ÿWPC` dF•‡ËøOˆLªŒ5¼æävVøŸ½»y{–ÄN…‡Ë&…îȸÛ¿‰UDÓ—ûˆéI¨\¤u¥›PçU‘x‰?Â( Cñ¤TZ9»Ûñƒ)0õ°“á( æHVÔ1†¢x:x!çÁK>à"§'‘Ý”³OÒ…SH©)[í0dC½Ç´py‡i¬µÐHñþÙgþ]•ÓÖL¥ë|oÓ^ý’¤Ér“„qI|pO¿Æ¯Ø"ùy?¥z"kž9qýµ;%”G@{oƒ°âkžÔãʇùªC¯Ê1ϦÔ±s¢²Ð‚ ¬¸#sÙëðv†ò™b¢amó’SókL}¤Ñvß­ø[K„®/Œ“3eÒ¸'ó ÈËùè†Ç[ê ôˆõXm“*¤+!`óÔ,ëóŒj5éfqƤÏx…IÂW †v†ß.ìYxl‚[àÈ7GÏNJbpõ@ýº5 nZZäê>äEjÞÔ¸õÅÑéEÛÿ,F´•@¾€Ü~* #5^¼D4â¦som³u×ù§ƒéêžéO¹ÌéßHЩnÜqg󩿥S"±´4•X¬Ñ M–çÊJ&lyËöe퀣 ·Ìqbà "öÁ(ÛÛo«„…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0û¥ UN  w@î 4. B ÊQ B 0?8 0Dw;» öU:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< D3DDD 0Dwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww AO»Æ   0DÐ D/ BC˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ó3c$¡¡Ñ7€|ìXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼Tþ¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular „…†D‡ˆD‰ŠD‹ŒÓ€6S/%ÔôôÔ3|x˜ ÀÝ ƒ T¡$ÝÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼”ļXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôm~ô¼¼”ÄÔProperty€damages€were€not€involved. d(ï(3T¡$¤¤Ý ƒ3c!ÝÑ7€¼¤XXdðdð7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼”ļXXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 1Ý ƒ T¡$ÝÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼”ļXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ôm~ô¼¼”ÄÔW„2€Forms€for€1991€through€1994€were€filed€in€evidence,€which€tended€to€prove€that€in€1994€theÐ ° Ðplaintiff€earned€more€than€in€1993.€€She€testified,€when€asked€about€her€average€weekly€earnings,€that€sheÏearned€ð ðsometimes€five€hundred€dollars€a€week,ðð€based€on€production.€€No€precise€evidence€as€to€lost€wagesÏwas€presented,€and€the€jury€may€have€found€her€testimony€misleading. Ô€XÈ XXXÔÔ€—J  XXÈÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÈ X —JÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€2,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôåô XXÈÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular 'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ3c!ÝÑ7€¼¤XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼”ļXXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýññ›ññÑ  ÑÔ€¼mg¼¼¼”ÄÔÑ7€¼¤»XdðXXdð7Ñò òÓ  Óññßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E0±` ttx$h°ð Õrß›ññIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ^ÓÌÌÌó óLINDA€ADKINS,à  àà h àà À à)à  àCLAIBORNE€CIRCUITÐ  T Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà h àà À à)à  àNO.€03A01„9804„CV„00141Ð $ t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€CONRAD€TROUTMANÐ D”  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àJUDGEÐ T¤  ÐRICK€KECK€andà  àà h àà À à)Ð d´  ÐTORBETT€AUTO€SUPPLY,à À à)Ð tÄ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àDefendants/Appelleesà À à)à  àAFFIRMEDÐ ”ä ÐÌÌR.€Jackson€Rose,€Harrogate,€for€the€Appellant.ÌÌJames€D.€œEstep›,€III,€œTazewell›,€for€the€Appellee,€Rick€œKeck›.ÌÌDavid€L.€Hill,€Knoxville,€for€the€Appellee,€œTorbett›€Auto€Supply,€Inc.ÌÌÌÌò òòòà@¿¿(ÌàÔ‡ •— ¼¼mgÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†¼mg¼  •—T#ԈРD ” ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÐ Œ"Ü ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€plaintiff€suffered€an€alleged€whiplash€injury€on€œñŒñMarch€17ñŒññŒñ›December€2ñŒñ,›€1994€when€herÏvehicle€was€struck€from€behind€by€the€vehicle€operated€by€the€defendant€Keck,€whoÏwas€on€the€business€of€his€co„defendant.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€theÏplaintiff׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€$9,340.00€and€apportioned€15€percent€of€the€fault€to€her,€apparentlyÐ  +\&$ Ðaccepting€the€defendant€Keckððs€testimony€that€the€brake€lights€on€the€plaintiffððs€carÏwere€inoperable.Ìà ` àHer€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied,€and€the€plaintiff€appeals.€€She€presentsÏfor€review€these€issues,€which€are€reproduced€verbatim:ÌÓÓ1.à8 ` àThe€verdict€of€the€jury€is€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence€as€it€is€notÐ ¬5ü0. Ðsupported€by€the€evidence.Ð ` 8"` 8" Ðâ âÐ Ì730Ô Ð2.à8 ` àThe€entire€amount€of€medical€bills,€which€were€filed€with€theÐ ° Ðâ âComplaint€and€furnished€to€the€defendant€more€than€90€days€before€theÏtrial,€should€have€been€presented€to€the€jury€for€their€consideration.Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌ3.à8 ` àThe€jury€should€not€have€been€charged€ð ða€sudden€stop€without€warningÐ ð@ Ðwill€constitute€negligence€if€there€is€[sic]€no€emergency€is€shown€toÏhave€justified€it€and€is€made€in€disregard€of€the€presence€of€vehiclesÏfollowing€so€closely€behind€that€the€operator€of€this€vehicle€may€beÏunable€to€stop€to€avoid€a€œcollision.ðð›Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌ4.à8 ` àThe€jury€should€not€have€been€charged€ð ðthe€operator€of€a€car€behindÐ P   Ðit€is€not€on€the€other€hand€under€a€duty€to€be€prepared€for€movementsÏor€changes€which€could€not€be€reasonably€œanticipated.ðð›Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌ5.à8 ` àThe€jury€should€not€have€been€charged€ð ðthat€$2,500.00€was€theÐ à Ðmaximum€on€medical€bills.ððÐ ` 8"` 8" ÐÌ6.à8 ` àThe€jury€[verdict]€[sic]€is€flawed€in€that€it€did€not€provide€forÐ À Ðpermanent€impairment€even€though€that€proof€was€œunrebutted›.Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌ7.à8 ` àThe€jury€verdict€as€to€lost€wages€is€inadequate€based€on€theÐ ð@ Ðuncontradicted€proof€presented€in€the€case.Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌ8.à8 ` àThe€trial€Court€should€have€suggested€an€additur.€€Ð p` 8"` 8" ÐÌÓÓà ` àIn€reviewing€a€judgment€based€on€a€jury€verdict€we€are€not€at€liberty€to€weighÏthe€evidence€but€are€limited€to€a€determination€of€whether€there€is€material€evidenceÏto€support€the€verdict,€which€requires€that€we€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏall€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict,€œassume›€the€truth€of€all€that€tends€to€supportÏit,€œallow€all›€reasonable€inferences€to€sustain€it,€and€discard€all€to€the€contrary.€ÏòòœPullins›€v.€œFentress›€County€Gen.€Hospital,€óó594€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€œ1980).›Ð à)0%# Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€is€a€petite€lady,€39€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€She€wasÏreferred€by€her€family€physician€to€Dr.€J.€Samuel€Marcy,€an€orthopedic€specialist,Ïfor€treatment€of€a€cervical€sprain.€€She€was€employed€by€a€furniture€manufacturer,Ïand€was€off€from€work€for€four€months,׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€undergoing€therapy€to€correct€cervicalÐ `2°-+ Ðstiffness€and€pain.Ð €4Ð/- Ðà ` àDr.€Marcy€testified€that€the€plaintiff€had€no€significant€cervical€spine€muscleÏspasm€but€did€have€significant€tenderness€on€palpation,€with€a€15€„€20€percentÏlimitation€of€motion.€€He€delayed€the€plaintiff€from€returning€to€work€sooner€thanÏshe€did€owing€to€her€petite€œsize,›€because€her€job€required€that€she€pull€70€pounds€onÏoccasion.€€Examination€revealed€no€neurologic€deficit.€€He€rated€her€permanentÏimpairment€at€five€percent€and€described€her€injury€as€minor.Ìà ` àDr.€œMarcyððs›€charges€for€treatment€of€the€plaintiff€were€$330.00.€€His€fee€forÏtestifying€by€deposition€was€$650.00.Ìà ` àThe€verdict€was€separated€by€the€jury,€which€allowed€$2,500.00€for€medicalÏexpenses,€$3,840.00€for€lost€wages,€and€$3,000.00€for€pain€and€suffering.€€The€trialÏjudge€declined€a€request€for€additur.Ìò òòòà@]]&ÌàLOST€WAGES€ISSUEˆÐ ` Ðó óóóà ` àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€she€earned€$500.00€per€week€and€that€she€lost€17Ð ,| Ðweeksðð€work.€€Hence,€she€says,€the€award€of€$3,480.00€is€inadequate.€€She€testifiedÏthat€ð ðsometimesðð€she€earned€$500.00€per€week,€and€the€documentation€revealed€thatÏduring€the€year€of€the€accident€she€earned€more€than€during€the€prior€year.€€TheÏissue€of€credibility€was€probably€more€pronounced€than€in€the€ordinary€case,€and€weÏcannot€say€that€the€juryððs€award€is€not€supported€by€material€evidence.Ìò òòòà@»»#ÌàMEDICAL€EXPENSES€ISSUEˆÐ ì*<&$ Ðó óóóà ` àThe€plaintiff€alleged€that€she€incurred€medical€expenses€with€no€itemization.€Ð -X(& ÐShe€filed€illegible€copies€of€certain€expenses€as€a€collective€exhibit€to€her€complaint,Ïbut€offered€no€further€proof€œtherein,›€or€of€the€necessity€or€reasonableness€œof›€suchÏœexpenses,›€other€than€the€testimony€of€Dr.€œMarcy›€concerning€his€charges€of€$330.00.Ìà ` àT.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113(a)(1)€provides€that€the€itemization€or€exhibition€of€theÏmedical€expenses€shall€be€prima€facie€evidence€that€they€were€necessary€andÏreasonable,€but€this€presumption€does€not€apply€to€expenses€in€excess€of€$2,500.00.€Ð È952 Ðà ` àThe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€œthe€maximum›€allowable€expenses€wereÏ$2,500.00,€apparently€finding€that€section€(b)(1)€was€inapplicable.€€This€sectionÏprovides€that€in€addition€to€the€procedures€described€in€section€(a)(1),€if€anÏitemization€of€or€copies€of€the€expenses€are€served€90€days€prior€to€trial,€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€that€such€expenses€are€reasonable€is€created.€€No€itemization€or€copiesÏwere€served,€and€the€plaintiff€made€no€request€for€instructions€regarding€aÏpresumption€applicable€to€any€amount€in€excess€of€$2,500.00.€€In€point€of€fact,€theÏjury€òòheard€no€evidence€concerning€medical€expensesóó€other€than€the€testimony€of€Dr.Ð à ÐMarcy;€the€plaintiff€testified€that€she€ð ðincurred€a€lot€of€medical€expenses€and€bills,ððÏand€was€not€further€questioned€about€this€element€of€her€damages.€€In€a€very€realÏsense,€the€trial€judge€came€to€her€rescue€when€he€instructed€the€jury€that€the€awardÏof€medical€expenses€was€limited€to€$2,500.00.Ìœò òòòà@GG&ÌàTHE›€INSTRUCTIONSˆÐ 0€ Ðó óóóà ` àThe€plaintiff€complains€that€the€jury€should€not€have€been€instructed€that€ð ðaÐ L œ Ðsudden€stop€without€warning€will€constitute€negligence€if€there€is€œñ‚ñ[sic]€ñ‚ñno›Ïemergency€is€œshown›€to€have€justified€it€and€is€made€in€disregard€of€the€presence€ofÏvehicles€following€so€closely€behind€that€the€operator€of€this€vehicle€may€be€unableÏto€stop€to€avoid€a€collision,ðð€and€that€ð ðthe€operator€of€a€car€behind€it€is€not€on€theÏother€hand€under€a€duty€to€be€prepared€for€movements€or€changes€which€could€notÏbe€reasonably€anticipated.ððÌà ` àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€no€evidence€was€presented€that€she€created€anÏemergency,€and€thus€œñƒñthere€was€ñƒñno›€evidentiary€basis€for€these€instructions.€€WeÏcannot€agree.€€The€defendant€testified€that€the€plaintiff€stopped€suddenly,€withoutÏwarning,€that€the€brake€lights€on€her€automobile€were€inoperable,€and€that€he€wasÏunable€to€stop€in€time.€€At€any€rate,€it€was€within€the€peculiar€province€of€the€juryÏto€determine€the€truth€of€the€matter€from€a€preponderance€of€all€the€evidence,€andÐ Ì952 Ðthe€fact€that€the€jury€allocated€15€percent€of€the€fault€to€the€plaintiff€bespeaks€theirÏconsideration€of€the€issue.Ìò òòòà@w w ÌàTHE€ISSUE€OF€PERMANENT€IMPAIRMENTˆÐ ð@ Ðó óóóà ` àThe€jury€allowed€no€recovery€for€permanent€impairment,€and€the€appellantÐ  \ Ðargues€that€this€omission€militates€against€the€œverdictñ„ñ,ñ„ñ›€since€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏMarcy€that€she€retained€a€five€percent€impairment€was€unrefuted.€€Ìà ` àDr.€Marcy€testified€that€the€injury€was€a€minor€œoneñ…ñ;ñ…ññ†ñ,ñ†ñ›€that€it€runs€œñ‡ñitsñ‡ññˆñañˆñ›€course€withÏtreatment€and€exercise€and€return€to€work.€€The€jury€had€the€benefit€of€observing€theÏplaintiff€and€evaluating€her€testimony€against€the€depositional€testimony€of€Dr.ÏœMarcñ‰ñyñ‰ññŠñhñŠññ‹ñ,ñ‹ñ›€whose€òòde€minimisóó€evaluation€of€impairment€should€be€considered€inÐ Ì Ðconjunction€with€all€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee,€œClinchfield›€R.R.€Co.€v.€Forbes,€óó417Ð ì< ÐS.W.2d€210€(Tenn.€œ1966).›€€€€œÌò òòòà@00&ÌàTHE€ADDITUR€ISSUEˆÐ ,| Ðó óóóà ` àThis€Court€does€not€have€the€authority€to€grant€an€additur.€€T.C.A.€ðð€20„10„Ð H ˜ Ð101.€€We€review€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€suggesting€an€additur€pursuant€toÏTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(d);€T.C.A.€ðð€20„10„101(b)(2).€€TheÏstandard€of€review€for€this€court€is€whether€the€amount€awarded€by€the€jury€fallsÏbelow€the€range€of€reasonableness.€€òòSmith€v.€Shelton,€óó569€S.W.2d€421€(Tenn.€1978).Ð È($" Ðà ` àWe€find€that,€in€this€case,€the€juryððs€verdict€was€within€the€ð ðrange€ofÏreasonableness,ðð€and€therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdeclining€to€suggest€additur.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects,€with€costs€assessedÏto€the€appellant.›ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌ̜РÈ952 ÐCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€Judge