ÿWPCÀ …#!VUNw %Å 0cËU<. w@j 4ª ¾ Í 0§Õ 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx Æà N¦ ¨ mª 0rÁ 0|3 0†¯ 05 1uÅ 0d: 0ž B 0D:U>~B)¼DCå AM( D3uU*¨HÒ 0@ÑZ+v~ÈvÓF AQÆj 0D0 D/t B£˜Tech HP4si,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman A[CDDÓ€PSTU£V£WEXE{Ï$Ôô 3|xX(W(3Ó™$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xì¤XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(W3x¾$¢¢Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xì¤XXXÔÝ  Ý d(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ5,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€This€was€apparently€Chaseððs€second€amendment€to€the€complaint.€ÏAlthough€the€record€does€not€contain€the€first€amendment,€his€amendedÏcomplaint€states€that€the€ad€damnum€is€$2,000,000.00€pursuant€to€the€courtððsÏorder€of€July€8,€1994€allowing€the€amendment.Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€his€brief,€Chase€asserts€that€the€trial€court€sustained€fifteen€of€theÏdefendantsðð€counselððs€general€objections.€€Chase€then€proceeds€to€list€not€fifteen,Ïbut€nineteen,€alleged€examples€of€such€error.€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€!-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ8€ì¤XXdðdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßR€),(A1-j|+` à. `€€@ÿRßÔ_ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òJAMES€CHASE,€JR.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Law€No.€58129€T.D.ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9607„CV„00171ÌÌò òPHYSIOTHERAPY€ASSOCIATES,€ÌINC.,€F.€WILLIAM€HACKMEYER,€JR.,€Ìand€EVERETT€P.€HAILEY,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellees.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DððARMY€BAILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àEugene€C.€Gaerig€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àJohn€W.€Leach€of€MemphisÌà@ àSpicer,€Flynn€&€Rudstrom€of€Memphis,€of€CounselÌà@ àFor€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓÓó óà àThis€is€premises€liability€suit.€€Plaintiff,€James€Chase,€Jr.€(Chase),€appealsÏthe€trial€courtððs€entry€of€a€judgment€on€the€jury€verdict€finding€that€theÏdefendants,€F.€William€Hackmeyer,€Jr.€and€Everett€P.€Hailey,€were€50%Ïnegligent€and€that€Chase€was€50%€negligent,€therefore€barring€Chaseððs€recovery.€€Ìà àChase€suffers€from€multiple€sclerosis,€and€his€physician€referred€him€forÏphysical€therapy€to€the€Neurological€Center€of€Physiotherapy€Associates,€Inc.,€aÏtenant€in€Executive€Square€Office€Building€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€owned€byÏdefendants€F.€William€Hackmeyer,€Jr.€and€Everett€P.€Hailey.€€Chase€went€toÏPhysiotherapy€Associates€for€physical€therapy€on€December€15€and€17,€1992.€ÏOn€December€29,€1992,€while€on€his€way€to€his€third€physical€therapyÍappointment€with€Physiotherapy€Associates,€Chase€allegedly€suffered€injuriesÏwhen€his€wheelchair€fell€over€backwards€as€he€was€ascending€the€handicap€rampÏin€front€of€Executive€Square.€Ìà àOn€December€1,€1993,€Chase€filed€a€complaint€against€PhysiotherapyÏAssociates,€F.€William€Hackmeyer,€Jr.,€and€Everett€P.€Hailey€alleging€that€theÏdefendants€were€negligent€in€maintaining€the€property€and€that€Chase€wasÏinjured€as€a€direct€and€proximate€result€of€the€defendantsðð€negligence.€€TheÏcomplaint€further€alleges€that€the€defendants€breached€their€common€law€dutyÏto€provide€Chase€with€a€safe€ramp€that€could€be€used€by€persons€in€wheelchairs.€ÏThe€complaint€avers€that€the€ramp€was€too€narrow,€too€short,€and€too€steepÏand€that€the€ramp€constituted€a€dangerous€incline€that€was€unsafe€forÏwheelchair€use.€€The€complaint€further€avers€that€the€defendants€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€that€the€ramp€was€not€safe€for€disabled€persons€using€wheelchairs.€ÏThe€complaint€also€avers€that€the€ramp€was€the€only€ramp€available€for€disabledÏpersons€using€wheelchairs€wishing€to€visit€Physiotherapy€Associates,€Inc.€andÏthat€an€ordinary€person€would€not€know€that€the€ramp€was€too€steep,€tooÏnarrow,€too€short,€and€could€cause€a€wheel€chair€to€turn€over.€€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€complaint€alleges€that€the€defendants€violated€theÏTennessee€Public€Building€Accessibility€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„120„201€òòet€seq.€óó(theÍAct),€in€that€the€ramp€did€not€meet€the€minimum€specifications€as€set€forth€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€68„120„204€because€it€had€a€slope€steeper€than€twelve€inches€verticalÏrise€for€each€twelve€feet€horizontal€run.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€thisÏviolation€of€the€Act€was€negligence€per€se.€€Furthermore,€the€complaint€aversÏthat€the€ramp€violated€the€slope€and€clearance€provision€applicable€to€ramps€ofÏthe€1976€Building€Code€of€the€City€of€Memphis€and€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.€ÏAs€a€result€of€the€fall,€Chase€alleges€that€he€incurred€pain€and€suffering,Ïexacerbation€of€his€multiple€sclerosis,€medical€expenses,€mental€anguish,Ïdeterioration€of€his€physical€condition,€loss€of€earning€capacity,€and€loss€ofÏenjoyment€of€life.€€The€complaint€requests€a€jury€trial€and€prays€forÏcompensatory€damages€in€an€amount€not€to€exceed€$1,000,000.00.Ìà àDefendants€Hackmeyer€and€Hailey€filed€an€answer€denying€that€theyÏdesigned€or€constructed€the€handicap€ramp€on€which€Chase€fell€and€stating€thatÏthe€ramp€was€in€existence€when€they€acquired€ownership€of€the€premises.€€TheÏdefendants€further€deny€that€they€were€guilty€of€any€negligence€or€otherÏconduct€that€caused€or€contributed€to€Chaseððs€alleged€injuries.€€They€admit€thatÏthe€Act€was€in€full€force€and€effect€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€but€deny€thatÏthey€violated€any€portion€of€the€Act.€€In€addition,€the€defendants€assert€that€theÏAct€has€no€application€to€buildings€existing€at€the€time€of€its€enactment.€€TheÍdefendants€further€admit€that€the€Memphis€building€code€was€in€full€force€andÏeffect€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€but€deny€its€applicability€because€the€buildingÏcode€also€does€not€apply€to€buildings€in€existence€at€the€time€of€the€enactmentÏof€the€Act.€€In€addition,€the€defendants€aver€that€Chase€placed€himself€in€aÏposition€that€he€knew€or€should€have€known€would€likely€cause€injury,Ïconstituting€a€voluntary€assumption€of€a€known€risk€and€thus€a€complete€bar€toÏhis€recovery.€€Finally,€the€defendants€aver€that€Chase€was€guilty€of€negligence€orÏother€conduct€that€caused€or€contributed€to€his€alleged€injuries,€damages,€orÏlosses€and€that€this€negligence€or€other€conduct€was€in€a€degree€equal€to€orÏgreater€than€any€alleged€negligence€or€other€conduct€on€their€part.€Ìà àOn€January€29,€1996,€Chase€filed€a€motion€to€amend€the€complaint€toÏchange€the€date€of€the€building€code€to€1967€and€to€allege€that€the€ramp€whenÏinstalled€did€not€meet€the€1967€building€code,€particularly€ðð€617.0.€€The€trialÏcourt€entered€an€order€allowing€this€amendment€on€the€same€day.× ƒ. ××  ×€€OnÏFebruary€8,€1996,€during€trial,€Chase€filed€a€motion€to€amend€the€complaintÏagain€to€set€forth€additional€provisions€of€the€1967€Memphis€building€code.€€OnÏFebruary€12,€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€denying€Chaseððs€motion€toÍamend€the€complaint.Ìà àSometime€before€trial,€the€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favorÏof€Physiotherapy€Associates,€Inc.€on€the€ground€that€the€handicap€ramp€was€theÏlandlordððs€responsibility,€and€not€the€tenantððs.€€Consequently,€PhysiotherapyÏAssociates,€Inc.€was€not€a€defendant€at€trial€and€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.€ÏThe€jury€trial€of€the€case€against€the€remaining€two€defendants€began€on€JanuaryÏ29,€1996.€€At€the€end€of€the€defendantsðð€proof,€on€February€13,€1996,€ChaseÏmoved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€issue€of€comparative€negligence.€€The€trialÏcourt€denied€this€motion€from€the€bench€and€submitted€the€case€to€the€jury.€ÏOn€February€15,€1996,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€form€stating€that€theÏdefendants€were€50%€at€fault€and€that€Chase€was€50%€at€fault.€€On€February€23,Ï1996,€the€judge€entered€a€judgment€on€the€jury€verdict€and€dismissed€the€case.€€€Ìà àOn€March€19,€1996,€Chase€filed€a€motion€for€the€entry€of€a€judgment€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.01€and€50.02.€€Chase€also€filed€a€motion€forÏa€new€trial€and€to€amend€or€make€additional€findings€of€facts€and/or€alter€orÏamend€the€judgment.€€€On€June€25,€1996,€Chase€filed€an€amendment€to€hisÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€On€July€9,€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€two€ordersÏdenying€each€of€Chaseððs€motions.€€€Ìà àWe€will€now€consider€the€issues€presented€for€review.€€The€first€issue€asÍstated€in€Chaseððs€brief€is:ÌÓÓ1.€à àDid€the€defendants€present€any€proof€during€the€trial€of€this€case€that€onÏthe€date€of€December€29,€1992€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,€James€Chase,€Jr.€in€hisÏwheelchair€did€anything€different€than€another€wheelchair€user€while€using€theÏdefendantsðð€handicap€ramp,€that€is,€go€straight€up€the€ramp€and€use€the€ramp€asÏit€was€intended€to€be€used?ÌÌÓÓà àWe€should€first€note€that€the€issue€as€phrased€seeks€an€answer€that€isÏirrelevant.€€It€appears€that€the€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erredÏin€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€for€Chase€on€the€issue€of€his€comparativeÏnegligence.€€Chase€asserts€that€there€is€no€proof€that€he€was€comparativelyÏnegligent€and€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€directed€verdict€on€thisÏissue.€€He€further€contends€that€the€charge€to€the€jury€on€this€issue€wasÏprejudicial.€Ìà àWhen€deciding€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€both€the€trial€court€andÏthe€reviewing€court€on€appeal€must€look€to€all€the€evidence,€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€the€motion,€andÏallow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party.€€òòò òTennessee€Farmers€Mut.ÏIns.€Co.€v.€Hinsonó óóó,€651€S.W.2d€235,€237€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€The€court€mustÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence,€and€if€there€is€then€any€dispute€as€to€anyÏmaterial€fact€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€wholeÏevidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€237„38.€€The€court€may€grant€theÍmotion€only€if,€after€assessing€the€evidence€according€to€the€foregoingÏstandards,€it€determines€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€theÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€ò òòòSauls€v.€Evansó óóó,€635€S.W.2d€377,Ï379€(Tenn.€1982);€òòò òHolmes€v.€Wilsonó óóó,€551€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€1977).€€IfÏthere€is€any€doubt€as€to€the€proper€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,Ïthe€motion€must€be€denied.€€ò òòòCrosslin€v.€Alsupó óóó,€594€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.Ï1980).€Ìà àThe€modified€form€of€comparative€negligence€adopted€inòò€ò òMcIntyre€v.ÏBalentineó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€requires€that€the€plaintiffððs€negligenceÏremain€less€than€the€defendantððs€negligence€in€order€to€allow€a€recovery.€€€òòò òId.€ó óóóatÏ57.€€In€òòò òEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Supreme€Court€setÏforth€a€general€set€of€guidelines€to€assist€trial€courts€and€juries€in€their€duties€ofÏapportioning€fault:ÓÓÌÌà8 àà8 àà àIn€summary,€the€percentage€of€fault€assigned€toÏeach€party€should€be€dependent€upon€all€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case,€including€such€factors€as:€Ï(1)€the€relative€closeness€of€the€causal€relationshipÏbetween€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€the€injuryÏto€the€plaintiff;€€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððsÏconduct€in€confronting€a€risk,€such€as€whether€theÏparty€knew€of€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)Ïthe€extent€to€which€the€defendant€failed€to€reasonablyÏutilize€an€existing€opportunity€to€avoid€the€injury€toÏthe€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existence€of€a€sudden€emergencyÏrequiring€a€hasty€decision;€(5)€the€significance€of€whatÍthe€party€was€attempting€to€accomplish€by€theÏconduct,€such€as€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€andÏ(6)€the€partyððs€particular€capacities,€such€as€age,Ïmaturity,€training,€education,€and€so€forth.€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWe€do€not€wish€to€imply€from€our€enumerationÏof€these€factors€that€they€constitute€an€exclusive€listÏfor€the€purpose€of€apportioning€fault€between€theÏnegligent€parties.€€As€stated€above,€the€faultÏapportionment€question€is€ultimately€dependent€uponÏall€the€circumstances€of€the€case;€€and€juries€willÏcontinue,€as€they€have€in€the€past,€to€rely€upon€theirÏcommon€sense€and€ordinary€experience€inÏapportioning€fault.€€€Nor€do€we€wish€to€imply€thatÏthese€factors€will€not€need€to€be€revised€or€expandedÏat€some€future€date€as€we€are€presented€with€specificÏfactual€situations.€€€We€have€only€attempted€in€thisÏopinion€to€give€general€guidance€to€the€bench€and€bar;€Ïand€any€unresolved€questions€with€respect€to€theÏfactors€must€wait€for€another€day.€€€Again,€while€weÏrealize€that€all€these€factors€will€not€be€applicable€toÏevery€case,€we€believe€that€this€approach€is€superior€toÏleaving€trial€courts€and€juries€completely€withoutÏstandards€in€this€process.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€theÏtrial€court€should€take€the€factors€into€consideration,Ïif€applicable,€in€ruling€on€a€motion€for€directedÏverdict€or€JNOV€which€alleges€negligence€on€the€partÏof€the€plaintiff.€€€The€trial€court€should€also€includeÏthe€factors,€if€applicable,€in€its€instructions€to€the€juryÏon€the€fault€apportionment€question.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.€ó óóó592„93€(footnotes€omitted).€€€€€€€à à€Ìà àIn€this€case,€Chase€testified€that€he€used€his€crutches€on€his€two€previousÏvisits€to€Physiotherapy€Associates€and€did€not€notice€the€ramp.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€used€the€ramp€on€December€29,€1992€because€Physiotherapy€Associates€toldÍhim€to€do€so€and€that€the€ramp€on€which€he€fell€was€the€only€handicap€ramp€atÏExecutive€Square.€€He€further€testified€that€he€observed€the€ramp€for€the€firstÏtime€on€December€29,€1992€and€then€only€a€very€short€period€of€time,€justÏunder€a€minute,€before€he€began€his€ascent.€€Chase€testified€at€trial€that€hisÏwheelchair€rolled€straight€up€the€ramp€and€that€he€fell€straight€backwards.Ìà àEven€though€Chase€observed€the€ramp€only€for€a€brief€period€of€time,€heÏadmitted€€that€in€that€period€of€time€he€ð ðobserved€that€it€was€an€awful€steepÏramp.ðð€€In€addition,€although€Chase€testified€that€he€rolled€straight€up€the€rampÏand€flipped€straight€backwards,€there€is€testimony€in€the€record€that€he€wasÏfound€lying€on€his€side€and€that€the€right€side€of€his€clothes€was€dirty€fromÏfalling€on€concrete.€€This€is€evidence€from€which€reasonable€minds€could€differÏas€to€whether€Chase€ascended€the€ramp€directly€in€the€middle,€as€he€testified,Ïor€more€to€one€side.€€Moreover,€under€Chaseððs€theory€in€this€case,€theÏobviousness€of€the€condition€of€the€handicap€ramp€presents€at€the€very€least€aÏfactual€question€as€to€what€degree€he€was€negligent€in€encountering€a€knownÏrisk.Ìà àTaking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allowing€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€the€defendants,€the€evidence€introducedÏpresents€a€factual€issue€as€to€whether€the€plaintiff,€Chase,€was€comparativelyÍnegligent.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€property€denied€Chaseððs€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict€and€submitted€the€issue€of€comparative€fault€to€the€jury.€€ThisÏargument€is€without€merit.€Ìà àChase€also€contends€that€Tennessee€law€gives€this€Court€the€right€to€alterÏthe€juryððs€findings€when€those€findings€are€clearly€erroneous.€€This€Court€doesÏnot€reweigh€the€evidence€or€reevaluate€the€witnessesðð€credibility€in€an€appealÏfrom€a€jury€verdict.€€ò òòòWitter€v.€Nesbitó óóó,€878€S.W.2d€116,€121€(Tenn.€App.€1993),Ïò òòòappeal€deniedó óóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€513€U.S.€873,€115€S.€Ct.€199,€130€L.ÏEd.€2d€130€(1994).€€On€appeal,€this€Court€is€required€to€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€favoring€the€prevailing€party,€discard€all€contraryÏevidence,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€to€uphold€the€juryððs€verdict,€and€setÏaside€the€juryððs€verdict€only€when€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€theÏverdict.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d);€òòò òWitteró óóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€121.€Ìà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€theÏjuryððs€finding€that€the€defendants€were€50%€at€fault€and€that€Chase€was€50%€atÏfault.€€€Therefore,€we€find€the€first€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€Ìà àUnder€ò òòòMcIntyreó óóó,€a€plaintiff€who€is€found€to€be€50%€or€more€at€fault€isÏbarred€from€recovery.€€833€S.W.2d€at€57.€€Accordingly,€all€issues€relating€toÏdamages€are€pretermitted.€€In€addition,€the€issue€raised€by€the€defendantsÍdisputing€the€evidence€of€the€steepness€of€the€ramp€is€also€pretermitted.€€WeÏwill€now€consider€the€remaining€issues€raised€in€this€appeal.€€€€ÌÓÓà à2.à àDid€the€learned€Trial€Judge€provide€complete€and€adequate€juryÏinstructions?ÌÌÓÓà àChase€contends€that€the€trial€judge€gave€incomplete€and€inadequate€juryÏinstructions€on€the€issue€of€negligence€per€se.€€He€asserts€that€the€steepness€ofÏthe€ramp€is€a€violation€of€the€building€code€and€that€this€violation€constitutedÏnegligence€per€se.€Ìà àThe€defendants€contend€that€there€is€no€negligence€per€se€because€noÏprovision€of€the€building€code€imposes€a€duty€on€purchasers€of€property€toÏmake€improvements€to€bring€the€property€up€to€current€code€requirements.€€€Ìà àThe€doctrine€of€negligence€per€se€is€firmly€established€in€our€case€law.€€InÏorder€to€recover€on€the€basis€of€negligence€per€se,€three€elements€must€beÏestablished.€€First,€it€must€be€shown€that€the€defendant€violated€a€statute€orÏordinance€that€€imposes€a€duty€or€prohibits€an€act€for€the€benefit€of€a€person€orÏthe€public.€òòò òQueen€v.€Dayton€Coal€&€Iron€Co.ó óóó,€95€Tenn.€458,€462,€32€S.W.€460Ï(1895);€òòò òMemphis€Street€Railway€v.€Haynesó óóó,€112€Tenn.€712,€722,€81€S.W.€374Ï(1904).€€Second,€the€proof€must€show€that€the€injured€party€was€within€theÏclass€of€persons€whom€the€legislative€body€intended€to€benefit€and€protect€byÏthe€enactment€of€that€particular€statute€or€ordinance.€€òòò òTraylor€v.€Coburnó óóó,€597ÍS.W.2d€319,€322€(Tenn.€App.€1980)€(citing€òòò òCarter€v.€Redmondó óóó,€142€Tenn.€258,Ï218€S.W.€217€(1920)).€€In€addition€to€establishing€negligence€per€se€by€showingÏthese€two€elements,€the€plaintiff€must€of€course€show€that€such€negligence€wasÏthe€proximate€cause€of€the€injury.€€òòò òBrookins€v.€The€Round€Table,€Inc.ó óóó,€624ÏS.W.2d€547,€550€(Tenn.€1981);€€òòò òAlex€v.€Armstrongó óóó,€215€Tenn.€276,€283,€385ÏS.W.2d€110,€114€(1964).Ìà àChase€relies€on€òòò òSmith€v.€Owenó óóó,€841€S.W.2d€828€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€inÏwhich€the€defendantððs€liability€was€predicated€on€negligence€per€se€because€theÏbuilding€code€adopted€by€the€City€of€Cookeville€expressly€prohibited€the€rentingÏof€a€dwelling€for€living€purposes€without€a€prior€inspection€to€ascertain€that€itsÏcondition€met€certain€standards€specified€in€that€code.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€829„30.€€€InÏaddition,€the€proof€showed€that€defendant€did€in€fact€rent€the€premises€inÏwhich€the€plaintiff's€child€sustained€injuries€without€making€such€inspection€andÏthat€an€inspection€would€have€revealed€the€defect€that€caused€the€injury.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€atÏ829.€€In€so€holding,€the€ò òòòSmithóóó ó€Court€found€that€the€defendant,€who€had€noÏactual€knowledge€of€the€condition€that€caused€the€injury,€was€put€onÏconstructive€notice€of€her€duty€by€virtue€of€the€provisions€in€the€CookevilleÏbuilding€code.òòò ò€€Id.ó óóó€at€831.€€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€complaint€does€not€set€forth€a€provision€similarÍto€the€provision€in€ò òòòSmith.€€ó óóóHowever,€Chase€asserts€that€his€February€9,€1996Ïmotion€to€amend€the€complaint€was€to€supply€the€pertinent€provisions€of€theÏbuilding€code€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€proposedÏamendment.€€Ìà àRule€15€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€in€relevantÏpart:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€party€may€amend€the€partyððs€pleadings€once€as€aÏmatter€of€course€at€any€time€before€a€responsiveÏpleading€is€served€.€.€.€the€party€may€so€amend€it€atÏany€time€within€fifteen€(15)€days€after€[the€pleading]Ïis€served.€€Otherwise€a€party€may€amend€the€partyððsÏpleadings€only€by€written€consent€of€the€adverse€partyÏor€by€leave€of€court;€and€leave€shall€be€freely€givenÏwhen€justice€so€requires.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.01.€€€After€a€responsive€pleading€has€been€served,€the€denialÏof€a€motion€to€amend€the€pleadings€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt€and€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€Ïòòò òHall€v.€Shelby€County€Retirement€Bd.ó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€543,€546€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995)(citing€òòò òMerriman€v.€Smithó óóó,€599€S.W.2d€548,€559€(Tenn.€App.€1979);€Ïòòò òWelch€v.€Thuanó óóó,€882€S.W.2d€792,€793€(Tenn.€App.€1994)).€€€There€are€severalÏconsiderations€a€trial€judge€should€evaluate€in€determining€whether€to€grant€orÏdeny€a€motion€to€amend.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóAmong€these€factors€are€an€undue€delay€in€filing,Ïlack€of€notice€to€the€opposing€party,€bad€faith€by€the€moving€party,€repeatedÍfailure€to€cure€deficiencies€by€previous€amendments,€undue€prejudice€to€theÏopposing€party,€and€futility€of€amendment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(citing€òòò òMerrimanó óóó,€599€S.W.2dÏat€559).Ìà àIn€light€of€the€factors€delineated€above,€there€is€justification€for€the€trialÏcourtððs€denial€of€Chaseððs€motion€to€amend.€€He€had€previously€amended€hisÏcomplaint,€€and€this€motion€to€amend€came€well€into€the€trial€of€the€case.€€AllÏof€the€provisions€of€the€building€code€were€available€to€Chase€at€the€time€heÏfiled€his€original€complaint.€€The€motion€was€untimely€and€could€undulyÏprejudice€the€defendants.€€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€Chaseððs€motion€toÏamend,€nor€did€the€trial€court€err€in€refusing€Chaseððs€special€request€forÏinstructions.€€Moreover,€we€have€heretofore€noted€that€there€was€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€50%€comparative€fault€on€the€part€ofÏthe€plaintiff,€thus,€any€error€by€the€trial€court€in€refusing€the€amendment€andÏthe€requested€jury€instructions€would€be€harmless€error.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b).€€€€€Ìà àThe€next€issue€to€be€considered€is€phrased€by€Chase€as:€ÌÓÓ3.€€Did€the€learned€trial€judge€commit€reversible€evidentiary€rulings€allowingÏimproper€questions€to€be€asked€of€Barbara€Chase,€the€wife€of€plaintiff/appellant,Ïby€defense€counsel?ÌÌÓÓà àApparently,€this€issue€is€predicated€on€the€following€trial€proceedingsÍrelating€to€a€letter€written€by€Chaseððs€treating€physician,€Dr.€OððSullivan:ÌQ:€€à à(By€Mr.€Leach)€What€he€put€in€this€letter€is€incorrect?€€Ìà àà àMr.€Gaerig:à àObjection,€if€your€Honor€please.€€It€calls€for€aÏconclusion€of€one€witness€as€to€what€another€witness€has€said.Ìà àà àThe€Court:à àAll€right.€€Objection€overruled.€€ÌQ:à à(By€Mr.€Leach)€€Do€you€remember€the€question?ÌA:à àNo.ÌQ:€€à àThe€question€is€this€statement€that€Dr.€OððSullivan€put€in€this€letter€ofÏDecember€4,€1992€that€you€told€me€you€and€your€husband€requested€him€toÏwrite€where€he€put€in€there,€he€can€no€longer€propel€himself€in€a€normalÏwheelchair,€is€that€true€or€untrue€or€was€it€true€or€untrue€as€of€December€4,Ï1992?ÌA:€à àJim€could€propel€himself€in€a€wheelchair.ÌQ:€à àSo€that€was€untrue?ÌA:€à àFor€short€distances.Ìà àà àà à*à àà àà à*à àà àà à*ÌQ:à àWell,€let€me€ask€you€again€then.€€Is€he€telling€the€truth€here€when€he€saysÏthat€Mr.€Chase€could€no€longer€propel€himself€in€a€normal€wheelchair?Ìà àà àMr.€Gaerig:à àYour€Honor€„„Ìà àà àThe€Court:€€à àJust€a€minute,€please,€sir€„„€I€mean€please,€maððam.€€Yes,Ïsir.Ìà àà àMr.€Gaerig:à àObjection.€€She€canððt€testify€what€a€doctor€was€saying.€ÏShe€à àà àcannot€make€a€comment€on€„„Ìà àà àThe€Court:à àJust€a€minute€now.€€Again,€Iððm€not€going€to€argueÏwith€à àà àyou,€Mr.€Gaerig.€€You€make€an€objection,€and€Iððll€rule€on€it.Ìà àà àMr.€Gaerig:à àMy€objection€is€„„Ìà àà àThe€Court:à àI€know€what€your€objection€is,€and€I€overrule€it.Ìà àà àMr.€Gaerig:€à àThatððs€fine.ÌA:à àI€donððt€know€why€Dr.€OððSullivan€stated€it€in€those€words,€but€I€know€thatÏJim€could€get€himself€in€a€wheelchair€a€short€distance.Ìà àà àà à*à àà àà à*à àà àà à*Ìà àThe€above€record€does€not€reflect€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court,€butÏin€any€event,€we€do€not€see€how€this€testimony€affected€the€juryððs€verdict€orÏresulted€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b).€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÓÓ4.à àDid€the€learned€Trial€Judge€commit€reversible€error€in€fifteen€rulingsÏsustaining€general€objections€contrary€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€RuleÏ103(a)(1)?ÌÌÓÓà àFinally,€Chase€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€sustaining€fifteen€of€theÍdefendantsðð€counselððs€general€objections.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€defendants,€on€the€other€hand,Ïcontend€that€the€nature€of€the€objections€was€obvious€from€their€context.€€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provide€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òRule€103.€€Rulings€on€evidence.ó ó€ð"ð€(a)€Effect€ofÏErroneous€Ruling.€ð"ð€Error€may€not€be€predicatedÏupon€a€ruling€which€admits€or€excludes€evidenceÏunless€a€substantial€right€of€the€party€is€affected,€and€Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€Objection.€ð"ð€In€case€the€ruling€is€one€admittingÏevidence,€a€timely€objection€or€motion€to€strikeÏappears€of€record,€stating€the€specific€ground€ofÏobjection€if€the€specific€ground€was€not€apparent€fromÏthe€context;€or€Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€Offer€of€Proof.€ð"ð€In€case€the€ruling€is€oneÏexcluding€evidence,€the€substance€of€the€evidence€andÏthe€specific€evidentiary€basis€supporting€admissionÏwere€made€known€to€the€court€by€offer€or€wereÏapparent€from€the€context.€€ÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€103.€€Ìà àThe€record€reveals€that€Chase€did€not€make€offers€of€proof€of€any€kind€onÏthe€majority€of€the€objections€that€he€asserts€the€trial€court€erred€in€sustaining,Ïnor€did€he€show€ð ðthe€specific€evidentiary€basis€supporting€admissionðð€of€theÏexcluded€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2).€€Thus,€we€have€no€way€of€knowingÏwhether€the€evidence€was€improperly€excluded.€€€In€the€absence€of€an€offer€ofÏproof€and€the€inclusion€of€the€testimony€in€the€record,€this€Court€cannotÍconsider€the€alleged€errors.€€òòò òDavis€v.€Halló óóó,€920€S.W.2d€213,€218€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995)(citing€òòò òBrown€v.€Weikó óóó,€725€S.W.2d€938,€948€(Tenn.€App.€1983);€Ïòòò òValentine€v.€Conchemco,€Inc.ó óóó,€588€S.W.2d€871,€876€(Tenn.€App.€1979)).€€€Ìà àWe€also€note€that€some€of€the€objections€relate€to€the€issue€of€damagesÏand€that,€consequently,€these€arguments€have€been€pretermitted.€€€As€to€theÏremaining€objections€with€which€Chase€takes€issue,€we€find€that€in€severalÏinstances€the€defendantsðð€counsel€objected€during€a€deposition€and€gave€specificÏreasons€for€the€objection,€so€as€to€preserve€his€objection€for€the€record.€€InÏother€instances€the€nature€of€the€objection€was€plainly€obvious€from€the€contextÏin€which€the€objection€was€made.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court€specifically€stated€thatÏin€the€absence€of€a€specific€objection,€the€court€would€presume€the€nature€of€anÏobjection€to€be€as€to€the€relevancy€of€the€matter.€€In€any€event,€Chase€has€notÏset€forth€that€the€alleged€errors€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€thanÏnot€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€ÏT.R.A.P.€36(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€appealÏare€assessed€against€the€appellant.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó ó