WPC, ˑ:* i`$C8 xFa`wp3D㵡#Gw@SJag0m^+G*HE2]M%X&[hr?s~c:tH0b 8mb1bMMFZe~|v( d'QN5!Z%5yYl8=V$:1Ҥ` u]XG?ZcLvڪ|qs7RV wbYpj9M` Zoցgc &GE*:$I#lUS9C.W=-ca/UPtbl([r\EHXC~A;vR<y$IGcB7/WgOA5qACk zO)Fgb#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   g-N 0DETBU 0U 0 0 0 0Z 0 0 0s 0 0 0 0Q 0 0 0X 0 0 b)! 01! 0! 0" 0N# 0# 0$ 0L% 0% 0& 0'''''''''''''''''''''''''' 0'''' B(( 0( D3J) D-}) 0K)) AS)H* 0+ 0D+ A+HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0xnY+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+am Files? C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU HodgeWaynesboroSewaneeErlangerlimineArmentroutMcClainIngramConatserSpann SysGreenstoneWinfordHawisseeYamadatortfeasorunpledDonohoeF.R.D.HawisseCreswellBowlinOveisitortfeasorscommn cmtLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   J Rl$      1  -  _ThetrialcourtenteredanotherorderinMay1995correctingamisnomerinitsApril1995order.John_Hodge_  didnotappealfromeitheroftheseorders. 8 Rl$      2  -  _ThetrialcourthadearlierdismissedJohn_Hodges_Ԁclaimsonresjudicatagrounds.JohnHodgehasnot  appealedfromthatdecision.  Rl$      3  -  _Mr.Hodgewasunabletopresentexpertmedicalproofregardinghisinjuriesbecausehehadfailedtocomply  withanagreedschedulingorder.Hedidnottakethestandbecausethetrialcourthaddeniedhismotioninlimine  seekingtopreventJonesHolding,Inc.fromcrossexamininghimregardinghisrecentdrugrelatedcriminalconvictions.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *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   &&& $_   x 23   x   (|G2l$ !.8QdXXd8         0  - d(|3Il$ !.8QdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Il$ !.8QdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Qdd8     _TRY,3'LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T  Q8iXXdd8  @ ]$QINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Q]$|#Ԉ &   March5,1999Session  L XiXQ #QXXib#JAMESA.HODGEv.JONESHOLDINGCOMPANY,INC.XiXQ   J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLincolnCounty  J @@No.C9600214F.LeeRussell,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M199800955_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust3,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealinvolvesamotorcycleriderwhowasseriouslyinjuredwhenhismotorcyclecrossed   metalplatescoveringaportionofthehighwaysurfacethatwasunderconstruction.Aftervoluntarily   dismissinghisfirstsuit,theriderfiledasecondsuitintheCircuitCourtforLincolnCountyagainst t thecorporationhebelievedtoberesponsibleforplacingthemetalplatesacrossthehighway.The ` riderinsistedonproceedingagainstthiscorporationevenafterhewasinformedthathehadsuedthe L wrongparty.Thecorporationmovedforadirectedverdictatthecloseofthemotorcycleriders 8x caseinchief,assertingthathehadfailedtoprovethatitwasresponsiblefortheroadconstruction. $d Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionanddismissedtheriderscomplaint.Theridernowchallenges P thedirectedverdictontwogrounds.First,heassertsthathepresentedenoughevidenceofthe < contractorsresponsibilityfortheconstructiontotakethecasetothejury.Second,heassertsthat ( thecorporationshouldnotbepermittedtoarguethathesuedthewrongpartybecauseithadnot  specificallyidentifiedordescribedthispartyinitsanswerasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03.We  havedeterminedthatthecorporationsdenialofinvolvementwiththeconstructionprojectatissue  wasnotassertinganaffirmativedefensegovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03andthatthetrialcourt  properlygrantedthedirectedverdict.Therefore,weaffirmthejudgmentdismissingthemotorcycle  riderscomplaint. p  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  H     #QXi#XiX.QWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  "`" PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.  #L# AugustC.Winter,Brentwood,Tennessee(onappeal),fortheappellant,JamesA.Hodge. $$!% WilliamB.Jakes,III,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JonesHoldingCompany,Inc. &"'   OPINION #QXXi#XiXQ ($)  I.  l*&+     OnAugust1,1993,JamesHodgedrovehismotorcycletoWaynesborotovisitasonwhowas D,(- incarceratedatacorrectional bootcampthere.Hewasjoinedtherebyanotherson,JohnHodge. 0-p).  Atapproximately5:00p.m.,JamesHodgeandJohnHodgeleftWaynesborofortheirhomein .\*/: Sewanee.JamesHodgewasridinghismotorcycle;whileJohnHodgewasdrivingaheadofhimin  hisautomobile.     AstheHodgesweredrivingeastonU.S.Highway64,theyencounteredroadconstruction  inthewesternportionofLincolnCounty.Atonespotonadownhillcurve,thecontractorhadplaced p threeoneinchthickrectangularsteelplatesoverthepavement.Whiletheplateswerefastened \ togetherwithweldedstraps,therewasaseambetweentheplatesrunningparalleltothedirection H  ofthetraffic.JohnHodgesawtheconstructionwarningsignsandthesteelplates.Afterbreaking 4 t appropriately,hedroveacrossthesteelplateswithoutincident.Afterhecrossedthesteelplates,  ` JohnHodgelookedinhisrearviewmirrortoseeifhisfatherhadcrossedtheplatessafely.Whenhe  L  firstlooked,hesawhisfatherapproachingtheseambetweentheplates.Healsosawhisfathers  8  motorcycle lowerandthenhesawhisfather comingoutofthegroove.WhenJohnHodge  $  lookedagain,hesawhisfather offthesideoftheroad,dustwasflyingupandIsawhimgoover   thefrontofhismotorcycleandhishelmethitthefairing,thefairingbrokeandthenhewoundup20   footpasthismotorcycleinsomeverylargerocks.     JamesHodgewasrushedtoLincolnRegionalHospitalandthenairliftedtoErlangerMedical  CenterinChattanoogawhereheremainedhospitalizedformorethanonemonth.Hesustaineda l closedheadinjurythataffectedhisabilitytospeakandwalk.Followingthewreck,JohnHodge X attemptedsuicideandwasadmittedtoapsychiatricinstitutionforatime.Heattributedhis D distraughtstateofmindtothefactthathehadwitnessedhisfathersmotorcyclewreck. 0p   JamesHodgeandJohnHodgefiledsuitintheCircuitCourtforLincolnCountyagainstJones H BrothersConstructionCompany.JamesHodgesought$1,000,000incompensatorydamagesand 4 $1,000,000inpunitivedamagesforhisinjuries,andJohnHodgesought$250,000incompensatory   and$250,000inpunitivedamagesfortheemotionalinjuryhesustainedbywatchinghisfathers   wreck.InApril1995,thetrialcourtgrantedJonesBrothersConstructionCompanysmotionfor  partialsummaryjudgmentanddismissedJohnHodgesclaims. #  1      ׀JamesHodgelatervoluntarily  dismissedhisclaimsagainstJonesBrothersConstructionCompany.    BothJamesHodgeandJohnHodgefiledasecondcomplaintonDecember6,1996.Instead h ofsuingtheoriginaldefendant,JonesBrothersConstructionCompany,theysued JonesHolding, T  Inc.,Company( JonesHolding,Inc.)andallegedthatJonesHolding,Inc.was formerlyknown @!  asJonesBrothersConstructionCompany.InitsanswerfiledonJanuary6,1997,JonesHolding, ,"l! Inc.deniedthatitwasformerlyknownasJonesBrothersConstructionCompanyanddeniedthatit #X" hadbeeninvolvedinanyconstructiononU.S.Highway64.OnJanuary17,1997,thelawyer $D # representingJonesHolding,Inc.sentalettertothelawyerrepresentingtheHodgesinaneffort to $0!$ tryandstraightenouttheconfusionastotheidentityoftheproperdefendantinthiscase.This %"% letterexplainedthat &#& 8  8`   JonesBros.ConstructionCompanywasformedseveralyearsagofor ($( RobertJonespersonalbusiness.Therehaveneverbeenany )%) employeesofthisentityotherthanMr.Joneshimself.Thiscompany x*&* filesanonconsolidatedtaxreturnbasedonitsown,albeitlimited,  activity.` x` x 8  8`    ToavoidconfusionwithJonesBros.,Inc.(whichisa  constructioncompanyandtheproperdefendantinthiscase),the p nameofJonesBros.ConstructionCompanywaschangedin1995to \ JonesHolding,Inc.JonesHolding,Inc.doesnothaveacontractors H  licenseandhasnotieswiththebusinessactivitiesofJonesBros.,Inc. 4 t butdoeshavetheoneshareholderincommon,RobertJones.All  ` constructionactivity(includingthejobwhichisthesubjectofthis  L  case)iscontractedwiththeentityJonesBros.,Inc.Iwould  8  appreciateitifyouwouldsigntheenclosedAgreedOrderandsubmit  $  ittothecourt.Iassureyouthatthiswillnotaffectanyapplicable   insurancecoverage. ` x` x Attachedtothisletterwasanagreedorder,signedbyJonesHolding,Inc.scounsel,amendingthe   complainttocorrectthenameoftheproperpartydefendanttoread JonesBros.,Inc.Forsome  reason,notreadilyapparentintherecord,theHodgeslawyerneitheracknowledgedthisletternor l forwardedtheagreedordertothetrialcourtforentry.Thus,thesuitproceededagainstJones X Holding,Inc. D   ThetrialonJamesHodgesclaimscommencedinNovember1997. #  2      ׀Mr.Hodgecalledonly \ threewitnesses,JohnHodge,acustodianofErlangerMedicalCenterspatientrecords,andan H employeeoftheDepartmentofTransportationwhotestifiedthat JonesBrotherswasresponsible 4 forplacingthesteelplatesacrossthehighway. #  3      ׀AfterMr.Hodgerestedhiscase,JonesHolding,Inc.   movedsuccessfullyforadirectedverdictontwogrounds.First,itassertedthatMr.Hodgehadsued   thewrongdefendantandhadpresentednoevidencethatJonesHolding,Inc.hadbeennegligent.  Second,itassertedthatMr.Hodgehadfailedtopresentevidence thattheresanynegligenceonthe  partofwhoevertherightdefendantmightbe.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotiononbothgrounds  andlaterdeniedMr.Hodgesmotionfornewtrial.Thisappealensued. | @) II.  T  @hh TheStandardofReview  @!    DirectedverdictsundereitherTenn.R.Civ.P.50.01or50.02areappropriateonlywhen #X" reasonablemindscannotdifferastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheevidence.Alexanderv. $D # Armentrout,24S.W.3d267,271(Tenn.2000);Eatonv.McClain,891S.W.2d587,590(Tenn. $0!$ 1994);Ingramv.Earthman,993S.W.2d611,627(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Acaseshouldnotbe %"% takenawayfromthejury,evenwhenthefactsareundisputed,ifreasonablepersonscoulddraw &#& differentconclusionsfromthefacts.Gulf,M.&O.R.Co.v.Underwood,182Tenn.467,474,187 '#' S.W.2d777,779(1945);Hurleyv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,922S.W.2d887,891(Tenn.  Ct.App.1995).Atrialcourtmay,however,directaverdictwithregardtoanissuethatcanproperly  bedecidedasaquestionoflawbecausedecidingpurelylegalquestionsisthecourtsresponsibility,  notthejurys.    Inappealsfromadirectedverdict,thereviewingcourtsdonotweightheevidence,Conatser \ v.ClarksvilleCocaColaBottlingCo.,920S.W.2d646,647(Tenn.1995);Bentonv.Snyder,825 H  S.W.2d409,413(Tenn.1992),orevaluatethecredibilityofthewitnesses.Bensonv.Tennessee 4 t ValleyElec.Coop.,868S.W.2d630,63839(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Instead,theyreviewthe  ` evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothemotionsopponent,givethemotionsopponentthe  L  benefitofallreasonableinferences,anddisregardallevidencecontrarytothatpartysposition.  8  Alexanderv.Armentrout,24S.W.3dat271;Eatonv.McClain,891S.W.2dat590;Spannv.  $  Abraham,36S.W.3d452,462(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).ATenn.R.Civ.P.50.01motionfordirected   verdictshouldnotbegrantediftheevidenceissufficienttocreateanissueforthejurytodecide.   Whitev.VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,231(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Normanv.LibertyLife   AssuranceCo.,556S.W.2d772,773(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).   @^^( III.  l @: :  TheEvidenceAgainstJonesHolding,Inc.  X   Mr.Hodgefirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredbygrantingthedirectedverdictbecausehe 0p hadpresentedevidencefromwhichthejurycouldconcludethatJonesHolding,Inc.wasresponsible \ forplacingintheroadwaythesteelplatesthatcausedhisinjuries.JonesHolding,Inc.respondsthat H awitnessssinglereferenceto JonesBrothersprovidedaninsufficientfactualbasisforconcluding 4 thatitplayedanyroleintheconstructionprojectonU.S.Highway64.Weagree.     WhenMr.Hodgefiledhissecondsuit,heintentionallychosetosueJonesHolding,Inc.  Thus,togethiscasetothejury,Mr.Hodgehadtheburdenofestablishingalltheessentialelements  ofhiscase.WasteConversionSys.,Inc.v.GreenstoneIndus.,Inc.,33S.W.3d779,783(Tenn.  2000);Winfordv.HawisseeApartmentComplex,812S.W.2d293,295(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).One | oftheseessentialelementswasthatJonesHolding,Inc.wastheconstructioncompanyresponsible h forplacingthesteelplatesacrossU.S.Highway64. T    Theonlyevidenceregardingtheidentityoftheconstructioncompanyresponsibleforplacing ,"l! thesteelplatesacrossthehighwayconsistedoftheanswertoonequestionputtoaninspector #X" employedbytheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation.Whenhewasaskedduringhisdirect $D # examinationtoidentifywhoplacedthesteelplatesintheroad,theinspectoranswered Jones $0!$ Brothers.Later,whenaskedoncrossexaminationifhehadeverheardofacompanycalledJones %"% HoldingCompany,theinspectoranswered No,Ihavent. &#&   WhileMr.Hodgeisentitledtothebenefitofallreasonableinferencesfromtheevidence,we ($( concurwiththetrialcourtsdecisionthatitwouldbeunreasonabletoinferthatJonesHolding,Inc. )%) wasresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesintheroadfromthetestimonyidentifying Jones x*&* Brothersastheresponsibleparty.Corporationsarediscretelegalentities,andsimilaritiesinthe d+'+ namesoftwocorporationsdonotprovideabasisforattributingtheactsofonecorporationtothe P,(, other.Statev.Yamada&Sons,Inc.,584P.2d114,116(Haw.1978)(holdingthatthefactthattwo <-|)- corporationsbearthesamename isnomoretheoccasionforattributingthedebtsofonetotheother  thaniftheyweretwoindividuals).Inthefinalanalysis,Mr.Hodgesuedthewrongcorporation.  Noamountofevidencecancurethismistake.  @dd) IV.  p @   JonesHolding,Inc.sObligationUnderTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03 \    Mr.HodgealsoarguesthatJonesHolding,Inc.wasnotentitledtoadirectedverdictbased 4 t onhismisidentificationoftheconstructioncompanyresponsibleforplacingthesteelplatesacross  ` thehighwaybecauseitdidnotspecificallyidentifyJonesBros.,Inc.asapotentialtortfeasorinits  L  answer.Inessence,Mr.Hodgecomplainsthathewasbushwhackedattrialbyan unpled  8  affirmativedefense.Wedisagreefortworeasons.First,JonesHolding,Inc.sargumentthatMr.  $  HodgehadsuedthewrongcorporationwasnotanaffirmativedefensegovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.   P.8.03.Second,Mr.Hodgewasputonnoticetenmonthsbeforetrialthathehadsuedthewrong   defendant.     TherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweengeneraldefensesgovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.02  andaffirmativedefensesgovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03.Ageneraldefensedirectlycontroverts l ornegatesoneormoreelementoftheplaintiffscase.Donohoev.AmericanIsuzuMotors,Inc.,155 X F.R.D.515,518(M.D.Pa.1994);Winfordv.HawisseeApartmentComplex,812S.W.2dat295. D Inotherwords,itattacksthesufficiencyoftheplaintiffsclaim. 0p   Ontheotherhand,anaffirmativedefensegovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03doesnottend H tocontrovertanelementoftheplaintiffscase.Georgev.Alexander,931S.W.2d517,527(Tenn. 4 1996)(Reid,J.,concurring)(statingthatanaffirmativedefensepleadsamatterthatisnotwithinthe   plaintiffsprimafaciecase).Itisalinealdescendantofthecommonlawpleaofconfessionand   avoidancewhichpermittedadefendantwhowaswillingtoadmitthattheplaintiffsdeclaration  demonstratedaprimafaciecasetothengoonandallegeadditionalnewmaterialthatwoulddefeat  theplaintiffsotherwisevalidcauseofaction.5CharlesA.Wright&ArthurR.Miller,Federal  PracticeandProcedure1270,at411(2ded.1990);Thompson,Breeding,Dunn,Creswell& | Sparksv.Bowlin,765S.W.2d743,744(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)(statingthatanaffirmativedefense h admitsallorpartofthecauseofaction). T    Anaffirmativedefenseraisesnewmattersnotcoveredbytheplaintiffscomplaintwhichwill ,"l! defeattheplaintiffsclaimonthemerits,eveniftheplaintiffprovesalloftheallegationsinits #X" complaint.Anaffirmativedefensegenerallyreliesonfactsthatarenotnecessarytosupportthe $D # plaintiffscase.Bondv.CedarRapidsTelevisionCo.,518N.W.2d352,355(Iowa1994).Thus, $0!$ adefendantassertinganaffirmativedefensemayintroduceevidencetoestablishanindependent %"% reasonwhytheplaintiffshouldbedeniedrecovery.Russellv.CityofBryan,919S.W.2d698,704 &#& (Tex.App.1996).Defendantsdesiringtoassertanaffirmativedefensemustspecificallypleadthe '#' defenseintheiranswer.Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.08.Iftheyfailtodoso,theywillbedeemedtohave ($( waivedthedefense.Reedv.AlamoRentACar,Inc.,4S.W.3d677,69091(Tenn.Ct.App.1999); )%) SteedRealtyv.Oveisi,823S.W.2d195,197(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). x*&*     P,(,   Tenn.R.Civ.P.8.03specificallyidentifiesseventeendefensesasaffirmativedefenses.One   ofthesedefensesisthedefenseof comparativefault(includingtheidentityordescriptionofany  otherallegedtortfeasors).Followingthe1993amendmentthataddedthisdefensetoTenn.R.Civ.  P.8.03,adefendantinanegligenceactiondesiringtointroduceevidencethatathirdpartycaused  orcontributedtotheplaintiffsinjuriesmustaffirmativelypleadcomparativefaultasadefense, p Georgev.Alexander,931S.W.2dat520,andmustidentifyordescribetheotherallegedtortfeasors \ whoshouldsharefault.Tenn.R.Civ.P.8.03advisorycommncmt.to1993amend. H    JonesHolding,Inc.wasnotassertingthecomparativefaultaffirmativedefenseinthiscase.  ` RatherthanseekingtolayoffallorapartofthefaultforMr.Hodgesinjuriesonanothertortfeasor,  L  itwassimplyassertingthatitwasnottheconstructioncompanyresponsiblefortheroadconstruction  8  whereMr.Hodgewasinjured.Thus,JonesHolding,Inc.wasdirectlycontrovertingornegatingtwo  $  oftheallegationsinMr.Hodgescomplaint!thatitwas engagedinroadandothertypesof   constructionandthatitwas engagedintheconstructionofaroadinwesternLincolnCounty   duringthesummerof1993.Thisgeneraldefensecouldpermissiblyberaisedsimplybydenyingthe   correspondingallegationsinMr.Hodgescomplaint.     Mr.HodgesprotestationsofsurpriseregardingJonesHolding,Inc.sdenialthatitwas l responsiblefortheconstructionprojectonU.S.Highway64aresomewhatdisingenuous.One X monthafterhefiledhissecondcomplaint,JonesHolding,Inc.fileditsanswerflatlydenying(1)that D itwasengagedinroadandothertypesofconstruction,(2)thatitwasformerlyknownasJones 0p BrothersConstructionCompany,and(3)thatitwasengagedintheconstructionofaroadinwestern \ LincolnCountyinthesummerof1993.WhilethesedenialsshouldhavealertedMr.Hodgetothe H possibilitythathehadsuedthewrongcorporation,alldoubtshouldhavevanishedwhenMr. 4 HodgeslawyerreceivedtheJanuary17,1997letterfromJonesHolding,Inc.slawyerinforming   himthatMr.Hodgehadsuedthewrongcorporation.Thus,Mr.Hodgewasawareofthe   misidentificationproblemfortenmonthspriortotrial.    ThepuzzlingpartofthiscaseisMr.Hodgesfailuretoremedythemisidentificationproblem  whenitwasbroughttohisattention.Thereasonswhyhislawyerdeclinedtheoffertoenteran | agreedorderamendingthecomplainttocuretheproblemarenotreflectedintherecordandarenot h otherwisereadilyapparent.WhatisapparentisthatMr.Hodgefailedtoseizetheopportunityto T  remedytheerrorinhiscomplaintthatlaterprovedtobehisundoingattrial.Wecannotfaultthe @!  trialcourtfordirectingaverdictinJonesHolding,Inc.sfavorwhenMr.Hodgestacticaloversight ,"l! finallycaughtupwithhimattrial. #X" @) V.  $0!$   WeaffirmthejudgmentdirectingaverdictinfavorofJonesHolding,Inc.andremandthe &#& casetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionmayberequired. '#' WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoJamesA.Hodgeandhissuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary, ($( mayissue. )%)    `     h     _____________________________ d+'+    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE