’WPCl …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(„4Ķįw@š 0l0 0Dœ ą 0Lč 0J4 0T~ 0^Ņ 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0dU 6uB)« 0NŌDC" AMeU*² BÜł D3 ś<v~6 0@“vÓō AOĒĘ 0DÜ D/  BO˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĄĢĄä䥥Ģ0 <čĄ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($””DŅ x°°3|x`  N IO UP DQ R DS T DU Ӏ_ ` ((3üŻ$¤¤Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó> ’’$Small Circleššą0 ą2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d>‡¦$"Small Circleš"šą0  ą####7Border 1dd€-%Cž’ << G’’< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ż ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŌ€'ŌŌ€'ŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€'XŌĢĢNovember€1,€1996ĢĢCecil€W.€CrowsonĢAppellate€Court€ClerkŌ  Ōó ó(((('’’dxd šŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ $Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŻ  Ż€€Ō€"ōŌNormal€potassium€levels€are€between€3.5€and€4.5.Ō€"XŌ€€ĢPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'@("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  ŅStyl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  BA Op Geneva ŅŅ  BA Op Geneva Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŃ7€¾OXdČdČ7ŃŃ  ћMARY€ALICE€BOLTON€PRINCE,ą ą)Ģby€and€through€her€conservator,ą ą)ĢJames€M.€Bolton,ą ą)Ģą ąą ą)ĢÓ#` Ü‚Xœōx‘X#Óą ąœPlaintiff/Appellant,›ą ą)ą ąAppeal€No.Ģą ąą ą)ą ą01„A„01„9604„CV„00184Ģv.ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ą)ą ąDavidson€Circuitą ąĢST.€THOMAS€HOSPITAL;€HOSPITALą ą)ą ąNo.€90C„4082ĢŁ€€ٜßL€&)%;+'h|öżz` ē `€€LߛCORPORATION€OF€AMERICA;ą ą)ĢHOSPITAL€CORPORATION€OF€AMERICAą ą)Ģdba€HCA€EDGEFIELD€HOSPITAL;ą ą)ĢMILLER€MEDICAL€GROUP;€JACK€T.ą ą)ĢSWAN,M.D.;€THOMAS€C.€FARRAR,ą ą)ĢM.D.;€and€LANGDON€G.€SMITH,M.D.ą ą)Ģą ąą ą)Ģą ąDefendants/Appellees.ą ą)ĢĢĢĢÓ  ÓŌ€"¼ŌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢĢMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEĢĢĢAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYĢĢAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEĢĢĢTHE€HONORABLE€HAMILTON€V.€GAYDEN,€JR.,€JUDGEĢÓ ` Ü‚XœČ“X ÓĢĢÓ  ÓĢĢŌ€"ōŌRANDALL€L.€KINNARDą ąą ąROBERT€E.€HOEHNĢDANIEL€L.€CLAYTONą ąą ą4527€A€Highway€70€EastĢKinnard€&€Claytoną ąą ąWhite€Bluff,€Tennessee€€37187ĢThe€Woodlawną ą€€€ATTORNEY€FOR€THOMAS€C.€FARRAR,M.D.Ģ127€Woodmont€BoulevardĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37205ĢATTORNEYS€FOR€Mrs.€Prince/APPELLANTĢĢĢĢROSE€P.€CANTRELLą ąą ąDAVID€L.€STEEDĢParker€Lawrence€Cantrell€&€Deaną ąą ąCornelius€&€CollinsĢ200€Fourth€Avenue€Northą ąą ą2700€Nashville€City€CenterĢFifth€Floorą ąą ą511€Union€StreetĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ą ąą ąNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ĢATTORNEY€FOR€ST.€THOMAS€HOSPITALą ąą ąATTORNEY€FOR€LANGDON€G.€SMITH,M.D.Ģ€€and€JACK€T.€SWAN,€M.D.ą ąą ą€€and€MILLER€MEDICAL€GROUPĢĢC.J.€GIDEON,€JR.ĢGideon€&€WisemanĢNationsBank€PlazaĢSuite€1900ĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ĢATTORNEY€FOR€HOSPITAL€CORPORATIONĢ€€of€AMERICAĢĢĢĢĢÓ  ÓŌ€"XŌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDĢĢĢĢĢÓ  ÓŌ€"¼ŌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEĢÓ  ÓÓÓņņŌ€"°ŌOŌ€"¼Ō€P€I€N€I€O€NĢÓ  ÓÓ ` °§XÓóóŌ€"XŌą ąThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiff/appellant,€Mary€Alice€BoltonĻPrince,€from€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€granting€the€motionsĻfor€summary€judgment€of€defendants/appellees.€€The€trial€courtĻbased€its€decision€on€its€finding€that€Mrs.€Prince€was€fiftyĻpercent€or€more€at€fault.€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€controversyĻarose€are€as€follows.ĢĢņ ņI.ą ąFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óĢĢą ąOn€20€June€1986,€Mrs.€Prince,€a€twenty„seven€year„old€woman,Ļtook€an€unknown€number€of€pills€at€approximately€9:00€p.m.€€€Mrs.ĻPrince's€husband,€Russell€Prince,€called€the€Vanderbilt€PoisonĻControl€Center.€€The€center€told€Mr.€Prince€that€the€pills€were€aĻcombination€of€caffeine€and€ephedrine€and€advised€him€to€give€Mrs.ĶPrince€ipecac€to€induce€vomiting.€€Mr.€Prince€drove€Mrs.€Prince€toĻa€pharmacy€where€he€purchased€the€ipecac.€€Without€reading€theĻinstructions,€Mr.€Prince€had€Mrs.€Prince€drink€the€ipecac.€€Mrs.ĻPrince€began€to€vomit€around€9:30€p.m.€€Mr.€Prince€estimated€thatĻthere€were€a€"half€a€dozen€or€so"€pills€in€the€vomitus.€€Mrs.ĻPrince€continued€to€vomit€after€the€couple€returned€home.€€Mr.ĻPrince€decided€to€take€Mrs.€Prince€to€the€nearest€hospital,ĻHendersonville€Hospital.ĢĢą ąHendersonville€Hospital€refused€to€admit€Mrs.€Prince€becauseĻof€her€insurance€so€Mr.€Prince€took€her€to€St.€Thomas€Hospital.€ĻDr.€Jack€Swan€attended€to€Mrs.€Prince€in€the€emergency€room€andĻtook€her€and€Mr.€Prince's€histories.€€œAlthough€it›€is€unclear€whoĻtold€Dr.€Swan,€œat›€some€point,€Dr.€Swan€was€told€that€Mrs.€PrinceĻhad€taken€between€twenty€and€forty€pills.€€Dr.€Swan€examined€Mrs.ĻPrince,€but€did€not€order€an€IV€to€replace€lost€fluids,Ļantiemetics€to€stop€the€vomiting,€a€drug€screen,€lab€tests,€aĻurinalysis,€or€a€serum€electrolyte.€€After€his€examination,€Dr.ĻSwan€discharged€Mrs.€Prince€and€instructed€Mr.€Prince€to€drive€herĻto€Edgefield€Hospital,€a€provider€approved€by€Mrs.€Prince'sĻinsurer.ĢĢą ąStill€vomiting,€Mrs.€Prince€entered€the€Edgefield€emergencyĻroom€one€hour€after€being€admitted€to€the€St.€Thomas€emergencyĻroom.€€Dr.€Farrar€examined€Mrs.€Prince€and€noted€that€she€had€aĻrapid€heart€beat€with€premature€ventricular€beats.€€He€orderedĶnumerous€tests€which€revealed€that€Mrs.€Prince's€potassium€levelĻwas€dangerously€low.€€Dr.€Farrar€contacted€Dr.€Langdon€Smith€toĻinform€him€of€Mrs.€Prince's€condition,€but€did€not€tell€him€of€theĻlow€levels€of€potassium.€€Dr.€Farrar€admitted€Mrs.€Prince€to€ICUĻand€ordered€that€she€receive€ten€milliequivalents€of€potassium€perĻhour.ĢĢą ąDr.€Smith€conducted€an€examination€of€Mrs.€Prince€at€6:30Ļa.m.€on€21€June€1986.€€He€did€not€issue€any€new€orders€at€thatĻtime.€€A€second€potassium€check€revealed€that€Mrs.€Prince'sĻpotassium€level€was€2.4.× ƒ+ ××  ׀€Dr.€Smith€returned€at€7:30€a.m.€and€cutĻthe€third€run€of€potassium€in€half.€€At€approximately€11:49€a.m.,ĻMrs.€Prince€suffered€a€cardiac€arrest€followed€by€a€coma.€€As€aĻresult,€she€suffered€permanent€brain€damage€œand›€recent€memoryĻloss.€ĢĢą ąOn€19€February€1991,€Mrs.€Prince€filed€a€complaint€allegingĻmedical€malpractice€and€naming€multiple€defendants.€€The€courtĻentered€an€order€dismissing€numerous€defendants€on€2€October€1991.€ĻThe€remaining€defendants€were€Hospital€Corporation€of€America,€Dr.ĻSmith,€Miller€Medical€Group,€Dr.€Farrar,€St.€Thomas€Hospital,€andĻDr.€Swan.€€All€of€the€defendants€filed€motions€for€summaryĻjudgment.€€Mrs.€Prince€responded€to€the€motions€with€three€expertĻdepositions.€€On€30€November€1994,€the€court€entered€a€preliminary€Ķorder€which€overruled€the€motions,€but€which€reserved€the€issue€ofĻwhether€Mrs.€Prince's€conduct€constituted€fifty€percent€or€more€ofĻthe€fault€in€the€case.€€ĢĢą ąDefendants€filed€a€joint€memorandum€renewing€their€summaryĻjudgment€motions,€and€Mrs.€Prince€responded.€€The€parties€orallyĻargued€the€issue€of€fault€on€9€February€1996.€€The€court€held€thatĻMrs.€Prince's€percentage€of€fault€was€fifty€percent€or€more€andĻgranted€summary€judgment€to€defendants.€€Thereafter,€Mrs.€PrinceĻfiled€her€notice€of€appeal.ĢĢņ ņII.ą ąStandard€of€Reviewó óĢĢą ąThe€sole€issue€on€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€courtĻerred€in€granting€the€defendant's€motion€for€summary€judgment.ĢÓÓą8 ąą ąTenn.R.Civ.P.€56.03€contains€two€requirements€forĻgranting€a€summary€judgment.€€First,€there€must€be€noĻgenuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevantĻto€the€claim€or€defense€embodied€in€the€motion.€€Second,Ļthe€moving€party€must€be€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aĻmatter€of€law€based€on€the€undisputed€facts.€ņ ņņņĢĢÓÓPacific€E.€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.ó óóó,€902€S.W.2d€946,Ļ952€Ģ(Tenn.€App.€1995)(citations€omitted).ĢÓÓą8 ąą ąIn€determining€whether€or€not€a€genuine€issue€ofĻmaterial€fact€exists€for€purposes€of€summary€judgment,Ļcourts€in€this€state€have€indicated€that€the€questionĻshould€be€considered€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€forĻdirected€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiff'sĻproof,€i.e.,€the€trial€court€must€take€the€strongestĻlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theĻnonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€inĶfavor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailingĻevidence.€Then,€if€there€is€a€dispute€as€to€any€materialĻfact,€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawnĻfrom€that€fact€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€The€court€isĻnot€to€"weigh"€the€evidence€when€evaluating€a€motion€forĻsummary€judgment.€ņ ņņņĢĢÓÓByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993)(citationsĻomitted).€This€court€must€use€the€same€standard€in€reviewing€aĻtrial€court's€œjudgment›€œgranting›€œsummary›€judgment.ĢÓÓą8 ąOur€standard€of€review,€and€that€of€the€trial€court,€onĻa€motions€for€summary€judgment€is€the€same:€we€must€takeĻthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favorĻof€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferencesĻin€their€favor€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€ĻIf€we€œdetermine›€that€a€dispute€exists€as€to€any€materialĻfact€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€fromĻthat€fact,€we€must€deny€the€motion.€ĢĢÓÓņ ņņņClifton€v.€Bassó óóó,€908€S.W.2d€205,€208€(Tenn.€App.€1995)(citationsĻomitted).ĢĢņ ņIII.ą ąDisputed€Factual€Issuesó óĢĢą ąœThe›€trial€court€found€"that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differĻthat€Mary€Alice€Prince€intentionally€ingested€a€lethal€dose€of€œaĻtoxic›€substance€knowing€that€the€ingestion€created€an€unreasonableĻrisk€of€harm."€€Our€review€of€this€record€shows€that€the€trialĻcourt's€finding€takes€assumptions€or€inferences€to€be€undisputedĻfacts.€€œWe›€respectfully€disagree.ĢĢą ąņ ņA.ą ąNumber€of€Pills€Takenó óĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€found€as€an€undisputed€fact€that€Mrs.€PrinceĶtook€a€"lethal€dose"€of€pills.€€The€record,€however,€reveals€thatĻMrs.€Prince€could€have€taken€as€many€as€twenty€to€forty€pills€orĻas€few€as€six.€€Given€the€evidence,€it€is€the€opinion€of€thisĻcourt€that€either€inference€is€reasonable.ĢĢą ąThe€relevant€evidence€included€the€following.€€Dr.€SwanĻtestified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€Mrs.€Prince€had€taken€anyĻpills.€€He€also€testified€that€he€obtained€a€history€from€both€Mr.Ļand€Mrs.€Prince€and€that€the€estimate€of€twenty€to€forty€pillsĻcould€have€come€from€either€of€them.€€œGiven€Mrs.€Prince'sĻcondition,€it›€is€reasonable€to€infer€that€Mr.€Prince€gave€Dr.€SwanĻthe€estimate.€€Mr.€œPrince,€however,›€was€œnot›€present€when€Mrs.ĻPrince€took€the€pills.€€The€only€thing€Mrs.€Prince€told€herĻhusband€in€reference€to€the€quantity€of€pills€was€that€she€hadĻtaken€some€pills.€€Mr.€Prince€testified€that€he€may€have€guessedĻat€the€numbers€based€on€the€number€of€pills€he€saw€in€the€bathroomĻand€the€size€of€the€bottle€he€found.€€When€Mr.€Prince€entered€theĻbathroom€he€found€pills€"in€the€toilet,€in€the€sink,€in€the€floorĻ.€.€.€all€over€the€bathroom."€€In€addition,€Mr.€Prince€found€aĻbottle€in€the€trash€which€he€estimated€to€be€two€and€one„halfĻinches€high€by€one€inch€in€diameter.€€œIt›€is€reasonable€to€inferĻthat€with€pills€"in€the€toilet,€in€the€sink,€in€the€floor€.€.€.Ļall€over€the€bathroom"€the€number€actually€taken€was€quite€small.€ĻAlso,€Mr.€Prince€testified€that€there€were€only€a€"half€a€dozen€orĻso"€pills€in€Mrs.€Prince's€vomitus.€€Finally,€Mr.€Prince€hadĻthreatened€to€leave€home.€€Given€such€a€threat,€it€is€reasonableĶto€infer€that€the€act€of€taking€the€pills€was€a€grandstand€playĻintended€to€keep€Mr.€Prince€from€leaving,€not€an€attempt€to€commitĻsuicide.€€Thus,€the€evidence€as€to€the€number€of€pills€taken€is€inĻdispute€and€is€subject€to€numerous€inferences.ĢĢą ąņ ņB.ą ąš šLethal€Doseššó óĢĢą ąThere€is€also€a€dispute€as€to€whether€the€number€of€pillsĻtaken€by€Mrs.€Prince€was€a€lethal€dose.€€Assuming€that€Mrs.€PrinceĻingested€twenty€to€forty€pills,€that€the€Vanderbilt€Poison€ControlĻCenter€correctly€identified€the€pills€as€Caphedrine,€and€that€eachĻpill€contained€200€milligrams€of€caffeine,€Mrs.€Prince€initiallyĻingested€four€to€eight€grams€of€caffeine.€€The€experts,€however,Ļdo€not€agree€as€to€whether€this€constitutes€a€lethal€dose.€€Dr.ĻRichard€S.€Crampton,€Mrs.€Prince's€expert,€testified€that€theĻlethal€dose€ranges€from€five€to€ten€grams.€€In€addition,€Dr.€KarlĻJ.€Crossen,€defendants'€expert,€testified€that€there€is€noĻagreement€as€to€the€lethal€dose.€€He€testified€as€follows:ĢÓ,"` Ü` ä ŅœČ„XŲ'X,ÓÓÓą8 ąQ.ą ąDo€you€know€what€the€lethal€dose€of€caffeineĻis?ĢĢą8 ąA.ą ąDepends€on€which€text.€€I've€seen€it€writtenĻdown€as€approximately€ten€grams.ĢĢÓÓThe€possibility€that€the€dose€was€lethal€is€even€less€when€oneĻconsiders€that€it€is€reasonable€to€conclude€that€Mrs.€Prince€tookĻonly€six€pills.€€To€explain,€six€pills€contain€only€1.2€grams€ofĻcaffeine.€€Thus,€there€is€a€dispute€as€to€whether€the€number€ofĻpills€taken€by€Mrs.€Prince€was€a€lethal€dose,€and€assuming€thatĶshe€only€took€six€pills,€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€that€the€doseĻwas€not€lethal.ĢĢņ ņą ąC.ą ąSequence€of€Events€and€Cause€of€Acute€Eventó óĢĢą ąœThere›€are€other€disputed€factual€issues€related€to€theĻprecipitating€cause€of€Mrs.€Prince's€permanent€injuries.€€WithĻregard€to€the€sequence€of€events€at€the€time€of€Mrs.€Prince'sĻacute€event,€defendants€have€attempted€to€establish€that€Mrs.ĻPrince€suffered€a€seizure€before€going€into€ventricularĻfibrillation.€€They€use€this€theory€to€support€their€argument€thatĻthe€amount€of€caffeine€ingested€was€the€primary€agent€in€causingĻMrs.€Prince's€injuries.€€Dr.€George€Klein€and€Dr.€George€Podgorny,ĻMrs.€Prince's€experts,€both€testified€that€the€ventricularĻfibrillation€preceded€the€seizure.ĢĢą ąThere€is€also€a€dispute€as€to€the€cause€of€the€acute€event.€ĻOne€theory,€that€of€defendants,€is€that€a€caffeine€overdose€causedĻthe€cardiac€arrest.€€Mrs.€Prince's€theory€is€that€hypokalemia,€lowĻpotassium,€caused€plaintiff's€injuries.€€Both€theories€areĻsupported€by€expert€testimony.€€Dr.€Crossen€testified€that€aĻcaffeine€overdose€without€any€secondary€condition€caused€theĻcardiac€arrest.€€Both€Dr.€Podgorny€and€Dr.€Klein€testified€thatĻthe€low€potassium€was€the€result€of€prolonged€and€copiousĻvomiting.€€The€prolonged€vomiting€resulted€from€Mr.€Prince€givingĻMrs.€Prince€ipecac€without€water.€€We€find€nothing€in€the€recordĶto€suggest€that€ingestion€of€caffeine€or€caffeine€with€ephedrineĻcaused€the€vomiting.ĢĢą ąœņ ņD.›ą ąStandard€of€Careó óĢĢą ąœDefendants€also€contend€that€because€Mrs.€Prince€took€theĻpills€she€was€likely€to€have€been€injured€whether€defendants€were€Ļnegligent€or€not.€€Dr.€Klein's€testimony€is€clear,€however,€thatĻif€neither€defendants€nor€Mr.€Prince€had€acted€after€Mrs.€PrinceĻtook€the€pills€the€caffeine€would€not€have€caused€her€injuries.€ĻDefendants€take€the€position€that€once€Mrs.€Prince€took€the€pillsĻall€that€followed€was€inevitable.€€The€record€does€not€supportĻthis€assertion€without€dispute.ĢĢą ąThere›€is€a€material€question€of€whether€the€failure€of€theĻhealth€care€providers€to€properly€deal€with€the€consequences€ofĻthe€prolonged€and€copious€vomiting€caused€Mrs.€Prince's€injuries.€ĻThere€is€evidence€that€the€defendants€were€negligent€in€their€careĻof€Mrs.€Prince€and€that€Mrs.€Prince€would€not€have€sustained€Ļinjuries€had€defendants€complied€with€the€standard€of€care.€€WhileĻat€St.€Thomas,€despite€a€history€of€drug€overdose€and€copiousĻvomiting€for€a€period€of€some€four€hours,€Dr.€Swan€did€not€orderĻan€IV€to€replace€lost€fluids,€did€not€order€antiemetics€to€stopĻthe€vomiting,€and€did€not€order€a€drug€screen€or€other€lab€testsĻsuch€as€a€blood€count,€a€urinalysis,€or€a€serum€electrolyte.€ĻThere€is€œevidence›€that€the€failure€to€order€these€tests€or€toĶorder€antiemetics€deviated€from€the€accepted€standards€of€medicalĻcare.€€There€is€also€evidence€of€a€continued€deviation€from€theĻacceptable€standards€of€medical€care€after€Mrs.€Prince€left€St.ĻThomas€and€Mr.€Prince€took€her€to€Edgefield€Hospital.ĢĢą ąņ ņE.ą ąProximate€Cause€and€Apportionment€of€Faultó óĢĢą ąIn€the€order€granting€summary€judgment€the€trial€courtĻreferred€to€decisions€of€our€supreme€œcourt.€€Specifically,€theĻcourt€relied€on€ņ ņņņGray€v.€Ford€Motor€Companyó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€464Ļ(Tenn.€1996),€for€the€proposition€that€the€principles€ofĻcomparative€fault€apply€to€medical€malpractice€actions€so€that€theĻfault€of€a€patient€can€be€compared€to€the€fault€of€the€treatingĻhealth€care€providers.€€The€first€case€in€which€the€TennesseeĻSupreme€Court€approved€the€application€of€comparative€faultĻprinciples€in€medical€malpractice€cases€was€ņ ņņņVolz€v.€Ledesó óóó,€895ĻS.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€both€€ņ ņņņGray€ó óóóand€ņņņ ņVolzó óóó,€theĻdetermination€of€apportionment€of€fault€was€left€to€the€jury.€Ļņņņ ņGrayóóó ó,€914€S.W.2d€at€266;€ņņņ ņVolzóóó ó,€895€S.W.2d€at€677.€€We€find€noĻfault€with€the€trial€court's€conclusion€that€principles€ofĻcomparative€fault€are€applicable€in€medical€malpractice€cases,€butĻwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€making€thisĻcomparison€rather€than€having€the€jury€do€so.€€š šIn€a€jury€case,Ļthe€issues€of€negligence€and€proximate€cause€are€generally€for€theĻjury.€€Such€issues€may€be€pre„empted€by€the€Trial€Judge€only€whereĻthe€evidence€and€reasonable€inferences€therefrom€are€so€free€ofĶconflict€that€all€reasonable€minds€would€agree€with€the€decisionĻof€the€Trial€Judge.šš€ņ ņņņHusted€v.€Echolsó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€43,€45€(Tenn.ĻApp.€1995).€€Such€is€not€the€case€here.ĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€in€its€judgment€stated€that€"[i]n€reachingĻthis€conclusion,€the€Court€has€carefully€considered€the€factorsĻthat€are€relevant€for€determining€the€percentage€of€fault€thatĻshould€be€assigned€to€a€party€.€.€.€."€€One€of€the€relevantĻfactors€used€when€apportioning€fault€is€"the€relative€closeness€ofĻthe€causal€relationship€between€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€andĻthe€injury€to€the€plaintiff€.€.€.€."€€ņņņ ņEaton€v.€McLainóóó ó,€891ĻS.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€1994).€€Here,€there€is€a€very€real€questionĻof€whether€Mrs.€Prince's€act€of€taking€an€unknown€quantity€ofĻpills€was€the€proximate€cause€of€her€injuries.€€Mrs.€Prince€arguesĻthat€the€act€of€making€her€take€ipecac€and€the€subsequentĻnegligent€treatment€combined€to€intervene€between€Mrs.€Prince'sĻact€of€taking€some€pills€and€her€final€injuries.€€We€do€not€thinkĻit€is€necessary€to€consider€the€case€from€the€perspective€ofĻ"intervening€cause."€€The€question€is€simple.€€Whose€fault€wasĻmore€proximate?€€Most€often,€this€is€a€question€of€fact€to€beĻdetermined€by€a€jury.€€Based€on€the€record€and€the€reasonableĻinferences€to€be€drawn€therefrom,€a€jury€could€conclude€thatĻdefendants'€fault€was€more€proximate€to€Mrs.€Prince's€injuries€andĻthat€the€act€of€Mrs.€Prince€was€not€proximate€at€all.ĢĢą ąIn€the€majority€of€cases,€the€€ņ ņņņMcIntyre€v.€Ballentineó óóó,Ķ833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€comparison€and€allocation€of€faultĻissues€are€properly€left€to€the€jury.€€The€court€in€ņ ņņņEatonó óóó€makesĻthis€clear:ĢÓÓą8 ą€€Under€the€pre„McIntyre€fault€system,€the€questionĻfor€the,€trial€court€on€a€motion€for€directedĻverdict/JNOV€alleging€contributory€negligence€was:Ļif,€after€taking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofĻthe€evidence€in€the€plaintiff's€favor,€could€it€beĻdetermined€ņ ņbeyond€questionó ó€that€the€plaintiff€wasĻguilty€ņ ņof€ņņanyóóó ó€negligence€that€proximately€causedĻthe€resulting€injuries?€€If€the€answer€to€thisĻquestion€was€"yes,"€then€a€directed€verdict€wasĻproper.€€This€situation€was€rare,€however,€for€asĻwe€emphasized€in€ņ ņņņFrady€v.€Smithó óóó,€519€S.W.2d€584Ļ(Tenn.€1974):Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąNegligence,€contributory€negligence,Ļand€proximate€cause€are€ordinarilyĻissues€to€be€decided€by€the€jury,€andĻcan€be€withdrawn€from€the€jury€andĻdecided€by€the€court€only€in€thoseĻcases€where€the€facts€are€establishedĻby€evidence€free€from€conflict,€andĻthe€inference€from€the€facts€is€soĻcertain€that€all€reasonable€men,€inĻthe€exercise€of€a€free€and€impartialĻjudgment,€must€agree€upon€it.ĢĢą8 ą€€This€Court's€adoption€of€the€doctrine€ofĻcomparative€fault€in€McIntyre€does€not€change€theseĻstandards€governing€the€trial€court's€assessment€ofĻthe€evidence;€nor€does€it€change€the€establishedĻstandard€governing€the€trial€court's€ultimateĻdecision€of€whether€to€grant€the€motion.€€The€trialĻcourt€still€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€viewĻof€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„movant;€and€ņ ņitĻmust€grant€the€motion€only€if€reasonableĻminds€could€not€differ€as€to€the€legalĻconclusion€to€be€drawn€from€that€evidenceó ó.ĢĢņ ņņņEatonó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€590(citations€omitted)(bold€emphasis€added).ĢĢĢĢÓÓą ąThe€defendants€assert€and€the€trial€court€found€that€"as€aĻmatter€of€law"€Mrs.€Prince's€fault€was€at€least€fifty€percent.€€InĶdefendants'€view,€if€the€court€determines€that€Mrs.€Prince's€actĻwas€intentional€and€that€defendants'€acts€were€negligent,€theĻanalysis€comes€to€an€end.€€That€is,€defendants€contend€the€findingĻthat€one€acted€intentionally€and€the€other€negligently€isĻsufficient€for€the€court€to€render€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€inĻfavor€of€the€negligent€party.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€aĻcomparison€of€supposed€levels€of€conduct€without€determiningĻproximate€cause€is€not€presently€the€law€in€Tennessee.€€TheĻasserted€level€of€fault€of€a€party€is€a€circumstance€for€theĻfinder€of€fact€to€consider€when€determining€the€percentage€ofĻfault€of€each€party€in€producing€the€injury.€€It€is€not€a€bar€toĻrecovery.ĢĢņ ņIV.ą ąConclusionó óĢĢą ąA€review€of€the€record€reveals€there€are€numerous€materialĻfacts€in€dispute€and€that€genuine€doubt€exists€with€regard€to€theĻconclusions€and€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€ReasonableĻminds€could€conclude€that€Mrs.€Prince€did€not€intend€to€harmĻherself,€that€the€pills€she€took€would€not€have€caused€her€harm,Ļthat€her€husband's€act€of€making€her€take€ipecac€without€water€wasĻthe€act€which€caused€the€need€for€medical€care,€and€that€Mrs.ĻPrince€would€not€have€sustained€any€injuries€had€she€receivedĻproper€medical€care.€ĢĢą ąTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtĶis€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forĻfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€Cost€on€appeal€are€taxed€toĻdefendants/appellees.ĢĢ€ĢÓÓą ąą ąą ą__________________________________Ģą ąą ąą ąSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.ą ąą ąĢĢĢĢĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢĢ_________________________________ĢHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ĢĢĢĢ_________________________________ĢWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.