ÿWPC5 ,# xUNƒ %Ñ 0(×w@ÿ4?SUPb 0l² 0Db 0Jj 0T´ 0^ 0hf 0rÎ 0|@ 0†¼ BB 0_ 1uï 0dd U>È U6 ·< ó ptv~ävÓb˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ b cÕkDlmDnDoUpVqrBs&"3|xr&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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  Ô d2^ 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< Œ 9p`(Courier New ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔEdwin€Thompson,€a€passenger€in€the€vehicle€that€struck€Hunter,€wasÏnamed€as€a€defendant€in€the€complaint.€€The€jury€found€that€he€was€notÏresponsible€for€the€accident.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€with€respect€toÏThompson€was€not€appealed.Ì wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔWe€would€point€out€in€passing€that€the€requested€instruction€is€anÏincorrect€statement€of€the€law.€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„311(a)€provides€that€the€primaÏfacie€case€of€agency€arises€regardless€of€whether€the€seller€is€present€in€theÏvehicle€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€We€know€of€no€authority€in€this€state€toÏsupport€the€proposition€that€evidence€of€the€sellerððs€absence€from€the€vehicleÏis€sufficient€to€rebut€the€prima€facie€case€of€agency.Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔIn€their€statement€of€issues,€Wear€and€Guffey›€also€claim€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€ð ðapproving€and€entering€a€judgment€that€does€not€includeÏ[Hunterððs]€abandonment€of€his€negligent€entrustment€theory.ðð€€However,€œsinceÏthey›€do€not€discuss€this€issue€in€their€brief,€œit›€is€considered€waived.€€RuleÏ27(a)(7),€œT.R.A.P.›;€ò òòòDixie€œSav›.€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Turneróóó ó,€767€œS.W.2d›€408,Ï411€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1988).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ P ÑÑ7€|òXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌMIKE€T.€HUNTER,à àà àà à€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9606„CV„00207Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌDAMIAN€V.€BURKE;€andà àà à€€€)ÌœDONNIE›€WEAR€and€JOE€œGUFFEY›,à à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌindividually€and€doing€business€€)€BRADLEY€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌas€J&D€AUTO€SALES,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àDefendants„Appellants,à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌEDWIN€THOMPSON,€also€knownà à€€€)Ìas€EDWARD€THOMPSON,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,€JR.,Ìà àDefendant.à àà àà à€€€)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellant€Burkeà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌGERARD€M.€SICILIANOà àà àà àà àROGER€E.€JENNEÌLuther„Anderson,€P.L.L.P.à àà àœJenne›,€Scott€&€BryantÌChattanooga,€Tennesseeà àà àà àCleveland,€TennesseeÌÌÌFor€Appellants€Wear€and€GuffeyÌÌLARRY€B.€NOLENÌAthens,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€& ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€suit€for€damages€arising€out€of€personalÏinjuries€sustained€by€Mike€T.€Hunter€(Hunter)€when€he€was€hit€byÏan€automobile€driven€by€the€defendant€Damian€V.€Burke€œ(Burke).€ÏBurkeððs€vehicle€was›€owned€by€the€defendants€Donnie€Wear€(Wear)€andÏJoe€Guffey€(Guffey).€€The€trial€court€directed€a€verdict€againstÏall€of€the€œappealing€defendants.× ƒ' ××  ×›€€The€jury€then€awarded€HunterÏcompensatory€damages€of€$270,000.€€These€defendants€appealed,Ïraising€the€following€questions€for€our€resolution:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€directing€aÏverdict€against€Wear€and€Guffey€on€theÏplaintiffððs€theory€of€vicarious€liability?ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏwhen€it€admitted€into€evidence€a€transcript€ofÏBurkeððs€taped€confession?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€when€it€instructedÏthe€jury€regarding€the€effect€of€œTennCare›Ïpayments€for€medical€services€rendered€toÏHunter?ÌÌÓÓÓÓà àà8 à4.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€toÏcharge€the€jury€as€requested€by€Wear€andÏGuffey€regarding€independent€interveningÏcause,€agency,€and€the€rebuttable€presumptionÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„311(a)?ÌÌà àà8 à5.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€toÏcharge€the€jury€with€respect€to€comparativeÏfault?ÌÌà àà8 à6.€€Did€the€trial€court€submit€an€erroneousÏverdict€form€to€the€jury?ÌÌà àà8 à7.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€when€it€approvedÏand€entered€a€judgment€that€does€not€includeÏplaintiffððs€abandonment€of€his€negligentÏentrustment€theory?ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àà8 à8.€€Is€the€juryððs€verdict€excessive€and€theÏresult€of€passion,€prejudice,€and€caprice,€soÏas€to€warrant€a€new€trial€or€remittitur?ÌÌÇÓÓà@ àòòI.€€FactsóóÌÌà àà àOn€the€afternoon€of€June€3,€1994,€Burke,€who€was€then€18Ïyears€old,€along€with€œhis€friend,€Edwin›€Thompson€œ(Thompson),›€wentÏto€J&D€Auto€Sales,€a€used€car€lot€owned€and€operated€by€Wear€andÏœGuffey›.€€Earlier€that€day,€Burke€and€Thompson€had€been€at€BurkeððsÏhouse€with€two€or€three€other€individuals,€smoking€marijuana€andÏdrinking€beer.€€œThere›€is€evidence€that€Burke€approached€œGuffey›€andÏasked€to€drive€a€1971€Chevrolet€œMalibu.€€Guffey€agreed.€€Burke€andÏThompson€drove€off€the€lot€with€the€latter€behind€the€wheel.€ÏGuffey›€did€not€accompany€them.€€ÌÌà àà àœAfter€traveling€a€short€distance,€Thompson›€œapparentlyÏrealized€that€he›€was€too€impaired€to€drive.€€He€then€asked€BurkeÏto€œdrive.€€Burke›€agreed,€despite€the€fact€œthat€he›€too€was€underÏthe€influence€of€marijuana€and€alcohol.€€ÌÌà àà àBurke€drove€œa€few€blocks,€swerved›€into€the€oncoming€laneÏof€traffic,€and€struck€Hunter,€who€was€riding€his€bicycle.€€BurkeÏstopped€the€car,€and€he€and€Thompson€fled€the€scene.€€They€wereÏapprehended€by€œthe›€police€shortly€œthereafter.€€Burke›€gave€aÏstatement€admitting€œthat€he€caused€the›€accident.ÌÌà àà àAs€a€result€of€the€accident,€Hunter€sustained€twoÏcompound€fractures€of€his€left€leg,€including€a€fracture€of€theÏfemur.€€He€was€taken€to€the€emergency€room,€where€he€was€treatedÏfor€his€œinjuries.€€Treatment›€œincluded›€the€insertion€of€a€metal€rodÏin€his€leg.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Hunter€had€incurred€medicalÏbills€in€excess€of€$24,000.€€He€spent€a€week€in€the€hospital,Ïafter€which€he€œrecuperated€at›€home€for€three€months.€€While€atÏhome,€he€used€crutches€and€a€walker€to€get€around.€€HunterÏcontinues€to€experience€pain€and€œinstability›€in€his€left€knee.€ÏHis€physician€assessed€his€permanent€impairment€at€30%€to€œthe›€leg,Ïwhich€he€extrapolated€to€12%€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ÌÌà àà àHunter,€age€23€at€the€time,€missed€significant€time€fromÏwork€following€the€accident.€€œHe›€had€earlier€been€diagnosed€asÏsuffering€from€mild€mental€retardation,€and€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident,€he€was€employed€by€a€furniture€manufacturer,€earningÏminimum€wage.€€His€duties€included€the€lifting€of€couches€andÏchairs€off€a€conveyor€belt.€€After€the€accident,€he€worked€forÏapproximately€one€week€at€another€job,€until€he€had€to€quitÏœbecause€of›€a€wrist€injury,€unrelated€to€the€accident.€€Since€then,Ïhe€has€had€trouble€finding€employment.€€Hunter€testified€that€heÍsuffers€continuing€pain€in€his€leg€and€that€he€has€experiencedÏdifficulty€riding€his€bike,€which,€since€he€has€no€driverððsÏlicence,€is€his€primary€œmeans›€of€transportation.€€He€also€hasÏexperienced€pain€in€his€knee€when€trying€to€squat€or€climb€stairsÏand€ladders.ÌÌà àà àHunter€subsequently€brought€suit€against€Burke,ÏThompson,€œWear,›€and€Guffey.€€At€trial,€Burke€admittedÏresponsibility€for€the€accident€and€the€trial€court€grantedÏHunterððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€œagainst›€œhim›€on€the€issue€ofÏliability.€€It€granted€the€same€motion€as€to€Wear€and€Guffey,Ïfinding€them€vicariously€liable€for€Burkeððs€actions,€due€to€theÏfact€that€Burke€had€been€test„driving€a€vehicle€owned€by€them€atÏthe€time€of€the€accident.€€During€the€courtððs€jury€instructions,ÏHunter€moved€for€a€voluntary€nonsuit€on€the€issue€of€punitiveÏdamages.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€and€consequentlyÏsubmitted€the€case€to€the€jury€only€on€the€issues€of€compensatoryÏdamages,€and€whether€Thompson€was€liable€for€negligentlyÏentrusting€the€vehicle€to€Burke.€€The€jury€found€that€Thompson€wasÏnot€liable.€€It€awarded€compensatory€damages€of€$270,000€againstÏthe€remaining€three€defendants.€€Expressly€approving€of€the€juryððsÍverdict,€the€trial€judge€denied€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€a€newÏtrial€or€remittitur.ÌÌà@ àòòII.€€Directed€Verdict€Against€Wear€and€GuffeyóóÌÌà àà àWear€and€Guffey€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdirecting€a€verdict€against€them.€€They€contend€that€reasonableÏminds€could€have€concluded€that€Burke€was€not€their€agent.ÌÌà àà àOur€standard€of€review€in€a€case€such€as€this€is€well„settled.€€We€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party.€€We€sustain€a€grant€of€aÏdirected€verdict€only€if€we€determine€that€reasonable€minds€couldÏnot€differ€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ïò òòòEaton€v.€McLainóóó ó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€ò òòòWilliams€v.ÏBrownó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993).€€If€there€is€any€doubtÏregarding€the€proper€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,Ïthe€motion€for€directed€verdict€must€be€denied.€€ò òòòEatonóóó ó,€891€S.W.2dÏat€590.ÌÌà àà àThe€relevant€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„311,€provides,€inÏpertinent€part,€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[i]n€all€actions€for€injury€to€persons€and/orÏto€property€caused€by€the€negligent€operationÏor€use€of€any€automobile,€auto€truck,Ïmotorcycle,€or€other€motor€propelled€vehicleÏwithin€this€state,€proof€of€ownership€of€suchÏvehicle€shall€be€prima€facie€evidence€that€theÏvehicle€at€the€time€of€the€cause€of€actionÏsued€on€was€being€operated€and€used€withÏauthority,€consent€and€knowledge€of€the€ownerÏin€the€very€transaction€out€of€which€theÏinjury€or€cause€of€action€arose,€and€suchÏproof€of€ownership€likewise€shall€be€primaÏfacie€evidence€that€the€vehicle€was€then€andÏthere€being€operated€by€the€owner,€or€by€theÏownerððs€servant,€for€the€ownerððs€use€andÏbenefit€and€within€the€course€and€scope€of€theÏservantððs€employment.€€òòThe€prima€facieÏevidence€rules€of€the€preceding€sentence€shallÏalso€apply€in€cases€of€the€negligent€operationÏof€a€vehicle€being€test„driven€by€aÏprospective€purchaser€with€the€knowledge€andÏconsent€of€the€seller€or€the€sellerððs€agentÏwhether€or€not€the€seller€or€the€sellerððsÏagent€is€present€in€the€vehicle€at€the€time€ofÏthe€alleged€negligent€operation.óóÌÌÓÓÌT.C.A.€ðð€55„10„311(a)€(emphasis€added).€€The€evidence€clearlyÏshows€that€the€vehicle€in€question€was€on€the€lot€of€Wear€andÏGuffey€for€the€purpose€of€œsale.›€€No€one€œdisputes›€this.€ÏFurthermore,€the€evidence€clearly€demonstrates€that€Burke€was€aÏð ðprospective€purchaserðð€who€was€test„driving€the€vehicle.€€WearÏtestified€that€Guffey€told€him€that€the€car€had€been€taken€out€forÏa€test€drive.€€Guffey€testified€that€he€and€Wear€owned€the€car,Íœthat€it›€was€for€sale€on€their€lot,€and€that€it€was€taken€for€aÏtest€drive€by€either€Burke€or€Thompson.€€A€prima€facie€case€ofÏagency€thus€arose€under€the€statute.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àThe€prima€facie€case€of€agency€can€be€rebutted€byÏð ðcredible€proof€that€the€driver€was€in€fact€operating€the€vehicleÏwithout€authority€of€the€owner.ðð€€ò òòòFerguson€v.€Tomerlinóóó ó,€656ÏS.W.2d€378,€381„82€(Tenn.€App.€œ1983);€however,›€œonce›€proof€ofÏownership€has€been€established,€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€primaÏfacie€case€of€a€master„servant€relationship€rests€upon€the€ownerÏof€the€vehicle.€€ò òòòHamrick€v.€Spring€City€Motor€Co.óóó ó,€708€S.W.2dÏ383,€387€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àà àWear€and€Guffey€contend€that€there€are€conflicts€in€theÏevidence€that€render€this€case€inappropriate€for€œa€directed›Ïverdict;€however,€the€question€is€not€whether€there€is€conflictingÏevidence,€but€whether€Wear€and€Guffey€presented€any€credibleÏevidence€to€rebut€the€prima€facie€case€established€under€T.C.A.€ððÏ55„10„311(a).€€For€example,€œin€this›€œcase,€these€defendants€could›Ïhave€œaccomplished›€œthis€by›€œproof€showing›€that€they€did€not€own€theÏcar;€œthat›€Burke€took€the€car€without€their€œknowledge€or€consent;›Ïor€that€Burke€did€not€take€the€car€for€a€test€drive€as€aÍprospective€œpurchaser,€but€for€some€hidden€purpose,€such€asÏð ðjoyriding.ð𛀀òòSeeóó€òòò òHamrickó óóó,€708€S.W.2d€at€387.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€reveals€that€Wear€and€Guffey€failed€to€carryÏtheir€burden€of€rebutting€the€prima€facie€case€of€agency.€€ThereÏis€nothing€about€the€acquisition€of€the€car€from€œGuffey;›€theÏperiod€of€time€Burke€had€the€car€in€his€œpossession;›€theÏcircumstances€of€the€œaccident;›€œor›€the€contents€of€BurkeððsÏœconfession,›€to€suggest,€even€by€way€of€a€reasonable€inference,Ïthat€Burke€was€not€a€prospective€purchaser.€€If€anything,€theÏtestimony€of€Wear€and€œGuffey›€reinforces€the€fact€that€Burke€was€aÏprospective€purchaser€who€was€test„driving€the€vehicle€with€theirÏknowledge€and€consent.€€òòSee€óóœT.C.A.›€ðð€55„10„311(a).€€€Thus,€weÏœbelieve›€that€only€one€conclusion€may€reasonably€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence,€ò òòòEatonóóó ó,€891€œS.W.2d›€at€590„„that€Wear€and€Guffey€areÏvicariously€liable€for€Burkeððs€conduct€because€he€was€test„drivingÏa€vehicle€owned€by€them.€€We€find€and€hold€that€the€trial€judgeÏcorrectly€directed€a€verdict€against€Wear€and€Guffey€as€to€theÏplaintiffððs€theory€of€vicarious€liability.ÌÌà@ àòòIII.€€Burkeððs€ConfessionóóÌÌà àà àBurke€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€when€it€admitted€into€evidence€a€transcript€of€theÏconfession€he€gave€to€œthe›€police€shortly€after€the€accident.€€InÏthe€statement,€Burke€essentially€acknowledged€that€he€was€drivingÏthe€car€when€it€struck€Hunter,€and€that€the€accident€occurred€as€aÏresult€of€the€fact€he€was€under€the€influence€of€drugs€and€alcoholÏat€the€time.€€Burke€argues€that€this€confession€was€irrelevant,Ïœprejudicial,›€and€cumulative,€and€that€it€should€have€been€excludedÏin€light€of€the€fact€that€he€had€previously€stipulated€toÏœliability.›ÌÌà àà àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€lies€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€œIt€follows€that›€trial€courts€areÏaccorded€a€wide€degree€of€latitude,€and€œtheir›€decisions€œas€toÏadmissibility€will›€only€be€œdisturbed€by€us€when€that€discretionÏhas€been€abused.€€ò òòòOtis›€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€850ÏS.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€agree€with€Burkeððs€contention€that€thisÏevidence€was€irrelevant.€€On€the€contrary,€the€statement€isÏclearly€evidence€as€to€how€Burke€obtained€the€vehicle€from€WearÏand€œGuffey›;€of€Thompsonððs€relinquishment€of€control€of€the€car€toÍBurke;€and€of€exactly€how€the€accident€occurred.€€Furthermore,€weÏdo€not€believe,€as€argued€by€the€defendants,€that€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€evidence€was€ð ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€dangerÏof€unfair€prejudiceðð,€as€that€concept€is€embodied€in€Rule€403,ÏœTenn.R.Evid›.€€It€is€true€that€proof€as€to€stipulated€matters€isÏgenerally€not€necessary;€however,€given€the€fact€that€portions€ofÏBurkeððs€confession€were€relevant€to€other€aspects€of€this€case,Ïand€given€the€absence€of€a€showing€that€the€introduction€ofÏcumulative€portions€of€the€confession€had€the€ð ðhighly€prejudicialððÏeffect€suggested€by€Burke,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€admission€ofÏthese€cumulative€matters€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€affected€theÏjudgmentðð.€€Rule€36(b),€T.R.A.P.€€Thus,€we€find€that€even€ifÏportions€of€the€confession€were€cumulative,€any€error€in€œthe›Ïadmission€œof€these€portions€was›€harmless.ÌÌà@ àòòIV.€€Jury€InstructionsóóÌÌà àà àBurke,€Wear€and€Guffey€also€claim€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€its€instructions€to€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€a€jury€charge,€we€consider€the€charge€as€aÏwhole€to€determine€whether€prejudicial€error€has€been€committed.€Íò òòòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€446Ï(Tenn.€1992);òòò ò€In€re€Estate€of€Elamóóó ó,€738€S.W.2d€169,€174€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€The€challenged€portion€of€the€charge€must€be€viewed€inÏcontext.€€òòò òIdó ó.óó€€The€charge€will€not€be€invalidated€œso›€long€as€itÏfairly€defines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€the€case€and€does€notÏmislead€the€jury.€€òòò òOtisó óóó,€850€S.W.2d€at€446;€òòò òGrissom€v.ÏMetropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashvilleó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€679,€685€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1991).€€Accordingly,€jury€instructions€are€not€measuredÏagainst€œa›€standard€of€perfection.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌÌà àà àBurke,€Wear€and€Guffey€contend€that€the€trial€judgeÏcommitted€reversible€error€when€he€instructed€the€jury€on€theÏsignificance€of€TennCare€payments.€€After€overhearing€a€jurorÏinquire€about€such€payments,€the€trial€judge€charged€the€jury€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àYou€may€have€noticed€that€some€of€the€medicalÏbills€introduced€into€the€evidence€have€beenÏpaid€by€TennCare€or€some€other€healthcareÏprovider.€€This€is€of€no€consequence€andÏshould€not€be€considered€by€you€for€twoÏreasons.€€First,€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€toÏrecover€from€the€defendant€any€medicalÏexpenses€incurred€regardless€of€whether€paidÏby€another.€€Secondly,€under€our€law€TennCareÏor€a€similar€healthcare€provider€is€subrogatedÏto€Mr.€Hunterððs€rights€of€recovery.€€ThisÏmeans€that€Mr.€Hunter€will€be€required€by€lawÍto€repay€TennCare€any€amounts€they€have€paidÏfrom€any€recovery€in€this€case.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendants€contend€that€this€instruction€wasÏð ðinvitedðð€by€the€failure€of€Hunterððs€counsel€to€redact€allÏreferences€to€TennCare€before€introducing€Hunterððs€medical€billsÏinto€evidence,€and€that,€as€a€result€of€the€instruction,€the€juryÏrendered€an€inflated€verdict.€€The€record€reveals,€however,€thatÏthe€defendants€made€no€objection€to€the€admission€of€the€medicalÏbills€as€offered€into€evidence.€€Given€the€fact€that€a€juror€wasÏoverheard€to€question€the€effect€of€TennCare€payments,€we€believeÏœthe›€trial€courtððs€instructions€were€proper€under€the€circumstancesÏof€this€case.€€Furthermore,€the€instruction€correctly€sets€forthÏthe€law€regarding€the€Stateððs€subrogation€interests.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ððÏ71„5„117.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏinstruction€to€the€jury€regarding€the€effect€of€TennCare€payments,Ïwhen€viewed€in€œcontext,›€was€not€such€as€to€mislead€the€jury€orÏincorrectly€define€the€legal€issues€at€hand.€€ò òòòOtisóóó ó,€850€S.W.2d€atÏ446;€ò òòòElamóóó ó,€738€S.W.2d€at€174;€and€òòò òGrissomó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€685.ÌÌà àà àWear€and€Guffey€next€contend€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€failing€to€grant€their€requests€for€various€special€juryÏinstructions.€€The€first€such€request,€according€to€theseÍdefendants,€was€for€an€instruction€regarding€ð ðindependentÏintervening€cause.ðð€€We€note€that€it€is€generally€the€œthresholdÏduty›€of€a€party€alleging€error€in€the€omission€of€a€specificÏinstruction€to€demonstrate€that€a€correct€and€complete€request€forÏsuch€instruction€was€submitted€to,€and€refused€by,€the€trialÏjudge.€€ò òòòEngland€v.€Burns€Stone€Co.óóó ó,€874€S.W.2d€32,€37€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993).€€In€the€instant€case,€the€requested€instruction€is€notÏin€the€record€before€us,€nor€is€the€issue€adequately€briefed€byÏWear€and€Guffey.€€Thus,€we€cannot€consider€this€issue.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌÌà àà àAs€their€next€œissue,›€Wear€and€Guffey€cite€the€trialÏcourtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€as€they€requested€regardingÏthe€existence€of€an€agency€relationship.€€The€requestedÏinstruction€essentially€states€that€if€the€jury€finds€that€BurkeÏand€Thompson€were€not€agents€of€Wear€and€Guffey€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident,€then€the€jury€must€find€that€Wear€and€Guffey€are€notÏliable.€€However,€since€the€trial€court€first€determined€that€suchÏan€agency€relationship€did€exist€and€then€œcorrectly€directed›€aÏverdict€accordingly,€its€refusal€to€œgive›€this€charge€œwas›€œlogical›Ïand€proper.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€œmoot,›€in€view€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€disposition€of€œthe€liability›€aspect€of€the€case.ÌÌà àà àWear€and€Guffey€also€œclaim›€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏrefusing€to€give€their€requested€jury€instruction€regarding€theÏrebuttable€presumption€of€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„311(a).€€The€proposedÏinstruction€states€that€if€the€jury€determines€that€neither€WearÏnor€Guffey€were€present€in€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident,€it€must€find€that€the€presumption€has€disappeared€andÏthat€Wear€and€Guffey€are€not€liable.€€œIn€view€of€our€holdingÏregarding€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict,€thisÏissue€is€also€moot.× ƒ( ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àAs€their€final€issue€concerning€the€jury€charge,€WearÏand€Guffey€assert€that€the€trial€judge€committed€prejudicial€errorÏby€œfailing€and€refusing›€œto›€instruct€the€jury€regarding€comparativeÏfault.€€In€connection€with€this€issue,€they€also€contend€that€theÏverdict€form€submitted€to€the€jury€was€improper,€in€that€it€didÏnot€provide€for€the€allocation€of€œfault›€œamong›€all€œdefendants.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€believe€the€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€as€toÏcomparative€fault€is€reversible€error€in€this€case.€€Wear€andÏGuffeyððs€liability€was€predicated€solely€upon€agency.›€€Since€theÏtrial€court€directed€a€verdict€finding€Wear€and€Guffey€vicariouslyÏliable€for€Burkeððs€actions,€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault€wasÏnot€œapplicable€as€among€those€three€defendants.€€As€between€BurkeÏand€Thompson,€any€error€in€failing€to€instruct€on€the€subject€ofÏcomparative€fault€was€harmless€in€view€of€the€fact€the€jury€foundÏthat€Thompson€was€not€guilty€of€any€negligence.›ÌÌà@ àòòV.€€The€Juryððs€VerdictóóÌÌà àà àThe€final€issue,œ× ƒ) ××  ×›€common€to€œall€defendants›,€involves€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€juryððs€verdict€was€excessive,€indicativeÏof€passion,€prejudice,€and€caprice,€and€unsupported€by€theÏevidence.ÌÌà àà àIn€personal€injury€cases,€the€amount€of€damages€to€beÏawarded€is€primarily€for€the€œjury.›€€ò òòòBrown€v.€Nullóóó ó,€863€œS.W.2d›Ï425,€430€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1993);€ò òòòClark€v.€œEngelberg›óóó ó,€436€œS.W.2d›€465,Ï468€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1968).€€It€is€not€within€the€appellate€courtððsÏprovince€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€jury.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€ÏFurthermore,€when€the€trial€judge€has€approved€a€verdict,€as€inÏthis€case,€our€review€is€subject€to€the€rule€that€if€there€is€anyÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€award,€it€should€not€beÏdisturbed.€€òòE.g.,ò ò€Ellis€v.€White€Freightliner€Corp.óóó ó,€603ÏœS.W.2d›€125,€129€(Tenn.€1980);€ò òòòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€œElec›.ÏCoop.óóó ó,€868€œS.W.2d›€630,€640€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1993);€ò òòòœCoyle›€v.€œPrieto›ó óóó,Ï822€œS.W.2d›€596,€601€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1991);€ò òòòCary€v.€œArrowsmith›óóó ó,€777ÏœS.W.2d›€8,€23€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1989).€€As€stated€in€ò òòòEllisó óóó,ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[œe]ach›€case€must€depend€upon€its€own€facts€andÏthe€test€to€be€applied€by€us€is€not€whatÏamount€the€members€of€the€court€would€haveÏawarded€had€they€been€on€the€jury,€or€whatÏthey,€as€an€appellate€court,€think€should€haveÏbeen€awarded,€but€whether€the€verdict€isÏpatently€excessive.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòEllisóóó ó,€603€œS.W.2d›€at€129.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€concluded€that€the€record€contains€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€award€of€$270,000.€€The€verdict€isÏsupported€by,€among€other€things,€evidence€of€the€following:€€theÏseverity€of€Hunterððs€injury;€his€pain€and€suffering;€the€degree€ofÏpermanent€impairment€to€his€leg;€and€the€impact€of€the€injury€uponÏhis€ability€to€work€and€œmove€about.›€€At€the€time€of€trial,€HunterÏhad€a€life€expectancy€of€some€47€years.€€According€to€his€treatingÏphysician,€Hunter€will€experience€difficulty€performing€work€thatÏrequires€certain€types€of€physical€exertion,€an€obvious€aspect€ofÏthe€type€of€employment€to€which€he€is€best€suited,€given€hisÏmental€œlimitations.€€It€is€well„settled€that€a€negligent€partyÏtakes€a€plaintiff€as€the€defendant€finds€him€or€her,€and€theÏinjured€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€recover€all€damages€proximatelyÏcaused€by€the€acts€of€the€responsible€party.€€ò òòòHaws€v.€Bullockóóó ó,Ï592€S.W.2d€588,€591€(Tenn.€App.€1979);€ò òòòFuller€v.€Speightóóó ó,€571ÏS.W.2d€840,€841€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€Here,€the€defendantsððÏnegligent€conduct€caused€significant€injury€and€impairment€to€anÏindividual€who€is€mentally€retarded„„one€who€must€rely€upon€hisÏphysical€skills€for€future€employment.ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€the€juryððs€verdict€is€supported€by€materialÏevidence,€òòò òEllisóóó ó,€603€S.W.2d€at€129,€and€we€find€no€indication€thatÍit€was€influenced€by€passion,€prejudice,€or€caprice.€€We€thereforeÏhold€that€the€verdict€was€not€excessive,€and€we€decline€to€set€itÏaside€or€grant€a€remittitur.Ì›Ìà àà àWhile€not€raised€in€his€œStatement›€of€the€Issues€asÏrequired€by€Rule€27(a)(4),€œT.R.A.P.›,€Burke€suggests€œin€theÏargument€section€of€his€brief€that›€Hunterððs€claim€for€punitiveÏdamages,€withdrawn€during€the€courtððs€charge€to€the€jury,€allowedÏthe€introduction€of€œð ðconsiderable,›€and€ultimately€irrelevant,Ïproof€concerning€[his]€ððrecklessnessðð€and€gross€misconduct.ðð€€HeÏargues€that€this€evidence€inflamed€the€jury€and€prompted€anÏexcessive€award.€€We€disagree.€€œAs€we€have€previously€indicated,Ïwe€find›€œmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€award€ofÏcompensatory›€œdamages.›Ìà àà àÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is,€in€all€respects,€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessedÏagainst€the€appellants€and€their€sureties.€€This€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€enforcement€of€its€judgment€and€collectionÏof€costs€assessed€there,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ì̜ǛÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.Ì