WPCAl r#e bU-IAү^st:Is_2LL&ݣO. (oFPq5$uq ɟ[.D[3nc9BWX$ /W8fDaڱ?5̱; Ee4 mj? L|A5>g73Fz @oTT3i 'hcKNڭ)j[X"Ug=Gm Ya8>8'tIwJl~,c_YBo$eNB=ip'(iP`@{4#V!pRª~wIo78 Ga=Vxd<g'򑁦q+bj:cǜ$e=UͮOv? >[b} ʦV͑AS"L&4ƾB Zj։6~ҥu6C"?)W闯AK:-(2m ]yq(xšn5_#z %; ^ A 0M U&N w# 4' z;   m}C  N 0D 1sE 72 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Z 01 0C 0H 0 0 0 0 0] 0% 0 0@ 0 0! 0"b]# 0e# 00$ 0$ 0% 0& 00<' 0<l' 0' 0>f( 0v( 0`) 0`z) 0`) 0`:* 0`* 08* 02+ 02, 06, 0:2- 0Yl- 0_- 0 $. 0j./ 00 B*2 D/F2 0u2 D/3 0(4 064 0,5 0:46 0^n6 0<6 07 AM7U6@8U >v8 B8U*8 08 D39 D-9 0K9 0NJ: AS:: 0; 0DU< A<D=D=D=D=D=D=>>>>>>>>>s@B8CEGI4 K3W 03[m[ C^ B-PaPaF}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a}a~dHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0{,-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9,.bk1 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)1)*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7I(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7H)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2$ !.8CmdXXd8         0  EX[ZA<< c<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman d%2A`Arial(|3W$ !.8CmdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (O$^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3W$ !.8CmdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  R$      5  E  __TheTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedTennesseessystemof_modifiedcomparativefault_Ԁtotightenthefit  betweenliabilityandfault.Carroll_v._ԀWhitney,29S.W.3d14,16(Tenn.2000).  R$      8  E  __Seaversv.MethodistMed.Ctr.,9S.W.3dat91;ProvidentLife&AccidentIns.Co.v.ProfessionalCleaning  Serv.,Inc.,217Tenn.at20506,396S.W.2dat35455;_Restatement(Second)ofTorts328D(1)(a)(1965)._ i R$      12  E  _ProsserandKeeton39,at255.Thedoctrineisofnoassistancewhenthedefendantliterallyowesnoduty  totheplaintiff.Dobbs154,at370n.3;Restatement(Second)ofTorts328D,cmt.j.  R$      1  E  __Apointrowreferstoanirregularendofafieldthatisnotperfectlystraight.Theseareasarefrequentlynot  sprayedbecausethesprayeristurnedofftoavoiddoublesprayingwhenitturnsaroundattheendofafield. . R$      2  E  __EvenifweweretopermitMr.Burtontoassertabreachofwarrantyclaim,hiseffortswouldultimatelyavail  himnothingbecauseheneverproved(1)thatthecoopexpresslywarrantedorguaranteedthattheirsprayingwouldrid  hisfieldsofweedsandgrassor(2)thathislowcropyieldwascausedbytheweedsandgrassinthepointrowsofhis H fields.  R$      3  E  __TheTennesseeSupremeCourtnowreferstothisconceptas legal_cause._ԀItreflectslegislativeandjudicial  policydecisionstoplacecertaintypesofotherwiseactionableconductbeyondtheboundaryofcommonlawtortliability.  Kilpatrickv.Bryant,868S.W.2dat598;WasteMgmt.,Inc._v._ԀSouthCent.BellTel.Co.,15S.W.3d425,430(Tenn.Ct. H App.1997).Forexample,theGeneralAssembly,byenactingtheworkerscompensationlaws,hasdeterminedforpolicy  L reasonsthatanemployersconductcannotbethelegalcauseofanemployeesonthejobinjury.Snyderv.LTG  LufttechnischeGmbH,955S.W.2d252,256(Tenn.1997). = R$      9  E  __Seaversv.MethodistMed.Ctr.,9S.W.3dat91;Armesv.Hulett,843S.W.2dat432.Othercourtshavefurther  refinedthiselementbyrequiringthatthedefendantbeinexclusivecontroloftheinstrumentalitywhenthenegligent  actionsapparentlycausingtheinjuryoccurred.Stinnettv.Wright,59Tenn.App.118,12324,438S.W.2d357,360 H (1968). * R$      6  E  __Inthepast,thecourtshaveconditionedtheapplicationofresipsaloquiturontwootherrequirements.First,  severaldecisionsinferredthatthedoctrinecouldbeappliedonlywheredirectevidenceofthedefendantsnegligence  waseitherunaccessibletoorunknownbytheplaintiff.Seaversv.MethodistMed.Ctr.,9S.W.3d86,91(Tenn.1999); H CocaColaBottlingWorksv.Sullivan,178Tenn._at_Ԁ416,158S.W.2dat726.Limitingtheapplicationofresipsaloquitur  L tocircumstanceswherethedefendanthassuperiorknowledgeofthecauseoftheplaintiffsinjurieshasneverbeenahard  andfastruleandshouldnotbeanindispensableconditiontoinvokingthedoctrine.Harper19.9at62;Prosserand  Keeton39,at25455.Whileitisafactortoconsider,Dobbs160,at38687,courtsrarelyviewitasadeciding X factor.Restatement(Second)ofTorts328D,cmt._k_Ԁ(1965).  \   Otherdecisionshavelimitedtheapplicationoftheresipsaloquiturdoctrinetoplaintiffswhodemonstratethat    theydidnotcontributeinanywaytotheirinjury.ProvidentLife&AccidentIns.Co.v.ProfessionalCleaningServ., h   Inc.,217Tenn.199,207,396S.W.2d351,355(1965);Boykinv.ChaseBottlingWorks,32Tenn.App._at_Ԁ52425,222 , l  S.W.2dat89697.This plaintiffparticipationruleoriginallyrelatedtotheidentificationofthenegligentactor,not  0  withtheallocationof_fault_.Dobbs159,at385.Onlyaminorityofstateshaverequiredtheplaintifftonegatehisor   herownnegligenceasaprerequisitetoinvokingresipsaloquitur.Harper19.8,at58.Inmostjurisdictions,the x  requirementessentiallydisappearedwiththeadoptionofcomparativefault.1ComparativeNegligenceManual1:28 <|  (3ded.1995);ProsserandKeeton39,at254;3StuartM.Speiser,etal.,TheAmericanLawofTorts13:32,at78384 @  (1986).Inmodifiedcomparativefaultjurisdictions,the_res_Ԁipsaloquiturdoctrinewillnotallowarecoverybyany   plaintiffwhoismoreresponsibleforhisorherinjurythanthedefendant.1ArthurBest,ComparativeNegligence4.60   (1999).  R$      7  E  __DeGlopperv.NashvilleRy.&LightCo.,123Tenn.633,646,134S.W.609,612(1911)(holdingthatresipsa  loquiturcannotbeinvokedwhen theactwhichcausedtheinjury...mustbeinferredfromtheaccidentitself.You  cannotwellsaythatanactisnegligent,unlessyouknowwhatitis);Psillasv.HomeDepot,U.S.A.,Inc.,66S.W.3d H 860,865(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(notingthatthefatalflawintheplaintiffscasewastheirinabilitytoidentifytheobject  L orconditionthatcausedtheirchildsinjury);Armesv.Hulett,843S.W.2d427,432(Tenn.Ct.App.1992)(_holding_Ԁthat  oneoftheelementsnecessarytotheapplicationofresipsaloquituris athingcausinganinjury).({2 c$ !.8CmdXXd8      c R$      10  E  __Courtsmaydeclinetosubmita_res_Ԁipsaloquiturclaimtothejury(1)ifthereissimplynotenoughexperience  tojustifyaninferencethatthedefendantsnegligence,moreprobablythannot,causedtheplaintiffsinjuryor(2)if,in  thecourtsexperience,itwasnotmoreprobablethattheplaintiffsinjurywascausedbynegligence.Dobbs155,at H 373.  R$      11  E  __Aplaintiffrelyingonthedoctrineofresipsaloquiturmaynotsurviveamotionfor_directedverdict_Ԁatthe  closeofalltheproofifthedefendantsevidenceconcerningthecauseoftheplaintiffsinjuryissostrongthatreasonable  personscoulddrawnoconclusionotherthanthattheinjurywasnotcausedbythedefendantsnegligence.PoorSisters H ofSt.Francisv.Long,190Tenn.at44243,230S.W.2dat663;Swineyv.MaloneFreightLines,545S.W.2d112,116  L (Tenn.Ct.App.1976).)Hairline d < R$      13  E  __EatonFruitCo._v._ԀCal.SprayChem.Corp.,445P.2d437,440(Ariz.1968);Burrv.SherwinWilliamsCo.,  268P.2d1041,104445(Cal.1954);Bloxsomv.SanLuisValleyCropCare,Inc.,596P.2d1189,1191(Colo.1979);  DeVanev.Smith,268S.E.2d711,713(Ga.Ct.App.1980);Hall_v._ԀSuperiorChem.&Fertilizer,Inc.,819S.W.2d422, H 42425(Mo.Ct.App.1991);_TideProds._,Inc._v._ԀBrowning,493S.W.2d654,656(Tex.Civ.App.1973).  L  t R$      4  E  __Severalcaseshavestatedthattheresipsaloquiturdoctrinecannotbeinvokedunlessthenatureand  circumstancesoftheinjurypermit noreasonableinferencebutthattheinjurycomplainedofwasduetothenegligence  ofdefendant....CocaColaBottlingWorks_v._ԀSullivan,178Tenn.405,417,158S.W.2d721,726(1942);Fultonv. H PfizerHosp.Prods.Group,Inc.,872S.W.2d908,912(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),_or_Ԁunless thecircumstancesleaveno  L roomfordifferentinferences.Susmanv.MidSouthFair,Inc.,180Tenn.471,474,176S.W.2d804,805(1944).  Statingtherequirementinthiswayisundulyrestrictivebecauseiteffectivelyrequiresaplaintifftoproveacivilcase  beyondareasonabledoubt.W.PageKeeton,ProsserandKeetonontheLawofTorts39,at248(5thed.1984) X ( ProsserandKeeton).Aplaintiffisnotrequiredtoeliminateallothercausesofhisorherinjurytoinvokethe_res_Ԁipsa  \ loquiturdoctrine.Roberts_v._ԀRay,45Tenn.App.280,284,322S.W.2d435,437(1958).Allthatisrequiredisevidence   fromwhichreasonablepersonscansaythat,onthewhole,itismorelikelythatnegligenceattributabletothedefendant    causedtheplaintiffsinjury.Dobbs155,at373;4_FowlerV.Harperetal.,TheLawofTorts19.7,at4546(2ded. h   1986)( Harper)._Ԁ !.8Cmdd8     _H  Cm8XXdd8  @ @CmINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Cm@(#Ԉ &   February1,20000 @ Session  L  @ XXCm #CmXX%#JOEBURTONv.WARRENFARMERSCOOPERATIVEXXCm   J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWarren0 @ County  J @@No.8674CharlesD.Haston,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M199900486_COA_ԄR3CV_ԄFiledSeptember12,_2002__   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenafarmerandacoopoveradisappointingsoybeancrop.The   farmerfiledsuitagainstthecoopintheCircuitCourtforWarrenCounty,allegingthathiscrophad   beendamagedbythemannerinwhichthecoophadsprayedherbicideonhisfieldsearlyinthe t growingseason.Atthecloseofthefarmersproof,thetrialcourtgrantedthecoopsmotionfor ` involuntarydismissalunderTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)afterconcludingthathehadfailedtoprove L hisbreachofcontractandnegligenceclaims.Thefarmerassertsonthisappealthatthetrialcourt 8x erredbydismissinghislawsuit.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtproperlydismissedthe $d farmerscomplaintatthecloseofhisproof. P #CmXX#XXCm Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight#CmXX#XXCm;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  (   #CmXA #XX.CmWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,  andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined.  ChantalM.Eldridge,Cookeville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JoeBurton.  StevenA.Dix,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellee,WarrenFarmersCooperative. \   OPINION #CmXX #XXCm 4!t! #CmXX #  XXCm@) I.  #L#    JoeBurtonlivesintheMountZioncommunityinWarrenCountyandhasfarmedtherefor $$!% mostofhislife.Inadditiontohis272acrehomeplacewhereheraisesHolsteincattleandgrows %"& rowcrops,hegrowscorn,soybeans,wheat,andtobaccointhreerentedtractsofland.Onetractis &"' a27acrefield,andtheothertwotracts,consistingof11acresand58acres,formonelargefield. '#( Duringthesummerof1995,Mr.Burtonplantedandharvestedawheatcropandthenplanted ($) soybeanswiththeassistanceofDavidWalker,theownerofanearbyfarm.DuringJuneandJuly, )%* Mr.Walkerpurchasedandplantedsoybeansonhisfarm,inMr.Burtonsthreefields,andonanother l*&+ nearbyfarmownedbyCarlBouldin.Heplantedthesamevarietyofsoybeansonallthreefarms. X+',   Inthemeantime,Mr.BurtonhadmadearrangementswiththeWarrenFarmersCooperative 0-p). tosprayherbicideonhisfieldstocontrolweedsandgrass.Heleftittothecooptoselectwhich .\*/ herbicidestouse.OnJune20,1995,MikeYoung,acertifiedsprayeremployedbythecoop, /H+0 sprayedMr.Burtons11acrefieldwithRoundup,Dual,andCanopy.OnJuly7,1995,hesprayed  Mr.Burtons27acrefieldwithFusilade2000andClassic.Finally,onJuly17,1995,Mr.Young  sprayedMr.Burtons58acrefieldwithFusiladeDXandClassic.    ApproximatelyseventotendaysafterMr.Youngsprayedthelastfield,Mr.Burtonnoticed p thathissoybeanslookedasifsomeonehad pouredhotwateronthem.Whiletheplantsinthe \ pointrowsr #  1      ׀whereMr.Younghadnotsprayedappearedtobedoingwell,manyofMr.Burtons H  othersoybeanplantshadstoppedgrowingandappearedtobedying.EventhoughMr.Burtons 4 t soybeanswerestruggling,thesoybeansinMr.WalkersandMr.Bouldinsfields,whichthecoop  ` hadnotsprayed,werethriving.  L    Mr.Burtontookseveralstepstoaddresstheproblemwithhissoybeancrop.First,he  $  contactedthecoop.Thecoopofferedtosprayhisfieldsagain,butMr.Burtondeclinedthisoffer   becausehissoybeanswerealreadybloomingandcouldnotbesprayedagain.Accordingly,thecoop   creditedMr.Burtonsaccountforwhatithadchargedtosprayhissoybeans.Zenica,the   manufacturerofherbicidesthathadbeensprayedontwoofMr.Burtonsfieldsalsoreimbursedhim   forthecostofitschemicalsafterMr.Burtonexecutedawrittenrelease.Mr.Burtonalsofileda  claimseekingdisastercreditwiththeUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculturestatingthathiscrops l hadbeendamagedbydryweatherbetweenJuly10and14,1995andpossiblybychemicals.The X departmentdeniedhisclaimbecauseitdeterminedthathiscropswouldyieldmorethantenbushels D ofsoybeansperacre. 0p   Eventually,Mr.Burtonsneighborsfieldsyieldedgoodsoybeancrops.Mr.Burtonended H upwithabelownormalcrop.Hetestifiedthathisnormalyieldwasthirtybushelsperacreandthat 4 hewasonlyabletoharvestapproximatelytwelvebushelsperacreonhis11acreand58acrefields.   Mr.Burtonstatedthatheonlyharvestedfiftysixbushelsonhis27acrefieldandthatheeventually   cutuptheremainingcropforhay.    Mr.BurtonfinallyfiledsuitagainstthecoopintheCircuitCourtforWarrenCounty,  allegingsevencausesofactionincludingbreachof_contract_,breachofexpressandimpliedwarranty, | negligence,andfraud.Thecoopdeniedliabilityandmovedforasummaryjudgmentbasedonthe h releaseMr.BurtonhadgiventoZenica.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,andthecaseproceeded T  totrial.Bythetimeofthetrial,Mr.Burtonhadnarrowedhisclaimstotwo!breachofcontractand @!  negligence.Inadditiontohisowntestimony,Mr.Burtonsproofincludedthetestimonyoftwo ,"l! otherWarrenCountyfarmers,aneducatorwiththeUniversityofTennesseesAgriculturalExtension #X" Service,theownerofanagriculturalsprayingbusiness,andMr.Young,thecoopemployeewho $D # hadsprayedMr.Burtonsfields.FollowingtheconclusionofMr.Burtonscase,thetrialcourt $0!$ grantedthecoopsmotionforaninvoluntarydismissalpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2).Mr. %"% Burtonhasperfectedthisappeal. &#&  x*&* @) II.   @hh TheStandardofReview     Attheoutset,wemustaddresstheappropriatestandardforreviewingthetrialcourts  dismissalofMr.Burtonsclaimsagainstthecoop.Unfortunately,Mr.Burtonhasmisapprehended p theappropriatestandardofreviewbecausehehasoverlookedthesubstantivedifferencesbetween \ anordergrantingadirectedverdictinajurycaseandanordergrantinganinvoluntarydismissalin H  anonjurycase.Thedifferencesbetweenthestandardsusedtoreviewthesetwoorderswillprove 4 t tobeoutcomedeterminativeinthiscase.  `   ATenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motionforinvoluntarydismissaldiffersmarkedlyfromaTenn.  8  R.Civ.P.50motionforadirectedverdict.Themostobvious,yetmostoverlooked,differenceis  $  thatmotionsfordirectedverdictshavenoplaceinbenchtrials,whileTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)   motionshavenoplaceinjurytrials.Cunninghamv.SheltonSec.Serv.,Inc.,46S.W.3d131,135   n.1(Tenn.2001);CityofColumbiav.C.F.W.Constr.Co.,557S.W.2d734,740(Tenn.1977);Scott   _v._ԀPulley,705S.W.2d666,672(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Beyondthisobviousproceduraldifference,   motionsforinvoluntarydismissalserveadifferentpurposethanmotionsfor_directedverdict_Ԁand  requirethecourtstoemployasubstantiallydifferentmethodofanalysis. l   ATenn.R.Civ.P.50motionfordirectedverdictprovidesavehiclefordecidingquestions D oflaw.Thequestionpresentediswhethertheplaintiffhaspresentedsufficientevidencetocreate 0p anissueoffactforthejurytodecide.Spannv.Abraham,36S.W.3d452,462(Tenn.Ct.App. \ 1999);Ingramv.Earthman,993S.W.2d611,626(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Thecourtsdonotweigh H theevidencewhentheyanswerthisquestion,Conatserv.ClarksvilleCocaColaBottlingCo.,920 4 S.W.2d646,647(Tenn.1995),nordotheyevaluatethecredibilityofthewitnesses.Richardsonv.   Miller,44S.W.3d1,30(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Rather,theyreviewtheevidenceinthelightmost   favorabletothenonmovingparty,givethenonmovingpartythebenefitofallreasonable  inferences,anddisregardalltheevidencecontrarytothenonmovingpartysposition.Alexander  v.Armentrout,24S.W.3d267,271(Tenn.2000);Addamanv.Lanford,46S.W.3d199,203(Tenn.  Ct.App.2000). |   Adirectedverdictshouldnotbegrantedifthepartywiththeburdenofproofhaspresented T  sufficientevidencetocreateanissueoffactforthejurytodecide.Whitev.VanderbiltUniv.,21 @!  S.W.3d215,231(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Ajuryissuehasbeencreatedifthereisanydoubt ,"l! regardingtheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheevidence,Crosslinv.Alsup,594S.W.2d379,380 #X" (Tenn.1980),orifreasonablepersonscoulddrawdifferentconclusionsfromtheevidence.Hurley $D # v.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,922S.W.2d887,891(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Pettusv.Hurst, $0!$ 882S.W.2d783,788(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Ajuryissuehasnotbeencreatedwhenreasonable %"% mindscandrawonlyoneconclusionfromtheevidence.Eatonv.McLain,891S.W.2d587,590 &#& (Tenn.1994);Tompkinsv.AnniesNannies,Inc.,59S.W.3d669,673(Tenn.Ct.App.2000). '#'   MotionsforinvoluntarydismissalpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)requirethecourts )%) toengageinanentirelydifferentanalysis.Thesemotionsdonotraisequestionsoflawbutrather x*&* challengethesufficiencyoftheplaintiffsproof.Smithv.InmanRealtyCo.,846S.W.2d819,821 d+'+ (Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Merrimanv.Smith,599S.W.2d548,560(Tenn.Ct.App.1979).Aclaim P,(, maybedismissedpursuanttoaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motiontodismissif,basedonthelawand <-|)- theevidence,theplaintiffhasfailedtodemonstratearighttothereliefitisseeking.Cityof  Columbiav.C.F.W.Constr.Co.,557S.W.2dat740.MotionsunderTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)  requirelesscertaintythanmotionsfordirectedverdict.Smithv.InmanRealtyCo.,846S.W.2dat  822.Thus,acourtfacedwithaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motionneedonlyimpartiallyweighand  evaluatetheplaintiffsevidencejustasitwouldafterallthepartieshadconcludedtheircasesand p maydismisstheplaintiffsclaimsiftheplaintiffhasfailedtomakeoutaprimafaciecasebya \ preponderanceoftheevidence.Thompsonv.Adcox,63S.W.3d783,791(Tenn.Ct.App.2001). H    ThiscourtusesthefamiliarTenn.R.App.P.13(d)standardtoreviewatrialcourts  ` dispositionofaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motionbecausethetrialcourthasusedthesamereasoning  L  todisposeofthemotionthatitwouldhaveusedtomakeafinaldecisionatthecloseofallthe  8  evidence.CollegeGroveWaterUtil.Dist.v.Bellenfant,670S.W.2d229,231(Tenn.Ct.App.  $  1984);Noldv.SelmerBank&TrustCo.,558S.W.2d442,444(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).Thus,we   mustreviewtherecordonappealdenovowithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfindingsare   correct.Wewillaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrial   courtsfactualdeterminationsorunlessthetrialcourthascommittedanerroroflawaffectingthe   outcomeofthecase.Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984);Smithv.InmanRealty  Co.,846S.W.2dat821.Wegivegreatweighttothetrialcourtsassessmentoftheevidencebecause l thetrialcourtisinamuchbetterpositiontoevaluatethecredibilityofthewitnesses.Thompsonv. X Adcox,63S.W.3dat787. D @^^( III.  \ @Z Z  Mr.BurtonsBreachofContractClaim  H   Mr.Burtonassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavegrantedadirectedverdictdismissing   hisbreachofcontractclaimbecausetherecordcontainedsufficientdirectandcircumstantial   evidencetoestablishaprimafaciecasethatthecoopbreacheditscontracttoridhisfieldsofweeds  andgrass.Thisargumenthastwoflaws.First,thetrialcourtdidnotgrantadirectedverdictbut  ratherdismissedMr.BurtonscontractclaiminaccordancewithTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2).Second,  Mr.Burtondidnotprovethathecontractedwiththecooptoridhisfieldsofweedsandgrass. |   Unlessrequiredbylaw,contractsneednotbeinwritingtobeenforceable.BillWalker& T  Assocs.,Inc.v.Parrish,770S.W.2d764,771(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Whileoralcontractsare @!  enforceable,personsseekingtoenforcethemmustdemonstrate(1)thatthepartiesmutuallyassented ,"l! tothetermsofthecontractand(2)thatthesetermsaresufficientlydefinitetobeenforceable. #X" Davidsonv.Holtzman,47S.W.3d445,453(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Castelliv.Lien,910S.W.2d420, $D # 42627(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Themutualassentneednotbemanifestedinwriting.Itmaybe $0!$ manifested,inwholeorinpart,bythepartiesspokenwordsorbytheiractionsorinactions.Cole %"% McIntyreNorfleetCo.v.Holloway,141Tenn.679,685,214S.W.817,818(1919);Restatement &#& (Second)ofContracts19(1)(1979).Itshouldnot,however,beinferredfromtheunilateralacts '#' ofonepartyorbyanambiguouscourseofdealingbetweenthepartiesfromwhichdifferent ($( inferencesregardingthetermsofthecontractmaybedrawn.JamestowneonSignal,Inc.v.First )%) Fed.Sav.&LoanAssn,807S.W.2d559,564(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Mutualassentalsomaynot x*&* restsolelyontheuncommunicatedintentionsorstatesofmindofthecontractingparties.Simonton d+'+ v.Huff,60S.W.3d820,826(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);BillWalker&Assocs.,Inc.v.Parrish,770 P,(, S.W.2dat770. <-|)- Ї  ThefateofMr.Burtonscontractclaimdependsontheevidenceregardingthescopeofthe  workhecontractedwiththecooptoperform.Thereisnodisputethatthepartiesenteredintoan  oralcontractrequiringthecooptoselect,supply,mix,andapplyherbicidestoMr.Burtonsfields.  Thereislikewisenodisputethatthecoopperformedtheseservices.However,Mr.Burtonnow  insiststhattherewasmoretothecontractandthatthecoophadalsoagreed toridhisfieldsof p weedsandgrass. \   ThereisnodisputethatbothMr.Burtonandthecoopunderstoodthatthepurposeofthe 4 t cropsprayingserviceswastoridMr.Burtonssoybeanfieldsofweedsandgrass.Accomplishing  ` thispurposedoesnotrelatetothescopeoftheworkbutrathertotheanticipatedoutcomeofthe  L  work.BothpartiesinthiscaseexpectedthatthesprayingwouldridMr.Burtonsfieldsofweeds  8  andgrass;however,unfulfilledexpectationsdonotabreachofcontractmakeunlessthese  $  expectationsarebasedonapromiseofthepartyprovidingtheservices.Incommonlegalparlance,   thispromiseiscalledanexpresswarranty.     Mr.Burtoncannotatthislatestageassertabreachofwarrantyclaimeventhoughheincluded   oneinhiscomplaint.Duringthetrial,hislawyerunequivocallywaivedMr.Burtonswarranty  claimsandstatedthatthecasewasbeingtriedonlyonthebreachofcontractandnegligenceclaims. l Wedonotpermitpartiestoraiseclaimsordefensesonappealthatwerenotfirstraisedinthetrial X court.Nortonv.McCaskill,12S.W.3d789,795(Tenn.2000);Simpsonv.FrontierCmty.Credit D Union,810S.W.2d147,153(Tenn.1991);Devorakv.Patterson,907S.W.2d815,818(Tenn.Ct. 0p App.1995).Accordingly,wedeclinetopermitMr.Burtontopiggybackabreachofwarrantyclaim \ onhiscontractclaim.s #  2       H   ThetrialcourtdismissedMr.Burtonscontractclaimafterfindingthatthecoophad    performedtheservicesthattheywerehiredtoperform.Becausethetrialcourtwasactingin   responseto_aTenn._ԀR.Civ.P.41.02(2)motionratherthanamotionfor_directedverdict_,wemust  reviewthetrialcourtsfindingusingthestandardinTenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wehaveexaminedthe  evidencepresentedbyMr.Burtonandhavedeterminedthatitdoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrial  courtsconclusionthatthecoopperformedtheservicesitcontractedtoperform.Accordingly,we | affirmthedismissalofMr.Burtonscontractclaim. h @dd) IV.  @!  @ Mr.BurtonsNegligenceClaim  ,"l!   WeturnnowtothedismissalofMr.Burtonsnegligenceclaim.Onthisappeal,heinsists $D # thatthetrialcourt abuseditsdiscretionbyrejecting[the]applicationofthedoctrineofresipsa $0!$ loquiturtoprovethecoopwasnegligent...andthatthetrialcourt abuseditsdiscretionby %"% directingaverdict...whereBurtonestablishedaprimafaciecasefor...negligence_...._These &#& argumentshavethreeshortcomings.First,the abuseofdiscretionstandardisinapplicabletothe '#' trialcourtsdecision.Second,thetrialcourtdismissedMr.Burtonsnegligenceclaimpursuantto ($( Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2),notTenn.R.Civ.P.50.Third,anyconsiderationoftheapplicationofthe  resipsaloquiturdoctrinecanonlyoccurinthecontextofanunderlyingnegligenceclaim.  @) A.     Aplaintiffpursuinganegligenceclaimmustprovemorethaninjuryordamage.Kilpatrick \ v.Bryant,868S.W.2d594,599(Tenn.1993)(holdingthat themereoccurrenceofaninjurydoes H  notprovenegligence);Underwoodv.HCAHealthServs._of_ԀTenn.,Inc.,892S.W.2d423,426 4 t (Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Torecover,aplaintiffmustalsoproveordemonstrate(1)thatthedefendant  ` owedadutytotheplaintiff,(2)thatthedefendantsconductbreachedthisduty,(3)thatthe  L  defendantsconductwasacauseinfactoftheplaintiffsinjuryordamage,and(4)thatnoexisting  8  ruleoflawrelievesthedefendantfromcommonlawliabilityforitsnegligence.t #  3      ׀McCall_v._ԀWilder,  $  913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);Bradshawv.Daniel,854S.W.2d865,869(Tenn.1993);Lett   v.CollisFoods,Inc.,60S.W.3d95,99(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).     Personsassertingacommonlawnegligenceclaimmustprovealltheelementsoftheircase   usingeitherdirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofthetwo.Morrowv.Town  ofMadisonville,737S.W.2d547,548(Tenn.Ct.App.1987);Trouttv.Branham,660S.W.2d502, l 506(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Theycustomarilyprovetheircasebyproducingdirectevidence X regardingthedefendantsspecificconduct.Casesthatfitwithintheresipsaloquiturdoctrineare D exceptionstothisgeneralrule. 0p   Plaintiffsrelyingonresipsaloquiturneednotprovespecificactsofnegligencebythe H defendanttogettheircasetothejury.SummitHillAssocs.v.KnoxvilleUtils.Bd.,667S.W.2d91, 4 96(Tenn.Ct.App.1983);Parker_v._ԀWarren,503S.W.2d938,942(Tenn.Ct.App.1973).Theymay   insteadbasetheircaseonthecircumstancessurroundingtheinjuryifcommonexperienceindicates    (1)thattheinjurywasprobablytheresultofnegligence,eventhoughtheexactnatureofthe  negligenceisunknown,and(2)thatitwasprobablythedefendantwhowasthenegligentperson.( #  4        1DanB.Dobbs,TheLawofTorts154,at371(2001)( Dobbs);Underwoodv.HCAHealth  Servs.ofTenn.,Inc.,892S.W.2dat426(holdingthatresipsaloquitur permitsafactfindertoinfer  thatadefendantwasnegligentwhenthecircumstancesoftheinjurywouldcauseareasonableperson  toconcludethattheinjurywouldnothaveoccurredhaditnotbeenforthedefendantsnegligence);  Boykinv.ChaseBottlingWorks,32Tenn.App.508,522,222S.W.2d889,895(1949)(holdingthat p _resipsaloquiturprovides_Ԁthemeansfordeterminingwhethertheinferencestobedrawnfromthe \ circumstancessurroundinganinjury furnisharationalbasisforaconclusionthatitismorelikely H  thannotthat(1)theinjurywasduetothenegligenceofsomeone,and(2)thatthedefendantwasthe 4 t responsibleparty).  `   Thecourtsmusttakecaretoavoidapplyingtheresipsaloquiturdoctrineinawaythat  8  underminesoursystemoftortliabilitybasedon_fault_.b #  5      ׀Harper19.5,at2730.Itisnotenoughfor  $  aplaintifftoprovethatheorshewasinjuredbysomeunidentifiedpersonsnegligence.Even   thoughthereisbeyondallreasonabledoubt negligenceintheair,theplaintiffmuststillbringthe   negligencehometothedefendant.ProsserandKeeton39,at248.Theplaintiffmustpresent   evidencethataffordsarationalbasisforconcludingthatthenegligentconductthatcausedtheinjury   isprobablyattributabletothedefendant.Dobbs157,at378;_Harper19.7,at4546._Ԁ    AsitispresentlyappliedinTennessee,thedoctrineofresipsaloquiturcannotbeinvoked X unlessthecircumstancessurroundingtheplaintiffsinjurydemonstrate(1)thattheinjuryordamage D wasprobablytheresultofnegligenceand(2)thatitwasprobablythedefendantwhowasthe 0p  negligentperson.v #  6      ׀Thus,plaintiffsintendingtorelyonthedoctrinemustestablishthreethings. \ First,theplaintiffmustidentifyhowtheinjuryoccurred.w #  7      ׀Second,theplaintiffmustdemonstrate   thattheeventcausingtheinjuryisofakindwhichdoesnotordinarilyoccurintheabsenceof  negligence.h( #  8      ׀Third,intraditionalterms, [t]heplaintiffmustdemonstratethatheorshewasinjured  byaninstrumentalitythatwaswithinthedefendantsexclusivecontrol....ux #  9          The exclusivecontrolelementoftheresipsaloquiturdoctrine,ifreadtooliterally,is \ overlyrestrictive.Resipsaloquiturcannotbeappliedunlessthecircumstancessurroundingthe H  injuryindicatethatthecausalnegligencewasprobablythedefendants,notthatofanotherperson. 4 t Dobbs157,at378.Evidencethattheplaintiffwasinjuredbyaninstrumentalitythatwasinthe  ` defendantsexclusivecontrolatthetimeissufficientforthispurpose.However,provinga  L  defendantsexclusivecontrolofaninstrumentalitywhenaninjuryoccursisnottheonlywayto  8  demonstratethedefendantsresponsibilityfortheinjury.Harper19.7,at4546.Tennessees  $  courts,liketheircounterpartsinotherstates,haveapprovedtheapplicationofresipsaloquiturin   casesinvolvingforeignobjectsinsealedcontainersandexplodingsoftdrinkbottleswherethe   defendantcouldnotbesaidtohavebeenin exclusivecontroloftheinjurycausinginstrumentality   whentheinjuryoccurred.CocaColaBottlingWorks,Inc._v._ԀCrow,200Tenn.161,166,291S.W.2d   589,591(1956)(exploding_bottle_);CocaColaBottlingWorks_v._ԀSullivan,178Tenn.at414,158  S.W.2dat72526(foreignobjectinasealedcontainer).ThesecasesindicatethatTennesseescourts l donotview exclusivecontrolasindispensabletotheapplicationofthe_res_Ԁipsaloquiturdoctrine. X TheTennesseeSupremeCourt,quotingRestatement(Second)ofTorts328D,cmt.gwith D approval,pointsout: 0p 8  8`   Exclusivecontrolismerelyonefactwhichestablishesthe H responsibilityofthedefendant;andifitcanbeestablishedotherwise, 4 exclusivecontrolisnotessentialtoaresipsaloquiturcase.The   essentialquestionbecomesoneofwhethertheprobablecauseisone   whichthedefendantwasunderadutytotheplaintifftoanticipateor  guardagainst.` x` x ProvidentLife&AccidentIns.Co.v.ProfessionalCleaningServ.,Inc.,217Tenn.at208,396 | S.W.2dat356. h   T    Resipsaloquiturisaruleofevidence,notaruleoflaw.Quinleyv.Cocke,183Tenn.428,   438,192S.W.2d992,996(1946).Itisintendedtocometotheaidofplaintiffswhohavenodirect  evidenceofadefendantsnegligence,ProvidentLife&AccidentIns.Co.v.ProfessionalCleaning  Serv.,Inc.,217Tenn._at_Ԁ208,396S.W.2dat356,byprovidingaspecializedvehicleforconsidering  circumstantialevidenceinnegligencecases.PoorSistersofSt.Francisv.Long,190Tenn.434, p 44243,230S.W.2d659,663(1950).Itpermits,butdoesnotrequire,afactfinder toinfer \ negligencefromthecircumstancesofaninjury.Seaversv.MethodistMed.Ctr.,9S.W.3dat91; H  Shivers_v._ԀRamsey,937S.W.3d945,949(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). 4 t   Theresipsaloquiturdoctrineisprimarilyusefulinjurytrials.Itprovidesatrialcourtwith  L  aframeworkfordeterminingwhethertheplaintiffsevidenceentitleshimorhertogettothejury.  8  NorthMemphisSav.Bankv.UnionBridge&Constr.Co.,138Tenn.161,188,196S.W.492,498  $  (1917);Ford_v._ԀRoddyMfg.Co.,60Tenn.App.495,505,448S.W.2d433,437(1969);John   Bouchard&Sons,Co.v.Keaton,9Tenn.App.467,480(1928).Theroleofthetrialcourtisto   determinewhethertheplaintiffsevidenceissufficienttopermitareasonablepersontoinferfrom   thecircumstancesthatnegligenceattributabletothedefendantcausedtheplaintiffsinjury.   Restatement(Second)ofTorts328D(2).Iftheanswerisno,thetrialcourtmaydirectaverdict  forthedefendant.y #  10      ׀Iftheanswerisyes,thentheplaintiffcanweatheramotionfordirectedverdict,z #  11       l _and_Ԁthecasewillbesubmittedtothejuryforittodecidewhethertochoosetheinferenceofthe X defendantscausalnegligenceorsomeotherpermissibleorreasonableinference.Shiversv.Ramsey, D 937S.W.2dat949;Sullivanv.Crabtree,36Tenn.App.469,47577,258S.W.2d782,78485 0p (1953);_GibsonCountyElec._ԀMembershipCorp.v.Hall,32Tenn.App.394,405,222S.W.2d689, \ 694(1947);_Restatement(Second)ofTorts328D(3)(1965);_Ԁ_Harper19.11,at69._ H { l`   The_res_Ԁipsaloquiturdoctrineaddressesonlytwoofthefiveelementsofacommonlaw   negligenceclaim.Itpermitsaninferencethatthedefendantbreachedadutyitowed_totheplaintiff_.   Italsopermitsaninferencethatthedefendantsconduct,whateveritwas,causedtheplaintiffs  injury.Thus,tosucceedwithanegligenceclaim,aplaintiffrelyingonthedoctrine_muststillprove_:  (1)_that_Ԁthedefendantowedadutytohimorherandthattheapparentcauseoftheinjurylieswithin  thescopeofthisduty;q<  #  12      ׀(2)_that_Ԁtheplaintiffsufferedaninjury;_and(_3)thatthedefendantsconduct, | whateveritmayhavebeen,wasthelegalcauseoftheplaintiffsinjury. h ____ ,"l! @) B.     Thetrialcourtnotedinitsfindingsoffactthat thevagariesofcropfarmingaremany.  Accordingly,thecooparguesitishighlyunlikelythatacourtwouldeverapplytheresipsaloquitur  doctrinetocropsprayingcases.Thisisanoverstatement.Whiletheapplicationoftheresipsa p loquiturdoctrineissofactdependentthatthecourtsmayapplyitinonesetofcircumstancesbut \ declinetoapplyitinasimilarsetofcircumstanceswithonlyslightfactualdifferences,Olswanger H  v.Funk,63Tenn.App.201,20607,470S.W.2d13,1516(1970),thereisnobasisforassuming 4 t thatthedoctrineisparticularlyunsuitedforcropsprayingcases.Infact,thiscourthasapprovedthe  ` applicationofthedoctrineinacaseinvolvingthesprayingofinsecticidesontrees,shrubs,andgrass.  L  Greerv.Lawhon,600S.W.2d742,745(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).Similarly,thecourtsofotherstates  8  havenothesitatedtoapprovetheapplicationofthedoctrineincropsprayingcases.} #  13      ׀Accordingly,  $  wedeclinetoanalyzeMr.Burtonscasebasedonthenotionthathisrelianceonresipsaloquiturwas   somehowinappropriate.     Thetrialcourtsdecisioninthiscase,atleasttotheextentthatitsfindingsoffactreflectits   reasoning,wasinfluencedbythe vagariesofcropfarming.AllofMr.Burtonswitnesses  concededthatcropscouldbeaffectedbyavarietyofnaturalandmanmadefactors.Therefore,to l successfullyinvokethedoctrineofresipsaloquitur,Mr.Burtonwasrequiredtotracethecrop X damagetoacauseorspecificinstrumentalitythatthecoopwasresponsibleforortoshowthatthe D coopwasresponsibleforallreasonablyprobablecausesofthecropdamage.ProsserandKeeton 0p 39,at248.ThetrialcourtapparentlydecidedthatMr.Burtonfailedonbothcounts. \   Theevidencesupportingaresipsaloquiturcasemustbestrongenoughtoavoidrequiring 4 thefactfindertomakealeapoffaithtofindfortheplaintiff.Underwoodv.HCAHealthServs._of_   Tenn.,Inc.,892S.W.2dat427.Inthiscase,Mr.Burtonofferednodirectevidenceregardingthe   specificcauseorinstrumentalitythatdamagedhiscrops.Accordingly,hewasrequiredtopresent  enoughevidencetoenableareasonablepersontoinfer,withatleastreasonableprobability,thatthe  coopwasresponsibleforalltheprobablecausesofthedamagetohissoybeancrop.ThisMr.  Burtondidnotdo.Rather,thetrialcourtwaslefttospeculatenotonlyaboutwhataspectofthe | selection,mixing,orapplicationoftheherbicidescouldhavecausedthedamagetoMr.Burtons h soybeans,butalsowhetheritwas_herbicides_,asopposedtotheclimateorotherfactorsforwhichthe T  coopcouldnothavebeenresponsible,thatcouldhavecausedthedamage. @!    Theinferencespermittedbytheresipsaloquiturdoctrinearerebuttable.Mostcommonly, #X" defendantsrebuttheseinferencesbyproving(1)thattheyexercisedreasonablecareunderthe $D # circumstances,(2)thattheplaintiffsinjurywascausedbysomethingoverwhichtheyhadno $0!$ control,(3)thattheplaintiffsinjurywasthesortofinjurythatcommonlyoccurswithoutanyones %"% negligence,or(4)thattheplaintiffsinjurycouldnothavebeenavoidedevenwiththeexerciseof &#& reasonablecare.SummitHillAssocs.v.KnoxvilleUtils.Bd.,667S.W.2dat96;Swineyv.Malone '#' FreightLines,545S.W.2dat116.Itisthefactfindersprerogativetoweightheevidenceto ($( determinewhetherthedefendanthassuccessfullyrebuttedtheinferencesarisingfromtheplaintiffs  evidence.Casenburgv.Lewis,163Tenn.163,167,40S.W.2d1038,1039(1931);Kiddv.Dunn,  499S.W.2d898,899900(Tenn.Ct.App.1973).    Normally,thedefendantpresentsevidencerebuttingtheinferencesraisedbytheplaintiffs p evidenceaftertheplaintiffrests.However,inthiscase,partofthecoopsrebuttalevidencecame \ induringMr.BurtonscaseinchiefbecauseMr.BurtonslawyerdecidedtocallMr.Young,theco H  opemployeewhosprayedMr.Burtonsfields,asawitnessforMr.Burton.Mr.Youngstestimony, 4 t morethananythingelse,underminedthestrengthofMr.Burtonsresipsaloquiturcasebecausehe  ` testified,ineffect,thathehadusedreasonablecareunderthecircumstancesinmixingandapplying  L  theherbicidestoMr.Burtonsfields.  8    Inasprayingcaselikethisone,anegligenceclaimagainsttheherbicideapplicatormustbe   basedontheapplicatorsconduct.Thesortofconductthatcouldgiverisetoliability_includes_:(1)   _choosing_Ԁthewrongherbicides,(2)usingthewrongconcentrationofherbicides,(3)contaminating   theherbicideswiththeresidueofharmfulchemicalsusedonanotherapplication,(4)sprayingatthe   wrongtime,or(5)sprayinginthewrongway.Mr.Youngaddressedeachofthesepointsduringhis  testimony. l   Mr.Burtonstatedattrialthathedidnotbelievethatthecoophadchosenthewrong D herbicidestosprayonhissoybeans.Neitherhenorhisotherwitnessestestifiedthatthechemicals 0p _used_ԀbythecoopwereimproperorthatMr.Youngfailedtousetheherbicidesselectedbythecoop. \ Tothecontrary,Mr.Youngtestifiedthatheusedtheherbicidesselectedbythecoop.Accordingly, H therecordprovidesnosupportforaninferencebasedonthecoopschoiceoftheherbicidestospray 4 onMr.Burtonsfields.     Mr.Youngalsotestifiedthathemixedtheherbicidesonlocationandthathemixedthemin  accordancewiththemanufacturersdirectionsbasedonthesizeofthefieldshewasspraying.He  discussedhissprayingscheduleandhisadjustmentstothescheduletomakesurethateach  customerscropsweresprayedatthepropertime.NowitnessdiscussedMr.Youngsspraying | techniquebecauseMr.Burtonhasnotclaimedthatthedamagetohissoybeanswascausedbythe h mannerinwhichMr.Youngappliedtheherbicides.Accordingly,therecordcontainsinsufficient T  evidencetosupportaninferencethatMr.Youngusedthewrongconcentrationofherbicides,sprayed @!  theherbicidesatthewrongtime,orsprayedtheherbicidesinthewrongmanner. ,"l!   Thefinalpossibilityforcausalnegligenceinvolvesthechancethatthetankcontainingthe $D # herbicidessprayedonMr.Burtonsfieldscouldhavebeencontaminatedwiththeresidueofother $0!$ previouslyusedchemicalsthatcoulddamagesoybeans.Mr.Youngagreedthatresiduefromanother %"% applicationcouldcausecropdamagebuttestifiedthattherewasnoresidueofotherchemicalsinthe &#& tankonhissprayrig.First,hediscountedthepossibilitythatthetankcouldhavecontainedAtrozene '#' residuebecauseitwastoolateintheyeartobesprayingthisherbicide.Second,hetestifiedthatit ($( wasnotpossiblethat_residue_Ԁfromanotherapplicationcouldhavebeenleftinhistankbecausehe )%) alwayswashedoutthetankbeforestartingtosprayanotherchemical. x*&*   Thetrialcourtinthiscasewasnotsimplyactingasagatekeepertodecidewhetherthe P,(, inferencesfromMr.Burtonsevidencewerestrongenoughtotakehiscasetothejury.Therewas <-|)- nojuryinthiscase;itwasabenchtrial.Accordingly,thetrialcourtwastheultimatefactfinder. (.h*. Thus,whenthecoopfileditsTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motion,thetrialcourthadthesame  prerogativetoweightheevidencethatitwouldhavehadattheconclusionofalltheproof.Thetrial  courtcouldpermissiblydecidethecoopsmotionbasedonitsownviewoftheweightofthe  evidence.Itwasnotrequiredtodeterminewhethertheevidencewouldpermitreasonablepersons  toreachonlyoneconclusion.Afterweighingtheevidence,thetrialcourtconcludedthatMr.Burton p hadnotprovedthathispoorsoybeancropwascausedbynegligenceorthatitwascausedbyany \ conductattributabletothecoop.Whiletheevidencecouldpossiblyhavesupportedanother H  conclusion,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsconclusionthat 4 t Mr.Burtonhadfailedtoprovethatthecoopsnegligencedamagedhissoybeancrop.Accordingly,  ` weaffirmthedismissalofMr.Burtonsnegligenceclaim.  L  @) V.   $    WeaffirmthedismissalofMr.Burtonscontractandnegligenceclaimsandremandthecase   tothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionmayberequired.We   taxthecostsofthisappealtoJoeBurtonandhissuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.      `     h     _____________________________ D    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE