ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ H bP 0PX 0J¨ 0Tò 0^F 0h¤ 0r 0|~ 0†ú 0€ 1u 0d… U>é B)'DCP AM“ BàU*ýê'v~vÓ D3b 0@• AÕ D?T BG“ AOÚÆ) 0Dï D/3 Bb˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ áâãäåæçèUéUê Ó€¥Hœ$tttttt3|xó- ù-((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€T#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌJuly€31,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒTyúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d€T‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÓ` °‡XøÈ“XÓÔ€!¼ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßR€$'#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌANGELA›€S.€HOGAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xøôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9801„CV„00023Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àSumner€CircuitÌSONYA€M.€REESE,à à)à àNo.€€15609„CÌà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̛̜ÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€SUMNER€COUNTYÌÌAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEE̛̜ÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌJOE€D.€HARSHÌHarsh,€Parks€&€HarshÌ123€Public€SquareÌGallatin,€Tennessee€€37066Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌR.€KREIS€WHITEÌAdair,€Schuerman€&€WhiteÌ4701€Trousdale€Drive,€Suite€211ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37220Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÓ  ÓÌÑ7€¦'XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óà àà àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€!°ÔOPINIONóóÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓÓ€ÓÔ€!¼Ôà àIn€this€case€defendant€appeals€a€jury€verdict€for€personal€injuriesÏresulting€from€an€automobile€accident€in€which€the€trial€judge€directed€aÏverdict€for€the€plaintiff€on€the€issue€of€œliability.€€This€appeal€takes€issue€withÏtwo€aspects€of€the€trial€court's€decision,€to€wit,€damages€and€liability.ÌÌI.à àWith€regard€to€liability:Ìà àPlaintiff›€alleges€in€her€complaint€that€her€automobile€was€struckÏfrom€the€rear€by€the€automobile€driven€by€defendant.€€She€alleges€specificÏacts€of€negligence€including€statutory€violations€and€seeks€recovery€for€painÏand€suffering€together€with€loss€œof›€enjoyment€of€life.€œÌ›Ìà àIn€answer€defendant€œadmits›€certain€acts€of€negligence€includingÏfailure€to€keep€a€proper€lookout€ahead€and€failure€to€see€that€which€was€plainÍto€be€seen€and€take€proper€action€with€respect€œthereto.ÌÌà àPrior€to€trial€the€defendant€was€allowed€to€amend€her€answer€toÏallege€comparative€fault.›ÌÌà àœOn›€October€27,€1995€in€the€late€afternoon€plaintiff€Angela€S.ÏHogan€was€alone€in€her€automobile€driving€from€Gallatin€towardÏHendersonville€on€Highway€31A.€€Defendants€Sonya€M.€Reese,€accompaniedÏby€passenger€Rocky€Branham,€was€proceeding€in€the€same€direction€onÏHighway€31A€to€the€rear€of€Mrs.€Hogan.€€As€Mrs.€Hogan€approached€a€stopÏlight€she€slowed€or€stopped€her€car€and€was€struck€from€the€rear€by€Mrs.ÏReese.€€Very€little€property€damage€occurred€and€Mrs.€Hogan€did€not€seekÏmedical€attention€until€two€days€following€the€accident.ÌÌà àOnly€three€witnesses,€plaintiff€Angela€S.€Hogan,€defendant€SonyaÏM.€Reese€and€passenger€Rocky€Branham,€testified€as€to€the€facts€of€theÏaccident.€€At€the€conclusion€of€all€of€the€evidence€the€trial€court€could€findÏno€basis€for€comparative€negligence€and€directed€a€verdict€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff€on€the€issue€of€liability,€thus€sending€the€case€to€the€jury€on€damagesÏonly.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€as€reflected€by€the€finalÏjudgment€as€follows:ÌÓ#` Ü` ä ZÈ“X#ÓÓÓà8 àà àAfter€deliberation,€the€jury€returned€and€reportedÏto€the€Court€that€based€on€the€proof€submitted€and€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€Plaintiff,ÏANGELA€S.€HOGAN,€sustained€total€damages€in€the€sumÏof€SEVENTEEN€THOUSAND€SEVEN€HUNDREDÏFIFTY€($17,750.00)€DOLLARS,€as€a€result€of€theÏOctober€27,€1995€accident.€€Said€total€damages€wereÏcomposed€of€economic€damages€in€the€amount€ofÏ$4,395.16€and€non„economic€damages€of€$13,354.84.€ÍEach€juror€did,€upon€being€polled€by€the€Judge,Ïacknowledge€and€confirm€the€verdict€as€reported€byÏforeperson€Jerry€Anderton,€was€in€fact€the€verdict€agreedÏupon€by€each€individual€juror,€and€the€jury€as€a€whole.Ìà8 àà àTherefore,€based€on€the€verdict€rendered€and€theÏfindings€made€by€the€jury,€it€is€therefore€ORDERED,ÏADJUDGED€AND€DECREEDÌà8 àà à1.€€Plaintiff,€ANGELA€S.€HOGAN,€have€andÏrecover€from€the€Defendant,€SONYA€M.€REESE,€the€sumÏof€SEVENTEEN€THOUSAND€SEVEN€HUNDREDÏFIFTY€($17,750.00)€DOLLARS.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àDefendant€filed€a€timely€motion€for€a€new€trial€complaining€of€theÏdirected€verdict€on€liability,€the€applicability€of€the€statutory€presumptions€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113(a)(3)€and€the€alleged€erroneous€instruction€by€the€courtÏwith€respect€to€medical€expense€presumptions.ÌÌà àThis€motion€was€overruled€and€defendant€appealed.ÌÌà àAppellant€states€three€issues€on€appeal€to„wit:ÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Did€the€circuit€court€err€in€directing€verdict€inÏfavor€of€the€plaintiff€as€to€liability?Ìà8 àà à2.€€Did€the€circuit€court€err€by€permittingÏintroduction€of€medical€expenses€other€than€the€charges€ofÏchiropractor€œEttlinger›€with€a€presumption€of€bothÏreasonableness€and€necessity?Ìà8 àà à3.€€Was€the€circuit€court's€instruction€related€to€aÏmedical€expense€presumption€(TPI€Civil€14.12)Ïerroneous?ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àThe€action€of€the€trial€court€in€directing€a€verdict€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff€as€to€liability€presents€a€difficult€issue€on€appeal€under€theÏnecessary,€comparative€fault€analysis€mandated€by€ò òòòMcIntyre€v.ÍBallentineóóó ó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992)€and€its€progeny.ÌÌà àWhile€ò òòòEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994)€wasÏactually€decided€on€the€"duty"€issue,€the€discussion€therein€of€the€ò òòòMcIntyreó óóóÏeffect€where€the€negligence€of€both€plaintiff€and€defendant€is€allegedÏprovides€a€good€starting€point.ÌÌà àSaid€the€court:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[4]€€The€recitation€of€these€standards€of€review€doesÏnot,€however,€provide€a€satisfactory€answer€to€the€issueÏbefore€us€because€òòMcIntyreóó€has€radically€changed€theÏquestion€to€be€asked€by€the€trial€court€on€a€motion€forÏdirected€verdict/JNOV€which€alleges€negligence€on€theÏpart€of€the€plaintiff.€€The€question€now€is€òònotóó€whether€theÏplaintiff€was€guilty€of€òòanyóó€negligence€that€proximatelyÏcaused€the€resulting€injuries.€€Instead,€the€question€is:€Ïassuming€that€both€plaintiff€and€defendant€have€beenÏfound€guilty€of€negligent€conduct€that€proximately€causedÏthe€injuries,€was€the€òòfault€attributable€to€plaintiff€equal€toÏor€greater€than€the€fault€attributable€to€the€defendant.óóÌÌà8 àà àThe€trial€court's€determination€as€to€whetherÏreasonable€minds€could€differ€on€this€new€question€isÏmade€more€difficult€by€the€fact€that€it€has€not€beenÏprovided€with€any€guidance€as€to€how€to€apportion€òòfaultóó.€ÏThe€formulation€of€workable,€meaningful€standards€toÏguide€trial€courts€in€this€area€is€no€simple€matter;€this€isÏevidenced€by€the€marked€divergence€of€opinion€of€courtsÏand€commentators€on€whether€fault€should€be€apportionedÏaccording€to€the€nature€of€the€parties'€conduct,€theÏcloseness€of€the€causal€relationship€between€the€conductÏand€the€injuries,€or€combination€of€the€two.€€SomeÏcommentators€have€taken€an€extreme€position€on€thisÏissue,€arguing€that€no€rational€or€objective€basis€for€theÏapportionment€of€fault€exists.ÌÌà8 àà àWe€are€unpersuaded€by€the€contention€that€there€isÍno€meaningful€way€to€provide€guidance€to€trial€courts€andÏjuries€in€apportioning€fault,€or€by€the€alternativeÏcontention€that€it€is€unwise€to€provide€any€such€guidance.€ÏWhile€we€agree€that€it€is€impossible€to€formulate€anÏexhaustive€set€of€€guidelines€for€apportioning€fault€thatÏwill€adequately€cover€the€manifold€circumstances€in€whichÏnegligence€actions€may€arise,€we€nevertheless€believe€thatÏtrial€courts€and€juries€must€have€some€guidance,€howeverÏimprecise€and€imperfect,€in€discharging€their€respectiveÏduties€in€apportioning€fault.ÌÌò òòòEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590„91€(Tenn.€1994).€€FootnotesÏomitted.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àThis€question€addressed€in€ò òòòEatonó óóó€involved€the€determination€of€theÏò òòòMcIntyreó óóó€"fifty€percent€rule"€in€passing€on€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdictÏmade€by€the€defendant.€€If,€òòas€a€matter€of€lawóó,€the€trial€court€or€the€appellateÏcourt€may€determine€in€a€given€case€that€the€percentage€of€fault€of€theÏplaintiff€is€at€least€œ50%€of€the€total€fault,€then›€a€directed€verdict€for€theÏdefendant€is€mandated.ÌÌà àThis€issue€was€addressed€by€the€Eastern€Section€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€in€the€recent€case€of€ò òòòLaRue€v.€1817€Lake€Incorporatedó óóó,€966ÏS.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€Perm.€App.€denied€(Apr.€13,€1998)Ïwherein€the€trial€court€had€directed€a€verdict€in€favor€of€"dram€shop"Ïdefendants€and€then€addressed€the€"fifty€percent€rule"€as€to€the€plaintiffÏpassenger€and€defendant€driver.€€The€trial€court€held€that€under€the€proof€theÏpassenger€LaRue€was€at€least€50%€at€fault€and€thereupon€directed€a€verdict€inÏfavor€of€the€defendant€driver.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed,€holding:ÌÓÓà8 àà àAs€in€òòSilcox,€óóthere€is€ample€evidence€hereÏsuggesting€that€LaRue's€decision€to€get€on€the€motorcycleÏwas€ill„advised€and€negligent.€€However,€viewing€all€ofÍthe€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€plaintiffs,€as€weÏare€required€to€do,€we€cannot€say€that€reasonable€mindsÏcould€reach€only€the€conclusion€that€LaRue€was€equally€orÏmore€at€fault€than€Brewer.€€We€agree€that€the€conclusionÏreached€by€the€trial€court€that€LaRue's€fault€was€equal€toÏor€greater€than€Brewer's€is€a€reasonable€conclusion.€€WeÏcannot€say,€however,€that€there€is€not€another€conclusionÏthat€could€be€reached€by€reasonable€minds.ÌÌà8 àà àBrewer€was€the€operator€of€the€motorcycle€andÏadmittedly€was€traveling€too€fast€at€the€time€the€accidentÏoccurred.€€It€is€not€unreasonable€to€conclude€that€theÏaccident€was€caused€by€excessive€speed€rather€than€or€inÏaddition€to€Brewers€state€of€intoxication.€€Brewer's€bloodÏalcohol€content€was€roughly€twice€that€of€LaRue's.€€In€theÏfinal€analysis,€as€the€òòSilcoxóó€court€noted,€comparative€faultÏis€a€question€of€fact€within€the€jury's€province,€whichÏshould€not€lightly€be€invaded€by€the€trial€court.€€We€doÏnot€mean€to€imply€in€any€fashion€that€the€trial€court'sÏaction€gave€light€consideration€to€the€evidence€or€anyÏother€facet€of€the€case.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that,€€underÏall€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€the€question€of€theÏdegree€of€fault€between€LaRue€and€Brewer€should€haveÏbeen€submitted€to€the€jury.ÌÌòòò òLaRue€v.€1817€Lake€Incorporatedó óóó,€966€S.W.2d€at€427.ÌÌÌÓ€Óà àIn€the€case€at€bar€the€situation€is€reversed;€here€the€trial€court€hasÏdirected€a€verdict€for€òòthe€plaintiffóó€rather€than€for€the€defendant.€€Under€aÏcomparative€fault€analysis€this€means€that€the€trial€judge€has€determined€òòas€aÏmatter€of€lawóó€that€the€defendant€is€100%€at€fault€and€plaintiff€is€zero€percentÏat€fault.€€Thus€the€controlling€question€for€our€determination€is€whether€orÏnot,€accepting€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„movantÏdefendant,€€there€is€material€evidence€from€which€a€trier€of€fact€could€findÏòòanyóó€percentage€of€fault€attributable€to€the€plaintiff.€€If€so,€the€comparisonÏbecomes€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€and€not€a€question€of€law€for€theÍcourt.ÌÌà àAs€in€ò òòòLaRueó óóó€there€is€ample€and€indeed€overwhelming€evidence€ofÏthe€fault€of€the€defendant€Reese.€€A€verdict€for€the€plaintiff,€however,€cannotÏbe€directed€so€as€to€cast€100%€of€the€fault€upon€the€defendant€if€reasonableÏminds€can€differ€as€to€whether€or€not€the€plaintiff€was€in€any€way€at€fault.€ÏAt€trial€the€defendant€Reese€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àA.à àI€was€in€traffic€and€I€was€going€towardsÏHendersonville€from€Gallatin.€€The€light€had€changed.€€IÏwas€going€down€and€I€saw€this€other€car€slowing€down.€ÏMs.€Hogan€slammed€on€her€brakes.€€I€tried€to€stop€but€IÏdidn't.€€I€barely€hit€her€and€the€car€behind€me€did€have€toÏtake€the€shoulder€of€the€road€from€hitting€me.ÌÌÌà àRocky€Branham,€the€passenger€in€the€Reese€car,€testified:ÌÌà8 àQ.à àœTell€these€folks€what€happened.Ìà àA.à8 àSonya€was€going€down€the€road.€€Ms.€HoganÏover€here€put€on€her€brakes€and€we€bumpedÏinto€her.ÌÓ  Óà8 à.€.€.ÌÓ  Óà8 àQ.à àDo€you€remember€seeing€Sonya's€car€(sic)€anytimeÏprior€to€right€before€you€ran€into€it?Ìà àA.à àAll€the€time.Ìà8 àQ.à àDo€you€remember€what€any€of€the€other€carsÏlooked€like€around€the€scene€or€the€accident€scene?Ìà8 àA.à àI€looked€at€the€cars€if€that's€what€you're€asking.Ìà8 àQ.à àI'm€asking€do€you€remember€what€any€of€themÏlooked€like€at€the€scene€of€the€accident?Ìà àA.à àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQ.à àAside€from€Ms.€Hogan's€car€and€the€car€that€youÏwere€driving,€do€you€remember€any€of€the€other€vehiclesÏor€anything?Ìà àA.à àNo,€sir.Ìà àQ.à àAnd€did€you€say€the€light€turn€red?Ìà àA.à àIt€turned€red€after€she€stopped.Ìà8 àQ.à àThe€light€turned€red€after€she€stopped?Ìà àA.à àShe€stopped€and€then€the€light€turned.Ìà8 àQ.à àYou're€saying€Ms.€Hogan€stopped€first€and€then€theÏlight€turned€red?Ìà àA.à àYes,€sir,€as€far€as€I€can€remember.Ìà àQ.à àDo€you€think€you€could€be€wrong€on€that?Ìà àA.à àI€believe€that's€correct.Ìà8 àQ.à àYou€believe€or€are€you€absolutely€sure?Ìà àA.à àNo,€I'm€not€absolutely€sure.ÌÓ  Óà à.€.€.ÌÓ  Óà8 àQ.à àWell,€if€you're€not€absolutely€certain,€how€wouldÏyou€know?Ìà8 àA.à àThere€were€no€cars€in€front€of€Ms.€Hogan€stopped.Ìà àà àà àQ.à àThere€were€no€cars€in€front€of€her?Ìà àA.à àNo,€sir.Ìà8 àQ.à àWere€there€other€cars€stopped€in€front€of€the€light,Ïor€do€you€know?Ìà8 àA.à àNo,€sir.€€I€couldn't€be€certain.€€I€can't€rememberÏit's€been€so€long€ago.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àIn€her€discovery€deposition€testimony€Ms.€Hogan€testified€that€sheÏhad€stopped€about€fifty€feet€behind€the€car€in€front€of€her.€€ÌÌà àIn€analyzing€a€similar€situation€under€pre„McIntyre€law€JudgeÏMcAims€for€the€Court€of€Appeals€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[1,2]€€It€is€apparent€that€the€evidence€is€in€conflictÏon€points€material€to€a€finding€of€negligence€in€theÏoperation€of€the€bus.€€Caldwell€says€the€bus€did€not€comeÏto€a€sudden€stop€and€that€there€was€no€need€to€bring€it€to€aÏsudden€stop€because€the€vehicle€immediately€in€front€ofÏhim€was€150€feet€away.€€The€proof€for€plaintiffs,€on€theÏcontrary,€is€clearly€sufficient€to€support€a€jury€findingÏthat€the€bus€did€come€to€a€sudden€stop€without€warning.€ÏConsidering€the€entire€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€plaintiffs€as€we€are€required€to€do,€weÏthus€have€a€state€of€facts€from€which€the€jury€could€findÏthat€although€Caldwell€had€150€feet€within€which€to€stopÍthe€bus€and€was€therefore€not€faced€with€an€emergency,€asÏdefendant€insists,€he€brought€it€to€an€abrupt€stop€knowingÏthat€he€was€being€followed€by€other€traffic.€ÌÌò òòòSellers,€et€al.€v.€American€Industrial€Transit,€Inc.,ó óóó€35€Tenn.€App.Ï46,€49„50,€242€S.W.2d€335,€336€(1951).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àIn€ò òòòSellersó óóó€as€in€ò òòòAnderson€v.€Carteró óóó,€22€Tenn.€App.€118,ÏS.W.2d€892€(1937)€reasonable€minds€could€differ€as€to€whether€or€notÏplaintiff€was€guilty€of€some€degree€of€proximate€negligence.€€If€suchÏprecluded€a€directed€verdict€pre„McIntyre€it€is€today€sufficient€to€force€aÏcomparison€which€is€always€a€question€of€fact€and€not€a€question€of€law.ÌÌà à"Although€circumstances€could€arise€under€which€a€directed€verdictÏwould€be€appropriate€in€a€comparative€negligence€case,€they€are€rare."€€57BÏòòAm.Jur.€2dò ò€Negligence€óóó óðð€1282€(1989).ÌÌà àAs€has€been€said€by€this€court:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€a€jury€case,€the€issues€of€negligence€and€proximateÏcause€are€generally€for€the€jury.€€Such€issues€may€be€pre„emped€by€the€Trial€Judge€only€where€the€evidence€andÏreasonable€inferences€therefrom€are€so€free€of€conflictÏthat€all€reasonable€minds€would€agree€with€the€decision€ofÏthe€trial€judge.€€ò òòòWilliams€v.€Brownó óóó,€Tenn.€1993,€860ÏS.W.2d€854,€857.ÌÌò òòòHusted€v.€Echolsó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€43,€45€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€ò òòòSee€alsoóóó óÏò òòòPrince€v.€St.€Thomas€Hospitaló óóó,€945€S.W.2d€731,€735€(Tenn.€App.Ï1996).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àConsidering€the€evidence€in€this€case€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€defendant€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€reasonable€minds€to€find€someÍpercentage€of€fault€attributable€to€the€plaintiff.€€Thus,€a€directed€verdict€forÏthe€plaintiff€assessing€100%€fault€to€the€defendant€as€a€matter€of€law€is€errorÏand€must€be€reversed.ÌÌII.à àWith€regard€to€Damages:Ìà àAppellant€next€contends€that€T.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113(a)€is€not€applicableÏin€this€case€so€as€to€provide€prima€facie€evidence€of€the€necessity€andÏreasonableness€of€certain€medical€expenses€offered€in€evidence€by€plaintiff.€ÏAppellant's€complaint€alleges€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓ#` Ü` ä ÄÈ“X#ÓÓÓà8 àà à(c)€€Necessary€and€reasonable€medical€expenses;Ïcopies€of€which€are€attached€hereto,€per€T.C.A.€SectionÏ24„5„113:Ìà àà8 àSumner€Regional€Medical€Center€„„„„„„„„€€$€€€€Ï990.00ÌÓ,"` Ü` ä ÄÈ á(#X,Óà àà àSuburban€Rehabilitation€„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„€€€Ïà à1,207.00Ìà àà àSumner€Radiology€„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„€€€€€€€€177.00Ìà àà àBig€B€Drugs€„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„€€€€€€€€€€53.16ÌÓ,"` Ü` ä ÄÈ µÐ X,Óà àà àDr.€Kenneth€Case€„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„€€òò€€€€€€€€35.00óóÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€$€2,462.16à à€€€€€Ìà8 àà àAdditionally,€Plaintiff€has€incurred€$1,683.00€forÏtreatment€from€Dr.€Frank€C.€Etlinger;Ìà8 àà à(d)€€Pain€and€discomfort€to€her€neck,€back,€and€spineÏarea;€andÌà8 àà à(e)€€All€other€injuries€and€damages€allowed€by€law.ÌÌRelative€to€the€allegations€of€medical€expenses,€defendant€answers:ÌÌà8 àà à7.€€Defendants€deny€that€T.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113(a)(3)Ïapplies€or€that€T.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113(b)(1)€affords€anyÏpresumption€of€the€necessity€of€the€medical€care.€ÏDefendants€are€without€sufficient€knowledge€orÏinformation€to€form€a€belief€as€to€the€truth€of€theÏremaining€allegations€of€paragraph€7€and€thereforeÏdemands€strict€proof.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àPlaintiff€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€in€limine€asserting€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà àPlaintiff€would€show€that€there€is€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€that€all€the€medi[c]al€bills€incurred€on€herÏbehalf€are€both€reasonable€and€necessary€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113(B)(1)€and€(2)€and€is€therefore€entitledÏto€said€rebuttable€presumption.Ìà8 àà àAn€itemization€of€medical€expenses€incurred€as€of€theÏdate€of€filing€is€contained€in€Plaintiff's€Complaint.€ÏFurthermore,€on€October€11,€1996,€Plaintiff€served€uponÏcounsel€for€Defendant,€her€answers€to€Interrogatories€toÏwhich€in€relevant€part€giving€a€full€and€completeÏitemization€via€copies€of€all€medical€bills€and€expensesÏincurred€by€Plaintiff€as€a€result€of€the€collision€which€isÏthe€subject€of€this€cause.Ì€à8 àà àTo€date,€Defendant€has€not€served€upon€the€PlaintiffÏany€specific€itemization€of€any€bills€produced€in€Plaintiff'sÏInterrogatories€to€which€Defendant€believes€not€to€beÏreasonable€and€necessary.Ìà8 àà àIn€the€alternative,€Plaintiff€would€show€that€she€isÏentitled€to€prima€facie€presumption€provided€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ24„5„113(a)(1).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àDefendant€thereupon€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€in€limine€asserting:ÌÓ,"` Ü` ä Ä†È Ð X,ÓÓÓà8 àà à3.à àUnder€òòPorter€v.€Greenóó,€745€S.W.2d€874€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1987),€the€defendants€seek€a€ruling€òòin€limineóóÏprecluding€any€reference€to€causation€of€the€plaintiff'sÏinjuries€absent€competent€medical€proof€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty.Ìà8 àà à4.à àThe€defendants,€through€counsel,€moves€theÏCourt€for€an€Order€striking€or€excluding€any€presumptionÏof€the€reasonableness€or€necessity€of€the€plaintiff'sÏmedical€expenses€absent€€competent€€proof€of€€the€Ïnecessity€of€€such€€care.€€€In€Ìà8 àÌà8 àsupport€thereof,€the€defendant€calls€the€Court's€attentionÏto€the€unequivocal€language€of€TCA€24„5„113(a)(3),€theÏstatute€that€gives€rise€to€a€presumption€related€to€medicalÍexpenses€in€certain€(and€here,€inapplicable)€situations:ÌÌà àà8 à24„5„113.€€Medical,€hospital€or€doctor€bills€„ÏPrima€facie€evidence€of€necessity€andÏreasonableness.ÌÌà àà8 à(a)(1)€€Proof€in€any€civil€action€that€medical,Ïhospital€or€doctor€bills€were€paid€or€incurredÏbecause€of€any€illness,€disease,€or€injury€may€beÏitemized€in€the€complaint€or€civil€warrant€withÏa€copy€of€bills€paid€or€incurred€attached€as€anÏexhibit€to€the€complaint€or€civil€warrant.€€TheÏbills€itemized€and€attached€as€an€exhibit€shall€beÏprima€facie€evidence€that€the€bills€so€paid€orÏincurred€were€necessary€and€reasonable.Ìà àà à.€.€.Ìà àà8 à(3)€€The€prima€facie€presumption€shall€apply€toÏthe€medical,€hospital€and€doctor€bills€itemizedÏwith€copies€of€bills€attached€to€the€complaint€orÏcivil€warrant;€provided,€that€the€total€amount€ofÏsuch€bills€does€not€exceed€theòò€óósum€of€twoÏthousand€five€hundred€dollars€($2,500).ÌÌà8 àà àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€seeks€to€circumvent€theÏplain€meaning€and€pervert€the€purpose€of€the€cited€statuteÏby€incurring€bills€in€excess€of€the€$2,500.00€cap€andÏtrying€to€"hand„pick"€bills€in€order€to€gain€an€improperÏpresumptive€advantage€where€none€is€due.€ÌÌÌÓ€Ó›à àAt€common€law€reasonableness€and€necessity€of€medical€expensesÏallegedly€caused€by€the€defendant€are€elements€constituting€a€part€of€theÏburden€of€proof€resting€upon€the€plaintiff.€€ò òòòSee€ó ó22€Am.Jur.2d€"ò òDamagesó ó"óó,Ïðð€197€(1988).€€To€relieve€this€burden€on€small€claims,€the€legislature€byÏchapter€734€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1978€created€a€prima€facie€presumption€ofÏnecessity€and€reasonableness€under€certain€conditions.€€ÌÌà àThis€act€of€the€General€Assembly€is€presently€codified€as€T.C.A.€ððÏ24„5„113(a)(1)(2)and€(3).€€The€next€change€in€the€present€codification€as€toÏthe€1978€act€was€chapter€481€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1981€raising€the€originalÏ$500€maximum€amount€to€the€present€maximum€amount€of€$2,500.€€ThisÏportion€of€the€act,€thus€amended,€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à24„5„113.€€Medical,€hospital€or€doctor€bills€„„€primaÏfacie€evidence€of€necessity€and€reasonableness.€„„€(a)(1)€ÏProof€in€any€civil€action€that€medical,€hospital€or€doctorÏbills€were€paid€or€incurred€because€of€any€illness,€disease,Ïor€injury€may€be€itemized€in€the€complaint€or€civilÏwarrant€with€a€copy€of€bills€paid€or€incurred€attached€asÏan€exhibit€to€the€complaint€or€civil€warrant.€€the€billsÏitemized€and€attached€as€an€exhibit€shall€be€prima€facieÏevidence€that€the€bills€so€paid€or€incurred€were€necessaryÏand€reasonable.Ìà8 àà à(2)€€This€section€shall€apply€only€in€personal€injuryÏactions€brought€in€any€court€by€injured€parties€against€theÏpersons€responsible€for€causing€such€injuries.Ìà8 àà à(3)€€This€prima€facie€presumption€shall€apply€to€theÏmedical,€hospital€and€doctor€bills€itemized€with€copies€ofÏbills€attached€to€the€complaint€or€civil€warrant;€provided,Ïthat€the€total€amount€of€such€bills€does€not€exceed€the€sumÏof€two€thousand€five€hundred€dollars€($2,500).̛̜ÌÓ€Óà àIn€order€to€qualify€medical€expenses€under€this€statute€it€isÏnecessary€that€such€expenses€be€itemized€and€copies€of€bills€therefor€whichÏhave€been€paid€or€incurred€be€attached€as€an€exhibit€to€the€complaint.€€SuchÏprocedure€was€not€followed€in€the€case€at€bar.ÌÌà àBy€chapter€235€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1989€the€General€AssemblyÏadded€an€additional€procedure€by€which€a€plaintiff€may€establish€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€that€medical,€hospital€and€doctor€bills€are€reasonable.€€ThisÏ1989€act€is€now€codified€as€T.C.A.€24„5„113(b)(1)€and€(2).€€ÌÌà àThis€codification€of€the€Act€of€1989€is€not€limited€as€to€the€amountÏof€such€medical€bills€but€provides€only€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€suchÏmedical€bills€are€reasonable€and€does€not€address€at€all€the€question€ofÏwhether€or€not€such€medical€bills€were€"necessary".ÌÌà àThe€codified€1989€act€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(b)(1)€€In€addition€to€the€procedure€described€inÏsubsection€(a),€in€any€civil€action€for€personal€injuryÏbrought€by€an€injured€party€against€the€person€or€personsÏalleged€to€be€responsible€for€causing€the€injury,€if€anÏitemization€of€or€copies€of€the€medical,€hospital€or€doctorÏbills€which€were€paid€or€incurred€because€of€suchÏpersonal€injury€are€served€upon€the€other€parties€at€leastÏninety€(90)€days€prior€to€the€date€set€for€trial,€there€shallÏbe€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€such€medical,€hospital€orÏdoctor€bills€are€reasonable.Ìà8 àà à(2)€€Any€party€desiring€to€offer€evidence€at€trial€toÏrebut€the€presumption€shall€serve€upon€the€other€parties,Ïat€least€forty„five€(45)€days€prior€to€the€date€set€for€trial,Ïa€statement€of€that€party's€intention€to€rebut€theÏpresumption.€€Such€statement€shall€specify€which€bill€orÏbills€the€party€believes€to€be€unreasonable.€€[Acts€1978,Ïch.€734,€ðð€1;€T.C.A.,€ðð€24„517;€Acts€1981,€ch.€481,€ðð€1;Ï1989,€ch.€235,€ðð€1.]ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar€plaintiff€attached€medical,€hospital€and€doctorÏbills€in€response€to€request€for€production€of€documents€in€a€mannerÏsufficient€to€invoke€the€rebuttable€presumption€that€such€medical,€hospitalÏand€doctor€bills€are€reasonable.€ÌÌà à"The€fact€a€given€amount€is€proven€as€undisputed€medical€expensesÏdoes€not€prove€those€expenses€were€necessary."ò òòò€€Karas€v.€Thorneó óóó,€531ÍS.W.2d€315,€317€(Tenn.€App.€1975).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case€the€court€charged€the€jury€as€to€medicalÏexpenses:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€next€element€of€damages€that€Ms.€Hogan€mayÏrecover€is€for€reasonable€and€necessary€expenses€forÏmedical€care,€services,€supplies€actually€given€in€theÏtreatment€of€a€party€as€shown€by€the€evidence.€€Now,€inÏthis€case€some€medical€bills€have€been€introduced€inÏevidence,€and€because€these€bills€do€not€exceed€a€certainÏsum€established€by€the€law,€you€may€presume€theseÏexpenses€were€reasonable€and€necessary.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àAs€the€proof€in€the€case€did€not€establish€prima€facie€evidence€ofÏnecessity€and€reasonableness€under€T.C.A.€24„5„113(a)(1)(2)€and€(3)€becauseÏof€the€failure€of€the€plaintiff€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€T.C.A.€24„5„113(a)(1)€no€evidence€of€necessity€and€reasonableness€appears€in€theÏrecord.ÌÌà àConceding€that€the€response€to€production€of€document€requestsÏcomplies€with€T.C.A.€24„5„113(b)(1)€and€(2)€a€rebuttable€presumption€ofÏreasonableness€under€T.C.A.€24„5„113(b)(1)€is€established€but€no€prima€facieÏevidence€of€necessity€exists.ÌÌà àThe€charge€of€the€court€to€the€jury€that€"€.€.€.€you€may€presumeÏthese€expenses€were€reasonable€and€necessary,"€is€not€supported€by€evidence.ÌÌà àNo€reason€is€apparent€as€to€why€the€General€Assembly€chose€toÏlimit€ch.€235€of€the€Acts€of€1989€to€"reasonableness"€and€not€to€expand€it€toÍinclude€"necessity"€but€the€statute€is€not€ambiguous€and€must€be€held€to€meanÏwhat€it€says.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€for€a€new€trial€on€all€issues.ÌÌà àCosts€of€this€cause€are€assessed€against€the€appellee.€Ìà àÌà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€€€à àÌà8 àà àÔ€!XÔ