGAN€OVERSTREET,à œ à)Ð d ´ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à À àà0  àà0p€%€%àà œ à)Д äp€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)à ^ àPutnam€CircuitÐ ¬ ü ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà  àà p àà œ à)à ^ àNo.€J„5125ÐÄ  À€%À€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)à ^ àAppeal€No.Ð ôD  ÐSHONEYððS,€INC.,à h àà À àà  àà0 p àà0œp€%p€%à)à ^ à01A01„9612„CV„00566Ð \ œ€%œ€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà œ à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellant.à À àà0  àà0p€%€%àà œ à)Ð<Œ p€%p€% ÐÌÌÔ€ &?!»¼zïÔò òòòà@cc(DàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ „Ô ÐÌÔ€¼zï»! &?ÔÓ€ÓÔ‡ŠQ‹»¼zïÔà ` àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€Putnam€CountyÐ X ÐCircuit€Court,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€arguments€of€counsel.€€Upon€consideration€ofÏthe€entire€record,€this€court€finds€and€concludes€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€should€beÏaffirmed.ÌÌà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€contemporaneously€with€this€judgment,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered,€adjudged,€and€decreed€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€be€and€is€herebyÏaffirmed,€and€that€the€cause€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistentÏwith€this€courtððs€opinion.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€further€ordered€that€the€costs€of€this€appeal€be€taxed€to€Shoney's,€Inc.,€principal,Ïand€The€Insurance€Company€of€the€State€of€Pennsylvania,€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ô#†¼zﻋŠQÚf#ÔÐ t+Ä&* ÐÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE€ñøñ