ÿWPC4 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ 0d U> B)½ DCæ AM)U*v v~® B,vÓI D3 0@O AOÆÞ 0D¤ D/è B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-ÞßUàáEâãÓ€íDÒ 3|xñ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMarch€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&`XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌMARSHA€R.€WILLIAMS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€92C„715ÌVS.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„9610„CV„00488̜ـ€ÙßR€!# A1-j|L5` ç `€€@ÿRß›SEARS,€ROEBUCK€AND€COMPANY,à à)à àÌd/b/a€œSEARS,›à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€œSHIPLEY,€JUDGE›Ìó óÌÌÌMARSHA€R.€WILLIAMSÌ153€Twin€Oaks€DriveÌNashville,€TN€37211ÌPRO€SE/PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌKEENE€W.€BARTLEY,€#9889ÌSchulman,€LeRoy€&€BennettÌ501€Union€Street,€Suite€701ÌP.O.€Box€190676ÌNashville,€TN€37219„0676ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÔ€XÔó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€œJUDGEÌ̛̜CONCURS€IN€SEPARATE€OPINIONÌWILLIAM›€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇò òMARSHA€R.€WILLIAMS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€92C„715ÌVS.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„9610„CV„00488ÌSEARS,€ROEBUCK€AND€COMPANY,à à)à àÌd/b/a€SEARS,€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)Ìó óÌà@ àòòÔ€¼Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€XÔóóÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€plaintiff,€œMarsha›€R.€Williams,€has€appealed€from€a€jury€verdict€and€judgmentÏdismissing€her€suit€for€personal€injuries€sustained€in€a€fall€on€the€premises€of€the€defendant,ÏSears,€Roebuck€&€Company.€€ÌÌà àPlaintiff€states€the€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà àA.à àWhether€€the€€Trial€€Court€erred€€by€denying€the€PlaintiffððsÌà àà àMotion€€For€€Judgment€€Notwithstanding€€The€Verdict€€where€the€Ìà àà àverdict€€of€€the€€jury€€was€against€the€clear€weight€of€€the€evidenceÌà àà àbecause€€the€Plaintiff€established€that€the€Defendant€either€createdÌà àà àthe€injury€causing€condition€or€had€notice€of€the€condition.ÌÌà àà àB.à àWhether€€€the€€Trial€€Court€€erred€€by€€failing€€to€€grant€€the€Ìà àà àPlaintiffððs€€Motion€€For€€A€€New€Trial€where€there€was€insufficient€Ìà àà àevidence€€to€€sustain€the€juryððs€verdict€€that€the€Defendant€was€not€ÌÓÓà àà ànegligent.ÌÌà àThe€uncontroverted€evidence€shows€that,€on€April€24,€1991,€plaintiff€was€in€the€retailÏstore€section€of€Sears€Auto€Center€to€which€customers€were€invited;€she€inquired€of€anÏattendant€as€to€a€correction€of€a€problem€in€the€operation€of€her€auto;€thereafter,€the€attendantÏproceeded€from€the€retail€store€through€a€door€where€there€was€a€sign€warning€that€customersÏshould€not€pass€through.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€is€controverted€as€to€the€circumstances€under€which€plaintiff€followed€theÏattendant€through€the€door.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€the€attendant€invited€her€to€follow€him.€€TheÏattendant€denied€inviting€plaintiff€and€testified€that€he€was€unaware€that€plaintiff€was€followingÏhim€until€after€she€fell.ÌÌà àIt€is€uncontroverted€that€plaintiff€fell€and€was€injured,€but€the€cause€of€her€fall€isÏcontroverted.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€she€slipped€in€a€liquid€on€the€floor.€€The€attendant€testifiedÏthat€no€liquid€was€found€in€the€place€where€plaintiff€fell.ÌÌà àUpon€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€the€defendant€andÏjudgment€was€entered€accordingly.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€filed€a€ð ðMotion€for€Judgment€Notwithstanding€the€Juryððs€Verdict€orÏalternately,€for€an€Additur€or€for€a€New€Trial.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€entered€the€following€order:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€This€€matter€€came€to€be€heard€on€plaintiffððs€pro€se€motion€Ìà àà àfor€€judgment€€not€€withstanding€€the€verdict,€additur,€or€new€Ìà àà àtrial.€€€The€€Court€€upon€€review€€of€€evidence€and€the€record€Ìà àà àpresented€€at€€the€€trial€€being€€of€€the€€opinion€€that€the€Court€Ìà àà àagrees€€with€the€verdict€of€the€jury€and€that€the€juryððs€verdict€Ìà àà àshould€be€approved.ÌÌà àà à€€€€It€€is€thereby€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€AND€DECREEDÌÓÓÓÓà àà àthat€€plaintiffððs€€motion€€for€€new€trial,€or€judgment€not€with„Ìà àà àstanding€€the€€verdict€should€€be€denied.€€It€further€appearing€Ìà àà àthere€was€no€judgment€for€which€an€additur€could€have€been€Ìà àà àordered,€the€Court€hereby€denies€the€motion€for€additur.€€All€Ìà àà àcosts€€of€€this€€motion€€are€€assessed€to€the€plaintiff€for€which€ÌÓÓà àà àexecution€may€issue.ÌÌà àAfter€filing€notice€of€appeal€and€bond,€plaintiff€filed€the€following€motion:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Plaintiff,€€œMarsha›€€R.€Williams,€€proceeding€€òòpro€seóó,€herebyÌà àà àrespectfully€€requests€€that€€this€€court€require,€for€the€purposeÌà àà àof€€filing€an€appeal,€the€partial€transcript€of€the€trial€and€of€the€Ìà àà ànew€€trial€€motion€to€be€€produced€upon€the€reimbursement€to€Ìà àà àDefendant€€of€€one„half€of€court€reporterððs€per€diem€and€upon€Ìà àà àpayment€€of€€the€€fee€€for€€transcription.€€€Plaintiff€€offered€this€Ìà àà àcustomary€€cost,€€but€€it€€was€refused€(see€attached€correspon„Ìà àà àdence).€Plaintiff€further€requests€that€the€partial€trial€transcript€Ìà àà àand€new€trial€motion€transcript€be€accepted€for€the€purpose€of€Ìà àà àfiling€€€an€€€appeal€€and€€that€€a€€sufficient€€amount€€of€€time€€be€Ìà àà àallowed€for€preparation€of€the€transcripts.à àÌÓÓà àà à€ÌÌà àDefendant€resisted€the€motion,€and€the€Trial€Court€entered€the€following€order:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€This€€matter€€came€€€to€€be€€heard€€on€€Plaintiffððs€€transcript€Ìà àà àrelease€€motion€€on€August€2,€1996.€€The€Court€€upon€reviewÌà àà àof€€the€€evidence€presented€agrees€that€the€trial€transcript€and€Ìà àà àthe€€new€€trial€€motion€€transcript€€be€€released€for€production€Ìà àà àupon€€the€€reimbursement€€to€€defendant€€of€€one„half€of€court€Ìà àà àreporterððs€€per€€diem€€and€€upon€€payment€of€the€fee€for€trans„Ìà àà àcription.ÌÌà àà à€€€€It€€is€thereby€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€AND€DECREED€Ìà àà àthat€€plaintiffððs€€motion€€for€€release€of€transcripts€be€granted.€€Ìà àà àAll€€costs€€of€€this€motion€are€assesse€(sic)€to€the€plaintiff,€for€ÌÓÓà àà àwhich€execution€may€issue.Ìà àà àÌà àOn€appeal,€plaintiff€insists€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€overruling€her€motion€forÏjudgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€ð ðbecause€the€verdict€of€the€jury€was€against€the€clearÏweight€of€the€evidence.ððÌÌà àIt€has€been€held€that€motion€not€withstanding€the€verdict€(non€obstante€veredicto,ÏJNOV)€is€a€test€of€the€pleadings€and€cannot€be€used€as€a€substitute€for€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€ÏòòBluff€City€Buick€Co.€v.€Davisóó,€201€Tenn.€App.€593,€323€S.W.2d€œ1€(1959);›€òòCitizens€Trust€Co.Ïv.€Service€Motor€Car€Coóó.,€154€Tenn.€App.€507,€297€S.W.€735€(1927).ÌÌà àIt€has€also€been€held€that€a€motion€for€judgment€NOV€is€inapplicable€to€questions€ofÏevidence.€€òòDavis€v.€Wilsonóó,€Tenn.€App.€1974,€522€S.W.2d€872;€œòòBuice›€v.€Scruggs€EquipmentÏCoóó.,€37€Tenn.€App.€556,€267€S.W.2d€119€(1954);€òòJamison€v.€Metropolitan€Life€InsuranceÏCo.,óó€124€Tenn.€App.€398,€145€S.W.2d€553€(1941);òò€National€Life€&€Accident€Ins.€Co.,€v.ÏAmerican€Trust€Co.óó,€17€Tenn.€App.€516,€68€S.W.2d€971€(1934).ÌÌà àIt€has€also€been€held€that€a€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€cannot€beÏentertained€on€the€ground€that€the€evidence€does€not€warrant€the€verdict,€and€the€evidenceÏcannot€be€examined€in€determining€the€propriety€of€such€a€œmotion.òò€€Dunn€v.€Mooreóó,€22€Tenn.ÏApp.€412,€123€S.W.2d€1095€(1939).›ÌÌà àMore€recently,€it€is€held€that,€under€T.R.C.P.€Rule€50.02,€no€motion€for€judgmentÏNOV€can€be€entertained€on€the€ground€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€verdict€or€justifyÏthe€intervention€of€a€jury.€€òòRupe€v.€Durbin€Durco,€Incóó.,€Tenn.€App.€œ1976,›€557€S.W.2d€742.€ÏRule€50.02€provides:ÌÓÓà àà àReservation€of€Decision€on€Motion.€„€Whenever€€a€motion€forÌà àà àa€€directed€€verdict€€made€€at€€the€€close€€of€€all€€the€evidence€is€Ìà àà àdenied€or€for€any€reason€is€not€granted,€the€court€is€deemed€to€Ìà àà àhave€€submitted€€the€€action€to€the€jury€subject€to€a€later€deter„Ìà àà àmination€€of€€the€€legal€questions€raised€by€the€motion.€€Within€Ìà àà àthirty€€(30)€€days€€after€€the€€entry€of€judgment€a€party€who€has€Ìà àà àmoved€for€a€directed€verdict€may€move€to€have€the€verdict€and€Ìà àà àany€€judgment€entered€€thereon€set€aside€and€to€have€judgment€Ìà àà àentered€€in€accordance€€with€€the€€partyððs€motion€for€a€directed€Ìà àà àverdict;€or€€if€€a€€verdict€€was€€not€€returned,€€such€party,€within€Ìà àà àthirty€€(30)€days€€after€€the€jury€has€been€discharged,€may€move€Ìà àà àfor€a€judgment€€in€€accordance€€with€€such€partyððs€motion€for€a€Ìà àà àdirected€€verdict.€€€A€€motion€for€a€new€trial€may€be€joined€with€Ìà àà àthis€€motion,€€or€a€new€trial€may€be€prayed€for€in€the€alternative.€€Ìà àà àIf€€a€€verdict€was€returned,€the€court€may€allow€the€judgment€to€Ìà àà àstand€€or€€may€reopen€the€judgment€and€either€order€a€new€trial€Ìà àà àor€€direct€€the€€entry€of€judgment€as€if€the€requested€verdict€had€Ìà àà àbeen€€directed.€€€If€no€verdict€was€returned€the€court€may€direct€Ìà àà àthe€€entry€€of€€judgment€€as€€if€€the€€requested€€verdict€€had€been€ÌÓÓà àà àdirected€or€may€order€a€new€trial.€ÌÌà àIt€has€also€been€held€that,€on€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€in€favorÏof€plaintiffs,€where€no€question€of€credibility€is€involved,€every€inference€reasonably€to€beÏdrawn€from€the€evidence€must€be€drawn€in€favor€of€plaintiffs,€taking€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence,€upholding€the€verdict,€assuming€the€truth€of€all€that€tended€to€support€theÏjudgment,€discarding€all€contrary€evidence€and€allowing€all€reasonable€inferences€to€sustain€theÏverdict.€€òòMultens€v.€Seaboard€Coastline,€Ry.€Co.óó,€Tenn.€App.€1974,€517€S.W.2d€198.ÌÌà àIn€òòEaton€v.€McClain,óó€Tenn.€1978,€891€S.W.2d€587,€cited€by€plaintiff,€Mrs.€Eaton,€fellÏdown€a€stair€and€œsued›€her€hosts,€the€McClains.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€defendantsÏmoved€for€a€directed€verdict€(which€did€not€occur€in€the€present€case).€€The€Trial€Court€in€theÏEaton€case€overruled€the€motion€for€directed€verdict€and€submitted€the€case€to€a€jury€whichÏfound€negligence€of€plaintiff€to€be€40%€and€of€defendants€to€be€60%.€€Defendants€moved€forÏjudgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€which€œmotion€was›€overruled.€€On€appeal,€this€CourtÏreversed€and€dismissed€on€the€authority€of€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€Tenn.€1992,€833€S.W.2dÏ52,€the€ð ðstep€in€the€dark€case.ðð€€This€Court€also€based€its€conclusion€on€the€ground€œof€›Ïð ðoverwhelmingðð€evidence€that€the€negligence€of€plaintiff€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€that€ofÏdefendants,€and€that€there€was€no€material€evidence€to€support€a€finding€of€a€duty€to€protectÏplaintiff€from€opening€a€door€in€the€darkness€and€stepping€into€a€staircase.€€(This€Court€mightÏwell€have€made€its€decision€upon€the€allegations€of€the€œcomplaint.)›ÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€granted€appeal,€affirmed€the€Trial€Court€and€this€Court€and€said:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€The€€standards€€governing€€trial€€courts€€in€ruling€on€motions€forÌà àà àdirected€€verdict€or€JNOV€€in€negligence€cases€are€well€established.Ìà àà àIn€€€ruling€€€on€€€the€€motion,€€the€€court€€must€€take€€the€€€strongest€Ìà àà àlegitimate€€view€€of€€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party.€Ìà àà àIn€other€words,€the€court€must€remove€any€conflict€in€the€evidence€Ìà àà àby€construing€€it€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„movant€and€Ìà àà àdiscarding€€all€€countervailing€€evidence.€€The€€court€may€grant€the€Ìà àà àmotion€€only€€it,€after€assessing€the€evidence€according€to€the€fore„Ìà àà àgoing€€standards,€€it€€determines€€that€€reasonable€€minds€could€not€Ìà àà àdiffer€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€òòSauls€v.€Ìà àà àEvansóó,€€635€€S.W.2d€€377€€(Tenn.1982);€€òòHolmes€€v.€€Wilsonóó,€€551Ìà àà à€S.W.2d€682€€(Tenn.€1977).€€If€€there€is€any€doubt€as€to€the€proper€Ìà àà àconclusions€€to€€be€€drawn€€from€€the€evidence,€the€motion€must€be€Ìà àà àdenied.€€òòCrosslin€v.€Alsupóó,€594€S.W.2d€379€(Tenn.1980).ÌÌà àà à€€€€This€€Courtððs€€adoption€€of€€the€€doctrine€of€comparative€fault€inÌà àà à€McIntyre€€does€€not€€change€€these€€standards€€governing€€the€trial€Ìà àà àcourtððs€€€assessment€€€of€€€the€€€evidence;€€nor€€does€€it€€change€€the€Ìà àà àestablished€€standard€€governing€€the€trial€courtððs€ultimate€decision€Ìà àà àof€€whether€€to€€grant€€the€€motion.€€€The€€trial€court€œstill›€must€take€Ìà àà àthe€€strongest€€legitimate€€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„Ìà àà àmovant;€€and€€it€€must€€grant€€the€€motion€only€€if€reasonable€minds€Ìà àà àcould€€not€€differ€€as€to€the€legal€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€that€Ìà àà àevidence.ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€€recitation€€of€these€standards€of€review€does€not,€however,Ìà àà àprovide€€€a€€satisfactory€€answer€€to€€the€€issue€€before€€us€€because€òòÌà àà àMcIntyreóó€€has€€radically€€changed€€the€€question€to€be€asked€by€the€Ìà àà àtrial€€court€€on€€a€€motion€for€directed€verdict/NJOV€which€alleges€Ìà àà ànegligence€€on€€the€€part€of€€the€€plaintiff.€€The€question€now€isòò€notóó€Ìà àà àwhether€the€plaintiff€was€guilty€of€any€negligence€that€proximately€Ìà àà àcaused€€the€€resulting€€injuries.€€€Instead,€€the€question€is:€assuming€Ìà àà àthat€€both€€plaintiff€€and€€defendant€have€been€found€guilty€of€negli„Ìà àà àgent€€conduct€€that€€proximately€€caused€€the€injuries,€was€the€fault€Ìà àà àattributable€€to€€plaintiff€€equal€€to€or€greater€than€the€fault€attribu„Ìà àà àtable€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà à€€€€In€€summary,€€the€€percentage€€of€€fault€€assigned€€to€€each€party€Ìà àà àshould€€€be€€€dependent€upon€€all€€the€€circumstances€€of€€the€€case,€Ìà àà àincluding€€€such€€€factors€€€as:€€(1)€€€the€€relative€€closeness€€€of€€the€Ìà àà àcausal€€relationship€€between€the€€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€Ìà àà àthe€€injury€€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€Ìà àà àconduct€€in€€confronting€a€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€€(3)€Ìà àà àthe€extent€to€which€the€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€Ìà àà àexisting€€opportunity€€to€avoid€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€Ìà àà àexistence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€a€hasty€decision;€(5)€Ìà àà àthe€significance€of€what€the€party€was€attempting€to€accomplish€Ìà àà àby€€the€€conduct,€such€€as€€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€Ìà àà à(6)€€the€€partyððs€€€particular€€capacities,€€such€€as€€age,€€maturity,€Ìà àà àtraining,€education,€and€so€forth.ÌÌà àà à€€€€We€€need€€not,€€however,€decide€€the€question€of€whether€Ms.€Ìà àà àEatonððs€€fault€€equaled€€or€€exceeded€€that€€of€the€McLainsðð€as€a€Ìà àà àmatter€€of€€law€because€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€Ìà àà àMs.€€Eaton€€failed€€to€submit€legally€sufficient€evidence€as€to€the€ÌÓÓà àà àduty€element€of€her€claims€of€negligence.ÌÌà àIt€appears€œthat€the›€conclusion€of€the€œSupreme€Court›€in€Eaton€was€based€upon€a€findingÏof€law€that€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€and€that€the€directedÏverdict€was€correct.€€Nevertheless,€the€œother€quoted›€expressions€of€the€Supreme€Court€appearÏto€indicate€that,€at€least€where€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€was€overruled,€the€motion€may,€inÏeffect,€be€renewed€after€verdict€in€the€form€of€a€motion€for€JNOV€and€that€such€motion€shouldÏbe€considered€upon€the€same€criteria€as€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict,€i.e.,€consider€allÏevidence€most€favorable€to€the€verdict€and€discard€all€other,€and€approve€verdict€if€there€is€anyÏcredible€evidence€supporting€œverdict.€€In€the€present€case,€plaintiff€made€no€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict.›ÌÌà àœPlaintiff›€insists€that€all€the€evidence€supports€a€judgment€in€her€favor€because€theÏevidence€of€the€defendant€is€contradictory.€€As€stated,€there€is€a€conflict€between€the€testimonyÏof€plaintiff€and€defendant€as€to€the€presence€of€a€liquid€where€plaintiff€fell.€€Plaintiff€points€outÏthat€a€business€record€of€defendant€states€that€there€was€a€liquid€on€the€floor,€thereby€cancelingÏthe€testimony€of€the€attendant.ÌÌà àContradictory€testimony€of€the€same€witness€may€cancel€the€testimony€of€that€witness.€ÏòòTibbals€Flooring€Co.€v.€Stanfillóó,€219€Tenn.€App.€498,€410€S.W.2d€892€(1967);€òòWheeler€v.ÍWheeleróó,€63€Tenn.€App.€442,€474€S.W.2d€651€(1971);€òòTodd€v.€Roanie„Anderson€Coóó.,€35ÏTenn.€App.€687,€251€S.W.2d€722€(1952).ÌÌà àHowever,€the€same€rule€does€not€apply€where€the€contradictions€are€between€œdifferentÏwitnesses›€or€evidence€introduced€by€the€same€party.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€business€record€was€not€made€by€the€attendant,€but€by€another€employeeÏwho€interviewed€plaintiff.€€Plaintiff€relies€upon€an€exhibit€„€which€is€a€soiled€cloth.€€Even€if€itÏbe€found€that€there€was€liquid€on€the€floor,€this€does€not€show€that€defendant€had€a€duty€to€aÏtrespasser€forbidden€to€be€in€that€part€of€the€premises,€nor€does€it€show€that€plaintiff€wasÏwithout€fault.ÌÌà àAll€of€the€complaints€of€plaintiff€relate€to€factual€matters€as€to€which€the€jury€weighedÏthe€evidence,€found€the€facts€and€rendered€a€general€verdict€without€expressing€any€specificÏfinding€of€fact.€€Such€a€verdict€is€subject€to€review€by€the€trial€judge€sitting€as€a€member€of€theÏjury€œ.€€If€he€disagrees€with€the€jury€on›€the€determinative€facts,€he€should€decline€to€approve€theÏverdict€and€ð ðhang€the€jury,ðð€resulting€in€a€new€trial€before€a€new€jury.€€òòHuskey€v.€Crispóó,€Tenn.Ï1993,€865€S.W.2d€451.€€òòJones€v.€Tenn.€Farmers€Mutual€Ins.€Coóó.,€Tenn.€App.€1994,€896ÏS.W.€553.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€declined€to€set€aside€the€verdict,€hence€he€found€that€the€evidence€didÏnot€preponderate€against€the€œverdict,€and€he€did€not€disagree,€but€agreed€with€the€jury.›ÌÌà àWhen€the€trial€judge€has€approved€a€verdict,€the€scope€of€review€by€this€Court€is€toÏdetermine€whether€there€is€any€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€If€so,€the€verdict€will€not€beÏdisturbed.òò€€Coyle€v.€Prietoóó,€Tenn.€App.€1991,€822€S.W.2d€596.ÌÌà àThere€is€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€and€it€will€not€be€disturbed.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€insists€that€the€Trial€Judge€erred€in€requiring€the€Court€œReporter€to›Ïtranscribe€the€proceedings€at€the€expense€of€œplaintiff€despite€the€failure€of€plaintiff€to€share€theÏð ðper€diemðð.›€€As€noted€above,€the€plaintiff€was€required€to€reimburse€defendant€for€one„half€ofÏthe€expense€of€the€œreporterððs›€œcourt€attendance›€(per€diem).ÌÌà àDefendant€cites€òòBeef€&€Bird€of€America€v.€Continental€Casualty€Coóó.,€Tenn.€App.Ï1990,€803€S.W.2d€234.€€In€that€case€the€appellant€submitted€a€one„page€ð ðstatement€of€theÏevidenceðð€to€which€appellee€objected.€€The€Trial€Court€required€the€appellant€to€have€prepared€aÏverbatim€transcript€at€his€expense.€€Appellant€complained€on€appeal€that€he€was€required€toÏproduce€the€verbatim€transcript.€€This€Court€ruled:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€The€€order€of€€the€Trial€Court,€quoted€above,€finds€that€a€steno„Ìà àà àgraphic€€report€is€available€and€orders€the€preparation€and€filing€of€Ìà àà àa€€transcript€€in€€identical€language€to€that€of€the€objection,€quotedÌà àà àabove.€€€However,€€there€€is€€no€€evidence€€of€€the€resolution€of€theÌà àà àissue€€€raised€€by€€plaintiffððs€€insistence€€that€€the€€statement€€of€€the€Ìà àà àevidence€€filed€€by€him€was€adequate€for€purposes€of€the€sole€issueÌà àà àraised€€upon€appeal.€€Apparently,€plaintiff€did€not€pursue€this€issueÌà àà àbut€€caused€a€complete€stenographic€transcript€to€be€prepared€andÌà àà àfiled.€ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€objection€requested€that€plaintiff€be€required€to€pay€the€perÌà àà àdiem€of€€the€stenographer€and€the€cost€of€typing€the€transcript,€butÌà àà àthe€€order€€of€the€Trial€Court€is€silent€on€this€subject.€€By€inferenceÌà àà àthe€€order€€required€the€plaintiff€to€pay€whatever€was€necessary€for€Ìà àà àprocurement€of€the€required€transcript,€but€there€is€no€evidence€of€Ìà àà àwhat€payment€was€necessary,€what€was€paid,€or€by€whom.Ìà àà àÌà àà à€€€€This€Court€will€undertake€to€resolve€the€second€issue€within€theÌà àà àlimitations€of€the€record€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà à€€€€Section€€ð ðFðð€€of€€Tennessee€€Rules€€of€€Appellate€€Procedure€€is€Ìà àà àentitled€ð ðThe€Record€on€Appealðð€and€consists€of€Rules€24,€25€and€Ìà àà à26.€€Rule€€24€€is€entitled€ð ðContent€and€Preparation€of€the€Recordðð.Ìà àà àSubsection€€24(a)€€is€€entitled,€€ð ðContent€of€the€Recordðð.€€Subsub„Ìà àà àsection€€24(a)(3)€€refers€€to€€ð ðthe€€transcript€€or€€statement€€of€€the€Ìà àà àevidence€and€proceedings.ððÌÌà àà à€€€€If€€no€€record,€stenographic€or€otherwise,€was€made€of€the€pro„Ìà àà àceedings,€a€verbatim€transcript€is€unavailable.ÌÌà àà à€€€€If€€such€a€record€was€made,€then€it€may€or€may€not€be€availableÌà àà àaccording€to€the€circumstances.€If€made€by€a€court€employee€as€in€Ìà àà àcriminal€€cases,€€then€the€record€is€presumed€to€be€available€absent€Ìà àà àunusual€circumstances.ÌÌà àà à€€€€In€civil€cases,€this€Court€notes€judicially€the€practice€of€partiesÌà àà àto€€engage€€and€€pay€€a€€stenographer€€a€ð ðper€diemðð€to€attend€andÌà àà àrecord€€the€evidence€and€proceedings.€€If€only€one€party€engages€Ìà àà àand€€pays€€the€€stenographer,€€it€appears€that€the€verbatim€recordÌà àà àof€€evidence€and€proceedings€would€be€available€to€that€party€by€Ìà àà àcontract.€€€If€€more€€than€€one€€party€€jointly€€engage€€and€pay€the€Ìà àà àstenographer,€it€would€appear€that€the€verbatim€record€would€be€Ìà àà àavailable€€to€€any€€one€€of€€the€€participating€€parties€€by€€contract.€€Ìà àà àInability€€of€€a€€participating€€party€€to€€pay€€for€€the€transcription€Ìà àà àmight€make€it€unavailable€to€him.ÌÌà àà à€€€€A€party€who€does€not€join€in€the€engagement€€and€payment€of€Ìà àà àa€stenographer€has€no€contract€right€€to€require€the€stenographer€Ìà àà àto€€transcribe€€the€€record€€which€€is€therefore€unavailable€to€him€Ìà àà àunless€€and€€until€€made€€available€to€him€on€terms€satisfactory€to€Ìà àà àthe€€stenographer€€and€€the€€party€€or€€parties€€who€€engaged€€the€Ìà àà àstenographer.ÌÌà àà à€€€€This€€Court€€interprets€€Rule€€24€€to€express€€a€€preference€for€Ìà àà àa€€verbatim€€record€€if€€reasonably€€available,€and€an€approval€of€Ìà àà àother€€statements€€of€€evidence€€and€€proceedings€€if€€a€verbatim€Ìà àà àrecord€is€not€available.ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€€settlement€€of€€a€€bill€of€€exceptions€(transcript)€is€a€high€Ìà àà àjudicial€€function€which€can€be€performed€only€by€the€trial€judge.€€Ìà àà àòòAnderson€v.€Sharpóó,€195€€Tenn.€€274,€€259€€S.W.2d€521€€(1953);€Ìà àà àòòRose€v.€Third€National€Bankóó,€27€Tenn.App.€553,€183€S.W.2d€1Ìà àà à(1944),€T.R.A.P.€Ruyle€24(e).ÌÌà àà à€€€The€€parties€€may€€differ€€on€€the€€issue€€of€€whether€€a€verbatim€Ìà àà àrecord€€is€€available€€and€this€difference€€should€be€settled€€by€€the€Ìà àà àTrial€€Court.€€Although€€not€€expressly€€stated€€€in€T.R.A.P.,€€it€€is€€Ìà àà àinherent€€and€€inferred€€from€€other€€express€€provisions€€€that€€the€Ìà àà àrequirement€€for€€filing€€within€€ninety€€days€€is€satisfied€by€timely€Ìà àà àfiling€of€€a€proposed€€transcript€or€€statement€of€the€evidence€and€Ìà àà àproceedings,€€€and€€€that€€€after€€€such€€€timely€€€filing,€€objections,€Ìà àà àrulings€€thereon,€and€amendments€€and€substitutions€under€orders€Ìà àà àof€€the€Trial€Court€may€€properly€occur€after€the€expiration€of€the€Ìà àà àprescribed€€ninety€day€period.ÌÌà àà à€€€Accordingly,€if€an€appellant€conceives€that€a€verbatim€transcriptÌà àà àis€€unavailable€€to€him,€he€may€initially€perform€his€duty€by€filing€a€Ìà àà ànarrative€statement€of€the€evidence€and€proceedings€within€ninety€Ìà àà àdays€€after€€notice€of€appeal.€€If€the€appellee€files€timely€objection€Ìà àà àand€€shows€€that€€a€€verbatim€€record€€is€available€to€appellant,€the€Ìà àà àTrial€€Court€€may€€require€€the€€production€€and€€substitution€€of€a€Ìà àà àverbatim€record€instead€of€the€informal€narrative.€€This€order€and€Ìà àà àsubstitution€€may€properly€occur€after€the€expiration€of€the€ninety€Ìà àà àdays€€prescribed€for€€filing€€because€€it€€is€a€part€of€the€process€of€Ìà àà àresolving€objections€and€settling€the€content€of€the€record.ÌÌà àà à€€€€In€€€ruling€€€upon€€€availability€€€the€€Trial€Judge€€may€€properlyÌà àà àconsider€the€financial€ability€of€appellant€to€pay€for€the€transcrip„Ìà àà àtion€of€a€verbatim€record,€the€willingness€of€the€stenographer€and€Ìà àà àthose€€who€€paid€him€to€make€the€transcription€available,€and€any€Ìà àà àother€relevant€circumstances.ÌÌÓÓà àNothing€is€found€in€the€cited€authority€contrary€to€the€actions€of€the€Trial€Court€in€theÏpresent€case.ÌÌÌà àA€Trial€Court€has€broad€discretion€in€performing€its€high€judicial€function€of€providingÏa€record€for€the€appellate€courts.€€If€a€court€reporter€refuses€to€prepare€a€record,€the€court€hasÏthe€power€of€subpoena€to€require€the€reporter€to€appear€as€a€witness€to€furnish€information€forÏthe€œsettling›€of€the€record.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€reporter€refused€in€the€present€caseÌœà àÌà àDefendant€cites€an€unpublished€opinion€of€a€Workerððs€Compensation€Panel€of€theÏSupreme€Court€which€has€been€examined€and€found€not€to€be€controlling€on€the€facts€of€thisÏcase.Ì›Ìà àDefendant€also€requests€an€award€of€damages€for€frivolous€appeal.€€This€CourtÏrespectfully€denies€the€request.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÏplaintiff.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€collection€of€its€costs€and€for€any€otherÏappropriate€proceedings.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€€REMANDEDÔ€XÔó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ___________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌœCONCURS€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION›ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ