WPC  r/WRȈeQ!\2| E3eh0ݨ Ot}`IaҡE:ݼ/M6F!c`FI1tP5e|0Z$gKgK;b֚~|kAY̵D~ M)?:wTm2~癣XGHpMTF烓5498Y?Δʇ #]A$ryZ#G⫓ή`xƉ4+5~F>=sarg-,h Xb- VGݢD ȵ.) =L:.`IԿZǿֻ7˩/sׯɹʭk.LXBt,׶Ec5&{oqĭqJ5iKVyWaVkzG lQf*UBL % 0tB 0 0\{ 0 0rd  0 D+k  0\ 0= 0& AQ 0 0Dzxn 0rU:U:7w@q4L-U:FMU:MUBTU: B D3\  `*Times New RomanTT'  The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW<5T.footerfooter   !        >4X` hp x (#>P8page numberpage numberXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWV!:footnote texfootnote text          `:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW(e2Z$ !...   'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2Z$ !...   ($    (e2Z$ !...      C<< c(f(3~$ !...       0  (#$  0   p $ggg      1    1gHastyswifealsowasaplaintiff,butthetrialcourtsjudgmentdidnotawardheranydamagesand  sheisnotapartytothisappeal.#g1#3|x\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP%2A`ArialTTomanTTXXX2PQXP(J$~4~4~4  ,kAZ"Arial Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular  D D U  gDӀu[%`C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ##iXd#,K AZ"Arial Regular C Z"...    ,.  ,   Ad FILED X8X   December3,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdA ,kAZ"Arial Regular C Z"."..   #,".##,   Ad FILED#X8X#  December2,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdA \  `*Times New RomanTT,kAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd !...   TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ! ,XXX!1.X^X17.dXXd7  r)<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  r@g g  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@$ATNASHVILLEt!)>.*jxz` `@Em` 8ttxP z tߛALLENE.HASTYandwife, h   ) p JUDYDARLENEHASTY, h   ) `     `     h   )   ` Plaintiff/Appellee, h   )RutherfordCircuitNo.31613 @     `     h   )VS.   `     h   )AppealNo.01A019709CV00531  p     `     h   )THOMASR.THRONEBERRY,Ind.  ) P  andd/b/aTHRONEBERRY h   ) @  PROPERTIESandSHARON h   ) 0  CLUTTER, `     h   )      `     h   )   ` Defendant/Appellant.  )   @APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFRUTHERFORDCOUNTY@a a ATMURFREESBORO,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEROBERTE.CORLEW,JUDGE L.GILBERTANGLIN    Murfreesboro,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellant LARRYD.BRANDON  p&!$ Murfreesboro,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee AFFIRMED / +. М          `     h      p   ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 2-1 CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. DAVIDR.FARMER,J.      :p59 7^XXdd7    7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7    7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7  7^XXdd7         DefendantThomasR.Throneberryappealsthetrialcourtsjudgmentintheamount   of$6,000enteredinfavorofPlaintiff/AppelleeAllenE.Hastyafterajurytrial.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.  Atranscriptoftheevidenceattrialdoesnotappearintherecordonappeal;however,therecorddoescontainaStatementoftheEvidencewhichwasfiledbyThroneberryandlaterapprovedbythetrialcourt.SeeT.R.A.P.24(c).Althoughthe @  evidencecontainedthereinissparse,theStatementoftheEvidencerevealsthatHastywasamaintenanceworkeremployedbyThroneberry.Ascompensation,Hastyreceived$220perweekinsalaryplustheuseofanapartmentinMurfreesboro.InMarch1992,Hastywasinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentwhileoperatingatruckownedbyhisemployer,Throneberry.Thereafter,adisputearosebetweenthepartiesastowhetherHastyhadpermissiontodrivethetruckatthetimeoftheaccident.Asaresultofthisdispute,ThroneberryfiredHastyonMarch23,1992.  OnMarch24,1992,ThroneberryverballynotifiedHastythathewouldhavetomovefromtheapartmentbecausehenolongerworkedforThroneberry.Fivedayslater,onMarch29,1992,ThroneberrycausedawrittennoticetobeplacedonthedooroftheapartmentdirectingHastytovacatetheapartmentby12:00midnightofthefollowingday.ϜOnMarch30,1992,ThroneberrynotifiedHastythattheelectricbillsfortheapartmentremainedunpaidandthatThroneberrywouldcausetheutilitiestobeturnedoffifHastydidnotpaythemby1:00p.m.thatday.TheutilitiesfortheapartmentwereinThroneberrysϜname.Thenextday,April1,1992,Throneberrycausedtheelectricitytotheapartmenttobeturnedoff.Asaresult,Hastywasforcedtostayinahotel.OnApril6,1992,Throneberrychangedthelocksontheapartment,therebypreventingHastyfromgainingaccesstotheapartment.AnotheremployeeofThroneberrylatergaveHastypermissiontoentertheapartmenttoretrievehispersonalbelongings.  P726   Hastysubsequentlywastreatedbyanorthopedicsurgeonforpaininhisright shoulder.Hastyalsocomplainedofchronicheadachesandwasreferredtoaneurologist.ϜTheneurologistdiagnosedHastyashavingposttraumaticheadaches,andhe,inturn,referredHastytoapsychiatristforfurthertreatment.Thepsychiatrist,Dr.RaviSingh,treatedHastyformajordepressionandPostTraumaticStressDisorder(PTSD).Dr.Singhconcludedthattheseinjurieswerecausedbyacombinationoffactors,includingtheMarch1992automobileaccident,Hastyslossofemployment,andHastysousterfromhisapartmentbyThroneberrysactionsofhavingtheelectricityturnedoffandlockingHastyoutoftheapartment.SymptomsofHastysPTSDincludeddailypanicattacksandheadaches.  Asaresultofhisinjuries,HastyfiledthisactionagainstThroneberryinMarch1993. #  1      כ P МInessence,theallegationsofHastyscomplaintassertedclaimsfordefamation,outrageousconduct,andwrongfuleviction.Thecomplaintspecificallyallegedthat,byhisactions,Throneberrywillfully,maliciously,andintentionallycausedphysical,emotional,andeconomicharmtoHasty.  Throneberryfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentcontending,interalia,thatHasty $" couldnotmaintainanactionforwrongfulevictionagainsthimbecausethepartiesrelationshipwasthatofemployeremployeeratherthanlandlordtenant.ThetrialcourtdeniedThroneberrysmotionastoHastyswrongfulevictionclaim,butthecourtgrantedthemotionastotheclaimsfordefamationandoutrageousconductand,accordingly,dismissedtheseclaims.  Pendingtheseproceedings,HastypursuedaworkerscompensationclaimfortheinjuriesthathesufferedasaresultoftheMarch1992automobileaccident.HastysclaimedinjuriesincludeddepressionandPTSD.Throneberryandhisworkers p504 compensationinsurancecarrierdeniedthatHastysinjurieswerecausedbytheMarch1992automobileaccident,buttheyagreedtosettleHastysclaimforthesumof$30,000.ϜTheamendedsettlementorderenteredinJanuary1996indicatedthatHastyspsychiatrist,Dr.RaviSingh,believed manyfactorscontributedto[Hastys]depressionand[PTSD].    Beforethetrialonthewrongfulevictionclaim,Throneberryfiledtwomotionsin `  limineinwhichheaskedthetrialcourttoexcludecertaintestimonyofDr.RaviSingh @  concerningHastysdepressionandPTSD.  Asgroundsforthesemotions,Throneberrycontendedthat(1)Hastyalreadyhadrecoveredworkerscompensationbenefitsforhisallegedinjuriesand,thus,theexclusivityprovisionsoftheWorkersCompensationLawprecludedhimfromrecoveringforhisinjuriesinthisaction,and(2)Dr.SinghstestimonydidnotestablishwithinareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertaintythatHastysinjurieswerecausedbyThroneberrysactions.ThroneberryalsomovedtoamendhisanswertoasserttheWorkersCompensationLawasanadditionaldefense.ThetrialcourtsubsequentlydeniedThroneberrysmotionsinlimineandpermittedthemajorityofDr.Singhsdeposition @ testimonytobereadtothejury.TherecorddoesnotrevealthatthetrialcourteverruledonThroneberrysmotiontoamendhisanswer.  Attrial,ThroneberryrenewedhismotionsinliminetoexcludeDr.Singhstestimony p&!$ relatingtoHastysPTSD.ThetrialcourtagreedthatHastycouldnotrecoverforthatportionofhisPTSDcausedbyhisworkrelatedinjury,butthecourtruledthatitwouldbeajuryissueastowhatportionofHastysinjurywascausedbyhisworkrelatedinjuryandwhatportionwascausedbyThroneberrysconductinthepresentcase.    ThetrialcourtalsopermittedHastytoamendhispleadingstoconformtotheevidencebyassertingaclaimforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.Atthetrialsconclusion,thejuryreturnedaverdictfindingthatThroneberryactedwrongfullyinlockingHastyoutofhisapartmentand/orinterminatinghiselectricserviceand,further,thatHastysinjurieswerecausedbyThroneberrysactions.ThejuryfoundthatHastywas 0948 entitledto$500indamagesforthelossofhispersonalpropertyand$10,000forhismental,emotional,andpsychologicaldamages.  Thejurydeterminedthatfiftyfivepercent(55%)oftheselatterdamageswerecausedbyThroneberrysactionsinthepresentcase.    Inaccordancewiththejurysverdict,thetrialcourtenteredajudgmentawardingHastydamagesintheamountof$6,000.Throneberryfiledamotionfornewtrialinwhichheraisedthesameargumentsthathehadraisedinhispretrialmotions.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,andthisappealfollowed.    Throneberryfirstcontends,ontheauthorityofCroomsv.Reichman,8Tenn.Civ. p App.87(1918),thatheandHastyhadanemployeremployeerelationshipratherthanalandlordtenantrelationshipand,thus,thatHastycouldnotmaintainanactionagainsthimforwrongfuleviction.InCrooms,thecourtheldthat,whenanemployeeoccupieshis ` employerspremisesasanincidenttohisemployment,thiscircumstancedoesnottransformtheemployeeintoatenantofhisemployer.Crooms,8Tenn.Civ.App.at90.   Instead,thepartiesrelationshipremainsthatofemployeremployee.Intheeventofhisdischargefromemployment,theemployeebecomesatrespasser,andtheemployer,astheownerofthepremises,hastherighttoenterthepremisesandtoremovetheemployeespossessionstherefrom.Id. P(#&   ContrarytoThroneberryssuggestion,thecourtsholdinginCroomsdidnot ,`'* precludeHastyfrommaintaininganactionagainstThroneberrybasedonthelattersallegedlywrongfulconductinoustingHastyfromthepremises.AlthoughthecourtinCroomsfollowedtherulethatthedischargedemployeewasatrespasserwithouttherights 1-0 ofatenant,thecourtalsorecognizedthattheemployersrighttoremovetheemployeeandhisbelongingsfromthepremiseswasnotwithoutlimitations.Thecourtexplained:8  8`   [W]eproceedtolaydownthefollowingasourconceptionofthemeasureofdutyorcareuponthepartofalandownerwhorightfullyenterstoremovethegoodsofatrespasser,....Expressedinfamiliartermsextractedfromournumerous  :p59 decisions,thedutyowingtheoccupantandtrespasseristhatofseeingthathesuffernoinjuryorlossastheresultofintentional,willfulorwantonconduct.Itiswhollyillogicaltosaythatthelandlordinsuchcasemustenteruponhispremiseswithduecareandsolicitudeforthepropertyofthedischargedtenant,inviewofapropositionofunassailablesoundnessthatthetrespasseratthemomentischallengingtherightoftheentererandnecessarilyprovokingangerandcounterforce.Hencetheimperativenessoflayingdowntherulethatthelandlordinsuchcaseisnotchargeablewithwhatmightbedeemedreasonableandordinarycareimpliedandobservedinordinarysocialandlegalrelations,butthathemustsimplyrefrainfromdoingorinflictingunnecessary,orwillfulorwantoninjurytothegoodsoftheoccupant. ` x` x 8  8`    Thatthelandlordmustrefrainfromdeliberatelydestroyingthegoodsofhistenantandmustdonounnecessaryactresultingintheirdestruction,norpursueacourseofsuchrecklessnessofconsequencesastoamounttowillfulnessisapropositionwhichmustbeacceptedforthewellknownreasonthatthelawdoesnottoleraterevengenoracquiesceintheinflictionofpunishmentuponapartywhohasbeenguiltyofwrongdoing.Thereisnoforfeitureofgoodsandrightsbecauseofsuchconduct;hencethegoodsmustnotberecklesslyorwantonlybrokenupand,bootedaboutnor&  shamelesslyorunnecessarilyexposedtohazards. ` x` x Crooms,8Tenn.Civ.App.at9293.' 5 P   InaccordancewithCrooms,Throneberryhadadutytorefrainfromanyintentional, ! willful,orwantonconductwhichwouldcauseinjuryorlosstoHasty.Inamorerecentopinion,oursupremecourthasreaffirmedtheexistenceofsuchaduty,holdingthat:  8  8`   Theownerofrealtyowestoatrespasserthedutynottoinjurehimwilfully,maliciouslyorintentionally.[Citationsomitted]. ` x` x 8  8`    Oneactswantonlywithintherulethatapropertyownerowestoatrespasseronlythedutytorefrainfromwilful,wantonandrecklessconduct,whenheinflictsinjuryintentionallyoractswithcompleteindifferencetoconsequences. ` x` x Yarbroughv.Potter,207S.W.2d588,589(Tenn.1948)(citingCohenv.Davies,25N.E.2d / +. 223(Mass.1940)).  Inhisamendedcomplaint,HastyallegedthatThroneberryactedintentionally,willfully,andmaliciouslyincausingtheelectricityinHastysapartmenttobeterminatedandinchangingthelocksontheapartmentsothatHastycouldnotentertheapartmentto 0948 retrievehispersonalbelongings.Hastyfurtherallegedthat,intakingtheseactions,Throneberryintentionally,willfully,andmaliciouslyintendedtocauseharmtoHastyandhisfamily.Inlightofthesepleadings,weconcludethatthetrialcourtcorrectlyrefusedtodismissHastyscomplaintonthebasisofCrooms.EvenifCroomsprecludedHastyfrom P  maintainingawrongfulevictionactionagainstThroneberry,HastysamendedcomplaintcontainedsufficientallegationstostateacauseofactionunderthealternatetheoryofrecoverysetforthinCrooms,i.e.that,inoustingHastyfromthepremises,Throneberry @  engagedinintentional,willful,orwantonconductsuchastocauseinjuryorlosstoHasty.ThejurysverdictfurthersupportedthistheorybecausethejuryfoundthatThroneberrywrongfullycaused$500indamagestoHastysproperty.    WenotethatThroneberrysappealfailstochallengethemeritsofHastysclaimunderthisalternatetheoryofrecovery.Moreover,evenifthecourtsholdinginCrooms 0 preventedHastyfrommaintaininganactionforwrongfuleviction,itdidnotpreventhimfrommaintaininganactionforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.Aspreviouslyindicated,thetrialcourtallowedHastytoamendhispleadingstoassertsuchaclaim,andThroneberrydoesnotappealthisaspectofthetrialcourtsruling.  Intheabsenceoftherelevantportionsofthetranscriptoracopyofthetrialcourtschargetothejury,wemustpresumethatthecourtfullyandcorrectlychargedthejuryonthepartiesrespectivetheoriesofthecaseandontheapplicablelaw.Bennettv.Sanders,685S.W.2d1,2 P(#& (Tenn.App.1984);Pickardv.Ferrell,325S.W.2d288,293(Tenn.App.1959). 0*%(   ThroneberryalsocontendsthatthetrialcourterredinpermittingHastytopresentproofthathesufferedfromPTSDbecause(1)Hastypreviouslyrecoveredforthisinjuryinaworkerscompensationproceedingand(2)theevidencefailedtoestablishwithinareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertaintythatHastysinjurywascausedbyThroneberrysallegedlytortiousconduct.     0948   ThroneberrysfirstobjectiontothisevidenceisbasedontheexclusivityprovisionsoftheWorkersCompensationLaw.Aspertinent,thatlawprovidesthat:8  8`   TherightsandremedieshereingrantedtoanemployeesubjecttotheWorkersCompensationLawonaccountofpersonalinjuryordeathbyaccident,includingaminorwhetherlawfullyorunlawfullyemployed,shallexcludeallotherrightsandremediesofsuchemployee,...atcommonlaworotherwise,onaccountofsuchinjuryordeath. ` x` x T.C.A.50-6-108(a)(1991).Ininterpretingthisprovision,oursupremecourthasheldthat, inthefieldofworkmenscompensationlaw,andinsuitsbyaworkeragainsthisemployer,theinitialinjuryisthecauseofallthatfollows,evenwherethereissuperimposedupontheoriginalinjury,anew,oradditionalorindependentinjuryduringthecourseoftreatment,negligentorotherwise.McAlisterv.MethodistHosp.,550S.W.2d240,245(Tenn.1977).  InMcAlister,ahospitalemployeesufferedanonthejobinjurytoherback.McAlister,550 ` S.W.2dat241.Theemployeereceivedtreatmentforherinjuryfromthehospitalwhichemployedher.Contendingthatthehospitalstreatmentwasnegligent,theemployeethereafterbroughtamalpracticeactionagainstthehospital.Id.Thesupremecourt P dismissedtheaction,however,holdingthattheWorkersCompensationLawprovidedtheemployeesexclusiveremedy.Id.at245. !   ThesupremecourtsholdinginMcAlisterarguablywouldprecludeclaimssuchas % # thosebroughtinthepresentcase.Hastysinitialinjurywascausedbyanonthejobautomobileaccidentforwhichhereceivedworkerscompensationbenefits.HastysinjurylaterwasaggravatedbytheallegedlytortiousconductofThroneberry.Thus,thefactsofthiscaseareanalogoustothosefoundinMcAlister,wheretheemployeesonthejobinjury -P(+ wasaggravatedbyheremployerssubsequentnegligence.  Nevertheless,weconcludethatthesupremecourtsholdinginMcAlisterdidnot 2-1 preventHastyfromrecoveringforhisadditionalinjuriesinthiscase.WedonotviewthesupremecourtsMcAlisterdecisionasoverrulinganotherlineofcaseprecedentwhich `615 holdsthattheexclusivityprovisionsoftheWorkersCompensationLawdonotapplyiftheplaintiffallegesandprovesthatthedefendantintendedtocausehisinjury.Cooperv.  :p59 Queen,586S.W.2d830,833(Tenn.App.1979).Inthepresentcase,Hastyscomplaint  specificallyallegedthat,byhistortiousconduct,ThroneberryintendedtocauseharmtoHasty.Ifproven,theseallegationsweresufficienttosupportacommonlawactionfordamagesagainstThroneberry.Blairv.AlliedMaintenanceCorp.,756S.W.2d267,27071 P  (Tenn.App.1988).  Asanaside,wequestionwhethertheevidencepresentedsupportedHastysclaimforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.Wenotethatthiswasessentiallythesameclaimthatwasdismissedbythetrialcourtpriortotrial. Intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressandoutrageousconductarenottwoseparatetorts,butaresimplydifferentnamesforthesamecauseofaction.Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622n.3(Tenn.1997).On p appeal,however,Throneberryhasnotchallengedthesufficiencyoftheevidencetosupportthisclaim,and,thus,weneednotfurtheraddresstheissue.  AshissecondbasisforobjectingtotheevidenceofPTSD,ThroneberrycontendsthatthetestimonyofHastysmedicalexpert,Dr.RaviSingh,wasinsufficienttoshowthatHastysinjurywasproximatelycausedbyThroneberrysconduct.SeePorterv.Green, "  745S.W.2d874,877(Tenn.App.1987)(holdingthat,wherephysiciantestifiesconcerningplaintiffsinjury,physiciansopinionmustbereasonablycertainastocauseofinjury).Insupportofthisargument,ThroneberrypointstotestimonywhereDr.SinghliststhecausesofHastysPTSD,suchasHastysautomobileaccident,beingfiredfromhisjob,andhislossofincome,butfailstomentionthetortiousconductallegedlycommittedbyThroneberryinthepresentcase.    Weconcludethatthisargumentiswithoutmerit.Ononeoccasion,Dr.SinghdidfailtospecifythetortiousconductinvolvedinthepresentcaseasbeingthecauseofHastysinjury;however,theremainderofDr.SinghstestimonyisrepletewithinstanceswhereDr.Singhadequatelydescribedthepertinentconduct:8  8`    Q.  ...Wouldyoutellmethepsychologicaltrauma 0948 thatyoubelievestimulatedhiscondition? :p59` x` x Ї8  8`    A.  Thepsychologicaltraumaisthathelosthisjob,  andhehadnoincome.Hewaslockedoutofhisapartment;hislightswerecutoff.   ` x` x 8  8`    .... ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Allthesefactorsthatwevediscussedinyour P  depositionarecontributingfactorsintheimpairmentratingthatyouvegiven? ` x` x 8  8`    A.  AccordingtothehistoryofMr.Hasty,yes,sir.` ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Doctor,isityouropinionbasedupona @  reasonabledegreeofmedicalcertaintythatthereisacausalconnectionbetweenthosefactorsthatherelatedtoyouinhishistoryandhispermanentimpairment? ` x` x 8  8`    A.  AccordingtoMr.Hastyshistory,thatswhathas  causedhisimpairment,causedhiscondition,depression.   ` x` x 8  8`    .... ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Isitafairstatement,Dr.Singh,thatnotone P particulareventcausedthedepressionandposttraumaticstressdisorder,butacombinationofevents? ` x` x 8  8`    A.  Historically,whatIseeinMr.Hastyshistory, ` everythingstartedafterMarchof92,wheneverhehadtheaccidentandlostthejob.   ` x` x 8  8`    .... ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Hetoldyouthathislightswerecutoff?!` x` x 8  8`    A.  Yes,sir.#!` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Isthatacontributororastressortoboth % # diagnoses? ` x` x 8  8`    A.  Yes,sir.  P(#&` x` x 8  8`    .... ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Dr.Singh,thestressorsthatIveaskedyou ,`'* about,didtheyoccuroveraperiodoftime? ` x` x 8  8`    A.  Yes,theyoccurredoveraperiodoftime.  .0*-` x` x 8  8`    .... ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Thelightsbeingturnedof?2-1` x` x 8  8`    A.  Thelightsbeingturnedoffandbeinglockedout 4/3 oftheapartment. ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  AndthatgoesbacktothequestionIaskedyou. P726 Werenottalkingaboutonecausalfactorthatcaused ` x` x   0948 8  8`    A.  Thesearecumulativefactors.Onething   happenedthatthen ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  Areyousayingthesearecumulativefactors,that  combined ` x` x 8  8`    A.  Combined;right.P ` x` x 8  8`    Q.  causedthetwoconditionsthatyouvetestified 0  to? ` x` x 8  8`    A.  Yes,sir.  P ` x` x   ThroneberryadditionallycriticizesDr.SinghstestimonybecauseDr.SinghwasunabletostatewhatpercentagesofHastysPTSDanddepressionwerecausedbythetortiousconductallegedinthepresentaction.WedonotviewthisfailureasbeingfataltoHastysclaimfordamages.Withtheadoptionofcomparativefaultprinciplesinthisstate,juriesoftenareaskedtoapportionfaultwheretwosuccessivetortsresultinoneindivisibleinjury.See,e.g.,Grayv.FordMotorCo.,914S.W.2d464,467(Tenn.1996).  p Suchadeterminationis amatterpeculiarlywithintheprovinceofthejury,andwedeclinetodisturbthejurysapportionmentofliabilityinthiscase.Turnerv.Jordan,957S.W.2d 0 815,824(Tenn.1997)(quotingRowlandsv.SignalConstr.Co.,549So.2d1380,1383 ! (Fla.1989)).  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoThroneberry,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.1XX^g1 @)$'         `        h           `     h      p   򀀀 x-(,    `     h      p   1gX^X1HIGHERS,J. @.)- CONCUR:򀀀 30/3 CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. 4 04 򀀀   838   FARMER,J.