ÿWPCï v‡Fç"ïU!NÙžç<ûê¯;l[܃ÆQE¦ñuîþ«¤]ɦÂ|Ás¨Óby¯AîÑ4N5$IþI"²‡,Åó´·@©±¾µžüÓ ª )™ù)Ü­F"{l‹ öºVÈo_ê&6ø ¸üA-ß6ûŽ3å§P¹R§åVîâ—¸Kª(~kùºÐòŸòöϻݦëSD ùŒÇa&ÓÑÎ%~w{Â6ŸbB8³ ¯Ï"è"l³„·’}{_²*ßÀ¿lÔ7w\q«êzý]^•³§Vi‘t©géþ}ðð³Xüb.2Þ¼ &¿—"¥¼Pqä„Ô¼•†’øV‚Ù8õµJçSy¬,ŒàdDc¹ÉÏÜÕð3ŠÅÚ§‹³¨Kˆ:ù•+®=>=#\Oy©1Å+™&½¥€w©¤ÀßúÎÑjY¡áš>K¬¨,ë[+$B~ƒâ݆ŸüÌ—oX¯#–Q?ùñT`¼º,˜Ðº©=ŒVêd0}­ ùÂ¥ÈçYv[–‹?ñ‹ÐçWÞE[ö'ÉÙ2§ËŽààâ/UÑ“¬õ¢Û·UýBv "X}h¦uNL¤UŸe§zpI¿)[iLàã3¿–{‚~”Ÿy· ¿mˆå|Íÿ¥¨kž<Ž¶<b#Á\^  %) 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz z Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©NíëïïEÚÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜbääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää 0ëìììì B×× 0¤ô D3˜ D-Ë 0Køø ASCÆ– 0¤\ 0D A«D˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0fy.+s »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÑB+iles© ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó áÝ ƒRd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€third€case€cited€by€appellee,€òòMiller€v.€Niblackóó,€942€S.W.2d€533€(Tenn.€App.€1996)€contains€some€dicta€thatÐ ° Ðarguably€support€its€position.€However,€òòMilleróó€does€not€involve€a€wrongful€death,€but€rather€the€question€of€who€has€theÐ tÄ Ðright€to€bring€a€paternity€action€where€the€putative€father€is€deceased.€ - ù-(|G2d$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ve»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêmò»»Ô d(|3‰[$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ve»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰[$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ve»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ve»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑÀ°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ve»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îLôVeÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ve»îîLô#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€26,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼VeÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ve»XXé#ÔJOHN€T.€BELL,€òòet€al.óó€v.€RICHARD€GENE€NOLAN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XéX»¼VeÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Coffee€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€27731€€€€€€John€W.€Rollins,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02684„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€14,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€parents€of€a€woman€who€died€after€being€assaulted€by€her€husband€on€the€premises€of€anÐ xÈ  ÐAmerican€Legion€post€filed€a€wrongful€death€claim,€which€named€the€husband€and€the€AmericanÐ d´ ÐLegion€post€as€defendants.€The€parents€alleged€that€the€Legionððs€employees€had€failed€to€renderÐ P  Ðassistance€to€the€injured€woman.€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€against€the€AmericanÐ <Œ ÐLegion,€reasoning€that€€the€surviving€spouse€is€the€only€party€entitled€to€maintain€an€action€for€theÐ (x Ðwrongful€death€of€the€other€spouse.€We€reverse.Ô#†¼Ve»XXé„#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼VeÔÐ d ÐÓÃÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversedó óÐ ì< ÐÌÓ  ÓòòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€Ô#†¼Ve»XXéc#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼VeÔdelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÐ Ä ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌPeter€V.€Hall€and€Robert€O.€Bragdon,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€John€T.€Bell€andÐ ˆØ ÐMyra€A.€Bell.Ð tÄ ÐÌGerald€L.€Ewell,€Jr.,€Tullahoma,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Memorial€39,€Post€#43,€AmericanÐ L œ ÐLegion.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌRichard€Gene€Nolan,€Pro€Se.Ð #`" ÐÓÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ve»XXéc#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼VeÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ve»XXéµ #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼VeÔÓ  Óà@YY ìàò òI.ó ó€ò òAn€Untimely€Deathó óˆÐ À&"& ÐÌà  àThis€case€arose€from€the€tragic€death€of€thirty„four€year€old€Beverly€Jean€Nolan.€On€July€8,Ð œ(ì#( Ð1995,€Ms.€Nolan€and€her€husband,€Richard€Gene€Nolan,€were€at€the€American€Legion€Hall€inÐ ˆ)Ø$) ÐTullahoma.€The€Legion€operates€a€restaurant€and€provides€meeting€rooms€and€social€activities€onÐ t*Ä%* Ðits€premises.Ð `+°&+ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€Complaint€later€filed€by€Ms.€Nolanððs€parents€(and€given€the€posture€of€thisÐ 8-ˆ(- Ðcase,€we€must€accept€their€account€as€true)€Mr.€and€Ms.€Nolan€had€an€argument€at€about€8:00€p.m.,Ð $.t).ý Ðwhich€prompted€Ms.€Nolan€to€leave€the€building€and€walk€out€to€the€parking€lot.€Mr.€NolanÐ ° Ðimmediately€followed€her,€and€struck€her€in€the€head€with€enough€force€to€knock€her€to€the€ground.Ð œì ÐMs.€Nolanððs€visible€injuries€were€a€contusion€and€laceration€on€her€face.€She€got€up€in€a€dazedÐ ˆØ Ðcondition,€and€although€unsteady€on€her€feet,€re„entered€the€restaurant.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àEmployees€of€the€restaurant,€including€a€security€guard€named€Don€Cruse,€allegedly€askedÐ L œ ÐBeverly€Nolan€what€happened€to€her,€and€asked€Richard€Nolan€if€he€had€struck€his€wife.€Mr.€NolanÐ 8 ˆ Ðacted€unconcerned,€and€stated€that€he€would€get€his€wifeððs€car€and€take€her€away.€When€Mr.€NolanÐ $ t Ðleft,€Mr.€Cruse€held€Ms.€Nolan€to€keep€her€from€falling.€A€nurse€who€was€nearby€suggested€that€Ms.Ð  ` ÐNolan€was€seriously€injured,€and€that€Mr.€Cruse€should€call€an€ambulance€to€take€her€to€the€hospital.€Ð ü L  ЀÌà  àMs.€Nolanððs€parents€allege€that€as€Mr.€Nolan€was€driving€the€automobile€up€to€the€restaurant,Ð Ô$  ÐMs.€Nolan€began€to€collapse,€and€that€as€she€did€so,€she€whispered€to€Mr.€Cruse€that€her€husbandÐ À  Ðdid€indeed€strike€her,€and€that€this€was€not€the€first€time€he€did€so.€She€also€allegedly€asked€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐCruse€if€she€had€to€leave€with€her€husband,€and€he€said€she€did€not.€Ms.€Nolan€then€collapsed,€andÐ ˜è  Ðnever€regained€consciousness.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhen€Mr.€Nolan€arrived€with€the€automobile,€he€did€not€get€out€of€the€vehicle.€Instead,€asÐ \¬ ÐMr.€Cruse€placed€the€unconscious€woman€into€the€passenger€seat,€Mr.€Nolan€grabbed€his€wife€byÐ H˜ Ðher€clothes,€and€pulled€her€into€the€car.€He€then€drove€her€home.€After€arriving€home,€Mr.€NolanÐ 4„ Ðcalled€his€wifeððs€parents,€John€and€Myra€Bell,€and€without€revealing€his€assault,€told€them€that€theirÐ  p Ðdaughter€had€fallen€while€drunk.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àMr.€Bell€went€to€the€Nolan€home€to€retrieve€his€daughter€and€bring€her€to€his€own€home.€AtÐ ä4 Ðabout€5:00€p.m.€the€following€day,€Ms.€Nolanððs€condition€was€noticeably€worse,€and€the€Bells€hadÐ Ð  Ðher€transported€to€a€Tullahoma€hospital.€From€there,€she€was€carried€by€helicopter€to€ErlangerÐ ¼  ÐHospital€in€Chattanooga,€where€she€was€pronounced€dead€of€a€traumatic€subdural€hematoma€withÐ ¨ø Ðmassive€brain€infarction.€€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌò òà@aa ìàII.€Legal€Proceedingsó óˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àOn€May€17,€1996,€John€and€Myra€Bell€filed€a€Wrongful€Death€Complaint€as€Beverly€NolanððsÐ D!” Ðsurviving€parents€and€next€of€kin.€After€Mr.€Bell€qualified€as€the€administrator€of€his€daughterððsÐ 0"€  Ðestate,€the€court€granted€his€motion€to€be€substituted€in€that€capacity€as€the€party€plaintiff.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Complaint€named€Richard€Nolan€as€a€party€responsible€for€the€death€of€Ms.€Nolan.€TheÐ ô$D # ÐComplaint€also€named€€ð ðMemorial€39,€Post€#43,€the€American€Legion,€Tullahoma,€Tennessee,€aÐ à%0!$ ÐTennessee€Corporation,ðð€(hereafter,€the€American€Legion),€and€its€security€guard€Don€Cruse,€forÐ Ì&"% Ðfailing€to€provide€her€protection€or€assistance.€As€the€following€discussion€indicates,€the€caseÐ ¸'#& Ðproceeded€on€two€separate€tracks.€The€claim€against€Richard€Nolan€resulted€in€a€default€judgmentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€the€plaintiffs€and€assessment€of€damages.€The€claim€against€the€American€Legion€was€dismissedÐ )à$( Ðfor€failure€to€state€a€claim.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌ€€€Ð T,¤'+ Ðà@"ìàò òa.€Richard€Nolanó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àRichard€Nolan€never€answered€the€Bellsðð€Complaint,€and€never€responded€to€any€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðpleadings€or€motions€in€the€trial€court€in€any€way.€On€July€31,€1996,€the€trial€court€granted€the€BellsÐ tÄ Ða€default€judgment€against€Mr.€Nolan,€and€declared€that€the€damages€sustained€by€the€plaintiffsÐ `° Ðwould€be€determined€at€a€hearing€to€be€scheduled€at€a€later€date.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€record€indicates€that€in€addition€to€this€civil€action,€Mr.€Nolan€had€to€face€a€Grand€JuryÐ $ t Ða€few€months€after€the€death€of€his€wife,€to€determine€if€he€should€be€held€criminally€responsible€forÐ  ` Ðher€death.€On€January€5,€1996,€the€Grand€Jury€returned€a€No€True€Bill.Ð ü L  Ѐ€€€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àA€hearing€on€damages€was€conducted€in€the€presence€of€a€jury€in€September€of€2000.€TheÐ Ô$  Ðjury€found€the€damages€sustained€by€the€plaintiffs€to€total€$250,400.€Aside€from€medical€and€funeralÐ À  Ðexpenses,€The€verdict€form€indicated€damages€of€$32,000€for€Ms.€Nolanððs€pain€and€suffering,€Ð ¬ü  Ð$100,000€for€the€loss€of€consortium€of€John€and€Myra€Bell,€and€$100,000€in€punitive€damages.€TheÐ ˜è  Ðjury€found€the€pecuniary€value€of€the€life€of€Beverly€Joan€Bell€Nolan€to€be€zero.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€September€14,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€a€Judgment€on€the€Verdict,€reading€inÐ \¬ Ðpertinent€part€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIT€IS€THEREFORE€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÐ  p ÐDECREED€as€follows:Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à1.€Plaintiff,€John€T.€Bell€as€Administrator€of€the€Estate€ofÐ ä4 ÐBeverly€Joan€Bell€Nolan,€deceased,€have€and€recover€of€theÐ Ð  ÐDefendant€Richard€Gene€Nolan€the€sum€of€$150,000.00.€Ð¼ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à2.€Plaintiffs€John€T.€Bell€and€Myra€Bell,€individually,€haveÐ ¨ø Ðand€recover€of€the€Defendant,€Richard€Gene€Nolan€the€sum€ofÐ ”ä Ð$100,000.00ЀÐ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à3.€Costs€are€adjudged€against€Defendant€Richard€Gene€NolanÐ l¼ Ðfor€which€execution€shall€issue,€if€necessary.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffs€subsequently€filed€a€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€Judgment€and€Motion€for€NewÐ 0"€  ÐTrial.€They€noted€that€a€professor€of€economics€had€testified€at€trial€that€the€pecuniary€value€of€theirÐ #l! Ðdaughterððs€life€was€$508,100,€and€they€argued€that€the€finding€of€the€jury€that€her€life€had€noÐ $X" Ðpecuniary€value€was€contrary€to€the€undisputed€proof.€The€trial€court€granted€their€motion€on€OctoberÐ ô$D # Ð13,€2000,€€increasing€the€amount€of€the€judgment€in€favor€of€John€T.€Bell,€Administrator€byÐ à%0!$ Ð$508,100,€for€a€total€judgment€of€$658,100.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà@ÞÞìàò òb.€The€American€Legionó óˆÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€American€Legion€and€Don€Cruse€answered€the€Bellððs€Complaint€on€July€8,€1996,Ð |*Ì%) Ðdisputing€several€factual€details,€and€denying€that€they€breached€any€duty€owed€to€the€decedent.€TheyÐ h+¸&* Ðalso€asserted€several€affirmative€defenses,€including€comparative€fault,€and€they€moved€to€dismissÐ T,¤'+ Ðthe€Complaint€on€the€ground€that€the€Bells€had€not€stated€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.Ð ° ÐSee€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6).€Specifically,€they€challenged€the€Bellsðð€right€to€maintain€an€action€forÐ œì Ðwrongful€death€under€Tennesseeððs€wrongful€death€statute,€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€20„5„106.€The€BellsÐ ˆØ Ðsubsequently€dismissed€Don€Cruse€voluntarily€under€Rule€41.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ tÄ ÐProcedure,€and€amended€their€Claim€for€Damages€by€adding€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€argument€about€the€Wrongful€Death€Statute€apparently€had€an€impact,€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðon€August€16,€1999,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€Motion€for€Substitution€asking€that€Mr.€Bell€be€substitutedÐ $ t Ðas€the€party€plaintiff€in€his€capacity€as€Administrator€of€his€daughterððs€estate,€with€regard€to€allÐ  ` Ðclaims€except€the€loss€of€consortium.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€American€Legion€filed€a€Response€to€the€Motion€to€Substitute,€arguing€that€the€MotionÐ Ô$  Ðwas€not€timely,€and€that€the€proper€beneficiary€of€the€wrongful€death€suit€should€be€the€decedentððsÐ À  Ðhusband,€rather€than€her€parents.€The€defendant€followed€its€Response€by€filing€a€Motion€to€DismissÐ ¬ü  Ðand/or€for€Judgment€on€the€Pleadings.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€Motion€for€Substitution,€but€on€October€4,€1999,€it€granted€theÐ pÀ ÐAmerican€Legionððs€Motion€for€Judgment€on€the€Pleadings,€and€dismissed€the€Complaint,€stating€thatÐ \¬ Ðð ðthe€Complaint€fails€to€state€a€claim€for€which€the€relief€prayed€for€can€be€granted.ðð€The€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðgranted€the€Bellsðð€request€for€an€interlocutory€appeal€of€the€order€of€dismissal,€but€we€declined€toÐ 4„ Ðgrant€the€interlocutory€appeal.€After€the€trial€court€entered€its€final€order€in€the€proceedings€againstÐ  p ÐMr.€Nolan,€the€Bells€filed€a€Notice€of€Appeal,€signaling€their€intention€to€pursue€an€appeal€as€of€rightÐ  \ Ðin€this€court.€€€€€€Ð øH ÐÌà@22ìàò òIII.€The€Question€of€Finalityó óˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€a€threshold€matter,€the€American€Legion€contends€that€the€judgment€appealed€from€is€notÐ ¨ø Ða€final€judgment€under€Rule€3€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€because€it€does€not€conclude€all€the€ð ðclaims,€rightsÐ ”ä Ðand€liabilities€of€all€partiesðð€to€the€suit.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThey€argue€that€the€Plaintiffððs€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Judgment€against€Mr.€NolanÐ X ¨ Ðor€in€the€Alternative€for€a€New€Trial€was€in€substance€a€Motion€for€an€Additur.€The€additur€statute,Ð D!” ÐTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€20„10„101,€allows€a€trial€court€to€suggest€an€additur€ð ðin€such€amount€or€amountsÐ 0"€  Ðas€he€deems€proper€to€the€compensatory€or€punitive€damages€awarded€by€the€jury,€or€both€classesÐ #l! Ðof€damages.ðð€However,€the€additur€statute€requires€that€the€suggestion€of€an€additur€be€accepted€byÐ $X" Ðthe€defendant.€If€it€is€not€accepted,€ð ðthe€trial€judge€shall€grant€the€plaintiffððs€motion€for€new€trialÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€of€the€inadequacy€of€the€verdict€upon€proper€motion€being€made€by€the€plaintiff.ððÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€appellee€contends€that€the€trial€court€exceeded€its€powers€by€ordering€an€additur€withoutÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€assent€of€Mr.€Nolan,€and€that€in€the€absence€of€such€assent,€the€courtððs€action€must€be€construedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€the€grant€of€the€Motion€for€New€Trial.€See€òòEvans€v.€Wilsonóó,€776€S.W.2d€939€(Tenn.€1989).€TheÐ )à$( Ðconclusion€the€appellee€wishes€us€to€draw,€of€course,€is€that€the€pendency€of€a€new€trial€clearlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðindicates€that€the€final€judgment€in€this€case€has€not€yet€been€entered,€rendering€it€unripe€for€appeal.Ð h+¸&* ÐÐ T,¤'+ Ðà  àIt€appears€to€us,€however,€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€suggest€an€additur.€He€simply€enteredÐ ° Ðan€order€increasing€the€amount€of€the€judgment€against€Mr.€Nolan.€While€the€procedure€may€haveÐ œì Ðbeen€erroneous,€the€only€person€with€the€right€to€object€to€the€judgment€would€have€been€Mr.€NolanÐ ˆØ Ðhimself.€The€American€Legion€did€not€participate€in€the€trial,€is€not€bound€by€the€judgment€againstÐ tÄ ÐMr.€Nolan,€and€has€no€standing€to€object€to€it.€If€upon€remand,€the€Legion€is€found€liable€to€theÐ `° Ðplaintiffs,€then€it€will€be€entitled€to€a€trial€on€damages,€where€it€can€put€on€its€own€proof€as€to€theÐ L œ Ðpecuniary€value€of€the€life€of€the€deceased.€Mr.€Nolan€made€no€objection€to€the€judgment;€in€fact,Ð 8 ˆ Ðhe€did€not€respond€to€it€in€any€way.€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€has€therefore€become€final,€and€theÐ $ t Ðcase€is€ripe€for€appeal.Ð  ` ÐÌà@––ìàò òIV.€The€Motion€for€Substitutionó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àAnother€issue€raised€in€this€appeal€involved€the€Motion€for€Substitution€filed€by€theÐ À  Ðappellants.€Apparently,€the€Bells€were€afraid€that€the€American€Legion€would€prevail€on€the€questionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€whether€they€had€the€right€to€sue€under€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€20„5„106,€and€they€filed€their€MotionÐ ˜è  Ðto€Substitute€Mr.€Bell€as€plaintiff,€in€his€capacity€as€administrator€of€his€daughterððs€estate.€Tenn.Ð „Ô  ÐCode.€Ann.€ðð€20-5-107€provides€as€follows:€Ð pÀ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àProsecution€of€action€by€representative€or€surviving€spouse€orÐ H˜ Ðnext€of€kin.„„ó óà  à(a)€The€action€may€be€instituted€by€the€personalÐ 4„ Ðrepresentative€of€the€deceased€or€by€the€surviving€spouse€in€theÐ $t Ðsurviving€spouse's€own€name,€or,€if€there€is€no€surviving€spouse,€byÐ ` Ðthe€children€of€the€deceased€or€by€the€next€of€kin...ÐüL` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€American€Legion€argued€that€the€Motion€for€Substitution€was€untimely,€as€it€was€filedÐ Ô$ Ðthree€years€after€the€Complaint.€It€appears€to€us,€however,€that€the€decision€to€grant€the€Motion€wasÐ À Ðin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€Seeòò€Merriman€v.€Smithóó,€599€S.W.2d€548€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¬ü Ð1980).€Both€this€court€and€the€Supreme€Court€have€held€that€substitution€of€plaintiffs€is€liberallyÐ ˜è Ðallowed€in€wrongful€death€cases,€even€after€the€statute€of€limitations€has€passed,€because€it€does€notÐ „Ô Ðprejudice€the€defendant,€who€has€had€notice€from€the€beginning€of€the€suit€of€the€nature€of€the€actionÐ pÀ Ðbeing€brought€against€him.€See€òòMatthews€v.€Mitchellóó,€705€S.W.2d€657€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985),€Ð \ ¬ ÐòòChapman€v.€Kingóó,€572€S.W.2d€925€(Tenn.€1978).€We€do€not€believe€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ H!˜ Ðdiscretion€in€this€case€by€granting€the€plaintiffsðð€motion.Ð 4"„  ЀÌà@::ìàò òV.€A€Wrongful€Death€Claimó óˆÐ  $\" ÐÌ€à  àWe€arrive€at€the€critical€question€on€appeal:€whether,€in€light€of€the€provisions€of€theÐ ä%4!$ ÐWrongful€Death€statutes€and€the€cases€interpreting€those€statutes,€the€plaintiffs€are€the€proper€partiesÐ Ð& "% Ðto€bring€this€suit.€The€Wrongful€Death€statutes€clearly€contemplate€that€the€right€to€bring€an€actionÐ ¼' #& Ðlies€first€with€the€spouse€of€the€deceased.€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€20-5-106€reads€in€pertinent€part,Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(a)€The€right€of€action€which€a€person,€who€dies€from€injuriesÐ €*Ð%) Ðreceived€from€another,€or€whose€death€is€caused€by€the€wrongful€act,Ð l+¼&* Ðomission,€or€killing€by€another,€would€have€had€against€theÐ X,¨'+ Ðwrongdoer,€in€case€death€had€not€ensued,€shall€not€abate€or€beÐ ° Ðextinguished€by€the€person's€death€but€shall€pass€to€the€person'sÐ œì Ðsurviving€spouse€and,€in€case€there€is€no€surviving€spouse,€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðperson's€children€or€next€of€kin€...ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€appellee€argues€that€Richard€Nolan,€as€the€surviving€spouse€of€Beverly€Joan€Bell€NolanÐ L œ Ðis€the€only€party€entitled€to€sue€for€her€wrongful€death.€Since€the€appellee€also€contends€that€Mr.Ð 8 ˆ ÐNolan€is€solely€responsible€for€his€wifeððs€death,€it€concedes€that€any€suit€he€files€would€place€himÐ $ t Ðin€the€position€of€both€plaintiff€and€defendant,€an€absurdity€on€its€face.€The€appellee€thus€endorsesÐ  ` Ðthe€position€that€there€can€be€no€civil€remedy€for€the€acts€that€led€to€Ms.€Nolanððs€death.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€appellants€contend,€however,€that€the€statute€has€not€eliminated€the€possibility€of€aÐ Ô$  Ðremedy,€because€the€right€to€sue€devolved€upon€them€when€Mr.€Nolan€waived€his€own€right€throughÐ À  Ðinaction.€In€òòFoster€v.€Jeffersóó,€813€S.W.€2d€449€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€€a€woman€was€shot€to€death€byÐ ¬ü  Ðher€husbandððs€brother€(who€was€also€his€business€partner).€The€husband€declined€to€sue€his€brotherÐ ˜è  Ðfor€her€death,€and€two€nephews€of€the€wife€brought€suit€as€next„of„kin.€The€trial€court€dismissed€theirÐ „Ô  Ðsuit€for€lack€of€standing,€but€this€court€reversed,€holding€that€by€declining€to€sue,€the€husband€hadÐ pÀ Ðimpliedly€waived€his€rights€under€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€20„5„106€(including€the€right€to€receive€theÐ \¬ Ðproceeds€of€a€successful€suit)€thus€conferring€those€rights€upon€the€nephews.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€appellee€argues€that€the€effect€of€this€courtððs€holding€inòò€Foster€v.€Jeffersóó€should€beÐ  p Ðconfined€to€its€own€ð ðbizarre€factsðð€(as€we€characterized€them).€The€appellee€notes€that€no€subsequentÐ  \ Ðcase€of€this€court€or€the€Supreme€Court€has€adopted€the€ð ðimplied€waiverðð€theory,€and€cites€two€casesÐ øH Ðdecided€after€òòJeffers,óó€where€despite€a€husbandððs€involvement€in€the€death€of€his€wife€the€courtÐ ä4 Ðdeclined€to€invoke€the€theory.Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà  àNeither€of€these€cases€is€on€point,€however,€because€they€both€turned€on€the€òòóóproperÐ ¨ø Ðinterpretation€of€the€forfeiture€statute,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€31„1„106,€which€is€not€part€of€theÐ ”ä Ðappellantððs€argument€in€the€present€case.€That€statute€reads€in€pertinent€partÐ €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAny€person€who€shall€kill,€or€conspire€with€another€to€kill,€orÐ X ¨ Ðprocure€to€be€killed,€any€other€person€from€which€the€first€namedÐ D!” Ðperson€would€inherit€the€property,€either€real€or€personal,€or€any€partÐ 0"€  Ðthereof,€belonging€to€such€deceased€person€at€the€time€of€his€death,Ð #l! Ðor€who€would€take€the€property,€or€any€part€thereof,€by€will,€deed,€orÐ $X" Ðotherwise,€at€the€death€of€the€deceased,€shall€forfeit€all€right€therein,Ð ô$D # Ðand€the€same€shall€go€as€it€would€have€gone€under€the€provisions€ofÐ à%0!$ Ððð€31-2-104,€or€by€will,€deed€or€other€conveyance,€as€the€case€may€be,Ð Ì&"% Ðprovided,€that€this€section€shall€not€apply€to€any€such€killing€as€mayÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€done€by€accident€or€in€self-defense.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àWe€shall€briefly€discuss€the€two€cases€cited€by€appellee.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðâ âÌà  àòòHouse€v.€Gibsonóó,€827€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€was€a€wrongful€death€case.€The€motherÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€decedent€sued,€alleging€that€the€decedentððs€husband€intentionally€killed€her,€while€the€husbandÐ tÄ Ðclaimed€that€it€was€an€accident.€We€ruled€that€the€motherððs€Complaint€could€survive€the€defendantððsÐ `° ÐMotion€for€Summary€Judgment,€because€its€allegation€of€intent€to€kill€satisfied€the€requirements€ofÐ L œ ÐTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€31„1„106.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAppellee€notes€that€in€the€present€case€the€appellantsðð€Complaint€alleges€only€that€Mr.€NolanÐ  ` Ðintentionally€struck€his€wife,€and€that€she€died€as€a€result€of€the€blow.€Appellee€argues€that€since€theÐ ü L  ÐBellsðð€Complaint€does€not€specifically€allege€that€Mr.€Nolan€intended€to€kill€his€wife,€it€does€notÐ è 8  Ðmeet€the€threshold€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€31„1„106.€However,€even€if€we€agree€withÐ Ô$  Ðthe€appellee€that€the€forfeiture€statute€would€not€bar€Mr.€Nolan€from€bringing€suit€under€the€wrongfulÐ À  Ðdeath€statute,€this€argument€is€beside€the€point,€for€as€we€stated€above,€that€is€not€the€question€beforeÐ ¬ü  Ðus;€the€question€is€whether€his€failure€to€sue€clears€the€way€for€a€suit€by€the€parents€of€the€deceased.Ð ˜è  ÐWe€believe€that€it€does.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àòòMoore€v.€State€Farm€Insurance€Company,€óó878€S.W.2d€946€(Tenn.€1994)€did€not€evenÐ \¬ Ðinvolve€a€claim€under€the€wrongful€death€statutes,€but€rather€the€question€of€who€was€the€properÐ H˜ Ðbeneficiary€of€an€insurance€policy.€€The€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€husband,€whose€recklessÐ 4„ Ðdriving€caused€the€accident€that€led€to€his€wifeððs€death,€did€not€forfeit€his€right€to€receive€theÐ  p Ðinsurance€proceeds€from€the€accident,€even€though€he€pleaded€guilty€to€vehicular€homicide.€TheÐ  \ Ðcourt€reasoned€that€his€plea€did€not€satisfy€the€element€of€intent€required€to€trigger€the€provisions€ofÐ øH ÐTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€31„1„106.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAppellee€reasons€by€analogy€that€if€conviction€of€a€felony€did€not€deprive€Mr.€Moore€of€hisÐ ¼  Ðrights,€the€grand€juryððs€refusal€to€indict€Mr.€Nolan€should€place€his€rights€in€an€unassailable€position.Ð ¨ø ÐBut€unlike€Mr.€Moore,€who€was€attempting€to€assert€his€rights,€Mr.€Nolan€relinquished€his,€so€theirÐ ”ä Ðsituations€are€not€really€comparable.€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€American€Legion€also€contends€that€from€a€public€policy€standpoint€it€would€be€unwiseÐ X ¨ Ðto€accept€the€implied€waiver€argument,€except€for€cases€involving€intentional€homicide.€They€argueÐ D!” Ðthat€ð ðthere€might€be€innumerable€good€reasons€why€a€partially€at€fault€spouse€would€not€want€toÐ 0"€  Ðpursue€a€cause€of€actionðð€and€that€ð ðto€open€up€this€possibility€to€innumerable€collateral€kin€isÐ #l! Ðirrational.ðð€We€do€not€agree€with€that€analysis.€By€ruling€that€a€spouse€can€waive€his€right€of€actionÐ $X" Ðto€the€next€of€kin€of€the€deceased,€we€do€not€thereby€imply€that€by€inaction,€the€next€of€kin€canÐ ô$D # Ðdevolve€his€right€to€a€still€more€remote€relative.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àFurther,€in€òòFoster€v.€Jeffersóó,€supra,€we€observed€that€the€wrongful€death€statutes€provideÐ ° Ðâ âseveral€ways€whereby€a€surviving€spouse€can€maintain€control€over€his€right€of€action€if€he€wishes.Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðHe€could€bring€the€wrongful€death€action€himself,€he€could€waiveÐ tÄ Ðhis€right€to€the€administrator€who€could€bring€the€action€on€his€behalf,Ð `° Ðor€he€could€effect€a€bona€fide€compromise€in€the€form€of€a€release€andÐ L œ Ðsimply€not€bring€the€action€to€trial.€It€is€clearly€the€legislative€intentÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€a€surviving€spouse€ought€to€be€able€affirmatively€to€maintainÐ $ t Ðcontrol€over€his€right€of€action€regardless€of€whether€he€intends€toÐ  ` Ðbring€the€action€to€trial.€Because€the€statutes€provide€several€meansÐ ü L  Ðby€which€a€spouse€may€retain€his€right€of€action,€we€find€that€a€spouseÐ è 8  Ðcan€waive€his€right€by€inaction.ððÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌ813€S.W.2d€at€453à ¸ à€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhile€none€of€these€options€may€have€been€practical€or€palatable€for€Mr.€Nolan,€they€doÐ „Ô  Ðprovide€a€measure€of€protection€for€the€individual€whose€spouse€has€died€under€circumstances€thatÐ pÀ Ðwould€support€a€wrongful€death€suit,€but€who€has€legitimate€objections€to€the€institution€of€such€aÐ \¬ Ðsuit.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òVI.ó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€the€American€Legion€is€reversed.€Remand€thisÐ øH Ðcause€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Coffee€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€TaxÐ ä4 Ðthe€costs€on€appeal€to€the€Appellee,€Memorial€39,€Post€#43,€the€American€Legion.Ô#†¼Ve»XXé #ÔÔ€XéX»¼VeÔÐ Ð  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.€