ÿWPCø? …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµb 0Ù w@ä 4$ 8 G mI †` 0Dæ * 0J2 0T| 0^Ð 0h. 0r– B 0|% 0†¡ 0' 1u·U,, 0dXU,¼¦èU2>ŽB)ÌDCõ AM8U*…F¯ 0@õ D35Jh¦²X+`a‹%ì š$¹«%Æd'û*)Ð%,¨õ-1Ö,4v~7vÓ€8 AOS>Æ¢> 0Dh? D/¬? BÛ?˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù- ù-(‰(2J1$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XE?X¼¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÂÅÆÇÉÊEËÌeÍÓ€×DÒ x3|x×ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀSamuelson v. Totty - Dissenting Opinion - Cantrell Ì +( ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(MonacoTotty VolzMcLainRidings(AktiengesellschaftW.P.R.R.VtHosps< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd€95Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔÔ€7ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔÌÌSeptember€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€provides€that€a€licensed€professional€cannot€give€anÏexpert€opinion€in€a€medical€malpractice€action€unless€he€or€she€ð ðwas€licensed€to€practice€in€theÏstate€or€a€contiguous€bordering€state€.€.€.€during€the€year€preceding€the€date€that€the€allegedÏinjury€or€wrongful€act€occurred.ðð€€Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€trial€noted€in€doing€so€that€it€was€ð ðcognizant€of€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€ruling€whereÏthey€relied€heavily€upon€Dr.€Cunninghamððs€affidavit.ðð€€Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›This€should€not€be€surprising.€€Mr.€Samuelson€certainly€was€not€going€to€attempt€toÏapportion€fault€to€a€party€who€had€been€dismissed€from€the€case€over€his€objection.€€None€ofÏthe€remaining€defendants€could€argue€that€Dr.€¢Totty£€had€caused€or€contributed€to€KevinÏSamuelsonððs€death€because€they€had€not€included€the€appropriate€cross„claims€in€their€originalÏanswers€and€had€not€amended€their€answers€to€lay€off€part€or€all€of€the€fault€on€Dr.€¢Totty£€asÏpermitted€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€(1994).Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€contains€no€explanation€of€the€juryððs€decision€to€allocate€49%€of€the€fault€toÏKevin€Samuelson.€€Mr.€Samuelson€hypothesized€in€this€court€that€the€jury€must€have€decidedÏthat€his€son€should€have€returned€to€the€hospital€rather€than€consulting€a€chiropractor€on€AugustÏ1,€1988.Ì WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Samuelson€supported€his€motion€with€an€affidavit€from€another€chiropractorÏlicensed€to€practice€in€Georgia€stating€that€Dr.€¢Totty£€had€breached€the€applicable€standard€ofÏcare€and€that€€Dr.€¢Totty£ððs€failure€to€immediately€refer€Kevin€Samuelson€to€a€physician€forÏemergency€treatment€was€a€proximate€cause€of€Kevin€Samuelsonððs€death.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€court€had€already€overturned€the€earlier€summary€judgment€for€Dr.€¢Totty£.€ÏLikewise,€Dr.€¢Totty£€had€not€challenged€Dr.€Cunninghamððs€ability€to€testify€as€an€expert€inÏthese€earlier€proceedings€and€had€waited€until€after€the€deadline€for€filing€dispositive€motions€toÏseek€to€prevent€Dr.€Cunningham€from€testifying.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€did€not€afford€Mr.ÏSamuelson€the€time€to€respond€to€Dr.€¢Tottyððs£€ð ðreopenedðð€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏrequired€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03€and€the€local€Davidson€County€rules.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€concepts€of€fairness€and€efficiency€are€the€basis€for€the€comparative€fault€system.€ÏòòOwens€v.€¢Truckstops£€of€Am.,óó€915€S.W.2d€at€424.€€Ì ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€requires€defendants€in€comparative€fault€cases€to€plead€as€anÏaffirmative€defense€ð ðthe€identity€or€description€of€any€other€alleged€¢tortfeasors£.ððÌ ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119(a)€permits€plaintiffs€to€amend€their€complaint€to€addÏother€alleged€¢tortfeasors£€named€or€identified€by€a€defendant€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€8.03.Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝJohn€S.€¢Hickman£,€Note,€òòEfficiency,€Fairness,€and€Common€Sense:€The€Case€forÏOne€Action€as€to€Percentage€of€Fault€in€Comparative€Negligence€Jurisdictions€That€HaveÏAbolished€€or€Modified€Joint€and€Several€Liability,óó€48€¢Vand£.€L.€Rev.€739,€753€(1995);€DavidÏ¢Polin£,€Annotation,€òòComparative€Negligence:€Judgment€Allocating€Fault€in€Action€Against€LessÏThan€All€Potential€Defendants€as€Precluding€Subsequent€Action€Against€Parties€Not€Sued€inÏOriginal€Action,óó€4€¢A.L.R.5th£€753€(1992).€Ì ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý¢Hickman£,€òòsupraóó€note€10,€¢£at€750€(plaintiffs€will€keep€a€defendant€in€reserve€to€obtainÏa€second€chance€at€a€satisfactory€recovery€if€the€first€trial€did€not€result€in€a€sufficientÏjudgment).Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€19.01€requires€persons€subject€to€the€courtððs€jurisdiction€to€beÏjoined€as€parties€if€complete€relief€cannot€be€accorded€to€the€existing€parties€in€their€absence€orÏif€their€absence€will€subject€the€existing€parties€to€a€substantial€risk€of€incurring€double,Ïmultiple,€or€otherwise€inconsistent€obligations.€€In€light€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtððsÏobservation€that€efficiency€and€fairness€are€best€served€by€joining€all€potential€defendants€inÏone€action,€òò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óó€914€S.W.2d€at€84,€it€could€be€argued€that€allÏpersons€who€are€potentially€liable€to€a€plaintiff€are€indispensable€parties€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï19.Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendants€would€have€been€exposed€to€this€prejudice€had€the€case€beenÏcommenced€after€the€enactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€and€the€adoption€of€theÏamendments€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€However,€this€case€was€commenced€before€theÏòòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£óó€decision,€and€the€defendants€never€claimed€that€Kevin€SamuelsonððsÏdeath€was€caused€in€whole€or€in€part€by€others.Ì ÌÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€jury€has€already€found€that€Dr.€¢McMurtry£€and€the€¢H.C.A.£€Health€ServicesÏemployees€were€not€negligent.€€Mr.€Samuelson€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€trial€against€theseÏdefendants€because€their€conduct€is€wholly€separate€from€Dr.€¢Totty£ððs€negligent€conduct.€€InÏlight€of€the€juryððs€verdict€in€the€first€trial,€neither€Dr.€¢Totty£€nor€Mr.€Samuelson€would€beÏprejudiced€if€Dr.€¢McMurtry£€and€¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services€did€not€participate€in€the€second€trial.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€9‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÓ&€11X„d&ÓÑ#€11Xd#ÑÔ€3ÔÔ€3¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ñ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€oj¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќԀ3„Ô›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEó óÌÌÔ€3¼ÔÌÓ` °‡XœÈ“XÓDOUGLAS€E.€SAMUELSON,€à à)Ìas€the€Natural€Father€andà àà à)ÌPersonal€Representative€ofà àà à)ÌKEVIN€L.€SAMUELSON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€89C„2581ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9602„CV„00060̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€685;+'h|–ýÇ` ç `€€Lß›CECIL€E.€McMURTRY,€M.D.,à à)ÌWILLIAM€A.€HOLLAND,€JR.,€M.D.,à à)ÌH.C.A.€HEALTH€SERVICES€OFà à)ÌTENNESSEE,€INC.,€d/b/a€DONELSONà à)ÌHOSPITAL€EMERGICARE,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARK€S.€TOTTY,€Individually€andà à)Ìd/b/a€MARK€S.€TOTTY,€D.C.,€P.C.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÓ€ÓÔ€3„Ôà@ àò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÔ€3¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€one€of€the€central€principles€of€our€comparativeÏfault€system€„€that€all€persons€involved€in€an€occurrence€giving€rise€to€injuryÏor€damages€should€have€their€rights€and€liabilities€determined€in€one€action.€ÏDouglas€Samuelson€perfected€this€appeal€solely€to€obtain€appellate€review€ofÍthe€summary€dismissal€of€his€malpractice€claim€against€one€of€severalÏdefendants€on€the€day€of€trial.€€Rather€than€deciding€this€question,€the€majorityÏhas€decided€that€the€juryððs€verdict€with€regard€to€the€remaining€partiesÏsomehow€forecloses€Mr.€Samuelson€from€ever€obtaining€relief€from€theÏdefendant€who€was€removed€from€the€case€even€before€the€trial€started.€€IÏcannot€agree€with€this€decision.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àKevin€Samuelson€died€from€an€aggressive,€undiagnosed€case€ofÏpneumonia€on€August€2,€1988.€€His€father,€Douglas€E.€Samuelson,€brought€aÏwrongful€death€action€against€Drs.€Cecil€E.€¢McMurtry£€and€William€A.ÏHolland,€Jr.,€physicians€who€treated€his€son€during€the€weeks€before€his€death,Ï¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€and€Dr.€Mark€S.€¢Totty£,€aÏchiropractor€who€treated€his€son€the€day€before€he€died.€€The€complaintÏalleged€that€Drs.€¢McMurtry£€and€Holland€had€¢misdiagnosed£€Kevin€SamuelsonððsÏpneumonia,€that€an€employee€of€a€hospital€owned€by€¢H.C.A.£€Health€ServicesÏhad€wrongfully€refused€to€treat€Kevin€Samuelson,€and€that€Dr.€¢Totty£€hadÏnegligently€failed€to€refer€Kevin€Samuelson€to€a€physician€for€treatment.€ÌÌà àDr.€¢Totty£€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€June€1992€supportedÏby€his€own€affidavit€in€which€he€asserted€that€he€had€ð ðacted€with€ordinary€andÏreasonable€care€in€accordance€with€the€standards€of€the€chiropracticÏprofessionðð€and€that€he€ð ðconducted€no€negligent€act€or€omission€which€was€theÏproximate€result€of€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€death.ðð€€Mr.€Samuelson€opposed€theÏmotion€with€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Jack€R.€¢Uhrig£,€a€physician€licensed€toÍpractice€in€Missouri,€and€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Robert€E.€Cunningham,€aÏchiropractor€licensed€to€practice€in€Georgia.€€On€August€25,€1992,€the€trialÏcourt€entered€an€order€finding€that€Dr.€¢Totty£€was€not€entitled€to€a€summaryÏjudgment€on€the€negligence€issue€but€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€summaryÏjudgment€on€the€issue€of€proximate€cause€because€the€undisputed€factsÏdemonstrated€that€his€conduct€did€not€cause€Kevin€Samuelsonððs€death.ÌÌà àMr.€Samuelson€requested€the€trial€court€to€reconsider€its€decision€basedÏon€(1)€additional€affidavits€from€Drs.€¢Uhrig£€and€Cunningham,€(2)€a€newÏaffidavit€from€Dr.€Gerald€¢Donowitz£,€a€Virginia€physician€specializing€inÏinfectious€diseases,€and€(3)€Dr.€¢Totty£ððs€deposition.€€Dr.€¢Donowitz£€stated€in€hisÏaffidavit€that€Kevin€Samuelsonððs€condition€was€ð ðreversible€withinÏapproximately€6€to€12€hours€of€his€death.ðð€€The€trial€court€adhered€to€itsÏoriginal€decision€based€on€its€conclusion€that€the€evidence€was€undisputed€thatÏKevin€Samuelson€had€informed€Dr.€¢Totty£€that€he€was€already€under€the€careÏof€a€physician.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€certified€its€order€granting€Dr.€¢Totty£ððs€summaryÏjudgment€as€a€final€order,€and€Mr.€Samuelson€appealed€to€this€court.€€OnÏSeptember€8,€1993,€we€reversed€the€summary€judgment€on€the€grounds€thatÏDr.€Cunninghamððs€affidavits€made€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€negligence€andÏthat€Dr.€¢Donowitz£ððs€affidavit€created€a€material€factual€issue€with€regard€toÏcausation.€€òòSamuelson€v.€¢McMurtry£,óó€App.€No.€01„A„01„9301„CV„00023,€slipÏop.€at€10,€11€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€8,€1993)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).€€Dr.€¢Totty£€did€not€challenge€Dr.€Cunninghamððs€expertÏqualifications€at€this€stage€of€the€proceeding.ÌÌà àOnce€the€case€was€remanded,€Dr.€¢Totty£€set€out€to€undermine€Dr.ÏCunninghamððs€credibility€and€qualifications€to€testify€as€an€expert.€€In€OctoberÏ1994,€the€case€was€set€for€trial€on€April€17,€1995.€€On€March€1,€1995,Ïapproximately€one€year€after€Dr.€Cunninghamððs€deposition,€Mr.€SamuelsonÏserved€interrogatories€on€Dr.€¢Totty£€seeking€to€discover€whether€Dr.€¢Totty£Ïintended€to€challenge€Dr.€Cunninghamððs€qualifications.€€In€response,€Dr.€¢Totty£Ïfiled€a€motion€in€¢limine£€on€March€28,€1995,€seeking€to€prevent€Dr.ÏCunningham€from€testifying€because€he€did€not€meet€the€practice€requirementsÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€(1980).× ƒ= ××  ×€€The€trial€court€heard€Dr.Ï¢Totty£ððs€motion€on€March€31,€1995€but€deferred€acting€on€it€until€the€day€ofÏtrial.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€took€up€Dr.€¢Totty£ððs€motion€in€¢limine£€again€on€theÏmorning€of€trial€and€decided€that€Dr.€Cunningham€could€not€testify€as€anÏexpert€because€he€did€not€meet€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€and€because€his€opinion€would€not€materially€assist€the€trier„of„fact.€ÏDr.€¢Totty£€threatened€to€seek€sanctions€against€Mr.€Samuelson€if€he€requiredÏhim€to€remain€in€the€case€after€the€trial€court€denied€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€motionsÏto€waive€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115(b)€and€for€aÏcontinuance.€€Realizing€the€impact€of€its€ruling€on€the€allocation€of€faultÏamong€the€parties,€the€trial€court€requested€the€parties€to€consider€severing€theÏclaims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€from€those€against€the€other€defendants.ÌÌà àAfter€the€parties€would€not€agree€to€sever€the€claims,€Dr.€¢Totty£€movedÏto€ð ðreopenðð€his€June€17,€1992€motion€for€summary€judgment€or€to€dismiss€theÏclaims€against€him€pursuant€to€his€affirmative€defense€that€Mr.€Samuelson€hadÏfailed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€Mr.€SamuelsonÏopposed€both€motions€by€pointing€out€that€they€came€long€after€the€deadlineÏfor€filing€dispositive€motions€and€that€he€intended€to€attempt€to€prove€hisÏclaims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€without€Dr.€Cunninghamððs€testimony.€€Over€Mr.ÏSamuelsonððs€objections,€the€trial€court€severed€his€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€andÏthen€€ð ðreconsideredðð€and€granted€Dr.€¢Totty£ððs€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏand€motion€to€dismiss.× ƒ> ××  ×€€Even€though€none€of€the€proof€had€been€presented,Ïthe€trial€court€explained€that€it€could€not€ð ðsee€anything€to€gain€from€requiringÏDr.€¢Totty£€.€.€.€to€remain€in€this€action€when€it€appears€that€a€motion€forÏdirected€verdict€at€the€conclusion€of€the€plaintiffððs€case€is€going€to€be€granted.ððÌÌà àMr.€Samuelson€then€proceeded€to€trial€against€Drs.€¢McMurtry£€andÏHolland€and€¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services.€€While€Dr.€¢Totty£€and€one€of€hisÏemployees€were€called€as€fact€witnesses,€neither€Mr.€Samuelson€nor€theÏremaining€defendants€attempted€to€prove€or€argue€that€Dr.€¢Totty£€was€in€anyÏway€responsible€for€Kevin€Samuelsonððs€death.× ƒ? ××  ×€€The€jury€was€asked€toÍdetermine€whether€Drs.€¢McMurtry£€or€Holland€or€¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services€hadÏnegligently€deviated€from€the€recognized€standard€of€care€and€whether€theirÏnegligence€had€proximately€caused€Kevin€Samuelsonððs€death.€€The€jury€wasÏalso€asked€to€allocate€fault€between€Kevin€Samuelson€and€any€of€the€partiesÏwhose€fault€caused€Kevin€Samuelsonððs€death.€€The€jury€found€that€Dr.Ï¢McMurtry£€and€¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services€had€not€been€negligent€but€that€Dr.ÏHolland€had€been€negligent€and€that€his€negligence€was€a€proximate€cause€ofÏKevin€Samuelsonððs€death.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€allocated€51%€of€the€fault€toÏDr.€Holland€and€49%€of€the€fault€to€Kevin€Samuelson.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€The€jury€also€foundÏthat€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€total€damages€were€$500,000,€and€accordingly€the€trialÏcourt€awarded€Mr.€Samuelson€a€$255,000€judgment€against€Dr.€Holland.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Holland€moved€for€a€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€and€for€aÏnew€trial.€€Mr.€Samuelson€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€requestingÏthe€trial€court€to€vacate€the€dismissal€of€his€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£.¢× ƒA ××  ×£€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€post„trial€motions€but€remitted€the€judgment€against€Dr.ÏHolland€to€$204,000.€€Mr.€Samuelson€later€certified€that€this€judgment€hadÏbeen€fully€satisfied.ÌÌà àMr.€Samuelson€perfected€this€appeal€to€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€disqualify€Dr.€Cunningham€as€an€expert€witness€and€to€dismiss€hisÏclaims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€rather€than€permitting€him€to€proceed€to€trial.€€EvenÏthough€the€majority€does€not€disagree€that€the€soundness€of€these€decisions€areÏsubstantially€in€doubt,¢× ƒB ××  ×£€€they€have€decided€that€it€is€unnecessary€to€addressÏthese€issues€because€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€acceptance€of€the€judgment€against€Dr.ÏHolland€prevents€him€from€ever€proceeding€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€based€on€theÏdoctrines€of€res€judicata€and€collateral€estoppel.ÌÌà àI€cannot€agree€with€the€majorityððs€decision.€€It€is€a€misapplication€of€theÏdoctrines€of€res€judicata€and€collateral€estoppel€in€a€comparative€faultÏenvironment.€€I€would€first€determine€whether€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€ofÏDr.€Cunningham€and€its€dismissal€of€the€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€were€error.€ÏIf€these€decisions€are€incorrect,€I€would€proceed€to€determine€whether€theseÏerrors€more€likely€than€not€affected€the€juryððs€verdict.€ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€enactment€of€a€system€of€comparativeÏfault€drastically€transformed€tort€law€in€Tennessee.€€òòWhitehead€v.€ToyotaÏMotor€Corp.,óó€897€¢S.W.2d£€684,€686€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€Court€desired€toÏreplace€the€ð ðoutmoded€and€unjust€common€law€doctrine€of€contributoryÍnegligence,ðð€òò¢McIntyre£€v.€¢Balentine£,óó€833€¢S.W.2d£€52,€56€(Tenn.€1992),€with€aÏdoctrine€that€more€closely€linked€fault€and€liability.òò€€Owens€v.€¢Truckstops£€ofÏAm.,óó€915€¢S.W.2d£€420,€430€(Tenn.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€concluded€that€aÏmodified€comparative€fault€system€without€joint€and€several€liability€wouldÏmore€fairly€and€efficiently¢× ƒC ××  ×£€(1)€provide€full€compensation€for€injuredÏplaintiffs€reduced€in€proportion€to€the€damages€properly€attributable€to€them,ÏòòOwens€v.€¢Truckstops£€of€Am.,óó€915€S.W.2d€at€430;€òòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£,€óó833ÏS.W.2d€at€58€(doctrine€of€contributory€negligence€completely€denied€injuredÏlitigants€recompense€for€their€damages),€and€(2)€assure€that€culpable€partiesÏwould€be€liable€for€only€their€fair€share€of€the€total€negligence€or€fault.€Ïòò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óó€914€S.W.2d€79,€83€(Tenn.€1996);€òòWhiteheadÏv.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.,óó€897€S.W.2d€at€686;€òò¢Volz£€v.€¢Ledes£,óó€895€S.W.2d€677,Ï680€(Tenn.€1995);€òòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£,óó€833€S.W.2d€at€58.ÌÌà àThe€Court€has€repeatedly€acknowledged€that€it€left€many€significantÏquestions€concerning€its€new€comparative€fault€system€unanswered.€€òòEaton€v.Ï¢McLain£,óó€891€S.W.2d€587,€593€(Tenn.€1994);€òòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£,óó€833ÏS.W.2d€at€57.€€Among€the€issues€requiring€more€detailed€judicial€scrutinyÏwere€questions€relating€to€the€consideration€of€the€fault€of€non„parties€and€toÏthe€joinder€of€potentially€culpable€parties.€€During€the€four€intervening€yearsÏsince€the€òòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£óó€decision,€the€Court€has€provided€additionalÏinsight€into€the€answers€to€these€questions.€€ÌÌà àWe€now€understand€that€there€is€a€theoretical€distinction€between€theÏconcepts€of€ð ðcomparative€negligenceðð€and€ð ðcomparative€fault.ðð€€ComparativeÏnegligence€refers€to€the€apportionment€of€damages€attributable€to€the€plaintiffÏas€against€the€culpable€defendants.€€Comparative€fault€refers€to€the€process€ofÏapportioning€damages€among€multiple€or€joint€¢tortfeasors£€according€to€theÏpercentage€of€fault€attributable€to€those€persons.€€òòOwens€v.€¢Truckstops£€ofÏAm.,óó€915€S.W.2d€at€425€n.7.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€the€Court€has€articulated€four€principles€with€regard€to€theÏapportionment€of€fault€or€awarding€damages€against€non„parties.€€First,€faultÏmay€be€apportioned€only€to€persons€against€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€ofÏaction.€€òòOwens€v.€¢Truckstops£€of€Am.,óó€915€S.W.2d€at€428;€òò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.ÏParsons€Co.,óó€914€S.W.2d€at€83.€€Second,€fault€may€be€apportioned€to€bothÏparties€and€non„parties.€€òò¢Volz£€v.€¢Ledes£,óó€895€S.W.2d€at€680.€€Third,€theÏplaintiff€bears€the€risk€of€not€joining€a€potentially€liable€¢tortfeasors£€againstÏwhom€it€has€a€cause€of€action.€€òò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óó€914€S.W.2dÏat€83;€òò¢Volz£€v.€¢Ledes£,óó€895€S.W.2d€at€680.€€Fourth,€failure€to€identifyÏpotentially€liable€¢tortfeasors£€who€are€not€already€parties€as€required€by€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119(a)€will€prevent€defendants€from€attributing€fault€toÏthese€non„parties.€€òò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óó€914€S.W.2d€at€84.€€ÌÌà àBased€on€these€principles€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03¢× ƒD ××  ×£€and€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€20„1„119,¢× ƒE ××  ×£€the€Court€has€pointed€out€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€goals€of€efficiency€andÏfairness€are€.€.€.€served€by€joining€as€defendants€all€persons€against€whom€theÏplaintiff€can€assert€a€cause€of€action.ðð€€òò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óó€914ÏS.W.2d€at€84.€€This€holding€is€consistent€with€the€modern€trend€to€combine€inÏone€action€for€trial€all€claims€and€actions€involving€all€potentially€liableÏpersons.€€The€Court,€however,€has€not€yet€adopted€the€ð ðone„action€ruleðð€whichÏwould€prevent€plaintiffs€from€bringing€subsequent€actions€against€persons€whoÏwere€not€sued€in€the€original€action.ÌÌà àSeveral€comparative€fault€jurisdictions€have€adopted€the€ð ðone„actionÏruleðð€either€by€statute€or€judicial€fiat.¢× ƒF ××  ×£€€The€courts€in€these€jurisdictions€haveÏfrequently€relied€on€preclusion€doctrines€such€as€res€judicata€or€collateralÏestoppel€to€justify€their€reliance€on€the€rule.€€They€assert€that€there€can€be€noÏsecond€successive€trial€in€comparative€negligence€cases€where€one€hundredÏpercent€of€the€fault€was€allocated€in€the€first€trial.€€òò¢Kathios£€v.€General€MotorsÏCorp.,óó€862€F.2d€944,€951€(1st€Cir.€1988);€òò¢Albertson£€v.€¢Volkswagenwerk£Ï¢Aktiengesellschaft£,óó€634€P.2d€1127,€1132€(¢Kan£.€1981).€€However,€otherÍjurisdictions€have€specifically€declined€to€use€traditional€preclusion€doctrinesÏto€prevent€a€subsequent€trial€in€a€comparative€fault€case.€€òò¢Drescher£€v.€HoffmanÏMotors€Corp.,óó€585€¢F.€Supp£.€555,€558€(D.€Conn.€1984);€òòNorris€v.€Atlanta€&ÏW.P.R.R.,óó€333€¢S.E.2d£€835,€837„38€(Ga.€1985);€òò¢Selchert£€v.€State,óó€420€¢N.W.2d£Ï816,€818€(Iowa€1988);€òò¢Oldaker£€v.€Peters,óó€869€S.W.2d€94,€97„98€(Mo.€Ct.ÏApp.€1993).€€Even€jurisdictions€that€follow€the€ð ðone„action€ruleðð€do€not€applyÏit€when€the€plaintiff€was€prevented€from€proceeding€against€a€culpable€partyÏin€the€first€action.€€òòAnderson€v.€¢Scheffler£,óó€752€P.2d€667,€672€(¢Kan£.€1988).ÌÌà àMr.€Samuelson€did€not€engage€in€the€strategic,€inefficient€behavior€thatÏprompted€the€ð ðone„action€rule.ðð¢× ƒG ××  ×£€€He€sued€all€persons€whose€conduct€couldÏhave€caused€or€contributed€to€his€sonððs€death.€€Thus,€this€case€does€not€provideÏa€proper€vehicle€for€determining€whether€Tennessee€should€align€itself€withÏthe€jurisdictions€following€the€ð ðone„action€rule.ðð¢× ƒH ××  ×£€€This€discussion€of€the€ruleÏis€relevant,€however,€because€it€rests€on€the€same€preclusion€doctrines€deemedÏcontrolling€by€the€majority€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àThe€majority€has€decided€that€the€doctrines€of€res€judicata€and€collateralÏestoppel€prevent€Mr.€Samuelson€from€proceeding€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€because€heÏhas€already€obtained€a€judgment€against€Dr.€Holland.€€I€cannot€agree€becauseÏthe€necessary€ingredients€for€both€of€these€defenses€are€lacking€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àRes€judicata€and€collateral€estoppel€are€¢preclusionary£€doctrines.€€ResÏjudicata€is€a€claim€preclusion€doctrine€that€bars€a€second€suit€between€the€sameÏparties€or€their€privies€on€the€same€cause€of€action€with€regard€to€all€issuesÏthat€were€or€could€have€been€litigated€in€the€former€suit.€€òòRichardson€v.ÏTennessee€Bd.€of€Dentistry,óó€913€S.W.2d€446,€459€(Tenn.€1995);€òò¢Massengill£€v.ÏScott,óó€738€S.W.2d€629,€631€(Tenn.€1987);€òòCollins€v.€Greene€County€Bank,óóÏ916€S.W.2d€941,€945€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Under€the€res€judicata€doctrine,Ïplaintiffs€who€prevail€on€their€original€claim€cannot€thereafter€maintain€a€newÏaction€against€the€same€defendants€or€their€privies€on€their€original€claim€orÏany€part€thereof.€€òòNational€Cordova€Corp.€v.€City€of€Memphis,óó€214€Tenn.Ï371,€380,€380€S.W.2d€793,€797€(1964);€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ððÏ18(1)€(1980).€€Plaintiffs€may,€however,€pursue€other€similar€claims€againstÏother€parties,€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ðð€49,€except€to€the€extentÏthat€these€claims€involve€the€¢relitigation£€of€issues€determined€adversely€to€theÏplaintiff€in€the€prior€action.€€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ðððð€29€&€49Ï¢cmt£.€a.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€collateral€estoppel€is€an€issue€preclusion€doctrine€thatÏbars€the€same€parties€or€their€privies€from€¢relitigating£€in€a€second€suit€issuesÍthat€were€actually€litigated€and€determined€in€a€former€suit.€€òò¢Dickerson£€v.ÏGodfrey,óó€825€S.W.2d€692,€694€(Tenn.€1992);€òò¢Goeke£€v.€Woods,óó€777€S.W.2dÏ347,€349€(Tenn.€1989);€òòAllied€Sound,€Inc.€v.€¢Neely£,óó€909€S.W.2d€815,€820Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€doctrine€does€not€apply€to€issues€that€were€notÏnecessary€for€the€decision€in€the€former€case,€òòScales€v.€Scales,óó€564€S.W.2dÏ667,€670€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977),€or€when€the€party€against€whom€preclusion€isÏsought€did€not€have€a€full€and€fair€opportunity€to€litigate€the€issue€in€the€priorÏsuit.€€òòMorris€v.€¢Esmark£€Apparel,€Inc.,óó€832€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1991);€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ðð€29.ÌÌà àBoth€doctrines€require€identity€between€the€parties€or€their€privies.€€InÏthis€context,€privity€relates€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€litigation.€€òòHarris€v.€St.ÏMaryððs€Medical€Ctr.,€Inc.,óó€726€S.W.2d€902,€905€(Tenn.€1987);€òòShelley€v.Ï¢Gipson£,óó€218€Tenn.€1,€7,€400€S.W.2d€709,€712€(1966).€€Accordingly,€aÏdefendantððs€verdict€in€a€breach€of€warranty€action€against€an€automobileÏdealer€barred€the€¢relitigation£€of€the€same€claim€against€the€automobileððsÏmanufacturer€because€the€dealer€and€the€manufacturer€were€in€privity€withÏregard€to€the€warranty€on€the€automobile.€€òòPhillips€v.€General€Motors€Corp.,óóÏ669€S.W.2d€665,€669€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€But€by€the€same€token,€a€priorÏverdict€in€favor€of€one€emergency€room€physician€did€not€bar€a€second€suitÏagainst€the€hospital,€another€emergency€room€physician,€and€other€hospitalÏemployees.€€òòHarris€v.€St.€Maryððs€Medical€Ctr.,€Inc.,óó€726€S.W.2d€at€905.ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àNeither€res€judicata€nor€collateral€estoppel€bars€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€claimsÏagainst€Dr.€¢Totty£€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€While€Dr.€¢Totty£€was€originallyÏa€party€to€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€suit,€he€became€a€non„party€once€the€trial€courtÏsummarily€dismissed€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€claims€against€him€prior€to€trial.€€NorÏwas€he€in€privity€with€Dr.€Holland,€Dr.€¢McMurtry£,€or€¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services.€€ÏDr.€¢Totty£ððs€alleged€negligent€acts€did€not€occur€at€the€hospital,€and€the€proofÏwith€regard€to€his€conduct€was€not€necessary€for€the€adjudication€of€Mr.ÏSamuelsonððs€claims€against€Drs.€Holland€and€¢McMurtry£€or€¢H.C.A.£€HealthÏServices.€€In€fact,€the€proof€required€for€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€case€against€Dr.Ï¢Totty£€was€substantially€different€than€the€proof€required€for€his€claims€againstÏthe€other€defendants.ÌÌà àThe€issues€involved€in€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€first€suit€were€likewise€not€theÏsame€as€the€issues€involved€in€his€second€suit€against€Dr.€¢Totty£.€€The€onlyÏissues€involved€in€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€first€suit€related€to€Kevin€SamuelsonððsÏnegligence€vis€€vis€Drs.€Holland€and€¢McMurtry£€and€¢H.C.A.£€Health€Services.€ÏKevin€Samuelsonððs€negligence€vis€€vis€Dr.€¢Totty£€was€not€a€part€of€theseÏproceedings€and€thus€was€not€adjudicated€either€directly€or€indirectly.€€OtherÏcomparative€fault€jurisdictions€have€followed€this€reasoning€and€have€held€thatÏthe€adjudication€of€fault€between€the€plaintiff€and€one€defendant€did€notÏpreclude€the€plaintiffððs€second€action€against€another€defendant.€€òò¢Drescher£€v.ÏHoffman€Motors€Corp.,óó€585€F.€Supp.€at€558¢£;€òò¢Selchert£€v.€State,óó€420€¢N.W.2d£€atÏ821;€òò¢Oldaker£€v.€Peters,óó€869€S.W.2d€at€97.€€ÌÌà àThe€majorityððs€reliance€on€òò¢Cantrell£€v.€Burnett€&€Henderson€Co.,óó€187ÏTenn.€552,€216€S.W.2d€307€(1948),€is€misplaced.€€In€that€case,€the€purchaserÍof€an€automobile€that€caught€fire€three€days€after€purchase€filed€suit€againstÏthe€manufacturer€and€the€dealer€alleging€that€the€automobile€was€defective.€ÏThe€case€proceeded€to€trial€against€both€defendants,€but€the€trial€court€directedÏa€verdict€for€the€manufacturer€before€the€case€went€to€the€jury.€€After€the€juryÏfound€that€the€automobile€was€not€defective€and€returned€a€verdict€for€theÏdealer,€the€purchaser€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€a€directedÏverdict€for€the€manufacturer.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€in€a€rareÏopinion€explaining€its€reasons€for€denying€a€writ€of€certiorari,€held€that€theÏverdict€for€the€dealer€¢estopped£€the€purchaser€from€proceeding€against€theÏmanufacturer€on€the€same€theory€because€the€jury€had€already€determined€thatÏthe€fire€that€destroyed€the€automobile€was€not€caused€by€a€defect.€€òò¢Cantrell£€v.ÏBurnett€&€Henderson€Co.,óó€187€Tenn.€at€558„59,€216€S.W.2d€at€310.€ÌÌà àThe€òò¢Cantrell£óó€decision€illustrates€a€correct€application€of€issue€preclusionÏbecause,€as€pointed€out€by€Judge€¢Goddard£,€both€cases€involved€precisely€theÏsame€issue€and€because€the€manufacturer€was€in€privity€with€the€dealer€withÏregard€to€the€issue€determined€in€the€first€suit.€€òòPhillips€v.€General€MotorsÏCorp.,óó€669€S.W.2d€at€669.€€No€similar€identity€of€parties€or€issues€exists€inÏthis€case.€€Dr.€¢Totty£€was€not€in€privity€with€the€defendants€in€the€first€suit,€andÏthe€issues€involved€in€the€first€suit€bore€no€relationship€to€Mr.€SamuelsonððsÏclaims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing,€I€would€find€that€the€judgment€against€Dr.ÏHolland€does€not€prevent€this€court€from€considering€whether€the€trial€courtÍerred€by€summarily€dismissing€Mr.€Samuelsonððs€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£.€€IfÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€was€correct,€then€we€need€not€proceed€further.€€If,Ïhowever,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred,€we€must€consider€whether€theÏerror€affected€the€verdict€and,€if€it€did,€we€must€also€fashion€appropriateÏrelief.€€In€this€transitional€case,€we€must€apply€the€comparative€fault€principlesÏfairly€to€avoid€substantial€injustice€to€any€of€the€parties.€€òòOwens€v.€¢Truckstops£Ïof€Am.,óó€915€S.W.2d€at€424;€òò¢Ridings£€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óó€914€S.W.2d€atÏ80.ÌÌà àMr.€Samuelson€would€be€entitled€to€a€new€trial€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€if€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€summarily€dismissing€his€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£.€ÏHowever,€in€€addition€to€depriving€Mr.€Samuelson€of€a€trial€against€Dr.€¢Totty£,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€error€would€also€have€prevented€the€jury€from€apportioningÏnegligence€between€Kevin€Samuelson€and€the€other€named€defendants.€€Thus,Ïthe€error€could€very€well€have€prejudiced€the€remaining€defendants€byÏdepriving€them€of€their€opportunity€to€lay€off€all€or€a€portion€of€the€fault€toÏothers€and€by€exposing€them€to€liability€for€more€than€their€fair€share€ofÏdamages.¢× ƒI ××  ×£€€It€is€evident€that€the€erroneous€exclusion€of€a€defendant€againstÏwhom€a€plaintiff€has€a€¢colorable£€claim€strikes€at€the€heart€of€the€policyÏfavoring€single€trials€involving€all€proper€parties€in€comparative€fault€cases.€ÏWe€must,€therefore,€also€decide€whether€the€erroneous€exclusion€of€a€properlyÏnamed€defendant€affects€the€judgment€against€the€remaining€defendants.ÌÌà àMost€courts€in€comparative€fault€jurisdictions€have€found€that€theÏerroneous€dismissal€of€one€defendant€affects€the€verdict€against€the€remainingÏdefendants,€òòsee,€e.g.,óó€òòWilliams€v.€¢Slade£,óó€431€F.2d€605,€608,€609€(5th€Cir.Ï1970);€òòBuffett€v.€Vargas,óó€914€P.2d€1004,€1009€(N.M.€1996),€and€that€theÏcourts€can€only€speculate€about€what€the€jury€might€have€done€had€allÏdefendants€been€before€the€court€in€a€single€proceeding.€€òò¢Fitzhugh£€v.€Elliott,óóÏ371€S.W.2d€533,€535€(Ark.€1963);€òòMcCormack€v.€State,óó€553€A.2d€566,€569Ï(Vt.€1988).€€Accordingly,€the€courts€consistently€award€the€plaintiff€a€newÏtrial€when€a€defendant€has€been€improperly€excluded€from€the€first€trial.€ÏòòWilliams€v.€¢Slade£,óó€431€F.2d€at€608;€òòBuffett€v.€Vargas,óó€914€P.2d€at€1009„10;ÏòòMethodist€Hospitals€of€Dallas€v.€Sullivan,óó€714€S.W.2d€302,€303€(Tex.€1986).ÌÌà àThere€is€some€disagreement€among€the€courts€concerning€whether€theÏnew€trial€should€include€all€defendants€or€just€the€defendants€who€were€notÏexonerated€in€the€first€trial.€€Some€courts€require€that€the€new€trial€include€allÏdefendants,€including€those€who€were€exonerated€in€the€first€trial.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óóÏòòBlake€v.€¢Mahaffey£,óó€350€¢N.E.2d£€at€884.€€Other€courts€have€held€that€plaintiffsÏshould€not€receive€a€second€bite€at€the€apple€and€that€exonerated€defendantsÏshould€not€be€part€of€the€second€trial€if€a€new€trial€is€granted.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óóÏòòBuffett€v.€Vargas,óó€914€P.2d€at€1009„10;€òòMethodist€Hosps.€of€Dallas€v.ÏSullivan,€óó714€S.W.2d€at€303.ÌÌà àOur€courts€no€longer€view€verdicts€as€unitary€and€may€grant€relief€toÏone€defendant€without€granting€relief€to€the€other€defendants.€€òòBrown€&€SonsÏLumber€Co.€v.€¢Sessler£,óó€128€Tenn.€665,€673„74,€163€¢S.W.£€812,€814€(1914);ÏòòBentley€v.€¢Hurxthal£,óó€40€Tenn.€(3€Head)€378,€379„80€(1859);€òòBlue€BirdÍCoaches,€Inc.€v.€¢McGregor£,óó€14€Tenn.€App.€23,€26€(1931).€€However,€we€mustÏgrant€the€relief€that€the€law€and€the€facts€require€when€the€trial€courtððs€errorÏmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€toÏthe€judicial€process.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36.€€ÌÌà àThus,€if€the€summary€dismissal€of€the€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£€wasÏreversible€error,€I€would€award€Mr.€Samuelson€a€new€trial€against€Dr.€¢Totty£Ïand€Dr.€Holland,€the€only€remaining€defendant€found€to€be€at€fault.¢× ƒJ ××  ×£€ÏAssuming€that€the€parties€do€not€settle€prior€to€trial,€I€would€also€find€that€Dr.ÏHolland€would€be€entitled€to€a€credit€for€the€damages€he€has€already€paidÏshould€the€second€trial€result€in€a€larger€judgment€against€him.€€If€the€secondÏtrial€results€in€a€lower€judgment€against€Dr.€Holland,€then€Mr.€SamuelsonÏwould€be€required€to€repay€the€difference€between€the€judgment€in€the€firstÏtrial€and€the€judgment€in€the€second€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àMr.€Samuelson€attempted€to€assert€his€claims€against€all€potentiallyÏliable€¢tortfeasors£€in€one€suit.€€He€should€not€be€prejudiced€if€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€prevented€him€from€pursuing€his€claims€against€Dr.€¢Totty£.€€Mr.ÏSamuelson€and€all€the€parties€had€a€right€to€have€liability€determined€and€faultÏapportioned€once€and€for€all€in€one€proceeding.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE