ÿWPC P … 0~V 0xÔ 0kL 0k· 0š" 0~¼ 0Ñ: 0ä 0¦ï 0÷• 0 Œ 0– 01´ 0Cå 0V( 0Ï~ 0¤M 0¤ñ 0Õ 0¼X 0» 0ÙÏ 0£¨ 0£KUBî %0 0z6 0Ù° 1‰ 0äŽ r 0=ƒ 0FÀ 0P 1“V 0·é„  0O$#Es# 0}u# 0xò# 0j$ 0j÷$ 0ea% 0WÆ% 0W& 0„t& 0jø& 0¹b' 0Ì( 0ç( 0áw) 0ôX* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@š. 0»Ú/ 0Ž•0 0Ž#1 0­±1 0¦^2 0¥3 0é3 0Žl4 0Žú4 1·ˆ5?6n­O6 04ü6 B074M7 0a7^þ7 0J\8š¦8 0@@< D3€<³<Æ»< A©=w@*> 0Kj> D+µ>UPà> 0J0? 0Tz? 0^Î? 0h,@ 0r”@ 0|A 0†‚A 0B 1u˜B 0d CU6qCB)§CDCÐC AODU*bDŒDf¢E Fv~GvÓ‘H AOdNƳN 0DyO D/½O BìOV& ÿÿ8Document[8]Document Styleà0..àà8` ..` àÌVÿÿ8Document[4]Document Styleà..àò òòò.óó€€ó óV ÿÿ8Document[6]Document Styleà8..àÌV ÿÿ8Document[5]Document Styleà0..àÌV/ÿÿ8Document[2]Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌó óóóV& ÿÿ8Document[7]Document Styleà0..àà0` ..` àÌzU ÿÿ:Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersàÐ.. àÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€ˆà°..°àà0..àÌzh ÿÿ:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..ààÐ` ..øàÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0` ..` àÌV?ÿÿ8Document[3]Document StyleÌà..àò òÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôó óz{ ÿÿ:Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` ààи ..P àÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€ˆà` ..` àà0¸ ..¸ àÌzŽ ÿÿ:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ ààÐ..¨ àÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€ˆà¸ ..¸ àà0..àÌz¢ ÿÿ:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààÐh..ˆàÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0h..hàÌzµ ÿÿ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÐÀ..ààÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€ˆàh..hàà0À..ÀàÌzÇ ÿÿ:Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..ÀààÐ..°àÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€ˆàÀ..Ààà0..àÌzÚ ÿÿ:Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..Ààà..ààÐp..àÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0p..pàÌVXÿÿ8Document[1]Document StyleÌÔ  Ôà@ì..8àòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔˆÌóóó ól2ÿÿ:Technical[5]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól2ÿÿ:Technical[6]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól/%ÿÿ:Technical[2]Technical Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔóóÌà..àó ól,!ÿÿ:Technical[3]Technical Document StyleÌò òÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôà..àó ól(!ÿÿ:Technical[4]Technical Document Styleò òÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôà..àó ól:0ÿÿ:Technical[1]Technical Document StyleÌòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌóóà..àó ól1ÿÿ:Technical[7]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól1ÿÿ:Technical[8]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ó<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& ÿÿ8BibliogrphyBibliographyà0..àà°..°àÌÌjoÿÿ4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleÓS€   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 þSÓØØ ÿÿCuy±ÉåTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fpÿÿ2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleÓ€ÓÇÓS€ #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)SÓØØ !"(ÿÿ$˜˜Ìà0 àà à(ÿÿ$™™à0 àà0 àà à((ÿÿ$ššà0 àà0 àà0 àà à  ÿÿA_ekqw‡DocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?ãt2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperÓÈÓÑ °ÑÑè°ÑÖ€%ÿÿÖ zÝ ƒ&ÿÿ(ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&«XXXÔÓÈÓÒX°ÒÒ°°ÒÓÿÿÀ°œXÓß6€G''ü°ø*–d6ßß6€G''°ø*–d6ßÌÌàHHÀà1ˆÌÌàHHÀà2ˆÌÌàHHÀà3ˆÌÌàHHÀà4ˆÌÌàHHÀà5ˆÌÌàHHÀà6ˆÌÌàHHÀà7ˆÌÌàHHÀà8ˆÌÌàHHÀà9ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà10ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà11ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà12ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà13ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà14ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà15ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà16ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà17ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà18ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà19ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà20ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà21ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà22ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà23ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà24ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà25ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà26ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà27ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà28Ô  à.À+Ô('2ŸÓ$¨¨Ý ƒF¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýpÿÿ4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftòòòòÌóóóóVÿÿ4Heading 1Centered Headingà@ì..ìàòòò òˆÌÌóóó ób* ÿÿ8Bullet ListIndented Bullet Listà0..àððà0` ..` àÌB& ÿÿ$1Document Styleà0..àà8` ..` àÌÌB ÿÿ$2Document Styleà..àò òòò.óó€€Ìó óB ÿÿ$3Document Styleà8..àÌÌB ÿÿ$4Document Styleà0..àÌÌB-ÿÿ$5Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÌó óóóB& ÿÿ$6Document Styleà0..àà0` ..` àÌÌdS ÿÿ$7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersàÐ..àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆà°..°àà0..àÌÌdf ÿÿ$8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..ààÐ` ..` àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆà..àà0` ..` àÌÌB=ÿÿ$9Document StyleÌà..àò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌó ófy ÿÿ&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` ààи ..¸ àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆà` ..` àà0¸ ..¸ àÌÌfŒ ÿÿ&11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ ààÐ..àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆà¸ ..¸ àà0..àÌÌfŸ ÿÿ&12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààÐh..hàÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆà..àà0h..hàÌÌf² ÿÿ&13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÐÀ..ÀàÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆàh..hàà0À..ÀàÌÌfÅ ÿÿ&14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..ÀààÐ..àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆàÀ..Ààà0..àÌÌfØ ÿÿ&15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..Ààà..ààÐp..pàÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ˆà..àà0p..pàÌÌDV!ÿÿ&16Document StyleÌÔ  Ôà@ì..ìàòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔˆÌÌóóó óX/ÿÿ&17Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€.€€Ìó óX/ÿÿ&18Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€.€€Ìó óX-(ÿÿ&19Technical Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔóóÌà..àÌó óX*$ÿÿ&20Technical Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôà..àÌó óX)$ÿÿ&21Technical Document Styleò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôà..àÌó óX83ÿÿ&22Technical Document StyleÌòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌóóà..àÌó óX/ÿÿ&23Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€.€€Ìó óX/ÿÿ&24Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€.€€Ìó ó  ÿÿCƒ‰•›£«±Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xU «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó df|œ$zŸÓ$¨¨(G.2Ù›$¤¤Ý ƒF¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€òUÊòXXÔà  àòòò òÚ  Ú0Ú  Úó óóóÿMARVINÿÿBERKEÿÿLESLIEÿÿMcWILLIAMSÿ(—$ò òòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úó óóó VANNLASLEYPINCHAKSUMMITTCLEMENTS FELA OSCACaldararoVanderbiltMcDaniel CSXD.C.CirDaubertMerrell S.CtSheltonCortezAlutech AppSearleBallard Evid3d 9th2dDeluca SuppD.N.J.1992aff'd 3rdSheppeardFed.R.EvidWeinsteinF.R.D. t]heMem.S.U.L.Rev Civ HarvL.RevLiebermanTenn.R.EvidDodsonCavertMcCorkleLovetttriazynesmultiformeDecadron 37th("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒGGGG'ÿÿdxdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5RMVW›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK L EM N IO IP [Q R eS Ó€T 6UU 4î( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ 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]^_`abcd ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dnnnn7Border 1dd€MVoCþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒF!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€mÔÝ  ÝÔ€qÔÔ€qÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€qXÔÌÌò òJune€2,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€qôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒF!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€mÔÝ  ÝÔ€qÔÔ€qÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€qXÔÌÌò òJune€2,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€qôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€M‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒF!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€mÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€JmXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ 5 ÑÑ  ÑÑ€n §u` ÑÙ€€ÙßR€proA1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àÞ ÞÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌBARBARA€J.€HAND,à@ àà@ à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYà àÌAdministratrix€of€Estateà@ à)à à03A01„9704„CV„00123Ìof€Charles€D.€Hand,€Deceasedà0 à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appelleeà@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àv.à@ à)à àHON.€ROBERT€M.€SUMMITT,Ìà àà àà àà@ à)à àJUDGEà àÌNORFOLK€SOUTHERN€RAILWAY€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌCOMPANYà@ à)à àœÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ à)à àÌà àDefendant„Appellant€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED›Ìà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ àÌÌÌÌÌL.€HALE€HAMILTON€and€H.€DEAN€CLEMENTS€OF€CHATTANOOGA€FOR€ÏAPPELLANTÌÌPATRICK€S.€O'BRIEN€OF€ST.€LOUIS,€MISSOURI€and€CLARENCE€E.€WALKERÏOF€CHATTANOOGA€FOR€APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€òòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€à àà àà à€€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€suit€brought€under€the€Federal€EmployersÏœLiability›€Act.€€It€was€broughtòò€óóby€Plaintiff€Barbara€J.€Hand,ÍAdministratrix€of€the€estate€of€her€deceased€husband,€Charles€D.ÏHand,€against€his€employer,€Defendant€Norfolk€Southern€RailwayÏCompany.€€The€jury€rendered€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€PlaintiffÏand€assessed€damages€in€the€amount€of€$3,250,000.€€The€DefendantÏappeals,€raising€nine€separate€issues.€€Although€many€do€not€meritÏa€protracted€discussion,€others€raise€substantial€questions.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€former€category€it€is€insisted€that€the€TrialÏCourt€was€in€error€in€overruling€the€Defendant's€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€and€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€at€the€closeÏof€the€Plaintiff's€proof.€€As€to€the€first€point,€a€trial€on€theÏmerits€precludes€consideration€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,ÏòòCortez€v.€Alutech,€Inc.óó,€941€S.W.2d€891€(Tenn.App.1996),€and€casesÏcited€therein.€€As€to€the€second,€introduction€of€evidence€by€theÏDefendant€waived€the€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€theÏconclusion€of€the€Plaintiff's€proof.€€òòSearle€v.€Bryantóó,€713€S.W.2dÏ62€(Tenn.1986).ÌÌà àà àThe€other€issues€may€be€combined€and€restated€asÏfollows:ÌÌ1.à àThe€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€not€granting€a€directedÏverdict€at€the€close€of€all€the€proof€and€in€not€granting€theÌDefendant's€motion€for€a€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdictÏbecause€the€testimony€of€the€Plaintiff's€witnesses€as€to€causationÏwas€not€admissible.Ì2.à àThe€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€allowing€the€Plaintiff€toÏamend€her€complaint€in€two€respects,€first,€to€allege€violation€ofÏthe€OSHA€statute€because€ð ðthere€was€no€credible€evidence€that€aÏviolation€of€the€OSHA€statute€either€caused€or€contributed€to€theÏcause€of€decedentððs€brain€tumorðð€and,€second,€to€allegeÏaggravation€of€a€pre„existing€condition€because€ð ðthere€was€noÏcredible€evidence€of€a€pre„existing€condition.ððÌ3.€à àThe€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€failing€to€set€aside€theÏverdict€and€grant€a€new€trial€because€under€the€competent€proof€asÏto€damages€the€award€was€excessive.Ì4.à àThe€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€not€granting€a€mistrialÏbecause€of€improper€argument€of€the€Plaintiff's€counsel.Ì5.à àThe€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€failing€to€grant€a€new€trialÏbecause€the€jury's€verdict€was€a€product€of€sympathy,€coupled€withÏan€erroneous€understanding€of€the€Court's€charge€on€loss€ofÏenjoyment€of€life.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Hand€was€employed€by€Norfolk€in€1967,€and€wasÏrequired€to€cease€his€employment€in€November€1992,€when€he€wasÍdiagnosed€with€a€malignant€brain€tumor,€known€as€glioblastomaÏmultiforme.€€He€died€on€May€16,€1993,€at€the€age€of€58.ÌÌà àà àDuring€his€employment€through€the€years€Mr.€Hand€atÏvarious€times€welded,€assisted€in€insulating€and€inspectingÏrailroad€cars,€and€engaged€in€extensive€woodworking€and€carpentryÏwork.€€During€the€course€of€his€employment€he€came€in€dailyÏcontact€with€certain€solvents,€such€as€œbenzene,›€xylene,€andÏtoluene.€€He€also€was€exposed€to€diesel€fumes,€a€herbicideÏcontaining€triazynes,€sealants€containing€œisocyanates,›€and€glueÏcontaining€œbenzene.›ÌÌà àà àIt€is€one€of€œthe€Defendant's€major›€contentions€thatÏthere€is€no€admissible€evidence€to€support€a€finding€that€œMr.ÏHand's€exposure€to€the€foregoing€substances,€many€of€which€areÏknown€carcinogens,€in€any€way€caused€or€contributed€to€the€medicalÏcondition€from€which€he€died.ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€recognize€that€there€is€no€dearth€of€testimonyÏfrom€eminent›€experts€supporting€the€œDefendant's›€contention€thatÏMr.€Hand's€tumor€was€not€as€a€result€of€any€exposure€to€variousÏsubstances€he€encountered€in€the€course€of€his€employment.€€TheÏexpert€witnesses€for€the€Plaintiff€are€to€the€contrary.€€WhileÍthere€are€incidents€that€the€tumor€afflicting€the€Deceased€hadÏbeen€found€in€rats€which€had€been€exposed€to€the€substances€he€hadÏencountered,€they€concede€that€they€know€of€no€specific€instanceÏwhere€such€a€tumor€was€caused€in€humans€by€any€of€these€materials.€ÏNevertheless,€they€expressed€an€opinion€that€the€tumor€was€causedÏor€contributed€to€thereby.ÌÌà àà àA€recent€opinion€of€the€Supreme€Court,€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÏTransportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.1997),€addresses€inÏdepth€the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€as€contemplated€byÏRule€702€and€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€In€òòMcDanielóó,Ïwhich€is€also€a€FELA€case,€it€was€the€contention€of€the€plaintiffÏthat€his€exposure€to€certain€organic€solvents€resulted€in€a€formÏof€brain€damage€known€as€toxic€encephalopathy.€€On€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€the€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€trial€judge'sÏadmitting€the€evidence€of€the€plaintiff's€experts,€and€in€theÏcourse€of€that€opinion€made€the€following€œobservations€(at€pageÏ263):›ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà@ àTHE€TENNESSEE€STANDARD€ÌÌà àAfter€examining€the€basic€legal€principlesÏgoverning€the€admissibility€of€scientific€evidence€andÏthe€change€in€direction€by€the€federal€courts,€we€turnÏto€Tennessee€to€clarify€our€standard€of€admissibility.€ÌÌà àIn€general,€questions€regarding€the€admissibility,Ïqualifications,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expertÏtestimony€are€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€TheÏtrial€court's€ruling€in€this€regard€may€only€beÏoverturned€if€the€discretion€is€arbitrarily€exercised€orÏabused.€Id.€The€specific€rules€of€evidence€that€governÏthe€issue€of€admissibility€of€scientific€proof€inÏTennessee€are€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703.€€The€formerÏprovides:€ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ € ÒÌ€€€If€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÏknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€factÏto€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€inÏissue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,Ïskill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testifyÏin€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒAnd€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703€states:€ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ € Ò€€€The€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€whichÏan€expert€bases€an€opinion€or€inference€may€be€thoseÏperceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€beforeÏthe€hearing.€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€byÏexperts€in€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€orÏinferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€needÏnot€be€admissible€in€evidence.€The€court€shallÏdisallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€orÏinference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicateÏlack€of€trustworthiness.€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  Òà àThe€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€expert€testimony€inÏthis€case€is€reliable€and€that€it€will€substantiallyÏassist€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€causation.€The€defendantÏargues€that€irrespective€of€òòFryeóó€or€òòDaubertóó,€there€mustÏbe€adherence€to€the€strict€requirements€contained€in€theÏlanguage€of€the€rules€and€also€a€reasonable€standard€forÏproving€causation.€It€contends€that€the€plaintiffs'Ïscientific€evidence€is€unreliable€and€must€be€excluded.ÏThe€defendant€argues€that€an€epidemiological€study€mustÏshow€a€relative€risk€of€greater€than€2.0,€which€severalÏcourts€have€said€means€that€a€disease€more€likely€thanÏnot€was€caused€by€the€specific€agent€or€event.€òòSeeÏDaubert€v.€Merrell€Dow€Pharmaceuticals,€Inc.óó,€43€F.3dÍ1311€(9th€Cir.1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€116ÏS.€Ct.€189,€133€L.€Ed.€2d€126€(1995);€òòDeluca€v.€MerrellÏDowóó€òòœPharma›„€œceuticals›,€Incóó.,€791€F.€Supp.€1042Ï(D.N.J.1992),€òòaff'dóó,€6€F.3d€778€(3rd€Cir.€1993).€AsÏdiscussed€herein,€the€factor€is€certainly€relevant€butÏwe€reject€the€contention€that€it€should€be€adopted€asÏmatter€of€law.€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€advisory€comments€to€Rule€702€indicateÏthat€Tennessee€has€followed€the€òòFryeóó€test€in€analyzingÏthe€admissibility€of€scientific€evidence,€oneÏcommentator,€recognizing€the€similarity€betweenÏTennessee€Rule€702€and€Federal€Rule€Evid.€702,€hasÏraised€the€question€of€whether€the€òòFryeóó€test€of€"generalÏacceptance"€should€be€abolished€in€Tennessee.€N.€Cohen,ÏS.€Sheppeard,€and€D.€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ððÏ401.20€at€124,€n.€233.€Indeed,€as€the€trial€court€inÏthis€case€noted,€there€is€some€evidence€of€a€departureÏfrom€the€strict€adherence€to€the€òòFryeóó€test€by€courts€inÏthis€State.€ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€determining€the€standard€for€theÏadmissibility€of€scientific€evidence€requires€anÏanalysis€of€the€unique€language€found€in€Rules€702€andÏ703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€For€instance,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€702€requires€that€the€scientific€evidenceÏ"òòsubstantiallyóó€assist€the€trier€of€fact,"€while€itsÏfederal€counterpart€requires€only€that€the€evidenceÏ"assist€the€trier€of€fact."€Fed.R.Evid.€702.€ThisÏdistinction€indicates€that€the€probative€force€of€theÏtestimony€must€be€stronger€before€it€is€admitted€inÏTennessee.€Sòòee,€e.g.óó,€Weinstein,€òòRule€702€of€the€FederalÏRules€of€Evidence€is€Sound;€It€Should€Not€Be€Amendedóó,Ï138€F.R.D.€631,€636€(1991).€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703€states€that€"[t]heÏcourt€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÏor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicateÏlack€of€trustworthiness."€There€is€no€similarÏrestriction€in€the€federal€rule.€Fed.R.Evid.€703.€Thus,Ïas€one€writer€has€observed,€"the€additional€language€.€.Ï.€[in€the€Tennessee€rule]€is€obviously€designed€toÏencourage€trial€courts€to€take€a€more€active€role€inÏevaluating€the€reasonableness€of€the€expert's€relianceÏupon€the€particular€basis€for€his€or€her€testimony."€R.ÍBanks,€òòSome€Comparisons€Between€the€New€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Evidence€and€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidenceóó,€Part€II,Ï20€Mem.S.U.L.Rev.€499,€559€(1990).€In€sum,€even€thoughÏthe€facts€and€data€need€not€be€admissible,€they€must€beÏreviewed€and€found€to€be€trustworthy€by€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€analysis,€we€conclude€thatÏTennessee's€adoption€of€Rules€702€and€703€in€1991€asÏpart€of€the€Rules€of€Evidence€supersede€the€generalÏacceptance€test€of€òòFryeóó.€In€Tennessee,€under€the€recentÏrules,€a€trial€court€must€determine€whether€the€evidenceÏwill€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€determineÏa€fact€in€issue€and€whether€the€facts€and€dataÏunderlying€the€evidence€indicate€a€lack€ofÏtrustworthiness.€The€rules€together€necessarily€requireÏa€determination€as€to€the€scientific€validity€orÏreliability€of€the€evidence.€Simply€put,€unless€theÏscientific€evidence€is€valid,€it€will€not€substantiallyÏassist€the€trier€of€fact,€nor€will€its€underlying€factsÏand€data€appear€to€be€trustworthy,€but€there€is€noÏrequirement€in€the€rule€that€it€be€generally€accepted.€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€do€not€expressly€adopt€òòDaubertóó,€theÏnon„exclusive€list€of€factors€to€determine€reliabilityÏare€useful€in€applying€our€Rules€702€and€703.€AÏTennessee€trial€court€may€consider€in€determiningÏreliability:€(1)€whether€scientific€evidence€has€beenÏtested€and€the€methodology€with€which€it€has€beenÏtested;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€has€been€subjected€toÏpeer€review€or€publication;€(3)€whether€a€potential€rateÏof€error€is€known;€(4)€whether,€as€formerly€required€byÏòòFryeóó,€the€evidence€is€generally€accepted€in€theÏscientific€community;€and€(5)€whether€the€expert'sÏresearch€in€the€field€has€been€conducted€independent€ofÏlitigation.€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€trial€court€must€analyze€the€scienceÏand€not€merely€the€qualifications,€demeanor€orÏconclusions€of€experts,€the€court€need€not€weigh€orÏchoose€between€two€legitimate€but€conflicting€scientificÏviews.€The€court€instead€must€assure€itself€that€theÏopinions€are€based€on€relevant€scientific€methods,Ïprocesses,€and€data,€and€not€upon€an€expert's€mereÏspeculation.€òòSee,€e.g.,€Joineróó,€78€F.3d€at€530.€TheÏtrial€court€should€keep€in€mind€that€the€preliminaryÍquestion€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€104€is€one€ofÏadmissibility€of€the€evidence.€Once€the€evidence€isÏadmitted,€it€will€thereafter€be€tested€with€the€crucibleÏof€vigorous€cross„examination€and€countervailing€proof.ÏAfter€that€occurs,€a€defendant€may,€of€course,€Ïchallenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€by€moving€forÏa€directed€verdict€at€the€appropriate€times.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€50.€Yet€it€is€important€to€emphasize€that€theÏweight€to€be€given€to€stated€scientific€theories,€andÏthe€resolution€of€legitimate€but€competing€scientificÏviews,€are€matters€appropriately€entrusted€to€the€trierÏof€fact.€òòSeeóó€òòJoineróó,€78€F.3d€at€534„35€(Birch,€J.,Ïconcurring).€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€the€burden€placed€on€trial€courtsÏto€analyze€and€to€screen€novel€scientific€evidence€is€aÏsignificant€one.€No€framework€exists€that€provides€forÏsimple€and€practical€application€in€every€case;€theÏcomplexity€and€diversity€of€potential€scientificÏevidence€is€simply€too€vast€for€the€application€of€aÏsingle€test.€òòSee€Developments€in€the€Law„„ConfrontingÏthe€New€Challenges€of€Scientific€Evidenceóó,€108€Harv.ÏL.Rev.€1481,€1513„1516€(1995).€Nonetheless,€theÏpreliminary€questions€must€be€addressed€by€the€trialÏcourt,€see,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€104,€and€they€must€beÏaddressed€within€the€framework€of€rules€702€and€703.€ÌÌà@ àAPPLICATION€OF€STANDARD€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€correctly€foresaw€the€trend€awayÏfrom€òòFryeóó€and€also€used€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòDaubertóóÏas€a€framework€for€analysis.€As€it€observed,€theÏscientific€theory€that€exposure€to€solvents€may€causeÏtoxic€encephalopathy€has€been€tested€frequently€over€aÏperiod€of€25€years.€Because€no€precise€diagnostic€deviceÏor€biological€mechanism€can€isolate€the€causal€factor,Ïthe€relevant€tests€have€been€epidemiological€studies.ÏThe€experts€in€this€case€testified€at€length€about€theÏfield€of€epidemiology€and€the€use€of€cohort€andÏcase„control€studies.€The€experts€agreed€thatÏepidemiological€studies€have€been€used€to€test€theÏhypothesis€that€exposure€to€solvents€causesÏencephalopathy€and€that€numerous€studies€support€aÏcausal€relationship.€These€studies€have€been€reviewed,Ïreconstructed,€published€in€leading€journals€in€theÍfield,€and€subjected€to€peer€review.€Although€theÏ"positive"€studies€have€been€criticized€for€failing€toÏaccount€for€confounding€factors,€the€diagnosis€isÏrecognized€in€medical€textbooks€and€journals€as€well€asÏby€several€national€and€world€health€organizations.€WeÏalso€observe€that€the€research€in€this€area,€includingÏthat€of€several€of€the€plaintiffs'€experts,€wasÏconducted€independently€of€this€litigation.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court'sÏfinding€that€the€evidence€will€substantially€assist€theÏjury€to€understand€the€evidence€and€to€determine€a€factÏin€issue.€We€also€agree€with€the€trial€court'sÏconclusion€that€the€methodology€and€principlesÏunderlying€the€scientific€evidence€are€sufficientlyÏtrustworthy€and€reliable€to€be€presented€to€the€trier€ofÏfact.€The€trial€court€is€not€required€to€determineÏwhether€it€agrees€with€the€evidence€and€should€notÏsubstitute€its€view€for€the€trier€of€fact.€It€shouldÏallow€the€jury€to€consider€legitimate€but€conflictingÏviews€about€the€scientific€proof.€Provided€the€evidenceÏis€scientifically€valid,€criticisms€of€it€and€opposingÏviews€may€be€elicited€on€cross€examination€and/orÏestablished€in€the€defendant's€case.€That€is€the€essenceÏof€the€lawsuit.€ÌÌà@ àCONCLUSION€ÌÌà àWe€have€concluded€that€the€scientific€evidenceÏproffered€by€the€plaintiffs€satisfies€the€requirementsÏof€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703,€and€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€it€intoÏevidence.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àOur€review€of€the€evidence€in€light€of€the€foregoing,Ïincluding€the€reaffirmation€of€the€discretion€accorded€œtrial›Ïœjudges›€in€the€admission€of€expert€testimony,€persuades€us€that€œinÏthis€case€the€Trial€Judge€was€correct€in€finding€that€the€expertÏwitnesses€offered€on€behalf€of€the€Plaintiff€met€the€requirementsÍof€Rule€702€and€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€and€thatÏthe€Trial€Court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€the€admissionÏthereof.ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€as€to€two€of€the€Plaintiffððs€expert€witnesses,ÏDr.€Allan€Lieberman€and€Dr.€Vincent€Garry,€no€timely€objection€wasÏmade€at€the€time€their€evidence€was€offered,€but,€as€alreadyÏnoted,€even€if€proper€objection€had€been€made,€our€determinationÏas€to€the€admissibility€of€their€evidence€would€have€been€theÏsame.Ìà àÌà àà àBefore€leaving€this€issue,€we€have€not€overlooked€theÏPlaintiff's€insistence€that€no€proper€objection€was€made€toÏexclude€the€evidence€and,€consequently,€its€admission€may€not€beÏmade€a€ground€for€error.€€While€it€appears€that€as€to€two€of€theÏPlaintiff's€experts€she€may€very€well€be€correct,€it€seems€clearÏto€us€that€as€to€one,€Dr.€Girard,€an€objection€was€made,€althoughÏthe€Plaintiff€contends€that€it€was€not€sufficiently€specific.ÌÌà àà àIn€reaching€our€conclusion€as€to€the€Defendant's€failureÏto€object,€we€have€not€overlooked€its€argument€that€its€motion€forÏa€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€all€the€proof€puts€theÏadmissibility€of€the€evidence€at€issue.€€It€relies€upon€òòMcDanielóó,Ísupra,€as€supportive€of€its€position.€€We€do€not€so€read€òòMcDanielóó,Ïwhich€states,€as€pertinent€to€this€point,€the€following€(at€pageÏ265):ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€trial€court€should€keep€in€mind€that€the€preliminaryÏquestion€under€Tenn.R.Evid.€104€is€one€of€admissibilityÏof€the€evidence.€€Once€the€evidence€is€admitted,€it€willÏthereafter€be€tested€with€the€crucible€of€vigorousÏcross„examination€and€countervailing€proof.€€After€thatÏoccurs,€a€defendant€may,€of€course,€challenge€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€by€moving€for€a€directedÏverdict€at€the€appropriate€times.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï50.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àIt€is€our€understanding€that€the€foregoing€languageÏstands€for€the€proposition€that€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdictÏacts€as€an€objection€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€expert€evidence,Ïnot€to€its€admissibility.ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€issues€regarding€amendments€grantedÏto€the€Plaintiff€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€The€first€issueÏraised€contends€that€the€Plaintiff€should€not€have€been€allowed€toÏamend€to€allege€OSHA€violations€because€there€was€no€credibleÏevidence€that€such€violations€caused€or€contributed€to€theÏDecedent's€brain€tumor.€€In€light€of€our€disposition€of€issue€one,Ïthere€is€proof€from€the€expert€witnesses€that€the€Defendant€didÏviolate€the€Statute,€as€well€as€proof€that€the€Decedent's€exposureÍto€various€chemicals€resulting€from€the€violation€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€brain€tumor.ÌÌà àà àWith€regard€to€the€other€amendment€assailed,€theÏDefendant€contends€that€it€was€improper€because€there€was€noÏcredible€evidence€of€a€pre„existing€condition.€€As€pointed€out€inÏthe€Plaintiff's€brief,€Dr.€Lieberman,€a€specialist€in€occupationÏand€environmental€medicine,€advanced€the€concept€of€individualÏsusceptibility,€pointing€out€that€people€metabolize€substances,Ïparticularly€poisons,€in€varying€ways,€we€conclude€that€theÏsusceptibility€of€the€Decedent€was€in€fact€a€pre„existingÏcondition€justifying€the€charge.ÌÌà àà àFinally€as€to€both€issues€relative€to€amendmentsÏallowed,€we€point€out€that€the€verdict€rendered€was€a€general€one,Ïas€contemplated€by€T.C.A.€20„9„503,€the€effect€of€which€was€toÏdecide€each€issue€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiff€if€supported€byÏmaterial€evidence.€€òòGeneral€Motors€Corporation€v.€Dodsonóó,€47ÏTenn.App.€438,€338€S.W.2d€655€(1960);€òòRural€EducationalÏAssociation€v.€Bushóó,€42€Tenn.App.€34,€298€S.W.2d€761€(1956).€ÏThus,€the€verdict€may€stand€on€the€allegations€of€the€originalÏcomplaint€irrespective€of€the€amendments€allowed.ÌÌà àà àThe€most€difficult€issue€raised€in€this€case,€in€ourÏview,€is€the€one€insisting€the€award€was€excessive.€€Under€theÏsubstantive€Federal€law€in€FELA€cases,€there€are€two€distinctÏclaims€for€damages€which€may€be€recovered€in€death€cases.€€TheÏfirst€is€pecuniary€loss€to€the€survivors,€and€the€second€is€theÏloss€and€suffering€sustained€by€the€deceased›€while€he€lived.€€TheÏparties€seem€to€agree€that€the€damages€which€Mr.€Hand€was€entitledÏas€to€the€first€claim€was€$227,000€and€the€balance€was€toÏcompensate€him€for€his€pain€and€suffering€until€his€death,€whichÏoccurred€approximately€seven€months€after€he€was€diagnosed€withÏthe€brain€tumor.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€loss€and€suffering€sustained€by€the€DecedentÏuntil€his€death,€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€theÏfollowing€statement€in€the€Plaintiff's€brief€which€we€have€editedÏslightly€to€delete€elements€we€do€not€believe€compensable€and€toÏmore€accurately€reflect€the€record:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àPlaintiffððs€decedent€died€as€a€result€of€brainÏcancer.€€His€treating€physician,€Dr.€Cavert€McCorkle,Ïdescribed€his€brain€tumor€as€an€especially€malignantÏtype€called€a€glioblastoma€multiform.€€There€are€fourÏgrades€of€gliomas,€1€through€4,€and€decedentððs€was€aÏgrade€4,€the€most€malignant.€€It€is€called€a€multiformeÏbecause€it€takes€different€types€of€physicalÏmanifestations,€all€of€which€are€malignant,€all€of€whichÏare€irreversible,€and€none€of€which€have€been€found€toÍbe€successfully€treated.€€Such€a€tumor€can€cause€brainÏtissue€to€degenerate€or€die,€to€become€necrotic.€€It€canÏbecome€almost€liquefied€in€certain€areas,€like€mush.€ÏOther€times,€the€damaged€tissue€is€firm€but€abnormal.€ÏIt€can€cause€various€forms€of€microscopic€findings.€€TheÏpresence€of€the€tumor€results€in€swelling€or€edema,Ïwhich€places€pressure€on€the€normal€brain.€€TheÏstatistical€life€expectancy€of€a€person€diagnosed€with€aÏglioblastoma€multiforme€is€from€a€couple€of€weeks€toÏabout€6€months,€even€with€surgery.€€There€is€no€cure€forÏthis€kind€of€cancer.ÌÌà àTo€understand€what€a€person€experiences€who€isÏdiagnosed€with€a€terminal€disease,€an€inoperable€brainÏtumor,€and€who€loses€control€of€their€bodily€functions,Ïand€who€must€then€depend€on€someone€else€to€assist€themÏwith€everything,€one€must€appreciate€the€kind€of€personÏhe€was€before€the€diagnosis.€€In€this€case,€decedentÏlived€for€some€seven€months€after€his€diagnosis€withÏbrain€cancer,€from€November,€1992€until€his€death€inÏMay,€1993,€and€throughout€that€time€experienced€theÏdebilitating€effects€of€his€disease.€€Charles€Dean€Hand,Ïbefore€his€diagnosis€of€glioblastoma€multiforme,€was€aÏproud€man.€€He€was€proud€in€a€calm€and€not€an€arrogantÏway.€€He€was€in€his€work€a€dedicated€man€and€a€masterÏcraftsman€in€all€crafts.€€The€assistant€manager€forÏdefendant€at€Haynes€Shop€said€that€ð ðCharlie€Hand€wasÏgood€people,ðð€in€the€sense€of€being€a€ð ðgood€moral€personÏand€hard€worker.ðð€€A€coworker€described€him€as€a€detailÏperson,€who€stressed€the€importance€of€doing€a€jobÏright.€€He€was€a€mentor€to€younger€workers,€and€tried€toÏimprove€the€work€done€at€Hayne.€€He€never€complained.€ÏWhen€things€went€wrong,€he€would€always€try€to€make€themÏbetter.€€His€widow,€plaintiff€Barbara€Hand,€testified€noÏone€ever€met€him€that€did€not€love€him€and€that€he€neverÏhad€anything€to€complain€about;€that€he€was€happy€withinÏhis€work€and€his€home.€€He€believed€in€doing€thingsÏright€and€good,€and€thatððs€what€he€did€for€the€railroad,Ïthe€very€best.€€He€was€a€religious€man€who€loved€hisÏfamily.€€Charles€Dean€Hand,€in€short,€was€not€a€personÏwho€was€used€to€being€helpless€or€who€expected€others€toÏdo€for€him;€he€was€ready€to€do€for€them.€€He€was€aÏperson€who€did€his€part€and€more,€who€strove€forÏexcellence,€and€who€carried€out€his€responsibilities€toÏothers.ÌÌà àHe€was€first€diagnosed€with€a€glioblastomaÏmultiforme€in€November,€1992.€€He€did€not€seek€medicalÏcare€willingly.€€His€wife€and€son€had€to€force€him€intoÏa€car€after€he€collapsed€on€the€Sabbath€following€a€fullÏday€of€work€for€the€railroad,€and€remained€extremely€illÏon€Sunday.€€His€family€doctor,€Dr.€Lovett,€saw€him€thatÏnight,€and€when€he€had€to€return€to€the€hospital€againÏthe€next€day,€he€again€had€to€be€forced€into€the€car,Ïclaiming€he€didnððt€need€to€go.ÌÌà àAfter€a€CT€scan€and€an€MRI€scan€had€been€obtained,Ïthe€office€of€Dr.€Cavert€McCorkle,€a€neurologic€surgeon,Ïwas€called€for€consultation.€€Dr.€McCorkle€reviewed€theÏCT€and€MRI.€€The€scans€revealed€a€very€large€area€of€theÏleft€frontal€part€of€the€brain€involved€with€a€tumor,Ïwith€a€lot€of€swelling€(or€edema)€and€degeneration€orÏnecrosis,€consistent€with€a€very€malignant€tumor.€€ItÏwas€deep€in€the€left€frontal€area,€and€extended€at€leastÏto€the€midline€of€the€brain€and€was€probably€growingÏacross€the€midline.€€The€location€was€at€the€dominantÏspeech€center€on€the€left€side.€€Clinically,€he€wasÏhaving€speech€difficulty€and€right€sided€weakness.€€HeÏhad€evident€neurologic€deficits€and€was€having€troubleÏcommunicating€but€was€aware.ÌÌà àDr.€McCorkle€could€not€state€precisely€how€long€theÏtumor€had€been€present€before€the€diagnosis.€€It€Ìcould€have€been€there€for€some€length€of€time,€which€heÏquantified€as€"at€least€one€to€two€to€three€months,"Ìð ðsmoldering,ðð€gradually€growing€and€changingÏsymptomatically,€and€then€developing€the€malignantÏtumor.€€He€has€had€patients€who€have€been€scanned€afterÏreporting€an€abnormality,€a€seizure€or€some€otherÏcomplaint,€and€the€scan€was€read€as€normal;€a€brainÏtumor€was€not€detected€on€the€scan.€€Seizures€are€aÏcharacteristic€side€effect€of€the€presence€of€the€brainÏcancer.€€Then,€several€months€later€a€gigantic€tumor€isÏevident.€€Decedentððs€tumor€had€certainly€been€there€forÏsome€months,€probably€at€least€two€to€three€months.€€InÏlight€of€his€experience€with€the€patients€describedÏabove,€who€have€had€scans€read€as€normal€after€havingÏcomplained€of€experiencing€an€abnormality€only€to€revealÏa€gigantic€tumor€months€later,€Dr.€McCorkle€stated€thatÏbehavioral€changes€which€the€decedent€Charles€Hand,€hadÍexperienced€in€April€to€May€of€1992€were€possiblyÏindicative€of€something€related€to€his€cancer€going€onÏat€that€time.ÌÌà àMrs.€Hand€testified€as€to€these€behavioral€changes.€ÏDuring€the€year€prior€to€being€diagnosed,€he€becameÏextremely€irritable€and€these€changes€intensified€andÏbecame€worse€through€the€spring€and€summer€of€1992.€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€scans,€Dr.€McCorkle€had€a€longÏtalk€with€the€patient,€Charles€Dean€Hand,€and€his€wifeÏand€family,€in€which€it€was€decided€that€he€would€beÏtreated€with€steroids€and€radiation,€but€that€surgeryÏwould€not€be€attempted.€€Dr.€McCorkle€recommendedÏagainst€surgery€because€he€felt€that€surgery€had€nothingÏto€offer€his€patient€and€should€not€be€done.€€BecauseÏthe€tumor€involved€the€dominant€speech€center€andÏextended€at€least€to€and€probably€beyond€the€midline,Ïthe€chances€of€actually€being€able€to€surgically€removeÏmost€of€the€tumor€were€very€remote.€€Dr.€McCorkle€knewÏfrom€the€start€he€could€not€get€it€all€out€because€itÏwas€so€deep€and€extended€so€far,€and€even€if€all€or€mostÏof€it€could€be€removed€it€would€grow€back.€€A€grade€4Ïglioma€can€grow€very€quickly.€€Statistically,€his€lifeÏexpectancy€would€not€be€improved€even€with€surgery€andÏthe€chances€of€sustaining€significant€neurologic€lossÏafter€surgery€were€great.€€The€doctor€could€not€justifyÏsurgery€from€a€quality€of€life€perspective.ÌÌà àThus,€as€the€end€result€of€Dr.€McCorkleððs€long€talkÏwith€the€patient,€the€decedent€Charles€Hand,€and€hisÏwife€and€family,€the€decision€was€made€by€Mrs.€Hand€toÏaccept€Dr.€McCorkleððs€recommendation,€and€treat€withÏradiation€and€steroids€rather€than€surgery.€€TheÏchildren€were€against€the€decision€not€to€do€surgery€andÏwere€very€upset€with€their€mother€because€of€thisÏdecision.€€Indeed,€Dr.€McCorkle€testified€that€theÏchildren€were€unreasonable€with€him€in€trying€toÏunderstand€their€fatherððs€condition,€but€Dr.€McCorkleÏwas€steadfast€in€his€belief€that€ethically€surgery€hadÏnothing€to€offer€him.€€And€Mrs.€Hand€testified€thatÏafter€the€decision€was€made€against€surgery,€some€ofÏtheir€children€reacted€in€such€a€way€that€they€didnððtÏcome€around€anymore.€€Dr.€McCorkleððs€office€notes€alsoÏreflect€that€Mrs.€Hand€had€reported€that€the€family€hadÍbeen€very€close€but€that€some€of€the€children€were€nowÏignoring€him,€their€father,€and€were€upset€with€her€forÏnot€proceeding€with€surgery.ÌÌà àDecedent€was€treated€with€radiation€and€steroids.€ÏThe€steroids€(in€this€case€Decadron)€are€to€reduce€theÏswelling€associated€with€the€tumor.€€The€purpose€ofÏradiation€treatment€is€to€try€to€shrink€or€kill€theÏtumor,€even€though€the€doctors€know€that€radiation€willÏnot€cure€the€tumor,€even€if€undertaken€in€combinationÏwith€surgery.€€The€radiation€and€steroids€are€an€attemptÏto€prolong€life€and€increase€the€qualify€of€life€theÏpatient€has€left.€€The€steroids,€however,€have€sideÏeffects.€€On€a€long€term€basis,€Decadron€can€causeÏtissue€weakening.€€It€can€cause€fluid€retention€andÏbreaking€down€of€the€muscles€and€muscle€tissue.ÌÌà àDecedent€received€two€radiation€treatments€a€dayÏduring€November€and€December,€1992,€for€a€total€of€atÏleast€50€treatments.€€But€his€condition€eventuallyÏworsened€nevertheless.€€He€experienced€seizures€evenÏthough€he€was€taking€anti„convulsive€medication.€€HeÏbegan€to€drop€everything€and€started€to€completely€loseÏcontrol€of€his€right€side.€€After€the€37th€treatment,€heÏcould€no€longer€physically€take€care€of€himself.€€HeÏcould€not€dress€or€feed€himself.€€He€could€not€controlÏhis€bowel€or€bladder€functions.€€He€could€not€controlÏhis€saliva.€€He€could€not€walk.€€He€could€not€sit€upÏstraight€in€a€chair;€his€wife€had€to€hold€him€up.€€ButÏhe€retained€awareness€and€the€ability€to€respond.€€HeÏcould€respond€to€her€commands€and€the€questions€sheÏasked€him;€he€was€very€weak€but€he€could€always€answerÏher.ÌÌà àDr.€McCorkleððs€examination€of€decedent€in€JanuaryÏof€1993€also€revealed€deterioration.€€On€that€day,€heÏwas€sitting€in€a€chair,€and€was€slumped€over€in€a€chair.€ÏHe€could€not€get€around€without€significant€help€becauseÏof€his€right€sided€weakness,€and€was€almost€paralyzed€onÏhis€right€side.€€He€was€not€able€to€communicate€verballyÏon€that€day,€but€could€look€at€you€and€smile.€€Dr.ÏMcCorkle€testified€that€some€patients€are€aware€of€theÏfact€that€they€are€losing€neurologic€function€and€thatÏin€decedentððs€case,€he€was€aware€for€at€least€a€whileÏthat€he€could€no€longer€speak€appropriately€and€could€noÍlonger€use€his€right€side€appropriately.€€Patients€suchÏas€decedent€have€good€days€and€bad€days;€some€days€theyÏare€alert€and€able€to€communicate€and€other€days€not.ÌÌà àMrs.€Hand,€unable€to€leave€him€in€that€conditionÏwithout€trying€to€do€something€for€him,€took€him€toÏMexico€for€a€month€from€January,€1993€to€early€February,Ï1993€for€treatment€which€was€not€available€in€the€UnitedÏStates.€€Dr.€McCorkle€expressed€no€opinion€about€theÏnature€of€the€treatment€given€in€Mexico.€€He€had€noÏobjection€to€Mrs.€Handððs€decision€but€would€not€haveÏrecommended€such€a€trip€himself€out€of€concern€as€toÏwhether€the€patient,€in€his€condition,€would€survive€theÏtrip.ÌÌà àWhen€they€arrived€in€Mexico,€decedent€could€notÏswallow,€could€not€relieve€anything€from€his€system€onÏhis€own,€and€could€not€move.€€He€was€dead€weight.€ÏFollowing€treatment€in€Mexico,€he€had€some€improvement.€ÏHe€reached€the€point€where€he€could€sit€in€a€chair,€andÏswallow€and€eat.€€He€regained€some€ability€to€move€hisÏfeet€and€hands,€and€made€attempts€to€button€his€clothes.€ÏHe€would€attempt€to€stand€or€get€himself€out€of€the€tubÏwhen€he€was€bathed.€€He€became€able€to€give€his€wifeÏsome€assistance€in€dressing€him,€by€picking€up€his€feetÏand€putting€them€in€his€socks,€and€with€his€legs€inÏgetting€his€pants€on.€€Obviously,€with€this€partialÏrecovery€of€some€of€his€neurologic€function,€he€wasÏstill€quite€limited€in€what€he€could€do€physically€andÏrequired€constant€assistance€for€even€the€most€basicÏtasks.€€He€required€pain€medication€up€until€the€day€heÏdied.€€Throughout€this€period,€he€was€able€to€converseÏwith€his€wife,€and€he€was€responsive€to€her€in€theirÏconversations,€and€revealed€in€his€speech€that€he€wasÏaware€of€his€surroundings,€up€until€his€death€in€May,Ï1993.€€Jack€Wright,€who€visited€decedent€frequently,€andÏwho€last€saw€him€only€two€days€before€his€death,€alsoÏtestified€that€decedent€remained€coherent€and€able€toÏconverse.€€Because€of€his€death,€decedent€was€never€ableÏto€carry€out€the€plans€he€and€his€wife€had€made,€that€heÏwould€work€to€age€65€and€then€retire.ÌÌà àCharles€Dean€Hand€was€a€self„reliant,€proud€manÏthat€the€evidence€show€was€a€family€man€and€a€hardÏworker€who€was€always€striving€for€excellence.€€He€wasÍclearly€not€accustomed€to€having€to€depend€on€others€forÏhelp,€much€less€to€be€rendered€helpless€and€dependent€onÏothers€for€even€the€most€basic€physical€necessities.€ÏYet,€this€is€what€happened€to€him.€€At€the€age€of€58€heÏreceived€a€terminal€diagnosis,€and€the€advice€of€aÏphysician€that€surgery€would€do€him€no€good.€€At€theÏsame€time€he€received€his€terminal€diagnosis,€he€alsoÏwitnessed€the€agony€of€his€own€family€and€the€conflictÏbetween€his€wife€and€his€children€about€his€treatment.€ÏIt€is€apparent,€and€the€jury€was€entitled€to€find,€thatÏwitnessing€the€distress€of€his€family€would€also€causeÏgreat€mental€anguish€to€the€father.€€Thereafter,€some€ofÏhis€children€stopped€seeing€him.€€The€record€does€notÏreveal€whether€he€knew€his€children€stopped€seeing€himÏover€the€conflict€concerning€his€treatment.€€If€he€didÏnot,€the€experience€of€being€abandoned€by€any€of€hisÏchildren€in€the€last€months€of€his€life€withoutÏexplanation€could€not€have€been€anything€but€extremelyÏdistressing.€€If€he€did€know,€it€could€not€have€been€anyÏless€distressing.€€These€circumstances,€while€theyÏclearly€show€distress€on€the€part€of€the€family,€areÏdirectly€relevant€to€decedentððs€own€mental€distress€andÏanguish€between€the€date€of€his€diagnosis€and€his€deathÏand€were€properly€considered€by€the€jury€and€argued€byÏplaintiffððs€counsel€on€the€issue€of€damages.ÌÌà àDuring€the€time€following€his€diagnosis,€and€forÏthe€more€than€seven€months€leading€up€to€his€death,€thisÏproud€man€lost€the€ability€to€control€his€body,€hisÏbladder,€and€his€bowels.€€He€was€forced€to€depend€onÏothers€to€dress€and€bathe,€and€for€a€time,€even€to€eat.€ÏFor€a€time€he€was€even€unable€to€control€his€saliva.€€HeÏendured€a€trip€to€Mexico€for€treatment€that€his€doctorÏwould€not€have€advised€for€fear€that€decedent€could€notÏsurvive€the€trip.€€The€testimony€shows€that€he€remainedÏable€to€respond€to€what€was€said€to€him€by€others€and€toÏconverse€with€them€to€the€end€of€his€life.€€In€short,€heÏwas€aware€of€his€gradual€decline€and€his€circumstances,Ïand€forced€to€endure€his€helplessness€through€this€time.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àœWhile€any›€determination€as€to€whether€an€award€isÏexcessive,€œappropriate,›€or€inadequate€is€for€the€most€partÍsubjective,€œthis€Court,›€nevertheless,€under€T.C.A.€20„10„103(a)Ïand€òòSmith€v.€Sheltonóó,€569€S.W.2d€421€(Tenn.1978),€œis›€authorized€toÏsuggest€a€remittitur€where€œit›€œfinds›€an€award€to€be€ð ðbeyond€theÏrange€of€reasonableness.ðð€ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€facts€of€this€case€œthe€author€of€this€opinion›Ïœrecognizes›€that€the€Decedent€suffered€severely€during€his€illnessÏand€that€his€family€members€likewise€suffered€because€of€a€changeÏin€his€behavior.€€Their€suffering,€however,€is€not€compensable.€ÏUpon€viewing€the€whole€record€and€accepting€as€true€the€factsÏquoted€from€the€Plaintiff's€brief€and€the€fact€that€from€the€dateÏof€the€inception€of€the€tumor€until€the€Decedent's€death€was€notÏan€extended€period,€œI›€believe€it€appropriate€to€suggest€aÏremittitur€in€the€amount€of€$1,000,000.€œÌÌà àà àThe€other€members€of€the€panel,€however,€do€not€concurÏin€my€evaluation,€finding€that€under€the€facts€quoted€from€theÏPlaintiff's€brief€the€award€by€the€jury€is€supported€by€materialÏevidence.ÌÌ›à àà àThe€Defendant€œnext€contends›€that€two€separate€argumentsÏof€counsel€for€the€Plaintiff€were€both€improper€and€prejudicial,Írequiring€that€a€new€trial€be€granted.€€The€arguments€are€asÏfollows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àI'm€very€comfortable€that€you€folks€will€figureÏthat€out;€that€you€can€come€up€with€a€number.€ÏObviously,€it's€going€to€have€to€be€a€big€number,€but€IÏdon't€know€what€that€is€and€I€don't€feel€comfortableÏtelling€you€what€the€value€of€a€human€life€is.€€You€haveÏto€figure€that€out.€€That's€a€heavy,€heavyÏresponsibility€that€you're€going€to€have€to€determine€inÏthis€case.ÌÌà àMR.€HAMILTON:€Your€Honor,€I€note€an€objection.ÌÌà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà àI€put€up€my€chart€as€far€as€the€damages€areÏconcerned.€€Again,€277€is€just€a€starting€number.€ÏThat's€what€his€economic€loss€is.€€You€have€to€make€aÏdetermination€on€what€to€award€as€far€as€pain€andÏsuffering,€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life,€disability,€mentalÏanguish,€what€it€did€to€his€family.ÌÌà àAs€you€remember,€some€of€his€children€basicallyÏdisowned€him€after€this€happened.€€What€a€terrible€wayÏto€spend€your€last€months€as€close€as€he€was€to€hisÏfamily.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àCounsel€for€the€Plaintiff€contended€that€no€specificÏobjection€was€made€and,€consequently,€any€error€emanatingÏtherefrom€was€waived.€ÌÌà àà àWe€agree€with€counsel€that€the€words€in€the€firstÏpassage€quoted,€which€refers€to€"the€value€of€a€human€life"€and€inÍthe€second,€which€refers€to€what€the€Decedent's€illness€"did€toÏhis€family"€are€improper€elements€of€damages.€€We€believe,Ïhowever,€in€the€context€of€the€entire€record€and€especially€inÏview€of€the€fact€that€the€proper€charge€as€to€damages€was€given€byÏthe€Trial€Court,€the€error€was€harmless€as€contemplated€by€Rule€36Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€ÌÌà àà àThe€last€issue€contends€that€two€jurors,€as€shown€byÏpost„trial€affidavits€misunderstood€the€charge€of€the€CourtÏrelative€to€loss€of€enjoyment€of€life€and€equated€it€with€loss€ofÏlife,€and€that€this€misunderstanding€would€entitle€the€œDefendantÏto€a€new€trial.€€This€point€is€also€made€under€the€issue€relativeÏto€the€amount€of€the€award.€€We€are€satisfied,€however,€that€theÏaffidavits€of€the€jurors€are€inadmissible€under€Rule€606€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€as€construed€by€òòCaldararo€v.ÏVanderbilt€Universityóó,€794€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.App.1990).ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€TrialÏCourt€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€forÏHamilton€County€for€collection€of€the€judgment€and€of€costs€below.€ÏCosts€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€the€Defendant€and€its€surety.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÇ›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€(Separate€Opinion)€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€Ñ€sÑÇHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ñ7€JmXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑßJ€pt;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›à@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌBARBARA€J.€HAND,à àà àà à)€HAMILTON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌAdministratrix€of€Estateà àà à)€C/A€NO.€œ03A01›„9704„CV„00123Ìof€Charles€D.€Hand,€Deceased,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌNORFOLK€SOUTHERN€RAILWAYà àà à)ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€ROBERT€M.€œSUMMITT›,Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellant.)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ZÔÔ€Z ÔS€E€P€œA€R›€A€T€E€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€mÔÔ€mXÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœSusano›,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àI€write€separately€to€explain€my€differences€with€JudgeÏœGoddard›€œregarding›€the€issue€of€damages.€€I€concur€fully€in€hisÏtreatment€of€the€other€issues.ÌÌà àà àThe€amount€of€damages€to€which€a€claimant€is€entitledÏð ðis€primarily€a€question€for€the€jury.ðð€€ò òòòœKaras›€v.€œThorne›ó óóó,€531ÏS.W.2d€315,€317€(Tenn.App.€1975).€€òòSee€also€ò òœCrutcher›€v.ÏDavenportó óóó,€401€S.W.2d€786,€787€(Tenn.App.€1965).€€Once€a€juryððsÏverdict€is€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€it€is€ð ðentitled€to€greatÏweightðð€on€appeal.€€ò òòòœKaras›ó óóó€at€317.€€òòSee€also€ò òFoster€v.€œAmcon›ÏInternational,€Inc.ó óóó,€621€S.W.2d€142,€143€(Tenn.€1981)€(ð ðOurÏappellate€courts€have€consistently€held€that€the€amount€ofÏcompensation€in€a€personal€injury€case€is€primarily€for€the€jury,Ïand€that€next€to€the€jury,€the€most€competent€person€to€pass€onÏthe€matter€is€the€trial€judge€who€presided€at€the€trial€and€heardÏthe€evidence.ðð)ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€trial€judge€approves€a€juryððs€award€of€damages,Ïð ðthe€review€in€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€subject€to€the€rule€that€ifÏthere€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€award,€it€should€notÏbe€disturbed.ðð€€ò òòòEllis€v.€White€Freightliner€Corpó óóó.,€603€S.W.2dÏ125,€129€(Tenn.€1980).€€òòSee€also€ò òœPoole›€v.€œKroger›€Coó óóó.,€604€S.W.2dÏ52,€54€(Tenn.€1980).ÌÌà àà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€has€the€statutory€authority€toÏð ðfirst€suggest[]ðð€a€remittitur.€€òòSeeóó€œT.C.A.›€ðð€20„10„103(a).€€òòSeeÏalso€ò òMethodist€Hospital€v.€Balló óóó,€50€Tenn.App.€460,€362€S.W.2dÏ475,€488€(1961).€€However,€we€are€without€authority€to€ð ðfirstÏsuggest[]ðð€a€remittitur€if€there€is€found€in€the€record€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€approved€òòin€totoóó€by€theÏtrial€judge.€€Rule€13(d),€œT.R.A.P.›€€(ð ðFindings€of€fact€by€a€juryÏin€civil€actions€shall€be€set€aside€only€if€there€is€no€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€verdict.ðð)€œ€If›€there€is€material€evidenceÏto€support€the€juryððs€award€as€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€we€areÏconstitutionally€precluded€from€substituting€our€œjudgment›€for€thatÏof€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Amendment€7€to€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà àà àI€must€disagree€with€œJudge›€œGoddard›ððs€general€observationÏthat€œð ðany›€determination€as€to€whether€an€award€is€excessive,Ïappropriate,€or€inadequate€is€for€the€most€part€subjective.ðð€ÏWhile€I€recognize€that€such€decisions€are€made€by€human€beings€andÏnot€computers,€I€believe€that€a€court€should€strive€œto€set€asideÏits€own€predilections€and€orientation€so€that€it€can›€òòobjectivelyóóÏreview€a€juryððs€œaward.›€€I€acknowledge€that€this€is€not€easy;€but€IÏbelieve€the€goal€must€be€to€determine€the€òòobjectiveóó€reasonablenessÍof€the€juryððs€award€in€light€of€the€evidence€and€reasonableÏinferences€in€the€record€supporting€the€juryððs€verdict.€€œÌÌà àà àOur›€review€is€well„described€in€the€case€of€ò òòòSouthernÏRailway€Company€v.€Sloanó óóó,€407€S.W.2d€205,€209€(Tenn.App.€1965):ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àWe€have€pointed€out€repeatedly€that€inÏreviewing€a€case€on€appeal,€where€the€appealÏis€from€a€judgment€based€on€a€juryððs€verdict,Ïwe€do€not€weigh€the€evidence€to€determine€theÏpreponderance€thereof,€nor€do€we€decide€theÏcredibility€of€witnesses.€€ò òòòœMcAmis›€v.ÏCarlisleó óóó,€42€Tenn.App.€195,€300€S.W.2d€59.€ÏOur€review€is€limited€to€a€determination€ofÏwhether€there€is€any€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€verdict,€and€ð ðit€[our€review]€mustÏbe€governed€by€the€rule,€safeguarding€theÏconstitutional€right€of€trial€by€jury,€whichÏrequires€us€to€take€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€all€the€evidence€to€uphold€theÏverdict,€to€assume€the€truth€of€all€that€tendsÏto€support€it,€to€discard€all€to€the€contrary,Ïand€to€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€toÏsustain€the€verdict.ðð€€ò òòòD.€M.€Rose€&€Co.€v.ÏœSnyder›ó óóó,€185€Tenn.€499,€206€S.W.2d€897.€€AndÏif€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€theÏverdict€it€must€be€affirmed.€€ò òòòCity€ofÏChattanooga€v.€œBallew›ó óóó,€49€Tenn.App.€310,Ï354€S.W.2d€806,€and€numerous€cases€thereÏcited.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€material€evidence€œaccredited€byÏthe€jury€establishes›€that€œthe›€defendantððs€culpable€conduct€œcausedÏMr.€Hand€to€suffer€from›€a€malignant€brain€tumor.€€The€deceasedÍunderwent€some€50€radiation€treatments€within€a€short€period€ofÏtime.€€He€experienced€seizures.€€He€reached€a€point€where€he€couldÏnot€physically€take€care€of€himself.€€On€some€days€he€could€notÏcommunicate.€€œAlthough›€he€regained€some€of€his€neurologicÏfunction,€he€was€severely€limited€in€what€he€could€do.ÌÌà àà àFrom€the€time€of€his€diagnosis€in€November,€1992,€untilÏhis€death€on€May€16,€1993,€œthe€deceased›€lived€from€œday€to€day›€withÏthe€almost€certain€knowledge€that€his€condition€was€terminable.€ÏHe€was€essentially€locked€inside€a€body€œthat€was€slowly›€decayingÏto€death.€€He€went€from€being€a€self„reliant,€proud€man€to€a€stateÏof€helplessness,€totally€dependent€on€others€for€care.ÌÌà àà àWhen€I€view€this€evidence€„„€as€œmore›€fully€set€forth€inÏJudge€œGoddard›ððs€opinion€„„€after€œsetting›€aside€my€personalÏœpredilections,›€I€cannot€say€that€there€is€no€material€evidence€toÏsupport€œthe€›juryððs€award€of€$3,250,000.€€œIn€other€words,€viewing›Ïthe€evidence€objectively,€I€believe€there€is€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€œverdict.›ÌÌà àà àOur€œConstitution›€gives€litigants€the€right€to€a€juryÏtrial.€€I€believe€great€deference€must€be€shown€to€a€juryððsÏverdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge.€€To€do€otherwise€is€toÍinfringe€upon€our€founding€fathersðð€faith€in€the€jury€œsystem,€asÏexpressed€in€the€foundation€document€of€this€Stateððs€law.›ÌÌà àà àI€am€authorized€by€Judge€Franks€to€express€hisÏconcurrence€with€the€thoughts€expressed€in€this€separate€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€œSusano›,€Jr.,€J.œÔ€mÔ›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€(Separate€Opinion)€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ P Ñ