WPCV7 b#l^ - %9 0?UNw4 z-y  m   w = N 0DE 0J 0T[ 0^ 0U  0hb 0 0 0rr 0| 0` 0 0 0 08 0 0 0E 0 0 0v 0 0 0Yb 0 0 0E 0 0 0m 0! 0! 0G" 0" 0c# 0# 1uy$ 0d$U>R%U*%%g'L)v~N+v, 02 B3 0X3 D33 D-24 0K_4 AS44 05 0Dg6 A6HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0y.+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+am Files? 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|xU HodgeWaynesboroSewaneeErlangerlimineArmentroutMcClainIngramConatserSpann SysGreenstoneWinfordHawisseeYamadatortfeasorunpledDonohoeF.R.D.HawisseCreswellBowlinOveisitortfeasorscommn cmtLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  *+ (_2623  ..26 0Indent40 0 0 23  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   - -(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  9: ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times  !#d#CC#d#          C_ThetrialcourtenteredanotherorderinMay1995correctingamisnomerinitsApril1995order.John_Hodge_Ԁdidnotappealfromeitheroftheseorders.  !#d#CC#d#          C_ThetrialcourthadearlierdismissedJohn_Hodges_Ԁclaimsonresjudicatagrounds.JohnHodgehasnotappealedfromthatdecision. B !#d#CC#d#          C_Mr.Hodgewasunabletopresentexpertmedicalproofregardinghisinjuriesbecausehehadfailedtocomplywithanagreedschedulingorder.HedidnottakethestandbecausethetrialcourthaddeniedhismotioninlimineseekingtopreventJonesHolding,Inc.fromcrossexamininghimregardinghisrecentdrugrelatedcriminalconvictions.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   Serv Geneva  Serv Geneva (|G2 $ !.8J=dXXd8         0   d(0"$       VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3S$ !.8J=dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK ! . CC#EEd##EEd#          \R3'\_8aXXdd8  @ CINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLEC  March5,1999SessionCX CJAMESA.HODGEv.JONESHOLDINGCOMPANY,INC.CX @ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLincolnCounty@ No.C9600214F.LeeRussell,Judge@ AV) ` dE< ` A@ No.M199800955_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust3,_2001_AV) ` dE<` A   Thisappealinvolvesamotorcycleriderwhowasseriouslyinjuredwhenhismotorcyclecrossedmetalplatescoveringaportionofthehighwaysurfacethatwasunderconstruction.Aftervoluntarilydismissinghisfirstsuit,theriderfiledasecondsuitintheCircuitCourtforLincolnCountyagainstthecorporationhebelievedtoberesponsibleforplacingthemetalplatesacrossthehighway.Theriderinsistedonproceedingagainstthiscorporationevenafterhewasinformedthathehadsuedthewrongparty.Thecorporationmovedforadirectedverdictatthecloseofthemotorcycleriderscaseinchief,assertingthathehadfailedtoprovethatitwasresponsiblefortheroadconstruction.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionanddismissedtheriderscomplaint.Theridernowchallengesthedirectedverdictontwogrounds.First,heassertsthathepresentedenoughevidenceofthecontractorsresponsibilityfortheconstructiontotakethecasetothejury.Second,heassertsthatthecorporationshouldnotbepermittedtoarguethathesuedthewrongpartybecauseithadnotspecificallyidentifiedordescribedthispartyinitsanswerasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03.WehavedeterminedthatthecorporationsdenialofinvolvementwiththeconstructionprojectatissuewaswasnotassertinganaffirmativedefensegovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03andthatthetrialcourtproperlygrantedthedirectedverdict.Therefore,weaffirmthejudgmentdismissingthemotorcycleriderscomplaint.  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed   WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.CainandPatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.AugustC.Winter,Brentwood,Tennessee(onappeal),fortheappellant,JamesA.Hodge.WilliamB.Jakes,III,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JonesHoldingCompany,Inc.  OPINION I.    OnAugust1,1993,JamesHodgedrovehismotorcycletoWaynesborotovisitasonwhowasincarceratedatacorrectional bootcampthere.Hewasjoinedtherebyanotherson,JohnHodge.Atapproximately5:00p.m.,JamesHodgeandJohnHodgeleftWaynesborofortheirhomeinSewanee.JamesHodgewasridinghismotorcycle;whileJohnHodgewasdrivingaheadofhiminhisautomobile. AstheHodgesweredrivingeastonU.S.Highway64,theyencounteredroadconstructioninthewesternportionofLincolnCounty.Atonespotonadownhillcurve,thecontractorhadplacedthreeoneinchthickrectangularsteelplatesoverthepavement.Whiletheplateswerefastenedtogetherwithweldedstraps,therewasaseambetweentheplatesrunningparalleltothedirectionofthetraffic.JohnHodgesawtheconstructionwarningsignsandthesteelplates.Afterbreakingappropriately,hedroveacrossthesteelplateswithoutincident.Afterhecrossedthesteelplates,JohnHodgelookedinhisrearviewmirrortoseeifhisfatherhadcrossedtheplatessafely.Whenhefirstlooked,hesawhisfatherapproachingtheseambetweentheplates.Healsosawhisfathersmotorcycle lowerandthenhesawhisfather comingoutofthegroove.WhenJohnHodgelookedagain,hesawhisfather offthesideoftheroad,dustwasflyingupandIsawhimgooverthefrontofhismotorcycleandhishelmethitthefairing,thefairingbrokeandthenhewoundup20footpasthismotorcycleinsomeverylargerocks. JamesHodgewasrushedtoLincolnRegionalHospitalandthenairliftedtoErlangerMedicalCenterinChattanoogawhereheremainedhospitalizedformorethanonemonth.Hesustainedaclosedheadinjurythataffectedhisabilitytospeakandwalk.Followingthewreck,JohnHodgeattemptedsuicideandwasadmittedtoapsychiatricinstitutionforatime.Heattributedhisdistraughtstateofmindtothefactthathehadwitnessedhisfathersmotorcyclewreck. JamesHodgeandJohnHodgefiledsuitintheCircuitCourtforLincolnCountyagainstJonesBrothersConstructionCompany.JamesHodgesought$1,000,000incompensatorydamagesand$1,000,000inpunitivedamagesforhisinjuries,andJohnHodgesought$250,000incompensatoryand$250,000inpunitivedamagesfortheemotionalinjuryhesustainedbywatchinghisfatherswreck.InApril1995,thetrialcourtgrantedJonesBrothersConstructionCompanysmotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentanddismissedJohnHodgesclaims. F   ׀JamesHodgelatervoluntarilydismissedhisclaimsagainstJonesBrothersConstructionCompany. BothJamesHodgeandJohnHodgefiledasecondcomplaintonDecember6,1996.Insteadofsuingtheoriginaldefendant,JonesBrothersConstructionCompany,theysued JonesHolding,Inc.,Company( JonesHolding,Inc.)andallegedthatJonesHolding,Inc.was formerlyknownasJonesBrothersConstructionCompany.InitsanswerfiledonJanuary6,1997,JonesHolding,Inc.deniedthatitwasformerlyknownasJonesBrothersConstructionCompanyanddeniedthatithadbeeninvolvedinanyconstructiononU.S.Highway64.OnJanuary17,1997,thelawyerrepresentingJonesHolding,Inc.sentalettertothelawyerrepresentingtheHodgesinaneffort totryandstraightenouttheconfusionastotheidentityoftheproperdefendantinthiscase.Thisletterexplainedthat8 8 JonesBros.ConstructionCompanywasformedseveralyearsagoforRobertJonespersonalbusiness.TherehaveneverbeenanyemployeesofthisentityotherthanMr.Joneshimself.Thiscompanyfilesanonconsolidatedtaxreturnbasedonitsown,albeitlimited,activity.8 8  ToavoidconfusionwithJonesBros.,Inc.(whichisaconstructioncompanyandtheproperdefendantinthiscase),thenameofJonesBros.ConstructionCompanywaschangedin1995toJonesHolding,Inc.JonesHolding,Inc.doesnothaveacontractorslicenseandhasnotieswiththebusinessactivitiesofJonesBros.,Inc.butdoeshavetheoneshareholderincommon,RobertJones.Allconstructionactivity(includingthejobwhichisthesubjectofthiscase)iscontractedwiththeentityJonesBros.,Inc.IwouldappreciateitifyouwouldsigntheenclosedAgreedOrderandsubmitittothecourt.Iassureyouthatthiswillnotaffectanyapplicableinsurancecoverage.Attachedtothisletterwasanagreedorder,signedbyJonesHolding,Inc.scounsel,amendingthecomplainttocorrectthenameoftheproperpartydefendanttoread JonesBros.,Inc.Forsomereason,notreadilyapparentintherecord,theHodgeslawyerneitheracknowledgedthisletternorforwardedtheagreedordertothetrialcourtforentry.Thus,thesuitproceededagainstJonesHolding,Inc. ThetrialonJamesHodgesclaimscommencedinNovember1997. G   ׀Mr.Hodgecalledonlythreewitnesses,JohnHodge,acustodianofErlangerMedicalCenterspatientrecords,andanemployeeoftheDepartmentofTransportationwhotestifiedthat JonesBrotherswasresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesacrossthehighway. H   ׀AfterMr.Hodgerestedhiscase,JonesHolding,Inc.movedsuccessfullyforadirectedverdictontwogrounds.First,itassertedthatMr.HodgehadsuedthewrongdefendantandhadpresentednoevidencethatJonesHolding,Inc.hadbeennegligent.Second,itassertedthatMr.Hodgehadfailedtopresentevidence thattheresanynegligenceonthepartofwhoevertherightdefendantmightbe.ThetrialcourtgrantedthemotiononbothgroundsandlaterdeniedMr.Hodgesmotionfornewtrial.Thisappealensued.@ II. @  TheStandardofReview  DirectedverdictsundereitherTenn.R.Civ.P.50.01or50.02areappropriateonlywhenreasonablemindscannotdifferastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheevidence.Alexanderv.Armentrout,24S.W.3d267,271(Tenn.2000);Eatonv.McClain,891S.W.2d587,590(Tenn.1994);Ingramv.Earthman,993S.W.2d611,627(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Acaseshouldnotbetakenawayfromthejury,evenwhenthefactsareundisputed,ifreasonablepersonscoulddrawdifferentconclusionsfromthefacts.Gulf,M.&O.R.Co.v.Underwood,182Tenn.467,474,187S.W.2d777,779(1945);Hurleyv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,922S.W.2d887,891(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Atrialcourtmay,however,directaverdictwithregardtoanissuethatcanproperlybedecidedasaquestionoflawbecausedecidingpurelylegalquestionsisthecourtsresponsibility,notthejurys. Inappealsfromadirectedverdict,thereviewingcourtsdonotweightheevidence,Conatserv.ClarksvilleCocaColaBottlingCo.,920S.W.2d646,647(Tenn.1995);Bentonv.Snyder,825S.W.2d409,413(Tenn.1992),orevaluatethecredibilityofthewitnesses.Bensonv.TennesseeValleyElec.Coop.,868S.W.2d630,63839(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Instead,theyreviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothemotionsopponent,givethemotionsopponentthebenefitofallreasonableinferences,anddisregardallevidencecontrarytothatpartysposition.Alexanderv.Armentrout,24S.W.3dat271;Eatonv.McClain,891S.W.2dat590;Spannv.Abraham,36S.W.3d452,462(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).ATenn.R.Civ.P.50.01motionfordirectedverdictshouldnotbegrantediftheevidenceissufficienttocreateanissueforthejurytodecide.Whitev.VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,231(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Normanv.LibertyLifeAssuranceCo.,556S.W.2d772,773(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).@ III. @  TheEvidenceAgainstJonesHolding,Inc.  Mr.HodgefirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredbygrantingthedirectedverdictbecausehehadpresentedevidencefromwhichthejurycouldconcludethatJonesHolding,Inc.wasresponsibleforplacingintheroadwaythesteelplatesthatcausedhisinjuries.JonesHolding,Inc.respondsthatawitnessssinglereferenceto JonesBrothersprovidedaninsufficientfactualbasisforconcludingthatitplayedanyroleintheconstructionprojectonU.S.Highway64.Weagree. WhenMr.Hodgefiledhissecondsuit,heintentionallychosetosueJonesHolding,Inc.Thus,togethiscasetothejury,Mr.Hodgehadtheburdenofestablishingalltheessentialelementsofhiscase.WasteConversionSys.,Inc.v.GreenstoneIndus.,Inc.,33S.W.3d779,783(Tenn.2000);Winfordv.HawisseeApartmentComplex,812S.W.2d293,295(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).OneoftheseessentialelementswasthatJonesHolding,Inc.wastheconstructioncompanyresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesacrossU.S.Highway64. TheonlyevidenceregardingtheidentityoftheconstructioncompanyresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesacrossthehighwayconsistedoftheanswertoonequestionputtoaninspectoremployedbytheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation.Whenhewasaskedduringhisdirectexaminationtoidentifywhoplacedthesteelplatesintheroad,theinspectoranswered JonesBrothers.Later,whenaskedoncrossexaminationifhehadeverheardofacompanycalledJonesHoldingCompany,theinspectoranswered No,Ihavent. WhileMr.Hodgeisentitledtothebenefitofallreasonableinferencesfromtheevidence,weconcurwiththetrialcourtsdecisionthatitwouldbeunreasonabletoinferthatJonesHolding,Inc.wasresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesintheroadfromthetestimonyidentifying JonesBrothersastheresponsibleparty.Corporationsarediscretelegalentities,andsimilaritiesinthenamesoftwocorporationsdonotprovideabasisforattributingtheactsofonecorporationtotheother.Statev.Yamada&Sons,Inc.,584P.2d114,116(Haw.1978)(holdingthatthefactthattwocorporationsbearthesamename isnomoretheoccasionforattributingthedebtsofonetotheotherthaniftheyweretwoindividuals).Inthefinalanalysis,Mr.Hodgesuedthewrongcorporation.Noamountofevidencecancurethismistake.@ IV. @  JonesHolding,Inc.sObligationUnderTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03  Mr.HodgealsoarguesthatJonesHolding,Inc.wasnotentitledtoadirectedverdictbasedonhismisidentificationoftheconstructioncompanyresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesacrossthehighwaybecauseitdidnotspecificallyidentifyJonesBros.,Inc.asapotentialtortfeasorinitsanswer.Inessence,Mr.Hodgecomplainsthathewasbushwhackedattrialbyan unpledaffirmativedefense.Wedisagreefortworeasons.First,JonesHolding,Inc.sargumentthatMr.HodgehadsuedthewrongcorporationwasnotanaffirmativedefensegovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03.Second,Mr.Hodgewasputonnoticetenmonthsbeforetrialthathehadsuedthewrongdefendant. TherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweengeneraldefensesgovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.02andaffirmativedefensesgovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03.Ageneraldefensedirectlycontrovertsornegatesoneormoreelementoftheplaintiffscase.Donohoev.AmericanIsuzuMotors,Inc.,155F.R.D.515,518(M.D.Pa.1994);Winfordv.HawisseeApartmentComplex,812S.W.2dat295.Inotherwords,itattacksthesufficiencyoftheplaintiffsclaim. Ontheotherhand,anaffirmativedefensegovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03doesnottendtocontrovertanelementoftheplaintiffscase.Georgev.Alexander,931S.W.2d517,527(Tenn.1996)(Reid,J.,concurring)(statingthatanaffirmativedefensepleadsamatterthatisnotwithintheplaintiffsprimafaciecase).Itisalinealdescendantofthecommonlawpleaofconfessionandavoidancewhichpermittedadefendantwhowaswillingtoadmitthattheplaintiffsdeclarationdemonstratedaprimafaciecasetothengoonandallegeadditionalnewmaterialthatwoulddefeattheplaintiffsotherwisevalidcauseofaction.5CharlesA.Wright&ArthurR.Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure1270,at411(2ded.1990);Thompson,Breeding,Dunn,Creswell&Sparksv.Bowlin,765S.W.2d743,744(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)(statingthatanaffirmativedefenseadmitsallorpartofthecauseofaction). Anaffirmativedefenseraisesnewmattersnotcoveredbytheplaintiffscomplaintwhichwilldefeattheplaintiffsclaimonthemerits,eveniftheplaintiffprovesalloftheallegationsinitscomplaint.Anaffirmativedefensegenerallyreliesonfactsthatarenotnecessarytosupporttheplaintiffscase.Bondv.CedarRapidsTelevisionCo.,518N.W.2d352,355(Iowa1994).Thus,adefendantassertinganaffirmativedefensemayintroduceevidencetoestablishanindependentreasonwhytheplaintiffshouldbedeniedrecovery.Russellv.CityofBryan,919S.W.2d698,704(Tex.App.1996).Defendantsdesiringtoassertanaffirmativedefensemustspecificallypleadthedefenseintheiranswer.Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.08.Iftheyfailtodoso,theywillbedeemedtohavewaivedthedefense.Reedv.AlamoRentACar,Inc.,4S.W.3d677,69091(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);SteedRealtyv.Oveisi,823S.W.2d195,197(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).  Tenn.R.Civ.P.8.03specificallyidentifiesseventeendefensesasaffirmativedefenses.Oneofthesedefensesisthedefenseof comparativefault(includingtheidentityordescriptionofanyotherallegedtortfeasors).Followingthe1993amendmentthataddedthisdefensetoTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03,adefendantinanegligenceactiondesiringtointroduceevidencethatathirdpartycausedorcontributedtotheplaintiffsinjuriesmustaffirmativelypleadcomparativefaultasadefense,Georgev.Alexander,931S.W.2dat520,andmustidentifyordescribetheotherallegedtortfeasorswhoshouldsharefault.Tenn.R.Civ.P.8.03advisorycommncmt.to1993amend. JonesHolding,Inc.wasnotassertingthecomparativefaultaffirmativedefenseinthiscase.RatherthanseekingtolayoffallorapartofthefaultforMr.Hodgesinjuriesonanothertortfeasor,itwassimplyassertingthatitwasnottheconstructioncompanyresponsiblefortheroadconstructionwhereMr.Hodgewasinjured.Thus,JonesHolding,Inc.wasdirectlycontrovertingornegatingtwooftheallegationsinMr.Hodgescomplaint!thatitwas engagedinroadandothertypesofconstructionandthatitwas engagedintheconstructionofaroadinwesternLincolnCountyduringthesummerof1993.ThisgeneraldefensecouldpermissiblyberaisedsimplybydenyingthecorrespondingallegationsinMr.Hodgescomplaint. Mr.HodgesprotestationsofsurpriseregardingJonesHolding,Inc.sdenialthatitwasresponsiblefortheconstructionprojectonU.S.Highway64aresomewhatdisingenuous.Onemonthafterhefiledhissecondcomplaint,JonesHolding,Inc.fileditsanswerflatlydenying(1)thatitwasengagedinroadandothertypesofconstruction,(2)thatitwasformerlyknownasJonesBrothersConstructionCompany,and(3)thatitwasengagedintheconstructionofaroadinwesternLincolnCountyinthesummerof1993.WhilethesedenialsshouldhavealertedMr.Hodgetothepossibilitythathehadsuedthewrongcorporation,alldoubtshouldhavevanishedwhenMr.HodgeslawyerreceivedtheJanuary17,1997letterfromJonesHolding,Inc.slawyerinforminghimthatMr.Hodgehadsuedthewrongcorporation.Thus,Mr.Hodgewasawareofthemisidentificationproblemfortenmonthspriortotrial. ThepuzzlingpartofthiscaseisMr.Hodgesfailuretoremedythemisidentificationproblemwhenitwasbroughttohisattention.Thereasonswhyhislawyerdeclinedtheoffertoenteranagreedorderamendingthecomplainttocuretheproblemarenotreflectedintherecordandarenototherwisereadilyapparent.WhatisapparentisthatMr.Hodgefailedtoseizetheopportunitytoremedytheerrorinhiscomplaintthatlaterprovedtobehisundoingattrial.WecannotfaultthetrialcourtfordirectingaverdictinJonesHolding,Inc.sfavorwhenMr.Hodgestacticaloversightfinallycaughtupwithhimattrial.@ V.  WeaffirmthejudgmentdirectingaverdictinfavorofJonesHolding,Inc.andremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoJamesA.Hodgeandhissuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       _____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE