ÿWPC¶Œ â_¦JŒÁN‹–Äs°P¶£/~D‹”Äã ÑL‹h°Äön6JÒrž}ç¬ÕZasuÿ¸–ßã'ÏL¿«-úÝ̰— פ¥bi+—¼ÖñR³¼¼Ù·äHpmË!)Ee®ë°¨H½ø“hÓ„úã'k$É6P/x–ƒÅC»Lè[œ­H=éß`\QCAæ†>’‘…tЄlÐMP #g3Æ›±ÖŒ™ùŽ ¾‡}¡ÊXŠ!¾¹rb:ËÍêªbÿÔÄb‚Þ†(ªçò­iú2:ï%É)öà,A%‡zŠÈ‹DÞôy&êT£€%‰U¿ƈh¼‘Â%L”ÏÆ§àXz‰h‡pîMÖÿŠqÞ"mq|I)é%?±é: aÃü›ðD©ºžbwÙŠ`dâ05›s*z6ðçâøgÂËÚ…f!5¿¨8W¶Ç2“[Ê„)í·8.Òª›«XØöQ>`¸’99qÛÍ–*BuW¡‰ ¼ªðt¸8ï~¦ŸeÜ“ä[fP ø¸Ö[Ü28šm‹xûG)@LMl>l>lÌpÌphàsàsàsàsàsàsàsàsàsàsàsàs 0'ÈHuHuHuHu Bvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv¤-v·Ñyáw„w„ XˆU>rˆK°ˆ»ûŠ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular $Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€Court€used€the€phrase€ð ðfurnishing€of€intoxicantsðð€in€this€one€instance€in€òòBrookinsóó,€the€caseÐ ° Ðinvolved€the€illegal€sale€of€alcohol€to€minors,€and€it€is€clear€from€the€opinion€in€its€entirety€that€the€Courtððs€statement€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€law€referred€to€sellers€of€alcohol,€not€those€who€provide€it€in€a€social€setting.x‹/Ï qdj/ê:i¢×+003|x0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEvidence€at€trial€regarding€these€events€cannot€be€considered€in€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment€decision.€€Because€the€defendants€have€not€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourtððs€verdict,€we€need€not€set€out€the€additional€facts€that€may€have€come€out€at€trial. Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThey€cite€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€1„3„113(b),€57„5„301(b)(I)(3),€and€57„4„203(e)(2)(A)€and€(B). #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó YÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€establishes€a€presumption€that€a€personððs€driving€was€impaired€if€his€or€herÐ ° Ðblood€alcohol€level€is€.10%€or€more. pÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€also€found€that€neither€Mr.€Brown€nor€Mr.€Worley€was€guilty€of€such€malicious,€intentional,€orÐ ° Ðreckless€conduct€so€as€to€entitle€the€plaintiffs€to€punitive€damages. SolomanCantrell P.J.MaloanSowellHollinsChaloslimineWorleysSneedBiscansdispositiveKarashPigottRentropTownesOsterSchiavone CmtBraswellCarothersCrombieRidings Ltg LufttechnischeLaRueWeigelsBrookins foreseeabilityHardinVanTranMauldinDownenTestaTestasDarnellArmentroutRivergateDanekKirkseyOverton EvidOverstreetRothsteinEldridgeFrugePeralesBirmanGoodloe CBLAlmanMcClungProsserKeetonCollisforeseeablyNicholsAtnipmovantIngramSouterMcClenahan Mgmt A]nPittmanGrandstaffChesor SysTranbargerMcLainMcConkeyBalentine T]hehad had contributorily F.W.GillilandBrazealedispositional CrimStephenyrebuttableAmmonsBonillaJeffreysStallworthWhittemoreSizemoreSherriffLimestonGrissomGovtJerilynLinder S.W.WaterslidesBallentine I]ttortfeasorsGoodermote ColnfurnisherLeCorpsMcDaniel CSXgatekeepingCasonew]hile TranFarner$nondeterminativeSeffernickPankownonexpertthuslyDuvallBeamanHouserPersingerthalmusimpulsivitySabirCarvellTinsleyWilkersonAltezir Marr LettsancrosanctA.A.R.MesserGrieshamCryotechAltizerCornprostGriesheimTownsleyMcLung Bainj.n.o.v.that that COASpinmakerShoneyNettervilleWorleyBiscantortfeasor ¶Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Biscans€assert€that€the€proof€showed€that€Hughes€Brown€primarily€drank€beer€he€already€had,€such€thatÐ ° Ðhis€intoxication€could€not€be€attributed€to€the€beer€purchased€for€him€by€Dana€Biscan€and,€consequently,€there€was€noÐ tÄ Ðshowing€that€Danaððs€providing€him€the€beer€was€a€cause€of€the€accident.€€Because€the€jury€was€not€allowed€to€allocateÐ 8ˆ Ðany€fault€to€Dana€Biscan,€we€cannot€presume€what€its€conclusion€might€have€been€regarding€the€source€of€the€beer.€ éÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€35„15„404(2)€and€ðð€57„3„412(a)(4). Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102,€entitled€ð ðstandard€of€proofðð€provides€that:€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àNotwithstanding€the€provisions€of€ðð€57„10„101,€no€judge€or€jury€may€pronounce€a€judgment€awardingÐ 8ˆ Ðdamages€to€or€on€behalf€of€any€party€who€has€suffered€personal€injury€or€death€against€any€person€whoÐ üL Ðhas€sold€any€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer,€unless€such€jury€of€twelve€(12)€persons€has€first€ascertainedÐ À Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€sale€by€such€person€of€the€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer€was€theÐ „Ô Ðproximate€cause€of€the€personal€injury€or€death€sustained€and€that€such€person:ÐH ˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(1)€Sold€the€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer€to€a€person€known€to€be€under€the€age€of€twenty„one€(21)€yearsÐ Ð  Ðand€such€person€caused€the€personal€injury€or€death€as€the€direct€result€of€the€consumption€of€theÐ ” ä  Ðalcoholic€beverage€or€beer€so€sold;€orÐX ¨ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€Sold€the€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer€to€an€obviously€intoxicated€person€and€such€person€caused€theÐ  l  Ðpersonal€injury€or€death€as€the€direct€result€of€the€consumption€of€the€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer€soÐ à 0  Ðsold.€€Ð¤ô Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†ô\òòô\¯#Ô ÷Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€holding€in€òòWorleyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€593,€supports€our€conclusion.€€Although€the€Supreme€Court€was€primarilyÐ ° Ðaddressing€a€procedural€issue€as€to€the€applicability€of€estoppel€to€alternative€pleadings,€the€Court€reversed€the€CourtÐ tÄ Ðof€Appeals€and€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€defendants.€€In€that€case,€the€underage€drinkerÐ 8ˆ Ðwho€caused€the€accident€was€provided€alcohol€by€another€person€below€the€legal€age€for€purchasing€and€consumingÐ üL Ðalcohol,€Scottie€Goosey,€who€had€actually€purchased€the€beer.€€The€trial€court€had€held€that€Mr.€Goosey€did€not€causeÐ À Ðthe€injury,€but€instead€gave€the€beer€to€another€minor€who€did€cause€the€injury.€Although€not€explicitly€stating€so,€theÐ „Ô ÐSupreme€Court€appears€to€have€approved€the€trial€courtððs€reasoning,€and€that€interpretation€would€be€consistent€withÐ H ˜ ÐòòÔ_ÔWorleyÔ_Ôóóððs€conclusion€that€the€injuries€must€be€caused€by€the€purchaserððs€consumption. 5Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú30Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€counsel€for€Mr.€Worley€later€acknowledged,€this€was€a€misstatement.€€Dr.€Mitchell€is€a€professor€ofÐ ° Ðpathology. Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔOne€was€that€he€aided€and€abetted€his€friend,€the€driver,€in€the€illegal€activity€of€driving€while€intoxicated.€Ð ° ÐThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€passenger.€€On€appeal,€the€plaintiff€challenged€the€jury€instruction€that€ð ðtheÐ tÄ Ðmere€furnishing€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer€alone€is€insufficient€to€establish€liability€for€aiding€and€abetting€drivingÐ 8ˆ Ðunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.ðð€€This€court€found€that€the€instruction€was€taken€from€theòò€Cecil€óócase€and€was€aÐ üL Ðcorrect€statement€of€the€law.Ô#†ô\òòô\°#Ô€The€plaintiff€also€argued€that€òòCecilóó€was€distinguishable€because€that€case€involved€adultsÐ À Ðand€the€furnishing€of€alcohol€to€a€minor€could€be€considered€an€element€of€aiding€an€abetting.€€Although€this€court€foundÐ „Ô Ðthe€record€before€it€did€not€establish€the€driverððs€age,€it€also€noted€that€the€òòCecilóó€case€made€no€such€distinction.€€òòMauldinóó,Ð H ˜ Ð1993€WL€312686,€at€*3. ÁÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔThe€allegations€in€òòCecilóó€included€the€claim€that€the€passenger€in€a€car€that€struck€and€killed€a€bicyclist€wasÐ ° Ðliable€because€he€provided€beer€to€his€friend,€the€intoxicated€driver.Ô#†ô\òòô\°#Ô Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú31Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€Ô‡ô\òòô\Ô,€at€the€end€of€the€proffer,€the€defendantsðð€counsel€asked€the€court€if€it€was€ð ðsticking€byðð€its€priorÐ ° Ðruling,€and€the€court€affirmed€it€was.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€that€the€court€was€asked€prior€to€the€proffer€toÐ tÄ Ðreconsider€its€ruling€excluding€Dr.€Mitchellððs€testimony.€€At€that€point€in€the€proceedings,€the€court€would€have€beenÐ 8ˆ Ðjustified€in€denying€a€motion€to€reconsider€and€a€request€to€put€on€proof€to€establish€the€qualifications€the€court€hadÐ üL Ðpreviously€found€missingòò.€€Ô#†ô\òòô\½#ÔSee€Robinson€v.€LeCorpsóó,€835€S.W.3d€718,€725€(Tenn.€2002). Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú33Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDefendants€make€no€argument€that€it€would€have,€instead€focusing€on€Dr.€Mitchellððs€qualifications. ”Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú35Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJennifer€was€excluded€from€the€courtroom€during€the€medical€testimony€relating€to€her€prognosis.€€Her€counselÐ ° Ðmade€this€request€so€that€she€would€not€be€deterred€from€effort€at€and€expectation€of€improvement. ñÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú34Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€was€bleeding€and€swelling€between€her€skull€and€her€brain.€€There€was€bleeding€and€bruising€in€bothÐ ° Ðfrontal€lobes€of€her€brain,€tearing€in€the€corpus€callosum,€and€bleeding€in€the€thalmus.€€There€were€also€multiple€shearÐ tÄ Ðinjuries€throughout€her€brain€and€a€brain€stem€injury. VÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú36Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€explained€earlier,€the€jury€apportioned€15%€of€the€fault€for€her€injuries€to€Jennifer€Biscan,€thereby€reducingÐ ° Ðthe€award€to€her€by€that€amount. ²Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú37Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAmy€Grant€was€the€current€girlfriend€of€Jennifer€Biscanððs€ex„boyfriend€and€her€proffered€testimony€was€that€Ð ° Ðon€one€occasion€she€observed€Jennifer€Biscan€ð ðsipðð€beer€from€a€bottle€ð ðmaybe€five€timesðð€over€less€than€an€hour.€€ "Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€necessary€element€of€any€negligence€cause€of€action€is€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff.€Ð ° ÐòòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assoc.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000);€òòColn€v.€City€of€Savannahóó,€966€S.W.2d€34,€39€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1998);òò€McClung€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnershipóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€894€(Tenn.€1996).òòóó ÈÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOther€cases€merely€cite€òòWilkersonóó€for€the€proposition€that€this€state€has€not€adopted€Section€318,€even€whereÐ ° Ðthat€section€is€not€at€issue€in€the€case.€€òòSee€e.g.,€Nicholsóó,€Ô‡ô\òòô\Ô844€S.W.2d€at€662;€Ô#†ô\òòô\|#ÔòòÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔNewtonóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€490.€€Other€casesÐ tÄ Ðlist€the€property€owner„guest€relation€as€one€included€in€the€Restatement,€without€distinguishing€it€from€the€other€specialÐ 8ˆ Ðrelations.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô#†ô\òòô\Ô#ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\Ô€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€100;€òòMarr€v.€Montgomery€Elevator€Co.óó,€922€S.W.2d€526,€529€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð üL Ð1996).Ô#†ô\òòô\#Ô ~Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔIn€òòWilkersonóó,€the€issue€of€the€social€hostððs€duty€was€raised€in€the€context€of€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€instructÐ ° Ðthe€jury€on€Section€318,€and€this€court€held€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€was€not€reversible€error€because€the€overallÐ tÄ Ðcharge€included€language€regarding€a€hostððs€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€control€over€the€conduct€of€his€or€her€guests,Ð 8ˆ Ðwhich€was€substantively€the€same€as€Section€318.€€Ô#†ô\òòô\°#ÔThus,€it€is€arguable€that€the€courtððs€refusal€to€adopt€Section€318€wasÐ üL Ðnot€necessary€to€the€resolution€of€the€case€and,€therefore,€òòdictumóó. ÏÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€state€it€follows€the€current€philosophy€expressed€in€Tenn.Ð ° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€37„1„133(bÔ#†ô\òòô\°#ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\Ô).Ô#†ô\òòô\‹#Ô ¬Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔAll€the€other€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€as€to€€medical€expenses€and€adopted€theÐ ° Ðarguments€and€pleadings€filed€by€Mr.€Worley€on€this€issue.Ô#†ô\òòô\¯#Ô CÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Biscans€then€filed€a€separate€lawsuit€against€Dana€Biscan,€the€convenience€store€where€she€purchased€theÐ ° Ðbeer,€Ô‡ô\òòô\Ôand€the€business€located€in€Nashville€where€she€purchased€her€fake€identification.€€Prior€to€the€trial€at€issue€herein,Ð tÄ Ðhowever,€the€Biscans€non„suited€that€lawsuit.Ô#†ô\òòô\6#ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\Ô€In€the€case€before€us,€Ô#†ô\òòô\1#ÔtÔ‡ô\òòô\Ôhe€Biscans€also€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€seeking€toÐ 8ˆ Ðexclude€evidence€of€the€lawsuit€against€Dana.Ô#†ô\òòô\Œ#Ô€€The€trial€court€granted€that€motion,€and€the€defendants€also€appeal€thatÐ üL Ðdecision.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€on€that€issue€since€the€court€properly€ruled€that€no€fault€could€be€attributed€toÐ À ÐDana€Biscan. ¹Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔDowenÔ_Ôóó,€the€court€also€stated,€ð ðÔ‡ô\òòô\Ôwhile€this€result€may€not€be€what€the€legislature€intended€with€regard€to€aÐ ° Ðsituation€involving€minors,€this€court€cannot€ignore€the€legislatureððs€statement€of€public€policy.Ô#†ô\òòô\û#Ôðð€€The€court€also€notedÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€number€of€states,€by€statute€or€by€court€decision,€had€imposed€social€host€liability€when€alcohol€is€served€to€aÐ 8ˆ Ðminor,€but€that€our€legislature€had€declined€to€impose€liability€for€the€furnishing€of€alcohol€to€persons€under€the€age€ofÐ üL Ðtwenty„one€in€our€most€recent€legislative€session.€€2003€WL€2002411,€at€*4€n.2,€òòcitingóó€SB/HB€1758/1916. ‚Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔOur€courts€have€adopted€another€exception€to€the€general€rule€expressed€in€the€statute.€€That€exception€allowsÐ ° Ðimpeachment€of€a€character€witness,€at€least€one€for€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€case,€through€questioning€of€the€witnessððsÐ tÄ Ðknowledge€of€juvenile€charges€against€the€defendant,€but€is€subject€to€a€number€of€limitations.€€òòStepheny€v.€Stateóó,€570Ð 8ˆ ÐS.W.2d€356,€359€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Sextonóó,€No.€E2000„01779„CCA„R3„CD,€2002€WL€1787946,€at€*13„Ð üL Ð16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€2,€2002).€€Defendants€have€not€argued€that€this€exception€applies.Ô#†ô\òòô\°#Ôòòóó £Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔIn€òòCornprostóó,€the€Supreme€Court€had€held€that€businesses€had€no€duty€to€protect€their€customers€from€criminalÐ ° Ðacts€of€third€parties€unless€they€knew€or€had€reason€to€know€that€such€acts€were€occurring€or€about€to€occur€on€theÐ tÄ Ðpremises€that€posed€imminent€probability€of€harm€to€a€customer.€€òòCornprostóó,€528€S.W.2d€at€198.€€In€òòMcClungóó,€the€CourtÐ 8ˆ Ðre„examined€that€holding,€finding€that€it€was€two€decades€old€and€rendered€with€little€case€law€on€the€subject€to€guideÐ üL Ðthe€Court€in€its€decision,€but€that€numerous€courts€and€commentators€had€considered€the€issue€sinceòò€Cornprostóó.€€TheÐ À ÐCourt€discarded€the€òòCornprostóó€rule€in€favor€of€the€majority€position,€as€reflected€in€Section€433€of€the€RestatementÐ „Ô Ð(Second)€of€Torts,€that€businesses€have€a€duty€to€protect€customers€from€foreseeable€criminal€acts€and€rejected€theÐ H ˜ ÐòòCornprostóó€limitation€on€€foreseeability.€€òòIdóó.€898„99.€€The€Court€specifically€held€that€its€balancing€of€factors€approachÐ  \ Ðto€a€determination€of€the€existence€of€a€duty€was€to€be€applied.Ô#†ô\òòô\°#Ô »Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú32Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€Evid.€701€allows€a€lay€witness€to€offer€opinions€rationally€based€on€the€witnessððs€perceptions€andÐ ° Ðhelpful€to€an€understanding€of€the€testimony€or€determination€of€a€fact€in€issue.€€ð ðConsequently,€a€lay€witness€may€testifyÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€person€was€ððdrunkðð€.€.€.€.€€Advisory€Comm.€Cmt.€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701.€€Such€a€conclusion€would,€of€course,€beÐ 8ˆ Ðbased€upon€the€witnessððs€observation€of€the€person€and€knowledge€of€what€a€drunk€person€acts€like. dÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€a€thorough€discussion€of€the€statistical€evidence€regarding€the€consequences€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô„related€and€underage„Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔDUIÔ_Ô„related€incidents,€òòsee€óóA.€Ô_ÔEasleyÔ_Ô,€òòVendor€Liability€for€the€Sale€of€Alcohol€to€an€Underage€Personóó,€21€òòÔ_ÔCampbÔ_Ô.€L.Ð tÄ ÐRevóó.€277,€291„300€(1999). „Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€Mr.€Worley€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€allegations€of€negligence€òòper€seóó€and€the€request€forÐ ° Ðpunitive€damages.€€Because€the€jury€found€that€Mr.€Worley€was€not€liable€for€punitive€damages,€that€issue€is€moot.€€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐWorley€appeals€the€denial€of€directed€verdict€with€regard€to€negligence€òòper€seóó.€€Those€claims€were€alleged€as€one€of€threeÐ 8ˆ Ðalternative€sources€for€the€duty€owed€by€Mr.€Worley.€€Because€we€have€found€that€the€other€two€sources€were€sufficientlyÐ üL Ðalleged€and€proved€to€allow€Mr.€Ô_ ÔWorleyÔ_ Ôððs€negligence€to€go€to€the€jury,€and€because€the€juryððs€general€verdict€ofÐ À Ðnegligence€on€his€part€could€have€been€based€upon€its€determination€that€he€breached€either€the€duty€imposed€upon€himÐ „Ô Ðby€law€or€the€duty€he€voluntarily€assumed,€or€both,€we€need€not€reach€the€negligence€òòper€seóó€issues. Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€recognize€an€apparent€anomaly€if€an€adult€host€who€served€alcohol€to€a€minor€could€not€be€liable€becauseÐ ° Ðof€the€Dram€Shop€Act,€but€a€host€who€acted€with€good€intentions€as€Mr.€Worley€did€could€face€liability.€€We€simply€noteÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€case€before€us€does€not€involve€a€defendant€who€served€alcohol€to€minors,€and€we€are€not€called€upon€to€addressÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€situation.€€Further,€allowing€an€intoxicated€minor€to€drive€when€it€could€have€been€prevented€is€a€cause€of€the€injuryÐ üL Ðseparate€from€and€additional€to€the€intoxication. ^Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€was€some€evidence€this€result€could€have€been€attributed€to€medication€given€her€upon€her€arrival€atÐ ° Ðthe€hospital€and€before€the€blood€alcohol€test.(YG2“.$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\Ô d šÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Biscans€question€the€credibility€of€this€statement€based€on€other€statements€made€by€Hughes€that€wereÐ ° Ðrefuted€by€physical€evidence.€€For€example,€Hughes€also€testified€that€after€he€got€into€the€car€he€got€out€two€beers,Ð tÄ Ðhanded€one€to€Jennifer,€who€opened€it,€and€kept€one€for€himself,€which€he€opened€and€began€drinking.€€No€personnelÐ 8ˆ Ðat€the€scene€of€the€accident€found€any€opened€cans€of€beer€in€the€car€or€in€the€vicinity,€and€there€was€no€evidence€ofÐ üL Ðrecently€spilled€beer€in€the€car€or€on€the€occupants.€€In€any€event,€the€jury€is€the€arbiter€of€credibility.€€The€jury€hereinÐ À Ðwas€able€to€assess€this€statement€along€with€other€testimony. ­Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔAt€the€hearing€on€the€motions,€counsel€for€Hughes€Brown€argued€that€Jenniferððs€prior€experience€with€alcoholÐ ° Ðwas€relevant€ð ðto€show€what€she€knew€or€should€have€known€about€the€effects€of€alcoholðð€because€Mr.€Brownððs€primaryÐ tÄ Ðdefense€was€Ô#†ô\òòô\°#ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\Ôð ðthat€Jennifer€Biscan€was€at€fault€and€negligent€for€becoming€a€passenger€in€a€vehicle€with€a€person€sheÐ 8ˆ Ðknew€was€drinking.ðð€€Counsel€for€Mr.€Brown€argued€that€he€wanted€to€be€able€to€prove€that€ð ðat€the€time€she€acceptedÐ üL Ða€ride€with€Hughes€Brown€to€leave€the€party,€that€she€could€recognize€.€.€.€That€she€knew€the€signs€of€alcoholicÐ À Ðconsumption.ðð€€On€the€other€side,€counsel€for€Jennifer€Biscan€argued€that€while€the€defendants€could€inquire€into€howÐ „Ô Ðmuch€Jennifer€drank€on€the€night€of€the€party,€whether€she€was€intoxicated€then,€how€much€Hughes€Brown€had€to€drinkÐ H ˜ Ðthat€night,€and€whether€Jennifer€had€ever€seen€Hughes€Brown€having€trouble€driving€before,€her€personal€consumptionÐ  \ Ðof€alcohol€prior€to€the€day€of€the€accident€was€not€relevant€and€was€highly€prejudicialÔ#†ô\òòô\#ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\Ô.€€Ô#†ô\òòô\Û#ÔThe€Biscansðð€counsel€argued€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendants€intended€to€portray€Jennifer€as€a€party€girl€with€prejudicial€effect€on€her€credibility€and€on€her€recoveryÐ ” ä  Ðof€damages.€€He€also€relied€on€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609€as€precluding€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts,€other€than€convictions€ofÐ X ¨  Ðcrime,€for€purposes€of€attacking€a€witnessððs€credibility. åÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\ÔOutside€the€presence€of€the€jury,€both€Mr.€Worley€and€Mr.€Brown€proffered€testimony€by€several€of€JenniferÐ ° ÐBiscanððs€classmates€and€fellow€attendees€of€the€party€at€the€Worley€home€regarding€the€frequency€of€Jennifer€BiscanððsÐ tÄ Ðprior€alcohol€consumption.€€Of€the€nearly€ten€witnesses,€only€a€handful€were€able€to€recall€any€specific€instances€in€whichÐ 8ˆ ÐJennifer€Biscan€consumed€alcohol€prior€to€the€day€of€the€party.Ð üL ÐÔ#†ô\òòô\°#Ô ×Ý ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThey€also€argue€that€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(c),€dealing€with€evidence€of€character€or€conduct€of€a€witness€relevantÐ ° Ðto€the€witnessððs€truthfulness,€precludes€admission€of€the€proffered€evidence.€€That€rule€provides:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àEvidence€of€specific€instances€of€conduct€of€a€witness€committed€while€the€witness€was€a€juvenile€isÐ üL Ðgenerally€not€admissible€under€this€rule.€€The€court€may,€however,€allow€evidence€of€such€conduct€ofÐ À Ða€witness€other€than€the€accused€in€a€criminal€case€if€the€conduct€would€be€admissible€to€attack€theÐ „Ô Ðcredibility€of€an€adult€and€the€court€is€satisfied€that€admission€in€evidence€is€necessary€for€a€fairÐ H ˜ Ðdetermination€in€a€civil€action€or€criminal€proceeding.ÿÿSearchTermô\  `‹&Times New Roman AÝ ƒR“.$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô\òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú29Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òòô\ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô\òòô\Ô€Mr.€Brown€refers€to€jury€out€testimony€that€Jennifer€Biscan€consumed€alcohol€in€the€past,×Ãؘ×× C ×€and€that€evidenceÐ ° Ðwas€excluded.€He€also€refers€to€evidence€that€€Jennifer€was€at€the€Worley€party€where€there€was€underage€drinking€andÐ tÄ Ðshe€in€fact€drank€alcohol€at€that€party.Ô#†ô\òòô\°#Ô ±Ý ƒRÏn$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ‡ôûòXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€evidence€of€Jennifer€Biscanððs€prior€consumption€of€alcohol€was€excluded€by€the€trial€court€pursuant€toÐ ° Ða€motion€in€limine€filed€by€the€Biscans.€€We€have€already€determined€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€granting€thatÐ xÈ Ðmotion€in€limine.€€Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXÔÔ‡»[q»XXý¨ÔÑ€z\Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  ÐÓ  ÓOctober€9,€2002€SessionÐ Ô$ ÐÔ#†Xý¨X»»[ql#ÔÌò òÔ‡»[q»XXý¨ÔJENNIFER€L.€BISCAN,€òòet€al.óó€v.€FRANKLIN€H.€BROWN,€òòet€alóó.Ô#†Xý¨X»»[q{#Ôó óÐ Ò" ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ Ò " Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98C„2721€€€€€€Carol€Soloman,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‚Ò  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02766„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€15,€2003ó óÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨M#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôò òÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓAfter€attending€a€party€where€alcohol€was€present,€a€minor€intoxicated€driver€and€minor€guestÐ P   Ðpassenger€were€involved€in€an€automobile€accident€in€which€the€passenger€suffered€serious€injury.Ð <Œ ÐThe€passenger€sued€the€driver€and€the€adult€host€of€the€party.€€The€jury€awarded€the€minor€guestÐ (x Ðpassenger€damages€and€allocated€fault€70%€to€the€minor€intoxicated€driver,€15%€to€the€adult€partyÐ d Ðhost,€and€15%€to€the€minor€guest€passenger.€€The€driver€and€the€host€appeal€various€rulings€of€theÐ P Ðtrial€court.€€We€affirm.Ð ì< ÐÓ)ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ä ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,€óóÐ ˆØ Ðand€òòW.€Michael€Maloan,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌAlan€M.€Sowell,€John€J.€Hollins,€Jr.,€Joseph€T.€Howell,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,Ð Lœ ÐFranklin€Hughes€Brown,€Paul€N.€Worley.Ð 8ˆ ÐÌPhilip€N.€Elbert,€Mark€P.€Chalos,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Jennifer€L.€Biscan€andÐ !`  ÐRobert€S.€Biscan.€€Ð ü!L! ÐÓJÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ Ô#$# ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨—#ÔIn€this€appeal,€the€defendants€appeal€a€judgment€entered€after€a€jury€verdict€awardingÐ ¬%ü % Ðdamages€to€Jennifer€Biscan€and€her€father,€Robert€Biscan,€for€serious€brain€injuries€Jennifer€incurredÐ ˜&è!& Ðin€an€automobile€accident,€which€injuries€left€her€permanently€impaired.€€Jennifer,€16€at€the€time,Ð „'Ô"' Ðwas€riding€as€a€passenger€in€the€car€driven€by€€Hughes€Brown,€then€17,€who€was€intoxicated.€€TheÐ p(À#( Ðaccident€occurred€after€Jennifer€and€Hughes€left€a€party€at€the€home€of€Paul€Worley,€where€someÐ \)¬$) Ðguests€had€consumed€beer.€€It€is€uncontested€that€Hughes€Brownððs€negligent€operation€of€the€carÐ H*˜%* Ðwhile€intoxicated€was€the€cause€of€the€accident.Ð 4+„&+ ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ  -\(- ÐÑz\Ñâ âÑ8€ý¨XXdìdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôà  àAfter€a€jury€trial,€damages€of€$3,954,810€were€awarded€to€Jennifer€and€Mr.€Biscan.€€The€juryÐ ° Ðfound€Hughes€Brown,€Jennifer€Biscan,€and€Mr.€Worley€to€be€negligent€and€also€found€that€theirÐ œì Ðnegligence€was€the€legal€cause€of€the€accident€and€resulting€injuries.€€The€jury€assessed€fault€70%Ð ˆØ Ðto€Hughes€Brown,€15%€to€Mr.€Worley,€and€15%€to€Jennifer€Biscan.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ã #ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€Both€Mr.€Brown€and€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐWorley€appealed.€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨³#ÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€appellants€do€not€directly€raise€a€question€of€whether€the€juryððs€verdict€is€supported€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaterial€evidence.€€Instead,€they€have€identified€a€total€of€fifteen€issues€on€appeal€that€primarilyÐ $ t Ðinvolve€(1)€legal€questions€regarding€proper€parties€as€plaintiff,€defendant,€and€for€purposes€ofÐ  ` Ðallocating€fault,€(2)€evidentiary€rulings,€and€(3)€jury€instructions.Ð ü L  ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àAs€general€background,€on€October€18,€1997,€Paul€Worley€hosted€a€party€for€his€daughterÐ Ô$  ÐAshleyððs€eighteenth€birthday€at€his€home.€€A€majority€of€the€children€who€attended€the€party€wereÐ À  Ðstudents€at€€Ashley€Worleyððs€school,€where€she€was€a€senior.€€People€were€invited€to€the€party€byÐ ¬ü  Ðword€of€mouth,€some€being€personally€invited€by€Ashley€Worley.€€Others€only€heard€about€the€party.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Worleys€did€not€serve€alcohol€or€make€it€available€at€the€party.€€Although€manyÐ pÀ Ðattendees€did€not€drink,€a€number€brought€alcohol,€primarily€beer,€to€the€party€and€drank€it€there.€Ð \¬ ÐMr.€Worley€fully€expected€that€the€minor€guests€would€both€bring€and€consume€beer€on€his€property.€Ð H˜ ÐHe€intended€that€a€rule€he€had€implemented€in€previous€parties€given€by€his€son€would€apply:€thatÐ 4„ Ðis,€that€any€guest€who€chose€to€drink€alcohol€would€be€required€to€turn€over€car€keys€and€spend€theÐ  p Ðnight€rather€than€drive€home.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àSometime€after€11:00€p.m.,€Jennifer€Biscan€decided€she€wanted€to€leave€the€party.€€She€ranÐ ä4 Ðinto€her€longtime€friend€Hughes€Brown,€who€had€been€drinking,€and€asked€him€for€a€ride.€€The€twoÐ Ð  Ðleft€the€Worley€residence€together€in€Hughes€€Brownððs€car,€and€approximately€one€mile€away,€at€theÐ ¼  Ðintersection€of€Sawyer€Brown€and€Sneed€Road,€Hughes€Brown€ran€into€a€guardrail.€€Mr.€Brown€wasÐ ¨ø Ðnot€seriously€injured€in€the€wreck;€Jennifer,€on€the€other€hand,€was€severely€injured.€€Tests€takenÐ ”ä Ðshortly€after€the€accident€revealed€Hughes€Brownððs€blood€alcohol€level€to€be€.17%.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €Ð ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌÓ  ÓI.€€Recovery€Of€Medical€Expenses€„€Amendment€To€Add€FatherÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓïÓÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Ï#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àThe€original€complaint€herein€was€filed€on€October€2,€1998,€naming€as€the€plaintiff€JenniferÐ 0"€  ÐBiscan,€by€her€next€friend€and€natural€guardianÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨~#Ô,€Robert€S.€Biscan,€and€seeking€damages€forÐ #l! ÐJenniferððs€injuries.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Mr.€Biscan€did€not€originally€sue€in€his€individual€capacityÐ $X" Ðfor€damages€he€sustained€as€Jenniferððs€parent.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àTwenty„two€months€after€the€complaint€was€filed,€Mr.€Worley€moved€for€partial€summaryÐ Ì&"% Ðjudgment€as€to€any€claim€for€medical€expenses.€€He€also€asked€the€court€to€preclude€proof€of€medicalÐ ° Ðexpenses€unless€Jennifer€Biscan€could€prove€she€personally€paid€the€expenses€or€was€legallyÐ œì Ðobligated€to€pay€them.€€In€the€memorandum€in€support€of€this€motion,€Mr.€Worley€also€argued€thatÐ ˆØ ÐJenniferððs€parents€were€barred€from€bringing€a€cause€of€action€for€Jenniferððs€medical€expensesÐ tÄ Ðbecause€the€statute€of€limitations€had€expired.׃2×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `° ÐÌà  àSoon€thereafter€and€in€response,€Jennifer€Biscan€moved€for€leave€to€amend€her€complaint€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðadd€Mr.€Biscan€as€a€plaintiff€in€his€individual€capacity.€€The€amendment€was€requested€toÐ $ t ÐÌà8  àavoid€any€potential€technical€pleading€issue€by€asserting€a€direct€claim€by€PlaintiffÐ ü L  ÐRobert€S.€Biscan,€the€father€of€Plaintiff€Jennifer€L.€Biscan,€to€recover€any€medicalÐ è 8  Ðexpenses€incurred€as€a€result€of€the€injuries€to€Jennifer€L.€Biscan€that€might€be€heldÐ Ô$  Ðnot€recoverable€by€Jennifer€Biscan€herself€because€she€was€a€minor.€.€.€.€€ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€and€granted€theÐ ˜è  ÐBiscan€motion€to€amend€the€complaint.€€On€appeal,€Mr.€Worley€and€Mr.€Brown€argue€that€RobertÐ „Ô  ÐBiscan€was€not€a€plaintiff€in€the€original€complaint;€that€the€next€friend€of€a€minor€plaintiff€is€not€aÐ pÀ Ðparty€plaintiffÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô;€and€that€he€failed€to€bring€a€claim€in€his€individual€capacity€within€the€one„yearÐ \¬ Ðstatute€of€limitations.€€Therefore,€defendants€assert,€he€cannot€sue€for€or€recover€any€damages€heÐ H˜ Ðsuffered€individually€as€Jenniferððs€parent.€€They€assert€the€amendment€to€add€Mr.€Biscan€as€aÐ 4„ Ðplaintiff€was€improperly€granted.€€They€also€argue€that€since€Mr.€Biscan€was€not€a€plaintiff€in€hisÐ  p Ðindividual€capacity,€no€damages€for€medical€expenses€were€recoverable€because€Jennifer€Biscan€wasÐ  \ Ðnot€entitled€to€damages€she€did€not€incur.€€They€argue€she€was€a€minor,€her€parents€were€responsibleÐ øH Ðfor€those€expenses,€and€she€did€not€pay€for€medical€expenses.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Biscans,€on€the€other€hand,€argue€that€Mr.€Worley€and€Mr.€Brown€were€given€notice€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€accident€which€is€the€subject€of€the€suit,€the€allegations€of€their€fault€in€contributing€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðaccident€and€injuries,€and€the€fact€that€the€lawsuit€was€intended€to€recover€all€elements€of€damagesÐ ”ä Ðrelating€to€the€injuries€Jennifer€Biscan€sustained.€€Further,€Mr.€Worley€and€Mr.€Brown€were€providedÐ €Ð Ðcopies€of€Jennifer€Biscanððs€medical€bills€throughout€discovery.€€Consequently,€the€Biscans€assert,Ð l¼ Ðthe€amendment€adding€Robert€Biscan€as€a€separate€party€relates€back€to€the€filing€of€the€originalÐ X ¨ Ðcomplaint€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€and€is€therefore€not€time€barred.€€In€the€alternative,€theyÐ D!” Ðassert€that€Jennifer€Biscan€is€entitled€to€maintain€her€own€action€for€the€recovery€of€her€medicalÐ 0"€  Ðexpenses,€the€original€complaint€seeks€redress€for€Jennifer€Biscanððs€entire€injury,€and€therefore,Ð #l! ÐRobert€Biscan€has€relinquished€his€direct€cause€of€action€to€Jennifer€Biscan.€€Ð $X" ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨r##Ôà  àIf€Mr.€Biscan€was€properly€added€as€a€plaintiff€in€his€individual€capacity€and€that€amendmentÐ à%0!$ Ðrelated€back€to€the€filing€of€the€original€complaint,€then€it€is€undisputed€he€could€recover€medicalÐ Ì&"% Ðexpenses€attributable€to€Jenniferððs€injuries.€€Because€we€find€the€amendment€was€proper,€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðdetermination€is€dispositive€of€the€question,€and€there€is€no€need€to€examine€the€other€issues€raised.Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àThe€questions€about€the€amendment€to€add€Mr.€Biscan€as€a€plaintiff€are€governed€by€RuleÐ ° Ð15.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€ð ðThe€goal€behind€Rule€15,€as€with€all€the€RulesÐ œì Ðof€Civil€Procedure,€is€ððto€insure€that€cases€and€controversies€be€determined€upon€their€merits€and€notÐ ˆØ Ðupon€legal€technicalities€or€procedural€niceties.ðððð€òòDoyle€v.€Frostóó,€49€S.W.3d€853,€856€(Tenn.€2001)Ð tÄ Ð(quoting€òòKarash€v.€Pigottóó,€530€S.€W.€775,€777€(Tenn.€1975)).€€Thus,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€isÐ `° Ðconstrued€liberally€in€order€to€promote€the€consideration€of€claims€on€their€merits.€€òòFloyd€v.€Rentropóó,Ð L œ Ð675€S.W.2d€165,€168€(Tenn.€1984);€òòTownes€v.€Sunbeam€Oster€Co.,€Inc.óó,€50€S.W.3d€446,€451€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCt.€App.€2001);òò€€McCracken€v.€Brentwood€United€Methodist€Churchóó,€958€S.W.2d€792,€797€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCt.€App.€1997).òòóó€€The€rule€in€question€provides:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àWhenever€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€amended€pleadings€arose€out€of€theÐ è 8  Ðconduct,€transaction,€or€occurrence€set€forth€or€attempted€to€be€set€forth€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðoriginal€pleading,€the€amendment€relates€back€to€the€date€of€the€original€pleading.€Ð À  ÐAn€amendment€changing€the€party€or€the€naming€of€the€party€by€or€against€whom€aÐ ¬ü  Ðclaim€is€asserted€relates€back€if€the€foregoing€provision€is€satisfied€and€if,€within€theÐ ˜è  Ðperiod€provided€by€law€for€commencing€an€action€or€within€120€days€afterÐ „Ô  Ðcommencement€of€the€action,€the€party€to€be€brought€in€by€amendment€(1)€hasÐ pÀ Ðreceived€such€notice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€that€the€party€will€not€beÐ \¬ Ðprejudiced€in€maintaining€a€defense€on€the€merits,€and€(2)€knew€or€should€haveÐ H˜ Ðknown€that,€but€for€a€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€proper€party,€the€actionÐ 4„ Ðwould€have€been€brought€against€the€party.€€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.Ð øH ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àThe€principal€purpose€of€the€Rule€is€ð ðto€enable€a€plaintiff€to€correct€a€pleading€error€after€theÐ Ð  Ðstatute€of€limitations€has€run€if€the€correction€will€not€prejudice€his€adversary€in€any€way.ðð€€òòDoyleóó,Ð ¼  Ð49€S.W.3d€at€856„57€(quoting€òòSchiavone€v.€Fortuneóó,€477€U.S.€21,€38,€106€S.€Ct.€2379,€2389€(1986)Ð ¨ø Ð(Stevens,€J.€dissenting)).Ð ”ä ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨ï5#ÔÌà  àThe€Biscansðð€amendment€herein€is€covered€by€the€second€sentence€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03Ð l¼ Ðbecause€it€adds€a€party€by€whom€a€claim€is€asserted.€€ð ðChangingðð€a€party€under€the€rule€includesÐ X ¨ Ðadding,€dropping€or€substituting€a€party.€€òò6A€Charles€A.€Wright,€et€al.,€Federal€Practice€&Ð D!” ÐProcedureòò€óóóóðð€1498€(2d€ed.€1990).€€When€the€amendment€seeks€to€change€or€add€a€party€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðlawsuit,€the€claim€asserted€by€or€against€that€new€party€will€be€considered€filed€on€the€date€of€theÐ #l! Ðoriginal€pleading€when€the€requirements€of€the€rule€are€met.€€òòDoyleóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€856.Ð $X" ÐÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àòòóóMany€cases€dealing€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€address€whether€the€amended€complaint€willÐ à%0!$ Ðrelate€back€to€the€date€of€filing€of€the€original€complaint€when€adding€a€defendant€to€an€action.€€InÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€case€herein,€however,€the€Biscans€sought€to€add€Robert€Biscan€as€a€party€plaintiff.€€Even€priorÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€adoption€of€Rule€15,€Tennessee€law€allowed€an€amendment€that€added€a€new€plaintiff€to€relateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðback€to€the€filing€of€the€original€suit€without€it€being€barred€by€a€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSee€óóAdvisoryÐ )à$( ÐCommission€Cmt.€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€€The€rule€did€not€change€that€principle.€€ð ð[A]€plaintiffÐ |*Ì%) Ðmay€usually€amend,€under€the€relation€back€provision€.€.€.€to€substitute€or€add€as€plaintiff€the€realÐ h+¸&* Ðparty€in€interest.ðð€€òòBraswell€v.€Carothersóó,€863€S.W.2d€722,€726€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(quotingòòÐ ° ÐOsborne€Enters.,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€561€S.W.2d€160,€163€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977)).€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€cases€seeking€to€add€a€new€party€plaintiff€after€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations,Ð tÄ Ðthe€test€is€ð ð(1)€whether€the€defendant€received€adequate€notice€of€the€claim€against€him;€(2)€whetherÐ `° Ðthe€relation€back€of€such€amendment€would€unfairly€prejudice€the€defendant;€and€(3)€whether€thereÐ L œ Ðis€an€ððidentity€of€interestðð€between€the€original€party€plaintiff€and€the€new€party€plaintiff.ðð€€òòOsborneóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð561€S.W.2d€at€164.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€essential€requirement€is€that€the€defendant€not€only€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨´:#Ôhave€notice€about€the€operationalÐ ü L  Ðfacts€but€also€ð ðmust€have€had€fair€notice€that€a€legal€claim€existed€in,€and€was€in€effect€being€assertedÐ è 8  Ðbyðð€the€plaintiff€belatedly€brought€in.€€òòBraswellóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€726.€€The€existence€of€fair€noticeÐ Ô$  Ðfrom€the€original€complaint€that€the€newly„added€plaintiffððs€claim€is€involved€ensures€that€theÐ À  Ðdefendants€suffer€no€prejudice€from€the€amendment.€€òòIdóó.€at€727.€€Prejudice€is€the€key€consideration.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€were€met€herein.€€The€amendment€clearly€arisesÐ „Ô  Ðout€of€the€same€conduct€and€occurrence€as€the€original€complaint.€€The€original€complaint€put€Mr.Ð pÀ ÐWorley€and€Mr.€Brown€on€notice€of€the€allegations€against€them.€€It€sought€damages€for€all€injuriesÐ \¬ Ðto€Jennifer€resulting€from€the€accident.€€They€also€had€notice€that€medical€expenses€resulted€fromÐ H˜ ÐJenniferððs€injuries,€that€Jennifer€was€a€minor,€and€that€her€father€was€acting€as€her€next€friend€andÐ 4„ Ðnatural€guardian.€€Mr.€Worley€and€Mr.€Brown€were€not€prejudiced€in€their€defense€by€the€delayedÐ  p Ðaddition€of€Mr.€Biscan€in€his€individual€capacity€and€have€not€alleged€any€specific€prejudice.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àConsequently,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€Biscansðð€motion€to€amend€to€add€Mr.Ð ä4 ÐBiscan€as€a€plaintiff€in€his€individual€capacity€and€the€amendmentððs€relation€back€to€the€filing€of€theÐ Ð  Ðoriginal€complaint.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€Dana€Biscanððs€RoleÐ ”ä ÐÓYHÓÌà  àPrior€to€the€Ashley€Worley€party,€a€few€of€the€minors€involved,€including€Jennifer€Biscan,Ð l¼ ÐHughes€Brown,€and€Dana€Biscan,€Jenniferððs€twin€sister,Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€gathered€at€the€home€of€another€friend€toÐ X ¨ Ðwatch€a€football€game.€€Dana,€Hughes,€and€another€friend€left€to€purchase€beer.€€Dana€BiscanÐ D!” Ðpurchased€several€twelve€packs€of€beer€for€ð ðeveryone,ðð€including€Hughes€Brown.€€Hughes€drank€twoÐ 0"€  Ðbeers€that€he€had€in€his€car€while€driving€to€the€Worley€party.€After€arriving€at€the€party,€he€got€aÐ #l! Ðtwelve„pack€of€beer€from€Dana.ò òÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨YI#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôó ó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òÐ $X" Ðó óÌà  àPursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03,€in€his€answer€to€the€original€complaint,€Hughes€BrownÐ à%0!$ Ðidentified€Dana€Biscan€as€a€nonparty€who€should€bear€fault,€or€to€whom€some€fault€should€beÐ Ì&"% Ðallocated,€because€of€her€conduct€in€providing€beer€to€other€minors€including€himself.׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° ÐSubsequently,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings€or€partial€summaryÐ œì Ðjudgment€asking,€in€part,€that€the€court€preclude€any€apportionment€of€fault€to€Dana€Biscan.€€ThatÐ ˆØ Ðmotion€was€apparently€not€ruled€on€until€it€was€raised€in€the€telephone€conference€shortly€before€theÐ tÄ Ðstart€of€the€trial.€€An€order€reflecting€that€conference€call,€but€entered€after€the€trial€had€begun,€stated,Ð `° Ðð ðthe€parties€shall€be€permitted€to€assign€comparative€fault€on€Dana€Biscan.ðð€€However,€the€issue€wasÐ L œ Ðalso€raised€by€motions€for€directed€verdict€after€the€close€of€plaintiffsðð€proof€and€after€the€close€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðall€the€proof,€and€the€trial€court€refused€to€allow€the€jury€to€allocate€any€fault€to€Dana€Biscan.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Brown€and€Mr.€Worley€assert€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€refusing€to€allowÐ ü L  Ðthe€jury€to€allocate€fault€to€Dana€Biscan€was€erroneous.€€They€also€assert€the€trial€court€improperlyÐ è 8  Ðexcluded€evidence€regarding€her€possession€of€false€identification.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@9 9 ìàA.€€Fault€Attributed€to€Dana€Biscan€Under€Negligence€TheoryˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€limit€their€potential€liability€under€comparative€fault€principles,€òòóóÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨aK#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôthe€defendantsÐ „Ô  Ðhad€indicated€that€Dana€Biscan€should€be€included€in€those€parties€to€whom€some€fault€should€beÐ pÀ Ðallocated.€òòSee€Ridings€v.€The€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€83„84€(Tenn.€1996).€TheÐ \¬ ÐBiscans€sought€a€ruling€precluding€the€allocation€of€any€fault€to€Dana€Biscan€on€the€basis€that€theÐ H˜ ÐDram€Shop€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€57„10„101€&€„102,€€cuts€off€civil€liability€for€the€mereÐ 4„ Ðfurnishing€of€alcohol€to€someone€who€then€causes€injury€to€a€third€person.€€The€trial€court€predicatedÐ  p Ðits€ruling€on€those€statutes€and€found€that€the€jury€could€not€apportion€fault€to€Dana€Biscan.€€TheÐ  \ Ðcourt€explained€to€the€jury:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àAfter€reviewing€the€law€very€carefully,€these€lawyers€have€argued€very€capably,€IÐ Ð  Ðhave€granted€a€directed€verdict€on€one€portion€of€this€trial,€which€means€you€are€notÐ ¼  Ðto€consider€Dana€Biscan€in€any€way€at€fault€for€providing€beer.€€The€law€is€clear€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthatððs€the€intent€of€the€law€and€so€this€Court€must€enforce€that€intent.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€assert€that€the€Dram€Shop€Act€has€no€application€to€someone€who€does€notÐ l¼ Ðsell€alcohol.€€Because€Dana€Biscan€is€not€a€seller€of€alcohol€and€did€not€sell€the€beer€in€question€toÐ X ¨ ÐHughes€Brown,€but€instead€purchased€it€for€him€and€others,€the€defendants€assert€she€is€not€entitledÐ D!” Ðto€the€limitation€on€liability€provided€by€the€statutes.€€They€argue€she€is€subject€to€liability€for€herÐ 0"€  Ðactions€on€the€basis€of€negligence€and,€because€she€violated€various€statutes€prohibiting€the€purchase,Ð #l! Ðpossession,€and€consumption€of€alcoholic€beverages€by€a€minor,׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€as€well€as€statutes€prohibiting€theÐ $X" Ðfurnishing€of€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€minor,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€she€is€also€guilty€of€negligence€òòper€seóó.€€They€contendÐ ° Ðher€providing€beer€to€Hughes€Brown€before€the€party€was€a€substantial€factor€contributing€to€theÐ œì Ðinjuries€Jennifer€received.€Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨+S#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Dram€Shop€Act€is€comprised€of€two€separate€sections,€and€the€first,€Tenn.Ð `° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101,€provides:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àThe€general€assembly€hereby€finds€and€declares€that€the€ò òconsumptionó ó€of€anyÐ $ t Ðalcoholic€beverage€or€beer€rather€than€the€ò òfurnishingó ó€of€any€alcoholic€beverage€orÐ  d Ðbeer€is€the€proximate€cause€of€injuries€inflicted€upon€another€by€an€intoxicatedÐ  T  Ðperson.€(emphasis€added.)€€Ðð @ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€is€clear€from€the€language,€the€statute€does€not€refer€to€selling€alcohol.€€Instead,€it€providesÐ È  Ðthat€the€furnishing€of€alcohol€or€beer€is€not€the€proximate€cause€of€injuries€caused€by€someone€whoÐ ´  Ðconsumed€the€alcohol.€€Thus,€where€it€applies,€the€statute€removes,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€required€Ð  ð  Ðelement€of€legal€causation.Ð ŒÜ  ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨ä\#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àTo€establish€a€negligence€cause€of€action,€a€plaintiff€must€show€(Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ý`#Ô1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€byÐ d´ Ðthe€defendant€to€the€plaintiff,€(2)€conduct€by€the€defendant€breaching€that€duty,€(3)€an€injury€or€lossÐ P  Ðto€the€plaintiff,€(4)€causation€in€fact,€and€(5)€proximate€or€legal€cause.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilder,óó€913€S.W.2dÐ <Œ Ð150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€The€concept€of€legal€cause,€formerly€known€as€proximate€cause,€connotesÐ (x Ða€policy€decision€to€establish€a€boundary€of€legal€liability€and€to€deny€liability€for€conduct€that€wouldÐ d Ðotherwise€be€actionable€or€result€in€liability.€€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨Ñb#ÔòòWaste€Management,€Inc.€v.€South€Central€BellÐ P ÐTelephone€Co.óó,€15€S.W.3d€425,€430€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).òòóó€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€explained:Ð ì< ÐÌà8  àòòóó.€.€.€proximate€cause,€or€legal€cause,€concerns€a€determination€of€whether€legalÐ Ä Ðliability€should€be€imposed€where€cause€in€fact€has€been€established.€€òòóóProximate€orÐ ° Ðlegal€cause€is€a€policy€decision€made€by€the€legislature€or€the€courts€to€deny€liabilityÐ œì Ðfor€otherwise€actionable€conduct€based€on€considerations€of€logic,€common€sense,Ð ˆØ Ðpolicy,€precedent€and€ð ðour€more€or€less€inadequately€expressed€ideas€of€what€justiceÐ tÄ Ðdemands€or€of€what€is€administratively€possible€and€convenient.ððòòóóÐ` °Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWhite€v.€Lawrenceóó,€975€S.W.2d€525,€529€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòSnyder€v.€LTG.€LufttechnischeÐ 8"ˆ  ÐGmbHóó,€955€S.W.2d€252,€256€n.€6€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted)).Ð $#t! ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àWith€the€adoption€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101,€the€General€Assembly€has€made€theÐ ü$L # Ðpolicy€decision€that€the€mere€furnishing€of€alcohol€cannot€be€the€legal€cause€of€injuries€resultingÐ è%8!$ Ðfrom€the€actions€of€a€person€who€consumed€that€alcohol.€€It€is€true€that€tÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨:h#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôhe€legislature€created,€in€theÐ Ô&$"% Ðsecond€section€of€the€Dram€Shop€Act,€an€exception€to€the€general€immunity€from€liability€forÐ À'#& Ðâ âfurnishing€alcohol,€but€that€exception€is€applicable€only€to€sellers€of€alcoholic€beverages€and€onlyÐ ¬(ü#' Ðin€specified€circumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨µi#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨Yk#ÔIn€fact,€this€court€has€found€that€a€Ð ° Ðâ ârequirement€for€any€liability€under€the€statutory€exception€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102€is€a€sale.€Ð œì ÐòòLaRue€v.€1817€Lake€Inc.óó,€966€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòsee€also€Worley€v.€Weigels,Ð ˆØ ÐInc.óó,€919€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1996)€(holding€that€the€exception€only€applies€where€there€is€a€saleÐ tÄ Ðand€that€the€injuries€must€be€caused€by€the€purchaserððs€consumption).€€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔIt€is€undisputed€that€DanaÐ `° ÐBiscan€is€not€a€seller€of€alcoholic€beverages€and€did€not€sell€the€beer€in€question€to€Hughes€Brown.€Ð L œ ÐThus,€we€agree€with€both€sides€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102€does€not€apply€to€Dana€or€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðconduct€herein.€€The€consequence,€however,€is€that€the€statutory€exception€that€allows€the€impositionÐ $ t Ðof€liability€does€not€apply€to€her.€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨öm#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€argue,€however,€that€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101€areÐ è 8  Ðlikewise€inapplicable€to€Dana€because€she€is€not€a€seller€of€alcoholic€beverages€and€not€a€ð ðdramÐ Ô$  Ðshopðð€defendant.€€On€appeal,€Mr.€Brown€and€Mr.€Worley€argue€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÐ À  Ðexpanded€the€scope€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€57„10„101&€„102€to€encompass€an€individual€who€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðclearly€not€a€dram€shop€defendant,€because€the€Act€was€created€with€the€legislative€intent€ofÐ ˜è  Ðprotecting€sellers€of€intoxicating€beverages€from€liability,€not€purchasers.€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ôo#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€Indeed,€our€SupremeÐ „Ô  ÐCourt€has€found€that€the€legislatureððs€intent€was€to€change€the€common€law€rule€regarding€liabilityÐ pÀ Ðof€sellers€of€alcohol€and€to€protect€sellers€from€liability€except€in€very€distinct€circumstances.€Ð \¬ ÐòòWorleyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€592.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨år#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€statutes€at€issue,€the€liability€of€a€seller€of€alcoholic€beveragesÐ  p Ðto€another€for€injuries€caused€by€that€otherððs€intoxication€was€governed€by€common€law€principles,Ð  \ Ðand€courts€generally€recognized€that€ð ðthe€furnishing€of€intoxicants€may€be€the€proximate€cause€ofÐ øH Ðan€injury€resulting€from€intoxication,€the€negligence€consisting€of€the€creation€of€a€situation€orÐ ä4 Ðcondition€which€involves€unreasonable€risk€because€of€the€foreseeable€action€of€another.ðð׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ct#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€€òòBrookinsÐ Ð  Ðv.€The€Round€Tableóó,€624€S.W.2d€547,€549€(Tenn.€1981).€€The€rule€of€foreseeability€stated€inÐ ¼  ÐòòBrookinsóó€was€replaced€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€57„10„101€and€„102.€€òòWorleyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€592.€Ð ° ÐThus,€the€statutes€in€question€provided€protection€from€liability€to€sellers€that€did€not€exist€beforeÐ œì Ðtheir€passage.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àHowever,€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€statutes€in€question,€under€common€law€principles,Ð `° Ðthose€who€provided€alcohol€in€a€social€setting€were€treated€differently€from€sellers.€€Those€casesÐ L œ Ðgenerally€held€that€there€was€no€liability€for€a€person€who€provided€alcohol€in€a€social€setting.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àAt€common€law,€an€individual€who€furnished€alcohol€to€another€was€not€liable€forÐ  ` Ðany€damages€resulting€from€the€otherððs€intoxication,€even€if€those€damages€wereÐ ü L  Ðforeseeable,€in€part€because€the€otherððs€acceptance€of€the€intoxicants€was€consideredÐ è 8  Ðan€independent€intervening€cause,€cutting€off€any€liability.€€Courts€of€this€state€haveÐ Ô$  Ðmodified€the€common€law€rule€in€the€past,€holding,€for€instance,€that€liability€mightÐ À  Ðbe€imposed€in€certain€circumstances€on€commercial€purveyors€of€liquor€whoÐ ¬ü  Ðprovided€it€to€an€intoxicated€customer.€€However,€we€have€found€no€decision,€andÐ ˜è  Ðnone€has€been€cited€to€us,€in€which€such€liability€has€been€imposed€on€those€whoÐ „Ô  Ðprovided€intoxicating€beverages€in€a€social€context,€as€Hardin€did€here,€nor€do€weÐ pÀ Ðbelieve€that€we€should€set€such€a€precedent.€€So€great€a€departure€from€settled€law,Ð \¬ Ðwith€its€myriad€implications€for€casual€social€intercourse,€is€better€left€to€theÐ H˜ Ðlegislature.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCecil€v.€Hardinóó,€575€S.W.2d€268,€271€(Tenn.€1978)€(citations€omitted).׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€legislature€has€made€no€departure€from€the€principles€discussed€in€òòCecilóó.€€Instead,€itÐ ä4 Ðadopted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€57„10„101€and€„102.€€Nothing€in€the€language€of€those€statutes€can€beÐ Ð  Ðread€to€impose€liability€upon€someone€who€merely€furnishes€alcohol.€€While€the€primary€purposeÐ ¼  Ðof€the€enactment€of€the€two€statutes€may€have€been€to€change€the€law€to€provide€protection€to€sellersÐ ¨ø Ðof€alcohol€except€in€specified€circumstances,€the€legislation€€also€codified€the€existing€common€lawÐ ”ä Ðrule€that€no€liability€attaches€to€those€who€provide€alcohol€in€a€social€setting.€€Indeed,€Tenn.€CodeÐ €Ð ÐAnn.€ðð€57„10„101€employed€the€causation€analysis€previously€used€by€the€courts.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àBecause€the€General€Assembly€has€established€a€statutory€conclusion€as€to€causation,€courtsÐ D!” Ðare€not€free€to€disregard€this€statement€of€public€policy€or€to€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€€clearlyÐ 0"€  Ðstated€by€the€legislature.€€The€legislature€sets€public€policy.€€òòVanTran€v.€Stateóó,€66€S.W.3d€790,€804Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ðThe€determination€of€public€policy€is€primarily€a€function€of€the€legislature,ðð€andÐ $X" Ðthe€judiciary€may€determine€public€policy€only€in€the€absence€of€legislative€determination€andÐ ô$D # Ðdeclaration.€€òòTaylor€v.€Beardóó,€104€S.W.3d€507,€511€(Tenn.€2003);òò€Alcazar€v.€Hayesóó,€982€S.W.2dÐ à%0!$ Ð845,€851€(Tenn.€1998).Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨Vw#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€€Our€role€is€simply€to€determine€whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101Ð Ì&"% Ðapplies€to€someone€who€merely€provides,€but€does€not€sell,€alcohol.€€For€the€reasons€stated€above,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€based€upon€the€authorities€discussed€below,€we€conclude€it€does.Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àIn€òòLarueóó,€966€S.W.2d€423,€this€court€considered€the€two€statutes€in€the€context€of€liabilityÐ ° Ðfor€the€death€of€a€passenger€of€an€intoxicated€motorcycle€driver€who€had€consumed€alcohol€at€a€localÐ œì Ðrestaurant€and€bar.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€the€defendant€bar€and€its€employees€had€negligentlyÐ ˆØ Ðserved€both€the€underage€driver€and€the€underage€passenger.€€This€court€held€that€for€the€exceptionÐ tÄ Ðin€ðð€57„10„102€to€apply,€the€plaintiffs€were€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÐ `° Ðdefendants€sold€an€alcoholic€beverage€to€the€driver€and€passenger.€€òòIdóó.€at€426.€€Because€they€failedÐ L œ Ðto€meet€that€burden,€the€directed€verdict€for€defendants€was€upheld.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àòòMauldin€v.€Grayóó,€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨W†#ÔNo.€02A01„9208„CV„00240,€1993€WL€312686,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.Ð  ` Ð18,€1993)€(perm.€app.€denied€Feb.€22,€1994),Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€involved€a€situation€in€which€two€high€school€students,Ð ü L  Ðafter€a€day€of€drinking€beer,€riding€around,€and€attending€a€party,€were€involved€in€an€accident€thatÐ è 8  Ðresulted€in€serious€injuries€to€a€pedestrian.€€The€pedestrian€sued€the€passenger€on€various€theories׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ô$  Ðand€argued€on€appeal€that€a€jury€instruction€taken€essentially€verbatim€from€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„Ð À  Ð10„101€was€an€erroneous€statement€of€the€law€under€the€facts€and€that€the€jury€should€also€have€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðcharged€with€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102.€€This€court€held,€however,€that€„102Ð ˜è  Ðdid€not€apply€to€those€who€furnish€alcohol€or€beer€to€another€ð ðas€might€occur€in€a€social€setting.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐòòIdóó.€at€*5.€€Thus,€our€courts€have€uniformly€held€that€the€imposition€of€liability€under€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðððð€57„10„101Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨¬‹#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€and€„102€is€limited€to€sellers€in€the€specified€circumstances.׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€precise€question€of€whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101€applies€to€preclude€liabilityÐ 4„ Ðto€one€who€furnishes€alcohol€in€a€social€setting€has€been€answered€even€more€directly€in€the€recentÐ  p Ðcase€of€€òòDownen€v.€Testaóó,€No.€E2002„01320„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€2002411€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€MayÐ  \ Ð1,€2003)€(perm.€app.€granted€Dec.€8,€2003).€€In€òòDownenóó,€a€group€of€minors€attended€a€party€at€theÐ øH ÐTestasðð€home€following€a€high€school€graduation€ceremony.€€After€the€party,€Adam€Downen€wasÐ ä4 Ðkilled€while€riding€with€a€friend€who€had€also€attended€the€party€and€who€was€intoxicated.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðfamily€of€Adam€Downen€brought€suit€against€the€social€hosts.Ð ¼  ÐÌÐ ”ä Їà  àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€for€the€social€hosts€as€to€their€liability€forÐ ° Ðfurnishing€alcohol€on€the€ground€that€the€consumption€of€the€alcohol€and€not€the€furnishing€of€theÐ œì Ðalcohol€was€the€proximate€cause€of€death€due€to€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101.€€OnÐ ˆØ Ðappeal,€this€court€affirmed€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€that€issue€and€specifically€held,€ð ðBasedÐ tÄ Ðon€the€wording€of€the€statute€and€the€foregoing€authorities,€the€plaintiffsðð€argument€that€theÐ `° Ðlegislature€intendedÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Õ#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101€apply€only€to€sellers€of€alcohol€is€without€merit.ðð€Ð L œ ÐòòDownenóó,€2003€WL€2002411,€at€*3.€€Tracing€the€legislative€history€of€the€statutes,€this€court€found:Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨Î–#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àThe€legislative€history€of€the€Act€clearly€shows€the€legislature€expressed€its€intent€toÐ  ` Ðlimit€the€exception€to€sales.€€In€the€State€and€Local€Government€committee€meetingÐ ü L  Ðheld€on€February€25,€1986,€Senator€Moore€(sponsor€of€the€bill)€explained€that€he€hadÐ è 8  Ðreceived€an€opinion€from€the€attorney€general€which€stated€that€the€bill€would€relieveÐ Ô$  Ðhost€liability€and€place€the€burden€on€sellers.€€Senator€Moore€reiterated€this€in€theÐ À  ÐSenate€hearing€held€on€February€27,€1986,€and€explained€that€ð ðthis€was€an€issue€forÐ ¬ü  Ða€lot€of€people.ðð€€Senator€Darnell€proposed€an€amendment€to€the€bill€which€wouldÐ ˜è  Ðhave,€among€other€things,€replaced€the€ð ðsoldðð€language€in€the€exceptions€withÐ „Ô  Ðð ðfurnished,ðð€and€thus€would€have€imposed€liability€on€social€hosts,€but€theÐ pÀ Ðamendment€was€voted€down.€€There€is€no€question€that€the€legislature€intended€thatÐ \¬ Ðsocial€hosts€would€be€insulated€from€liability.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€*4.׃7×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  p ÐÌà  àTaking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ øH Ðdefendants,€and€discarding€all€evidence€contrary€to€that€view,€òòAlexander€v.€Armentroutóó,€24€S.W.3dÐ ä4 Ð267,€271€(Tenn.€2000);Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨å—#ÔòòÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€State€Farm€Gen.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Woodóó,€1€S.W.3d€658,€662€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999),Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨9ž#ÔÐ Ð  Ðthere€was€no€evidence€of€a€sale€by€Dana€Biscan,€and€she€was€only€shown€to€have€furnished€theÐ ¼  Ðalcoholic€beverages€to€Mr.€Brown€and€others.€€There€is€no€other€allegation€of€negligent€conduct€byÐ ¨ø ÐDana€Biscan.€€For€example,€there€is€no€allegation€she€could€have€prevented€Hughes€Brown€fromÐ ”ä Ðdriving€or€Jennifer€from€becoming€his€passenger.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àBecause,€as€a€matter€of€law,€her€conduct€cannot€be€considered€a€proximate€cause€of€JenniferððsÐ X ¨ Ðinjuries,€Dana€Biscan€cannot€be€held€liable€for€those€injuries€in€a€negligence„based€cause€of€action,Ð D!” Ðand€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€the€jury€could€not€allocate€fault€to€her.€€Consequently,€weÐ 0"€  Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Biscans€on€that€€issue.Ð #l! ÐÌÓ  ÓÐ  ô$D # ÐB.€Dana€Biscanððs€Liability€Under€the€Theory€of€Negligence€Per€SeÐ ° ÐÓj¢ÓÌà  àMr.€Worley€and€Mr.€Brown€also€argue€that€the€jury€should€have€been€able€to€apportion€faultÐ ˆØ Ðto€Dana€Biscan€because€she€was€negligent€òòper€seóó€in€purchasing€the€beer€and€in€providing€it€to€otherÐ tÄ Ðminors€because€those€acts€violated€€penal€statutes.€€Under€the€doctrine€of€negligence€òòper€seóó,€theÐ `° Ðspecific€conduct€required€by€a€penal€statute€replaces€the€ð ðreasonable€person€under€similarÐ L œ Ðcircumstancesðð€standard€of€care€generally€applicable€in€negligence€cases.€€òòCook€v.€Spinnakerððs€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐRivergate,€Inc.óó,€878€S.W.2d€934,937€(Tenn.€1994);€òòKing€v.€Danek€Med.,€Incóó.€37€S.W.3d€429,€460Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€Conduct€that€violates€a€penal€statute€may€be€rendered€negligent€as€a€matterÐ  ` Ðof€law.€òòSeeóó€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðð€874A€cmt.€e€(ð ðThe€common€law€tort€of€negligenceÐ ü L  Ðis€not€changed,€but€the€expression€of€the€standard€of€care€in€certain€fact€situations€is€modified;€it€isÐ è 8  Ðchanged€from€a€general€standard€to€a€specific€rule€of€conduct.ðð)Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àHowever,€while€such€conduct€may€establish€the€duty€of€care€and€breach€of€duty€elements€ofÐ ¬ü  Ða€negligence€action,€a€plaintiff€must€still€prove€the€other€required€elements,€including€causationòò.€Ð ˜è  ÐBrown€v.€Smithóó,€604€S.W.2d€56,€59€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€Thus,€even€if€Dana€Biscanððs€violationÐ „Ô  Ðof€statutes€regarding€the€purchase,€possession,€and€consumption€by€a€minor€or€the€furnishing€to€aÐ pÀ Ðminor€of€alcoholic€beverages€established€her€negligence€òòper€seóó,€she€could€not€be€liable€under€thatÐ \¬ Ðdoctrine€unless€that€negligence€were€a€legal€cause€of€Jenniferððs€injuries.€€òòKirksey€v.€Overton€Pub,Ð H˜ ÐIncóó.,€739€S.W.2d€230,€235€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€As€explained€above,€by€statute€it€is€theÐ 4„ Ðconsumption€of€alcohol,€not€the€furnishing€of€it,€that€is€the€proximate€or€legal€cause€of€the€injuries,Ð  p Ðas€a€matter€of€law.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€in€òòWorleyóó,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that,€with€the€enactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ä4 Ððððð€57„10„101€and€„102,€the€legislatureÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àhas€made€a€definite€distinction€between€the€basis€for€civil€liability€and€the€basis€forÐ ¨ø Ðcriminal€liability€incident€to€the€sale€of€alcoholic€beverages.€€These€statutes,€ratherÐ ”ä Ðthan€the€duties€imposed€by€criminal€statutes,€determine€the€civil€liability€of€the€seller.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌòòWorleyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€593.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€Court€spoke€with€regard€to€sellers€of€alcoholic€beverages,€the€principle€isÐ 0"€  Ðequally€applicable€to€those€who€merely€furnish€them,€since€the€two€statutes€apply€to€the€broadÐ #l! Ðcategory€of€alcohol„related€injuries.€€Essentially,€the€legislature€has€determined€that€the€mereÐ $X" Ðfurnishing€of€alcohol€is€not€to€be€subject€to€negligence€liability,€as€is€evidenced€by€its€use€ofÐ ô$D # Ðproximate€causation€language€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101.€€Whether€or€not€violation€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpenal€statutes€at€issue€establishes€a€duty€that€was€breached,€the€legislature€has€determined€the€civilÐ Ì&"% Ðliability€does€not€attach€thereto.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€fault€could€not€beÐ ¸'#& Ðattributed€to€Dana€Biscan€on€the€theory€of€negligence€òòper€se.óóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@¨ ¨ ìàC.€€Possession€of€Fake€Identification€by€Dana€BiscanˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Biscans€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€seeking€to€prohibit€any€evidence€from€being€introducedÐ ˆØ Ðabout€Dana€Biscan€buying€beer€for€Hughes€Brown€and€others€and€using€false€identification€toÐ tÄ Ðpurchase€that€beer€on€the€night€of€the€party.€€The€trial€court€granted€this€motion€in€part,€determiningÐ `° Ðthat€evidence€could€be€introduced€showing€that€Hughes€Brown€got€beer€from€Dana€Biscan€on€theÐ L œ Ðnight€of€the€accident,€but€excluding€any€reference€whatsoever€to€fake€identification.€€The€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetermined€that€such€evidence€was€irrelevant€and€prejudicial.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àGenerally,€evidence€that€meets€other€requirements€is€admissible€if€it€is€relevant,€Tenn.€R.Ð ü L  ÐEvid.€402.€€Evidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ è 8  Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ Ô$  Ðwithout€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€However,€even€relevant€evidence€may€be€excluded€ifÐ À  Ðits€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðissues,€€misleading€the€jury,€or€for€other€reasons.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àð ðOne€of€the€trial€courtððs€essential€responsibilities€is€to€control€the€flow€of€evidence€to€the€juryÐ pÀ Ðby€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€evidence,€controlling€the€order€of€the€proof,€and€determining€theÐ \¬ Ðscope€of€examination€of€the€witnesses.ðð€€òòOverstreet€v.€Shoneyððsóó,€4€S.W.3d€694,€702€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð H˜ ÐòòóóThe€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.Ð 4„ ÐAccordingly,€trial€courts€are€accorded€a€wide€degree€of€latitude€in€making€such€determinations,€andÐ  p Ðwill€be€overturned€on€appeal€only€upon€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòRothstein€v.€Orange€GroveÐ  \ ÐCenter,€Inc.óó,€60€S.W.3d€807,€811€(Tenn.€2001);€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð439,€442€(Tenn.€1992).Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àUnder€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€ð ðwill€be€upheld€so€longÐ ¼  Ðas€reasonable€minds€can€disagree€as€to€the€propriety€of€the€decision€made.ðð€€A€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€abuses€its€discretion€only€when€it€ð ðapplies€an€incorrect€legal€standard,€orÐ ”ä Ðreaches€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€or€that€causes€an€injustice€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€party€complaining.ðð€€The€abuse€of€discretion€standard€does€not€permit€theÐ l¼ Ðappellate€court€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€omitted).€€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àOut€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€it€was€established€that€Dana€Biscan€possessed€falseÐ $X" Ðidentification.€€Neither€Dana€nor€anyone€else€could€remember€if€she€used€that€fake€i.d.€to€purchaseÐ ô$D # Ðthe€beer€in€question.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€exclude€evidence€regarding€the€false€identification.€Ð ¸'#& ÐIt€is€simply€not€relevant€to€any€determinative€issue.€€If€this€lawsuit€involved€the€potential€liability€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€seller€of€the€beer,€how€Dana€was€able€to€buy€it€would€be€relevant€to€the€question€of€theÐ )à$( Ðapplication€and€effect€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102(1).€€That€is€not€an€issue€herein.€€The€fact€thatÐ |*Ì%) ÐDana€illegally€bought€beer€and€gave€some€to€Hughes€Brown€before€the€party€was€established.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðjury€was€free€to€draw€whatever€inferences€it€wanted€from€that€information.Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€assert€that€the€exhibiting€of€false€identification€to€purchase€alcoholicÐ ˆØ Ðbeverages€by€a€person€under€21€is€illegal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Ö½#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€57„3„412.€€Although€theyÐ tÄ Ðconcede€there€was€no€evidence€she€actually€used€the€false€identification€to€purchase€the€beer€at€issue,Ð `° Ðthey€nonetheless€assert€she€was€guilty€of€negligence€òòper€se€óóby€violating€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨ÏÂ#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€57„3„412Ð L œ Ðand€that€the€jury€could€have€inferred€that€violation€from€the€evidence€excluded.€€As€explained€above,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwhether€or€not€Dana€Biscan€committed€violations€of€penal€statutes€in€the€purchase€of€the€beer,€sheÐ $ t Ðcannot€be€held€liable€for€Jenniferððs€injuries.€€Other€than€as€a€basis€for€allocating€fault€to€Dana,€theÐ  ` ÐDefendants€have€offered€no€other€explanation€for€the€relevance€of€the€evidence.€€Further,€even€if€weÐ ü L  Ðcould€find€some€relevance€to€the€determinative€issues€in€the€case€before€us,€we€agree€with€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€that€the€dangers€of€prejudice€and€jury€confusion€outweigh€any€slight€probative€value€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidence.Ð À  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€defendantsðð€assertion€that€Danaððs€mere€possession€of€a€fake€i.d.€isÐ ˜è  Ðprobative€of€her€credibility,€the€defendants€have€offered€no€example€of€how€Danaððs€credibility,€orÐ „Ô  Ðlack€thereof,€was€placed€at€issue€regarding€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Additionally,€the€jury€was€informedÐ pÀ Ðof€her€illegal€conduct€in€purchasing€the€beer€and€distributing€it€among€the€other€minors€and€couldÐ \¬ Ðdraw€the€same€conclusions€regarding€her€credibility€from€that€proof€as€defendants€assert€could€haveÐ H˜ Ðbeen€drawn€from€evidence€she€possessed€false€identification.Ð 4„ ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Ä#ÔÓ  ÓIII.€€Liability€of€Mr.€WorleyÐ  \ ÐÓ*ÊÓÓ  ÓÌÓxÊÓà  àIn€their€claim€against€Paul€Worley,€the€Biscans€alleged€that€he€was€negligent€and€that€hisÐ ä4 Ðnegligence€was€a€proximate€cause€of€Jennifer€Biscanððs€injuries.€€Mr.€Worley€filed€a€motion€forÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment€arguing€that€the€cause€of€action€against€him€should€be€dismissed€because€heÐ ¼  Ðowed€no€duty€to€Jennifer€Biscan.׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Shortly€before€trial,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€for€summaryÐ ¨ø Ðjudgment.€€On€appeal,€Mr.€Worley€asserts€that€this€denial€was€error.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àMr.€Worleyððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€based€upon€arguments€that€(1)€TennesseeððsÐ l¼ ÐDram€Shop€Act€precluded€assignment€to€a€furnisher€of€alcohol€in€a€social€setting€of€liability€forÐ X ¨ Ðinjuries€caused€by€an€intoxicated€person;€(2)€a€social€host€who€provides€alcohol€even€to€a€minorÐ D!” Ðcannot€be€liable€for€injuries€caused€by€that€minorððs€intoxication;€(3)€Tennessee€does€not€recognizeÐ 0"€  Ðthe€social€host„guest€relationship€as€a€special€relationship€that€creates€a€duty€on€the€host€to€controlÐ #l! Ðthe€conduct€of€guests€to€prevent€them€from€negligent€conduct;€(4)€although€no€specific€TennesseeÐ $X" Ðauthority€exists,€courts€in€other€states€have€declined€to€impose€liability€on€social€hosts€who€do€notÐ ô$D # Ðfurnish€alcohol€to€minors,€but€allow€it€to€be€consumed€on€their€property;€and€(5)€that€there€was€noÐ à%0!$ Ðbasis€for€the€aider€and€abettor€theory€for€attribution€of€negligence€òòper€seóó€to€Mr.€Worley.Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àThe€Biscans€opposed€the€motion€on€the€basis€Mr.€Worley€owed€a€common€law€duty€to€useÐ ° Ðreasonable€care€to€refrain€from€conduct€that€could€foreseeably€injure€others€and€that€a€heightenedÐ œì Ðduty€exists€when€dealing€with€minors.€€They€also€argued€that€Mr.€Worley€violated€the€statutesÐ ˆØ Ðprohibiting€contributing€to€the€delinquency€of€minors,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„156;€that€he€wasÐ tÄ Ðcriminally€responsible€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402€for€Hughes€Brownððs€vehicular€assaultÐ `° Ðbecause€he€aided€Hughes€Brown€in€the€illegal€consumption€of€alcohol€by€providing€a€place€toÐ L œ Ðpossess€and€consume€it;€and€that€he€participated€in€a€conspiracy€to€violate€the€statute€prohibitingÐ 8 ˆ Ðminors€from€consuming€alcohol,€all€allegations€of€negligence€òòper€seóó.€€The€Biscans€also€argued€that,Ð $ t Ðregardless€of€the€existence€of€a€common€law€or€statutory€duty,€Mr.€Worley€had€voluntarily€assumedÐ  ` Ðduties€to€prevent€minors€who€drank€from€driving€and€had€breached€those€assumed€duties.€€Mr.Ð ü L  ÐWorleyððs€motion€did€not€address€this€issue.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àSummary€judgments€enable€courts€to€resolve€cases€on€dispositive€legal€issues.€€SummaryÐ À  Ðjudgment€is€appropriate€when€the€filings€supporting€the€motion€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÐ ¬ü  Ðof€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð ˜è  ÐP.€56.04;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€Summary€judgments€are€proper€in€a€caseÐ „Ô  Ðthat€can€be€resolved€on€the€basis€of€legal€issues€alone.€òòFruge€v.€Doeóó,€952€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.Ð pÀ Ð1997);€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210;òò€Church€v.€Peralesóó,€39€S.W.3d€149,€156€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)òò.€óóÐ \¬ ÐHowever,€summary€judgment€is€seldom€appropriate€in€a€negligence€case,€òòFrugeóó,€952€S.W.2d€at€410;Ð H˜ ÐòòLett€v.€Collier€Foods,€Inc.óó,€60€S.W.3d€95,€98€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),€because€of€the€fact€specificÐ 4„ Ðnature€of€such€a€claim.€€Where,€however,€the€dispositive€issue€is€whether€the€defendant€owed€a€dutyÐ  p Ðof€care€to€the€plaintiff,€summary€judgment€may€be€appropriate€in€a€negligence€case.€€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3dÐ  \ Ðat€98;€òòNichols€v.€Atnipóó,€844€S.W.2d€655,€658€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€That€is€because€the€existenceÐ øH Ðof€a€duty€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€determined€by€the€court.€€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assoc.,€Inc.óó,€15Ð ä4 ÐS.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000);€òòRice€v.€Sabiróó,€979€S.W.2d€305,€308€(Tenn.€1998);€òòColn€v.€City€ofÐ Ð  ÐSavannahóó,€966€S.W.2d€34,€39€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ¼  ÐòòóóÌà  àNevertheless,€summary€judgment€is€not€appropriate€when€genuine€disputes€regarding€materialÐ ”ä Ðfacts€exist.€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€Thus,€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€onlyÐ €Ð Ðwhen€the€undisputed€facts,€and€the€inferences€reasonably€drawn€from€the€undisputed€facts,€supportÐ l¼ Ðone€conclusion€„€that€the€party€seeking€the€summary€judgment€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÐ X ¨ Ðof€law.òò€€Webber€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto,€Ins.€Co.óó,€49€S.W.3d€265€(Tenn.€2001);€òòBrown€v.€BirmanÐ D!” ÐManaged€Care,€Inc.óó,€42€S.W.3d€62,€66€(Tenn.€2001);òò€Goodloe€v.€Stateóó,€36€S.W.3d€62,€65€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  Ð2001).€€Summary€judgment€should€not€be€used€to€resolve€disputes€of€fact€or€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ #l! Ðfrom€the€evidence.€€òòChurchóó,€39€S.W.3d€at€156.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àA€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€enjoys€no€presumption€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðcorrectness€on€appeal.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€1995);€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€99;Ð Ì&"% ÐòòGonzales€v.€Alman€Constr.€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€This€courtððs€role€inÐ ¸'#& Ðreview€of€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€to€review€the€record€and€determine€whether€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrequirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88.€€We,€like€the€trialÐ )à$( Ðcourt,€must€review€the€evidence€presented€at€the€summary€judgment€stage€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€the€non„moving€party,€here€the€Biscans,€afford€all€reasonable€inferences€to€that€party,€and€discardÐ h+¸&* Ðall€countervailing€evidence.€€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€870€(Tenn.€1993);€òòByrdóó,€847Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€210„11.Ð œì ÐÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àConsequently,€the€question€presented€is€whether,€based€upon€the€filings€supporting€theÐ ˆØ Ðmotion€and€response,€Mr.€Worley€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€More€specifically,Ð tÄ Ðthe€question€is€whether€the€undisputed€material€facts€established€that€Mr.€Worley€owed€or€assumedÐ `° Ðno€duty€of€care€to€Jennifer€Biscan.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Yä#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔViewing€the€evidence€in€the€required€light,€the€material€facts€are€as€follows.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€WorleyÐ $ t Ðhosted€the€party€for€his€daughter€Ashleyððs€eighteenth€birthday€at€his€residence.€€No€writtenÐ  ` Ðinvitations€were€sent;€Ashley€Worley€personally€invited€friends.€€Other€students€heard€about€the€partyÐ ü L  Ðby€word„of€mouth.€€Everyone€who€showed€up€at€the€Worley€home€on€the€night€of€the€party€wasÐ è 8  Ðwelcomed€by€the€Worleys.€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨Bæ#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àMr.€Worley€did€not€intend€to€serve€any€alcoholic€beverages,€and€did€not.€€However,€he€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðaware€that€some€of€the€minors€attending€the€party€would€bring€beer€and€drink€it€at€the€party.€€HeÐ ˜è  Ðexpected€that€to€occur.€€Mr.€Worley€told€Ashley€prior€to€the€party€that€if€any€of€the€guests€consumedÐ „Ô  Ðalcoholic€beverages€they€would€not€be€permitted€to€leave€the€party€and€would€be€required€to€stay€theÐ pÀ Ðnight.€€He€testified€that€this€was€his€ð ðrule.ðð€€The€deposition€excerpt€filed€in€opposition€to€the€motionÐ \¬ Ðincluded€the€following:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  à[A]s€we€talked€about€having€a€party,€the€topic€of€drinking€came€up.€€I€was€concernedÐ  p Ðthat€there€would€be€people€drinking.€€I€knew€from€my€past€experience€with€my€sonÐ  \ Ðand€with€„€„€just€my€general€knowledge€of€the€kidsðð€behavior€that€some€drank€andÐ øH Ðsome€didnððt,€and€so€I€asked€„€„€I€talked€with€Ashley€about€that,€what€to€do,€how€toÐ ä4 Ðdeal€with€that,€and€she€said€that,€and€I€agreed,€that€really€whatever€my€wishes€mightÐ Ð  Ðbe€were€irrelevant,€that€the€kids€that€chose€to€drink€would€find€a€way€to€do€so.€€I€wasÐ ¼  Ðconcerned€about€if€there€was€drinking,€you€know,€that€there€would€be€the€drinkingÐ ¨ø Ðand€driving€issue.€€I€was€worried€about€that€happening.€€And€so€based€upon€thatÐ ”ä Ðconversation€and€based€upon€my€past€experiences€with€the€teenagers,€I€decided€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€best€thing€„€„€the€safest€thing€I€could€do€would€be€to€ask€the€kids€to€spend€theÐ l¼ Ðnight€so€that€whether€or€not€they€drank€they€would€not€then€go€off€driving.€€SoÐ X ¨ ÐAshley€was€going€to€invite€her€close€friends€in€the€senior€class,€and€she€was€told€toÐ D!” Ðtell€them€to€come€to€the€party,€that€there€would€be€food€and€soft€drinks€and€that€in€noÐ 0"€  Ðevent€was€anyone€„€„€that€everyone€was€invited€and€encouraged€to€spend€the€night€andÐ #l! Ðin€no€event€„€„€if€anybody€drank,€in€no€event€were€they€to€leave€the€property.€€Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Ó****Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ¶ñÓà8  àThat€was€my€rule.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àMr.€Worley€did€not€himself€notify€the€guests€of€this€requirement€prior€to€the€party,€butÐ ° Ðexpected€Ashley€to.€€There€were€a€number€of€children€that€attended€the€party,€however,€that€were€notÐ œì Ðspecifically€invited€by€Ashley.€€At€least€some€apparently€knew€or€learned€about€the€rule.€€BothÐ ˆØ ÐBiscan€girls€arrived€intending€to€spend€the€night,€and€their€parents€were€aware€of€those€plans.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOnce€at€the€party,€some€of€the€minor€guests€consumed€alcohol€in€and€around€a€barn€whichÐ L œ Ðcontained€a€rec€room.€€None€of€this€alcohol€was€provided€by€the€Worleys.€€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨¾è#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔOnce€the€party€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðunderway,€Mr.€Worley€became€aware€that€some€of€the€children€brought€beer,€as€he€had€expectedÐ $ t Ðmight€happen.€€€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Worley€also€testified€in€his€deposition€that€he€was€the€only€adult€on€the€premises;€thatÐ è 8  Ðhe€was€in€control€of€the€premises;€and€that€he€was€in€charge€of€supervising€the€party.€€HeÐ Ô$  Ðacknowledged€that€he€furnished€a€place€where€the€guestsðð€parents€could€reasonably€expect€thereÐ À  Ðwould€be€a€reasonable€adult€to€supervise€and€chaperone€the€party.€€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨üô#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔHe€testified€that€it€was€his€intentÐ ¬ü  Ðand€that€he€undertook€to€ð ðkeep€an€eye€on€things€and€make€sure€nobody€got€hurt.ðð€€In€furtherance€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthat€undertaking,€he€ð ðjust€patrolled€and€walked€around.ðð€€He€did€not€make€a€point€of€speaking€toÐ „Ô  Ðminors€who€were€drinking€to€try€to€assess€their€condition€and€did€not€pick€up€anyoneððs€keys€toÐ pÀ Ðprevent€them€from€driving€until€very€late€in€the€evening,€around€2:00€a.m.,€after€he€was€informed€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€accident.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMr.€Worley€spent€most€of€his€time€in€the€house,€watching€TV€in€a€central€living€room€andÐ  p Ðlater€ð ðcamping€outðð€in€an€easy€chair€in€a€back€room.€€He€dozed€off€approximately€a€half€hour€beforeÐ  \ Ðhe€was€awakened€by€sirens€on€the€way€to€the€accident.€€Ð øH ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨¢÷#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÓ  ÓA.€DutyÐ Ð  ÐÓ‹ûÓÌà  àð ðA€duty,€in€negligence€cases,€may€be€defined€as€an€obligation,€to€which€the€law€will€giveÐ ¨ø Ðrecognition€and€effect,€to€conform€to€a€particular€standard€of€conduct€toward€another.ðð€€òòLindsey€v.Ð ”ä ÐMiami€Dev.€Co.óó,€689€S.W.3d€856,€858„59€(Tenn.€1985);€òòW.€Page€Keeton€et€al.,€Prosser€andÐ €Ð ÐKeeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€53€(5òòthóó€ed.€1984).€€In€this€context,€duty€is€simply€a€legal€obligationÐ l¼ Ðowed€by€a€defendant€to€conform€to€a€reasonable€person€standard€of€care€for€the€protection€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðplaintiff€against€unreasonable€risks€of€harm.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€89;€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àThe€ð ðimposition€of€a€legal€duty€reflects€societyððs€contemporary€policies€and€socialÐ $X" Ðrequirements€concerning€the€right€of€individuals€and€the€general€public€to€beÐ ô$D # Ðprotected€from€anotherððs€act€or€conduct.ðð€€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€870.€Ð à%0!$ Ðð ðIndeed,€it€has€been€stated€that€ððduty€is€not€sancrosanct€in€itself,€but€is€only€anÐ Ì&"% Ðexpression€of€the€sum€total€of€those€considerations€of€policy€which€lead€the€law€toÐ ¸'#& Ðsay€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€protection.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€W.€Keeton,€òòProsser€andÐ ¤(ô#' ÐKeeton€on€the€Law€of€Torts€óóðð€53€at€358€(5òòthóó€ed.€1984));€òòaccord€Craig€v.€A.A.R.€RealtyÐ )à$( ÐCorp.óó,€576€A.2d€688,€692€(Del.€Sup.€1989)€(duty€is€ð ðfrequently€an€expression€by€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt€of€evolving€public€policy.ðð)Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇòòÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨lû#ÔMcClung€v.€Delta€Square€Limited€Partnershipóó,€937€S.W.2d€891,€894„95€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ° ÐÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àOver€the€years,€courts€have€adopted€principles€to€define€the€duty€or€standard€of€careÐ œì Ðapplicable€to€specific€situations€or€relationships.€€As€a€general€rule,€all€persons€have€a€duty€to€useÐ ˆØ Ðreasonable€care€under€the€circumstances€to€refrain€from€conduct€that€will€foreseeably€cause€injuryÐ tÄ Ðto€others.€€òòDoe€v.€Linder€Constr.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1992).€€However,€individualsÐ `° Ðdo€not€ordinarily€have€a€duty€to€act€affirmatively€to€protect€others€from€conduct€other€than€their€own.òòóó€Ð L œ ÐòòNicholsóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€661.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨:#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€€In€other€words,€one€generally€does€not€have€a€duty€to€control€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðconduct€of€another€so€as€to€prevent€that€person€from€injuring€a€third€party.€€òòMesser€GrieshamÐ $ t ÐIndustries,€Inc.€v.€Cryotech€of€Kingsport,€Inc.óó,€45€S.W.3d€588,€599€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);òò€Lettóó,€60Ð  ` ÐS.W.3d€at€99„100€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDespite€this€general€rule,€such€a€duty€may€arise€when€a€ð ðspecial€relationðð€exists€between€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€and€either€(1)€the€person€whose€conduct€threatens€to€cause€harm€or€(2)€the€person€exposedÐ À  Ðto€harm.€€òòBradshawóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€871;€òòMesser€Grieshamóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€599;€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€atÐ ¬ü  Ð99„100;€òòNewton€v.€Tinsleyóó,€970€S.W.2d€490,€492€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€By€recognizing€thisÐ ˜è  Ðexception,€Tennessee€courts€have€adopted€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€315,€which€describesÐ „Ô  Ðthe€exception€as€arising€where€a€special€relation€imposes€a€duty€to€control€the€third€personððs€conductÐ pÀ Ðor€gives€another€person€a€right€of€protection.€€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó,€ðð€315.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€subsequent€sections,€the€Restatement€€lists€and€describes€some€of€those€special€relationsÐ 4„ Ðgiving€rise€to€the€general€duty€set€out€in€ðð€315.€€These€include€parent€and€minor€child,€employer€andÐ  p Ðemployee,€property€owner€and€guest.€€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðððð€316,€317,€and€318Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô;€òòLettóó,Ð  \ Ð60€S.W.3d€at€100.€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ #ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€Section€318€recognizes€the€relationship€of€a€possessor€of€land€and€a€person€usingÐ øH Ðor€carrying€on€an€activity€on€that€land€with€the€possessorððs€permission€as€creating€a€duty€to€controlÐ ä4 Ðthe€conduct€of€third€persons€to€prevent€foreseeable€risks€of€harm.€€This€duty€applies€where€theÐ Ð  Ðpossessor€of€the€land€is€present€during€its€use€and,€therefore,€has€the€ability€and€opportunity€toÐ ¼  Ðcontrol€the€conduct€of€others€on€the€property.€€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ #ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôðð€318,€cmt.€b.€òòóóÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨k#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àTennessee€courts€have€yet€to€specifically€adopt€Section€318.€€In€only€one€case,€however,€hasÐ €Ð Ðthe€court€expressly€declined€to€adopt€it.׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòWilkerson€v.€Altizeróó,€845€S.W.2d€744€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1992).€€In€that€case,€this€court€noted€that€no€Tennessee€court€has€adopted€the€section€or€held€thatÐ X ¨ Ðowners€of€premises€had€a€duty€to€control€the€conduct€of€persons€on€their€property€to€prevent€themÐ D!” Ðfrom€acting€negligently€and€declined€to€be€the€first€to€so€hold.€€òòIdóó.,€845€S.W.2d€at€747„48.€€TheÐ 0"€  ÐòòWilkersonóó€court€also€found€that€the€adoption€of€Section€318€would€impose€a€greater€duty€on€privateÐ #l! Ðâ âhosts€than€our€Supreme€Court€had€been€willing€to€place€on€the€owners€of€business€premises,€relyingÐ $X" Ðon€òòCornprost€v.€Sloanóó,€528€S.W.2d€188€(Tenn.€1975).׃.×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòMcClungóó,Ð ° Ðâ â937€S.W.2d€891,€899€(Tenn.€1996)׃9d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨Å#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€has€since€overruled€òòCornprostóó,€thus€calling€into€question€theÐ œì Ðcontinuing€validity€of€òòWilkersonóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€found€that€the€social€host„guest€relationship€is€a€specialÐ `° Ðrelation€that€creates€a€duty€to€render€aid€to€another€in€peril€where€such€duty€would€not€otherwiseÐ L œ Ðexist.€€òòLindseyóó,€689€S.W.2d€at€859„60.€€While€the€duty€at€issue€in€òòLindseyóó€is€different€from€the€dutyÐ 8 ˆ Ðat€issue€herein€and€in€Restatement€ðð€315,€òòLindseyóó€certainly€stands€for€the€proposition€that€a€socialÐ $ t Ðhost€may€have€a€duty€to€his€or€her€guests€that€would€not€exist€without€that€relationship.Ð  ` ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àFor€two€reasons€we€do€not€think€that€the€resolution€of€the€duty€issue€in€this€case€dependsÐ è 8  Ðupon€the€adoption€or€rejection€of€Section€318.€€First,€the€list€of€recognized€special€relations€set€outÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€Restatement€is€not€an€exclusive€one.€€òòNewtonóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€493.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨_#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€€In€addition,€Tennessee€hasÐ À  Ðadopted€Section€315€of€the€Restatement,€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€99;€òòNewtonóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€492,€and€ourÐ ¬ü  Ðcourts€have€found€that€a€special€relation€to€either€the€individual€whose€conduct€threatens€to€causeÐ ˜è  Ðharm€or€to€the€individual€exposed€to€the€harm€creates€an€exception€to€the€general€rule€that€one€doesÐ „Ô  Ðnot€have€a€duty€to€control€the€conduct€of€a€third€person€so€as€to€prevent€that€person€from€injuring€aÐ pÀ Ðthird€party.€€òòMesser€Griesheimóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€599;€òòNewtonóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€492.€€Our€courts€haveÐ \¬ Ðconsistently€held€that€for€a€duty€to€arise€because€of€a€special€relation€the€defendant€must€have€€theÐ H˜ Ðability,€capacity,€means,€or€authority€to€control€the€other€person.€€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€100;€òòMarr€v.Ð 4„ ÐMontgomery€Elevator€Co.óó,€922€S.W.2d€526,€530€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨æ#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€òòNewtonóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€493.€Ð  p ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àMr.€Worley€intended€to€exercise€exactly€the€control€that€would€have€prevented€HughesÐ øH ÐBrown€from€driving€away€from€the€party€in€an€intoxicated€state.€€He€had,€and€believed€he€had,€theÐ ä4 Ðability€to€exercise€that€control€and€had€exercised€that€control€in€the€past€at€parties€given€by€his€son.€Ð Ð  ÐHe€asserted€the€right€to€control€when€he€imposed€his€ð ðruleðð€that€those€minors€who€drank€were€toÐ ¼  Ðspend€the€night€as€a€condition€of€the€use€of€his€property.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÐ €Ð Їà  àIn€this€context,€another€well„settled€principle€must€be€considered,€because€this€was€not€aÐ ° Ðtypical€social€host„guest€situation,€but€instead€involved€minors.€€It€has€long€been€the€law€of€this€stateÐ œì Ðthat€individuals€have€a€heightened€duty€of€care€regarding€children.€€òòTownsley€v.€Yellow€Cab€Co.óó,€145Ð ˆØ ÐTenn.€91,€237€S.W.€58€(Tenn.€1922).€€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨#ÔIn€that€case,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€persons€who€areÐ tÄ Ðchargeable€with€a€duty€of€care€toward€children€must€anticipate€that€children€will€act€upon€childishÐ `° Ðinstincts€and€impulses.€€òòIdóó.,€145€Tenn.€at€94,€237€S.W.€at€58.€€The€level€of€precaution€necessary€forÐ L œ Ða€very€young€child€might€differ€from€that€for€a€teenager,€€òòHawkins€Co.€v.€Davisóó,€216€Tenn.€262,€391Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€658€(Tenn.€1965),€because€the€experience€of€the€older€child€would€make€some€conduct€lessÐ $ t Ðforeseeable.€€Nonetheless,€teenagers,€like€younger€children,€are€often€heedless€of€dangers€or€warningsÐ  ` Ðand€exercise€less€discretion€in€avoiding€potential€harm€than€adults.€€Thus,€the€reasonableness€ofÐ ü L  Ðconduct€toward€such€individuals€must€take€into€consideration€these€foreseeable€weaknesses.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOur€legislature€has€determined€that€persons€under€the€age€of€twenty„one€are€incompetent€toÐ À  Ðresponsibly€consume€alcohol.€€There€can€be€no€doubt€that€the€law€attempts€to€protect€minors,€as€wellÐ ¬ü  Ðas€the€general€public,€from€the€consequences€of€their€consuming€alcohol€by€prohibiting€theÐ ˜è  Ðpossession€or€purchase€of€alcohol€by€minors€and€the€sale€of€alcohol€to€minors.€€As€our€SupremeÐ „Ô  ÐCourt€has€stated:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àThese€broad€prohibitions€are€intended€not€only€to€protect€minors€from€the€folly€ofÐ H˜ Ðtheir€own€actions,€but€are€for€the€protection€of€members€of€the€general€public€as€well.€Ð 4„ ÐThey€are€directed€to€minors€as€a€class€in€recognition€of€their€susceptibilities€and€theÐ  p Ðintensification€of€dangers€inherent€in€the€consumption€of€alcoholic€beverages,€whenÐ  \ Ðconsumed€by€a€person€lacking€in€maturity€and€responsibility.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌòòBrookinsóó,€624€S.W.2d€at€550.€€Thus,€the€law€recognizes€both€the€dangers€inherent€in€consumptionÐ Ð  Ðof€alcohol€by€minors€and€their€weaknesses€in€judgment.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€more€compelling€reason€why€the€applicability€of€Section€318€is€not€determinative€isÐ ”ä Ðbecause€duty€is€a€flexible€concept€and€dependent€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€situation.€€TheÐ €Ð ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€in€recent€years€consistently€and€repeatedly€held€that€the€properÐ l¼ Ðanalytical€framework€for€determining€the€existence€or€non„existence€of€duty€is€a€balancing€approachÐ X ¨ Ðbased€on€principles€of€fairness€and€justice.€€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.83€at€89;€òòSabiróó,€979€S.W.2dÐ D!” Ðat€308;€òòColnóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€39;€òòTurner€v.€Jordanóó,€957€S.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMcClungóó,€937Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€at€901.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨-#ÔÐ #l! ÐÌà  àBecause€every€person€has€a€duty€to€act€reasonably€under€the€circumstances€to€protect€othersÐ ô$D # Ðagainst€unreasonable€risks€of€harm,€the€purpose€of€the€balancing€is€to€determine€whether€the€risk€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðharm€to€the€plaintiff€was€unreasonable€in€the€circumstances.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àIn€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150€(Tenn.€1995),€we€observed€that€ð ð[a]€risk€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunreasonable€and€gives€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeableÐ )à$( Ðprobability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendantððs€conduct€outweigh€the€burdenÐ |*Ì%) Ðupon€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€theÐ h+¸&* Ðharm.ðð€€òòMcCallóó€òòv.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153.€€We€have€also€noted€that€severalÐ ° Ðfactors€are€to€be€considered€in€deciding€whether€a€risk€is€an€unreasonable€one,Ð œì Ðthereby€giving€rise€to€a€duty.€€ð ðThose€factors€include€€the€foreseeable€probability€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€harm€or€injury€occurring;€the€possible€magnitude€of€the€potential€harm€or€injury;Ð tÄ Ðthe€importance€or€social€value€of€the€activity€engaged€in€by€€defendant;€€theÐ `° Ðusefulness€of€the€conduct€to€defendant;€the€feasibility€or€alternative,€safer€conductÐ L œ Ðand€the€relative€costs€and€burdens€associated€with€that€conduct;€the€relativeÐ 8 ˆ Ðusefulness€of€the€safer€conduct;€and€the€€relative€safety€of€alternative€conduct.ðð€òòId.óóÐ $ t Ðat€153.€Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMcClung,€óó937€S.W.2d€at€901Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô.òòóóÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨å4#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ è 8  ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨.5#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àThe€question€of€whether€Mr.€Worley€owed€a€duty€to€Jennifer€Biscan€to€prevent€€HughesÐ À  ÐBrown€from€driving€in€an€intoxicated€state€after€having€consumed€beer€at€the€party,€with€or€withoutÐ ¬ü  Ða€passenger,€or€to€prevent€Jennifer€from€riding€in€the€car€with€Hughes€Brown€must€be€answered€byÐ ˜è  Ðbalancing€the€degree€of€foreseeability€of€harm€against€the€burden€upon€Mr.€Worley€to€avoid€the€harmÐ „Ô  Ðby€acting€differently.€òò€Idóó.€at€901.€€The€degree€of€foreseeability€of€harm€and€the€magnitude€of€thatÐ pÀ Ðpotential€harm€must€be€balanced€against€the€onerousness€of€the€burden€involved€in€alternativeÐ \¬ Ðconduct.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨†5#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€€ð ðOf€course,€a€duty€of€care€is€dependent€upon€foreseeability.ðð€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨š8#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€òòPittmanóó€òòv.€Upjohnóó,€890Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€425,€431€(Tenn.€1994).Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨"9#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨¹9#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨:#Ôà  àApplying€the€relevant€factors€to€the€circumstances€presented€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€it€wasÐ  \ Ðforeseeable€that€a€minor€guest€who€drank€at€the€party€would€become€intoxicated€and€that€if€anÐ øH Ðintoxicated€minor€drove€a€car,€there€would€be€an€accident.€€The€potential€for€resulting€harm€to€theÐ ä4 Ðdriver,€any€passengers,€and€other€motorists€was€great.€€Regarding€the€possible€magnitude€of€potentialÐ Ð  Ðharm,€the€Supreme€Court€recently€stated:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àWe€need€look€no€further€than€the€all€too€common€example€of€DUI„related€accidentsÐ ”ä Ðto€appreciate€the€possible€magnitude€of€harm€or€injury€that€can€result€from€anÐ €Ð Ðimpaired€driver.€€Deaths€and€serious€injuries€tragically€occur€every€day€as€the€resultÐ l¼ Ðof€impaired€drivers€who€are€operating€motor€vehicles€on€our€roads€and€highways.€€InÐ X ¨ Ðaddition€to€the€devastation€such€accidents€can€wreak€on€individuals€and€families,€ourÐ D!” Ðsociety€also€incurs€substantial€costs€(both€human€and€economic)€as€a€result€ofÐ 0"€  Ðimpaired€drivers.€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBurroughs€v.€Mageeóó,€118€S.W.3d€323,€332€(Tenn.€2003).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àOn€the€other€side€of€the€equation,€the€burden€placed€on€Mr.€Worley€to€prevent€the€harmÐ Ì&"% Ðcaused€by€an€intoxicated€minor€driver€leaving€Mr.€Worleyððs€home€was€not€onerous.€€He€himselfÐ ¸'#& Ðdevised€a€plan€which€merely€required€him€to€enforce€the€rule€he€attempted€to€impose.€€He€only€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€retrieve€car€keys€or€make€the€cars€inaccessible.€€Of€course,€he€also€could€have€banned€alcohol€orÐ )à$( Ðrefused€to€have€the€party.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àMr.€Worley€does€not€argue€that€injury€to€Jennifer€was€not€foreseeable€or€that€alternativeÐ ° Ðconduct€on€his€part€would€have€been€onerous.€€Instead,€he€relies€upon€generalized€principles€limitingÐ œì Ðsocial€host€liability,€including€authority€from€other€states.€€We€have€carefully€and€throughly€reviewedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€cases€relied€upon€by€Mr.€Worley€as€well€as€those€argued€by€the€Biscans.€€In€addition,€we€haveÐ tÄ Ðconducted€our€own€research,€consulting€additional€cases€from€other€states€and€numerous€law€reviewÐ `° Ðand€other€articles.€€Suffice€it€to€say€that,€while€interesting€and€educational,€that€research€providedÐ L œ Ðlittle€guidance€for€resolution€of€the€case€before€us.€€The€material€reviewed€compels€the€conclusionÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€Tennessee€concepts€of€duty€must€be€applied€to€the€facts€of€this€case€and€that€our€Supreme€CourtÐ $ t Ðhas€told€us€how€to€apply€those€concepts.Ð  ` ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àBased€upon€our€analysis€of€those€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€foreseeability€and€gravity€ofÐ è 8  Ðharm€greatly€outweighed€any€burden€on€Mr.€Worley€to€take€action€to€prevent€the€harm.€€In€additionÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€factors€relevant€to€the€balancing€approach€set€out€above,€considerations€of€public€policy€areÐ À  Ðalso€important€in€determining€whether€a€duty€of€care€existed€in€a€particular€case.€€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€618,€625€(Tenn.€1997);€òòBradshawóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€870.€€As€our€Supreme€Court€has€stated,Ð ˜è  Ðduty€reflects€societyððs€requirements€and€contemporaneous€public€policy€regarding€the€entitlementÐ „Ô  Ðof€individuals€or€the€general€public€to€protection€from€anotherððs€conduct.€òòEstate€of€Amos€v.Ð pÀ ÐVanderbilt€University,€óó62€S.W.3d€133,€138€(Tenn.€2001);€òòMcClungóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€894.€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨“E#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô€In€òòNicholsóó,Ð \¬ Ðthis€court€observed€that€future€exceptional€cases€might€cause€inroads€into€the€rule€that€a€defendantÐ H˜ Ðowes€no€duty€to€control€the€conduct€of€another€person,€specifically€stating,€ð ðThe€publicððs€concernÐ 4„ Ðover€the€tragic€epidemic€of€injury€and€death€caused€by€drunk€drivers€may€very€well€provide€someÐ  p Ðof€these€exceptional€cases.ðð€€844€S.W.2d€at€662.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThere€can€be€no€question€that€the€public€policy€of€this€state€is€to€lessen€the€instances€ofÐ ä4 Ðdriving€while€intoxicated.€€Statutory€changes€regarding€punishment€and€consequences€of€violatingÐ Ð  Ðthe€prohibition€on€driving€while€intoxicated€clearly€demonstrate€the€seriousness€of€the€commitmentÐ ¼  Ðto€eradicating€this€threat€to€public€safety.€€There€can€also€be€no€question€that€intoxicated€minorÐ ¨ø Ðdrivers€pose€a€serious€threat€to€their€own€safety€and€that€of€others.׃@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Our€stateððs€public€policy€is€toÐ ”ä Ðeliminate€this€danger.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àImposing€a€duty€to€act€reasonably€to€prevent€driving€by€an€intoxicated€minor€in€a€situationÐ X ¨ Ðwhere€the€adult€defendant€has€the€authority€and€opportunity€to€take€non„onerous€action€to€precludeÐ D!” Ðthat€driving€furthers€such€public€policy.׃DÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€find€Mr.€Worley€owed€a€duty€of€reasonable€care€underÐ 0"€  Ðthe€circumstances€to€Jennifer€Biscan.Ð #l! ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨…I#ÔÓ  ÓÌB.€Assumption€of€DutyÐ œì ÐÓvPÓÌà  àThe€Biscans€argue€that€whether€or€not€a€duty€existed€under€common€law,€Mr.€WorleyÐ tÄ Ðvoluntarily€assumed€a€duty€and€then€failed€to€perform€that€assumed€duty€with€reasonable€care.€Ð `° ÐLiability€can€be€imposed€for€negligent€performance€of€a€voluntary€undertaking.€€òòStewart€v.€Stateóó,€33Ð L œ ÐS.W.3d€785,€793€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€question€of€whether€a€person€has€assumed€a€duty€to€act€is€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðquestion€of€law,€at€least€where€the€material€facts€giving€rise€to€the€duty€are€undisputed.€òòIdóó.€at€793.€Ð $ t ÐThus,€this€issue€is€appropriate€for€resolution€by€summary€judgment€if€the€material€facts€areÐ  ` Ðundisputed.Ð ü L  ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àð ðOne€who€assumes€to€act,€even€though€gratuitously,€may€thereby€become€subject€to€the€dutyÐ Ô$  Ðof€acting€carefully.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€quoting€òòMarróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€529.€€òòSee€also€Lettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€104;€òòNidifferÐ À  Ðv.€Clinchfield€Railroad€Co.óó,€600€S.W.2d€242€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€Whether€Tennesseeððs€versionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€this€well„settled€rule€equates€to€an€adoption€of€ðð€324A€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€is€notÐ ˜è  Ðentirely€clear.€€òòSee€Messer€Griesham,€óó45€S.W.2d€at€604;€òòLettóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€104;€òòMarróó,€922€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ðat€529;€òòDownenóó,€2003€WL€2002411,€at€*€6.€€Section€324€provides€that€one€who€undertakes€to€renderÐ pÀ Ðservices€to€another€which€he€should€recognize€as€necessary€for€the€protection€of€a€third€person€isÐ \¬ Ðsubject€to€liability€for€physical€harm€to€that€third€person€resulting€from€his€failure€to€exerciseÐ H˜ Ðreasonable€care,€if€such€failure€increases€the€risk€of€harm.€€Regardless€of€whether€Tennessee€hasÐ 4„ Ðspecifically€adopted€Section€324,€one€who€assumes€to€act€assumes€a€duty€to€act€with€reasonable€care.€Ð  p ÐòòMesser€Griesham,€óó45€S.W.2d€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨©S#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôat€604.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€òòDownenóó,€this€court€faced€the€question€of€assumption€of€duty€in€a€similar€fact€situation.€Ð ä4 ÐIn€that€case,€the€adult€hosts€of€a€party€where€they€had€furnished€alcohol€to€minors€began€taking€upÐ Ð  Ðcar€keys€at€some€point,€but€discontinued€the€practice€as€the€night€wore€on€and€as€they€became€moreÐ ¼  Ðintoxicated€themselves.€The€court€determined€that€since€there€was€evidence€that€the€defendantsÐ ¨ø Ðrecognized€the€hazards€of€allowing€teenagers€to€drive€while€intoxicated€and€this€concern€led€themÐ ”ä Ðto€voluntarily€assume€the€responsibility€of€collecting€ignition€keys,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€toÐ €Ð Ðwithstand€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€duty.€€òòDownenóó,€2003€WL€2002411,€at€*€6.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨õX#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€Mr.€Worley€did€not€actually€take€up€any€keys.€Nonetheless,€his€ownÐ D!” Ðdeposition€testimony€established€his€undertaking€and€intent€with€regard€to€safeguarding€the€guestsÐ 0"€  Ðand€the€general€public.€€Consequently,€the€evidence€before€the€court€at€the€summary€judgment€stageÐ #l! Ðwas€sufficient€for€it€to€conclude€that€Mr.€Worley€voluntarily€assumed€a€duty€to€ensure€that€minorsÐ $X" Ðwho€had€been€drinking€did€not€leave€the€party€by€driving.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àBecause€the€law€imposed€a€duty€upon€Mr.€Worley€and/or€because€he€voluntarily€assumed€aÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âduty,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€his€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€It€was€left€to€the€jury€toÐ ¸'#& Ðdecide€if€he€breached€the€duty€of€reasonable€care.׃A×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨‚\#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨¥`#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà@v v ìàIV.€€Issues€Regarding€Fault€of€Each€PartyˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨è`#Ôà  àThe€defendants€have€raised€a€number€of€issues€that€can€generally€be€described€as€relating€toÐ `° Ðthe€juryððs€allocation€of€fault€among€the€parties.€€The€first€deals€with€whether€the€defendants€couldÐ L œ Ðbe€held€liable€to€any€extent.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓA.€Intervening€CauseÐ  ` ÐÓ¨bÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€how€to€allocate€fault€among€the€parties€whoseÐ è 8  Ðnegligence€the€jury€determined€contributed€to€Jenniferððs€injuries.€€In€addition€to€those€thoroughÐ Ô$  Ðinstructions,€Mr.€Worley€requested€that€the€court€also€include€an€instruction€on€intervening€cause.Ð À  ÐIn€arguing€for€inclusion€of€the€instruction,€counsel€for€Mr.€Worley€stated€that€even€if€Mr.€Worley€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€negligent,€ð ðÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôthe€negligent€acts€of€Jennifer€and€Hughes€were€the€proximate€cause€of€the€accident.€Ð ˜è  ÐThat€would€break€the€chain€of€Paul€Worley€.€.€.ððÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨ãd#ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€refused€to€include€that€instruction,€and€on€appeal€Mr.€Worley€asserts€thatÐ \¬ Ðdecision€was€erroneous.€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔTrial€courts€should€give€requested€jury€instructions€where€those€instructionsÐ H˜ Ðare€supported€by€the€evidence,€embody€the€partyððs€theory,€and€are€correct€statements€of€the€law.€Ð 4„ ÐòòOtisóó,€850€S.W.2d€at€445.€€Conversely,€a€trial€court€can€refuse€to€give€a€requested€charge€to€the€juryÐ  p Ðif€it€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence,€its€substance€is€already€covered€in€the€general€charge,€or€it€isÐ  \ Ðincorrect€or€incomplete€in€any€respect.€€òòIngram€v.€Earthmanóó,€993€S.W.2d€611,€635€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð øH Ð1998).€€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨jf#ÔOnly€when€the€denial€of€a€requested€instruction€that€could€have€been€given€under€theÐ ä4 Ðpreviously€stated€rules€prejudices€the€rights€of€the€requesting€party€must€this€court€vacate€theÐ Ð  Ðjudgment.€€òòSouter€v.€Cracker€Barrel€Old€Country€Store,€Inc.óó,€895€S.W.2d€681,€684€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¼  Ð1994).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€instruction€requested€by€Mr.€Worley€was€based€upon€the€doctrine€of€independentÐ €Ð Ðintervening€cause€which,€where€applicable,€will€relieve€a€negligent€actor€from€liability.€€Separate€andÐ l¼ Ðdistinct€sequential€acts€by€different€defendants€may€be€contributing€causes€of€an€injury,€but€the€chainÐ X ¨ Ðof€legal€causation€between€the€first€negligent€act€and€the€eventual€injury€may€be€broken€by€a€new,Ð D!” Ðindependent,€intervening€cause.€€òòóó€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€1991)òò;€WasteÐ 0"€  ÐManagement,€Inc.€of€Tennessee€v.€South€Cent.€Bell€Tel.€Co.óó,€15€S.W.3d€425,€432€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð #l! Ð1997).€€The€intervening€cause€doctrine€has€been€called€a€common„law€liability„shifting€device.€Ð $X" ÐòòWaste€Management,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€at€432.€€Ð ô$D # Їà  àSimply€stated,€the€doctrine€provides€that€a€negligent€actor€will€be€relieved€from€liability€whenÐ ° Ða€new,€independent€and€unforeseen€cause€intervenes€to€produce€a€result€that€the€negligent€actor€couldÐ œì Ðnot€have€reasonably€foreseen.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à[A]n€independent€intervening€cause€breaks€the€chain€of€proximate€causation€andÐ `° Ðthereby€precludes€recovery.€€The€law€is€equally€clear,€however,€that€ðð[a]n€interveningÐ L œ Ðact,€which€is€a€normal€response€created€by€negligence,€is€not€a€superseding,Ð 8 ˆ Ðintervening€cause€so€as€to€relieve€the€original€wrongdoer€of€liability,€provided€theÐ $ t Ðintervening€act€could€have€reasonably€been€foreseen€and€the€conduct€[of€the€originalÐ  ` Ðwrongdoer]€was€a€substantial€factor€in€bringing€about€the€harm.ðð€.€.€.€€Accordingly,Ð ü L  Ðððan€intervening€act€will€not€exculpate€the€original€wrongdoer€unless€it€is€shown€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€intervening€act€could€not€have€been€reasonably€anticipated.ððÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWhite€v.€Lawrenceóó,€975€S.W.2d€at€529,€òòquotingóó€òòMcClenahanóó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThus,€foreseeability€is€the€critical€question€in€an€analysis€of€òòóóintervening€cause.€€ð ðThe€test€ofÐ „Ô  Ðliability€under€the€law€of€intervening€cause€requires€a€person€to€anticipate€or€foresee€what€usuallyÐ pÀ Ðwill€happen.ðð€òòFly€v.€Cannonóó,€836€S.W.2d€570,€574€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€Mr.€Worley€asserts€that€the€intervening€acts€were€Hughes€BrownððsÐ 4„ Ðintoxication€and€decision€to€drive€and€the€decision€by€Jennifer€Biscan€to€leave€the€party€with€theÐ  p Ðintoxicated€Brown.€€Not€only€do€we€believe€that€these€acts€were€foreseeable€by€Mr.€Worley,€but€hisÐ  \ Ðown€testimony€establishes€that€he€anticipated€that€minors€would€drink€alcohol€at€the€party€and€wouldÐ øH Ðdrive€afterward€if€allowed€to.€€He€was€concerned€about€the€consequences€of€their€drinking€and€thenÐ ä4 Ðdriving.€€That€concern€prompted€him€to€impose,€although€ineffectively,€the€rule€requiring€attendeesÐ Ð  Ðwho€drank€to€spend€the€night.€€He€should€have€reasonably€anticipated€the€danger€to€an€intoxicatedÐ ¼  Ðminor€driver€and€to€any€minor€passengers€of€that€driver.€€His€testimony€establishes€that€he€didÐ ¨ø Ðanticipate€that€and€other€potential€dangers.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€Hughes€Brown€argues€on€appeal€that€reasonable€minds€could€find€that€JenniferÐ l¼ ÐBiscanððs€negligent€decision€to€accept€a€ride€with€him€constituted€an€intervening€or€superseding€causeÐ X ¨ Ðof€her€injuries.€€Of€course,€to€be€an€intervening€cause,€the€negligent€act€must€occur€between€theÐ D!” Ðoriginal€tortfeasorððs€negligence€and€the€injury.€€Jenniferððs€decision€to€become€Hughesððs€passengerÐ 0"€  Ðcame€before,€not€after,€Hughes€Brownððs€negligent€driving€that€resulted€in€the€accident€and€JenniferððsÐ #l! Ðinjuries.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àConsequently,€the€facts€of€this€case€do€not€support€a€defense€of€independent€interveningÐ à%0!$ Ðcause€that€would€relieve€either€Mr.€Worley€or€Hughes€Brown€of€liability€for€their€negligent€acts.€Ð Ì&"% ÐAccordingly,€the€trial€court€properly€declined€to€give€the€requested€instruction.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÓ  ÓÐ  )à$( ÐB.€Allocation€of€Fault€to€Jennifer€BiscanÐ ° ÐÓH|ÓÌà  àAnother€group€of€issues€raised€by€the€defendants€involves€Jennifer€Biscanððs€relative€fault.€Ð ˆØ ÐOn€appeal€the€defendants€assert€that€certain€evidentiary€and€jury€instruction€decisions€by€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourt€were€erroneous.€€It€is€important€to€note€that€the€jury€allocated€15%€of€the€fault€for€her€injuriesÐ `° Ðto€Jenniferððs€own€negligence.€€Thus,€the€implication€of€defendantsðð€arguments€is€that€the€jury€wouldÐ L œ Ðhave€or€may€have€allocated€a€greater€percentage€of€fault€to€Jennifer€if€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðotherwise.€€For€purposes€of€the€following€discussion,€it€is€also€important€to€note€that€the€defendantsÐ $ t Ðhave€consistently€identified€Jenniferððs€negligence€as€her€decision€to€get€into€the€car€with€HughesÐ  ` ÐBrown,€who€was€intoxicated.òòóóÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€that€passengers€in€motor€vehicles€have€a€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€orÐ Ô$  Ðordinary€care€for€their€own€safety.€€òòCole€v.€Woodsóó,€548€S.W.2d€640,€643€(Tenn.€1977);€òòHarrison€v.Ð À  ÐPittmanóó,€534€S.W.2d€311,€315€(Tenn.€1976);€òòSchwartz€v.€Johnsonóó,€152€Tenn.€586,€280€S.W.3dÐ ¬ü  Ð(1926);€òòGrandstaff€v.€Hawksóó,€36€S.W.3d€482,€492€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòBrown€v.€Chesoróó,€6Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.3d€479,€482€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòMansfield€v.€Colonial€Freight€Sys.óó,€862€S.W.2d€527,€531Ð „Ô  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€This€duty€includes€the€duty€to€refrain€from€riding€in€an€automobile€operatedÐ pÀ Ðby€an€intoxicated€or€reckless€driver.€€òòColeóó,€548€S.W.2d€at€643;€òòChesoróó,€6€S.W.3d€at€482;€òòMansfieldóó,Ð \¬ Ð862€S.W.2d€at€531;€òòHarvey€v.€Wheeleróó,€57€Tenn.€App.€642,€646,€423€S.W.2d€285€(1967).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àBefore€Tennesseeððs€adoption€of€comparative€fault,€a€passengerððs€negligence€in€riding€withÐ  p Ðan€intoxicated€driver€could€preclude€any€recovery€on€the€basis€of€contributory€negligence€or€impliedÐ  \ Ðassumption€of€the€risk.€€òòMansfieldóó,€862€S.W.2d€at€531.€€Under€the€law€as€it€existed€then,€a€passengerÐ øH Ðwho€knowingly€rode€with€an€intoxicated€driver€could€not,€as€a€general€matter,€recover€for€injuriesÐ ä4 Ðcaused€by€the€intoxicated€driverððs€negligence€because€of€the€passengerððs€own€negligence€in€failingÐ Ð  Ðto€avoid€a€known€risk.€€òòWilson€v.€Tranbargeróó,€218€Tenn.€208,€227,€402€S.W.2d€449,€457€(1965);Ð ¼  ÐòòHicks€v.€Herbertóó,€173€Tenn.€1,€6,€113€S.W.2d€1197,€1199€(1938);òò€Schwartzóó,€152€Tenn.€at€592,€280Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.€at€33;€òòHarveyóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€at€646,€423€S.W.2d€at€285.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àUnder€comparative€fault€principles€applicable€to€this€case,€a€plaintiffððs€negligence€in€failingÐ l¼ Ðto€act€reasonably€is€no€longer€a€complete€bar€to€recovery€for€injuries€from€a€negligent€defendant.€Ð X ¨ ÐòòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòPerez€v.€McConkeyóó,€872€S.W.2d€897,€905Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€1994);€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52,€56„57€(Tenn.€1992).€€Consequently,€as€withÐ 0"€  Ðother€types€of€plaintiffs,€the€reasonableness€of€the€passengerððs€conduct€in€light€of€the€known€riskÐ #l! Ðassociated€with€riding€in€a€car€with€an€intoxicated€driver€must€be€compared€with€the€negligence€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€driver€and€others.€€òòSpinmakerððsóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€939;€òòLaRueóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€427.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWhether€a€passenger€was€negligent,€or€failed€to€use€reasonable€care,€is€measured€by€theÐ Ì&"% Ðstandard€of€whether€the€passenger€ð ðknew€or€should€have€known€of€the€driverððs€intoxication€at€theÐ ¸'#& Ðtime€the€guest„passenger€volunteered€to€ride€in€the€automobile.ðð€€òòMansfieldóó,€862€S.W.2d€at€531,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðquoting€òòHarvey€v.€Wheeleróó,€57€Tenn.€App.€at€646,€423€S.W.2d€at€285.€€The€reasonableness€of€theÐ )à$( Ðpassengerððs€decision€to€ride€with€the€driver€is€a€question€left€to€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòChesoróó,€6€S.W.3dÐ |*Ì%) Ðat€483;€òòLaRueóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€426.€€The€passengerððs€conduct€is€measured€by€that€of€an€ordinarilyÐ h+¸&* Ðprudent€person€in€the€same€circumstances.€òò€Chesoróó,€6€S.W.3d€at€482„83;€òòHarveyóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€atÐ ° Ð647,€423€S.W.2d€at€285.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€jury€considered€the€evidence€and€concluded€that€Jenniferððs€decisionÐ tÄ Ðto€ride€with€Hughes€Brown€was€not€reasonable€under€the€circumstances€and,€consequently,€she€actedÐ `° Ðnegligently.€€There€is€no€challenge€to€this€determination.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOnce€the€jury€decides€that€the€plaintiff€as€well€as€the€defendant(s)€were€negligent,€theÐ $ t Ðallocation€of€fault€for€the€injuries€among€the€negligent€parties€is€a€question€of€fact€within€the€juryððsÐ  ` Ðprovince.€€The€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€has€made€it€clear€that€the€question€of€how€to€apportionÐ ü L  Ðfault€among€the€parties€is€ultimately€dependent€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€case€and€one€that€isÐ è 8  Ðleft€to€the€juryððs€common€sense€and€experience€when€the€jury€is€properly€instructed€on€the€relevantÐ Ô$  Ðfactors.€€òòEatonóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€593.òòóó€€The€Court€has€also€explained€some€of€the€factors€to€beÐ À  Ðconsidered:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€[T]he€percentage€of€fault€assigned€to€each€party€should€be€dependent€upon€all€theÐ „Ô  Ðcircumstances€of€the€case,€including€such€factors€as:€(1)€the€relative€closeness€of€theÐ pÀ Ðcausal€relationship€between€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€the€injury€to€theÐ \¬ Ðplaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€conduct€in€confronting€a€risk,€such€asÐ H˜ Ðwhether€the€party€knew€of€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€the€extent€toÐ 4„ Ðwhich€the€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existing€opportunity€to€avoid€theÐ  p Ðinjury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€a€hastyÐ  \ Ðdecision;€(5)€the€significance€of€what€the€party€was€attempting€to€accomplish€by€theÐ øH Ðconduct,€such€as€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)€the€partyððs€particularÐ ä4 Ðcapacities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education,€and€so€forth.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€592€(footnotes€omitted).€€The€defendants€herein€have€not€directly€attacked€the€juryððsÐ ¨ø Ðapportionment.Ð ”ä ÐÌà@&ìà1.€€FactsˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àBecause€of€her€injuries€Jennifer€was€unable€to€remember€much€of€the€party€or€any€of€theÐ D!” Ðdetails€concerning€her€decision€to€ride€with€Hughes€Brown.€€Jennifer€testified€at€trial€primarilyÐ 0"€  Ðregarding€her€life€and€activities€after€her€injuries.€€She€was€not€questioned€about€the€events€leadingÐ #l! Ðup€to€the€accident,€and€the€defendants€did€not€cross„examine€her€at€all.€€Instead,€part€of€her€pre„trialÐ $X" Ðdeposition€was€read€into€evidence.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€jury€did€hear€evidence€that€for€some€years€prior€to€the€accident€Jennifer€suffered€fromÐ Ì&"% Ðanxiety,€accompanied€by€panic€attacks.€€At€the€party,€Jennifer€encountered€her€former€boyfriendððsÐ ¸'#& Ðnew€girlfriend€and€was€upset€by€their€interaction.€€She€left€the€area€where€most€of€the€group€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ðgathered€and€ended€up€getting€into€a€parked€car€occupied€by€some€boys€she€knew.€€SomethingÐ )à$( Ðhappened€in€the€car€that€made€her€uncomfortable.€€She€got€out€of€the€car€and€ran€into€her€longtimeÐ |*Ì%) Ðfriend€Hughes€Brown.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àHughes€was€about€to€leave€the€party€to€get€home€by€his€11:30€p.m.€curfew.€€AlthoughÐ ° ÐJennifer€came€to€the€party€with€the€intention€of€spending€the€night,€she€now€wanted€to€leave.€Ð œì ÐAccording€to€Hughes,€Jennifer€asked€him€to€give€her€a€ride.€€Hughes€testified€that€after€she€got€inÐ ˆØ Ðthe€car€Jennifer€asked€him€how€many€beers€he€had€drunk,€and€he€told€her€at€least€six.׃Ï×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWhile€there€was€testimony€from€some€party€goers€that€Hughes€Brown€appeared€intoxicatedÐ L œ Ðto€them€before€he€left€the€party,€others€who€saw€and€spoke€with€him€testified€he€did€not€appearÐ 8 ˆ Ðintoxicated.€€Further,€the€law€enforcement€and€emergency€personnel€who€first€appeared€on€the€sceneÐ $ t Ðof€the€accident€testified€that€Hughes€Brown€did€not€appear€intoxicated,€but€instead€appeared€coherentÐ  ` Ðand€oriented,€and€gave€no€signs€of€intoxication€until€subjected€to€a€field€sobriety€test.€€A€series€ofÐ ü L  Ðsuch€tests€revealed€significant€impairment€and€led€to€Hughesððs€immediate€arrest€for€driving€underÐ è 8  Ðthe€influence.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àHughes€Brown€testified€that€he€consumed€two€beers€before€he€went€to€the€party.€€After€heÐ ¬ü  Ðgot€there,€he€got€a€twelve„pack€of€beer€from€Dana€Biscan,€as€previously€arranged.€€He€carried€thisÐ ˜è  Ðbeer€around€during€the€party.€€He€admitted€drinking€seven€or€eight€beers.€€After€the€accident,€HughesÐ „Ô  Ðthrew€a€partial€carton€of€beer€over€the€rail,€and€the€law€enforcement€officer€on€the€scene€found€theÐ pÀ Ðbox€with€five€or€six€unopened€cans€of€beer€in€it.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€part€of€her€deposition€read€to€the€jury,€Jennifer€testified€that€she€knew€the€effects€ofÐ 4„ Ðalcohol.€€Her€father€had€had€discussions€with€Jennifer€about€alcohol.€€Information€about€alcohol€andÐ  p Ðits€effects€had€been€given€to€the€students€in€her€school.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àBecause€the€jury€found€Jennifer€negligent€and€allocated€fault€to€her,€it€obviously€found€theÐ ä4 Ðabove„described€evidence€sufficient€to€determine€that€Jennifer€knew€or€should€have€known€thatÐ Ð  ÐHughes€Brown€was€intoxicated€when€she€got€in€the€car€with€him.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  Ó2.€Jenniferððs€History€With€Consumption€of€AlcoholÐ ”ä ÐÓt¦ÓÌà  àThe€defendants€sought€to€introduce€evidence€of€Jennifer€Biscanððs€consumption€of€alcoholÐ l¼ Ðat€times€before€the€day€of€the€party,€primarily€through€the€testimony€of€other€teenagers€who€had€seenÐ X ¨ ÐJennifer€drink€in€the€past.€€The€Biscans€sought€to€prevent€the€introduction€of€such€evidence€throughÐ D!” Ðâ âa€motion€òòin€limineóó€requesting€the€exclusion€of€evidence€of€Jenniferððs€history€of€alcoholÐ 0"€  Ðconsumption.׃Ð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ ° Ðâ âÌà  àUltimately,€the€trial€court€determined€that€Jennifer€Biscanððs€knowledge€of€the€effects€ofÐ ˆØ Ðalcohol€was€relevant€to€the€reasonableness€of€her€decision€to€accept€a€ride€with€Mr.€Brown€when€sheÐ tÄ Ðknew€that€he€had€been€drinking.€€The€trial€court€allowed€evidence€on€that€issue,€but€determined€thatÐ `° ÐJenniferððs€own€personal€prior€drinking€experience€was€not€relevant€and,€even€if€relevant,€was€moreÐ L œ Ðprejudicial€than€probative.€€The€proposed€testimony€was€preserved€through€jury„out€proffers.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨*©#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô׃ÑÀ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Ð«#Ôà  àOn€appeal,€the€defendants€assert€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€allow€them€to€ð ðfully€developððÐ  ` ÐJennifer€Biscanððs€history€with€regard€to€her€consumption€of€alcohol€prior€to€the€accident€wasÐ ü L  Ðreversible€error.€€They€argue€that€her€history€with€alcohol€was€relevant€to€the€reasonableness€of€herÐ è 8  Ðdecision€to€accept€a€ride€with€an€intoxicated€Hughes€Brown.€€In€particular,€they€rely€on€two€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðfactors€enumerated€in€òòEatonóó:€(1)€whether€the€party€knew€or€should€have€known€of€the€risk€and€(2)Ð À  Ðthe€partiesðð€particular€capabilities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education.Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àThe€defendants€primarily€rely€on€two€cases€for€the€proposition€that€a€minorððs€prior€experienceÐ „Ô  Ðin€drinking€alcohol€is€relevant.€€In€òòBrookinsóó,€624€S.W.2d€547,€a€minor€who€illegally€purchasedÐ pÀ Ðalcoholic€beverages€sued€the€store€where€he€purchased€the€beverages€and€the€restaurant€where€heÐ \¬ Ðdrank€a€beer€for€injuries€he€received€in€an€accident€resulting€from€the€negligence€of€the€driver,€anÐ H˜ Ðintoxicated€friend€under€the€legal€age€for€drinking€who€had€shared€in€the€alcohol.€€The€minor€plaintiffÐ 4„ Ðargued€that€if€he€had€not€been€drinking€himself,€he€would€not€have€ridden€with€his€intoxicated€friend.€Ð  p ÐHe€argued€that€his€own€drinking€diminished€his€capacity€to€exercise€reasonable€care€for€his€safetyÐ  \ Ðand€prevented€him€from€realizing€the€seriousness€of€the€danger€in€riding€with€his€intoxicated€friend.€Ð øH ÐThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€because€the€plaintiff€was€a€minor,€his€judgment€and€capacity€to€actÐ ä4 Ðresponsibly€was€put€at€issue.€€The€Court€held€that€minority€itself,€with€its€implicit€lack€of€capacityÐ Ð  Ðand€judgment,€was€sufficient€to€defeat€summary€judgment€ð ðpredicated€upon€the€conduct€of€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff€after€he€purchased€the€alcoholic€beverages.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€550.€€Turning€to€the€factual€question€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€plaintiffððs€capacity€to€act€responsibly,€the€Court€noted€that€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€at€theÐ ° Ðsummary€judgment€stage€showed€that€the€minor€plaintiff€had€no€experience€with€alcohol€and,Ð œì Ðtherefore,€had€no€reason€to€suspect€he€and€his€friend€would€become€intoxicated€on€the€amount€ofÐ ˆØ Ðalcohol€purchased.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€òòBrookinsóó€holding€is€based€on€two€principles.€€The€first€is€that€a€person€who€voluntarilyÐ L œ Ðbecomes€intoxicated€can€be€found€negligent€if€his€or€her€conduct€does€not€meet€the€standard€of€careÐ 8 ˆ Ðrequired€of€a€sober€person;€voluntary€intoxication€does€not€relieve€a€person€of€his€or€her€ownÐ $ t Ðnegligence.€€òòKirkseyóó,€739€S.W.2d€at€235;€òòRussell€v.€Smithóó,€No.€88„366„II,€1989€WL€71045,€at€*2Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€30,€1989)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€The€second€is€that€beforeÐ ü L  Ða€minorððs€intoxication€can€be€considered€voluntary,€the€minor€must€be€shown€to€have€had€theÐ è 8  Ðcapacity€to€act€responsibly€in€deciding€whether€to€consume€the€alcohol.€€òòBrookinsóó,€624€S.W.2d€atÐ Ô$  Ð550;€òòRussellóó,€1989€WL€71045,€at€*2.Ð À  ÐÌà  àòòRussellóó€involved€a€minor€who€was€killed€when€he€ran€out€into€a€highway€while€intoxicatedÐ ˜è  Ðand€was€hit€by€traffic.€€His€parents€brought€a€wrongful€death€action€against€the€owners€of€the€liquorÐ „Ô  Ðstore€where€the€minor€allegedly€purchased€the€alcohol.€€This€court€concluded€that€the€jury€decidedÐ pÀ Ðthat€it€was€the€minorððs€willful€consumption€of€alcohol,€not€its€sale,€that€was€the€cause€of€his€death.€Ð \¬ ÐBecause€one€who€becomes€voluntarily€intoxicated€may€be€held€liable€for€his€conduct,€and€becauseÐ H˜ Ðthe€deceased€was€a€minor,€the€determinative€question€was€whether€the€deceased€minor€had€theÐ 4„ Ðcapacity€to€become€intoxicated€voluntarily.€€1989€WL€71045,€at€*€2.€€The€court€concluded€that€thereÐ  p Ðwas€ample€evidence€of€the€minorððs€prior€consumption€of€alcohol€and€prior€drunkenness€from€whichÐ  \ Ðthe€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€minor€had€the€capacity€to€realize€the€consequences€of€drinkingÐ øH Ðthe€amount€of€alcohol€he€consumed€on€the€night€in€question.€€Consequently,€the€jury€could€haveÐ ä4 Ðconcluded€that€the€minorððs€intoxication€was€voluntary€and,€therefore,€he€was€contributorily€negligent.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€third€case€cited€by€defendants,€òòKirkseyóó,€804€S.W.2d€68,€involved€a€wrongful€death€claimÐ ¨ø Ðfor€the€death€of€an€adult€from€the€effects€of€ten€or€more€ð ðZombiesðð€consumed,€on€a€bet,€within€aÐ ”ä Ðshort€period€of€time.€€The€owner,€bartender,€and€waitress€from€the€bar€serving€the€deceased€wereÐ €Ð Ðsued,€along€with€the€person€who€waged€the€bet€with€the€deceased.€€The€deceasedððs€contributoryÐ l¼ Ðnegligence€was€an€issue.€€The€deceasedððs€parents€argued€on€appeal€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðto€admit€evidence€of€the€deceasedððs€prior€use€and€abuse€of€alcohol€and€drugs.€€This€court€heldÐ D!” Ðotherwise,€and€stated€that€in€a€wrongful€death€action€(in€that€case€involving€death€from€consumptionÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€alcohol€itself),€ð ða€deceasedððs€personal€habits€as€to€sobriety€are€admissible.ðð€òò€Idóó.€at€74.Ð #l! ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Q¯#Ôà  àAll€these€cases€involved€the€question€of€voluntary€intoxication,€and€prior€drinking€experienceÐ ô$D # Ðwas€relevant€to€that€issue.€€The€decision€to€ride€with€an€intoxicated€driver,€however,€is€different€fromÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€decision€to€drink€alcohol.€€While€there€was€evidence€indicating€Jennifer€drank€something€at€theÐ Ì&"% Ðparty,€a€test€taken€at€the€hospital€revealed€her€blood€alcohol€level€to€be€only€.032.׃F×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendantsÐ ¸'#& Ðdo€not€assert€that€Jenniferððs€consumption€of€alcoholic€beverages€at€the€party€had€any€effect€on€herÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdecision€to€ride€with€Hughes€Brown.€€To€the€contrary,€they€specifically€argued€to€the€trial€court€thatÐ ° ÐJenniferððs€alcohol€consumption€on€the€night€of€the€accident€was€not€relevant€ð ðexcept€for€the€fact€thatÐ œì Ðshe€was€sober€and€even€had€a€better€chance€to€understand.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àBecause€the€defendants€herein€do€not€attempt€to€argue€that€Jenniferððs€drinking€of€alcoholicÐ `° Ðbeverages€at€the€party€affected€her€judgment€in€riding€with€Hughes€Brown,€the€cases€regardingÐ L œ Ðvoluntary€intoxication€are€not€applicable.€€Prior€knowledge€of€the€effect€of€alcohol€on€oneððs€self€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelevant€to€the€decision€to€drink€and€to€the€voluntariness€of€intoxication.€€Knowledge€of€the€effectsÐ $ t Ðof€alcohol€on€anotherððs€ability€to€drive€is€not€dependent€on€personal€experience€with€alcohol.€€WeÐ  ` Ðnote€that€defendants€did€not€examine€Jennifer€with€regard€to€her€prior€observation€of€Hughes€BrownÐ ü L  Ðdrinking€or€operating€a€car€after€drinking.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Biscans€assert€that,€to€the€extent€the€proffered€evidence€that€Jennifer€may€haveÐ À  Ðconsumed€alcohol€on€prior€occasions€was€probative€of€her€knowledge€of€alcohol,€it€was€merelyÐ ¬ü  Ðcumulative€to€other€evidence€relevant€to€that€issue.€€In€light€of€the€juryððs€finding€that€Jennifer€wasÐ ˜è  Ðnegligent,€with€the€necessary€implication€therefrom€that€she€knew€or€should€have€known€HughesÐ „Ô  ÐBrown€was€intoxicated,€we€agree€with€the€Biscansðð€position.€€Obviously,€the€jury€heard€sufficientÐ pÀ Ðevidence€of€Jenniferððs€knowledge€of€the€effects€of€alcohol€to€cause€it€to€determine€she€was€partiallyÐ \¬ Ðat€fault€for€her€injuries.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àBecause€other€evidence€relevant€to€Jenniferððs€assessment€of€Hughesððs€level€of€intoxicationÐ  p Ðand€the€dangers€associated€therewith€was€presented,€the€Biscans€assert€the€proffered€evidence€wasÐ  \ Ðproperly€excluded€because€its€potential€unfair€prejudice€outweighed€its€probative€value,€relying€onÐ øH ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.׃Ó×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€applying€Rule€403,€a€trial€court€must€engage€in€a€balancing€process.€€òòWhiteÐ ä4 Ðv.€Vanderbilt€Univóó.,€21€S.W.3d€215,€227€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€discussed€above,€the€probative€value€of€testimony€that€Jennifer€had€consumed€alcoholicÐ ¨ø Ðbeverages€in€the€past€was,€at€best,€minimal€on€the€issue€of€whether€she€knew€or€should€have€knownÐ ”ä Ðof€the€risks€associated€with€riding€with€Hughes€Brown.€€Its€potential€prejudice,€however,€is€obvious.€Ð €Ð ÐDefendantsðð€attempts€to€portray€Jennifer€as€previously€reckless€with€regard€to€her€own€consumptionÐ l¼ Ðof€alcohol€would€have€confused€that€prior€conduct€with€the€only€basis€upon€which€the€allegationsÐ X ¨ Ðof€negligence€on€her€part€rested:€the€decision€to€accept€a€ride€with€Hughes€Brown.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àHaving€reviewed€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€exceed€or€abuse€itsÐ #l! Ðdiscretion€in€excluding€the€proffered€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Gillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€266€(Tenn.€2000);Ð $X" ÐòòHerbert€ex€rel.€Herbert€v.€Brazealeóó,€902€S.W.2d€933€(Tenn.€Code€App.€1995).€€€It€properlyÐ ° Ðconsidered€the€relevance,€probative€value,€and€prejudice€of€the€evidence€and€ruled€within€theÐ œì Ðdiscretion€granted€in€Rule€403.€€òòSee€Richardson€v.€Milleróó,€44€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€WeÐ ˆØ Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€motion€to€exclude€the€proffered€evidence€regarding€JenniferÐ tÄ ÐBiscanððs€prior€history€of€alcohol€consumption.Ð `° ÐÌà@Š Š ìà3.€€Juvenile€Court€Records€Regarding€Jennifer€BiscanˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOne€specific€area€of€evidence€regarding€Jennifer€Biscanððs€prior€experience€with€alcoholÐ  ` Ðconsumption€that€the€defendants€wanted€to€introduce€involved€her€juvenile€record,€including€aÐ ü L  Ðjuvenile€court€adjudication€suspending€her€driverððs€license.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€BiscansððÐ è 8  Ðmotion€to€exclude€that€evidence,€specifically€excluding€ð ðtestimony€regarding€Jennifer€Biscanððs€priorÐ Ô$  Ðjuvenile€court€record€and€the€suspension€of€her€driverððs€license.ðð€€The€record€before€us€includes€onlyÐ À  Ða€copy€of€a€juvenile€court€order€that€was€marked€for€identification.€€In€a€jury„out€proffer,€JenniferððsÐ ¬ü  Ðfather€testified€that€he€was€aware€that€Jennifer€had€received€juvenile€court€citations€on€two€occasionsÐ ˜è  Ðprior€to€the€accident.€€He€explained€the€fact€situations€surrounding€the€citations,€as€he€understoodÐ „Ô  Ðthem,€and€neither€involved€Jennifer€actually€drinking€alcohol.€€With€regard€to€the€second,€whichÐ pÀ Ðapparently€resulted€in€the€adjudication€also€proffered,€Mr.€Biscan€was€angry€with€Jennifer€becauseÐ \¬ Ðshe€allowed€a€boy€in€her€car€with€a€can€of€beer,€even€though€her€father€had€told€her€not€to€be€aroundÐ H˜ Ðpeople€who€drink.€€Consequently,€Mr.€Biscan€would€not€hire€a€lawyer€for€Jennifer€and€required€herÐ 4„ Ðto€go€to€court€and€ð ðtake€her€punishment.ðð€€The€defendants€have€referred€us€to€no€other€proffers€ofÐ  p Ðevidence€they€assert€was€wrongly€excluded.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€argue€that€ð ðthe€facts€underlyingðð€the€juvenile€court€citations€and€the€loss€ofÐ ä4 Ðher€driverððs€license€were€important€evidence€ð ðof€Jennifer€Biscanððs€history€of€alcohol€possession€andÐ Ð  Ðconsumption.ðð€€In€addition,€they€argue€that€Jenniferððs€failure€to€heed€her€fatherððs€advice€to€refrainÐ ¼  Ðfrom€consuming€alcohol€after€the€citations€was€ð ðrelevant€to€the€issues€of€her€experience€with€alcoholÐ ¨ø Ðand€maturity€level€at€the€time€she€accepted€a€ride€with€an€intoxicated€Hughes€Brown.ðð€€Thus,€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendants€make€essentially€the€same€argument€here€as€they€made€with€regard€to€Jenniferððs€historyÐ €Ð Ðof€personal€alcohol€consumption.€€Again,€the€argument€does€not€distinguish€between€JenniferððsÐ l¼ Ðnegligence€in€riding€with€Hughes€Brown€and€her€conduct€in€drinking€at€the€party€to€a€small€enoughÐ X ¨ Ðdegree€that€the€defendants€do€not€argue€it€affected€her€judgment.€€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Biscans€assert€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€was€proper€based€on€Tenn.€CodeÐ #l! ÐAnn.€ðð€37„1„133(b)€and€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(c)€&€609(d)€and€also€argue€that€the€proffered€evidenceÐ $X" Ðwas€irrelevant,€unfairly€prejudicial,€confusing,€and€would€have€been€misleading€to€the€jury.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„133(b)€bars€the€admission€of€juvenile€adjudications€and€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðadduced€in€juvenile€court€hearings€in€subsequent€proceedings.€€It€states:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àThe€disposition€of€a€child€and€evidence€adduced€in€a€hearing€in€juvenile€court€mayÐ )à$( Ðnot€be€used€against€such€child€in€any€proceeding€in€any€court€other€than€a€juvenileÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt,€whether€before€or€after€reaching€majority,€òòexceptóó€in€dispositional€proceedingsÐ h+¸&* Ðafter€conviction€of€a€felony€or€the€purposes€of€a€pre„sentence€investigation€and€report.€Ð°Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„133(b)€(emphasis€added).€€òòóóThis€statute€would€clearly€prohibit€theÐ ˆØ Ðintroduction€of€the€adjudication€proffered€by€the€defendants€herein€and€any€testimony€regarding€theÐ tÄ Ðevidence€adduced€in€juvenile€court.€€The€statutory€exception€clearly€does€not€apply€in€the€case€herein.€Ð `° ÐòòSee€State€v.€Stocktonóó,€733€S.W.2d€111,€112€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(holding€that€a€juvenileððsÐ L œ Ðrecord€may€be€considered€ð ðin€dispositional€proceedings€after€conviction€of€a€felony€for€the€purposeÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€a€pre„sentence€investigation€and€reportðð).׃8×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€provide€no€explanation€as€to€why€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„133(b)€should€notÐ ü L  Ðapply,€instead€merely€arguing€that€Jenniferððs€history€with€alcohol,€including€the€juvenile€court€record,Ð è 8  Ðis€relevant€to€assessing€her€negligence.€€They€also€argue€that€the€holding€in€òòRussell€v.€Smithóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð Ô$  Ðallows€for€the€introduction€of€the€prior€juvenile€adjudication.€€In€òòRussellóó,€the€jury€considered€the€factÐ À  Ðthat€a€minor€had€previously€become€so€intoxicated€that€he€was€arrested€by€the€police€and€taken€toÐ ¬ü  Ða€juvenile€detention€center€as€part€of€its€determination€of€whether€the€minor€had€the€capacity€toÐ ˜è  Ðbecome€voluntarily€intoxicated.€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.€€òòRussellóó€is€distinguishable€in€that€there€was€apparently€òòóónoÐ „Ô  Ðattempt€to€introduce€the€actual€juvenile€court€disposition€or€facts€from€the€hearing.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€statute,€the€rules€of€evidence€indicate€a€reluctance€to€allow€the€use€of€badÐ H˜ Ðconduct€as€a€juvenile€or€a€juvenile€court€record.€€For€example,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(d)׃/d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€provides:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àEvidence€of€juvenile€adjudications€is€generally€not€admissible€under€this€rule.€€TheÐ  \ Ðcourt€may,€however,€allow€evidence€of€a€juvenile€adjudication€of€a€witness€other€thanÐ øH Ðthe€accused€in€a€criminal€case€if€conviction€of€the€offense€would€be€admissible€toÐ ä4 Ðattack€the€credibility€of€an€adult€and€the€court€is€satisfied€that€admission€in€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðis€necessary€for€a€fair€determination€in€a€civil€action€or€criminal€proceeding.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€specific€protection€given€by€the€statute€and€the€rules€to€juvenile€records,Ð ”ä Ðthe€evidence€sought€to€be€introduced€herein€is€still€subject€to€the€probative€value€„€prejudicial€effectÐ €Ð Ðbalancing€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€For€the€same€reasons€we€concluded€that€the€trial€court€did€not€errÐ l¼ Ðin€excluding€evidence€relating€to€Jenniferððs€prior€consumption€of€alcohol,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðacted€within€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€juvenile€court€adjudication€and€proffered€testimony.Ð D!” ÐÌÌÐ $X" Ðà@¨¨!ìà4.€€Amnesiac€ChargeˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Hughes€Brown€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€regarding€theÐ ˆØ Ðlaw€in€Tennessee€of€the€presumption€afforded€an€amnesiac.€€At€trial,€it€was€proved€that€JenniferÐ tÄ ÐBiscan€had€no€memory€of€the€accident,€and€little€memory€of€the€events€on€the€day€of€the€party€beforeÐ `° Ðthe€accident.€€The€trial€court€charged€the€jury€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àWhere€the€loss€of€memory€renders€a€party€incapable€of€testifying€as€to€an€incidentÐ $ t Ðbefore€the€Court,€and€this€loss€of€memory€is€attributable€to€that€incident,€you€mustÐ  ` Ðpresume€that€the€party€exercised€reasonable€care€during€the€time€leading€up€to€theÐ ü L  Ðincident€and€that€the€party€exercised€reasonable€care€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€ThisÐ è 8  Ðpresumption€is€rebuttable.€€If€you€determine€that€the€defendants€have€introducedÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€to€the€contrary,€you€shall€weigh€that€evidence€against€any€evidenceÐ À  Ðintroduced€at€trial€that€tends€to€show€the€plaintiff€acted€with€reasonable€care.€€Ô‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔЬü Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€instruction€accurately€stated€the€law.€€In€Tennessee,€an€Ô% ‡Õ ÔÔ%†ÕA÷ÔÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨¸ö#ÔÔ‡ÖXý¨XXXý¨Ôamnesiac€is€afforded€theÐ „Ô  Ðpresumption€that€he€or€she€acted€with€due€care€as€to€events€about€which€the€amnesiac€has€noÐ pÀ Ðmemory.€€òòAmmons€v.€Bonillaóó,€886€S.W.2d€239,€245€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòOder€v.€Parksóó,€34€Tenn.Ð \¬ ÐApp.€303,€237€S.W.2d€571,€576€(1948).€€This€presumption,€like€that€applicable€to€a€dead€person,€isÐ H˜ Ðintended€to€preserve€fairness€because€of€one€partyððs€inability€to€tell€his€or€her€version€of€the€events.€Ð 4„ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXÖXý¨‚÷#ÔÔ‡ÖXý¨XXXý¨ÔHowever,€as€the€jury€instruction€made€clear,€Ô#†Xý¨XXÖXý¨Øù#ÔÔ‡ÖXý¨XXXý¨Ôthe€presumption€is€rebuttable€by€evidence€that€theÐ  p Ðamnesiac€did€not€act€with€due€care.€€òòJeffreys€v.€Louisville€&€N.€R.R.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€560€S.W.2d€920,€921Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977)Ô#†Xý¨XXÖXý¨Gú#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô.€€Ð øH ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨dû#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àOn€appeal,€Hughes€Brown€argues€that€the€jury€charge€was€inappropriate€because€(1)€it€wasÐ Ð  Ðnever€contended€that€Jennifer€Biscan€was€guilty€of€negligence€during€Hughes€Brownððs€operation€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€vehicle;€(2)€there€was€evidence€that€Jennifer€acted€without€due€care€as€to€her€safety;׃××Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú29Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€(3)€theÐ ¨ø Ðfact€that€the€jury€was€charged€that€Jennifer€Biscan€had€a€presumption€of€due€care€unfairly€andÐ ”ä Ðinappropriately€sent€a€message€to€the€jury€that€all€of€her€actions€that€night€were€reasonable.€€SinceÐ €Ð Ðthe€only€negligence€attributed€to€Jennifer€by€the€defendants€was€her€decision€to€ride€in€the€car€withÐ l¼ Ðthe€intoxicated€Hughes€Brown€driving,€we€find€little€relevance€in€the€first€and€last€argument.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€argument€that€the€amnesiac€instruction€should€not€have€been€givenÐ 0"€  Ðbecause€there€was€some€evidence€that€Jennifer€did€not€act€with€due€care€in€deciding€to€ride€withÐ #l! ÐHughes€Brown,€we€disagree€with€Mr.€Brownððs€interpretation€of€authority€on€that€issue.€€His€relianceÐ $X" Ðon€òòLemons€v.€Memphis€Transit€Management€Co.óó,€56€Tenn.€App.€737,€413€S.W.2d€88€(1966)€andÐ ô$D # ÐòòJeffreysóó,€560€S.W.2d€at€922,€is€misplaced.€€In€òòLemonsóó,€this€court€determined€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ à%0!$ Ðpartial€instruction€failed€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€on€the€presumption€of€due€care.€€In€òòJeffreysóó,€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€to€the€defendants€because€all€the€evidenceÐ ¸'#& Ðintroduced€contradicted€the€presumption€that€the€amnesiac€acted€with€due€care€in€crossing€a€railroadÐ ° Ðtrack.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€there€was€conflicting€evidence€as€to€whether€Jennifer€exercised€due€careÐ tÄ Ðin€riding€with€Hughes;€i.e.,€whether€she€knew€or€should€have€known€he€was€intoxicated.€€In€thatÐ `° Ðcircumstance,€the€question€of€reasonableness€was€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€resolve,€and€the€Ð L œ Ðinstruction€on€the€presumption€was€proper.€€In€òòFergus€v.€Action€Cartage€&€Distribution,€Inc.óó,€1990Ð 8 ˆ ÐWL€43463,€at€*€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€17,€1990),€this€court€addressed€the€same€argument€raised€Ð $ t Ðherein€and€held€the€presumption€was€appropriately€charged€because€it€was€for€the€jury€to€determineÐ  ` Ðif€evidence€existed€to€the€contrary.€€The€court€further€stated,€ð ðDefendants€have€not€cited€to€this€CourtÐ ü L  Ða€single€case€that€stands€for€the€proposition€that€when€any€evidence€of€lack€of€due€care€is€introduced,Ð è 8  Ðthe€charge€regarding€presumption€of€due€care€should€not€be€given.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€We€agree€with€the€òòFergusóóÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€and€its€holdings.Ð À  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€as€the€Biscans€point€out,€the€jury€apportioned€fifteen€percent€of€the€fault€toÐ ˜è  ÐJennifer€Biscan€after€hearing€the€charge€and€applying€the€evidence€that€was€introduced.€€Obviously,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€jury€determined€that€the€presumption€was€rebutted€by€the€evidence.€€Thus,€we€cannot€see€howÐ pÀ ÐMr.€Brown€was€harmed€by€the€instruction.€€€Ð \¬ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨¿û#ÔÌà@= = ìà5.€€Exclusion€of€Testimony€of€Dr.€MitchellˆÐ 4„ ÐÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àThe€defendants€assert€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€refuse€to€allow€their€proposed€expertÐ  \ Ðwitness,€Dr.€William€Mitchell,€to€testify.€€The€defendants€proposed€to€have€Dr.€Mitchell€testify€asÐ øH Ðto€the€effects€of€intoxication€related€to€blood€alcohol€level.€€He€would€have€opined€that€based€on€theÐ ä4 Ðtoxicology€report€that€Hughes€Brownððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€.17%€after€the€accident,€Mr.€BrownÐ Ð  Ðwould€have€exhibited€signs€of€intoxication€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Thus,€this€proof€would€haveÐ ¼  Ðbeen€cumulative€to€other€evidence€introduced€to€show€that€Jennifer€Biscan€knew€or€should€haveÐ ¨ø Ðknown€Hughes€Brown€was€intoxicated.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àImportant€to€our€analysis€is€the€procedural€posture€of€the€issue€at€the€time€of€the€courtððsÐ l¼ Ðruling.€€Approximately€a€month€before€trial,€Mr.€Worley€supplemented€his€interrogatory€answers,Ð X ¨ Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26,€€to€notify€the€plaintiffs€that€he€anticipated€calling€Dr.€Mitchell,€whoÐ D!” Ðwas€identified€as€a€professor€of€toxicology,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú30Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€testify€as€an€expert.€€In€addition€to€the€opinionÐ 0"€  Ðregarding€Hughes€Brownððs€likely€display€of€the€signs€of€intoxication,€the€Rule€26€disclosure€alsoÐ #l! Ðstated,€ð ðMoreover,€relatively€inexperienced€teenage€drivers€would€be€expected€to€demonstrate€theÐ $X" Ðfull€effects€of€intoxication€with€little€ability€to€mask€the€adverse€effects€on€motor€function€andÐ ô$D # Ðspeech.ðð€€A€copy€of€Dr.€Mitchellððs€report€was€attached.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Biscans€then€deposed€Dr.€Mitchell.€€They€filed€a€motion€òòin€limine€óóto€exclude€Dr.Ð ¸'#& ÐMitchellððs€testimony.€€At€the€hearing€on€that€motion,€the€court€had€before€it€the€Rule€26€disclosureÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€the€deposition€transcript.€€Mr.€Worley€did€not€supplement€this€information€or€call€Dr.€MitchellÐ ° Ðto€testify€at€the€pre„trial€hearing€on€the€Biscansðð€motion.€€Dr.€Mitchell€did€later€testify€in€a€jury„outÐ œì Ðproffer€near€the€end€of€the€trial.€€No€explanation€of€the€proffer€preceded€it,€and€it€was€presumablyÐ ˆØ Ðmade€for€the€purpose€of€preserving€the€witnessððs€testimony.€€Consequently,€we€agree€with€theÐ tÄ ÐBiscans€that€the€courtððs€ruling€must€be€examined€based€on€the€information€presented€to€the€court€atÐ `° Ðthe€time€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú31Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨ #ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Biscans€moved€òòóóto€exclude€Dr.€Mitchell€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€not€qualified€byÐ $ t Ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training€or€education€€to€provide€expert€testimony€as€to€the€matters€theÐ  ` Ðdefendants€had€identified€in€their€Rule€26€disclosure.€€They€asserted€that€Dr.€Mitchell€based€hisÐ ü L  Ðconclusions€as€to€the€effect€of€alcohol€on€his€experience€as€a€dormitory€headmaster€in€the€early€1960sÐ è 8  Ðand€on€his€reading€of€literature€on€the€subject,€of€which€he€had€destroyed€all€but€two€articles.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðmotion€also€states€that€ð ðWhen€challenged,€however,€as€to€the€basis€of€his€conclusion€that,€at€a€certainÐ À  Ðblood€alcohol€level,€ðð90€percentðð€of€teenagers€would€exhibit€certain€effects€of€alcohol,€Dr.€MitchellÐ ¬ü  Ðadmitted€that€his€basis€for€that€conclusion€was€ððjust€observation.ðððð€Thus,€they€argued,€his€opinionÐ ˜è  Ðwas€not€based€upon€the€types€of€data€or€information€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€would€notÐ „Ô  Ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€jointly€responded€to€the€motion.€€They€pointed€out€that€the€Biscans€hadÐ H˜ Ðplaced€too€much€emphasis€on€Dr.€Mitchellððs€passing€mention€of€his€observation€of€teenagers€andÐ 4„ Ðalcohol€as€a€dormitory€headmaster.€€They€also€stated€that€Dr.€Mitchell€was€a€board€certified€clinicalÐ  p Ðpathologist€with€over€twenty„five€years€of€experience,€who€had€teaching€and€researchÐ  \ Ðresponsibilities.€€They€argued€that€the€court€should€allow€Dr.€Mitchell€to€testify€and€again€reiteratedÐ øH Ðthat€he€was€expected€to€testify€that€Hughes€Brownððs€blood€alcohol€level€would€have€ð ðcaused€himÐ ä4 Ðto€be€visibly€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€accident.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨,#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ôà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€Biscansðð€motion€€and€indicated€in€the€order€that€its€decision€wasÐ ¨ø Ðbased€on€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€&€703,€andòò€McDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€265Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€1997),€ð ðon€the€grounds€that€William€Mitchell€is€not€qualified€as€an€expert€to€testify€as€to€theÐ €Ð Ðissues€on€which€Defendantsðð€have€tendered€him,€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702,€that€WilliamÐ l¼ ÐMitchell€has€no€scientific,€technical,€or€otherwise€specialized€knowledge€on€the€issues€.€.€.€and€theÐ X ¨ Ðfacts€and€data€underlying€William€Mitchellððs€opinion€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.ððÐ D!” ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨.#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àIn€general,€questions€regarding€admissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy,€and€competency€orÐ #l! Ðexpert€testimony€are€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€òòIdóó.€at€263„64Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨G #ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨Ô.€€Expert€testimony€regardingÐ $X" Ðscientific€theory€or€based€on€technical€or€specialized€knowledge€must€be€both€relevant€and€reliableÐ ô$D # Ðto€be€admissible.€€òòState€v.€Stevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€817,€832„33€(Tenn.€2002).€€Trial€courts€perform€aÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðgatekeepingðð€function€to€insure€that€proposed€expert€testimony€meets€the€levels€of€relevance€andÐ Ì&"% Ðreliability€established€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€&€703.€€Those€rules€state:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÐ tÄ Ðqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ `° Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨Y!#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨/%#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÐ $ t ÐÌà8  àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinion€orÐ ü L  Ðinference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÐ è 8  Ðhearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€inÐ Ô$  Ðforming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÐ À  Ðadmissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÐ ¬ü  Ðor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.€€Ô#†Xý¨XXXý¨„%#ÔИè Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€primary€inquiry€under€these€rules€is€whether€the€expert€opinion€testimony€willÐ H˜ Ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue.€€PriorÐ 4„ Ðto€the€adoption€of€the€standard€set€out€in€Rule€702,€expert€testimony€was€admissible€only€if€it€wasÐ  p Ðnecessary.€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€668€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCasone€v.€Stateóó,€193€Tenn.€303,€246Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€22,€26€(1952)€(holding€that€ð ðthe€subject€under€examination€must€be€one€that€requires€thatÐ øH Ðthe€court€and€jury€have€the€aid€of€knowledge€or€experience€such€as€men€not€specially€skilled€do€notÐ ä4 Ðhave,€and€such€therefore€as€cannot€be€obtained€from€ordinary€witnesses.ðð)€€The€necessity€requirementÐ Ð  Ðno€longer€applies,€butÐ ¼  ÐÌà8  à[w]hile€the€substantial€assistance€standard€of€Rule€702,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€is€a€relaxationÐ ”ä Ðof€the€common€law€necessity€requirement,€it€is€somewhat€stricter€than€theÐ €Ð Ðcomparable€federal€rule€of€evidence€which€permits€expert€testimony€upon€a€findingÐ l¼ Ðthat€it€merely€assists€the€trial€of€fact.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòShuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€668.€€Thus,€in€Tennessee,€the€probative€force€of€the€testimony€must€be€strongerÐ 0"€  Ðthan€that€required€under€the€federal€rules.€€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€must€also€make€a€determination€as€to€the€witnessððs€qualification€byÐ ô$D # Ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training€or€education€to€express€an€opinion€within€the€limits€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdemonstrated€expertise.€€As€to€this€question,€the€determinative€factor€is€ð ðwhether€the€witnessððsÐ Ì&"% Ðqualifications€authorize€him€or€her€to€give€an€informed€opinion€òòon€the€subject€at€issueóó.ðð€€òòStevensóó,€78Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.3d€at€834.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€determining€the€qualification€of€the€expert,€the€court€is€also€required€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðdetermine€whether€the€expert€evidence€is€reliable€or€valid.€€òòVan€Tranóó,€66€S.W.3d€at€819;€òòState€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐFarneróó,€66€S.W.3d€188,€207€(Tenn.€2001).€€One€purpose€of€this€examination€is€for€the€court€to€assureÐ ° Ðitself€that€the€opinions€of€the€expert€ð ðare€based€on€relevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€and€data,Ð œì Ðand€not€upon€an€expertððs€mere€speculation.ðð€€òòFarneróó,€66€S.W.2d€at€207„208,€quoting€òòMcDanielóó,€955Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€at€265.€€Among€the€nondeterminative€and€nonexclusive€€factors€that€can€be€considered€inÐ tÄ Ðdetermining€reliability€are€(1)€whether€the€scientific€evidence€has€been€tested€and€the€methodologyÐ `° Ðwith€which€it€has€been€tested;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€has€been€subjected€to€peer€review€orÐ L œ Ðpublication;€(3)€whether€a€potential€rate€of€error€is€known;€(4)€whether€the€evidence€is€generallyÐ 8 ˆ Ðaccepted€in€the€scientific€community;€and€(5)€whether€the€expertððs€research€in€the€field€has€beenÐ $ t Ðconducted€independent€of€litigation.€€òòStevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€at€832,€835;€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€must€ensure€that€the€basis€for€the€expert€witnessððs€opinion€(e.g.€testing,Ð è 8  Ðresearch,€studies,€or€experience„based€observations)€adequately€supports€that€expertððs€conclusion€or,Ð Ô$  Ðin€other€words,€whether€there€is€an€analytical€gap€between€the€data€relied€upon€and€the€opinionÐ À  Ðproffered.€€òòStevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€at€834.€€A€connection€between€the€underlying€data€and€the€conclusionÐ ¬ü  Ðmust€exist.€€òòIdóó.€€This€connection€ð ðis€of€especial€importance€when€determining€the€reliability€ofÐ ˜è  Ðexperience„based€testimony,€because€observation€and€experience€are€not€easily€verifiable€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðcourt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Through€the€language€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703,€Tennessee€courts€are€encouraged€to€takeÐ pÀ Ða€more€active€role€(as€compared€to€federal€courts)€in€the€evaluating€the€reasonableness€of€the€expertððsÐ \¬ Ðreliance€on€the€particular€facts€or€data€that€form€the€basis€for€the€expert€testimony€or€opinion.€Ð H˜ ÐòòSeffernick€v.€Saint€Thomas€Hospóó.,€969€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1998);€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€broad€discretion€regarding€the€admission€of€expert€testimony.€€òòRobinsonóóÐ  \ Ðòòv.€LeCorpsóó,€83€S.W.3d€718,€725€(Tenn.€2002);€òòStevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€at€832;€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2dÐ øH Ðat€263.€€Consequently,€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€such€evidence€may€be€overturnedÐ ä4 Ðon€appeal€only€if€the€discretion€is€exercised€arbitrarily€or€is€abused.€€òòStevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€at€832;Ð Ð  ÐòòSeffernickóó,€969€S.W.2d€at€393;€òòShuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€669.€€A€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion€is€properÐ ¼  Ðwhen€the€trial€court€applied€an€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reached€a€decision€against€logic€orÐ ¨ø Ðreasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.€€òòStevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€at€832;€òòShuckóó,€953Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€at€669.€€Appellate€courts€will€set€aside€a€discretionary€decision€only€where€the€trial€court€hasÐ €Ð Ðmisidentified,€misconstrued,€or€misapplied€the€controlling€legal€principles€or€the€decision€is€contraryÐ l¼ Ðto€the€substantial€weight€of€the€evidence.€€òòWhiteóó,€21€S.W.3d€at€223.€€An€appellate€court€should€notÐ X ¨ Ðsubstitute€its€judgment€on€a€discretionary€decision€and€should€permit€the€trial€courtððs€exercise€ofÐ D!” Ðdiscretion€to€stand€if€reasonable€judicial€minds€could€differ€as€to€its€soundness.€€òòWhiteóó,€21€S.W.3dÐ 0"€  Ðat€223;€òòOverstreetóó,€4€S.W.3d€at€709.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àEven€if€a€trial€court€improperly€excludes€admissible€expert€evidence,€reversal€of€the€judgmentÐ ô$D # Ðis€not€required€if€the€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial€even€if€it€had€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðadmitted.€€òòWhiteóó,€21€S.W.3d€at€223.€€A€judgment€should€be€set€aside€only€if,€considering€the€recordÐ Ì&"% Ðas€a€whole,€an€error€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð ¸'#& Ð36(b);€òòPankow€v.€Mitchellóó,€737€S.W.2d€293,€297€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€Thus,€a€courtððs€exclusionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€otherwise€admissible€evidence€will€not€require€reversal€if€it€did€not€affect€the€juryððs€verdict,€if€theÐ )à$( Ðexcluded€evidence€would€not€have€strengthened€the€position€of€the€party€claiming€error€in€itsÐ |*Ì%) Ðexclusion,€or€if€the€substance€of€the€excluded€evidence€got€to€the€jury€through€another€source.€òò€Idóó.Ð h+¸&* Ðat€298.Ð ° ÐÌà  àWhere€the€jury€has€other€evidence€relevant€to€the€issue€it€is€to€decide,€and€where€the€jury€isÐ ˆØ Ðable€to€evaluate€that€evidence€without€the€opinion€of€an€expert,€the€exclusion€of€expert€testimonyÐ tÄ Ðcannot€be€said€to€have€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€outcomeòò.€€See€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€670„Ð `° Ð71€(holding€that€because€a€jury€ð ðmay€not€be€able€to€properly€evaluate€the€effect€of€a€defendantððsÐ L œ Ðcognitive€and€psychological€characteristics€on€the€existence€of€inducement€and€predisposition,ððÐ 8 ˆ Ðexclusion€of€admissible€expert€testimony€on€that€issue€was€not€harmless€error€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐP.€52(a)€where€entrapment€was€a€defense).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€his€deposition€filed€in€support€of€the€Biscansðð€motion€to€exclude€his€testimony,€Dr.Ð è 8  ÐMitchell€testified€that€he€had€been€a€laboratory„based€clinical€pathologist€for€25€years.€€He€was€partÐ Ô$  Ðof€a€research€project€in€toxicology€fifteen€to€twenty€years€ago,€but€the€project€did€not€involve€alcohol.€Ð À  ÐHe€had€never€performed€personal€research€into€the€correlation€of€the€clinical€effects€of€alcoholÐ ¬ü  Ðtoxicity€and€blood€alcohol€levels.€€He€did€a€literature€search€on€the€issue€in€connection€with€this€case,Ð ˜è  Ðbut€€it€had€been€at€least€ten€years€since€he€had€done€a€similar€search,€and€that€was€in€connection€withÐ „Ô  Ðanother€lawsuit.€€He€identified€an€article€on€alcohol€tolerance€and€a€chapter€from€a€textbook€as€theÐ pÀ Ðbest€sources€he€relied€upon.€€He€stated€he€had€reviewed€other€articles,€but€he€had€not€kept€them,€andÐ \¬ Ðbelieved€the€two€he€mentioned€were€authoritative.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àHe€also€testified€as€to€when,€òòi.eóó.,€at€what€blood€alcohol€level,€persons€would€exhibit€certainÐ  p Ðsigns€of€intoxication,€and€agreed€that€there€would€be€a€difference€between€an€inexperienced€and€anÐ  \ Ðexperienced€drinker.€€At€that€point,€he€testified€that,€based€on€his€experience€as€a€dormitoryÐ øH Ðheadmaster€from€1962€to€1966,€where€he€had€responsibility€for€18€year€olds,€generally€inexperiencedÐ ä4 Ðdrinkers,€ð ðit€doesnððt€take€very€much€alcohol€to€make€them€act€like€fools.ðð€€Based€on€those€personalÐ Ð  Ðobservations,€he€also€opined€that€younger,€inexperienced€drinkers€become€obviously€intoxicated€onÐ ¼  Ðfar€less€alcohol€than€adults€ð ðthat€at€least€had€some€experience€with€drinking.ððÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àWhen€asked€whether€he€could€tell€from€these€past€personal€observations€that€every€personÐ €Ð Ðat€a€particular€blood€alcohol€concentration€was€going€to€appear€intoxicated,€he€replied€ð ðno.ðð€Ð l¼ ÐSimilarly,€he€acknowledged€that€his€anecdotal€observations€could€not€form€the€basis€of€an€article€inÐ X ¨ Ða€peer€review€journal.€€The€following€exchange€also€occurred:Ð D!” ÐÌà  àQ.à8 ` àAnd€thereððs€nothing€in€those€observations€that€you€could€really€testifyÐ #l! Ðabout€that€wouldnððt€be€the€type€of€anecdotal€information€that€a€layÐ $X" Ðperson€could€pick€up€on€their€own?Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àA.à8 ` àEveryone€has€their€own€experiences€in€observing€people€drink.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àHe€also€testified€that€based€on€35€years€of€observing€teenagers,€it€was€his€opinion€that€90%Ð ¤(ô#' Ðof€teenagers€who€had€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.17€would€stagger,€stumble,€weave,€and€show€otherÐ )à$( Ðsigns€of€intoxication.€€His€observations€of€teens€had€not€been€made€with€control€factors€or€anyÐ |*Ì%) Ðmethodology€for€measuring€or€recording€the€amount€of€alcohol€actually€consumed€or€the€priorÐ h+¸&* Ðdrinking€history€of€those€observed.€€He€acknowledged€that€his€90%€estimate€probably€would€not€holdÐ ° Ðup€as€publishable€in€a€peer€review€journal€without€clinical€data€to€back€it€up.€€It€is€clear€that€theÐ œì Ðwitnessððs€personal€observation€was€not€based€on€scientific€study€or€methodology€and€did€not€differÐ ˆØ Ðfrom€nonexpert€observations.Ð tÄ ÐÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àAs€to€the€other€bases€for€the€expert€opinion,€the€article€relied€upon€by€Dr.€Mitchell€wasÐ L œ Ðpublished€in€1943€in€a€Scandinavian€journal.€€That€€article€involved€results€of€a€study€of€toleranceÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€alcohol€of€inexperienced,€moderate,€and€chronic€drinkers.€€The€purpose€of€the€study,€as€stated€inÐ $ t Ðthe€article,€was€to€ð ðstudy€quantitatively€the€degree€of€disturbance€of€certain€functions€in€man,€toÐ  ` Ðrepeat€these€experiments€on€differing€groups€of€individuals€under€different€conditions,€and€finallyÐ ü L  Ðto€evaluate€the€possible€relationship€between€symptoms€and€blood€alcohol€level.ðð€€One€of€the€pointsÐ è 8  Ðwas€to€identify€tests€that€would€more€reliably€indicate€intoxication,€such€as€those€now€included€inÐ Ô$  Ðfield€sobriety€tests.€€The€textbook€chapter,€from€òòCecil€Textbook€of€Medicineóó,€included€a€tableÐ À  Ðshowing€blood€ethanol€levels€and€their€effects€and€symptoms€in€ð ðsporadic€drinkersðð€and€ð ðchronicÐ ¬ü  Ðdrinkers,ðð€and€Dr.€Mitchell€frequently€referred€to€this€table.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨ V#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àThe€trial€court€herein€applied€the€correct€legal€principles.€€Based€upon€the€authorities€citedÐ pÀ Ðabove€and€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€broad€discretionÐ \¬ Ðin€excluding€Dr.€Mitchellððs€proffered€testimony.Ð H˜ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨îZ#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àAt€issue€herein€was€whether€Jennifer€Biscan€should€have€known€that€Hughes€Brown€wasÐ  p Ðintoxicated€when€she€got€into€the€car€with€him.€€The€record€includes€testimony€from€variousÐ  \ Ðwitnesses€as€to€whether€Hughes€demonstrated€any€signs€of€intoxication.€€Whether€a€person€exhibitedÐ øH Ðsigns€of€intoxication€has€been€the€subject€of€lay€witness€testimony,€and€testimony€from€lawÐ ä4 Ðenforcement€and€emergency€personnel€with€more€expertise€or€experience,€in€hundreds,€if€notÐ Ð  Ðthousands,€of€cases€in€this€state.€€Consequently,€it€is€questionable€that€expert€testimony€based€on€pastÐ ¼  Ðpersonal€observation€and€generalized€principles€within€the€knowledge€of€the€general€populationÐ ¨ø Ðwould€have€added€anything€to€the€proof€or€would€have€substantially€assisted€the€trier€of€fact.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðfact€that€the€law€assigns€to€a€passenger,€presumably€a€lay€person,€the€responsibility€of€assessing€theÐ €Ð Ðrisk€of€riding€with€a€driver€who€may€be€intoxicated€leads€to€the€obvious€conclusion€that€the€questionÐ l¼ Ðof€whether€someone€showed€the€effects€of€intoxication€does€not€require€expert€proof.׃;×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú32Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð X ¨ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨s\#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àIn€addition,€even€if€the€expert€opinion€that€Hughes€Brown€would€have€demonstrated€obviousÐ 0"€  Ðsigns€of€intoxication€should€have€been€admitted,€we€cannot€find,€based€on€the€record€as€a€whole,€thatÐ #l! ÐDr.€Mitchellððs€testimony,€subjected€to€cross„examination,€would€have€more€probably€than€notÐ $X" Ðaffected€the€outcome.׃% ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú33Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€There€was€other€testimony€by€eyewitnesses€regarding€Hughes€BrownððsÐ ô$D # Ðdemonstration€of€visible€signs€of€intoxication.€€Despite€the€testimony€of€emergency€personnel€on€theÐ à%0!$ Ðscene€who€saw€him€firsthand€after€the€accident€that€he€was€not€obviously€intoxicated,€the€jury€foundÐ ° Ðthe€contrary€testimony€and€evidence€sufficient€to€conclude€that€Jennifer€Biscan€was€negligent€inÐ œì Ðriding€with€him.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€an€expertððs€testimony€that€he€would€have€exhibited€signsÐ ˆØ Ðof€intoxication,€€based€upon€statistical€likelihood€from€research€studies,€would€have€altered€the€juryððsÐ tÄ Ðdecision.€€Consequently,€reversal€would€not€be€warranted€even€if€the€testimony€should€not€have€beenÐ `° Ðexcluded.Ð L œ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨ b#ÔÌÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÓ  Ó6.€€Adult€Standard€ChargeÐ $ t ÐÓgÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€that€Hughes€Brown€was€to€be€held€to€an€adultÐ ü L  Ðstandard€of€care€because€he€was€engaged€in€an€adult€activity,€driving.€€On€this€issue,€our€SupremeÐ è 8  ÐCourt€has€stated:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àin€assessing€a€minorððs€negligence,€the€minor€is€generally€not€held€to€the€sameÐ ¬ü  Ðstandard€of€care€imposed€on€adults.€€Instead,€the€minor€is€charged€with€such€care€asÐ ˜è  Ða€reasonably€prudent€person€of€like€age,€capacity,€knowledge€and€experience€wouldÐ „Ô  Ðbe€expected€to€exercise€under€the€same€circumstances.€€Although€the€law€is€clear€thatÐ pÀ Ða€minorððs€conduct€is€generally€not€to€be€judged€by€an€adult€standard€of€care,€the€lawÐ \¬ Ðis€equally€clear€that€where€the€minor€is€engaged€in€a€dangerous€activity€normallyÐ H˜ Ðundertaken€only€by€adults,€such€as€driving€a€car,€no€special€allowance€is€made€for€theÐ 4„ Ðminorððs€limited€experience€or€age€and,€therefore,€the€minor€is€held€to€an€adultÐ  p Ðstandard€of€care.€.€.€.€€The€rule€that€all€drivers€of€motor€vehicles€on€public€highwaysÐ  \ Ðare€held€to€an€adult€standard€of€care€applies€to€driving€while€intoxicated.€€ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌòòCookóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€937„38.Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨qg#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Brown€does€not€argue€that€the€instruction€was€improper€and€agrees€that€itÐ ¨ø Ðstates€the€proper€standard€of€care€as€to€him.€€However,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÐ ”ä Ðto€instruct€the€jury€that:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àIf€they€found€that€Jennifer€Biscan€was€engaged€in€a€dangerous€activity€no€specialÐ X ¨ Ðallowances€are€made€for€the€minorððs€limited€experience€or€age€and,€therefore,€theÐ D!” Ðminor€is€held€to€an€adult€standard€of€care.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€problem€caused€by€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€give€this€requested€instruction€is€describedÐ $X" Ðby€Mr.€Brown€thusly:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àIn€the€absence€of€the€foregoing€instruction,€the€jury€was€forced€to€conclude€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðconduct€of€Jennifer€Biscan€of€accepting€a€ride€with€an€intoxicated€driver€would€beÐ ¸'#& Ðbased€on€a€standard€of€care€of€a€minor€and€not€an€adult€at€the€time.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€activity€Jennifer€engaged€in€was€becoming€a€passenger€in€a€car.€€This€is€not€a€dangerousÐ |*Ì%) Ðactivity€normally€undertaken€only€by€adults.€€It€is€engaged€in€by€children€and€adults€alike.€€For€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðreason,€€ð ðThe€Supreme€Court€.€.€.€has€expressly€declined€to€extend€that€standard€[the€adult€standard]Ð ° Ðto€a€minor€guest€passenger.ðð€€òòBrown€v.€Smithóó,€604€S.W.2d€56,€58€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980)€(citingÐ œì ÐòòDuvall€Transfer€&€Delivery€Serv.€v.€Beamanóó,€218€Tenn.€348,€403€S.W.2d€315€(1966)€and€òòHouserÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Persingeróó,€57€Tenn.€App.€401,€419€S.W.2d€179€(1967)).€€The€argument€made€herein€attempts€toÐ tÄ Ðequate€the€activity€(becoming€a€passenger)€with€the€negligence€(knowingly€becoming€a€passengerÐ `° Ðof€an€intoxicated€driver.)Ð L œ ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨um#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌà  àWe€therefore€find€that€the€trial€court€made€no€reversible€error€in€refusing€to€charge€the€juryÐ $ t Ðthat€Jennifer€Biscan€should€be€held€to€an€adult€standard€of€care.€€Ð  ` ÐÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨su#ÔÔ‡Xý¨XXXý¨ÔÌÔ#†Xý¨XXXý¨v#Ôà@ääìàC.€€Allocation€of€Fault€to€Hughes€Brown€„€Testimony€by€Police€Officers€and€ˆÐ è 8  ÐÓ  ÓMedical€Personnel€About€His€Post„Accident€BehaviorÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPolice€officers€and€emergency€medical€technicians€who€were€present€at€the€accident€scene€Ð ¬ü  Ðtestified€regarding€the€facts€of€the€accident€and€their€activities€at€the€scene,€including€any€€medicalÐ ˜è  Ðtreatment€given€and€their€assessment€of€the€condition€of€the€driver€and€the€passenger.€€Because€aÐ „Ô  Ðmajor€issue€in€the€case€was€whether€Jennifer€Biscan€should€have€observed€visible€signs€ofÐ pÀ Ðintoxication€in€Hughes€Brown,€these€witnesses€were€asked€various€questions€about€Mr.€BrownððsÐ \¬ Ðdemeanor€after€the€accident.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Brown€asserts€that,€over€objection,€the€trial€court€improperly€allowedÐ  p Ðtestimony€by€these€various€individuals€that€after€the€accident€Mr.€Brown€appeared€unconcerned€withÐ  \ Ðthe€condition€of€Jennifer€Biscan.€€In€his€brief,€Mr.€Brown€points€us€to€only€one€example€of€theÐ øH Ðtestimony€complained€of.€€The€witness€was,€at€the€time€of€the€wreck,€a€volunteer€paramedic€with€the€Ð ä4 ÐWilliamson€County€Rescue€Squad.€€Because€part€of€his€role€was€to€check€the€medical€condition€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€driver,€Hughes€Brown,€and€to€look€for€signs€of€a€head€injury,€this€witness€was€questionedÐ ¼  Ðthoroughly€about€his€interaction€with€Mr.€Brown,€Mr.€Brownððs€appearance,€and€his€demeanor.€€AsÐ ¨ø Ðpart€of€the€direct€examination€by€the€Biscansðð€attorney,€the€witness€testified€that€he€asked€the€driverÐ ”ä Ðfor€the€passengerððs€name€and€ð ðhe€would€not€give€me€her€name.ðð€€The€following€examinationÐ €Ð Ðoccurred:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àQ.€€Did€he€ask€you€at€any€point€whether€she€was€okay?ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€No,€sir.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€Did€he€seem€concerned€with€her€at€all?Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€No,€sir.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€What€was€he€doing?Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€He€was€more€worried€about€his€car€than€he€was€the€„€„€Jennifer.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThere€was€no€objection€made€to€these€questions€or€responses.€€During€cross„examination€ofÐ ° Ðthis€witness,€€Mr.€Brownððs€attorney€pursued€the€following€line€of€questioning:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àQ.€€You€just€testified€that€he€wouldnððt€give€you€the€name€of€his€passenger.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€Thatððs€a€very€unusual€response,€considering€the€severity€of€the€accident,€wouldnððtÐ $ t Ðyou€agree?Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir,€I€do.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€Did€he€seem€to€you€to€be€unconcerned€with€her?€€That€would€be€a€very€unusualÐ À  Ðresponse,€wouldnððt€it?Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir,€it€would.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€And€being€concerned€about€the€car€rather€than€his€passenger€would€also€be€a€veryÐ \¬ Ðunusual€response,€would€it€not?ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir,€it€would.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€cross€examination€also€questioned€the€witnessððs€ability€to€remember€details€of€a€wreckÐ øH Ðthat€occurred€four€years€earlier€in€view€of€the€number€of€accidents€the€witness€had€been€called€to.€Ð ä4 ÐIn€the€portion€of€the€testimony€that€is€the€subject€of€the€issue€raised€on€appeal,€counsel€for€theÐ Ð  ÐBiscans€asked€the€witness€what€made€this€accident€stand€out€in€his€mind.€€The€witness€responded,Ð ¼  Ðthe€reaction€of€the€driver,€and€when€asked€why€that€was,€the€witness€answered,€ð ðAppeared€to€me€heÐ ¨ø Ðhad€no€concern€over€the€passenger.ðð€€Counsel€for€Mr.€Brown€objected€to€the€witnessððsÐ ”ä Ðcharacterization,€and€the€court€overruled€the€objection.€€This€statement€is€the€sole€basis€for€theÐ €Ð Ðcontention€raised€on€appeal.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€other€emergency€personnel€who€testified€earlier€in€the€trial€also€made€statements€aboutÐ D!” ÐMr.€Brownððs€apparent€lack€of€concern€for€his€passenger.€€When€the€first€such€witness€was€askedÐ 0"€  Ðwhether€Mr.€Brown€ð ðseemedðð€to€be€concerned€about€Jennifer,€counsel€objected,€and€the€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðsustained€the€objection€with€the€direction€that€the€witness€just€be€asked€what€Mr.€Brown€was€doing.€Ð $X" ÐThe€witness€was€later€asked,€without€objection,€whether€Mr.€Brown€ever€asked€how€the€passengerÐ ô$D # Ðwas€and€whether€he€appeared€to€be€paying€attention€to€the€girl.€€Both€answers€were€no.€€The€officerÐ à%0!$ Ðwho€arrested€Mr.€Brown€that€night€after€investigation€and€field€sobriety€tests€was€also€asked,€withoutÐ Ì&"% Ðobjection,€whether€Mr.€Brown€ever€asked€him€about€Jennifer€or€expressed€any€concern€about€her.€Ð ¸'#& ÐAgain,€the€answers€were€no.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThis€law€enforcement€officer,€on€cross„examination€by€Mr.€Brownððs€counsel,€was€asked€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðrespond€to€a€hypothetical,€the€point€of€which€was€whether€someone€could€ð ðsober€upðð€quickly€in€aÐ h+¸&* Ðsituation€such€as€that€faced€by€Mr.€Brown,€including€knowing€that€his€friend€was€hurt€andÐ ° Ðunconscious.€€The€witness€replied:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àGenerally,€if€that€were€the€case,€theyððre€usually€more€hyperactive.€€He€wasnððtÐ tÄ Ðhyperactive.€€He€was€laid€back.€€He€was€very€calm.€€He€was€very€„€„€I€know€he€threwÐ `° Ðit€[the€beer€carton]€over€to€protect€himself€but€that€was€a€calculated€move.€€He€didnððtÐ L œ Ðdo€it€just€because€of€this€adrenaline€rush.€€And€as€far€as€their€friend€was€just€hurt,€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðseemed€like€he€was€no€more€concerned€about€that€than€whether€someone€was€on€theÐ $ t Ðmoon.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àNo€objection€was€interposed€to€this€answer€responding€to€a€question€asked€by€Mr.€BrownððsÐ è 8  Ðlawyer.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThus,€there€was€only€one€unsustained€objection€made€herein€to€a€witnessesððs€characterizationÐ ¬ü  Ðof€Mr.€Brownððs€apparent€lack€of€concern€for€Jennifer€Biscan.€€This€response€and€the€objection€wereÐ ˜è  Ðpreceded€by€similar€statements€made€by€other€witnesses€not€objected€to,€and€some€in€response€toÐ „Ô  Ðquestioning€by€Mr.€Brownððs€counsel.€€Consequently,€Mr.€Brown€waived€his€right€to€complain€aboutÐ pÀ Ðthe€admission€of€those€statements.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€103€(a)(1);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€òò€See€alsoÐ \¬ ÐWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Co.óó,€916€S.W.2d€896,€907€n.10€(Tenn.€1006)€(stating€thatÐ H˜ Ðð ðobviously€[the€complaining€party]€was€required€to€object€to€the€evidence€at€the€time€of€its€admissionÐ 4„ Ðin€order€to€preserve€its€introduction€as€errorðð).€€We€cannot€see€how€the€admission€of€the€oneÐ  p Ðstatement€objected€to€can€have€had€any€impact€on€the€outcome€of€the€case€in€view€of€the€priorÐ  \ Ðtestimony.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€Ð øH ÐÓ  ÓÌV.€€Evidence€Related€to€DamagesÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ•Óà  àJennifer€Biscan€suffered€severe€brain€injuries€in€the€accident.׃'×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú34Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€she€was€taken€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðhospital€and€for€a€week€thereafter,€medical€personnel€did€not€believe€she€would€survive€her€injuries.€Ð ”ä ÐShe€remained€in€a€coma€for€over€two€and€a€half€weeks.€€She€went€through€months€of€rehabilitation.€Ð €Ð ÐIt€was€a€month€after€the€wreck€before€she€could€respond€to€simple€commands.€€For€almost€twoÐ l¼ Ðmonths€she€could€not€speak.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€medical€proof€at€trial€showed€that€Jennifer€remains€permanently€impaired€as€a€result€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€injuries€she€sustained€in€the€accident.€€She€remains€cognitively€impaired€and€has€emotionalÐ #l! Ðcontrol€difficulties€associated€with€severe€brain€injury.€€She€is€functioning€at€the€emotional€level€ofÐ $X" Ða€nine€year€old.€€She€also€suffers€from€depression€and€anxiety.€€Her€memory,€concentration,€andÐ ô$D # Ðdecision„making€abilities€are€impaired.€€She€has€difficulty€with€new€learning,€planning,€judgment,Ð à%0!$ Ðsocial€situations,€attention,€and€impulsivity.€€She€also€has€weakness€in€her€arms,€speech€problems,Ð Ì&"% Ðmemory€problems,€sleep€difficulties,€and€double€vision.€€Ð ¸'#& Їà  àBecause€of€these€conditions,€Jennifer€remains€on€a€regimen€of€medication;€she€will€need€toÐ ° Ðsee€a€psychiatrist€for€the€rest€of€her€life;€will€continue€to€have€difficulty€with€her€left€arm;€and€willÐ œì Ðlikely€need€a€caretaker€after€her€parents€can€no€longer€take€care€of€her.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àJennifer€missed€a€year€of€school,€but€then€returned€and€graduated€from€high€school.€€She€hasÐ `° Ðtaken€courses€at€college,€where€special€accommodations€and€her€hard€work€and€efforts€have€resultedÐ L œ Ðin€good€grades.€€Her€professors€testified,€however,€that€she€will€have€increasing€difficulty€as€sheÐ 8 ˆ Ðmoves€beyond€introductory€courses.€€Her€employment€opportunities€are€also€limited.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àJennifer€testified€that€she€lives€her€life€like€a€fairly€normal€teenager.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú35Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€stated€that€herÐ ü L  Ðgrades€are€good,€that€she€has€a€driverððs€license€and€drives,€and€that€she€has€been€on€trips.€SheÐ è 8  Ðtestified€that€since€the€accident,€she€is€more€determined,€more€achievement€oriented,€happier,€andÐ Ô$  Ða€better€person.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€all€the€evidence,€the€jury€awarded€a€verdict€of€$3,954,810,׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú36Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€comprised€ofÐ ˜è  Ð$1,000,000€for€lost€earning€capacity,€$650,000€for€future€medical€care,€$400,000€for€past€pain€andÐ „Ô  Ðsuffering,€$1,500,000€for€permanent€impairment;€and€$204,810€for€past€medical€expenses.€€The€juryÐ pÀ Ðdid€not€award€damages€for€past€or€future€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€do€not€directly€challenge€the€amount€of€the€verdict€or€the€bases€for€it.€Ð 4„ ÐHowever,€they€raise€two€evidentiary€issues€that€are€related€to€the€proof€of€damages.€€We€mustÐ  p Ðpresume€that€their€position€is€that€if€the€evidentiary€rulings€had€been€otherwise,€the€jury€would€notÐ  \ Ðhave€awarded€the€amount€in€damages.€Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓA.€€Jennifer€Biscanððs€Consumption€of€Alcohol€Subsequent€to€the€AccidentÐ Ð  ÐÓ¯£ÓÌà  àThe€Biscans€also€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€seeking€to€prohibit€any€testimony€regarding€JenniferÐ ¨ø ÐBiscanððs€consumption€of€alcohol€at€any€time€after€the€night€of€the€car€accident€as€irrelevant,€unfairlyÐ ”ä Ðprejudicial,€and€confusing€and€misleading€to€the€jury.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€òòin€limineóó,€the€argument€centered€around€the€fact€that€there€wasÐ X ¨ Ðcontradictory€testimony€regarding€Jennifer€Biscanððs€alcohol€consumption€after€the€accident.€€JenniferÐ D!” ÐBiscan€admitted€that€on€one€occasion€after€the€wreck,€she€had€consumed€alcohol,€but€not€to€the€pointÐ 0"€  Ðof€intoxication.€€Amy€Grant,׃)h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú37Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€the€other€hand,€was€predicted€to€testify€that€she€had€seen€JenniferÐ #l! ÐBiscan€consume€alcohol€on€two€occasions€after€the€wreck.€€The€defendants€also€sought€to€introduceÐ $X" Ðthe€testimony€of€Ashley€Worley,€daughter€of€Mr.€Worley,€that€she€saw€Jennifer€Biscan€take€a€drinkÐ ° Ðof€what€appeared€to€be€champagne€at€a€prom€party.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€the€arguments,€the€trial€court€determined€that€Jennifer€Biscan€could€beÐ tÄ Ðquestioned€regarding€her€alcohol€consumption€following€the€accident€ð ðif€a€foundation€was€laid€withÐ `° Ðmedical€witnesses€that€occasional€drinking€has€already€affected€her€recovery€or€prognosis€becauseÐ L œ Ðof€interaction€with€Jennifer€Biscanððs€medications.ðð€€The€trial€court€further€held€that€ð ðDefendants€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðnot€offer€any€testimony€or€evidence€relating€to€Jennifer€Biscanððs€post„wreck€drinking€other€thanÐ $ t Ðthrough€questioning€of€Jennifer€Biscan,€except€that€Defendants€may€call€Amy€Grant€to€testify€at€trialÐ  ` Ðfor€the€limited€purpose€of€impeaching€Jennifer€Biscanððs€testimony.ððÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€medical€testimony€at€the€trial€offered€by€Dr.€Cynthia€Rector,€Jennifer€Biscanððs€treatingÐ Ô$  Ðpsychiatrist,€showed€that€as€long€as€the€alcohol€consumption€was€not€a€ð ðwhole€lot€in€amountðð€there€Ð À  Ðwould€be€no€long„term€effect€on€Jennifer€Biscanððs€future€medical€condition€or€the€effectiveness€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðher€medication.€€As€a€result€of€the€evidence€provided€at€trial,€the€court€excluded€testimony€regardingÐ ˜è  ÐJennifer€Biscanððs€consumption€of€alcohol€subsequent€to€the€wreck€because€the€proper€foundationÐ „Ô  Ðwas€not€laid.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€defendants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€them€ð ðto€fullyÐ H˜ Ðexplore€the€dangers€associated€with€Jennifer€Biscanððs€consumption€of€alcohol€while€takingÐ 4„ Ðpsychiatric€prescription€medications€.€.€.€after€the€accident.ðð€€They€assert€that€the€evidence€that€sheÐ  p Ðconsumed€alcohol€against€the€advice€of€her€doctors€and€her€parents€was€relevant€to€her€claim€for€lossÐ  \ Ðof€enjoyment€of€life.€€Since€the€jury€awarded€no€damages€for€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life,€this€argumentÐ øH Ðis€moot.€€They€also€assert€that€the€use€of€alcohol€ð ðcould€well€aggravate€and€compoundðð€her€injuries.€Ð ä4 ÐThat€is€exactly€the€evidence€that€the€court€required€to€be€presented€before€the€proffered€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðwould€be€admitted.€€Defendants€never€presented€proof€of€a€connection€between€occasionalÐ ¼  Ðconsumption€of€a€small€amount€of€alcohol€and€any€adverse€impact€on€Jenniferððs€recovery€orÐ ¨ø Ðprognosis.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€stated€previously,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€defines€relevant€evidence€as€ð ðevidence€having€anyÐ l¼ Ðtendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÐ X ¨ Ðmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€In€light€of€the€medicalÐ D!” Ðtestimony€that€small€amounts€of€alcohol€would€have€no€effect€on€Jennifer€Biscanððs€recovery€orÐ 0"€  Ðprognosis,€testimony€that€she€consumed€a€small€amount€of€alcohol€on€two€separate€occasions€€wouldÐ #l! Ðhave€no€ð ðconsequence€to€the€determinationðð€of€the€damages.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€theÐ $X" Ðevidence€was€not€relevant€and,€therefore,€properly€excluded.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€theÐ ô$D # Ðmotion€òòin€limineóó€regarding€alcohol€consumption€subsequent€to€the€wreck€is€affirmed.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ  ÓÌB.€€Testimony€of€Dr.€NettervilleÐ ¸'#& ÐÌÓÛ¶Óà  àAt€trial,€the€jury€heard€the€testimony€of€Dr.€James€Netterville,€Jennifer€Biscanððs€longtimeÐ )à$( Ðpediatrician.€€He€is€a€board€certified€pediatrician€who€had€treated€thousands€of€children€during€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðtenure€as€a€physician.€€Dr.€Netterville€testified€extensively€about€his€treatment€of€Jennifer€BiscanÐ h+¸&* Ðprior€to€the€accident.€€He€was€called€on€the€night€of€the€accident,€and€went€almost€immediately€toÐ ° Ðthe€hospital,€where€he€stayed€the€night€with€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Biscan,€monitoring€Jenniferððs€progress.€Ð œì ÐAfter€Jenniferððs€first€night€in€the€hospital,€Dr.€Netterville€continued€to€monitor€her€progress€byÐ ˆØ Ðmaking€regular€visits,€reviewing€her€charts,€and€talking€to€her€treating€physicians.€€He€continued€toÐ tÄ Ðmonitor€her€progress€closely€after€her€transfer€to€the€rehabilitation€facility€and€until€she€was€releasedÐ `° Ðfrom€that€facility.€€After€that€time,€he€saw€Jennifer€on€a€regular€basis€at€the€Maryland€Farms€YMCA,Ð L œ Ðwhere€both€she€and€Dr.€Netterville€exercised€on€a€regular€basis,€where€he€questioned€her€about€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðprogress€and€observed€her€recovery.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€Mr.€Brown€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€seeking€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Ð ü L  ÐNetterville€on€the€basis€that€he€had€not€treated€or€examined€Jennifer€Biscan€since€the€accident,Ð è 8  Ðalthough€he€had€seen€her€in€what€Mr.€Brown€described€as€a€social€setting.€€Citing€no€particular€ruleÐ Ô$  Ðof€evidence€which€would€exclude€Dr.€Nettervilleððs€testimony,€Mr.€Brown€relied€on€òòPorter€v.€Greenóó,Ð À  Ð745€S.W.2d€874€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€In€òòPorteróó,€this€court€determined€that€the€opinion€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðphysician€testifying€about€medically€related€issues€must€be€reasonably€certain,€both€as€to€the€causeÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€physical€condition€and€its€future€effect.€€Mr.€Brown€argued€that€Dr.€Netterville€could€notÐ „Ô  Ðpossibly€testify€with€reasonable€medical€certainty€as€to€what€the€future€holds€for€Jennifer€BiscanÐ pÀ Ðbecause€he€has€not€treated€her€professionally€since€the€accident.€€With€regard€to€the€motion€òòin€limineóó,Ð \¬ Ðthe€court€determined:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àIt€depends€on€what€the€testimony€is.€€If€he€can€cognitively€testify€as€to€some€thingsÐ  p Ðthat€he€observes€as€a€doctor,€then€Iððm€gong€to€let€him€testify€to€that.€€Otherwise,€IððllÐ  \ Ðinstruct€him€that€the€remainder€is€personal€opinions,€after€[the€rehabilitation€facility],Ð øH Ðwhen€he€saw€her€after€Stallworth.€€Before€then,€I€think€it€was€strictly€professional.€€Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€motion€òòin€limineóó€to€preclude€Dr.€Netterville€from€testifying€as€anÐ ¼  Ðexpert€as€to€future€effects€of€Jennifer€Biscanððs€injuries.€€However,€the€trial€court€determined€that€Dr.Ð ¨ø ÐNetterville€could€testify€as€to€Jennifer€Biscanððs€past€and€current€medical€condition,€the€nature,€extent,Ð ”ä Ðand€permanency€of€her€injuries,€and€the€current€impairment€she€was€experiencing€as€a€result€of€herÐ €Ð Ðinjuries.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Brown€complains€that€the€trial€court€permitted€Dr.€Netterville€to€testify€ð ðatÐ D!” Ðlength€as€to€Jennifer€Biscanððs€medical€treatment€as€well€as€offer€numerous€professional€opinions.ðð€Ð 0"€  ÐIn€addition,€he€particularly€cites€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€overruling€of€his€objection€to€Dr.Ð #l! ÐNettervilleððs€testimony€that€although€Jenniferððs€condition€was€incrementally€better€than€a€year€ago,Ð $X" Ðð ðthat€improvement€is€going€to€slow€and€slow€and€stop.ðð€€The€primary€basis€for€the€assertion€of€errorÐ ô$D # Ðis€that€the€trial€court€allowed€Dr.€Netterville€to€testify€as€to€areas€outside€his€medical€expertise,€inÐ à%0!$ Ðpart€because€he€had€not€professionally€treated€her€since€before€the€accident.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWitnesses€ð ðshould€be€permitted€to€give€expert€opinions€.€.€.€[regarding€the€particular€subjectÐ ¤(ô#' Ðat€issue]€if€they€possess€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€derived€from€theirÐ )à$( Ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€that€will€substantially€assist€the€trial€of€fact€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€òòMartin€v.€Sizemoreóó,€78€S.W.3d€249,€275Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Further,€ð ðTestimony€of€a€physician€as€to€the€probable€effect€of€the€injury€isÐ ° Ðadmissible,€but€it€should€show€that€such€result€is€reasonably€certain€and€not€a€mere€likelihood€orÐ œì Ðpossibility.ðð€€òòPorteróó,€745€S.W.2d€at€877,€quoting€òòReserve€Life€Ins.€co.€v.€Whittemoreóó,€59€Tenn.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð495,€512„13,€442€S.W.2d€266,€274€(1969).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDr.€Netterville€was€able€to€testify€to€Jennifer€Biscanððs€condition€both€prior€to€and€after€theÐ L œ Ðaccident;€he€was€the€only€medical€expert€who€had€such€personal€knowledge.€€With€regard€to€the€briefÐ 8 ˆ Ðreference€to€her€future€improvement€cited€above,€there€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€a€trainedÐ $ t Ðand€experienced€pediatrician€would€not€be€competent€to€make€that€determination.€€In€any€event,€weÐ  ` Ðfind€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àA€number€of€other€medical€witnesses€testified€as€to€Jenniferððs€injuries,€condition,€andÐ Ô$  Ðprognosis€for€recovery,€including€the€head€pediatric€rehabilitation€at€Stallworth,€Jenniferððs€treatingÐ À  Ðpsychiatrist,€her€treating€psychologist,€and€an€expert€on€neuropsychology.€€The€defendants€have€notÐ ¬ü  Ðchallenged€this€testimony€regarding€the€seriousness€and€extent€of€Jenniferððs€injuries€and€herÐ ˜è  Ðprognosis.€€Thus,€even€if€part€of€Dr.€Nettervilleððs€testimony€was€inadmissible,€it€is€highly€unlikelyÐ „Ô  Ðthat€exclusion€of€that€evidence€would€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€case€or€the€amount€ofÐ pÀ Ðdamages€awarded.Ð \¬ ÐÌà@rr#ìàVI.€€ConclusionˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€case€forÐ  \ Ðany€further€proceedings€which€may€be€necessary.€€The€costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€PaulÐ øH ÐWorley€and€Franklin€Hughes€Brown.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE