WPC  It:J:I b='QKehݏ"Q5 Hjy8b],&{2m_M}DODMDeNs$6 t 쒌X뗎^G[^@jh藧y<;ɒwl_x   _%%ȓGr$XǂccPкTQ,@͚޳#UN& 0l 0Dl& 0D  U:               AQT  Bk 0D 0D D/  B? D3\ HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($   e  E V  D  Ӏy&3|x (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular   $    1     ` Turnerallegesthathedidnotknowaboutthelawsuituntilafteritwasfiled.  However,itisundisputedthatoncehelearnedithadbeenfiled,heallowedittoproceed.  ((3$ !      0  (#$  0     $    1     ` Turnerallegesthathedidnotknowaboutthelawsuituntilafteritwasfiled.  However,itisundisputedthatoncehelearnedithadbeenfiled,heallowedittoproceed.  (3$ !   "  XFXXXgXXF   Ad FILEDXFXg  June18,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd""""'dxd !     TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  7XXdd7ќ  22    r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  rߛ  X KXXX@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE    @$ATNASHVILLE     `  򀀀 x RICHARDTUCKERAND h   ) <  JOEDIFIORE,    h   )   p  ( x     `     h   )   d   Plaintiffs/Appellees,   )   MontgomeryCircuitNo.C8491  P   v.   `     h   )    @     `     h   )  AppealNo.01A019708CV00426  ,  CHRISTOPHERCARRTURNER,  )      `     h   )   Defendant/Appellant.     h    )     @ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFMONTGOMERYCOUNTY X @HHATCLARKSVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEJAMESE.WALTON,JUDGEForthePlaintiffs/Appellees: h   FortheDefendant/Appellant:#XXX X Kk# X KXXX  JamesD.Kay,Jr.  GregoryD.Smith  BridgettA.Wohlpart   h   Clarksville,Tennessee  Nashville,Tennessee    `     h   AFFIRMED   `     h   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. %@!$   CONCURS:ALANE.HIGHERS,J. x+&* DAVIDR.FARMER,J.#XXX X K#  P-(, 7XXdXXd7  @55' OPINION     Thismaliciousprosecutioncasestemsfromapreviousseparatemaliciousprosecutionlawsuit.Thedefendantinthiscasewaschargedwithcertaincrimes;agrandjurylaterclearedhimofthechargedcrimes.Thedefendantthenfiledamaliciousprosecutionandabuseofpro ces s ecution caseagainstthetwoplaintiffsinthiscase.Thedefendantinthiscasesubsequentlyconfessedtothecrimeand  nonsuited  hismaliciousprosecutioncase.Theplaintiffsinthiscasethenfiledamaliciousprosecutioncaseagainstthedefendant.Duringthejurytrial,thetrialcourt  deniedboth   theplaintiffsand  defendantsrequestforadirectedverdict.Thejurysubsequentlyfoundinfavorofthe  plaintiffs  andawardedcompensatoryandpunitivedamagestotheplaintiffs.Thedefendantappeals.Weaffirm.  OnOctober28,1990,thedefendant,ChristopherTurner( Turner),actedasa lookoutintheburglaryandtheftofitemsfromatruckbelongingtoplaintiffRichardTucker( Tucker).PlaintiffJoeDifiore( Difiore),adetectivewiththeClarksvillePoliceDepartment,wasassignedtothecase.SeveralleadsindicatedTurnersinvolvementintheburglary,causingDifioretoseekanindictmentagainstTurner.  Difiore  testifiedinthegrandjuryproceedingsagainstTurner.Atthegrandjuryproceeding,Turnerliedunderoathanddeniedhisinvolvement.ThistestimonyplusTurnerstwofavorablepolygraphtestsledthegrandjurytoreturna notruebill,clearingTurnerofthecharges.  OnFebruary25,1991,withindaysofthegrandjuryproceeding,  Turnerfiled  alawsuitagainstTuckerandDifiore.Hewasrepresentedbyhis  father,attorneyCleveland  Turner.       #  1       The P(#& lawsuitalleged  malicious  prosecutionandabuseofprocess,andsoughtonemilliondollarsindamages.Pretrialactivityensued.    DuringtheinvestigationofTurnersinvolvementintheburglaryandafterthelawsuitagainstTuckerandDifiorewasfiled,therewasconsiderablepublicityinthemediaaboutthematter,includingarticlesintheNashvilleandClarksvillenewspapers.Onearticle,datedDecember21,1990,containsastatementbyClevelandTurnerthat Whenitsalloverwith,weregoingtohaveoursayanditsgoingtobeat8thandBroadwayinNashville.ThearticlenotesthatthisisthelocationofthefederalcourthouseinNashville.Hecontinues, Somebodysgoingtopay.When P726 itsalloverwith,theresgoingtobeadayofreckoning.Hefurtherstated, ThepeopleofClarksvilleshouldknowthattheyaresubsidizingpeoplegrindingtheirownaxes.JoyceTurner,ChristopherTurnersmother,statesthat, IwillnotrestuntilIgetevenwithJoeDifiore.Iwillgethim.    Severalmonthslater,TurnerwasimplicatedbyotherpersonsinvolvedintheburglaryofTuckerstruck.OnJuly1,1991,Turneradmittedtohisinvolvementintheburglaryandtheft.OnJuly2,1991,Turnervoluntarily  nonsuited  thecaseagainstTuckerandDifiore.Turnerlaterenteredanolocontenderepleainexchangefortwoyearsprobation,athousandhoursofcommunityservice,andrestitution.     AfterTurnersmaliciousprosecutionlawsuitwasnonsuited,Tucker  andDifiore  ( plaintiffs)   each  filedseparatemaliciousprosecution  lawsuitsagainstTurner,  seekingdamagesfortheapproximatelyfivemonthperiodinwhichTurnersmaliciousprosecutioncasewaspending.Thesetwolawsuitswerelaterconsolidatedintothis  action,  whichwastriedbeforeajury.  Theevidenceattrialshowedthatthe  considerable  publicitysurroundingtheoriginalmaliciousprosecutionsuitagainstTuckerandDifioreadverselyaffectedthem.TuckertestifiedthattheearningsfromhisconstructioncompanysufferedduetonegativenewspaperarticlesandthatpeopleapproachedhimonthestreetandaskedhimwhyhewaspersecutingTurner.Thiscausedhimhumiliationandembarrassment.Tuckertestifiedthatalthoughhisinsurancecompanyagreedtoanswerthecomplaint,thecompanyhadnotpromisedcontinuedcoverage.  Difioretestifiedaboutthenumeroushourshespentdiscussingthecasewithhisattorney,thenegativecommentsmadebyothers,andtheembarrassmentand  humiliationcausedby  the  suit.  Difiorealsostatedthathedidnotsleepthroughasinglenightwhilethecasewaspendingandthathelostfortyfivepoundsinthefirsttwotothreemonthsafterthesuitwasfiled.  The   newspaperarticle   referredtoabove  wasintroducedtoshow  howthemediapublicityaffectedDifiores  stateofmind.  Thearticlereferredto somebodyhavingto payandthatTurnersfamilywould getDifiore.Thesestatements,Difioretestified,causedhimtoworryaboutpossiblebankruptcyandthesafetyofhisfamily.Difioretestifiedthatbeingsuedformaliciousprosecutionmadehimrealizehisliabilityasadetective,andpromptedhimtotakeapaycutandswitchtoalowerpayingnondetectivepositionwiththepolicedepartment. 0948 Ї  TheplaintiffsaswellasthedefendantTurnerfiledmotionsforadirectedverdict.Turnersmotionallegedthat,sincetheunderlyingsuitwasnonsuited,theplaintiffsfailedtoproveanessentialelementoftheirclaim,afinalterminationoftheunderlyingsuitintheirfavor.Bothmotionsfordirectedverdictweredenied.  ThejuryreturnedaverdictinfavorofTuckerandDifiore,awardingcompensatorydamagesof$52,000toTuckerand$10,500toDifiore.Thejuryalsoawardedpunitivedamagesof$50,000toDifiore.Tuckerwaivedhisrighttopunitivedamagesafterthecasewassubmittedtothejuryandafterthejuryreturnedaverdictinhisfavorindicatingthathewasentitledtopunitivedamages.Turnernowappealsthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotionfordirectedverdict.̀  Onappeal,Turnerassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavedirectedaverdictinhisfavor  becausetheplaintiffsfailedtoproveanessentialelementofmaliciousprosecution.Turnercontendsthat,sincetheunderlyingsuitwasnonsuited,therewasnofinalterminationoftheprioractioninTuckerandDifioresfavor,anessentialelementoftheclaim.Turneralsoarguesthatthetrialcourterredinallowingtheplaintiffstotestifyastotheirmentalandemotionaldamageswithoutpresentingexperttestimony.   XsXXX̰Whenreviewingamotionforadirectedverdict,  theappellatecourtmustlooktoallthe   evidence,takethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavoroftheopponentofthemotion,andallowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty.Afterdiscardingallcountervailingevidence,ifthereisanydisputeastoanymaterialfact,oranydoubtastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheevidenceasawhole,themotionmustbedenied.  SeeConatser  v.ClarksvilleCoca 0(#& ColaBottlingCo. ,920S.W.2d646,647(Tenn.1995); Hurleyv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. , *X%( 922S.W.2d887,891(Tenn.App.1995).Adirectedverdictcannotbesustainedifthereismaterialevidenceintherecordwhichwouldsupportaverdictforthedefendantunderanyofthetheoriesthedefendanthadadvanced.   SeeConatser ,  920S.W.2dat647.  #X̰XX Xs'# /*.   Inamaliciousprosecutionaction,theplaintiffmustprovethreeelements:(1)thatthedefendantinstitutedapriorsuitorjudicialproceedingagainsttheplaintiffwithoutprobablecause,(2)thatthedefendantbroughttheactionwithmalice,and(3)thattheactionendedinafinaldeterminationinfavoroftheplaintiff. SeeChristianv.Lapidus ,833S.W.2d71,73(Tenn.1992); 7X26  Kauffmanv.A.H.RobinsCo. ,448S.W.2d400,402(Tenn.1969).Wemustfirstdetermine 8848 whetheravoluntary  nonsuit  satisfiesthethirdelement,requiringafinaldeterminationinfavorofthedefendantintheunderlyingaction.  Turner  maintains   that,  atthetimeofthe  nonsuit,  Tennesseelawwasclearthata  nonsuit  wasnotafinaldeterminationinfavorofthedefendantintheunderlyingaction.   SeePrice  v.Boyle  Inv.   P  Co. ,1990WL60659(Tenn.App.May11,1990).Ӏ0However,lessthanayearafterTurnervoluntarily 0    nonsuited  hismaliciousprosecutionactionagainstTuckerand  Difiore,  theTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthata  nonsuit  isafinaldeterminationinfavorofthedefendant. SeeChristianv.Lapidus ,833 @  S.W.2d71(Tenn.1992).The  Court  stated,[W]earepersuaded,andnowhold,thatabandonmentorwithdrawalofanallegedlymaliciousprosecutionissufficienttoestablishafinalandfavorableterminationsolongassuchabandonmentorwithdrawalwasnotaccompaniedbyacompromiseorsettlement,oraccomplishedinordertorefiletheactioninanotherforum.222   Id.  at74(citingRestatement(Second)ofTorts674,cmt.j(1977)).Under Lapidus ,then,the `   nonsuit  inthiscasewasafinaldeterminationinthedefendantsfavor.TuckerandDifiorearguethat Lapidus shouldbeappliedretroactivelytothiscase.Turnerarguesagainsttheretroactive  p applicationof Lapidus ,andmaintainsthat Price controls. P   In Price ,citedbyTurner,thedefendantgavenoticethathewasgoingtoamendhiscross 0 claimtoincludemaliciousprosecution.Theplaintiffthensoughtavoluntary  nonsuit.  Thetrialcourtdeniedthe  nonsuit  becauseitbelievedthatthe  nonsuit  wouldcausethedefendanttosufferalegaldetriment,namelythatthedefendantwouldbepreventedfromassertinghismaliciousprosecutionclaimbecausetherewouldbenofinaljudgmentinhisfavor.Theappellatecourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsdenialofthenonsuit,notingtheplaintiffsability to reinitiatetheactionagainstthedefendantafteravoluntarydismissalwithoutprejudice: Sinceitwasavoluntarydismissal,thesuitreadilycouldhavebeenrevivedatanytimewithintheyear.Tocallthisaterminationisamisnomer. Price ,1990WL60659,at  *4.   .0*-    Price indicatedthatitsholdingshouldbelimitedtothefactsofthatcase.TheCourtquoted 0,/ thefollowing,describingitas appropriateandapplicabletothecaseatbar: Wedonotmeantoimplythatbyfilingacounterclaiminmaliciousprosecution,orbyprofessinganintentiontodosolater,anydefendantmaydefeatanymotionfordismissalwithoutprejudice.Sucharulewouldundoubtedlymakeitimpossibleforaplaintiffevertodismissvoluntarilywithoutprejudice.Ourdecisionislimitedverycloselytothefactsofthiscase.̀D;6;$; Id. at  *5  (quoting SelasCorp.ofAm.v.WilshireOilCo.of  Tex. ,  57F.R.D.3,7(E.D.Pa.1972)).  :p59  Price alsoquoteswithapprovalthefollowingexcerptfromtheRestatementofTorts: Whethera  withdrawaloranabandonmentconstitutesafinalterminationofthecaseinfavorofthepersonagainstwhomtheproceedingsarebroughtandwhetherthewithdrawalisevidenceofalackofprobablecausefortheirinitiation,dependsuponthecircumstancesunderwhichtheproceedings  are  withdrawn. Id. at  *4.  (quoting  Restatement(Second)  of  Torts674,cmt.j.(1976)).    0    Inthiscase,Turnerconfessedtoparticipationintheburglaryshortlybeforetheunderlyinglawsuitwasnonsuited.UnderRule11oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil  Procedure,  Turnercouldnothaverefiledthemaliciousprosecutioncasewithoutriskingsanctions.Therefore,thenonsuiteffectivelyterminatedanyfurtheractionbyTurneragainstthedefendantsTuckerandDifiore.Consequently,evenunderthelawpriorto Christianv.Lapidus ,  the   nonsuit  underthesefactswould  beconsideredafinaldeterminationinthedefendantsfavor.  Inaddition,itisalsoclear  that   Lapidus shouldbeappliedretroactivelyinthiscase.The P doctrineofnonretroactivitylimitsthecircumstancesunderwhichajudicialdecisionshouldbeappliedretroactively. SeeLunav.Clayton ,655S.W.2d893,899(Tenn.1983)(citing Great ` NorthernRy.Co.v.SunburstOil&RefiningCo. ,287U.S.358,53  S.Ct.  145,77  L.Ed.  360 @ (1932)).  Thedoctrine  ofnonretroactivity  appliesonly  where(1)thedecisionatissueeitherestablishesanewprincipleoflawbyoverrulingclearpastprecedentordecidesanissueoffirstimpressionwhoseresolutionwasnotclearlyforeshadowed,(2)inlightofthepriorhistoryoftheruleinquestion,itspurposeandeffect,retrospectiveapplicationwillretarditsprospectiveoperation,and(3)thedecision,ifappliedretroactively,"couldproducesubstantialinequitableresults"totheinstantlitigants.E|EjE   Id.  (citing ChevronOilCo.v.Huson ,404U.S.97,92  S.Ct.  349,30  L.Ed.2d  296(1971)). @)$'   TheTennesseeSupremeCourtagaindiscussedretrospectiveapplicationofjudicialdecisionsin Marshallv.Marshall ,670S.W.2d213(Tenn.1984).TheCourtin Marshall opinedthatifa -P(+ partyjustifiablyreliesonasubsequentlyoverruledjudicialdecisionandthoserelianceinterestswouldbedefeatedbyretroactiveapplicationoftheoverrulingdecision,theoverrulingdecisionshouldbelimitedtoprospectiveapplication. Seeid. at215(citingAnnotation,Overruling 2-1 DecisionsApplication,10A.L.R.3d1371,13865(b)(1966)).The Marshall Courtnotedthat 4/3   prospective  onlyapplicationofanoverrulingdecisionshouldbelimitedtoacaseinwhichthehardshiponapartywhohasreliedontheoldruleoutweighsthehardshiponthepartydeniedthe  @837  benefitofthenewrule. Id. (citingTraynor,QuoVadisProspectiveOverruling:AQuestionof  JudicialResponsibility,28HastingsL.J.533(1977)).    Utilizingthefactorsenumeratedin Luna ,wemustfirstdeterminewhether Lapidus  p  overrul[ed]clearpastprecedentordecide[d]anissueoffirstimpressionwhoseresolutionwasnotclearlyforeshadowed. Luna ,655S.W.2dat899.Asnotedabove,thelanguagein Price indicated 0  approvalofacasebycasedeterminationofwhetheranonsuit  constitute s d  afinaldetermination.  Price ,1990WL60659,at*5.Therefore,  Price cannotbeconsidered clearpastprecedentonthe @  issueofwhethera  nonsuit  isafinaldeterminationinfavorofdefendants.Second,thereisnoreasonwhyretrospectiveapplicationof Lapidus would retarditsprospectiveoperation.   Luna ,655  S.W.2dat899.    Third,thereisnoevidencethattheretroactiveapplicationof Lapidus wouldproduce   substantialinequitableresults. Id. AlthoughTurnerarguesthathereliedon Price whenhetook p a  nonsuit,  inlightofTurnersconfession,hehadnochoiceexceptto  nonsuit  theunderlyinglawsuits,regardlessof Price . Underallofthesecircumstances,Turnerhasnotpresentedproofofhardship 0 orreliancethatwouldwarranta prospectiveonlyapplicationof Lapidus .Consequently,under `  Lapidus andconsideringthefactsinthiscase,Turnersnonsuitoftheunderlyinglawsuitwouldbe @ considereda finaldeterminationinfavorofTuckerandDifiore.Therefore,theelementsofamaliciousprosecutionclaimweresatisfied,andthetrialcourtdidnoterrindenyingTurnersmotionforadirectedverdict.   XsXXX̰TurneralsoarguesonappealthatthetrialcourterredinadmittingTuckerandDifiores p&!$ testimonyontheirmentalandemotionaldistressdamages.Thetrialcourtisaffordedwidediscretionintheadmissionorrejectionofevidence,andthetrialcourt'sactionwillbereversedonappealonlywhenthereisashowingofanabuseofdiscretion.   SeeOtis  v.CambridgeMut.FireIns.Co. ,850 +H'* S.W.2d439,442(Tenn.1992); Aussenbergv.Kramer ,944S.W.2d367,370(Tenn.App.1996); - ),  Davisv.Hall ,920S.W.2d213,217(Tenn.App.1995). /*.   [T]heelementsofdamagesrecoverableinamaliciousprosecutionsuitarethosewhichproximatelyresulttotheplaintiff,hisperson,property,orreputationfromapreviousunsuccessfulcivilorcriminalproceedingwhichwasprosecutedwithoutprobablecauseandwith  malice   Pullenv.Textron,Inc. ,845S.W.2d777,  780  (Tenn.App.1992)(citing Ryersonv.  American  Sur. 7X26 Co. ,213Tenn.182,185,373S.W.2d436,437(1963)). 8048   Turnercites Medlinv.AlliedInvestmentCo. ,398S.W.2d270(Tenn.1966),forthe  propositionthat#X̰XX Xs