ÿWPC'  …# VUHa %© 0³¯w@b 4¢ ¶ zÅ 0÷? 0D6 z z 0J€ 0TÊ 0^ 0h| 0rä 0|V 0†Ò 0X 1uè 0d]U6ÁB)÷DC  AMcU*°‹Ú D3ep˜f 0@n B®fËv~1vÓ¯ AO‚ÆÑ 0D— D/Û B ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÒ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularX(‹Ó$¡¡Ô€Xì^XXXÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑ c/d/efDghDijDklÓ€Úƒç"3|xw03A01T.C.A. GTLA S.W.S.W.2d AppHerschel(§(3nx$¤¤Ý ƒÓ!ÝÔ€X˜XXXÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJanuary€6,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó....'ÿÿdxd fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSanders€is€not€a€party€to€this€action.€€The€plaintiffs€have€settledÏtheir€claim€against€him.óóÌ \Ñ\R3Ø'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€˜XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€')&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌKOHN€ASHMORE,€b/n/f€ANGELA€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUITÌASHMORE€and€RODNEY€ASHMORE€his€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€03A01„9706„CV„00201Ìnatural€parents€and€natural€€€€€)Ìguardian€and€ANGELA€ASHMORE€€€€€)Ìand€RODNEY€ASHMORE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìindividually,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€ROBERT€M.€SUMMITTÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌHAMILTON€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE,€a€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌpolitical€subdivision€of€the€€€€)ÌState€of€Tennessee,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌJOHN€R.€œMELDORF›,€III,€œHixon›,€for€Appellants.ÌÌÌDAVID€W.€NORTON,€Chattanooga,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÇÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌà€ àÌà€ àMcMurray,€œJ.Ì›Ìà àThe€plaintiffs€instituted€this€action€against€Hamilton€CountyÏ(defendant)€charging€that€the€defendant€was€negligent€inÏmaintaining€Levi€Road€in€that€the€county€allowed€shrubbery€to€growÏalong€the€right„of„way€of€Levi€Road€which€impaired€the€vision€ofÏpersons€entering€upon€the€roadway€from€adjacent€properties.€NoÏroadway€intersection€was€involved€in€the€accident.€The€minorÏplaintiff,€œKohn›€Ashmore,€entered€upon€Levi€Road€from€the€lawn€ofÏproperty€owned€by€a€Mr.€Sands.€€After€a€bench€€trial€the€trialÏcourt€entered€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€It€is€from€thisÏjudgment€that€the€plaintiffs'€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€filed€an€answer€to€the€complaint€relying€uponÏthe€provisions€of€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€T.C.A.€ððððÏ29„20„101,€et€seq.,€(GTLA).€€In€this€respect,€the€defendantÏasserts€that€the€claim€against€it€falls€within€the€"discretionaryÏfunction"€exception€to€the€removal€of€governmental€immunity€by€theÏGTLA.€€Additionally€the€defendant€asserted€negligence€on€the€partÍof€the€minor€plaintiff€and€that€he€had€assumed€the€risk€and€thatÏthe€proximate€cause€of€the€accident€was€the€negligence€of€Mr.ÏSanders.€Defendant€further€avers€that€the€parents€of€the€minorÏplaintiff€were€guilty€of€negligence€in€failing€to€properlyÏsupervise€the€actions€of€the€minor€child.€€In€an€amendment€to€theÏanswer,€the€defendant€asserted€the€defense€of€"accord€andÏsatisfaction"€to€the€extent€that€any€releases€and€settlements€haveÏbeen€made€by€the€plaintiffs€as€to€any€other€parties.ÌÌà àThe€minor€plaintiff,€Kohn€Ashmore,€was€eight€years€of€age€atÏthe€time€of€the€accident€and€was€seriously€injured€in€a€collisionÏbetween€a€bicycle€being€ridden€by€him€and€an€automobile€beingÏdriven€by€Charles€Sanders,€Jr.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€minor€plaintiff€wasÏtemporarily€rendered€a€virtual€quadriplegic,€however,€at€the€timeÏof€the€trial€he€was€able€to€walk€and€to€use€his€upper€extremities.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Kohn€Ashmore,€was€riding€his€bicycle€on€aÏmission€to€find€his€lost€dog,€œOreo›.€€He€saw€the€dog€on€the€westÏside€of€Levi€Road.€€At€the€time€he€saw€his€dog,€the€minorÏplaintiff€was€on€his€bicycle€and€upon€the€property€of€Mr.€RobertÍSands,€which€is€located€on€the€œeast›€side€of€Levi€Road.€€At€theÏsame€time,€Mr.€Sanders€was€traveling€œsouth›€on€Levi€Road.€€TheÏhedge€about€which€the€plaintiffs€complain€was€located€on€the€eastÏside€of€Levi€Road€€and€on€the€same€side€of€the€road€where€theÏminor€plaintiff€entered€the€roadway.€€The€hedge€was€in€front€of€aÏpart€of€the€property€owned€by€Mr.€Sands€which€he€had€inheritedÏfrom€his€mother,€but€ended€at€a€point€near€the€beginning€of€Mr.ÏœSands'›€front€lawn.€€Mr.€Sands'€front€yard€was€separated€from€theÏland€he€had€acquired€from€his€mother€by€a€fence€line.€€It€was€nearÏthe€end€of€the€hedge€row€and€near€the€intersection€of€the€hedgeÏrow€and€fence€line€that€the€minor€plaintiff€rode€his€bicycle€ontoÏLevi€Road.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€minorÏplaintiff€stopped€before€entering€upon€Levi€Road.€€There€was€noÏdriveway€located€near€where€the€minor€plaintiff€entered€the€road.ÏMr.€Sands'€driveway€was€located€some€distance€north€of€the€spotÏwhere€the€minor€plaintiff€entered€the€roadway.ÌÌà àThe€case€was€tried€without€a€jury.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏevidence€and€after€arguments€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€"plaintiffs€did€not€carry€their€burden€of€proof€and€thatÏthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs€...Ï."€€Judgment€was€entered€accordingly.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€present€the€following€œissues›€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà à1.à àWhether€the€honorable€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€find€that€the€defendant€county€had€a€duty€ofÏcare€to€maintain€its€right„of„way€to€ensure€anÏunobstructed€view€of€the€road€where€the€defendantÏhad€both€actual€knowledge€and€constructive€noticeÏof€the€obstruction.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à2.à àWhether€the€honorable€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€apply€comparative€negligence€to€a€negligenceÏclaim€arising€and€tried€after€the€effective€date€ofÏthe€McIntyre€decision.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à3.à àWhether€the€honorable€trial€court€erred€in€holdingÏthat€negligence€òòper€œse›óó€barred€recovery€underÏcomparative€fault.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à4.à àWhether€the€honorable€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€compare€the€actions€of€the€plaintiff€minor€childÏto€the€reasonable€and€prudent€actions€of€a€child€ofÏcomparable€age€and€experience.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellee€also€raises€two€issues.€The€disposition€of€theÏplaintiffs'€issues€will€also€dispose€of€the€appellee's€issues.€ÏTherefore,€there€is€no€reason€to€treat€them€separately.à àÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€Unless€the€evidence€otherwise€preponderates€against€theÍfindings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€an€error€of€law.€€See€Rule€13(d),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€If€the€plaintiff€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment,€appellate€courts€have€a€duty€to€renderÏjudgments€which€the€lower€court€should€have€rendered.€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.,ÏòòœToomey›€v.€œAtyoe›óó,€et€al,€32€S.W.€254€(Tenn.€1895),€and€òòPerry€v.ÏCarteróó,€219€S.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€1949).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Rule€36(a),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Thus€it€is€incumbent€uponÏus€to€make€a€complete€review€of€the€record€and€made€aÏdetermination€of€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€will€first€note€that€all€of€the€issues€raised€are€couchedÏas€questions€of€law€rather€than€fact.€€Out€duty€in€deciding€theÏissues€is€to€determine€whether€the€court€misapplied€the€law€to€theÏfacts€as€he€found€them€to€be,€provided€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact.€€In€theÏtrial€court's€judgment,€we€are€faced€with€two€œfindings,›€either€ofÏwhich€is€sufficient€to€œentitle›€the€defendant€to€a€judgment€ifÏproperly€supported€by€the€evidence.€€They€are:€(1)€that€the€matterÏof€the€hedges€creating€a€defective€roadway€which€could€result€inÏinjury€to€persons€using€the€road€was€not€foreseeable;€and€(2)€thatÍthe€existence€of€the€hedge€was€not€a€proximate€or€legal€cause€ofÏthe€injuries€to€the€minor€plaintiff.ÌÌà àThe€only€eye€witnesses€to€the€accident€were€Mr.€Sanders,€theÏdriver€of€the€œvehicle,›€and€the€minor€plaintiff,€œKohn›€Ashmore.€€Mr.ÏSanders,€the€driver€of€the€car,€did€not€testify.€€Other€witnessÏtestified€that€they€heard€the€collision€œbut€did›€not€actually€œsee›Ïthe€event.€€œKohn›€did€testify,€however,€he€was€not€asked€and€he€didÏnot€state€whether€he€stopped€before€entering€upon€the€roadway.€€HeÏidentified€the€path€he€followed€from€Mr.€Sands€property€onto€theÏroadway€as€stated€above,€òòi.eóó.,€near€the€end€of€the€hedge€row€andÏnear€the€intersection€of€the€hedge€row€and€fence€line.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court's€decision€announced€from€the€bench€was€notÏincorporated€into€the€final€judgment.€€In€the€decision€announcedÏfrom€the€bench€the€court€made€œexpress›€œfindings›€"that€this€is€notÏan€unsafe€roadway,€that€the€matter€of€hedges€being€there€was€notÏforeseeable€or€a€proximate€or€legal€cause€of€this€injury."€€UnlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€œthese›€œfindings,›€the€resultÏreached€by€the€trial€court€is€œcorrect€and€we€must€affirm.›ÌÌà àAn€examination€of€stipulated€exhibit€number€2,€while€notÏdrawn€to€scale€shows€that€the€hedge€was€located€a€short€distanceÏfrom€the€roadway.€€The€record€is€completely€devoid€of€any€evidenceÏthat€the€minor€plaintiff€stopped€his€bicycle€before€entering€uponÏthe€roadway€from€Mr.€œSands'›€lawn.€€He€simply€stated€when€asked€ifÏhe€could€see€through€the€fence€row€and€hedge€row,€"I€couldn't€seeÏtoo€much,€but€I€could€see€ahead€of€me."€€As€noted€earlier,€Mr.ÏSanders,€the€driver€of€the€car€which€struck€the€minor€plaintiff,Ïwas€not€called€as€a€witness.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Ronald€B.€Cox,€œDean›€of€the€College€of€Engineering€at€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee€at€œChattanooga,›€was€called€and€testifiedÏas€an€expert€witness€for€the€plaintiffs.€€He€was€questioned€by€theÏattorney€for€the€plaintiff€œas›€to€what€he€had€reviewed€to€prepareÏfor€his€testimony.€€His€response€was€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThere€were€a€number€of€things€that€were€done,Ïdocuments€that€were€reviewed,€including€the€officer'sÏaccident€report.€€I€also€had€the€benefit€of€observingÏsome€photographs€that€were€taken€of€the€accident,Ïaccident€scene.€€I€had€the€opportunity€to€reviewÏstatements€of€the€witnesses.€€I€also€had€the€opportunityÏto€visit€the€accident€site,€made€personal€measurementsÏand€also€made€my€own€photographs€there€at€that€time.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà8 àà àI€think€that's€essentially€what€I€have€reviewed.ÌÌÓÓœà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌ›à àDuring€cross€examination,€Dr.€Cox€testified€that€he€did€notÏtalk€to€Mr.€Sanders;€did€not€see€the€car€other€than€photographs€ofÏit;€he€made€no€effort€to€try€to€talk€to€Mr.€Sanders;€he€didn'tÏtalk€to€the€minor€plaintiff,€Kohn€œAshmore,›€nor€to€œMr.€Rodney›ÏAshmore.€€He€estimated€both€on€direct€examination€and€crossÏexamination€that€œ›œKohn›€was€traveling€about€five€miles€per€hour€onÏhis€bicycle.€€Dr.€Cox€also€testified€that€if€the€young€man€œ(Kohn)›Ïhad€been€walking€or€had€just€stopped,€then€the€impact€would€notÏhave€occurred.ÌÌà àIn€a€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€must€make€our€own€independentÏjudgment€as€to€whether€the€plaintiffs€carried€their€burden€ofÏproving€that€the€hedge€in€question€was€a€proximate€cause€of€theÏaccident€and€resultant€injuries.€€Recovery€in€a€negligence€actionÏmay€be€had€by€plaintiff€only€if€the€defendant's€conduct€can€beÏshown€to€be€(1)€negligence,€and€(2)€a€proximate€cause€of€theÏinjury.€€òòSee€Lancaster€v.€œMontesi›óó,€216€Tenn.€50,€390€S.W.2d€217Ïœ(1965).ÌÌà à"The€term€'proximate€cause'€is€not€defined€within€theÏGovernmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ29„20„101,€et€seq.€(1995€Supp.),€and€therefore€the€Court€must€relyÏupon€the€definitions€of€the€term€otherwise€provided€in€the€law.ÏProximate€cause€has€been€defined€to€be€'a€cause€which€in€naturalÏand€continued€sequence€produces€the€injury€and€without€which€theÏinjury€would€not€have€occurred.€òòAlessio€v.€Crookóó,€633€S.W.2d€770,Ï776€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)€perm.€app.€denied."€€òòCrumley€v.€City€ofÏSmyrnaóó,€1997€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€45€(Tenn.€App.€1997).ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOne's›€first€inquiry,€in€analyzing€a€situation€suchÏas€is€before€us,€is€whether€the€alleged€acts€ofÏdefendant€were€a€cause€in€fact€of€the€injury.€€If€thatÏinquiry€shows€that€defendant's€conduct,€in€point€of€factÏwas€not€a€factor€in€causing€plaintiff's€damage,€thatÏends€the€œmatter.€...Ì›ÌòòœTennessee›€œTrailways›,€Inc.,€v.€œErvin›óó,€438€S.W.2d€733€(Tenn.€œ1969),Ïciting€òòLancaster€v.€Montesióó,€supra.›ÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€œBd›.€of€Educationóó,€692€S.W.2dÏ863,€(Tenn.€App.€œ1985),€this€court€made€the€followingÏobservations:›ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àThe€final€element€of€proof€in€a€negligence€actionÏis€the€issue€of€causation.€This€is€the€ultimateÏquestion.€òòLancaster€v.€œMontesi›óó,€216€Tenn.€50,€56,€390ÏS.W.2d€217,€220€(1965).€A€defendant€in€a€negligenceÏaction€cannot€be€found€liable€unless€it€has€beenÍdetermined€that€his€conduct€was€the€proximate€cause€ofÏthe€plaintiff's€injuries.€While€the€proximate€causeÏconcept€has€been€described€in€many€ways,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€described€proximate€causation€as:ÌÌà8 àà0 à[œt]hat›€act€or€omission€which€immediately€causes€orÏfails€to€prevent€the€injury;€an€act€or€omissionÏoccurring€or€concurring€with€another€which,€if€itÏhad€not€happened,€the€injury€would€not€have€beenÏinflicted.€(Citing€òòTennessee€œTrailways›,€Inc.€v.ÏœErvin›óó,€222€Tenn.€523,€528,€438€S.W.2d€733,€735Ïœ(1969)).›Ì€ÌòòRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€œBd›.€of€Educationóó,€at€page€871.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€œreaching›€our€independent€judgment,€€we€recognize€thatÏthere€may€be€more€than€one€proximate€cause€of€an€accident.€€òòSeeóóÏÔ% € ÔòòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€œElec›.€œCoopóó.,›€868€S.W.2d€630€(Tenn.€App.Ïœ1993)€and€€òòTennessee€Trailways,€Incóó.,€supra.›€Looking€to€theÏtotality€of€the€evidence€and€the€failure€of€the€record€to€discloseÏwhether€the€minor€plaintiff,€œ›œKohn›€Ashmore,€stopped€before€enteringÏupon€the€roadway,€and€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Cox€that€the€accidentÏwould€not€had€have€happened€if€he€had€stopped,€we€concur€with€theÏfinding€of€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiffs€failed€to€meetÏtheir€burden€of€proving€that€even€if€the€failure€of€the€defendantÏto€properly€maintain€the€hedge€on€the€right„of„way€of€Levi€RoadÏwas€negligence,€that€the€defendant's€negligence€was€not€aÏproximate€cause€of€the€accident€and€resultant€injuries.€€We€areÍpersuaded€that€the€proximate€causes€of€the€accident€were€theÏnegligence€òòper€œse›óó€of€Mr.€Sanders€in€exceeding€the€posted€speedÏlimit€and€the€failure€of€the€minor€plaintiff,€Kohn€œAshmore,›€toÏstop€before€entering€the€œroadway.€€Our€finding€that€the€hedge€wasÏnot€a€proximate€or€legal€cause€of€the€accident€and€resultantÏinjuries€renders€all€other€issues€moot.€›ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÏCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€plaintiffs€and€this€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€œJudge›ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÑ€,ÑÑ€/ÑÇÑ  ÑÑ7€ÜNXXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌKOHN€ASHMORE,€b/n/f€ANGELA€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUITÌASHMORE€and€RODNEY€ASHMORE€his€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€03A01„9706„CV„00201Ìnatural€parents€and€natural€€€€€)Ìguardian€and€ANGELA€ASHMORE€€€€€)Ìand€RODNEY€ASHMORE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìindividually,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€ROBERT€M.€œSUMMITT›Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌHAMILTON€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE,€a€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌpolitical€subdivision€of€the€€€€)ÌState€of€Tennessee,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€)ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Hamilton€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€assessed€to€the€plaintiffs€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ