WPCE Fq8J8JKoZEQ+&vU`YN~Sa9 63 *7sMZ)}"y{10hX xzϦg?w_@@ItՄ[Cu,nקu%q]7$⬩[wpnV:OҕD0 nRcƉ5TrD#S%VpvN3 v jFJ U(̩͆?(^…,[z Oۄx#Ƨɟ@0I#LؖNY2qr۲^zK74B‘tPr4A0 'ZR\%<$ZeF;v7`7yxKDKD[4.2޸\p| a @;Q`@vL*ݧLOs1[e&6㝪38H~pN=m %UN 0JUN 0U 0u 0: z g 09 N 0N 0DG  Q 0N 0 0GE 0 0 0V 0 0 0 0@ 0 0 05 0 0e 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0H 0 0!bB" 0>J" 0" 0# 0b$ 0D% 0&& 0' 0' 0( 02v) 0) 0:* 0Y* 0_7+ 0 + 0, 0". B*(0 D/R0 1u0 00 D/2 0+3 063 0/4 0:75 0^q5 0<5 1e 6 72p6U66U>6U*7`@7 AM8 0879);^ 8< BD<wa< 0e< D5 = D->= 0Kk=4= AS=> 0> 0D? A?v@@ m@#@@@@@@@gC(@ Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*+ (_2623  ..*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5(O$(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  - -86Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKM<6X9`(Courier NewKSN\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KM<6X9`(Courier NewKSN\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KM<6X9`(Courier NewKSN\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7A(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?O%2A`Arial?  SN\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d@)1dxd3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)<:zTop of For7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?O%2A`Arial?  SN\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  @)2dxd0KS.SampleKM<6X9`(Courier NewKSN\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKM<6X9`(Courier NewKSN\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   ! 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Bi)<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial V R\$      2  ]  _ԀPursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.3(e),PlaintiffsMotionforNewTrialspecificallymentionedeachoftheissues  presentedonappeal.]]XPqX]X[ZA<< c(|G2\$ !.8=dXXd8         0  ] - R\$      1  ]  _ԀThesuitwasoriginallyfiledwithinoneyearoftheaccidentdateandvoluntarilydismissed.Theinstantsuit  wastimelyfiledunderthesavingstatute.  R\$      3  ]  _ԀWequotefromtherecordmoreextensivelythandoAppellantsforthepurposeofplacingthetrialcourts  commentsintheirfullcontext.i/  d(|3A$ !.8=dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  qdj/:i+00^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8=dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3|x U\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0 DEATHERIDGEShipley COAHighersTerranceMcNabb OmerJakesLombardyDeathridgesT.C.A.phantonMR W]ewranglingsMcCordSmithwick S.W.RannickSherlinRobersonProflGrissomGov'tEatherlyh]avingT.P.I.GovtConatserTenn.Ct.AppDeathridgeBarksdale W.S. !.8=dd8     _  =8PqXXdd8  @ =INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#= #Ԉ &   August7,2003Session L XPqX= #=XXPq#ELAINEH.DEATHERIDGE,etux.v.RICHARDT.BARKSDALEXPqX=  J @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.01C1475TheHonorableMariettaM.Shipley,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200300032_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember23,_2003_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XPqXXXPq  Plaintiffsbroughtactionagainstdriverfordamagesarisingfromarearendautomobile x  collision.Defendantraisedaffirmativedefenseofsuddenemergencycausedbya phantomnon d partydefendantsplacingductworkintheroadway.ThejuryfoundthatDefendantwasnotatfault. P Plaintiffsappeal.Weaffirm. < #XPqXXXPq##=XXPqz#XPqX= Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  P   #=XPq#XPqX.=W.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers, ( J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.  TerranceE.McNabb;JamesR.Omer&Associates,Nashville,ForAppellants,ElaineH.  DeatheridgeandLouiseD.Deatheridge  WilliamB.Jakes,III,Nashville,ForAppellee,RichardT.Barksdale `  OPINION #=XXPq#XPqX= 8!  #=XXPq #XPqX=  8PqXXdXXd8  TheaccidentatissueinthiscaseoccurredonMay21,1998,attheintersectionofLombardy #`" DriveandHillsboroPikeinNashville,Tennessee.ThevehicledrivenbyElaineDeathridgewas #L# stoppedataredlightwhenitwasstruckfromtherearbyavehicleownedanddrivenbyRichardT. $8 $ Barksdale( Barksdale, Defendant,or Appellee). %$!%   OnMay16,2001S  #  1      ,ElaineDeathridgeandherhusband,Louis(togetherwithElaine '"' Deathridge,the Deathridges, Plaintiffs,or Appellants)filedaComplaintagainstBarksdale. (#(  TheComplaintreads,inrelevantpart,asfollows: )$) _8  8`    5.Defendantwasthenandtherenegligentinthathe(a)failed   tomaintainthevehiclehewasoperatingunderdueandreasonable  control;(b)operatedhisvehicleataspeedwhichwasexcessiveunder  theconditionsthenandthereexisting;(c)failedtomaintainadueand t properlookoutaheadinthedirectioninwhichhewasdriving,andin ` particularforthecarinwhichPlaintiffwasanoccupant;(d)failedto L  bringhisvehicleundercontrolandtoslowthesamewhentherewas 8  sufficienttimeanddistanceforhimtodosobeforestrikingtherear $ t ofPlaintiffsautomobile;(e)failedtoseethatwhichwastheretobe  ` seenandtakeproperactionwithrespectthereto;(f)failuretotake  L  necessaryevasiveactionwhenitwasevidentthatacollisionwas  8  abouttooccur.$ ` x` x 8  8`    6.Defendantwasfurtherthenandthereguiltyofnegligence   perseinthatheviolatedoneormoreofthestatutesoftheStateof   Tennessee,including,butnotlimitedto,thefollowingstatute: ` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xT.C.A.558124:Followingtooclosely.(a)The \ driverofamotorvehicleshallnotfollowanother H vehiclemorecloselythanisreasonableandprudent, 4 havingdueregardforthespeedofsuchvehiclesand  p thetrafficuponandtheconditionofthehighway. \     Mrs.Deathridgeseeksdamagesforpersonalinjury.Mr.Deathridgeseeksdamagesforloss 4 ofconsortiumandservicesofhiswife.BarksdalefiledhisAnsweronAugust14,2001.Inhis   Answer,Barksdaleadmitted thathisvehiclestruckthevehiclebeingoperatedbyplaintiffbut   [denies]thattherewasanyviolentcrashasalleged,andraised,asanaffirmativedefense,the  placingof ductworkmaterialintheroadwaybyaphantomnonpartydefendant.    ThecasewastriedtoajuryonNovember4,5,and6,2002.ThejuryfoundthatBarksdale l wasnotatfault.AnOrderofJudgmentwasenteredonthejuryverdictonNovember18,2002.The X  DeathridgesfiledaMotionforNewTrialonNovember21,2002.P  #  2      ׀BarksdalefiledaResponseto D! theMotionforNewTrial.TheMotionforNewTrialwasheardonDecember6,2002andwas 0"  deniedbyOrderenteredonDecember17,2002. #l!   TheDeathridgesappealandraisefiveissuesforreviewasstatedintheirbrief: $D # 8  8`   1.WhethertheTrialJudgeproperlyperformedherfunctionasa &"% ThirteenthjurorindenyingPlaintiffsmotionforanewtrial.'#&` x` x  (#' 8  8`   2.Whetherthejuryverdictiscontrarytotheweightoftheevidence.` x` x 8  8`   3.WhethertheTrialJudgeerredininstructingthejuryonsudden  emergency.t` x` x 8  8`   4.WhethertheTrialJudgeerredininstructingthejurythata L   phantonpersonsviolationofT.C.A.558170wasnegligence 8  perse.$ t` x` x 8  8`   5.TheTrialJudgeerredinfailingtodirectaverdictforPlaintiffs. L ` x` x   WhethertheTrialJudgeproperlyperformedher $  functionasaThirteenthjurorindenying   Plaintiffsmotionforanewtrial.      0  TheDeathridgescontendthatthestatementsbythetrialjudge,indenyingtheir (#(# MotionforNewTrial,denoteanimplicitacknowledgmentthatthecourt deferredtothe p judgmentofthejurywithoutmakinganindependentdecisionontheissues,andtherebyfailedto \ performherdutyasathirteenthjuror.Wequotefromtherecord: H   8  8`   MR.MCNABB:...[W]edontthinkthattheverdictissupportedby  p theevidence.Andthats!yourethethirteenthjuror,ifyouagree,you  \ cangiveusanewtrial.H` x` x 8  8`   *** ` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:...legalcauseofaninjuryisacausetothenatural  continuoussequenceproducestheinjurywithoutwhichtheinjury  wouldnothaveoccurred.Well,thatassumes,Imeanitsclearthat  Mr.Barksdalewasprobablyatfaultforthefactthathercarwashit l fromtherear.X ` x` x 8  8`    ButImnotexactlysurethatweprovideinallofourjury 0"  instructionswhetherhecouldalsobeatfaultfortheinjurythatshe #l! sufferedand,youknow,Idontknow,maybeweneedtoaskten $X" questionssowecangothrougheachoneofthesethings.$D #` x` x 8  8`    Itsvery!therewasavery,well,torturedopinionthatJudge &"% Kochwroteonthis,youknow,whetheryoushouldhaveawhole '#& differentsetofquestionswhentheissueistheinjury,whentheissue (#' istheextentoftheinjury,notnecessarilywhethertheaccidentwas )$( causedbythePlaintiff.|*%)` x` x  h+&* 8  8`    Andatthatpoint,youknow,itmademewonderwhetherwe  shouldextend!hehasawholelistofquestionsthatcouldperhapsbe  usedinplaceofwhatarethesuggestedjuryinstructions,whenwetry  tomakeitrealsimple.t` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`    Imeanwesimplifyitbecausetheprocessishardenoughto L  dothecomparisonwhentheyneverheardofitbefore.Andsorather 8  than,youknow,Idontknow,maybeweneedtodoisheatfaultfor $ t theaccidenthappening,yesorno. `` x` x 8  8`    Isthenonpartyatfault.Andthen,whatdoyoudowiththat.  8  Okay.Sothendoyougotothenextsetofquestions,isthedefendant $  atfaultforproducingtheactualinjurytotheplaintiff,andthesame   wouldbeisheatfaultfor!isthenonpartyatfaultforproducingthe   injury. ` x` x 8  8`    Now,maybethatwouldanswerthequestionthatwasposed p inthiscasebecauseitdoescreatearealdilemma.Imeanshewasnt \ atfault.Imeanwerenotcomparingherandthedriver.AndImean H therewas,youdontevenassertthat.4` x` x 8  8`   MR.JAKES:No,itwasntevenraised. \` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:Right.So,youknow,ifyoujusttakealiteralreading 4 ofwhatitmeanstobeatfault,thenitwasnegligence,thenegligence   wasthelegalcauseoftheinjuryandthedamage. ` x` x 8  8`    Now,wedontdistinguishbetweentheaccidentandthe  injury.Andwedontdistinguishbetweendamagetoanythingthe  Plaintiffwasinandherproblemnow.l` x` x 8  8`    Sincewehavesofewtrials,youknow,now,mostofthemare D! aboutsomethinglikethis.Youknow,maybewereallyneedtorevise 0"  ourjuryverdictformtoprovideforthispossibility.#l!` x` x 8  8`    Now,thePlaintiffs,ontheotherhand,wouldprobablydispute $D # thatbecausethenthathighlightswhattheactualdisputeisbetween %0!$ thepartiesthattheJurymaybetotallyunawareofbecauseyouhadso &"% muchstuffbeforethetrial,thewranglingsthatwehad,andthe '#& medicalexpenses,andwhythedoctorchangedhismindandallof (#' that.)$(` x` x   |*%) 8  8`    SoIguessmaybeitstheonelastfrontierincomparative   negligencetotrytogetitdownsothattheresnothingwiththe  processthatwecantfix.` x` x 8  8`    Andso,youknow,onthejustfaceofit,ifItakethewhole ` thingtogether,theissuewasthefactshedidntgoforthreemonths, L  andblah,blah,blah,andthatisalwayssohardforjuriesto 8  understand.$ t` x` x 8  8`    Theyjust!theyrejustsuspiciousaboutthat.Anditsso  L  unfortunatebecauseshe,mygosh,shejustsufferedterriblyhavingall  8  thesebackinjuries.Butitshardforthemtomakethatconnection $  whentheywaitforthreemonths. ` x` x 8  8`    Andthen,youknow,Idontknowwhythedoctorchangedhis   mind.Theresabsolutelynoreasonforhimtosayitwasntacause! ` x` x 8  8`   ***\` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:Well,okay,onthewholething,ifImjustgoingwith 4 thequestion,ifIcansupportthejurysverdict,notonwhetherhe  p causedtheaccident,butonwhetherwerelookingatitasawhole,I  \ findasthirteenthjurorthatIcansupportthisverdict.Okay.H` x` x 8  8`    ButIdothinkitreallypresentsaquestionthatwehaveto   considerishowdowewanttosliceanddiceitsothatweknowthats   theanswerbecauseitisveryconfusing.` x` x 8  8`    AndImsorrythatyouallhadtogothroughallthis,and  comeinatalatetime.AndforMs.McCord[sic],Imsureitsjust l not,theresnowayshecaneverunderstandthisdecision.So,its X  veryhardforher,andImsorryforherthatshehastogothroughthis. D! Okay.Thankyou.T  #  3      0" ` x` x    Whenthetrialcourtiscalledupontoactasthethirteenthjuroruponthefilingofa $X" motionforanewtrial,thetrialcourtmustbeindependentlysatisfiedwiththeverdictofthejury. $D #  CumberlandTel.andTel.Co.v.Smithwick ,112Tenn.463,79S.W.803(Tenn.1904).The %0!$ SupremeCourt'sopinionreadsinpart: &"%     '#& 8  8`   Theruleincivilcasesisthat,ifthecircuitjudgeisdissatisfiedwith   theverdictofthejury,itishisdutytosetitasideandgrantanew  trial,andthatuponitsbeingmadetoappeartothiscourt,from  statementsmadebythecircuitjudgeinpassinguponthemotionfor t newtrial,thathewasreallynotsatisfiedwiththeverdict,itbecomes ` thedutyofthiscourt,whenithasacquiredjurisdictionofthecause, L  todowhatthecircuitjudgeshouldhavedone;thatis,tograntanew 8  trialonthegroundofthedissatisfactionofthatjudicialofficerwith $ t theverdict.[Citationsomitted.] `` x` x 8  8`   *0 ` x` x0 x x*0hxx0hxhx*0xx0pxx*0pxpx0 xx* 8  x x 8  8`   Thereasonsgivenfortheruleare,insubstance,thatthecircuitjudge   hearsthetestimony,justasthejurydoes,seesthewitnesses,and   observestheirdemeanoruponthewitnessstand;that,byhistraining   andexperienceintheweighingoftestimony,andtheapplicationof   legalrulesthereto,heisespeciallyqualifiedforthecorrectionofany p errorsintowhichthejurybyinexperiencemayhavefallen,whereby \ theyhavefailed,intheirverdict,toreachthejusticeandrightofthe H case,underthetestimonyandthechargeofthecourt;that,inour 4 system,thisisoneofthefunctionsthecircuitjudgepossessesand  p shouldexercise!asitwere,thatofathirteenthjuror.Soitissaid  \ thathemustbesatisfied,aswellasthejury;thatitishisdutyto H weightheevidence,and,ifheisdissatisfiedwiththeverdictofthe 4 jury,heshouldsetitaside....8` x` x8@    ? 8  8`   Id .at804-05.` x` x   Ifthetrialjudge,whenactingasthethirteenthjuror,simplyapprovestheverdictwithout | anycomment,itispresumedbyanappellatecourtthatheorshehasperformedhisorher h functionadequately. Millerv.Doe ,873S.W.2d346(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Wherethetrialcourt T  makescommentsinthecourseofreviewingamotionforanewtrial,wewillreviewthose @! comments,butwedonotreviewthosecommentstoseeifweagreewiththetrialcourts ,"|  reasoningbutrathertodeterminewhetherthetrialcourtproperlyreviewedtheevidenceandwas #h! satisfiedordissatisfiedwiththeverdict. Id .at347.Ifthetrialjudgemakescommentswhich $T" indicatethatheorshehasmisconceivedhisorherdutyorclearlyhasnotfollowedit,thisCourt $@ # mustreverseandremandthecaseforanewtrial. Id . p  %,!$   Inassertingthatthetrialjudgefailedtoadequatelyperformherdutyasthirteenthjuror, '#& Appellantsrely,inpart,uponourSupremeCourtsdecisionin Holdenv.Rannick ,682S.W.2d (#' 903(Tenn.1984).In Holden ,theCourtdeterminedthatthefollowingcommentsfromthetrial )$( court,whenconsideredasawhole,indicatedthatthetrialjudgemisconceivedhisdutyasthe x*%) thirteenthjuror: d+&*   8  8`   THECOURT:Well,ofcourse,Mr.Jones,theCourtdoesnt  substituteitsjudgmentforthatofthejurywheretheissueisfairly  presentedtothejuryandinthiscasefranklyIthinkitwas.AsIrecall t Dr.Rannicktestifiedthatthisladyhadanunholyandunnaturalfear ` ofhavingcancer.L ` x` x 8  8`   *0 ` x` x0 x x*0hxx0hxhx*0xx0pxx*0pxpx0 xx*$ t x x 8  8`   MR.JONES:MayIaskifyourHonoragreeswiththeverdictofthe  L  jury? 8 ` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:Yes,Ido. TheCourtasIsaydoesnotsubstituteits   judgmentforthatofthePlaintiff[sic]Iwouldjustasreadilyhave   agreedwiththeverdicttheotherway .Theverdictneitherway   wouldhaveshockedtheCourtfrankly.Ithoughttheissueswerevery   fairlyputtothejury.Ithoughteachsidehadafairandfulldayin l courtandthejurymadeitsdecisionandIapprovedtheverdict, X expresslyapprovedtheverdictsoIrespectfullyoverrule.D` x` x O   ` Id .at905(emphasisadded). l TheCourtreasonedthatthetrialjudgesunequivocalstatementsthatthecourtdoesnotsubstitute D itsjudgmentforthatofthejury,andthathewouldhavealsoagreedwithacontraryverdict,were 0  inconsistentwithhisdutytoweightheevidenceandpassontheissues. Id .TheCourtsaid:    8  8`   Thetrialjudgestatedthatheexpresslyapprovedtheverdict.It  appearsfromthecontextofthatstatement,however,thatheapproved  theverdictbecausehefeltthatthecasewasfairlypresentedandhe | wasnotshockedbytheverdict,ratherthanbecausehereachedthe h sameverdictasthejuryafterindependentlyweighingtheevidence T  andpassingupontheissues.Twicethetrialjudgestatedthatthe @! courtdoesnotsubstituteitsjudgmentforthatofthejury.Those ,"|  statementsrevealamistakenbeliefonhispartthathewasunderno #h! dutytopassupontheissues.$T"` x` x hW8  8`    Id .at905906.%,!$` x` x   Althoughthetrialjudgescommentsinthecaseatbararesomewhatconfusing,weare '#& unabletofindthatthejudgeimproperlydeferredtothejudgmentofthejuryorfailedtoexpress (#' exactapprovaloftherenderedverdict.Unlikethetrialjudgein Holden ,thejudgedidnotstate )$( thatshecouldhavejustaseasilyapprovedacontraryverdict.Thetrialjudgedoesnotappearto x*%) bedissatisfiedwiththejurysverdictinthiscase;rather,throughhercircumlocutorycomments, d+&* thetrialjudgeappearstobesuggestingavenuesforbetterpresentingissuestoajuryintermsof  clarityandsimplicity.Intheend,however,thetrialjudgeclearlynoteshersatisfactionwiththe  verdictbystatingthat IfindasthirteenthjurorthatIcansupportthisverdict.    Consideredintheirentirety,thejudgescommentsdonotconstituteafailuretocarryout ` thedutiesrequiredofajudgeinhisorherroleasathirteenthjurorand,therefore,donotwarrant L  aremandfornewtrial.Thejudgemadenocommentsthatcouldbeconstruedasan 8  inappropriatedeferraltothejurysverdictoranunwillingnesstoinvadetheprovinceofthejury. $ t  Cf.Millerv.Doe ,873S.W.2d346,34849(Tenn.Ct.App.1993)(trialjudgesstatementthat  `  Imnotinclinedtointerferewiththeverdictofthejury...deemedanimpermissibledeferralto  P  thejurysverdict); Sherlinv.Roberson ,351S.W.2d700,701(Tenn.Ct.App.1976)(holding  <  thattrialjudgesstatementthathecouldnotsaythejuryreachedtherightverdictamountedto (  impermissibledeferencetothejurysverdictasthejudgewas disclaiminganyopinionofhis   own).Relatedtotheconceptofinappropriatedeferral,therecordcontainsnostatementsbythe   trialjudgetosuggestthatshemisunderstoodorwasunawareofherdutytoindependentlyweigh   theevidenceontherecord. SeeHeathv.MemphisRadiologicalProflCorp. ,2001WL   1381278,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.6,2001)(findingthattherewasnoevidenceintherecordto t indicatethatthetrialjudgefailedtoconductanindependentreviewoftheevidencestrengthened ` bythefactthatthejudgeneverstatedthathewas notatlibertytosubstitutehisjudgmentfor L thatofthejury,asin Holden ); cf.Miller ,873S.W.2dat349( Thereisnothinginthisrecordto 8 indicatethatthetrialcourtapprovedtheverdictforthereasonthathehadindependentlyweighed $t theevidence,hadpassedontheissuespresentedtothejury,andreachedthesameverdictasthe ` jurydid.). L   Therecordsupportsafindingthatthetrialjudgewasawareofthedutiesrequiredofher $ inherroleasthirteenthjuror,andweconcludethatshesufficientlycarriedouttheseduties.  Thisissueis,therefore,withoutmerit.    XPqXXXPqWhetherthejuryverdictiscontrary  totheweightoftheevidence.#XPqXXXPqh#  p     ItiswellsettledthattheCourtofAppealsdoesnotreweightheevidenceorreevaluate H! witnessescredibilityinanappealfromajuryverdict. Grissomv.MetropolitanGov'tof 4"  Nashville ,817S.W.2d679(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).ThisCourt,onappeal,isrequiredtotakethe  #p! strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencefavoringtheprevailingparty,discardallcontrary  $\" evidence,allowallreasonableinferencestoupholdthejurysverdictandsetasidethejury $H # verdictonlywhenthereisnomaterialevidencetosupportit.Tenn.R.App.P13(d); seealso %4!$ SmithCountyv.Eatherly ,820S.W.2d366(Tenn.Ct.App.1991)); Gloverv.OakwoodTerrace  & "%  AssociatedII ,816S.W.2d43(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Fromourreviewoftheentirerecord,we ' #& findthatthereissufficientevidencefromwhichthejurycouldhavefoundthiswasan (#' unavoidableaccidentandthattherewasnoproximatenegligenceonthepartofBarksdale. )$( Consequently,thisissueiswithoutmerit. *%)   XPqXXXPq  l+&* WhethertheTrialJudgeerredininstructing  thejuryonsuddenemergency .      Appellantsassertthatthetrialcourterredbecause [h]avingsuddenemergencyinthe x instructionstwicecalledundueattentiontothispartofthejuryinstructions.Therelevant d portionsoftheJuryInstructionsreadasfollows: P    8 @ 8@`   T.P.I.CIVIL3.08 ( x  SUDDENEMERGENCY  P       8  8`   Apersonwhoisfacedwithasuddenorunexpectedemergency (  thatcallsforimmediateactionisnotexpectedtousethesame   accuracyofjudgmentasapersonactingundernormalcircumstances   whohastimetothinkandreflectbeforeacting.Apersonfacedwith   asuddenemergencyisrequiredtoactasareasonablycarefulperson   placedinasimilarposition.Asuddenemergencywillnotexcusethe t actionsofapersonwhoseownnegligencecreatedtheemergency.`` x` x 8  8`   Ifyoufindtherewasasuddenemergencythatwasnotcausedby 8 anyfaultofthepersonwhoseactionsyouarejudging,youmust $t considerthisfactorindeterminingandcomparingfault.`` x` x 8  8`   ***8` x` x p  8 @ 8@`   T.P.I.CIVIL3.52   ADDITIONALFACTORSFORCOMPARINGFAULT       8  8`   Thepercentageoffaultassignedtoanypersondependsuponall p ofthecircumstancesofthecase.Theconductofeachpersonmay \  makethatpersonmoreorlessatfault,dependinguponallofthe H! circumstances.Inordertoassistyouinmakingthisdecision,you 4"  mayconsiderthefollowingfactor(s)andyoumayalsoconsiderany  #p! otherfactorsthatyoufindtobeimportantunderthefactsand  $\" circumstances.Butthedeterminationoffaultonthepartofany $H # personandthedeterminationoftherelativepercentageoffault,if %4!$ any,aremattersforyoualonetodecide.& "%` x` x 8  8`   1.Whoseconductmoredirectlycausedtheinjurytotheplaintiff;(#'` x` x   )$( 8  8`   2.Howreasonablewasthepersonsconductinconfrontingarisk,for  example,didthepersonknowoftheriskorshouldthepersonhave  knownofit;` x` x  8  8`   3.Didthepersonfailtoreasonablyuseanexistingopportunityto ` avoidaninjurytoanother;L ` x` x 8  8`   4.Wasthereasuddenemergencyrequiringahastydecision;$ t` x` x 8  8`   5.Whatwasthesignificanceofwhatthepersonwasattemptingto  L  accomplishbytheconduct. 8 ` x` x v  Whenthesesectionsmentioningsuddenemergencyareviewedinthecontextoftheentire   JuryInstructions,itdoesnotappearthatthetrialcourtundulyemphasizedDefendants   argumentsbaseduponsuddenemergency.ContrarytoAppellantsargument,thetrialcourtdid   notchargethejurytwiceonsuddenemergency.Thesecondmentionofsuddenemergencyis   foundinthechargeon additionalfactorsforcomparingfault.Thislatterchargesimply p mentionsthewords suddenemergencyasoneoffivefactorstobeconsideredbythejuryin \ determiningtheapplicablepercentagesoffault,ifany.Furthermore,thetrialcourtclearly H instructedthejurythatalloftheinstructionsweretobeconsideredasawholeandthatthe 4 instructionsshouldnotbetakentoindicateanopinionofthecourtonfactualmatters.When  p takenasawhole,wefindthattheJuryInstructionsonsuddenemergencywereproperinlightof  \ thetheoriespropoundedbytheparties.However,evenifweallowthatthetrialcourterredin H mentioningthedoctrineofsuddenemergencyasecondtime,wefindthattheerrorwasharmless. 4 Thisissueis,therefore,withoutmerit.     WhethertheTrialJudgeerredininstructing  thejurythata phantonpersonsviolationof  T.C.A.558170wasnegligenceperse.       T.C.A.558170reads,inrelevantpart,asfollows: X    8  8`    558170.Puttingglass,nailsandothersubstancesonhighway 0"  prohibited!Penalty.! (a)Nopersonshallthrowordeposituponany #l! highwayanyglassbottle,glass,nails,tacks,wire,cansoranyother  $\" substancelikelytoinjureanyperson,animalorvehicleuponsuch $H # highway.%4!$` x` x 8  8`   (b)Anypersonwhodrops,orpermitstobedroppedorthrown,upon & "% anyhighwayanydestructiveorinjuriousmaterialshallimmediately ' #& removethesameorcauseittoberemoved.(#'` x` x Regardingthisstatute,thejurywasinstructedasfollows: *%)  l+&*   8 @ 8@`    NEGLIGENCEPERSE       8  8`   Ifyoufindthatapartytothisactionviolatedthestatutejustreadto  you,youwillfindthattheviolationwasnegligence.Suchafinding t ofnegligence,however,doesnotrequireafindingagainsttheparty ` violatingthestatuteunlessyoualsofindthattheviolationwasthe L  proximatecauseoftheinjuryordamagetoanother.8 ` x` x   Thestandardforanappellatecourtsreviewofatrialjudgesjurychargewasstatedin  `  CityofJohnsonCityv.OutdoorWest,Inc. ,947S.W.2d855(Tenn.Ct.App.1996):  L    8  8`   Wereviewthejurychargeinitsentiretytodeterminewhetherthe $  trialjudgecommittedreversibleerror. Otisv.CambridgeMut.Fire   Ins.Co. ,850S.W.2d439,446(Tenn.1992); InreEstateof Elam,   738S.W.2d169,174(Tenn.1987);and Grissomv.Metropolitan     GovtofNashville ,817S.W.2d679,685(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).   Juryinstructionsarenotmeasuredagainstthestandardofperfection. p  Grissom ,817S.W.2dat685.Thechargewillnotbeinvalidatedifit \  fairlydefinesthelegalissuesinvolvedinthecaseanddoesnot H misleadthejury. Otis ,850S.W.2dat446; Grissom ,817S.W.2dat 4 685.Furthermore,aparticularinstructionmustbeconsideredinthe  p contextoftheentirecharge. Elam ,738S.W.2dat174. \` x` x   Appellantsassertthatthetrialcourtsinstructiontothejurycreateaninferenceof 4 negligenceonthepartofa phantomnonpartydefendant.Sincetherewasnoproofofany   negligenceonthepartofthisphantomparty,Appellantsassertthatthisportionofthejury   instructionswasinerror.Weagree.    Thefactthatthereweretwopiecesofaluminumductworkontheroadatthetimeofthe  accidentisundisputedintherecord.The phantomthirdpartytheorywasraisedasan l affirmativedefenseinBarksdalesAnswertotheDeathridgesComplaint.However,thejurydid X  notreachthequestionoffaultonthepartofanyoneotherthandefendant.Thus,anyerrorwas D! harmless. 0"  @ TheTrialJudgeerredinfailingto $X" @,,directaverdictforPlaintiffs  $D #   Appellantsassertthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodirectaverdictintheirfavor. &"% TheircontentionisbaseduponthefactthatBarksdaleadmittedfaultatthesceneofthewreck '#& andneverretractedthatadmissionduringhistestimony. (#'   Whendecidingamotionfordirectedverdict,boththetrialcourtandthereviewingcourt |*%) onappealmustlooktoalltheevidence,takethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencein h+&* favoroftheopponentofthemotion,andallowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty.  Thecourtmustdiscardallcountervailingevidence,andifthereisthenanydisputeastoany  materialfact,oranydoubtastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromthewholeevidence,themotion  mustbedenied. SeeConatserv.ClarksvilleCoca-CoalBottlingCo. ,920S.W.2d646,647 t (Tenn.1995); Hurleyv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,922S.W.2d887,891 ` (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). L    WeagreewithAppellantsthatMr.BarksdaleadmitshittingtheDeathridgescar,towit: $ t   8  8`   AndI[Barksdale]allofasudden,IrealizedthatImnotgoingto,you  L  know,beabletostop,andIrearendedMrs.Deathridgescar. 8 ` x` x @  However,ouranalysisinthiscasedoesnotendwithhisadmission.Asthetrialcourt   correctlychargedthejury,fault,intheinstanceofthiscaseandasdefinedbyTennesseelaw,has   twoparts:negligenceandlegalorproximatecause.Theparticularfactsinthiscasegiverisetoa   disputeontheissueofnegligence.Hadtherebeennoductworkintheroadway,adirected   verdictforPlaintiffsmayhavebeenappropriate.However,itisundisputedthattherewas p materialintheroadwayatthetimeofthisaccident.ThepresenceofthatductworksupportsMr. \ Barksdalesdefenseofsuddenemergencyandraisesadisputeofmaterialfactastowhetherhe H actedwithreasonablecare,giventhecircumstances.Thiswasaproperquestionforthejury. 4 Fromtherecordinthiscase,itappearsthatthejuryfoundthat,undertheparticularfactsofthis  p case,thedefendant-driverwasexercisingreasonableandordinarycareinthedrivingofhis  \ vehicleandthatacollisionwithPlaintiffsvehiclewasanunavoidableaccident.Thetrialcourt H didnoterrindenyingthemotionforadirectedverdict. 4   Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmtheJudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costsofthisappeal   areassessedagainsttheAppellants,ElaineH.DeathridgeandLouisD.Deathridge,andtheir  surety.8  8`   ` x` x #XPqXXXPq~n# #=XXPq, #XPqX=   `       `     h __________________________________________ 0"     `     h W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.