WPCL  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0J@: 0T: 0^:w@<; 0h|; 0r; 0|V< 0@< D3= 0E= 0= 1u[> 0d>U64?B)j?DC? AM?U*#@M@fA/eBv~CvE AOJ4K 0DK D/>L BmLV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xe<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dU!$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMSGoldieWIMBERLYSEYMOURMcClenahanWhaleyHigginsRichardsonsBussartTenn.R.App.P.BussertMixonElizabethtonSluderLethcoWasham2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  QDR/eSDTUDVaWaXDYUZ Ӏ26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  ("$    GGGG'dxd2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  QRTVWX\] ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dhhhh7Border 1ddYiC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#g  kk   YYY FILEDkX October3,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.kAppellateCourtClerk  F!#d#g  I$g         $130,000isthemaximumallowableunderpresentlaw.  % F!#d#g  I$g         NocomplaintismadethatthetotalamountofdamagesfoundbytheCourt($50,000and$217,000)wasexcessive.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva YC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . g    ` ћ7XXdd7\RA'\   , 5  h u` ќLjli;+'h|`  `L̛@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONELMERRICHARDSON,Individually,@ ) KNOXCOUNTYandasSurvivingSpouseof@ ) 03A019602CV00049GoldieH.Richardson,Deceased@ )@ ) PlaintiffAppellee@ ) @ ) ̀@ )  v. @ ) HON.HAROLDWIMBERLY,@ ) JUDGE@ ) CITYOFKNOXVILLE@ ) @ ) AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED DefendantAppellant@ ) andREMANDEDSHARONE.BOYCEOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTJOHNT.JOHNSON,JR.,OFKNOXVILLEandBILLFAINOFSEYMOURFORAPPELLEE@ OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  TheCityofKnoxvilleappealsjudgmentsrenderedinfavorofElmerRichardson,survivingspouseofGoldieH.Richardson,forpersonalinjuriesreceivedbyhimandthewrongfuldeathofhiswifeintheamountof$30,000,and$130,000,respectively.  TheCityraisesthefollowingthreeissues:    I.0 WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINFINDINGTHATTHECITYOFKNOXVILLEWAS60PERCENTATFAULTANDTHEUNKNOWNDRIVERANDDRIVER,ELAINEWASHAMWHALEYWEREJOINTLY40PERCENTATFAULT.  II.0 WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINFINDINGTHATTHECITYOFKNOXVILLEWASNOTIMMUNEFROMSUITUNDERTENNESSEECODEANNOTATEDSECTION2920203.III.0 WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINALLOWINGTHETESTIMONYOFDR.GARYLETHCOASTOTHECAUSEOFGOLDIERICHARDSON'SDEATHUNDERTENNESSEERULEOFEVIDENCE703.      TheaccidentgivingrisetothissuitoccurredonJune8,1992,whenanautomobilebeingoperatedbyElaineWashamWhaley,crashedthroughafenceenclosingtheRichardsons'property,violentlystruckthefrontporchoftheirresidencewheretheyweresitting,knockingdownabrickwallenclosingtheporchandshoweringbrickonthem.BothwereinjuredandMrs.Richardsondiedonemonthlater,onJuly8,1992.  TheRichardsons'residencesitsattheintersectionofHigginsAvenue,whichrunsgenerallyinanorthandsouthdirection,andYoungHighPike,whichrunsgenerallyinaneastandwestdirection.TomlinsonStreet,whichrunsinanorthandsouthdirection,intersectsYoungHighPike,justeastofHigginsAvenue.(Seeappendix.)  Priortothetimeoftheaccident,about10:45a.m.,ithadbeenrainingheavilyandthestreetswerewet.Ms.Whaleywasreturningtoherhome,travelinginawesterlydirectiononYoungHighPike,whichhasa30mileperhourspeedlimit.Shewastravelingatapproximately25milesperhour,intendingtoturnrightontoHigginsAvenue.AssheapproachedHiggins,anothercar,whosedriverwasneveridentified,relyinguponMs.Whaley'srightturnsignal,whichshehadactivated,pulledintoYoungHighPike,intendingtoturnleftandtravelinaneasterlydirection.AlthoughMs.Whaleyisunsureaboutthemovementofhercar,themostreasonableexplanationisthatofferedbyanemployeeoftheCity'sTrafficEngineeringDepartmentthatMs.Whaleydrovehervehicleofftherightsideoftheroad,then ` ќovercorrected,crossingtheroad,drivingthroughthefence,andthenintothebrickwallenclosingtheporch.  TheareaencompassingtheintersectionofYoungHighPikeandHigginsAvenuehadbeenthesceneofanumberofaccidents,whichareaccuratelysetoutinMr.Richardson'sbrief:     BetweenJanuary1,1986andJune8,1992,thereweretwentyautomobileaccidentsintheimmediatevicinityoftheintersectionwheretheaccidentoccurredoutofwhichthislawsuitarises.OnOctober20,1987,avehiclecrashedintothefenceatthepropertywhichultimatelytheRichardsonspurchased.TheRichardsonspurchasedthesubjectpropertyinthespringof1990.InMay1990,anothervehicleranofftheroadintotheRichardsons'yardandknockeddownafence.OnMay18,1991,amotorcyclestruckafenceontheRichardsons'property.OnNovember10,1991,amotorcycleencroachedupontheRichardsons'propertyandthedriverwaskilled.OnMay21,1992,anothervehiclestrucktheRichardsons'fenceandcrashedintotheRichardsons'automobile,whichwasparkedinthedriveway.      Ms.Whaleydescribestheaccidentandheractionsasfollows:     Q. Andthatdaywhatwereyougoingtodo? A. Well,IwasgoingbackandturnonHiggins,butacarpulledoutinfrontofme,andIguessIprettywellmuchpanickedwhenitpulledoutinfrontofme,andIprobablyturnedalittlebittoosharp. Q. DoyourememberwhenyouwentupontherightsideofHigginsupinthegrasswithyourcar? A. Prettywellmuchso.Imusthavehitmybrakes,'causeIstartedsliding. Q. Thenwhathappenedafterthat,afteryougotupinthegrassontherightsideofHiggins A. Ihitthefence. Q. You'retalkingaboutthefenceonHigginsattheRichardsons'house? A. Yes.AndthelastthingIremembergoingoverthis,butwheneverIdidthatevidentlyIfroze,andImusthavestillhadmyfootonthebrake,andIcontinuedtoslide.Imusthavehadmyfootonthebrakeandthegasatthesametime,becauseIcontinuedtoslideintothehouse. .... Q. Ibelieveatyourdepositionyoudrewadiagram,Exhibit1toyourdeposition,showingtheothercarthatpulledoutinfrontofyouonYoungHighPike? A. Uhhuh.BecauseIwastryingtomaketheturn,andIguessIgotscared,andwheneverImadethatturn,shepulledoutinfrontofmeandIwasmakingmyturn.AndIthinkwhatIdidwas,insteadofhittingmybrakes,IthinkIwashere,musthaveslidoverhere.There'sait'sIdon'tknowwhatyouwouldcallit,it'slikeahumpintheroad,andit'srightaroundthisarearighthere,aboutrightinthecenterofthisarea,andthat'swhenmycontrolarmonmycarbroke,andIlostcompletecontrolofmycar.      TheCityhadamplenoticeofthehazardandhadbeenrepeatedlyrequestedbytheRichardsons'daughtertotakecorrectivemeasures.  Turningtotheissuesonappeal,itappears,asalreadynoted,thatMs.WhaleywasstartledbythevehicleproceedingfromHigginsintoYoungHighPike,drovehervehicleofftherightedgeofthepavementandovercorrected,drivingthroughthefenceintotheporch.She,herself,admittedthatshepanickedandpressedboththegasandbrakepedals.Shealsopleadedguiltyto"drivingtoofastfortheroadconditions,"andpaidafine.  AlthoughtheTrialCourtdidnotsetthedamagessustainedbyMr.Richardsonindividuallyandassurvivingspouse,hegrantedjudgmentsof$30,000and$130,00, m   ׀respectively.WecalculatefromthisthatthetotaldamageshefoundastoMr.Richardson'spersonalinjuryclaimwas$50,000,andastohisclaimassurvivingspouse$217,000. n     Thestandardofreviewforatrialcourt'sdeterminationofthecomparativefaultofthoseinvolvedinanaccidentisnotentirelyclear.InWrightv.CityofKnoxville,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995),theSupremeCourtaddressedthequestionasfollows:     Althoughitistruethatthetrieroffacthasconsiderablelatitudeinallocatingpercentagesoffaulttonegligentparties,seee.g.,Martinv.Bussart,292Minn.29,193N.W.2d134(1971),appellatecourtsmayalterthosefindingsiftheyareclearlyerroneous.Becausethiscasewastriedwithoutajury,ourreviewoftheissuesoffactisdenovoontherecordofthetrialcourt.However,wemustpresumethatthetrialcourt'sfindingswerecorrectunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.273103;Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).      Thisappearstosuggesttwodifferentstandards.One"clearlyerroneous,"andtheotherthetraditionalnonjurystandard,whichisareviewdenovowithapresumptionofcorrectness"unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise."Rule13(d),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.  WrightquotesfromMartinv.Bussert,193N.W.2d134(Minn.1971),whereintheSupremeCourtofMinnesotastateditsstandardofreviewtobethefollowing(atpage139):     Uponareviewofajury'sapportionmentofnegligencebetweentortfeasors...wewillnotsubstituteourjudgmentforthatofthejuryunlessthereisnoevidencereasonablytendingtosustaintheapportionmentortheapportionmentismanifestlyandpalpablyagainsttheweightoftheevidence.     Ӝ  ItwouldbenotedthattheMinnesotacasewasajurycase,whileWrightwasnonjury.WeaccordinglyconcludethatinnonjurycasestheproperruleissetoutinRule13(d),andalsobelievethatinjurycasestheruleisthetraditionalonematerialcredibleevidencetosupporttheverdict.  Inreachingourconclusion,wearenotunmindfuloftwocasesbytheWesternSectionofthisCourt,Nicholsetal.v.MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,filedinNashvilleonJuly12,1996,andGriggsv.JamesP.Mixonandothers,filedinJacksononAugust6,1996,bothofwhichadopttheclearlyerroneousstandard.Webelieve,asalreadynoted,however,thatourSupremeCourt,atleastinsofarasnonjurycasesareconcerned,intendedtoapplythestandardsetoutinRule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.  InlightofMs.Whaley'stestimonyhereinbeforesetout,andthefactthatshehadlivedinthevicinityeightornineyearsandwasintimatelyfamiliarwiththeintersection,weconcludethatuponapplyingthepreponderanceoftheevidenceruletothisissue,thatthenegligenceofMs.WhaleyandtheunknowndriverwasgreaterthanthatoftheCity,andthat60percentofthenegligenceshouldbeattributedtoMs.Whaleyandtheunknowndriverand40percenttotheCity.  AproposoftheCity'ssecondissue,T.C.A.2920203,aspertinenttothisappeal,providesthefollowing:     2920203.RemovalofimmunityforinjuryfromunsafestreetsandhighwaysNoticerequired. (a)Immunityfromsuitofagovernmentalentityisremovedforanyinjurycausedbyadefective,unsafe,ordangerousconditionofanystreet,alley,sidewalkorhighway,ownedandcontrolledbysuchgovernmentalentity."Street"or"highway"includestrafficcontroldevicesthereon. (B)Thissectionshallnotapplyunlessconstructiveand/oractualnoticetothegovernmentalentityofsuchconditionbeallegedandprovedin̜additiontotheproceduralnoticerequiredby2920302[repealed].      TheCityarguesthattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheTrialCourt'sfollowingfindingsrelativetothestatute:     THECOURT:AttheendofthetrialonthisIaskedforsometimetoreviewalltheevidenceandexhibits,andittookallday,andtheauthoritiesthatwetalkedabout.AndofcoursewhatwehaveisasituationwheretheplaintiffsareseekingrecoverybasedonatheorythattheCitymaintaineddefectiveandunsafestreets,specificallythisintersectioninfrontofthehousewheretheplaintiffslived. Thedefendant,ofcourse,deniedthattherewasanyunsafeordefectiveconditionofthestreetsthere,claimedimmunity,andinanyevent,contendedthatthecauseoftheincidentwassolelythenegligenceofthedriversinvolvedinthisparticularincident.Theevidenceshowedthatthiswasanoldpartoftown,oldintersectionconsistingofnarrowstreets,thatitwentoffatwhatwouldbeconsideredtodayoddangles.Andthatthisintersection,atthetimeofthisincident,wasexperiencingincreasedtrafficduetoconstructionofashoppingcenterandsomeotherfactorsthatwewentoverintrial. Afterreviewingalltheevidence,theCourtconcludesthatthisintersectionwasonethatIthinkcouldbebestdescribedasanintersectionwherevehicleswerelikelytogetintrouble;andifavehicledidgetintrouble,forwhateverreason,thatvehiclewaslikelytowindupinplaintiffs'yardoronplaintiffs'property,andthathappenedseveraltimesbefore.Now,thebestexplanationofthereasonforthis,Ithink,wasconcludedinwitnessBlack'stestimony,wherehesaidthatthiswasaveryconfusingintersection,andthatanyoneapproachingthatintersectionreallyhadnoguidanceastowheretheyshouldbeorwhereothercarsshouldbe.Andthatthistypeofaccident,theonethatoccurredhere,wasthetypeofaccidentthatwouldlikelyresultfromthisconfiguration,ifyouwill,oftheintersection. Now,theCity,throughitswitnesses,mademuchofthefactthatthisparticularaccidentwasnotonethathadoccurredbefore,andwasnotonethatwouldlikelybeforeseen.Astoforeseeability,thecourtshaveadoptedtestscontainedinthiscase,McClenahanversusCooley,806S.W.2d767,andthatcasecitedanearliercaseofCityofElizabethtonversusSluder,at534S.W.2d115.Andthosecasesstandforthepropositionthatevenwithoutanypreviousaccidentoccurring,it'ssufficientthattheharmintheabstractcouldreasonablybeforeseen.AsIsaid,theCourthasconcludedfromtheevidenceinthiscasethatthesituationwasthatitcouldbeforeseen,thatifanybodygotindifficultyouttheretheywerelikelytoendupinplaintiffs'property;andyouwouldgetindifficultyouttherebecauseoftheconfusingnatureofthisintersectionandthenarrowstreetsandalltheotherthingsthatmadeupthisparticularintersection. SotheresultsofmyanalysisofthissituationisthatIfeelthatthiswasthereforeanunsafeintersection,thatitcouldhavebeencorrected,andactuallytheproofis,withverylittleeffortandexpense,correctedtotheextentthatthiskindofathing,wherepeoplecomeupthereandtheygetconfusedaboutwho'sgoingwhereandreactaccordingly,wouldnothaveoccurred.Infact,Ithinktheproofinthiscaseisthatactuallywhenremedialstepsweretakenthatnofurtherintrusiveaccidentsonthispropertyoccurred. SoweconcludetheCityisnotimmunehere,becausethisissimplyadefectivestreettypesituation.Theyhadplentyofnotice.There'snoquestionaboutnoticehere.Theplaintiffs'representative,ifyouwill,theirdaughter,testifiedthatshehadcomplainedforaperiodoftimetotheCity.Infact,said,youknowifsomethingisnotdoneheresomeoneisgoingtocomeintheyardandhurtorinjureorkillmyparents.Unfortunately,thatiswhathappened.There'snotaquestionofnoticehereatall.      OurreviewoftherecordpersuadesusthattheTrialCourtcorrectlyfoundtheintersectioninquestiontobeunsafe.  Astothethirdissue,theCityinsiststhatthedepositionofMrs.Richardson'sfamilyphysician,Dr.Lethco,shouldnothavebeenadmittedintoevidence.Histestimony,whichopinedthatMrs.Richardson'sdeathwascaused"frommassivepulmonaryemboli,whichwerebroughtaboutbythetraumatoherlowerextremities."  ThisassertionispredicatedupontheCity'scontentionthatDr.Lethcowasrelyinguponadeathcertificatewhichhedidnotprepareandanautopsywhichhedidnotperform.TheCityagreesasaconsequencetheevidencelackedafoundationwhich,inaccordwithAdvisoryCommitteeCommentstoRule703,thatthefactsonwhichhebasedhisopinion,were"reasonablyrelieduponbyexpertsintheparticularfield."  DuringDr.Lethco'sdeposition,timelyobjectionwasmadebycounselfortheCity.However,itappearsthatwhenthedepositionwasofferedinevidence,counselfortheCitydidnotcalltotheTrialCourt'sattentionthefacthewascontinuingtorelyupontheobjectionsmadewhenthedepositionwastaken.This,coupledwithcounsel'sfailuretoadvocatethispositionduringherclosingargumentpersuadesusthatthisobjectionwaswaivedandmaynotbeapredicateforerrorbecauseitwasneverbroughtspecificallytotheattentionoftheTrialCourt.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtismodifiedtoawardMr.Richardsonajudgmentforhispersonalinjuriesintheamountof$20,000(40percentof$50,000),andassurvivingspousethesumof$86,800(40percentof$217,000).Asmodified,thejudgmentisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforthecollectionofthejudgmentsandcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalfagainsttheCityandonehalfagainstMr.Richardson.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.