ÿWPCÊ ckrÕjà.¸ë.Ó¸ ‹ÿ—b@¶.:HƊׂSïë E©Ä'šäÖY Çu/µ³O@×Èjض3ñXíôA®¨k9w¤”:êéˆÝŽ:~av|A¶wtÕä}¹ÚŠÌlÒß¼Œ=»mN35ÈP[ä¥G9¨‰£Vkè‡4nu/É‹fj> Û7¬Ú×;S }.œ˜£ñ4•é0ŒÝÈÓzF%¬ô1,ï c]n*§ŒEX«[ÍÖ¹{„¹˜ ùó˜íq¦‰I Eü/Ëf„ÈLµÊÁ´9ž2]$iä\^z 9é…,»þXk®ýÿg Ô+œPgn‰Œ3 Üv¥2­ûœ{:´|}¶œä¼x ÖÉ2Úç XÁi<}–Í<¥âÊàÿñ"nYÛCž‘®ê£ÔsŸ°+üÖa¾™Ç,ä¡Á—dýµUTâä¦\Ó„L2 g×lÓþÊÙ“†º‰^«N£±—‹ó‰Éž;¦HÖ}8$M—f=›oªûübÕoÏûØBóßf¬14ÙeÑ’ƒuÃk‰–VƬ£V<Ù­î^ø…²¯i+ ÒB˜/1ݲ¼> Ì“½ëÂ] FÑžX¶¸¸ZŠI_ЙùÔªŠe‰!î b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ™ Æ¡ Æg Æ-ÆóóN¹¹¹E»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»b½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ 0ëÅÅÅÅ B°° 0¤Í D5q D-¦ 0KÓÓ ASÆq 0¤7 0DÛ A«˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¯žt/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2¿®$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«ýò»»Ô d(|3Çq$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çq$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼}»»»ÔÑ8€GXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îŒî»¼}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼}»îîŒ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @ àà @ àOctober€16,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XGX»¼}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼}»XXG#ÔKENNETH€RAY€Ô_ÔEMERTÔ_Ô€v.€CITY€OF€KNOXVILLEòòóóÔ‡XGX»¼}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„646„01€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€NOVEMBER€20,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` dE<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„01081„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€original€plaintiff,€since€deceased,€tripped€on€an€uneven€brick€sidewalk€and€injured€his€right€knee.€Ð xÈ  ÐHe€was€blind,€or€nearly€so,€and€used€a€walking€aid.€€The€defendantððs€negligence€is€not€an€issue€onÐ d´ Ðappeal.€€The€issue€is€one€of€causation€in€light€of€the€medical€proof€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€kneeÐ P  Ðproblems€before€the€accident.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€the€accident€aggravated€the€plaintiffððs€pre„Ð <Œ Ðexisting€condition€and€awarded€damages€of€$100,000.00€with€fault€apportioned€80€percent€to€theÐ (x Ðdefendant.€€We€affirm.Ð d ÐÓõÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed;€CauseÐ ì< ÐRemandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔSr.J.Ô_ÔÔ#†¼}»àXG¥#ÔÔ‡XGX.¼}Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòHerschel€P.€Franks€óóandÐ ° ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌHillary€B.€Jones,€Knoxville,€for€the€Appellant,€City€of€Knoxville.Ð tÄ ÐÌJohn€M.€Norris,€Strawberry€Plains,€for€the€Appellee,€Estate€of€Kenneth€Ray€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ô.Ð L œ ÐÓ-ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼}»XXG³#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼}ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌò òI.ó óÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼}»XXGš #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XGX»¼}Ôà  àOn€December€22,€2000,€while€walking€on€a€brick€sidewalk€on€the€west€side€of€Market€StreetÐ Ô%$!% Ðin€downtown€Knoxville,€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ô€tripped€over€an€uneven€joint€between€the€bricks.€€Because€he€wasÐ À&"& Ðlegally€blind€he€was€walking€with€the€assistance€of€either€a€cane€or€crutches;€he€could€not€rememberÐ ¬'ü"' Ðwhich.€€He€sustained€an€injury€to€his€right€knee€which€required€a€total€replacement€on€May€14,€2001Ð ˜(è#( Ðfollowed€by€a€second€replacement€surgery€on€August€22,€2002.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àThis€complaint€was€filed€October€15,€2001,€alleging€that€the€defendant€City€owned€andÐ \+¬&+ Ðcontrolled€the€sidewalk€and€that€it€knew€or€should€have€known€that€on€the€date€of€the€accident€theÐ H,˜', Ðsidewalk€was€in€a€defective€or€dangerous€condition.€€This€allegation€was€sustained€and€the€defendantÐ 4-„(-ý Ðdoes€not€controvert€the€finding€of€negligence.€€The€defense€centers€on€the€admitted€fact€that€Mr.Ð ° ÐEmert€suffered€from€a€pre„existing€knee€condition,€and€that€at€least€50€percent€of€fault€for€theÐ œì Ðaccident€should€be€apportioned€to€him.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àMr.€Emert€died€November€29,€2002€and€Mary€Ann€Manning,€Executrix€of€his€estate,€wasÐ `° Ðsubstituted€as€plaintiff.€€A€bench€trial€was€held€on€February€11,€2003.€€There€were€no€live€witnesses,Ð L œ Ðand€the€proof€consisted€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ôððs€deposition€and€medical€records,€the€deposition€of€his€treatingÐ 8 ˆ Ðphysician€Dr.€Harold€E.€Cates,€the€deposition€of€City€Engineer€Robin€Tipton,€and€the€affidavit€ofÐ $ t ÐDavid€McGaha€respecting€the€misaligned€joints€between€the€bricks.€€The€court€found€that€the€CityÐ  ` Ðhad€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€and€defective€condition€of€the€sidewalk,€and€that€itsÐ ü L  Ðnegligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ôððs€fall€and€resulting€injury€to€his€right€knee.€Ð è 8  ÐDamages€of€$100,000.00€were€assessed;€fault€was€apportioned€80€percent€to€the€City€and€20€percentÐ Ô$  Ðto€Mr.€Emert,€resulting€in€a€judgment€for€$80,000.00.€€The€amount€of€the€judgment€is€not€an€issueÐ À  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ ˜è  ÐÓ–ÓÌà  àThe€City€appeals€and€presents€for€review€the€issues€(1)€of€whether€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ pÀ Ðagainst€the€finding€of€causation,€and€(2)€whether€the€fault€of€Mr.€Emert€was€greater€than€20€percent.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€appellee€presents€for€review€the€issue€of€whether€any€percentage€of€fault€should€have€beenÐ H˜ Ðapportioned€to€Mr.€Emert.Ð 4„ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÐ  \ ÐÓlÓÌà  àOur€review€of€factual€findings€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€findingsÐ ä4 Ðare€correct€unless€the€preponderant€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Rule€13(d)€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€The€issueÐ Ð  Ðof€causation,€generally,€is€one€of€fact€the€resolution€of€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,Ð ¼  Ðhere,€the€trial€judge.€€òòò òHaynes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóóó ó,€883€S.W.2d€606€(Tenn.€1994);€òòò òBurgess€v.Ð ¨ø ÐHarleyó óóó,€934€S.W.2d€58€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€The€issue€of€the€apportionment€of€fault€is€one€of€factÐ ”ä Ðto€which€the€same€standard€of€review€is€applicable.€€Rule€13(d)€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€noted,€this€case€was€tried€entirely€on€documentation€enabling€this€Court€to€arriveÐ X ¨ Ðat€its€own€conclusions€as€to€the€weight€and€credibility€of€Ô_ÔdepositionalÔ_Ô€testimony€since€we€are€in€theÐ D!” Ðsame€position€as€the€trial€judge.€€òòò òÔ_ÔKrickÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔLawrenceburgÔ_Ôóóó ó,€945€S.W.2d€709€(Tenn.€1997);Ð 0"€  Ðòòò òOrman€v.€Williams€Ô_ÔSonomaÔ_Ô€Inc.óóó ó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€(Tenn.€1991);€òòò òState€v.€Ô_ÔBinetteÔ_Ôóó,ó ó€33€S.W.3d€215Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€Consequently,€the€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€judgeÐ  $\" Ðis€not€applied€with€the€same€strictness€as€in€cases€where€the€trial€judge€has€the€opportunity€to€see€andÐ ø$H # Ðappraise€the€witnesses.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔHohenbergÔ_Ô€Bros.€Co.€vóó.òò€Missouri€P.€R.€Co.óóó ó,€586€S.W.2d€117€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ä%4!$ ÐApp.€1979).€€Because€the€defendant€City€strenuously€argues€that€the€fall€Mr.€Emert€suffered€was€notÐ Ô&$"% Ða€cause€of€either€of€his€right€knee€replacement€surgeries,€we€have€carefully€reviewed€the€medicalÐ À'#& Ðproof€and€reproduce€it€as€pertinent€to€the€issue€of€causation.Ð ¬(ü#' ÐÌÌÐ p+À&* Ðò òÓ  ÓIV.ó óÐ ° ÐÓÓòòÓ  ÓThe€Medical€ProofóóÐ œì ÐÌÓQÓà  àDr.€Harold€E.€Cates€is€a€board€certified€orthopedic€surgeon€with€twelve€years€experience.€Ð tÄ ÐHe€first€saw€Mr.€Emert€on€January€17,€2001€who€was€complaining€of€pain€in€his€right€knee,€withÐ `° Ðconsiderable€swelling€accompanied€by€moderate€arthritis.€€Diagnosis€was€knee€fluid,€the€result€ofÐ L œ Ða€fall,€and€indicative€of€inflamation.€€An€MRI€scan€performed€by€another€physician€revealed€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðmeniscus€tear€and€Dr.€Cates€saw€Mr.€Emert€a€second€time€on€March€28,€2001.€€At€that€time€Mr.Ð $ t ÐEmert€was€ð ðlimping€and€hurtingðð,€and€taking€narcotic€pain€medicines.€€€Dr.€Cates€recommended€kneeÐ  ` Ðreplacement€which€was€done€May€14,€2001.€€The€procedure€was€not€successful.€€According€to€Dr.Ð ü L  ÐCates,€Mr.€Emert€ð ðkept€having€falls,€he€kept€having€swelling€in€the€knee€that€was€huge.€€We€ruledÐ è 8  Ðout€infection,€we€ruled€out€instability€.€.€.€.€He€was€bleeding€inside€the€knee.€€He€eventuallyÐ Ô$  Ðunderwent€a€revision€of€the€knee€by€Dr.€Christy€in€Nashville€.€.€.€.€a€revision€specialist.€€Iððve€not€seenÐ À  Ðhim€since.ðð€€Dr.€Cates€last€saw€Mr.€Emert€on€August€16,€2002€when€he€removed€65€ccððs€of€fluidÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€his€knee,€a€procedure€that€he€performed€on€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ôððs€right€knee€more€than€20€times€by€aÐ ˜è  Ðprocess€of€inserting€a€large€needle€in€the€knee€joint€and€withdrawing€the€fluid.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhen€asked€if€he€could€say€within€a€degree€of€medical€certainty€whether€the€fall€Mr.€EmertÐ \¬ Ðsuffered€exacerbated€his€pervious€condition,€Dr.€Cates€replied€that€ð ðI€do€think€the€fall€exacerbatedÐ H˜ Ðhis€previous€symptoms,€yes.ðð€€He€also€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€fall€was€a€causative€orÐ 4„ Ðcontributing€factor€in€the€surgery€he€performed€in€May€2001.€€He€stated,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€ð ð.€.€.€.€he€hadÐ  p Ðhis€knee€surgery€which€would€probably€have€been€done€in€the€future€anyway,€but€it€certainly€led€toÐ  \ Ðhim€having€it€done€sooner€than€it€would€have€been€otherwise.ððÐ øH ÐÌà  àDr.€Cates€opined€that€it€was€not€possible€to€state€the€time€element€with€respect€to€theÐ Ð  Ðacceleration€factor€because€ð ðeverybodyððs€differentðð€and€ð ðtrauma€can€lead€to€changes€that€can€leadÐ ¼  Ðyou€to€have€treatment€sooner€rather€than€later.ððÐ ¨ø ÐÌò òÓ  ÓV.ó óÐ €Ð ÐÓ´)ÓÌà  àIt€is€not€controverted€that€Mr.€Emert€had€a€long€history€of€problems€with€his€right€knee.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðappellant€City€argues€that€Mr.€Emert€had€already€scheduled€an€appointment€for€a€right€kneeÐ D!” Ðreplacement€before€December€22,€2000,€the€date€of€his€fall,€and€that€it€is€illogical€to€attribute€the€fallÐ 0"€  Ðas€the€cause€of€his€replacement€surgeries.€€In€this€connection€we€reference€the€trial€courtððs€findingÐ #l! Ðof€fact:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€The€clear€testimony€is,€prior€to€this€fall,€this€fall€being€the€fall€ofÐ à%0!$ Ð[sic]€the€cityððs€sidewalk,€this€gentleman€had€a€long€history€of€kneeÐ Ì&"% Ðproblems,€had€Ô_ÔhadÔ_Ô€a€total€knee€replacement€on€his€left,€faced€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpotential€total€knee€replacement€on€his€right,€had€seen€the€doctor,€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€history€of€falling,€whether€thatððs€from€the€knee€conditionsÐ )à$( Ðcombined,€or€from€other€reasons,€it€doesnððt€matter.€€He€had€a€longÐ |*Ì%) Ðhistory€of€falls,€repetitive€falls.€€No€question€he€had€a€torn€meniscus,Ð h+¸&* Ðwhich€is€a€normal,€common€result€from€the€underlying€arthriticÐ ° Ðchanges€in€his€knee,€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€existed€prior€to€this€fall.Мì` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThereððs€no€question€he€was€at€least€looking€at€or€there€wasÐ tÄ Ðconsideration€of€immediate€knee€surgery.€€He€had€actually€gone€to€Dr.Ð `° ÐChristy€because€Dr.€Cates,€and€his€partner,€Dr.€Ô_ÔNaylorÔ_Ô,€consideringÐ L œ Ðthe€previous€history€of€the€left€knee€and€the€reconstruction,€basicallyÐ 8 ˆ Ðsent€him€to€Dr.€Christy€to€see€if€Dr.€Christy€would€do€a€right€kneeÐ $ t Ðreplacement€before€this€fall€ever€occurred.€€Heððs€in€the€process€ofÐ  ` Ðhaving€„€„€itððs€going€to€be€sooner€rather€than€later.€€Itððs€not€a€conditionÐ ü L  Ðthat€might€have€been€several€years€later.€€Obviously,€heððs€looking€atÐ è 8  Ðthat€immediately.ððÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€would€be€less€candid€than€the€justice€of€the€case€requires€us€to€be€were€we€to€accord€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðfinding€less€significance€than€it€portends,€because€it€is€a€clear€conspectus€of€the€proof,€except€for€theÐ ˜è  Ðpenultimate€and€ultimate€sentences€which€are€Ô_ÔconclusaryÔ_Ô€to€some€extent.€€Mr.€Emert€testified€thatÐ „Ô  Ðhe€ð ðwas€getting€alongðð€relatively€good€before€he€fell,€and€was€close€to€putting€his€crutches€aside.€Ð pÀ ÐWe€note€that€the€first€surgery€was€not€performed€until€May€14,€2001,€more€than€five€months€afterÐ \¬ Ðthe€accident€which€worsened€the€knee€problem,€and€absent€the€exacerbation€it€is€not€conclusiveÐ H˜ Ðunder€the€proof€when€surgery€would€be€necessitated,€merely€ððsooner€or€laterðð€according€to€Dr.€Cates.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€City€correctly€argues€that€it€cannot€be€held€liable€for€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ôððs€pre„existingÐ  \ Ðcondition,€and€that€a€trier€of€fact€must€separate€pre„existing€injuries€from€the€new€injury€and€awardÐ øH Ðdamages€only€for€the€injury.€€òòò òBaxter€v.€Ô_ÔVandenheovelÔ_Ôóóó ó,€686€S.W.2d€908,€912€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985),€Ð ä4 Ðòòò òHaws€v.€Bullockóóó ó,€592€S.W.2d€588€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€We€think€the€trial€judge€recognized€theseÐ Ð  Ðlegal€principles,€because€he€emphasized€the€exacerbation€of€the€pre„existing€problems€by€the€fallÐ ¼  Ðwhich€hastened€the€need€for€knee€replacement€surgery,€and€further€recognition€is€inherent€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðdisallowance€of€medical€expenses€apportioned€to€the€pre„existing€condition.€€To€adopt€the€CityððsÐ ”ä Ðargument€would€require€a€finding€that€the€fall€did€not€worsen€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ôððs€problems€with€his€rightÐ €Ð Ðknee;€and€we€cannot€make€this€finding€because€it€is€well€settled€in€this€jurisdiction€that€theÐ l¼ Ðaggravation€of€a€pre„existing€condition€is€compensable.€€òòò òHawsó ó,€supra,€ò òBaxteróó,€ó óòòsupra.óóÐ X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€Ô_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ô€is€liable€for€all€injuries€proximately€caused€to€a€plaintiff.€Ð 4"„  ÐWhen€the€plaintiff€has€a€pre„existing€medical€condition,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_ÔÐ  #p! Ðdefendant€is€responsible€for€all€ill€effects€which€naturally€andÐ  $\" Ðnecessarily€follow€the€injury€in€the€condition€of€health€in€which€theÐ ø$H # Ðplaintiff€was€at€the€time€of€the€[injury].ðð€€òòò òÔ_ÔElrodÔ_Ô€v.€Town€of€Franklinóóó ó,Ð ä%4!$ Ð140€Tenn.€228,€240,€204€S.W.2d€298,€301€(1917).€€Thus,€it€has€longÐ Ð& "% Ðbeen€the€law€that€a€Ô_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ô€ð ðmust€accept€the€injured€person€as€heÐ ¼' #& Ðfinds€him,ðð€in€that€the€Ô_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ô€is€liable€for€the€injury€or€harmÐ ¨(ø#' Ðactually€caused€by€or€which€is€the€natural€consequence€of€theÐ ”)ä$( ÐÔ_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ôððs€negligence€whether€the€plaintiff€was€ð ðweak€or€strong,Ð €*Ð%) Ðhealthy€or€sickðð€before€the€accident.€òòId.Ðl+¼&*` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€óóA€defendant€is€not€liable€for€damages€from€an€earlier€conditionÐ œì Ðor€injury,€not€having€cause€those€damages,€except€to€the€extent€ofÐ ˆØ Ðaggravation€or€enhancement€by€the€defendantððs€acts.€€Where€possible,Ð tÄ Ðthe€fact€finder€must€apportion€the€amount€of€disability€and€painÐ `° Ðbetween€that€caused€by€the€pre„existing€condition€and€that€caused€byÐ L œ Ðthe€accident.€€òòò òHaws€v.€Bullockóóó ó,€592€S.W.2d€at€591.€€A€plaintiff€canÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecover€for€an€increase€in€disability€resulting€from€an€accident,€butÐ $ t Ðnot€for€her€total€disability€resulting€from€the€pre„existing€conditionÐ  ` Ðplus€the€aggravation€caused€by€the€accident.€€òòò òÔ_ÔKincaidÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLyerlaÔ_Ôóóó ó,€680Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974).Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€a€similar€vein,€the€defendant€City€argues€that€the€trial€judge€inappropriately€awardedÐ À  Ðdamages€for€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_Ôððs€revised€knee€surgery€because€Dr.€Cates€testified€there€is€ð ðno€directÐ ¬ü  Ðrelationshipðð€between€the€fall€and€the€second€surgery.€€This€testimony€is€essentially€out€of€context;Ð ˜è  Ðanother€statement€by€Dr.€Cates€is€explanatory:€ð ð.€.€.€the€knee€that€was€put€in€as€a€result€of€the€flareÐ „Ô  Ðdidnððt€work,€and€the€knee€not€working€required€revision.ðð€€òòSee,ò ò€Transports€Inc.€v.€Perryóóó ó,€414Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1967).€€We€can€find€no€reason€to€disturb€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€and€cannotÐ \¬ Ðsay€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€causation.Ð H˜ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓVI.Ð  p Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€City€argues€that€even€though€the€Market€Street€fall€aggravated€Mr.€Ô_ÔEmertÔ_ÔððsÐ øH Ðright€knee€problem,€his€estate€should€be€barred€from€recovery€because€he€was€at€least€50€percent€atÐ ä4 Ðfault.€€We€are€again€referred€to€comments€by€the€trial€judge€that€Mr.€Emert€was€comparatively€atÐ Ð  Ðfault€because€he€was€functionally€blind,€was€addicted€to€narcotic€medication,€that€ð ðhe€himself€affectsÐ ¼  Ðhis€ability€to€see€and€perform,ðð€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€area€where€he€fell€and€ð ðshould€have€hadÐ ¨ø Ða€heightened€sense.ððÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€òòò òEaton€v.€Ô_ÔMcLainÔ_Ôóóó ó,€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994)€the€Supreme€Court€set€forth€the€factorsÐ l¼ Ðthat€should€be€considered€when€apportioning€fault:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€percentage€of€fault€assigned€to€each€party€should€be€dependentÐ 0"€  Ðupon€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€including€such€factors€as:€(1)Ð #l! Ðthe€relative€closeness€of€the€causal€relationship€between€the€conductÐ $X" Ðof€the€defendant€and€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonablenessÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€partyððs€conduct€in€confronting€a€risk,€such€as€whether€the€partyÐ à%0!$ Ðknew€of€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€the€extent€to€whichÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existing€opportunity€toÐ ¸'#& Ðavoid€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existence€of€a€suddenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðemergency€requiring€a€hasty€decision;€(5)€the€significance€of€what€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âparty€was€attempting€to€accomplish€by€the€conduct,€such€as€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðattempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)€the€partyððs€particular€capacities,Ð ° Ðsuch€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education,€and€so€forth.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àIt€is€true€that€Mr.€Emert€had€limited€vision,€but€we€cannot€agree€with€the€Cityððs€argument€thatÐ tÄ Ðhe€was€ð ðentirely€unreasonableðð€in€undertaking€the€risk€of€unassisted€walking,€because€he€had€theÐ `° Ðright€to€assume€the€sidewalk€was€safe€for€passage.€€It€is€also€true€that€Mr.€Emert€was€unsteady€andÐ L œ Ðthat€he€fell€frequently;€but€there€is€no€proof€that€his€sometimes€unsteadiness€caused€the€Market€StreetÐ 8 ˆ Ðfall.€€It€is€further€true€that€Mr.€Emert€was€using€a€walker€or€crutches€while€carrying€a€tote€bag€byÐ $ t Ðmeans€of€a€shoulder€strap€and€a€box€of€candy€in€a€shopping€bag.€€Again,€there€is€no€proof,€exceptÐ  ` Ðperhaps€inferentially,€that€the€tote€bag€or€the€shopping€bag€caused€or€contributed€to€his€fall.€€WithÐ ü L  Ðrespect€to€the€accusation€that€Mr.€Emert€was€under€the€influence€of€a€narcotic€drug,€as€we€read€theÐ è 8  Ðrecord,€it€is€silent€on€the€subject€of€narcotic€over„use€in€December€2000.€€His€use€of€a€narcotic€drugsÐ Ô$  Ðapparently€commenced€in€2001.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAgain,€we€can€find€no€expository€reason€to€disturb€the€apportionment€of€fault,€and€theÐ ˜è  Ðjudgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE