WPC) ™!&:Imcr^FHڳG ?+iNjBmc(_|~]^KD}NQxa~ P 3ŏhbd?ElPLtBt]LPH5yÃ99&C~%y+ԫ(VR:Uз~7z5bq;VEaZ Bu0U5u:p5Ir;ypWbN1t[0Rf*u>&F[wM B pg3z"6-*gt8@uP؈~m,adաi7ci!h, O~e'^T>#މž̥'़7BzeR2Mr%t7Ua6?Yw}\a-7Kl,WkRJ~ȹ5(oMD&uV5/g.u|3 |pF>gze+dyb %\^ b 0nU NwD4H\ zk m #  _ % 0DN 0U 0LE) 0+ 0 0 0V 0 0 0K 0 0 0p 0 0 0e 0 0 0$ 0 0g 0/ 0 0} 0 0bE 0M 0 ]!o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o"o" 0$$$$ Bu%u% 0% D36& D-i& 0K&& AS&4' 0' 0D( A(gy/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h - -(&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L    Rk$      2    _Mr._Belcher_ԀdiedonApril20,1998,andMrs._Belcher_ԀdiedonMay26,1998.  Rk$      1    _Thiscasewasheardin_Morristown_Ԁbeforestudentsfrom_Morristown_ԀEastHighSchooland_Morristown_ԀWest  HighSchoolasapartoftheCourts_C.A.S.E._Ԁ( C ourtofAppeals A ffecting S tudent E ducation)Project.(|G2k$ !.8[%dd8         0   d(|3u$ !.8[%dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3u$ !.8[%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8[%dd8     _  [%8XXdd8  @ L[%INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @#AT_MORRISTOWN__2 #  1      _#[%L #Ԉ &   October14,2003Session L XX[% #[%XX͉#EDDIEW._BELCHER_,etal.v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXX[%  J @@ AppealfromtheTennesseeClaimsCommission,EasternDivision  J @@No.101040RobertA._Fellman_,AdministrativeLawJudge  6 FILEDNOVEMBER25,_2003_Ԁ    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200300642_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThisclaimagainsttheStateofTennesseearisesoutofatwovehicleaccident.EddieW._Belcher_Ԁ x  wasdrivingtochurchwithhiswife,SaraO._Belcher_,whentheirvehiclestrucktherearofavehicle d drivenbyEricWilson.The_Belchers_,whosustainedsevereinjuriesasaresultofthisaccident,filed P aclaimagainsttheState,allegingthatadangerousconditionexistedontheportionoftheinterstate < wheretheaccidentoccurredandthatthesectionoftheinterstatewasnegligentlydesignedand (x maintained.TheClaimsCommissiondeterminedthattheStatewasnegligentinitsdesignofthat d stretchofinterstate,butheldthatitsnegligencewasnottheproximatecauseofthe_Belchers_ P injuries.The_Belchers_Ԁappeal,arguingthattheClaimsCommissionerredinthesecondofthesetwo < determinations.Bywayofaseparateissue,theStatecontendsthatthe_Belchers_claimisbarredby ( thefouryearstatuteofrepose.Weaffirm.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheClaimsCommission  Affirmed;CaseRemanded     #[%X)#XX.[%CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichD.Michael_Swiney_,J., ` andWilliamH._Inman_,Sr.J.#[%X #XX.[%,joined. L  WadeV.Daviesand_Tasha_ԀC._Blakney_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,EddieW._Belcher_, $"t! deceased,andSaraO._Belcher_,deceased,throughtheirexecutrixanddaughter,BeverlyJ.Ritchie. #`" PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andGeorge $8 $ H.Coffin,Jr.,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. %$!%   OPINION #[%XX #XX[% '"' #[%XX#XX[%   )$) _  I.  w  OnSundaymorning,August12,1990,Mr.Belcherwasdrivingtochurchwithhiswife.The  BelchersweretravelingeastboundinthecenterlaneofInterstate40throughKnoxville.Theroad t conditionsweredescribedasgood. `   Two18wheelertrucksslowlypassedtheBelchersoneithersideasthethreevehicles 8  approachedthe17thStreetoverpass.Meanwhile,Mr.Wilsonandtheoccupantsofhisvehiclewere $ t travelingaheadoftheBelchersinthefarlefthandlane.Mr.Wilsonwaslost;ontheinstructions  ` ofoneofhispassengers,Mr.Wilsonslowedhisvehicleandattemptedtoswitchlanesinorderto  L  exittheinterstate.Mr.Wilsonthenmovedintothecenterlaneoftheinterstate.  8    TheBelcherscrestedahilloverthe17thStreetoverpass.Approximately475feetfromthe   apexofthehill,theBelchersvehiclestrucktherearofMr.Wilsonsvehicle.     AllthatMr.Belchercouldrecalloftheaccidentwashearinganoiseandwakingupleaning   overthesteeringwheelwithhisvehicleinthemedianoftheinterstate.Mr.Belcherdidnot p remembereverseeingtheWilsonvehicle.Inherdeposition,Mrs.Belcherrecalledthefollowing: \ 8  8`   [A]sweweregoingalongallatoncethislightcoloredcarappeared 4 rightinfrontofusandtherewasnotenoughtimebetweenthetime  p thatIsawthecarinfrontofusthatIhadanytimetosayanythingor  \ doanythingbeforewehitit....Thewaywasopeninfrontofusand H weweredrivingalongandthenallatoncethislightcoloredcarwas 4 rightinfrontofus. ` x` x TheBelchersstatedthattheyweredrivingthespeedlimitof55mphatthetimeoftheaccident.    Mr.WilsonandoneofhispassengersstatedthatMr.Wilsonhadbeendriving55mph,then  slowedto50mphtoallowatrucktopasshim.Hethensawacarbehindhim,butcouldnotgetout l ofitswaybecauseitwasgoingapproximately75or80mph.AnotherpassengerinMr.Wilsons X  vehiclestatedthat,ashewaslookingouttherearwindowtoassistMr.Wilsoninchanginglanes, D! hesawtheBelchervehicle goingrealfastjustbeforetheaccidentoccurred. 0"    Thepartieslaterstipulatedthatthedifferenceinspeedofthetwovehiclesatthetimeofthe $X" collisionwas45mphandthatthebrakelightfilamentsofMr.Wilsonsvehicleindicatedthathis $D # brakelights wereonatorverynearthetimeofimpact. %0!$   Asaresultoftheaccident,theBelcherssustainedseriousinjuries.Mrs.Belchersinjuries '#& wereparticularlysevere;shesufferedabrokenneckandpinchedspinalcolumn,resultingin (#' paralysis.ThepoliceofficerwhoinvestigatedtheaccidentdeterminedthatMr.Wilsondidslowhis )$( vehiclefortraffic,butthathisdrivingdidnotcontributetotheaccident.Instead,theofficer |*%) determinedthatMr.Belchersactioninfollowingtoocloselycontributedtotheaccident. h+&* Ї  OnAugust8,1991,theBelchersfiledaclaimfordamagesagainsttheStatewiththe  TennesseeClaimsCommission.Intheirclaim,theBelchersallegedthattheStatenegligenly  designed,approved,andmaintainedadangerousanddefectiveroadwayandthatthiscondition  causedtheaccidentinwhichtheBelcherswereinjured.Beforetheclaimwasheardbeforethe t ClaimsCommission,theBelcherspassedaway.1 #  2      ׀Theirdaughterandexecutrix,BeverlyRitchie,was ` substitutedintheirplace. L    ThecasewasheardonMarch28,2001.Atthehearing,theBelchersexpertwitness,Don $ t Moore!acivilengineerspecializingintrafficoperationsandtransportationandacertifiedaccident  ` reconstructionist!testifiedthatthedesignofthehighwayleadinguptotheaccidentsceneviolated  L  twostandardsoftheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials  8  ( AASHTO).First,Mooreclaimedthatthehighwaydidnotcomplywiththeminimumstopping $  sightdistance(thedistancerequiredfordriverstobeabletoseewhatisinfrontofthem,basedon   thespeedlimit).Second,Mooretestifiedthatthehighwaywasdeficientindecisionsightdistance,   whichreferstothetimeamotoristneedstorespondtoahazardintheroad.UndertheAASHTO   standards,theminimumstoppingsightdistanceshouldhavebeen538feetandtheminimum   decisionsightdistanceshouldhavebeen673feet. p   OnFebruary4,2003,theClaimsCommissionissueditsjudgment,findingthattheBelchers H werenotentitledtorelief.Inrenderingthisjudgment,theClaimsCommissionmadethefollowing 4 statements:  p 8  8`   Inorderfor[there]tobeacauseofactionfornegligence,itmustbe H establishedthatthedefendantsconductwastheproximateorlegal 4 cause.Proximatecausationistheultimateissueinnegligencecases.   See McClenahanv.Cooley ,806S.W.2d767,774(Tenn.1991). ` x` x 8  8`    Thereisnorequirementthatacause,toberegardedastheproximate  causeofaninjury,bethesolecause,thelastact,ortheonenearestto  theinjury,provideditisasubstantialfactorinproducingtheend l result. Id. at775.X ` x` x 8  8`   While[theBelchers]provedthatthegeneralareainwhichthe 0"  accidenttookplacewasnotincompliancewithAASHTOstandards, #l! theproofdidnotestablishthattheStatesfailuretobein $X" conformancewiththoseguidelineswastheproximatecauseofthe $D # accidenthere.%0!$` x` x 8  8`   First,themainfaultwiththeroadareaatissueisthatcarsgoingup '#& thehillprecedingtheaccidentsitehavealimitedviewofcarsonthe (#' othersideofthehillwhohavealreadybeguntheirdescent.)$(` x` x Ї8  8`   Buttheaccidentheredidnothappenjustoverthecrestofthehill.  Thisaccidenthappened475feet,[or]158yards,after[Mr.Belcher]  hadcrossedtheapexofthehill.` x` x 8  8`   Therewasconflictingevidence...astothespeedofthetwocarsand ` lanesinwhichtheyweretraveling.Butitisclearthattheaccident L  wascaused,notbecauseofadeficiencyinsightdistanceorminimum 8  stoppingsightdistance,butbecauseMr.Wilsonscarveered $ t suddenlyinto[theBelchers]lanewhile[theBelchers]carwasgoing  ` toofastand/ortheWilsoncarhadsloweddangerously.Theparties  L  stipulatedthattherewasa45mphdifferenceinspeedbetweenthe  8  twocarsinvolvedintheaccident.IfMr.Belcherwasgoingonlythe $  speedlimit,thenMr.Wilsonhadtobegoing10mphonacrowded   highwayatthetimeoftheaccident. ` x` x 8  8`   Evenif[theBelchers]carwasnotspeeding(anditappearslikely   thatitwas),[Mr.Belchers]visionoftheWilsoncarwasrestricted p mostlybytrucks,notanyroaddeficiency.\` x` x 8  8`   [Mrs.]Belcherstestimony,oftheWilsoncardartinginfrontof 4 theirs,describesacollisioncausedbycarsshiftinglanesat  p inappropriatespeeds. \` x` x 8  8`   Therewasnotestimonybyeither[oftheBelchers]thattheycouldnot 4 seetheWilsoncarinfrontofthembecausethehillhadobstructed   theirview. ` x` x 8  8`   Moreimportantly,even[theBelchers]ownexpertwitness,a  certifiedaccidentreconstructionist,didnottestifythattheroad  conditionscausedthisparticularaccident.Hetestifiedthattheroad l designwasinherentlydeficient,and[theBelchers]arguedthatit X  shouldbededucedfromthisfactalonethatthedefectcausedthe D! accident.Butnosuchcausewasproven.0" ` x` x 8  8`   Infact,itwastheStatewhichbroachedthisareaofcausationduring $X" thehearingoncrossexaminationbutMr.Moorestilldidnottestify $D # astohisopinionontheultimateissueofproximatecause!whether %0!$ theroadconditionscausedtheaccidentorthedriversinvolved.&"%` x` x 8  8`    Thedecisionofwhetheraconditionofahighway[...]is... (#' dangerousandhazardous...isafactualone,andthecourtshould )$( considerthephysicalaspectsoftheroadway,thefrequencyof |*%) accidentsatthatplaceinthehighwayandthetestimonyofexpert h+&* witnessesinarrivingatthisfactualdetermination. Sweeneyv.State ,  768S.W.2d253,[]255(Tenn.1989).` x` x 8  8`   Asalreadypointedouthere,therewasnoexperttestimonythatthe t roadconditionscausedthisparticularaccident.Norwasthere ` testimonyastothefrequencyofaccidentsatthisparticularaccident L  site.Therewasproofastotwootheraccidentsintheareabutthese 8  wereweatherrelated.$ t` x` x 8  8`   Therewasalsotestimonybyapoliceofficerthathewenttoan  L  accidentinthesameareaandhadtocallforhelpbecauseoncoming  8  trafficcomingoverthehillhadlittletimetoreact.But[the $  Belchers]accidentwasnotcausedbythehillblockingtheirview;it   wascausedbythenegligenceofthedriversinvolved.Inanycase,   evenonaflatroad,anaccidentcanresultinadangeroussituation   simplybecausesomedriversarenotpayingattentiontowhatisin   frontofthem.p` x` x 8  8`   Iftheroadwasasdangerousas[theBelchers]askedthisJudgeto H deduce,thenaccidentsduringgooddrivingconditions,ashere, 4 shouldoccurwithsomefrequency.But[theBelchers]presentedno  p proofofothersimilaraccidentsundersimilarconditions. \` x` x 8  8`   Evenproofthattheareahadexperiencedmanyaccidentswouldonly 4 tendtoprovethattheareawasinherentlydangerous.Butthemere   factthatanareaisinherentlydangerousdoesnotautomaticallyprove   thateveryaccidentintheareaiscausedbytheconditionsoftheroad.  Accidentshappenonperfectlysaferoadswhenadriverdrives  negligently.Theoddsofanaccidentincreasewhenthereismore  thanonenegligentdriver,asappearstobethecasehere.l` x` x 8  8`   Because[theBelchers]didnotprovethattheirinjuriesweretheresult D! oftheStatesnegligence,theirclaimfordamagesis denied .0" ` x` x (Numberinginoriginalomitted).Fromthisjudgment,theBelchersappeal.  $\"   II. %4!$ qD  Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow;but ' #& therecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectnessastotheClaimsCommissionsfactual (#' determinationsthatwemusthonorunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P. )$( 13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); UnionCarbideCorp.v. *%) Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Ourreviewofquestionsoflawisdenovowithno l+&* suchpresumptionofcorrectnessattachingtotheClaimsCommissionsconclusionsoflaw.   Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d  857,859(Tenn.1993).  #[%XX##XX[%  III. ` H  TheBelchersclaimispremiseduponTenn.CodeAnn.98307(Supp.2003),which 8  states,inpertinentpart,asfollows: $ t 8  8`   (a)(1)Thecommissionoreachcommissionersittingindividuallyhas  L  exclusivejurisdictiontodetermineallmonetaryclaimsagainstthe  8  statebasedontheactsoromissionsof stateemployees,...,falling $  withinone(1)ormoreofthefollowingcategories: ` x` x   8 @ 8@`   ***   J8  8`   (I)Negligenceinplanningandprogrammingfor,inspectionof, p designof,preparationofplansfor,approvalofplansfor,and \ constructionof,...,highways,...,andnegligenceinmaintenance H ofhighways,...,designatedbythedepartmentoftransportationas 4 beingonthestatesystemofhighwaysorthestatesystemofinterstate  p highways; \` x` x 8  8`   (J)Dangerousconditionsonstatemaintainedhighways.The 4 claimantunderthissubsectionmustestablishtheforeseeabilityofthe   riskandnoticegiventotheproperstateofficialsatatimesufficiently   priortotheinjuryforthestatetohavetakenappropriatemeasures;` x` x   ***  N  IV. X  O  BeforereachingtheBelchersissue,wemustfirstaddressourattentiontotheStatesposition 0"  thattheBelchersclaimisbarredbythefouryearstatuteofrepose,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn. #l! 283202(2000).Thatstatuteprovidesasfollows: $X" 8  8`   Allactionstorecoverdamagesforanydeficiencyinthedesign, %0!$ planning,supervision,observationofconstruction,orconstructionof &"% animprovementtorealproperty,forinjurytoproperty,realor '#& personal,arisingoutofanysuchdeficiency,orforinjurytothe (#' personorforwrongfuldeatharisingoutofanysuchdeficiency,shall )$( bebroughtagainstanypersonperformingorfurnishingthedesign, |*%) planning,supervision,observationofconstruction,constructionof, h+&* orlandsurveyinginconnectionwith,suchanimprovementwithin  four(4)yearsaftersubstantialcompletionofsuchanimprovement.` x` x TheStatecontendsthat,sincetheBelchersbroughttheirclaimunder,interalia,Tenn.CodeAnn. t 98307(a)(1)(I),whichaddressesthenegligentplanningofhighways,theirclaimissubjecttothis ` statuteofrepose.Thestretchofhighwayatissueintheinstantcasewasfirstconstructedin1954 L  andimprovedin1980.Because,sotheargumentgoes,theBelchersfiledtheirclaimonAugust8, 8  1991,itisoutsidethefouryearstatuteofreposeandshouldbebarred.Wedisagreewiththis $ t position.  `   Tenn.CodeAnn.283205(a)(2000)providesthatthestatuteofreposemaynotbeused  8  asadefensebyanyonewhopossessesorcontrols asowner,tenant,orotherwisethedeficient $  propertythatallegedlycausedtheinjuryordeaththatformedthebasisforthelegalaction.Our   SupremeCourthasaddressedthisstatuteasfollows:   8  8`   Itseemstousthatthereisasubstantialdifferencebetween   landownersandtenants,whoareexceptedfromtheprovisionsofthe p Tennesseestatutes,[Tenn.CodeAnn.]283205(a),andthose \ engagedinthedesigninganderectionofabuilding.Thedutyofthe H landownerortenantinpossessiontokeeppremisesreasonablysafe 4 forthirdpersonsisacontinuingone,whereastheworkofthe  p architect,designengineerandcontractorordinarilyceaseswiththe  \ completionofthebuilding.Yetwithoutlimitationssuchasthose H providedinthesubjectstatutestheirexposuretotortclaimscould 4 extendintotheverydistantfuture. ` x` x  Harmonv.AngusR.JessupAssocs.,Inc. ,619S.W.2d522,524(Tenn.1981).Theintentofthe  legislatureinenactingTenn.CodeAnn.283202wasto insulatecontractors,architects,  engineers,andothersfromliabilityfordefectiveconstructionordesignofimprovementstorealty  whentheinjuryordeathoccursmorethanfouryearsaftertheimprovementissubstantially l completed. Chrismanv.HillHomeDev.,Inc. ,978S.W.2d535,540(Tenn.1998)(citing Watts X  v.PutnamCounty ,525S.W.2d488,492(Tenn.1975)). D!   Itisclearthatthefouryearstatuteofreposewasnotintendedtobeapplicabletotheowner #l! ofthesubjectproperty,butrathertothedesigneroftheproperty.AstheStatehas actualpossession $X" orthecontrolofthehighwayatissue,seeTenn.CodeAnn.283205(a),itcannotassertthe $D # statuteofreposeasadefensetotheBelchersclaim.Therefore,wefindthisissuetobewithout %0!$ merit. &"%   V. (#' U`  TheBelchersarguethattheClaimsCommissionerredindeterminingthattheyfailedtoprove |*%) thatthenegligenceoftheStatewastheproximatecauseoftheirinjuries.Wedisagree. h+&* Ї  Inordertoprevailonanegligenceclaim,aclaimantmustprovefiveessentialelements:(1)  thatthedefendantowedadutyofcaretotheclaimant;(2)thatthedefendantbreachedthatdutyof  care;(3)thatthebreachofcareresultedinaninjurytotheclaimant;(4)thatthebreachofcarewas  thecauseinfactoftheclaimantsinjury;and(5)thatthebreachofcarewastheproximateorlegal t causeoftheclaimantsinjury. McClenahan ,806S.W.2dat774(emphasisadded).Therefore,it ` isnotenoughtoprovetheexistenceofadangerousconditiononthehighway,pursuanttoTenn. L  CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(J),ortoprovethattheStatenegligentlyapproved,constructed,and 8  maintainedthehighway,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.98307(a)(1)(I).TheBelcherswerealso $ t requiredtoprovethatthoseconditionswerethecauseinfactandtheproximatecauseofthe  ` accident.  L    Afterreviewingtherecord,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheClaims $  CommissionsdeterminationthattheBelchersdidnotprovethatthedeficiencyinthedesignofthe   highwaycausedtheirinjuries.WhiletheBelcherstakeissuewiththeClaimsCommissionsfindings   withrespecttothespeedoftheBelchersvehicleandtheexactlocationoftheaccident,wefindthat   theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthosefindings.TheClaimsCommissionchosebetween   competingandconflictingtestimony.Thetrieroffactisinthebestpositiontomakethesechoices. p See Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman , \ 836S.W.2d563,567(Tenn.Ct.App.1991)#[%XX_H#XX[%.Suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweighton H appeal. Bowman ,836S.W.2dat566.#[%XX͞i#XX[%Ԁ 4   Inshort,thereisadearthofevidenceintherecordtosupporttheBelcherscontentionthat  \ thedefectivehighwaycausedtheaccidentand,consequently,theirinjuries.Indeed,theBelchers H ownexpertwitnessfailedtotestifythatthedesignofthehighwaycausedtheaccident.Becauseof 4 thislackofevidence,weareloathtofindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourts   criticaldeterminationthatthisnegligentlydesignedstretchofInterstate40wasnotthecauseofthe   Belchersaccident.    VI.#[%XXZj#XX[%  2m  ThejudgmentoftheClaimsCommissionisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforthe X  collectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtothe D! appellants,EddieW.Belcher,deceased,andSaraO.Belcher,deceased,throughtheirexecutrixand 0"  daughter,BeverlyJ.Ritchie. #l!    `     h     _______________________________ %0!$    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE