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