WPC aHF6z\ \K ngT%3g+rFݬru]=xo@qWhZqKL`Q_$xU!bi>S"(R>7_`|u|y@C~'c?$!. !a2#NMsyaeP3Jg:FwfgR(XioD?Ƙ-(ìZW$XFg008pPI2 IuZГ:p3$jr*zbuvRnIm\v4n\U-3ND2Mvmc75`{Q,~jjl6_k*?+0nQQJlݟ\3 bHjvҹX-_q9sN"b %\^ b 0nU7NwD4H\ zk m #   i / 0DNE.b 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K AS4 0M 0D A5䌍-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 40500  R>$      4    _Theplaintiffsacceptedthe_remittitur_ԀunderprotestpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.2010102(2)(1994).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R>$      2    __Cheja_ԀHansenisnotaddressedinthebriefs. R>$      5    _Obviously,theminordidnotsufferanyinjuryfromlostwork.  R>$      1    _TheoriginalcomplaintallegesthatMs.Cranfordnegligentlyfailedtosupervisetheminorwhilehewasinher  care. R>$      3    _ThethirdamendedcomplaintadditionallyallegesthatMr.Goinswasalsoguiltyofnegligentsupervision. CranfordGoins- -(|G2>$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3p$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3p$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8QXXdd8  @  lINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# l #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsOctober31,2002 L XQX #XXQ#ELIJAHHANSEN,bynextfriendsandparents,ALBERTJOSEPH J HANSENand_CHEJA_ԀHANSENv.STEVENW._BULTMAN_,etal.XQX   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  ^ @@No.166198DaleC.Workman,Judge  J FILEDDECEMBER13,_2002_ "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102664_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      Inthisjurycase,thetrialcourtremittedto$200,000thejurysawardof$350,000toAlbertJoseph  Hansen( Father).ThetrialcourtsactionwasbaseduponitsdeterminationthatFatherhadonly x suedfor$200,000.Fatherappeals,contendingthatthetrialcourterredinremittingthejurysaward. d Weaffirm. P k Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt (x Affirmed;CaseRemanded  d   #XQ#XQX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, < _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined. ( #XXQ#XQXDavidC.Lee,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,AlbertJosephHansen,individually,andas  parentofElijahHansen,aminor.  PaulE.DunnandSteve_Erderly_,IV,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MargaretCranford. t  BrianH._Trammell_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MaxGoins. L"!  OPINION #XXQC #XQX $$t# #XXQ_ #XQX    I. %L!%    Thiscasearisesoutofinjuriestoaminor.Theoriginalcomplaintallegesthat ElijahHansen '$#' [(DOB:May24,1997)( theminor)]wasplayingoutside...whenthedefendantSteve_Bultman_ ($( backedoverhimwithDefendant_Bultman_s...Volvo.Thecaptionoftheoriginalcomplaintreflects )$) thepartiesasfollows:  *%* ` ` ELIJAHHANSEN,bynextfriendandfather,ALBERTJOSEPH  HANSEN   Plaintiffs      h   vs. t STEVENW._BULTMAN_,andMARGARETCRAWFORD[sic] #  1       L   Defendants 8  ` ` Ascanbeseen,thecaptionofthecomplaintdoesnotindicatethatFatherissuinginhisindividual  ` capacity.However,inthebodyofthecomplaint,paragraph6setsforththefollowing:  L  ` ` PlaintiffAlbertHansenisthefatherofElijahHansenandsuesforthe $  hospitalbillsincurredbyhisson,aminor.   ` ` #XXQ #XQX(Emphasisadded).Thecomplaintcontainstwo WHEREFORE#XXQ#XQXԀparagraphsseekingdifferent   damageawards:   ` ` WHEREFORE,plaintiffsaskjudgmentagainstdefendantsinthe \ amountofsixmilliondollars($6,000,000.00),andcosts,and H demands[sic]ajurytotrythiscause,andforallsuchotherand 4 furtherreliefaslawandjusticemayrequire.  p WHEREFORE,plaintiffsaskforpunitivedamagesagainstSteven H _Bultman_Ԁforgrossnegligenceintheamountoffivehundredthousand 4 dollars($500,000.00)andcostsandasksforajurytotrytheseissues,   andforallsuchotherandfurtherreliefaslawandjusticemay   require.  ` ` #XXQ|#XQX  Thebriefsofbothsidesstatethatamendedcomplaintsweresubsequentlyfiled,includinga  thirdamendedcomplaint.Theonlyamendedcomplaintcontainedintherecordisthethirdamended l complaintuponwhichthismatterwassubmittedtothejury.Inthethirdamendedcomplaint,the X  partiesarestyledasfollows: D! `   #l! ` ELIJAHHANSEN,bynextfriendsandparents,ALBERTJOSEPH  HANSENand_CHEJA_ԀHANSEN #  2         Plaintiffs   `    I vs. ` ` STEVENW._BULTMAN_,andMARGARETCRANFORDand 8  MAXGOINST #  3       $ t  Defendants  ` ` ` Thethirdamendedcomplaintalsocontainsaparagraph6focusingonFather:  8    8 ` PlaintiffAlbertHansenisthefatherofElijahHansenandsuesforthe   hospitalbillsincurredbyhisson,aminor. ` x` x #XXQ1#XQXAscanbeseen,thislanguageisidenticaltothatcontainedinparagraph6oftheoriginalcomplaint.   Thethirdamendedcomplaintalsocontainstwo WHEREFOREparagraphs;butabsentfromthat p lastcomplaintisthe WHEREFOREparagraphintheoriginalcomplaintseekingpunitivedamages. \ Initsplaceisanew WHEREFOREparagraphassertingaderivativeclaim.The WHEREFORE H paragraphsinthethirdamendedcomplaintareasfollows: 4 ` ` WHEREFORE,plaintiffsAlbertandElijahHansenaskforlossof  \ consortiumdamagesincluding,butnotlimitedtothetimetheytook H offfromworkandthetimesoneededinthefuturetocareforthe 4 injurieshereinallegedintheamountoftwohundredthousanddollars   ($200,000.00)andcostsandasks[sic]forajurytotrytheseissues,   andforallsuchotherandfurtherreliefaslawandjusticemay  require.  WHEREFORE,plaintiffsaskjudgmentagainstdefendantsinthe l amountofsixmilliondollars($6,000,000.00),andcosts,and X  demands[sic]ajurytotrythiscause,andforallsuchotherand D! furtherreliefaslawandjusticemayrequire. 0"  ` C`   Thejuryreturnedaverdict,awarding $600,000.00for[theminor]and$350,000.00for $X"  [Father]....Thejudgmentonthejurysverdictrecitesthat [_t]he_Ԁtotalad_damnum_intheComplaint $D # forplaintiff[Father]was$200,000.00,andthecourt,byoperationoflaw,remitstherecoveryof  [Father]hereinto$200,000.00.Itisfromthis_remittitur_Ԁthattheplaintiffsappeal.  #  4           II. t $  Itiswellestablishedthat [_i]n_Ԁpersonalinjurycases,[the]calculationofdamagesiswithin L  theprovinceofthejury. _Grandstaff_Ԁv.Hawks ,36S.W.3d482,499(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Inthis 8  respect,thecalculationofdamagesisafunctionofthejurysfactfindingauthority.However,inthe $ t instantaction,thetrialcourtdidnotreducethejurysawardbasedonfactualgrounds.Rather,the  ` courtbelowremittedtheawardbaseduponitsdeterminationthattheawardexceededthethird  L  amendedcomplaintsad_damnum_withrespecttoFather.Wemustdeterminewhetherthetrialcourt  8  properlyconstruedthepleadings!aquestionoflaw.Wereviewquestionsoflawdenovo, $  accordingnopresumptionofcorrectnesstotheconclusionsreachedbelow.See,e.g., Johnsonv.   _LeBonheur_ԀChildrensMed.Ctr ,74S.W.3d338,342(Tenn.2002).     UnderTennesseelaw,atrialcourtmaynotenterajudgmentinexcessoftheamountsought   intheplaintiffscomplaint. McCrackenv.Cityof_Millington_ ,No.02A01-9707-CV-00165,1999 p Tenn.App.LEXIS185,at*26(Tenn.Ct.App._W.S._,filedMarch17,1999)citing _Gaylor_Ԁv.Miller , \ 166Tenn.45,50,59S.W.2d502,504(1933).ThetrialcourtobviouslyheldthatFathersclaimfor H damagesinthethirdamendedcomplaintissetforthinthefirst WHEREFOREparagraphinthat 4 complaint,whichseeksonly$200,000.Therefore,accordingtothetrialcourt,the$350,000jury  p awardtoFatherexceededthead_damnum_containedinthatparagraph.Accordingly,thetrialcourt  \ remittedtheverdictwithrespecttoFathersaward. H #XXQ#XQX  Ingeneralterms,pleadingsaretobeliberallyconstruedinfavorofthepleader.SeeTenn.   R.Civ.P.8.06; _Lamons_Ԁv.Chamberlain ,909S.W.2d795,800(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Also,  Tenn.   R.Civ.P.10.01requiresthatthecaptionofpleadingsidentifytheparties.However,ourSupreme  Courtandatleastonefederalcourt(interpretingthesubstantiallysimilarFed.R.Civ.P.10(a))have  heldthatanimprecisecaptionisnotfataltoacomplaint.See _Goss_Ԁv.Hutchins ,751S.W.2d821,  824(Tenn.1988),citing _Tyrolf_Ԁv.VeteransAdmin. ,82_F.R.D._Ԁ372,37475(E.D.La.1979). The l captionrequirementofRule10ismerelyforidentificationpurposes,anddoesnotcontrolwhoisa X  partyintheaction. _Goss_ ,751S.W.2dat824.Courtsmaygobeyondthecaptiontodeterminethe D! parties. _Tyrolf_ ,82_F.R.D._Ԁat37475(refusingtodismissalawsuitforfailuretocomplywiththe 0"  statuteoflimitationswhenthebodyofthecomplaintidentifiedthedefendantandthatdefendantwas #l! timelyserved). $X" #XXQ.#XQX  #XXQd4#XQXDespitethefactthatthecaptiondoesnotspecificallymentionFatherasaplaintiff %0!$ individually,paragraph6calledhimaplaintiffandalludestohisclaimforhissonshospitalbills. &"% Inaddition,inthefirst WHEREFORE,Fatherdemandsreliefinhisownname. '#&  #XXQ4#XQX (#'   Webelievethetrialcourtaffordedtheplaintiffsaveryliberalconstructionofthethird   amendedcomplaint.Thecourtbelowproperlylookedbeyondthecaptiontodeterminetheactual  partiesininterest,anditchargedthejurytoconsiderFathersclaims.However,evenutilizinga  liberalconstructionofthethirdamendedcomplaint,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthefirst t  WHEREFOREparagraphregardinglossofconsortiumwasintendedasFathersad_damnum_. ` Therefore,thead_damnum_onFathersawardcouldnotextendintothe$6,000,000demandedinthe L  second WHEREFOREparagraph.Weagreewiththetrialcourtsrationale. 8    Onappeal,theplaintiffsarguethataproperconstructionofthethirdamendedcomplaint  ` revealsthat [_p]laintiff_ԀAlbertHansensuedforpartof$6,000,000,pluspartof$200,000.Under  L  thistheory,Fatherandtheminoreachsuedforashareofthe$200,000lossofconsortiumandlost  8  incomeclaims,whileeachpartyalsosuedforaportionofthe$6,000,000. $    Wedonotaccepttheplaintiffsinterpretationofthethirdamendedcomplaint.Theminors   claimwasforhispersonalinjuriesarisingoutofthedefendantsnegligence.Itseemscleartousthat   thead_damnum_inthethirdamendedcomplaintinvolvestheminorseeking$6,000,000forhis   personalinjuries#XXQR6#XQXԀand#XXQ=#XQXFatherseeking$200,000forhisderivativeclaims.Paragraph6statesFathers p causeofactionasbeingforhissonshospitalbills.#XXQ>#XQXOurveryliberalreadingofthefirst \  WHEREFOREparagraph,whenviewedinconjunctionwithparagraph6,leadstotheconclusion H thatthetermconsortiumdamagesencompassesalldamagessoughtbyFather,includinghislost 4 wages,hissonshospitalbills,andanyotherclaimsassociatedwithFatherscareofhisinjured  p child.Asliberallyconstruedbyus,thefirst WHEREFOREparagraphonlyaddresseslossesofthe  \ typesufferedbyFather. #  5      ׀#XXQ>#XQXAssuch,wefindthatthefirst WHEREFOREparagraphinthethird H amendedpleadingencapsulatesthead_damnum_ofFathersderivativeclaim. 4   Givingthethirdamendedcomplaintaliberalconstruction,wehold,nevertheless,thatthe   first WHEREFOREparagraphinthethirdamendedcomplaintconstitutesthead_damnum_of  Fathersclaimsandthatthesecond WHEREFOREparagraphstatestheminorsad_damnum_.  Therefore,weholdthatFathersad_damnum_was$200,000,andthetrialcourtproperlyremittedthe  jurysaward. l   III. D! =E  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thismatterisremandedtothetrialcourtfor #l! enforcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentandforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuant $X" toapplicablelaw.ThecostsonappealaretaxedtoAlbertJosephHansen. $D # _#XXQA#XQX_______   `     h     _______________________________ (#'    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE#XXQG#XQX