ÿWPCü 1# ¾UNÉ % 0(w@E4…™¨ B°ÍU@Íe  0J 0TX 0D¬ 0^ð 0hNƶ 0r| 0|î AQj 0D» 0†ÿ 0… 1u 0dŠ 0@î D3. U>a D/Ÿ B)Î B÷ DC AMW U*¤ ÝÎ v~«vÓ)˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ±E²³D´DµV¶V·V¸Ó€¹ºäzz!²3|xº d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman**'÷ÿ dxd% Line 7 düÿP Pd))))7Border 1dd$+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ€-ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔó óÌò òÔ€-¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€-XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€ Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ ÂÔÔ€-ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€,.+A1-j|Ô™â `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌJAMES€R.€ROSE€and€œwife,›€à àà à)à àÌSTELLA€KAY€ROSE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óHenderson€Law€No.€93„343€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDENNIS€R.€RICE,€JANICE€RICE€andà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9509„CV„00198Ìò òJOHN€DOE,€à àà àà à€€€ó ó€ò òà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellees.à àò òà à)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€HENDERSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€LEXINGTON,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€CHARLES€McPHERSON,€JUDGE€€€ÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€œDefendants/Appelleesà àà àÌóóPaul€Todd€Nicksòòà àà àà àà àDennis€R.€Rice€and€Janice€Riceóó:òò›ÌœóóJackson,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àCarthel€L.€Smith,€Jr.›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Lexington,€TennesseeÌòòFor€the€Defendant/AppelleeÌÓ  ÓJohn€Doeóó:ÌS.€Craig€KennedyÌSelmer,€Tennessee›Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌALANò ò€ó óE.€HIGHERS,€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ެXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó óÌà àThis€is€a€negligence€case€involving€the€head„on€collision€of€two€vehicles.€€Appellants€JamesÏand€Stella€Rose€were€struck€by€the€car€of€Appellees€Dennis€and€Janice€Rice€when€Dennis€RiceÏapplied€his€brakes€to€avoid€hitting€a€vehicle€which€turned€across€his€lane.€The€trial€court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Rices.€€We€reverse.Ìà àOn€the€night€of€April€4,€1992,€James€and€Stella€Rose€were€traveling€westbound€on€U.S.ÏHighway€412.€€œStella›€Rose€was€driving,€and€James€Rose€was€asleep€in€the€seat€beside€her.€œThey›Ïcame€around€a€curve€and€started€up€a€hill.€€œAs›€they€rounded€the€curve,€Stella€Rose€saw€the€vehicleÏof€Appellee€John€Doe€(ð ðDoeðð),€an€unidentified€driver,€signaling€to€turn€left€onto€Pine€Crest€Road,Ïwhich€was€on€the€crest€of€the€hill.€€œThere›€was€one€car€between€the€Roses€and€the€vehicle€with€itsÏturn€signal€on.€€œStella›€Rose€did€not€notice€any€cars€approaching€in€the€eastbound€lane.€€€€SheÏslowed€down€but€thought€the€car€with€the€turn€signal€on€would€have€time€to€turn€before€she€wouldÏhave€to€stop.€Ìà àAt€that€time,€Dennis€and€Janice€Rice€were€traveling€eastbound€on€U.S.€Highway€412€atÏabout€fifty€miles€per€hour,€with€Dennis€Rice€driving.€€œDennis›€Rice€saw€three€vehicles€in€theÏoncoming€lane.€€The€first€two€were€approaching.€€The€third€was€the€John€Doe€vehicle,€with€its€turnÏsignal€œon€as›€though€it€were€going€to€turn€onto€œPine€Crest›€Road.€€œIn›€his€deposition,€Rice€estimatedÏthat€the€John€Doe€vehicle€was€probably€about€eighty€or€one€hundred€feet€away€when€he€first€sawÏit.€€œThe›€first€two€vehicles€drove€past€the€Rices.€€œThen›€Doe€turned€in€front€of€Rice,€a€move€which€heÏhad€not€expected,€causing€Rice€to€slam€on€his€œbrakes›€to€avoid€a€collision.€€œRice›€testified€that€heÏapparently€turned€his€wheels€a€little€to€the€œleft.›€€He€managed€to€barely€avoid€hitting€Doeððs€vehicle,Ïand€the€car€in€front€of€the€Roses€passed€by€in€its€lane.€€œRice›€then€took€his€foot€off€the€œbrake,›€andÏhis€vehicle€began€to€fishtail.€€€Rice€again€slammed€on€his€brakes,€but€his€vehicle€entered€the€otherÏlane€and€crashed€into€the€Rosesðð€vehicle.€€œThe›€John€Doe€vehicle€was€never€found,€nor€was€theÏdriver€ever€œidentified.›Ìà àThe€Roses€sued€the€Rices€and€Doe,€alleging€that€Dennis€Rice€had€failed€to€keep€a€properÏlookout,€had€failed€to€keep€control€of€his€vehicle,€and€had€not€acted€reasonably€in€the€eventsÍleading€up€to€the€accident.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€Ricesðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€Stella€Rose€negated€any€allegations€of€negligence€on€Riceððs€part€by€stating€in€herÏdeposition€that€there€was€nothing€Dennis€Rice€could€have€done€to€œprevent›€the€œaccident.›€€The€courtÏalso€found€that€the€sudden€emergency€doctrine€applied.€œ€›€Consequently,€€the€trial€court€granted€theÏRicesðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€Roses€now€appeal€the€grant€of€summary€judgment.€Ìà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€when€the€movant€demonstratesÏthat€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgmentÏas€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€and€theÏappellate€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmovingÏparty,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€at€210„11.€€The€phrase€"genuine€œissue,"›€as€stated€in€Rule€œ56.03,›€refers€to€genuine,€factualÏissues€and€does€not€include€issues€involving€legal€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€atÏ211.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,Ïthe€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,Ïthat€there€is€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€butÏmust€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€forÏtrial.€€"If€he€does€not€so€respond,€summary€judgment€.€.€.€shall€be€entered€againstÏhim."ÌÌòòò òÓÓId.ó óóó€(citations€omitted).€€Summary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€case€can€be€decided€onÏthe€legal€issues€alone.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€210.€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€noÏpresumption€of€correctness€regarding€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€œò òòòCarvell€v.ÏBottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).›€€Review€of€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€is,Ïtherefore,€òòò òde€œnovoó óóó€on€the€record.›Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€Roses€contend€that€there€are€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€which€renderÏsummary€judgment€inappropriate.€€First,€they€assert€that€there€is€a€factual€issue€as€to€whether€œthere›Íwas€adequate€time€for€the€John€Doe€vehicle€to€turn€without€Riceððs€sudden€application€of€brakes€andÏthe€ensuing€events.€€Stella€Rose€testified€in€her€deposition€that€she€thought€there€was€plenty€of€timeÏfor€the€John€Doe€vehicle€to€turn€without€her€having€to€stop€and€that€it€never€crossed€her€mind€thatÏthe€Ricesðð€vehicle€would€hit€the€John€Doe€vehicle.€€€Dennis€Rice,€however,€stated€that€he€appliedÏhis€brakes€immediately€when€the€car€turned€in€front€of€him,€that€there€was€œonly›€about€one€hundredÏfeet€between€his€car€and€the€John€Doe€vehicle€when€he€first€saw€it,€that€he€missed€hitting€it€byÏinches,€and€that€the€whole€event€took€place€in€seconds.€œBased›€on€the€partiesðð€deposition€testimony,Ïthere€appears€to€œbe€a›€œgenuine€issue›€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€there€was€enough€distanceÏbetween€the€Rices€and€Doe€for€Rice€to€have€prevented€the€accident.€€ÌœÇ›à àThe€Roses€also€assert€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€Rice€actedÏreasonably€after€he€averted€colliding€with€the€Doe€vehicle.€€In€his€deposition,€Dennis€Rice€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àWhen€I€let€off€the€brakes,€I€lost€control.€€My€car€started€fishtailing,€justÏweaving€back€and€forth.€€I€locked€up€my€brakes€again,€and€I€was€in€the€left„handÏlane€when€I€hit€them€in€the€truck.ÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 àA:à àAnti„lock€brakes;€I€didnððt€have€that€on€my€car.€€But€Iððm€sure€I€probablyÏturned€the€wheel,€but€I€went€completely€straight,€had€it€locked€down,€slid.€€Then€IÏwent€„„€I€missed€the€car€[John€Doeððs€vehicle].€€I€barely€missed€it.€€And€I€let€off€myÏbrakes.€€I€lost€control,€and€the€car€just€started€fishtailing.€€And€then€I€locked€it€up,Ïlocked€the€brakes€up€again€when€I€seen€[sic]€it€was€going€left€of€center.ÌÌÓÓTherefore,€Rice€avoided€hitting€the€John€Doe€vehicle€and€was€sliding€straight;€he€then€took€his€footÏoff€the€brake,€lost€control,€and€then€locked€up€the€brakes.€€Riceððs€deposition€testimony€indicates€aÏfactual€issue€as€to€whether,€under€the€circumstances,€he€acted€as€a€reasonably€prudent€person€whenÏhe€took€his€foot€off€the€brake€and€then€locked€up€the€brakes€œafter€the›€car€began€fishtailing.€€RiceððsÏdeposition€testimony€also€indicates€that€he€may€have€had€his€arm€around€his€wife€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident,€and€there€would€be€a€factual€issue€as€to€whether€this€contributed€to€his€loss€of€control€ofÏthe€vehicle.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€noted€statements€by€Stella€Rose€in€her€œdeposition€and›€found€that€theseÏstatements€negated€her€allegations€of€negligence€against€Dennis€Rice.€€In€her€deposition,€Mrs.€RoseÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àQ:à à.€.€.€From€what€I€know€about€this,€there€was€no€problem€out€there€on€theÏroadway€at€all€until€this€unidentified€vehicle€turned€in€front€of€Mr.€Rice;€would€youÏagree€with€that?ÌÌà8 àA:à àYes,€sir.ÌÌà8 àQ:à àNow,€did€you€„„€based€upon€those€circumstances€that€you€actually€observedÏthat€night,€do€you€know€of€anything€he€could€have€done,€Mr.€Rice,€to€avoid€hittingÏyou?ÌÌà8 àA:à àNo,€sir.ÌÌÓÓœIt›€is€well€established€in€Tennessee€that,€when€an€interested€party€in€his€testimony€makes€a€materialÏstatement€of€fact€which€negates€his€right€of€action,€he€is€bound€by€that€statement€unless€moreÏfavorable€testimony€is€forthcoming.€€òòò òHarvey€v.€Wheeleró óóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€642,€648,€423ÍS.W.2d€283,€285€œ(1967).›€€However,€when€there€exists€an€explanation€for€that€testimony,€or€whenÏother€credible€evidence€is€presented€contrary€to€the€testimony,€then€the€weight€and€credibility€of€theÏnegative€œÇtestimony›€becomes€a€jury€question€and€cannot€be€determined€by€the€trial€court€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€at€648,€423€S.W.2d€at€286.Ìà àIn€this€case,€other€portions€of€Stella€Roseððs€deposition,€as€well€as€the€depositions€of€theÏother€parties,€present€enough€evidence€to€explain€her€testimony€and€create€a€genuine€question€ofÏfact€for€a€jury.€€As€noted€above,€Stella€Rose€also€testified€that€there€had€been€enough€time€for€theÏJohn€Doe€vehicle€to€turn€without€her€having€to€stop€and€that€it€did€not€occur€to€her€that€the€RiceÏvehicle€would€hit€the€Doe€vehicle.€€These€two€œstatements,›€taken€œtogether€with€her€earlierÏstatements,€could›€reasonably€œbe€seen€as€meaning€that€Rose€believed€that€›€there€was€nothing€œRice›Ïcould€have€œdone€once€he€started€his€maneuvers€to€avoid€Doe,€not›€that€œshe€believed€that€there›€wasÏnothing€he€could€have€done€before€that€point.€€Moreover,€Rose€could€not€possibly€have€ð ðobservedÏthat€nightðð€that€Rice€took€his€foot€off€the€brakes€after€missing€Doe€and€that€this€action€could€haveÏcontributed€to€the€accident.€€The€statements€by€Dennis€Rice€in€his€deposition,€discussed€above,€thatÏhe€took€his€foot€off€the€brake€and€then€locked€up€the€brakes,€indicate€issues€of€credibility€and€factÏto€be€determined€by€a€jury.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€also€ruled€that€the€sudden€emergency€doctrine€applied,€stating€at€the€hearingÏon€the€motion€for€summary€judgment:ÌÓÓà8 àà àBut€I€think€even€more€importantly€here€is€that€I€donððt€believe€reasonableÏminds€could€differ€that€based€on€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiffs€and€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏRice,€but€what€that€Mr.€Rice€was€confronted€by€a€sudden€emergency€which€was€notÏof€his€own€making,€and€that€no€reasonable€mind€could€differ€but€what€he€acted€as€aÏreasonably€and€ordinary€[sic]€prudent€person€would€have€acted€when€confrontedÏwith€the€same€or€similar€circumstances.ÌÌÓÓThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€discussed€the€sudden€emergency€doctrine€since€its€adoption€ofÏcomparative€fault€in€òòò òMcIntyre€v.€Balentineó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€œ1992).€€›€œIn›€ò òòòMcCall€v.ÏWilderó óóó,€913€S.W.2d€150€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àFinally,€defendantððs€reliance€on€the€sudden€emergency€doctrine€isÏmisplaced.€€The€sudden€emergency€doctrine,€which€has€now€been€subsumed€intoÏTennesseeððs€comparative€fault€scheme,€recognizes€that€a€person€confronted€with€aÏsudden€or€unexpected€emergency€which€calls€for€immediate€action€is€not€expectedÏto€exercise€the€same€accuracy€of€judgment€as€one€acting€under€normalÏcircumstances€who€has€time€for€reflection€and€thought€before€acting.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€doctrine€no€longer€constitutes€a€defense€as€a€matter€of€law€but,€if€atÏissue,€must€be€considered€as€a€factor€in€the€total€comparative€fault€analysis.€ÏAccordingly,€the€doctrine€of€sudden€emergency€does€not€negate€defendantððs€liabilityÏin€the€case€before€us€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌÓÓòòò òId.€ó óóóat€œ157›€(citations€omitted);€ò òòòsee€Eaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€œ1994).›€ÏTherefore,€œÇthe›€jury€must€determine€whether€Rice€acted€reasonably,€considering€any€sudden€emergencyÏconditions€under€the€facts€in€this€case.€€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Appellees€isÏreversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€areÏassessed€against€Appellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó ó