ÿWPC0 òצø"›Ð ̈РÌ»hr›<õáæÊ—(WH@­!ës,ìëëd=µÌ›ÀŒ´NJÝàdmÀÐ’B.’í­Ö?í­¸—XÓ“—„,ãð ,EkX–ùâQX® ä&×…“iZ¦"“’ ’Ñ–$t¥2Ǭ J‹Gx®‹póy#}»ÕTE¸Îæ©^A­fš¯vy¯ëù¨áf0»hÄ>5° µX$Dõ "nxc™ð!ÏN™Gmw øŒèæfH9®\íÈŽb%ÍUÇkê•ßÊoçηŽy×Éf:%WJÚ®R¬ÙþÇ(ÚPÚn¦vQ»Ø©dC¹ÂTÜ´‘`Ò{!-ÆÓ¦\[%fÙ®­éPmÙ©QÖ ^1¥%s}Æ<ðXy=Û Žý†-˜S,ù_Í+’Ô‚†¢žÖâšqX+  èbCR”ÌŒõE;jÔ«“FyhÎf)T eê„îˆo~ôÂ8ôØðÃ2!Ì]xt)³Ý?ÜqÄy³Wß(b½ò¼—°ñƒMCùLÞbMu¸M»’JìJcöà+ +ÑÛ³©…T—H®yP‰Vçî?^=67´ý²Ï¹f”òȲEDÌsÂ=ɱ-«c„ãx.ÕW×E¡O £Xò&wJ(4N(€b(â*ñ* mó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*ó*b + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0ë++++ Bý+ý+ 0¤, D3¾, D-ñ, 0K-- ASi-Ƽ- 0¤‚. 0D&/ A«j/˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt [Ý ƒRæè$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€Tennessee€General€Assembly€created€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€and€vested€it€with€the€authorityÐ ° Ðto€hear€monetary€claims€filed€against€the€state€based€upon€the€conduct€of€state€employees.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€9„8„301,Ð qÁ Є305€(2003);€òòsee€also€Stewart€v.€Stateóó,€33€S.W.3d€785,€790€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€Commission€has€exclusive€jurisdictionÐ 2‚ Ðto€hear€claims€pertaining€to€negligence€in€the€design,€inspection,€and€maintenance€of€state€highways,€as€well€as€suitsÐ óC Ðalleging€the€existence€of€a€dangerous€condition€on€such€highways.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)ð!ð(J)€(2003).€€ð ðForÐ ´ Ðcauses€of€action€arising€in€tort,€the€state€shall€only€be€liable€for€damages€up€to€the€sum€of€three€hundred€thousand€dollarsÐ uÅ Ð($300,000)€per€claimant€and€one€million€dollars€($1,000,000)€per€occurrence.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(e)€(2003).€Ð 6 † Ð ìÝ ƒRæè$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€July€2000,€Ô_ÔTDOTÔ_Ô€paved€the€shoulders€along€Highway€57€where€this€accident€occurred.€€According€to€StanÐ ° ÐReynolds,€a€Ô_ÔTDOTÔ_Ô€crew€manager€working€in€Ô_ÔMcNairyÔ_Ô€County€at€the€time,€the€paving€effort€was€part€of€a€larger€initiativeÐ qÁ Ðlaunched€by€the€state€in€1994€to€save€costs€associated€with€continuously€readjusting€the€gravel€shoulders€along€the€stateððsÐ 2‚ Ðhighways.€€The€state€offered€no€objection€to€Mr.€Reynoldsðð€testimony€regarding€the€paving€initiative€at€trial.€ ¦Ý ƒRæè$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€ð ðThe€state€may€assert€any€and€all€defenses,€including€common€law€defenses,€which€would€have€been€availableÐ ° Ðto€the€officer€or€employee€in€an€action€against€such€an€individual€based€upon€the€same€occurrence.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð qÁ Ððð€9„8„307(d)€(2003).€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5i)É~~1Ï (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à E Ý ƒRæè$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Administrator€cited€to€òòRue€v.€Stateóó,€372€So.2d€1197€(La.€1979),€and€òòPayne€v.€Louisiana€Department€ofÐ ° ÐTransportationóó,€424€So.2d€324€(La.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€Administrator€asserts€that€these€cases€stand€for€the€proposition€thatÐ qÁ Ðð ðdriving€onto€a€shoulder€in€and€of€itself€is€not€negligence€that€bars€a€recovery€for€injuries€caused€by€a€defectiveÐ 2‚ Ðshoulder.ðð€€Subsequent€Louisiana€cases,€however,€have€effectively€overruled€òòRueóó€and€its€progeny:Ð óC ÐÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àThe€trial€judge€found€that€Ganttððs€inadvertent€straying€from€the€highwayÐ ´ Ðdid€not€constitute€negligence€under€òòRue€v.€State€Department€of€Highways,€supraóó.€Ð uÅ ÐThe€supreme€court€in€òòRueóó€held€that€inadvertent€straying€onto€the€shoulder€did€notÐ 6 † Ðconstitute€such€substandard€conduct€as€to€bar€a€motorist[ðð]s€recovery€in€a€defectiveÐ ÷ G Ðshoulder€case.€€Ð ¸  Ðà ¸ àòòRueóó€is€no€longer€viable€in€light€of€the€subsequent€adoption€of€comparativeÐ y É  Ðfault.€.€.€.We€believe€one€of€the€major€reasons€for€the€result€reached€in€òòRueóó€was€theÐ : Š  Ðharshness€of€the€total€bar€to€recovery€which€resulted€from€the€application€ofÐ û K  Ðcontributory€negligence.€€In€order€to€avoid€this€harsh€result,€the€Court€concluded€theÐ ¼  Ðconduct€of€the€motorist€in€inadvertently€straying€off€the€road€did€not€constituteÐ }Í  Ðnegligence€which€would€bar€recovery.€€We€believe€the€major€policy€considerationsÐ >Ž  Ðbehind€òòRueóó€were€.€.€.€to€provide€the€State€with€an€economic€incentive€to€maintainÐ ÿO  Ðhighway€shoulders€in€a€safe€condition€and€to€place€liability€upon€the€State,€whoseÐ À  Ðconduct€created€a€far€greater€risk€of€harm€to€others€than€did€the€motoristððs€conduct.€Ð Ñ  ÐLike€the€court€in€òòTurneróó,€we€believe€these€legitimate€interests€can€now€beÐ B’  Ðaccomplished€by€the€application€of€comparative€fault,€which€has€the€additionalÐ S Ðadvantage€of€achieving€a€more€equitable€result,€with€each€party€bearing€the€burdenÐ Ä Ðof€its€proportionate€degree€of€fault.€€Accordingly,€the€rule€established€in€òòRue€óóis€noÐ …Õ Ðlonger€necessary.€€For€these€reasons,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€thatÐ F– Ðsuch€cases€are€now€governed€by€the€comparative€fault€doctrine€[under€the€LouisianaÐ W ÐCode].€€Ð È ÐÓ °©ÓÓ °›ÓòòHood€v.€Stateóó,€587€So.2d€755,€759ð!ð60€(La.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔMottonÔ_Ô€v.€Travelers€Ins.€Co.óó,€484€So.2d€816€(La.€Ct.Ð ‰Ù ÐApp.€1986));€òòsee€also€Ô_ÔCullivanÔ_Ô€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,€428€So.2d€1231,€1238€(La.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€ NÝ ƒRæè$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€We€are€not€asked€on€appeal€to€examine€the€Commissionerððs€finding€that€the€state€was€negligent€in€maintainingÐ ° Ðthe€roadway€at€issue€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€6hö0ê:i¢×+00 vÝ ƒRæè$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Mr.€Ô_ÔChaneyÔ_Ôððs€deposition€testimony€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit€at€the€proceeding€before€the€CommissionerÐ ° Ðsince€he€lives€in€Texas€and€was€unable€to€attend€the€trial.€€As€such,€we€ð ðmay€make€an€independent€assessment€of€theÐ qÁ Ðcredibility€of€the€documentary€proof€.€.€.€without€affording€deference€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ðð€€òòWells€v.€Tenn.€Bd.Ð 2‚ Ðof€Regentsóó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783ð!ð84€(Tenn.€1999).3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2æè$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Œé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­ìò»»Ô d(|3? $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Œé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3? $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Œé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Œé»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Œé»»»ÔÑ8€Ñ×XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡îwVŒéÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Œé»îîwV #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓJULY€22,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÑ×X»¼ŒéÔÌò òÔ#†¼Œé»XXÑ×ð#ÔBRIAN€DEAS,€ADMINISTRATORòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÑ×X»¼ŒéÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€20„100„413€€€€€€Nancy€Miller„Herron,€CommissionerÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02891„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€19,€2004Ð ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X:–XXXÑ×ÔThis€case€involves€a€wrongful€death€action€filed€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€in€the€TennesseeÐ V¦  ÐClaims€Commission€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€and€(J).€Ð ? ÐAppellant€is€the€administrator€of€the€estate€of€the€deceased€driver€of€an€automobile€involved€in€aÐ (x Ðcollision€with€another€vehicle€on€a€state€highway.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€Commissioner€ruled€thatÐ a Ðthe€state€was€negligent€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)€in€inspecting€and€maintaining€the€section€ofÐ úJ Ðhighway€at€issue,€the€shoulder€of€the€highway€did€not€constitute€a€dangerous€condition€under€sectionÐ ã3 Ð9„8„307(a)(1)(J),€the€Appellant€failed€to€prove€that€the€condition€of€the€highway€was€the€proximateÐ Ì Ðcause€of€the€decedentððs€untimely€death,€and€the€Appellant€was€not€entitled€to€recover€becauseÐ µ Ðdecedentððs€negligence€in€causing€the€accident€was€at€least€fifty€percent€(50%).€The€Appellant€filedÐ žî Ða€notice€of€appeal€to€this€Court,€arguing€that€the€Commissionerððs€findings€constitute€error.€€For€theÐ ‡× Ðreasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm.€€Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†XÑ×XXX:–#ÔÔ#†¼Œé»XXÑ×q#ÔÔ‡XÑ×X»¼ŒéÔÌÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Claims€Commission€Affirmedó óÐ +{ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Œé»àXÑ×Ó #ÔÔ‡XÑ×X.¼ŒéÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ þN Ðand€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ç 7  ÐÌEverett€B.€Gibson,€Memphis,€TN;€Patrick€J.€Smith,€Columbus,€OH,€for€AppellantÐ ¹" " ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€RebeccaÐ ‹$Û$ ÐLyford,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ t%Ä % ÐÓu ÓÌò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Œé»XXÑפ #ÔÔ‡XÑ×X»¼ŒéÔÐ ¬-ü(.ý ЇòòóóÔ#†¼Œé»XXÑ×í #ÔÔ‡XÑ×X»¼ŒéÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X:–XXXÑ×Ôà@t t ìàFactual€Background€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ ° ÐÌÌó óà0  à€€€€€€On€September€28,€1999,€Leslie€Yovan€(ð ðDecedentðð),€a€young€attorney€from€Ohio,€was€Ðn¾(#(# Ðtraveling€westbound€on€Highway€57€in€McNairy€County,€Tennessee,€on€her€way€to€the€MemphisÐ W§ Ðairport€to€catch€a€return€flight€to€Ohio.€€Mr.€James€Chaney€(ð ðMr.€Chaneyðð)€was€driving€hisÐ @  Ðemployerððs€truck€eastbound€on€Highway€57€on€his€way€to€a€factory.€€Shortly€after€rounding€a€curveÐ ) y Ðon€Highway€57,€Decedentððs€right€tires€entered€onto€the€shoulder€of€the€highway.€€While€attemptingÐ  b Ðto€steer€back€onto€the€paved€surface,€Decedent€lost€control€of€her€vehicle€and€drove€into€the€path€ofÐ û K ÐMr.€Chaneyððs€truck.€€Mr.€Chaney€was€unable€to€stop€in€time€and€collided€with€the€passenger€sideÐ ä 4  Ðof€Decedentððs€car,€resulting€in€her€death.€Ð Í   ÐÌà  àHighway€57€is€a€state€highway€constructed€and€maintained€by€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÐ Ÿï  ÐTransportation€(ð ðTDOTðð),€a€department€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€The€American€Association€ofÐ ˆØ  ÐState€Highway€and€Transportation€(ð ðAASHTOðð)€creates€standards€governing,€among€other€things,Ð qÁ  Ðthe€shoulders€of€roadways.€€The€AASHTO€standards€require€that€the€shoulder€of€the€roadway€remainÐ Zª  Ðlevel€with€the€paved€surface€traversed€by€motor€vehicles.€€These€standards€have€been€adopted€byÐ C“ ÐTDOT€and€applied€to€Tennesseeððs€state€highway€system.€€At€the€time€of€this€accident,€the€shoulderÐ ,| Ðon€Highway€57€where€this€accident€occurred€was€gravel.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Over€time,€the€gravel€along€the€highwayÐ e Ðwould€dissipate€due€to€normal€wear€and€settlement.€€Throughout€any€given€year,€TDOT€wouldÐ þN Ðreadjust€the€gravel€shoulder€along€Highway€57€in€order€to€make€it€flush€with€the€paved€surface.€€InÐ ç7 Ðaddition€to€the€gravel€shoulders,€this€particular€stretch€of€highway€did€not€have€any€signs€postedÐ Ð  Ðwarning€motorists€of€a€drop„off€along€the€shoulder.€Ð ¹  ÐÌà  àOn€September€12,€2000,€Brian€Deas€(ð ðAdministratorðð),€the€duly€appointed€administrator€ofÐ ‹Û ÐDecedentððs€estate,€filed€a€wrongful€death€action€against€TDOT€with€the€Tennessee€ClaimsÐ tÄ ÐCommission.׃ ”×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Administrator€alleged€that€TDOTððs€negligence€in€constructing€and€maintainingÐ ]­ ÐHighway€57,€as€well€as€its€failure€to€warn€motorists€of€a€drop„off,€combined€to€cause€the€death€ofÐ F– ÐDecedent.€€Specifically,€Administrator€alleged€that€the€depth€of€the€drop„off€on€this€particular€stretchÐ / Ðâ âof€highway€caused€Decedent€to€lose€control€of€her€car€and€enter€into€the€path€of€Mr.€Chaneyððs€truck.€Ð h ÐThe€state€filed€an€answer€alleging€as€an€affirmative€defense€that€Decedentððs€negligence€in€operatingÐ ° Ðher€vehicle€barred€recovery€under€Tennesseeððs€comparative€fault€system.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р™é Ðâ âÌà  àCommissioner€Nancy€Miller„Herron€held€a€hearing€on€Administratorððs€claim€on€June€10,Ð k» Ð2003,€and€she€issued€her€ruling€on€October€23,€2003.€€The€greatest€area€of€contention€between€theÐ T¤ Ðparties€during€the€proceedings€below€concerned€the€exact€depth€of€the€drop„off€on€this€particularÐ =  Ðstretch€of€highway€and€whether€the€drop„off€or€driver€error€caused€the€Decedent€to€lose€control€ofÐ & v Ðher€vehicle.€€After€hearing€all€the€testimony€and€reviewing€the€exhibits€offered€by€the€parties,€theÐ  _ ÐCommissioner€noted€in€her€judgment€that€the€testimony€and€exhibits€reflected€a€wide€divergence€ofÐ ø H Ðpossible€depths,€ranging€from€less€than€one€inch€up€to€nine€inches.€€The€Commissionerððs€judgmentÐ á 1  Ðcontained€the€following€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law:€(1)€the€shoulder€drop„off€onÐ Ê   ÐHighway€57€had€a€depth€of€between€two€and€three€inches;€(2)€this€two€to€three€inch€drop„off€did€notÐ ³  Ðconstitute€a€ð ðdangerous€conditionðð€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(J);€(3)€the€drop„off€was€not€theÐ œì  Ðproximate€cause€of€Decedentððs€death;€and€(4)€Decedent€was€at€least€fifty€percent€(50%)€at€fault€inÐ …Õ  Ðcausing€the€accident,€thereby€barring€recovery€under€Tennesseeððs€comparative€fault€system.€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àAdministrator€filed€an€appeal€to€this€Court€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:Ð @ ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£·!ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€stateððs€negligence€in€maintaining€the€shoulder€of€the€highway€under€section€9„8„Ð b Ð307(a)(1)(I)€of€the€Tennessee€Code,€including€the€failure€to€warn€motorists€of€a€lowÐ ûK Ðshoulder,€is€the€proximate€cause€of€Decedentððs€death;݃3£·!ä!ÝŒÐä4(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£•#ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€condition€of€the€highway€shoulder€under€the€facts€presented€in€this€caseÐ Í Ðconstitutes€a€ð ðdangerous€conditionðð€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(J)€of€the€Tennessee€Code;€Ýƒ3£•#Â#݌ж(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£(%ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€a€presumption€of€due€care€applies€to€Decedentððs€act€of€driving€onto€the€shoulderÐ Ÿï Ðof€the€highway;݃3£(%U%݌ЈØ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£r&ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIVÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€ð ðsudden€emergency€doctrineðð€should€apply€when€the€operator€of€a€motorÐ qÁ Ðvehicle€allows€her€vehicle€to€cross€over€the€fog€line€and€onto€the€shoulder€of€the€highway,Ð Zª Ðand€there€is€no€competent€proof€that€she€was€negligent€in€doing€so;€and€à x àà Ð à݃3£r&Ÿ&ÝŒÐC“(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£x(ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚVÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€Commissionerððs€finding€of€negligence€ofÐ ,| Ðat€least€fifty€percent€(50%)€on€the€part€of€Decedent.݃3£x(¥(ÝŒÐe(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌò òÓ  ÓStandard€of€ReviewÐ ç 7 Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€legislature€provided€that€the€decisions€of€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€areÐ º" ! Ðappealable€to€this€Court€as€follows:Ð £#ó" ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThe€decisions€of€the€individual€commissioners€or,€when€rendered,Ð u%Å $ Ðdecisions€of€the€entire€commission€regarding€claims€on€the€regularÐ ^&®!% Ðdocket€may€be€appealed€to€the€Tennessee€court€of€appeals€pursuantÐ G'—"& Ðto€the€same€rules€of€appellate€procedure€which€govern€interlocutoryÐ 0(€#' Ðappeals€and€appeals€from€final€judgments€in€trial€court€civil€actionsÐ ° Ð.€.€.€.Ð ™é ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„403(a)(1)€(2003).€€Accordingly,€we€are€bound€by€the€following€standard€ofÐ k» Ðreview:Ð T¤ ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓSince€this€is€a€nonjury€case,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novo€óóupon€theÐ =  Ðrecord€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€theÐ & v ÐCommission.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findingsÐ  _ Ðwe€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.Ð ø H ÐÌÓ °Ž-ÓÓ °€-ÓòòSanders€v.€Stateóó,€783€S.W.2d€948,€951€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(quoting€òòLearue€v.€Stateóó,€757€S.W.2dÐ Ê   Ð3,€6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987));€òòsee€also€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€(2003).€€ð ðBecause€the€[Commissioner]Ð ³  Ðis€in€a€better€position€to€weigh€and€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€who€testify€orally,€weÐ œì  Ðgive€great€weight€to€the€[Commissionerððs]€findings€on€issues€involving€credibility€of€witnesses.ðð€Ð …Õ  ÐòòRandolph€v.€Randolphóó,€937€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòGillock€v.€Bd.€of€ProfððlÐ n¾  ÐResponsibilityóó,€656€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1983)).€€ð ð[W]hen€we€review€factual€findings€underÐ W§  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€we€will€not€reverse€findings€that€hinge€on€the€witnessesðð€credibility€unlessÐ @ Ðthe€record€contains€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€necessarily€negating€witnessÐ )y Ðcredibility.ðð€€òòPool€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€566,€569€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Ð b ÐÌÓ  Óò òProximate€CausationÐ ä4 ÐÌó óÓ  Óà0  à€€€€€On€appeal,€Administrator€argues€that€the€Commissioner€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€the€Ð¸(#(# Ðnegligent€maintenance€of€the€highway€shoulder€by€the€state€was€the€proximate€cause€of€DecedentððsÐ ¡ñ Ðdeath.€€At€trial,€both€sides€conceded€that€Decedent€overcorrected€as€she€drove€her€vehicle€back€ontoÐ ŠÚ Ðthe€roadway.€€The€parties€disagree,€however,€on€what€caused€Decedent€to€overcorrect.€€Ð sà ÐÌà  à€€€€€€In€order€for€Administrator€to€prove€a€cause€of€action€based€on€the€stateððs€negligence,€heÐ E• Ðmust€prove€the€following€elements:Ð .~ ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Ó(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conductÐ  P Ðfalling€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€amounting€to€a€breachÐ é 9 Ðof€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€in€fact;€and€(5)Ð Ò!"  Ðproximate,€or€legal,€cause.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð »" ! ÐÌÓ °86ÓÓ °*6ÓòòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€774€(Tenn.€1991)€(citations€omitted).€€ð ð[I]t€is€not€enoughÐ $Ý# Ðto€prove€the€existence€of€a€dangerous€condition€on€the€highway,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„Ð v%Æ $ Ð307(a)(1)(J),€or€to€prove€that€the€State€negligently€approved,€constructed,€and€maintained€theÐ _&¯!% Ðhighway,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I).ðð€€òòBelcher€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2003„00642„Ð H'˜"& ÐCOA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€827,€at€*15ð!ð16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€25,€2003).€€TheÐ 1(#' Ðplaintiff€must€also€prove€that€those€conditions€were€the€cause„in„fact€and€the€proximate€cause€of€theÐ )j$( Ðaccident.€€òòIdóó.€at€*16.€€Our€supreme€court€has€formulated€the€following€three„prong€test€forÐ ° Ðdetermining€whether€a€defendantððs€negligence€constitutes€a€proximate€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury:Ð ™é ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Ó(1)€the€tortfeasorððs€conduct€must€have€been€a€ð ðsubstantial€factorðð€inÐ k» Ðbringing€about€the€harm€complained€of;€and€(2)€there€is€no€rule€orÐ T¤ Ðpolicy€that€should€€relieve€the€wrongdoer€from€liability€because€of€theÐ =  Ðmanner€in€which€the€negligence€has€resulted€in€the€harm;€and€(3)€theÐ & v Ðharm€giving€rise€to€the€action€could€have€reasonably€been€foreseen€orÐ  _ Ðanticipated€by€a€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€and€prudence.Ð ø H ÐÌÓ °Í;ÓÓ °¿;ÓòòMcClenahanóó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775€(citations€omitted).€€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€presented€in€this€case€clearly€demonstrated€that€a€drop„off€existed€in€theÐ œì  Ðshoulder€of€the€roadway€where€the€accident€occurred.€€The€testimony€from€Administratorððs€ownÐ …Õ  Ðwitnesses,€however,€undermines€the€contention€that€this€drop„off€was€a€substantial€factor€in€causingÐ n¾  ÐDecedent€to€overcorrect.€€Administratorððs€expert,€Dr.€Leighton€Sissom€(ð ðDr.€Sissomðð),€testified€thatÐ W§  ÐDecedent€overcorrected€because€the€drop„off€put€pressure€on€the€wheels€of€Decedentððs€vehicle€asÐ @ Ðshe€attempted€to€re„enter€the€roadway.€€He€also€stated,€however,€that€he€would€expect€to€findÐ )y Ðevidence€of€ð ðscrubbingðð€on€the€tires€and€pavement€where€this€contact€occurred.€€When€asked€if€heÐ b Ðfound€any€evidence€of€ð ðscrubbingðð€in€this€case,€Dr.€Sissom€testified€that€he€had€nothing€other€thanÐ ûK ÐMr.€Chaneyððs€statements€that€the€vehicleððs€tires€rubbed€against€the€pavement.€Dr.€Sissom€alsoÐ ä4 Ðtestified€that€over„correction€depends€on€many€factors,€and€he€could€not€state€at€what€depth€a€drop„Ð Í Ðoff€would€cause€an€over„correction.€€Mr.€Nate€Lenow,€a€private€investigator€hired€by€AdministratorÐ ¶ Ðto€investigate€this€accident,€testified€that€he€went€to€the€scene€of€the€accident€on€October€11,€1999.€Ð Ÿï ÐMr.€Lenow€testified€that€he€saw€some€markings€on€the€pavement,€but€could€not€say€that€they€cameÐ ˆØ Ðfrom€the€Decedentððs€car.€€Mr.€Lenow€also€went€to€view€Decedentððs€car€after€this€accident€and€statedÐ qÁ Ðthat€he€looked€for€cuts€and€scrapes€on€the€tires,€but€he€saw€none.€€Jimmy€Lambert€(ð ðTrooperÐ Zª ÐLambertðð),€a€state€trooper€with€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,€investigated€this€accident.€€TrooperÐ C“ ÐLambert€testified€that€he€found€yaw€marks€where€Decedent€attempted€to€re„enter€the€roadway,€andÐ ,| Ðhe€found€that€Decedentððs€vehicle€started€sliding€sideways€before€it€came€back€onto€the€pavement.€Ð e ÐAdministrator€alleges€on€appeal€that€there€is€no€evidence€showing€Decedent€applied€her€brakes€andÐ þN Ðthat€the€Commissioner€failed€to€consider€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Chaney,€the€only€eye„witness.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ç 7 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà  àð ðThe€State€has€a€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€care€under€all€the€attendant€circumstances€inÐ ¹" ! Ðplanning,€designing,€constructing€and€maintaining€the€State€system€of€highways.ðð€€òòGoodermote€v.Ð ¢#ò" ÐStateóó,€856€S.W.2d€715,€720€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(I)).€€ThisÐ ‹$Û# Ðpolicy€is€reflected€in€the€industry€standards€adopted€by€TDOT,€as€testified€to€by€the€stateððs€ownÐ t%Ä $ Ðwitness,€requiring€that€the€shoulders€of€state€highways€remain€flush€with€the€traveling€surface.€Ð ]&­!% ÐAlthough€one€representative€from€TDOT€testified€that€TDOT€received€no€complaints€concerningÐ F'–"& Ðthe€drop„off€from€Highway€57€prior€to€this€accident,€another€TDOT€employee€stated€that€they€haveÐ ° Ðto€ð ðpullðð€the€gravel€shoulders€two€to€three€times€per€year€to€keep€it€level€with€the€roadway.€Ð ™é ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThe€foreseeability€requirement€is€not€so€strict€as€to€require€theÐ k» Ðtortfeasor€to€foresee€the€exact€manner€in€which€the€injury€takes€place,Ð T¤ Ðprovided€it€is€determined€that€the€tortfeasor€could€foresee,€or€throughÐ =  Ðthe€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence€should€have€foreseen,€the€generalÐ & v Ðmanner€in€which€the€injury€or€loss€occurred.€€ð ðThe€fact€that€anÐ  _ Ðaccident€may€be€freakish€does€not€per€se€make€it€unpredictable€orÐ ø H Ðunforeseen.ðð€€It€is€sufficient€that€harm€in€the€abstract€couldÐ á 1  Ðreasonably€be€foreseen.€€Ð Ê   ÐÌÓ °-LÓÓ °LÓòòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€1991)€(citations€omitted).€€While€an€accidentÐ œì  Ðof€this€nature€is€clearly€foreseeable€based€upon€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€testimony€of€theÐ …Õ  Ðstateððs€own€witnesses,€Administrator€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€shoulder€of€the€highway€was€aÐ n¾  Ðsubstantial€factor€in€bringing€about€this€accident€under€the€test€formulated€in€òòMcClenahanóó.€€€òòCf.Ð W§  ÐGoodermoteóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€722ð!ð23.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€Commissioner€thoroughly€reviewed€and€weighedÐ b Ðeach€witnessesðð€testimony€regarding€the€cause€of€this€accident.€€Issues€of€proximate€causation€areÐ ûK Ðleft€to€the€discretion€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòMcClenahanóó,€806€S.W.2d€at€775.€€ð ðResolving€theÐ ä4 Ðconflicting€testimony€of€experts€falls€within€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòAtkins€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð Í ÐE2003„01255„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€240,€at€*16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€14,€2004)Ð ¶ Ð(citing€òòState€v.€Flakeóó,€88€S.W.3d€540€(Tenn.€2002)).€€The€Commissionerððs€opinion€clearly€indicatesÐ Ÿï Ðthat€she€considered€Mr.€Chaneyððs€testimony€by€assessing€its€effect€on€Dr.€Sissomððs€conclusions.€TheÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€in€this€case€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Commissionerððs€finding€that€AdministratorÐ qÁ Ðfailed€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€drop„off€between€the€shoulder€and€theÐ Zª Ðroadway€was€the€proximate€cause€of€Decedentððs€death.€€Ð C“ Ðà  àÌÓ  Óò òThe€Shoulder€Drop„off€as€a€Dangerous€ConditionÐ e ÐÌó óÓ  Óà0  à€€€Administrator€asserts€that€the€Commissioner€failed€to€consider€the€depth€of€the€drop„off€Ðé 9(#(# Ðalong€the€entire€150€foot€section€of€Highway€57€at€issue€in€this€case.€€According€to€Administrator,Ð Ò!"  Ðthe€Commissioner€only€considered€the€evidence€relating€to€the€depth€of€the€drop„off€whereÐ »" ! ÐDecedentððs€vehicle€re„entered€the€roadway.€€Administrator€argues€the€Commissioner€failed€to€takeÐ ¤#ô" Ðinto€account€Mr.€Chaneyððs€testimony,€showing€that€the€drop„off€where€Decedentððs€vehicle€firstÐ $Ý# Ðentered€the€shoulder€was€much€deeper.€Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(J)€does€not€set€forth€what€will€qualifyÐ H'˜"& Ðas€a€ð ðdangerous€condition.ðð€€òòSweeney€v.€Stateóó,€768€S.W.2d€253,€255€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€òòSweeneyóó,€ourÐ 1(#' Ðsupreme€court€stated€that€the€following€factors€should€be€considered€when€determining€whether€aÐ )j$( Ðð ðdangerous€conditionðð€exists€on€a€state€highway€under€the€statute:€(1)€the€physical€aspects€of€theÐ *S%) Ðâ âroadway,€(2)€the€frequency€of€accidents€on€a€particular€stretch€of€roadway,€and€(3)€the€testimony€ofÐ ì*<&* Ðexpert€witnesses€in€arriving€at€this€factual€determination.€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòHolmes€v.€Christopheróó,€435Ð ° ÐSo.2d€1022€(La.€App.€4th€Cir.€1983)).€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àRegarding€the€physical€aspects€of€the€roadway,€the€Commissionerððs€findings€do€state€thatÐ k» Ðher€focus€was€upon€the€point€where€Decedentððs€vehicle€reentered€the€roadway.€€The€emphasis€onÐ T¤ Ðthis€location,€however,€is€warranted€given€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case.€€As€noted€by€theÐ =  ÐCommissioner,€the€testimony€from€all€of€the€witnesses€regarding€the€exact€depth€of€the€shoulder€wasÐ & v Ðvery€contradictory.€€Mr.€Chaney,€the€only€eye„witness€to€the€accident,€testified€on€direct€examinationÐ  _ Ðthat€the€drop„off€where€Decedentððs€car€first€left€the€roadway€was€approximately€six€to€eight€inches.Ð ø H ÐOn€cross„examination,€however,€Mr.€Chaney€admitted€that€he€could€not€accurately€state€what€theÐ á 1  Ðdepth€of€the€drop„off€was€because€he€did€not€walk€over€and€inspect€or€measure€the€drop„offÐ Ê   Ðfollowing€the€accident,€but€merely€viewed€it€from€a€distance.€€In€addition,€none€of€the€witnesses€whoÐ ³  Ðinvestigated€this€accident,€including€Administratorððs€own€expert,€was€able€to€determine€the€exactÐ œì  Ðlocation€of€where€Decedentððs€vehicle€left€the€roadway.€€There€was€also€conflicting€testimonyÐ …Õ  Ðregarding€the€shape€of€the€drop„off€and€its€potential€effect€on€Decedentððs€vehicle.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àMr.€Richard€Lambert,€who€lives€along€this€particular€stretch€of€Highway€57,€testifiedÐ @ Ðregarding€the€frequency€of€accidents.€€Mr.€Lambert€testified€that€five€to€six€accidents€have€occurredÐ )y Ðalong€the€highway€over€a€period€of€thirteen€years,€but€he€could€not€say€what€caused€the€otherÐ b Ðwrecks.€€Mr.€Lambert€stated€that€of€all€the€accidents€that€did€occur€on€this€particular€stretch€ofÐ ûK Ðroadway,€none€of€those€vehicles€overcorrected€and€crossed€into€the€other€lane€of€traffic.€Mr.€StanÐ ä4 ÐReynolds,€a€TDOT€employee,€testified€that€prior€to€this€accident€he€was€not€aware€of€anyone€beingÐ Í Ðinjured€in€an€automobile€accident€due€to€a€drop„off€on€the€shoulder€of€this€particular€highway.€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àThe€crucial€factor,€based€upon€the€testimony€of€Administratorððs€own€expert€witness,€was€theÐ ˆØ Ðpoint€at€which€the€vehicleððs€tires€made€contact€with€the€drop„off€to€produce€an€over„correction.€€Dr.Ð qÁ ÐSissom,€in€an€attempt€to€show€the€importance€of€the€drop„offððs€effect€on€Decedentððs€second€attemptÐ Zª Ðto€re„enter€the€roadway,€provided€the€following€testimony:€Ð C“ ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓQ.à0 ¸ àAll€right.€€Now,€letððs€turn€to€the€opinions€you€stated€on€theÐ e Ðsecond€page€of€Trial€Exhibit€16.€€What€happened€after€theÐ þN Ðvehicle€driven€by€Ms.€Yovan€left€the€pavement€and€ended€upÐ ç 7 Ðon€the€shoulder€in€your€opinion?ÐÐ!  ¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àMy€belief€is€she€experienced€this€startle€factor€that€I€talkedÐ ¹" ! Ðabout€a€moment€ago.€€When€the€vehicle€went€off€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðpavement,€suddenly€she€startled,€got€to€do€something€(sic).€Ð ‹$Û# ÐTried€to€steer€left.€€According€to€the€deposition€of€Mr.Ð t%Ä $ ÐChaney,€saw€that€she€didnððt€succeed.€€Tried€to€steer€left€again.€Ð ]&­!% ÐDid€succeed,€but€had€done€it€too€much€ð"ð€had€steered€tooÐ F'–"& Ðmuch€by€that€time€and€came€back€up€on€the€roadway.€€In€theÐ /(#' Ðmeantime€traveled€some€two€seconds,€according€to€Mr.Ð )h$( ÐChaney,€at€whatever€her€speed€was€on€the€shoulder€of€theÐ *Q%) Ðroad.Ðê*:&*¸ x¸ x ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ÐÓ °¦fÓÓ °˜fÓAdministrator€directs€our€attention€to€Mr.€Chaneyððs€testimony€that€after€the€accident€he€walked€overÐ ° Ðto€the€ambulance€and€was€able€to€observe€the€depth€and€condition€of€the€shoulder.€€Mr.€ChaneyððsÐ ™é Ðown€testimony,€describing€how€the€Decedent€overcorrected€on€her€second€attempt€to€re„enter€theÐ ‚Ò Ðroadway,€strengthens€the€Commissionerððs€reliance€on€the€location€where€Decedentððs€car€re„enteredÐ k» Ðthe€roadway€to€resolve€the€critical€factual€issue;€whether€the€tires€of€Decedentððs€vehicle€hitting€theÐ T¤ Ðdrop„off€or€driver€error€caused€the€accident€òòat€the€moment€of€over„correctionóó.€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidenceÐ  _ Ðpreponderates€against€the€Commissionerððs€factual€finding€that€the€drop„off€where€Decedent€re„Ð ø H Ðentered€the€roadway€was€not€a€dangerous€condition€under€section€9„8„307(a)(1)(J).€€Ð á 1  ÐÌÓ  Óò òComparative€FaultÐ ³  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà0  àWe€note€that€the€final€issues€raised€by€Administrator€on€appeal€focus€upon€theÐ ‡×  ÐCommissionerððs€application€of€Tennesseeððs€comparative€fault€system.ÐpÀ (#(# Ðò òÌó óÓ °ÓÓ °ÓMany€traditional,€common„law€tort€concepts€lost€their€independentÐ C“ Ðexistence€after€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€embraced€the€doctrineÐ ,| Ðof€comparative€fault€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.Ð e Ð1992).€€In€the€years€since€the€òòMcIntyre€óódecision,€the€contributoryÐ þN Ðnegligence€doctrine,€the€last€clear€chance€doctrine,€the€suddenÐ ç7 Ðemergency€doctrine,€the€rescue€doctrine,€and€the€doctrine€ofÐ Ð  Ðsecondary€implied€assumption€of€the€risk€have€been€merged€into€theÐ ¹  Ðcomparative€fault€scheme€and€are€simply€factors€to€consider€whenÐ ¢ò Ðapportioning€fault€among€the€parties.€€Ð ‹Û ÐÌÓ °qpÓÓ °cpÓòòWinstead€v.€Goodlark€Regððl€Med.€Ctr.,€Inc.óó,€No.€M1997„00209„COA„R3„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.Ð ]­ ÐLEXIS€230,€at€*8ð!ð9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€4,€2000)€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€also€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,Ð F– Ð913€S.W.2d€150,€157€(Tenn.€1995).€€Therefore,€we€combine€these€issues€and€discuss€themÐ / Ðcollectively€in€this€section€of€the€opinion.€€€€ò òó óà À àÐ h ÐÌà  àAdministrator€first€argues€that€the€Commissioner€failed€to€consider€whether€a€presumptionÐ ê : Ðof€due€care€existed€as€to€Decedentððs€action€in€driving€onto€the€shoulder€of€the€roadway.€Ð Ó!#  ÐAdministrator€first€raised€the€issue€with€the€trial€court€in€his€post„trial€brief,€but€the€CommissionerððsÐ ¼" ! Ðopinion€does€not€state€whether€she€considered€this€doctrine€when€allocating€the€fault€between€theÐ ¥#õ" Ðparties.€€Since€the€Commissioner€made€no€factual€findings€regarding€this€issue,€we€review€the€recordòòÐ Ž$Þ# Ðde€novoóó€to€determine€whether€the€presumption€of€due€care€should€be€taken€into€consideration€whenÐ w%Ç $ Ðallocating€fault.€€òòBrooks€v.€Brooksóó,€992€S.W.2d€403,€404ð!ð05€(Tenn.€1999).Ð `&°!% ÐÌà  àAdministrator€relies€on€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòMemphis€Light,€Gas€&€Water€v.Ð 2(‚#' ÐGossóó,€where€the€court€stated€that€ð ð[i]n€the€absence€of€any€proof€as€to€what€caused€[a€driver]€to€veerÐ )k$( Ðher€car€onto€the€.€.€.€shoulder€of€the€road,€the€presumption€is€that€she€was€exercising€proper€care€forÐ *T%) Ðher€own€safety€but€such€presumption€is€no€evidence€of€[the€defendantððs]€negligence.ðð€€òòMemphisÐ í*=&* ÐLight,€Gas€&€Water€Div.€v.€Gossóó,€494€S.W.2d€766,€769€(Tenn.€1973)€(citing€òòStinson€v.€Danielóó,€414Ð Ö+&'+ ÐS.W.2d€7,€9€(Tenn.€1967)).€€ð ð[T]he€presumption€of€due€care€is€a€rebuttal€presumption€and€one€ofÐ ° Ðfact.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€770.€€ð ðThe€presumption€of€due€care€has€application€only€in€the€absence€of€evidence,Ð ™é Ðeither€direct€or€circumstantial,€showing€how€the€injury€was€received,€and€the€presumption€disappearsÐ ‚Ò Ðwhen€such€evidence€is€produced.ðð€€òòKeith€v.€Keithóó,€741€S.W.2d€911,€913€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)Ð k» Ð(citingòò€Nichols€v.€Smithóó,€111€S.W.2d€911€(Tenn.€1937));€òòsee€also€Seahorn€v.€Karróó,€242€S.W.2d€331,Ð T¤ Ð334€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1951).€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àConversely,€ð ðTennessee€has€long€recognized€that€the€doctrine€of€òòres€ipsa€loquitur€óóisÐ  _ Ðapplicable€to€certain€automobile€accidents.ðð€€òòHudson€v.€Steppóó,€393€S.W.2d€301,€302€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ø H Ð1965).€€In€setting€forth€the€parameters€of€the€doctrine€as€it€applies€to€automobile€accidents,€we€haveÐ á 1  Ðstated:Ð Ê   ÐÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àThe€maxim€òòres€ipsa€loquitur€óómeans€that€the€facts€of€theÐ ³  Ðoccurrence€evidence€negligence;€the€circumstances€unexplainedÐ œì  Ðjustify€an€inference€of€negligence.€€In€the€principle€of€proofÐ …Õ  Ðemployed,€a€case€of€òòres€ipsa€loquitur€óódoes€not€differ€from€an€ordinaryÐ n¾  Ðcase€of€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòRes€ipsa€loquitur€óóis€not€an€arbitraryÐ W§  Ðrule€but€rather€a€ð ðcommon€sense€appraisal€of€the€probative€value€ofÐ @ Ðcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòBoykin€v.€Chase€Bottling€Worksóó,€[222Ð )y ÐS.W.2d€889,€896€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1949)].€€Ð b Ðà ¸ àThis€maxim€does€not€generally€apply€to€motor€vehicleÐ ûK Ðaccidents,€but€it€may€apply€to€such€an€accident€where€theÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances€causing€it€were€within€driverððs€control€and€the€accidentÐ Í Ðwas€such€as€does€not€usually€occur€without€negligence.€€So€where€aÐ ¶ Ðmotor€vehicle,€without€apparent€cause,€runs€off€the€road€and€causesÐ Ÿï Ðharm,€the€normal€inference€is€that€the€driver€was€negligent,€and€òòresÐ ˆØ Ðipsa€loquitur€óóis€usually€held€to€apply.Ð qÁ ÐÌÓ °1ÓÓ °?ÓòòSullivan€v.€Crabtreeóó,€258€S.W.2d€782,€784€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1953).€€The€application€of€the€òòres€ipsaÐ C“ Ðloquitur€óódoctrine€merely€permits€the€fact€finder€ð ðto€choose€the€inference€of€defendantððs€negligenceÐ ,| Ðin€preference€to€other€permissible€or€reasonable€inferences.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€785.€€Ð e ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Administratorððs€own€expert€thwarted€the€application€of€a€presumptionÐ ç 7 Ðof€due€care€when€he€testified€as€follows:€€Ð Ð!   ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓQ.à0 ¸ àNow,€it€is€her€fault€that€she€went€off€the€road;€is€that€correct?Т#ò"¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àWell,€she€was€at€the€wheel,€so€clearly€she€was€driving€the€carÐ ‹$Û# Ðwhen€it€went€off€the€road.Ðt%Ä $¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àAnd€it€was€her€fault;€is€that€correct?Ð]&­!%¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àYes.ÐF'–"&¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ °°†ÓÓ °¢†ÓThe€stateððs€expert€testified€that€he€found€no€evidence€Decedent€was€impaired,€and€he€too€attributedÐ )h$( ÐDecedentððs€action€in€leaving€the€roadway€to€driver€error.€€Mr.€Chaney€testified€that€Decedent,€in€hisÐ *Q%) Ðopinion,€was€not€speeding€when€she€ran€off€the€roadway,€but€he€offered€no€testimony€as€to€why€herÐ ê*:&* Ðvehicle€suddenly€left€the€roadway€and€entered€onto€the€shoulder.€€Trooper€Lambert€testified€that€heÐ Ó+#'+ Ðwalked€back€up€the€roadway€about€200€feet€from€the€point€where€the€vehicle€re„entered€theÐ ° Ðpavement,€but€he€did€not€notice€any€road€hazards€that€could€have€caused€Decedent€to€leave€theÐ ™é Ðroadway.€€Sergeant€Tony€Scott€with€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€testified€that€he€looked€insideÐ ‚Ò ÐDecedentððs€car€after€the€accident€and€noticed€an€apple€with€a€fresh€bite€out€of€it,€suggesting€thatÐ k» ÐDecedent€was€eating€while€driving.€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àIn€his€brief,€Administrator€has€argued€for€the€application€of€decisions€reached€by€theÐ & v Ðappellate€courts€of€Louisiana.€€After€reviewing€these€decisions,€we€have€determined€that€they€areÐ  _ Ðunpersuasive€and€actually€undermine€Administratorððs€position.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Based€upon€our€review€of€theÐ ø H Ðrecord€and€applicable€Tennessee€law,€we€find€that€there€is€sufficient€circumstantial€evidence€in€thisÐ á 1  Ðcase€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€due€care.€€ð ð[T]he€presumption€that€deceased€was€acting€with€dueÐ Ê   Ðcare€is€contradicted€by€the€fact€that€a€vehicle€under€her€control€veered€off€the€pavement€.€.€.€and€intoÐ ³  Ðthe€path€of€an€oncoming€vehicle.ðð€€òòKeith€v.€Keithóó,€741€S.W.2d€911,€913€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€TheÐ œì  Ðòòres€ipsa€loquitur€óódoctrine€also€permits€us€to€infer€negligence€on€the€part€of€Decedent€in€bringingÐ …Õ  Ðabout€the€accident.€€òòSee€Sullivanóó,€258€S.W.2d€at€784.€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àNext,€Administrator€argues€that€the€Commissioner€erred€in€ruling€that€the€ð ðsuddenÐ @ Ðemergency€doctrineðð€was€inapplicable€in€this€case€because€Decedent€contributed€to€the€creation€ofÐ )y Ðthe€alleged€emergency.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€described€the€ð ðsudden€emergencyÐ b Ðdoctrineðð€as€follows:Ð ûK ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThe€sudden€emergency€doctrine,€which€has€now€been€subsumed€intoÐ ° ÐTennesseeððs€comparative€fault€scheme€.€.€.€recognizes€that€a€personÐ ™é Ðconfronted€with€a€sudden€or€unexpected€emergency€which€calls€forÐ ‚Ò Ðimmediate€action€is€not€expected€to€exercise€the€same€accuracy€ofÐ k» Ðjudgment€as€one€acting€under€normal€circumstances€who€has€time€forÐ T¤ Ðreflection€and€thought€before€acting.€.€.€.The€doctrine€no€longerÐ =  Ðconstitutes€a€defense€as€a€matter€of€law€but,€if€at€issue,€must€beÐ & v Ðconsidered€as€a€factor€in€the€total€comparative€fault€analysis.Ð  _ ÐÌÓ °f’ÓÓ °X’ÓòòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€157€(Tenn.€1995).€€ð ðOne€who€has€contributed€to€the€creation€ofÐ á 1  Ðthe€alleged€emergency€cannot€rely€on€the€sudden€emergency€doctrine.ðð€€òòKnowles€v.€Stateóó,€49€S.W.3dÐ Ê   Ð330,€337€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)€(citing€òòKowalski€v.€Eldridgeóó,€765€S.W.2d€746,€749€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ³  Ð1988)).€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àMotorists€using€the€roadways€in€this€state€have€a€duty€both€to€maintain€control€of€theirÐ n¾  Ðvehicles€and€to€maintain€a€proper€lookout.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„123(1)€(2003).€€As€statedÐ W§  Ðabove,€the€mere€fact€that€Decedentððs€vehicle€left€the€roadway€for€no€apparent€reason€allows€theÐ @ ÐCommissioner€to€infer€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€driver.€€òòSullivanóó,€258€S.W.2d€at€784;€òòsee€alsoÐ )y ÐCox€v.€Anderson€County€Highway€Depððtóó,€No.€E1999„01697„COA„R3„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXISÐ b Ð136,€at€*23ð!ð24€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€7,€2000).€€As€such,€it€was€not€error€for€the€Commissioner€toÐ ûK Ðrefuse€to€consider€the€ð ðsudden€emergency€doctrineðð€in€the€overall€comparative€fault€analysis.òò€Ð ä4 ÐCompare€Sullivan€v.€Crabtreeóó,€258€S.W.2d€782,€784€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1953)€òòand€Keith€v.€Keithóó,€741Ð Í ÐS.W.2d€911,€913€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)€òòwithóó€òòShivers€v.€Ramseyóó,€937€S.W.2d€945,€949ð!ð50€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¶ ÐApp.€1996).à ` àà ¸ àÐ Ÿï ÐÌà  àWe€finally€turn€to€Administratorððs€argument€that€the€Commissioner€erred€in€finding€thatÐ qÁ ÐDecedent€was€50%€or€more€at€fault€in€causing€the€accident.€€(Appellantððs€Br.€at€24).€€We€review€theÐ Zª ÐCommissionerððs€factual€findings€in€this€regard€òòde€novo€óówith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòCrossÐ C“ Ðv.€City€of€Memphisóó,€20€S.W.3d€642,€645€(Tenn.€2000).€€Although€Dr.€Sissom€testified€that€heÐ ,| Ðbelieved€the€condition€of€the€shoulder€was€the€sole€cause€of€Decedentððs€accident,€he€also€admittedÐ e Ðthat€Decedentððs€inattentive€driving€could€have€caused€her€to€overcorrect.€€€Dr.€Sissom€stated€that€aÐ þN Ðprudent€driver€who€encountered€a€drop„off€should€reduce€their€speed,€gently€apply€the€brakes,€andÐ ç 7 Ðslowly€attempt€to€re„enter€the€roadway.€€He€testified€that€if€Decedent€had€slowed€down€enough€heÐ Ð!   Ðwould€not€expect€to€see€an€over„correction.€€This€testimony€by€Administratorððs€expert€was€supportedÐ ¹" ! Ðby€the€testimony€from€the€stateððs€expert.€€Mr.€Grim€opined€that€driver€error€caused€this€accident,€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðhe€testified€that€both€the€Tennessee€and€Ohio€driverððs€manuals€advise€drivers€who€encounter€a€drop„Ð ‹$Û# Ðoff€to€execute€the€procedure€described€by€Dr.€Sissom.€Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àThe€trier€of€fact€has€considerable€discretion€when€allocating€fault€among€negligent€parties.€Ð F'–"& ÐòòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€also€Atkins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2003„Ð /(#' Ð01255„COA0„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€240,€at€*18€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€14,€2004).€€TheÐ )h$( ÐCommissioner,€as€evidenced€by€her€twenty„six€page€opinion,€thoroughly€reviewed€the€testimony€ofÐ *Q%) Ðthe€witnesses€and€each€exhibit€before€reaching€her€decision€in€this€case.€€Upon€reviewing€the€record,Ð ê*:&* Ðwe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Commissionerððs€finding€that€DecedentÐ Ó+#'+ Ðwas€50%€or€more€at€fault€in€this€cause,€thereby€barring€recovery€under€our€comparative€fault€system.€Ð ° ÐòòSee€McIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52,€57€(Tenn.€1992);òò€Coxóó,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€136,€atÐ ™é Ð*23ð!ð24.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ T¤ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà0  à€€€€€€€€€€For€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€judgment€of€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€in€Ð( x(#(# Ðfavor€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Appellant,€BrianÐ  a ÐDeas,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ô#†XÑ×XXX:–} #ÔÔ#†¼Œé»XXÑ×O #ÔÔ€XÑ×X»¼ŒéÔÐ ú J ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð žî  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE