ÿWPCÅ 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9w@a4¡µÄ 0lÌ 0D8 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä 0dY 0@½ D3ý B0 U>M B)‹ DC´ AM÷ U*D n AQq ÆÂ 0Dˆ 0DÌ D/ B?\ˆìv~tvÓò˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ a Db c [d De f Dg h Vi Ó€u äzz!3|xu ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJune€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€statute€provides:ÌÌà8 àà à(a)€Every€stop€sign€shall€bear€the€word€"Stop"€in€letters€not€less€than€eightÏinches€(8"')€in€height€and€such€sign€shall€at€nighttime€be€rendered€luminous€byÏsteady€or€flashing€internal€illumination,€or€by€a€fixed€floodlight€projected€on€theÏface€of€the€sign,€or€by€efficient€reflecting€elements€on€the€face€of€the€sign.ÌÌà8 àà à(b)€Every€stop€sign€shall€be€erected€as€near€as€practicable€to€the€nearest€lineÏof€the€crosswalk€on€the€near€side€of€the€intersection€or,€if€there€is€no€crosswalk,Ïthen€as€close€as€practicable€to€the€nearest€line€of€the€roadway.ÌÌà8 àà à(c)€Every€driver€of€a€vehicle€and€every€operator€of€a€streetcar€approaching€aÏstop€sign€shall€stop€before€entering€the€crosswalk€on€the€near€side€of€theÏintersection,€or€in€the€event€there€is€no€crosswalk,€shall€stop€at€a€clearly€markedÏstop€line,€but€if€none,€then€at€the€point€nearest€the€intersecting€roadway€where€theÏdriver€or€operator€has€a€view€of€approaching€traffic€on€the€intersecting€roadwayÏbefore€entering€the€intersection,€except€when€directed€to€proceed€by€a€police€officerÏor€traffic€control€signal.ÌÌà8 àà à(d)€A€violation€of€this€section€is€a€Class€C€misdemeanor.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„149€(1993).Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€6A„5€of€the€MUTCD€provides€that€ð ð[a]ll€traffic€control€devices€used€on€street€andÏhighway€construction,€maintenance,€utility€or€incident€management€operations€shall€conform€to€theÏapplicable€specifications€of€this€Manual.ððÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌIRENE€S.€SCOTT,€individually,à àà à)à àÌand€as€surviving€spouse€ofà àà àà à)ÌFLOYD€E.€SCOTT,€deceasedà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appelleeò òà àà àà à)à àó óCricket€County€Circuit€Court€No.€2296Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJONES€BROTHERS€CONSTRUCTION,à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9508„CV„00176Ìò òœÙ€*ÙßR€&(%A1-j|Åù&` Å `€€@ÿRß›INC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àà àà àà à€à àò ò)ó óÌà àDefendant/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€ROGER€D.€HOLLAND€ó óandò òà àà à)à àó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌJOSE€ARELLANES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌò ò€€à àó óDefendants.ò òà àà àà àà à)Ìòòó óÌò òóóÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€CROCKETT€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€ALAMO,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DICK€JERMAN,€JR.€JUDGE€€€ÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌJohn€D.€Richardson€à àà àà àà àRobert€L.€J.€Spence,€Jr.ÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àPeter€J.€DausterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÇØØÙ  ÙÑ7€•ZXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€case€involves€claims€of€negligence€and€wrongful€death€arising€out€of€an€accident€at€aÏhighway€construction€site.€€The€jury€found€the€œdefendant€construction€company›€70%€negligent€andÏthe€decedent€30%€negligent.€€The€defendant€appeals€to€this€Court.€€We€affirm.Ìà àIn€1992,€œDefendant/Appellant›€Jones€Brothers€Construction,€Inc.€(ð ðJones€Brothersðð)€wasÏperforming€a€highway€construction€project€for€the€State€of€Tennessee€on€a€9.2„mile€stretch€ofÏHighway€412€between€Jackson€and€Dyersburg.€€The€speed€limit€along€the€length€of€the€project€wasÏ55€miles€per€hour.€€At€one€point€in€this€œ9.2„mile›€stretch,€Jones€Brothers€constructed€a€ð ðhaul€road,ððÏmetal€plates€placed€across€the€highway€that€served€as€a€crossing€point€for€earthmoving€vehiclesÏcalled€ð ðscrapers.ðð€€The€scrapers€carried€loads€of€dirt€from€one€side€of€the€road€to€the€other.€€ThereÏwas€a€series€of€warning€signs€on€either€side€of€the€crossing,€œand€two›€flaggers€were€placed€thirtyÏfeet€from€the€crossing€on€either€side€to€stop€oncoming€traffic€when€a€scraper€needed€to€cross€theÏhighway.Ìà àTo€stop€or€slow€traffic,€each€flagger€was€given€a€sign€on€a€œpole›€approximately€six€feet€tall.€ÏOne€side€of€the€sign€said€œð ðStop,ððand€the€other€side€said€ð ðSlow.ðð€€When€no€scrapers€were€crossingÏthe€road,€the€flagger€would€stand€with€the€ð ðSlowðð€side€facing€oncoming€traffic.€€When€a€scraperÏapproached€to€cross€the€haul€road,€the€flagger€would€turn€the€ð ðStopðð€side€of€the€sign€towardsÏoncoming€vehicles€in€order€to€halt€traffic€for€the€scraper€to€cross.Ìà àOn€the€morning€of€August€26,€1992,€Floyd€and€Irene€Scott€were€traveling€eastbound€onÏHighway€412.€€They€entered€the€9.2„mile€construction€area.€€€Signs€within€the€9.2„mile€stretch›Ïwarned€approaching€motorists€of€the€upcoming€haul€road€œcrossing.›€€€Roger€Holland€(ð ðHollandðð)Ïwas€driving€a€scraper.€€He€moved€from€the€side€of€the€highway€œtoward›€the€haul€road€with€a€load€ofÏdirt,€preparing€to€cross.€€Jose€Arellanes€(ð ðArellanesðð)€was€the€flagger€assigned€to€the€side€of€theÏhaul€road€facing€eastbound€traffic.€€Holland€noticed€the€Scottsðð€vehicle€as€it€approached€theÏcrossing,€but€he€assumed€it€would€stop€and€proceeded€to€cross€the€highway.€€The€record€containsÏconflicting€testimony€on€whether€Arellanes€had€turned€the€ð ðStopðð€sign€towards€the€œScotts.€€The›ÏScottsðð€vehicle€did€not€slow€down€and€collided€with€Hollandððs€scraper.€€Both€Floyd€and€IreneÍScott€were€injured.€€Irene€Scott€recovered,€but€Floyd€Scott€eventually€died€as€a€result€of€hisÏinjuries.Ìà àIrene€Scott€filed€suit€for€her€injuries€and€on€behalf€of€her€deceased€husband.€€She€suedÏJones€Brothers,€Holland,€and€Arellanes€for€negligent€design€of€the€haul€road€and€for€specific€actsÏof€alleged€negligence.€€€A€jury€trial€was€held.€€At€the€end€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof,€Jones€BrothersÏmoved€for€a€directed€verdict.€€This€motion€was€overruled.€€Jones€Brothers€put€on€no€proof,€andÏScott€non„suited€Holland€and€Arellanes.€€The€jury€found€Jones€Brothers€70%€negligent€and€FloydÏScott€30%€negligent.€€Irene€Scott€was€awarded€$225,000€for€her€injuries€and€$150,000€€on€behalfÏof€the€decedent.€€The€trial€court€then€ordered€judgment€against€Jones€Brothers€in€the€total€amountÏof€$262,500.Ìà àJones€Brothers€moved€the€court€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€or,€in€theÏalternative,€for€a€new€trial€and€for€remittiture€of€damages€awarded€to€Floyd€Scott.€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€motion€and€specifically€approved€the€verdict.€€Jones€œBrothers›€now€€appeals€to€thisÏCourt.Ìà àJones€Brothers€argues€several€issues€on€appeal.€€€Jones€Brothers€contends€that€Scott€failedÏto€present€any€evidence€of€negligence€in€the€design€and€implementation€of€the€haul€road€crossing€orÏthe€manner€in€which€the€flagger€carried€out€his€duties.€€Jones€Brothers€also€alleges€error€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€charging€the€jury€regarding€the€pecuniary€value€of€the€life€of€decedent€Floyd€Scott,€in€theÏabsence€of€testimony€on€such€value.€€Jones€Brothers€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏcharging€the€jury€on€the€applicability€of€the€Manual€of€Uniform€Traffic€Control€DevicesÏ(ð ðMUTCDðð)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„149,€arguing€that€their€applicability€was€a€question€ofÏlaw€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court.€€Finally,€Jones€Brothers€alleges€error€in€€allowing€the€juryÏto€view€a€videotape€of€the€accident€scene€without€the€proper€evidentiary€foundation.€Ìà àThe€juryððs€findings€of€fact€will€be€set€aside€only€if€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€supportÏthe€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Appellate€review€of€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€directedÏverdict€or€a€JNOV€in€negligence€cases€is€discussed€in€òòò òEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587Í(Tenn.€1994).€€In€deciding€whether€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€or€a€JNOV,€the€trial€court€must€takeÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€590.€€If€€any€doubt€exists€as€to€the€proper€conclusions€to€be€drawnÏfrom€the€evidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€If€both€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant€engagedÏin€negligent€conduct€that€proximately€caused€the€injuries,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whetherÏreasonable€minds€could€differ€on€whether€the€plaintiffððs€negligence€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€thatÏof€the€œdefendant.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€If›€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€œfinding›€that€the€defendantððsÏnegligence€was€greater€than€the€plaintiffððs€negligence,€we€must€affirm.Ìà àJones€Brothers€argues€first€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€negligence€in€the€design€orÏimplementation€of€the€haul€road€crossing€or€in€the€œactions€›of€the€flagger.€€However,€the€plaintiffÏpresented€evidence€of€negligence€in€failing€to€post€a€reduced€speed€limit€well€in€advance€of€the€haulÏroad€crossing.€€Bret€Alsobrooks€(ð ðAlsobrooksðð),€the€project€supervisor,€testified€that€the€projectÏwas€9.2€miles€long,€that€there€was€only€one€haul€road€crossing€within€the€project,€and€that€theÏspeed€limit€was€55€m.p.h.€throughout€the€entire€length€of€the€project.€€Signs€were€placed€in€variousÏplaces€before€the€haul€road€crossing,€one€of€them€warning€motorists€to€be€prepared€to€stop,€butÏthere€were€no€signs€reducing€the€speed€limit€in€the€approach€to€the€crossing.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€also€presented€evidence€of€negligence€in€the€placement€of€the€flaggers.€ÏAlsobrooks€testified€that€the€metal€plates€placed€across€the€highway€to€create€the€haul€road€wereÏtwenty€feet€wide.€€Each€flagger€was€placed€thirty€feet€away€from€the€plates€on€either€side€of€theÏcrossing.€€The€flaggers€were€placed€close€to€the€crossing€and€to€each€other€in€part€to€facilitateÏcommunication€between€the€two€flaggers€and€between€the€flaggers€and€the€scraper€operators.Ìà àAlsobrooks€testified€on€the€provisions€of€the€Manual€of€Uniform€Traffic€Control€DevicesÏ(ð ðMUTCDðð)€regarding€the€placement€of€flaggers.€€It€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà àFlaggers€stations€shall€be€located€far€enough€in€advance€of€the€worksite€soÏthat€approaching€traffic€will€have€sufficient€distance€to€reduce€speed€before€enteringÏthe€project.€€This€distance€is€related€to€approach€speed€and€physical€conditions€at€theÏsite;€however€200€to€300€feet€is€desirable.€€In€urban€areas€when€the€speeds€are€lowÏand€streets€closely€spaced,€the€distance€necessarily€must€be€decreased.ÌÌÓÓManual€of€Uniform€Traffic€Control€Devices,€ðð€6F„5.€€Stating€that€the€œMUTCD›€was€œonly›€a€œð ðguide,ðð›ÏAlsobrooks€testified€that€placing€the€flaggers€thirty€feet€from€the€crossing€was€preferable€œto€theÏdistance€designated€in€the€MUTCD,€so›€that€the€flaggers€could€see€each€other€and€coordinate€turningÏtheir€ð ðStop/Slowðð€paddles,€and€so€they€could€step€into€the€haul€road€crossing€to€stop€anÏapproaching€scraper€if€an€emergency€vehicle€approached.€Alsobrooks€testified€that€using€walkieÏtalkies€would€not€have€been€œpractical.›€€Ìà àThe€plaintiff€also€presented€evidence€that€Jones€Brothers€was€aware€that€the€design€andÏimplementation€of€the€haul€road€crossing€was€insufficient€to€stop€traffic.€€Arellanes,€the€flagger,Ïtestified€that€there€had€been€other€instances€when€approaching€motorists€had€not€slowed€down.€€€€Ìà àMoreover,€Holland,€the€scraper€operator,€testified€that€he€saw€the€œScottsðð›€car€approaching,Ïthat€it€did€not€appear€to€slow€œdown,›€and€that€he€had€time€to€stop€the€scraper,€but€that€he€assumedÏthe€œScottsðð›€car€would€œstop.€€Holland›€also€testified€that€a€hand€signal€could€have€been€used€to€warnÏhim€not€to€enter€the€crossing€but€that€no€one€used€the€signal.Ìà àIt€is€apparent€that€there€was€material€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€have€concludedÏthat€the€warning€signs€approaching€the€haul€road€crossing€were€inadequate,€that€the€failure€toÏreduce€the€speed€limit€approaching€the€crossing€was€negligent,€that€the€flaggers€were€placed€tooÏclose€to€the€crossing,€and€that€the€scraper€could€have€stopped€but€failed€to€do€œso.€€Therefore,€thereÏwas€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€Jones€Brothers€was€negligent€and€thatÏJones€Brothersðð€negligence€exceeded€the€negligence€of€Floyd€Scott.›Ìà àJones€Brothers€also€alleges€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions.€€The€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure€provide:ÌÓÓà8 àà àò ò(b)€Effect€of€Erroró ó.€€A€final€judgment€from€which€relief€is€available€andÏotherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€the€whole€record,Ïerror€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€orÏwould€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòò òsee€Blackburn€v.€Murphyó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€529,€533„34€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏTherefore,€regardless€of€alleged€error,€the€verdict€will€not€be€set€aside€€œif›€ð ðample€convincingÍevidence€exists€to€sustain€the€verdict€of€[the]€jury.ðð€€òòò òBlackburnó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€at€534.Ìà àJones€Brothers€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€charging€the€jury€on€the€pecuniary€valueÏof€Floyd€Scottððs€life€when€no€evidence€was€presented€regarding€that€œvalue.€€However,›€theÏ$150,000€awarded€by€the€jury€was€not€designated€as€œpecuniary€damages,€and›€€the€amount€of€theÏjury€award€is€supportable€by€other€damages€incurred€by€Floyd€Scott.€€Evidence€was€presented€ofÏhis€medical€and€funeral€œexpenses,›€totaling€almost€$75,000.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„5„113Ï(1994);€òòò òThrailkill€v.€Pattersonó óóó,€879€S.W.2d€836,€839„40€(Tenn.€1994);€òòò òWilkerson€v.ÏAltizeró óóó,€845€S.W.2d€744,€749€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€There€was€also€considerable€evidence€of€Mr.ÏScottððs€pain€and€suffering€from€his€injuries€and€resulting€complications€from€the€date€of€theÏaccident€on€August€26,€1992€until€his€death€on€September€14,€1992.€€Therefore,€even€if€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€charging€the€jury€on€the€pecuniary€value€of€Mr.€Scottððs€life€in€the€absence€of€suchÏvalue,€there€is€ample€evidence€to€sustain€the€juryððs€$150,000€award€on€Mr.€Scottððs€behalf.€Ìà àJones€Brothers€argues€further€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€with€deciding€theÏapplicability€of€the€MUTCD€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„149.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Jones€Brothers€contends€that€theÍapplicability€of€the€MUTCD€and€of€any€statute€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€determined€by€the€court,Ïnot€the€jury.€€Jones€Brothers€does€not,€however,€explain€how€it€was€harmed€by€the€alleged€error.€€ÏIn€this€case,€the€MUTCD€clearly€applies€as€a€matter€of€law.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòò òSeeó óóó€òòò òGorman€v.€Earhartó óóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1994).€€If€the€jury€applied€it,€no€harm€was€done.€€If€the€jury€did€notÏapply€it,€though,€the€only€resulting€harm€would€have€occurred€to€Scottððs€case,€not€Jones€Brothersðð,Ïbecause€the€application€of€the€MUTCD€supports€a€finding€that€the€flaggers€should€have€been€placedÏ200€to€300€feet€in€front€of€the€haul€road€crossing,€instead€of€the€thirty€feet€actually€used.€€Similarly,ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„8„149€appears€to€apply€to€stop€signs€at€intersections,€not€to€hand„held€paddles€being€used€at€a€construction€site€to€slow€or€stop€traffic.€€If€the€jury€did€not€apply€thisÏstatute,€then€no€harm€was€done.€€€However,€even€if€the€jury€applied€it,€the€statute€requiresÏmotorists€to€stop€at€stop€signs€and€would€have€supported€Jones€Brothersðð€argument€that€FloydÏScott€was€negligent€in€failing€to€heed€the€flaggerððs€ð ðstopðð€paddle.€€Any€error€in€these€€juryÏœinstructions›€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€œ[did€not€affect]€the›€judgmentðð€of€the€jury€and€therefore€œdoes›Ïnot€require€reversal€of€the€jury€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€Ìà àFinally,€Jones€Brothers€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€jury€to€view€aÏvideotape€of€the€accident€scene€without€the€proper€foundation€having€been€laid.€€Appellate€reviewÏof€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€evidence€is€limited.€€ð ðAdmissibility€of€evidence€rests€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€in€the€absence€of€an€abuse€ofÏthat€discretion.ðð€€òòò òPatton€v.€Roseó óóó,€892€S.W.2d€410,€415€(Tenn.€App.€1994).̜Ǜà àDuring€the€trial,€Alsobrooks€testified€that€there€were€several€signs€placed€along€theÏapproach€to€the€haul€road€crossing,€one€of€them€being€a€sign€with€a€flagger€symbol€on€it€andÏanother€having€the€message€ð ðBump€Ahead€500€Feet.ðð€€The€order€of€the€signs€was€an€issue€at€trialÏbecause€the€ð ðBump€Ahead€500€Feetðð€sign€was€larger€than€the€flagger€symbol€sign€and€could€haveÏobscured€the€flagger€symbol€sign€if€placed€in€front€of€it.€€Alsobrooks€testified€that€the€flaggerÏsymbol€sign€was€placed€before€the€ð ðBump€Ahead€500€Feetðð€œsign.€€Scott›€used€a€videotape€takenÏfrom€inside€a€car€approaching€the€accident€scene€in€order€to€impeach€Alsobrooksðð€statementÏregarding€the€order€in€which€the€signs€appeared.€€The€videotape€was€filmed€on€September€4,€1992.€ÏAlsobrooks€testified€that€to€his€knowledge€none€of€the€signs€had€been€moved€before€September€5.€ÏThe€videotape€showed€that€the€ð ðBump€Ahead€500€Feetðð€sign€preceded€the€flagger€symbol€sign.€ÏJones€Brothers€argues€that€the€proper€foundation€had€not€been€laid€and€that€the€videotape€wasÏprejudicial.Ìà àAt€the€trial,€the€videotape€was€used€for€a€limited€purpose,€to€impeach€Alsobrooks.€€The€trial€Ïcourt€gave€limiting€instructions€to€the€jury€that€the€videotape€did€not€necessarily€show€what€aÏperson€would€see€when€driving€an€automobile€along€the€route€and€that€it€œwas€shown›€only€toÏestablish€the€correct€order€of€the€œsigns.€€Moreover,›€œð ð[t]he›€admission€of€improper€evidence€of€a€factÏin€issue€is€harmless€where€the€verdict€or€judgment€is€supported€by€sufficient€competent€evidence.ðð€Ïòòò òBerke€v.€Chattanooga€Bar€Assððnó óóó,€58€Tenn.€App.€636,€654,€436€S.W.2d€296,€304€(1968).€ÏœAs›€discussed€above,€the€jury€verdict€is€supported€by€material€evidence.€€Viewing€the€evidence€as€aÏwhole€and€given€the€limited€use€of€the€tape€and€the€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury,€we€find€noÏreversible€error.Ìà àAffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó ó