WPChK  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\8D8 0@8 D3*9]9w@e9 0J9 0T9 0^C: 0h: 0r ; 0|{; 0; 0}< 1u = 0d=U6=B)>DCE> AM>U*>>;@VAv~rBvC AOIJ 0DJ D/K BKKV& 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)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x^<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dU!V$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  McAmisSherlinRoberson("$    GGGG'dxd JK eLPMDNDOPQӀ]^U2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  Z[\]^_`a ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dkkkk7Border 1ddMlC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#j  nn   YYY FILEDnX September17,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.nAppellateCourtClerk  1 F!#d#j  I$j        Thereisconflictingtestimonyastothespeedthewreckerwastraveling,varyingfrom40milesperhourto20milesperhour.  F!  #d#j  nn   YYY FILEDnX September17,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.nAppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva MC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . j    ћ7?XXdd7\RA'\ , 5  k u`     \RA'\  7?XXdXXd7@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSٜLmol;+'h|4`  `LߛROBERTSHIVERS,) KNOXCIRCUIT̀) C.A.NO.03A019603CV00107̀)̀PlaintiffAppellant)̀)̀)̀)̀)̀)vs.) HON.WHEELERROSENBALM̀) JUDGÈ)̀)̀)̀)̀)STONEYL.RAMSEY,JOHNR.)AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED̜CARNES,IndividuallyandJOHN)R.CARNES,d/b/aCLINTON)HIGHWAYWRECKERSERVICE,)̀)̀DefendantsAppellees)JAMESW.VARNER,JR.,andCARLW.ESHBAUGH,Esbaugh,SimpsonandϜVarner,Knoxville,forAppellant.R.KIMBURNETTandRONALDC.NEWCOMB,Arnett,DraperandHagood,Knoxville,forAppellee.@ OPINION McMurray,J. ThisactionarosefromamotorvehicleaccidentthatoccurredonMehaffeyRoadinKnoxCounty.Thecasewastriedbeforeajuryandaverdictwasreturnedinfavorofthedefendants.Judgmentwasdulyenteredthereon.Amotionforanewtrialwastimelymadeandoverruled.Thisappealresulted.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Theplaintiffpresentsthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:8 0 1. Wastheevidencesubmittedinthiscausesufficienttosupportajuryverdictofnonegligenceonthepartoftheappellee?8 0 2. DidtheevidenceinthiscasesupportthetrialcourtingivingthechargebasedupontheholdinginShepherdv.Ball,andapprovedinWhitakerv.Harmonandcommonlycalledthe"WetStreetϜDoctrine?"8 0 3. Didthetrialcourtproperlyexerciseitsrule[sic]asthe"thirteenthjuror"inrulingonappellant'smotionforanewtrial? Wefirstnotethatourstandardofreviewislimitedtoadeterminationofwhetherthereisanymaterialevidencetosupportajuryverdict.SeeRule13(d),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Wewouldfurtherpointout,however,thatthisstandardisnotapplicableunlessthetrialjudgeproperlyfulfillshisdutyasa"thirteenthjuror."Inthisstatethetrialjudgeisthethirteenthjurorandnoverdictisvaliduntilapprovedbythetrialjudge.Mizev.Skeen,63Tenn.App.37,468S.W.2d733(1971).Inthiscapacitythetrialjudgeisunderadutytoindependentlyweightheevidenceanddeterminewhethertheevidencepreponderatesinfavoroforagainsttheverdict.McLaughlinv.Broyles,36Tenn.App.391,255S.W.2d1020(1952);Tiffanyv.Shipley,25Tenn.App.539,161S.W.2d373(1941). Ifindischarginghisdutyasthirteenthjuror,thetrialjudgemakescommentsthatindicatethathehasmisconceivedhisdutyorclearlyhasnotfollowedit,thiscourtmustreverseandremandthecaseforanewtrial[thematerialevidencerulenotwithstanding].SeeNashville,C.&St.L.R.R.v.Neely,102Tenn.700,52S.W.167,168(Tenn.1899);Holdenv.Rannick,682S.W.2d903(Tenn.1984). Intheorderoverrulingthemotionforanewtrialthetrialcourtexpresslystatedthat"thecourtfindsthattheevidenceinthiscasedidnotpreponderateagainstthejury'sfindingthatdefendantRamseywasnotnegligentandinitscapacityasϜ'thirteenthjuror'approvesthejuryverdictinfavorofthedefendantsinallrespects." Theplaintiffinsists,however,thatthetrialjudge'scommentsfromthebenchwhenrulingonthemotionforanewtrialdemonstratedthathemisconceivedhisdutyasthethirteenthjuror.Wefindnomeritinthisinsistence.Therecordreflectsthatthetrialjudgerepeatedlystatedthathisdutywastoweightheevidenceandtodetermineifitpreponderatedagainsttheverdict.Itistruethattherewasextensivediscussionbetweencounselandthetrialjudgeconcerningthejudge'sduty.Itappearsthatcounsel,ratherthanthejudge,misconceivesthedutyofthetrialjudge. Inthetranscriptofthehearing,wefindthefollowingcolloquybetweenthecourtandcounsel:8 0 THECOURT: Myfunctionasthethirteenthjuroristoreviewthisevidenceandseewhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheverdict.Iknowthere'salwaysstufffloatingaroundoutthereinthoseappellateopinionsaboutamIuncomfortablewithit.Well,justtoputeverybodyatrest,I'mnotuncomfortablewithit.Ithinkthisispreciselyacaseforthisjurytodecide,andtheevidenceheredoesnotpreponderateagainsttheverdict.Justbecausethere'saquestionoffactdon't[sic]meanIhavetobeuncomfortablewithit....Ifthatwasthecase,nobodywouldeverbeentitledtoajurytrial,orinrarecaseswouldbe.No,Iapprovethisverdictinallrespectsasthethirteenthjuror.8 0 MR.VARNER: Well,ifImay,yourhonor,itappearstomethatyourhonorissayingthatyourroleasthethirteenthjuroristodeterminewhetherornottheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheverdict.AndIbelieveIamcorrectinstatingthatthat'snotwhatthecourt"that'snotwhattheSupremeCourthassaidthatyourroleisasthethirteenthjuror. Theplaintiffinsiststhatthetrialjudge'sremarksconsideredasawholeindicatethatthetrialjudgeindicatedthathewouldhavedeferredtothejuryverdicthadthecasebeenresolvedinfavoroftheplaintiff.Wecannotreadsuchanindicationintothestatementsofthetrialjudge.Clearly,intryingtoexplaintocounselthedutyofthetrialjudge,thejudgesimplypointedoutthattherewasevidencefromwhichthejurycouldhaveresolvedthecaseinfavorofeitherside.Thisisnottosaythatthetrialjudgewouldhaveresolvedtheissueofthepreponderanceoftheevidencedifferentlyhadtheplaintiffprevailed. PlaintiffinsiststhatthiscaseissimilartoHoldenv.ϜRannick,supra.InHolden,thetrialcourtstatedthat"[t]hecourt...doesnotsubstituteitsjudgmentforthatoftheplaintiff[sic]Iwouldjustasreadilyhaveagreedwiththeverdicttheotherway.Theverdictneitherwaywouldhaveshockedthecourtfrankly.Ithoughttheissueswerefairlyputtothejury.....Thecourtreversedstating:'Althoughthetrialjudgesaidthatheagreedwiththeverdictforthedefendant,hewouldalsohaveagreedwithaverdictfortheplaintiff.Thatpositionisinconsistentwithhisdutytoweightheevidenceandpassontheissues.....'"Simplystated,wedonothavesuchasituationhereasinHolden.Inthisinstance,thesumandsubstanceofthetrialcourt'sremarksthattheplaintiffwouldhaveustakeinthecontextofHoldenisthattherewasampleevidenceforthecasetogotothejury.Wefindnomeritinthisissue. Wewillnextlooktotheplaintiff'schargethattheverdictisnotsupportedbyanymaterialevidence.Iftherearedisputedfactsorinferencesfromdisputedfactsuponwhichreasonablemindscoulddiffer,thenitisapropercasefortrialbyjury,otherwise,oneofthepartiesisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw."ItisonlywhentheevidentiaryfactsareundisputedandnoconflictinginferencesrespectingtheultimatefactcanbedrawntherefromthatthequestionbecomesoneoflawforthisCourt."Andersonv.DeanTruckLine,682S.W.2d900(Tenn.1984).Inthiscase,wearepersuadedthatthiswasapropercaseforsubmissiontothejury. Fewmaterialfactsareindispute,however,thereisroomforreasonablemindstodifferontheinferencesthatmaybedrawntherefrom.Ontheeveningoftheaccidentandwhileenroutehome,theplaintiffexperiencedabreakdownofhisvehicle.Thedefendantwreckerservicewassummonedanditwasdecidedthattheplaintiff'svehiclewouldbetowedbythedefendantwreckerservicetotheplaintiffresidence.Theplaintiffaccompaniedthewreckerdriverasapassengerinthewreckertogivedirections.MehaffeyRoadisacurvy,narrow,twolanepavedroad.AsthetowtruckandvehicleintowproceededdownMehaffeyRoad,theyapproachedacurve.Atthecurvethetruckslidtotherightandthedefendantdriverlostcontrolofthevehicle.Thespeedatwhichthevehiclewastravelingatthetimeoftheaccidentwasindispute. p   ׀Theroadconditionswerewet.Therewasnodirectevidenceastothecauseoftheaccident.Thejurywaslefttoinferfromthespeed,conditionsoftheroadway,thedriver'ssupposedfamiliaritywiththeroadandthemaximofresipsaloquitur,thatthedefendantwasnegligentinfailingtoreasonablykeephisvehicleunderpropercontrol.Thejuryrefusedtodoso.Initsverdict,thejuryspecificallyfoundthatthedefendantwasnotnegligent. Itwouldappearthatthisisacasewhereresipsaisparticularlysuitedtoamotorvehicleaccident.Wemustthereforeexaminetheeffectoftheapplicationofthemaximofresipsatothecaseathand. WefindastrikingsimilarityinthiscaseandthecaseofSullivanv.Crabtree,258S.W.2d782(Tenn.App.1953).InSullivan,theplaintiff'sdecedentwasridingasapassengerinatruckthatswervedoffthehighwayandoverturneddownasteepembankment.Thedefendantdriverwasunabletogiveacauseoftheaccident.Theplaintiffscontendedthatthefactsofthecasebroughtitwithintheruleofresipsaloquitur,requiringafindingofnegligence,intheabsenceofanexplanationdisprovingϜnegligence.Sincetherewasnosuchexplanation,andsincethedefendantdidnotknowwhyhelostcontrolofthetruckorwhatcausedtheaccident,thejurywasboundtofindthatitwascausedbyhisnegligenceandcouldnotreasonablyrenderaverdictinhisfavor. Inrespondingtotheplaintiff'sargument,thecourtstated:8  Whileweagreethatthesefactsmadeacaseofresipsaloquitur,wedonotagreethatthey,thoughunexplainedrequiredaninferenceorfindingofnegligence,orthatthejurycouldnotreasonablyrefusetofindnegligenceandreturnaverdictfordefendant,orthattherewasnoevidencetosupporttheirverdictforhim.Sullivan,supra,p.784. Itappearstobewellsettledthattheapplicationofresipsaloquituris"merelyawayofpresentingapieceofsubstantiveevidenceofnegligence.Itrescuesaplaintifffromthepredicamentofhavingnoevidenceofnegligencetosupporthiscase."ProvidentLife&AccidentIns.v.ProfessionalCleaningService,217Tenn.199,396S.W.2d351(1965).Thedoctrineofresipsaloquiturisoneofevidenceandnotofsubstantivelaw.Quinleyv.Cocke,183Tenn.428,192S.W.2d992(1946).Themaximofresipsaloquiturmeansthatthefactsoftheoccurrenceevidencenegligenceandthatthecircumstances,unexplained,justifyaninferenceofnegligence.Thisprincipleofproof,appliedtoacaseofresipsa,doesnotdifferfromanordinarycaseofcircumstantialevidence.Aresipsacaseisacircumstantialevidencecasewhichpermitsthejurytoinfernegligencefromthemereoccurrenceoftheaccidentitself.Itwarrantsaninferenceofnegligencewhichajurymaydrawornotdrawasitsjudgmentdictates.(Emphasisadded).SeeLassetterv.Henson,588S.W.2d315(Tenn.App.1979). Itappearsthatinthiscasethatthejurymaywellhavebeenjustifiedindrawinganinferencethattheplaintiff'sinjurieswerearesultofthedefendantdriver'snegligence.Thejury,however,wasnotrequiredtoanddeclinedtodoso.Wefindnomeritintheplaintiff'schallengetothejury'sfindingthattherewasnonegligenceonthepartofthedefendant. Theplaintiff'slastissuechallengestheproprietyofthetrialcourt'schargerelatingto"wetstreets."Itisawellsettledprincipleoflawthatnegligencecannotbeimpliedsimplyfromskidding.Shepherd,b/n/fv.Ball,337S.W.2d243(Tenn.App.1959).Thisprincipleoflawhasgivenrisetoaconceptwhichhasbeenreferredtoas"thewetstreetdoctrine."Wedeclinetoelevatethe"wetstreet"concepttothestatusofadoctrinebuttosimplystateitasaruleoflaw.Theruleis:Itisawellsettledprincipleoflawthatnegligencecannotbeimpliedsimplyfromskidding.Shepherd,b/n/fv.Ball,337S.W.2d243(Tenn.App.1959).Intheabsenceofantecedentnegligenceornegligenceintheoperationofthecarafterithasskidded,liabilityofthehostdrivertoaguestpassengercannotbepredicatedsolelyonskiddingonawetorslipperyroad.Hatchv.ϜBrinkley,169Tenn70,80S.W.2d838;5AAm.Jur.545,AutomobilesandHighwayTraffic,Section501;Annotation113A.L.R.1037;Shepherd,supraat244. Itappearstousthatthe"wetstreet"concept,exceptastotherulethatliabilitycannotbepredicatedsolelyonskiddingonawetorslipperyroad,isoflittlevaluetothejuryinmakingadeterminationofwhethertherewasorwasnotnegligenceonthepartofaparty.Beforeapartycanbefoundguiltyofnegligencewhichwasaproximatecauseofinjuries,itmustbedemonstratedthatadefendantwasguiltyofnegligenceeitherbefore(precedent)orafter(antecedent)theoccurrenceoftheeventwhichgaverisetotheplaintiff'sinjuries.The"wetstreetrule"maybeviewedinthesamelightas"theunavoidableaccident"principle.Insumandsubstance,ifthereisnonegligenceonanypartywhichisaproximatecauseoftheaccidentandinjuriesinquestion,thelabelappliedtotheruleoflawisoflittlesignificance. Inthiscase,thecourtchargedthejuryasfollows:8  Now,thedriverofanautomobilehasadutytoexercisereasonablecaretoobserveslipperyroadconditionsthatmayexistonthehighway,andhemustexercisereasonablecaretoavoidlosingcontrolofhisvehiclewhenslipperyconditionsareencountered.Ifadriverexercisesreasonablecarebeforeencounteringslipperyconditionswhichcauseshimtoslideorskidandheexercisesreasonablecaretocontrolandoperatehisvehicleafteritbeginstoskidorslide,heisnotguiltyofnegligencemerelybecausethevehicleskidsorslidesoutofcontrol. Wefindthecourt'schargetothejurytobeanaccuratestatementofthelaw.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,weareoftheopinionthatthechargewasproperlygiven.Assuming,forsakeofdiscussion,however,thatthechargewasnotwarrantedbytheevidence,itisdifficulttoseehowtheplaintiffcouldhavebeenprejudicedbythechargeasgiven.Wefindnomeritinthisissue. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinallrespects.Costsaretaxedtotheappellantandthiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionthereof. ______________________________̀DonT.McMurray,J.CONCUR:OpinionConcurringInPart&DissentinginPartHoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge̜_______________________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge  7?XXdXXd7ќ̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜Jmq;+'b|`  `@Jߛ@ EASTERNSECTIONROBERTSHIVERS) ̀) ̀PlaintiffAppellant)̀)̀) v.) KNOXCIRCUIT̀) 03A019603CV00107̀)STONEYL.RAMSEY,JOHNR.)CARNES,IndividuallyandJOHN)R.CARNES,d/b/aCLINTON)HIGHWAYWRECKERSERVICE,)̀)̀DefendantsAppellees)@ OPINIONCONCURRINGINPARTANDDISSENTINGINPART         Goddard,P.J.  Iconcurwiththemajorityopinionastoallissuesraisedinthisappeal,exceptthethirdonerelatingtotheTrialJudge'sroleasaThirteenthJuror.  Some20yearsagoJudgeMcAmis,inSherlinv.Roberson,551S.W.2d700,701(Tenn.App.1976),wroteaclassicstatementofthetrialcourt'sdutyasathirteenthjuror,which,aspertinenttothethirdissueraisedinthisappeal,statedthefollowing:     The...remarksofthejudgemakeitappearhedisassociatedhimselffromthedeliberativeprocesswhichisthepeculiarandexclusiveprovinceofthejuryofwhichthepresidingjudgeisasmuchamemberasjurorssittinginthejurybox.Indeed,itmustbesaidthat,byreasonofhistrainingasalawyerandhisexperienceinweighingtestimony,heisthemostimportantmemberofthejury.      Itismyviewthatinthiscase,whichresultedinaverdictinfavorofthePlaintiff,theTrialJudgemisapprehendedhisduty,inthathisfunctionwasnottoreviewtheevidencetoseewhetheritpreponderatedagainsttheverdict,butrathertoreviewtheevidenceandseeifitpreponderatedinfavoroftheverdict.  Iaccordinglywouldvacatethejudgmentandremandthecaseforanewtrial.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.