ÿWPC÷ ²„b'ŨH¢ i<ûQŠ(§uQK^q&i þ$"jäH= @×éé %øaâ¸á˜ö@´IñsÀn{á°¯8JÄ$ú†´’ÛPm˜q6Á’=e®!Óí&ŒkCè {Û¶;É1I'v"˜åù“ Ü~[Ó·l÷„ú“u³×âŒËÈ7AZþ¼çã¾á(J§³ÝÅT=x’ìZŠ•L–‡\¯ýZàÄ2Û–¤d ­R¾g•ÿƒæ>ç§ }Ê*^ÊžÌ[ëÔ+’é="¨f É´â›R"Å4ÛnU¡²ázœùˆÂÊŸâ˜óZ›æîÆÎõ9&¾c¬mK[EBtÒFj°+Šˆr ´NÖž’*ìÞ“ž…Ì ›x÷4§pÉ ¥BªMí7NÀwÅk+¦dëžq…:ðëœeo÷Yågã®—êçNÉa>†¸æ¸ 1uÉ E> 72@rzz 0c 0Dó#Á7Søøøøøø¡KKKKKKKKKKbìììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììì 0ëôôôô Bßß 0¤ü D3  D-Ó 0K ASKÆž 0¤d 0D A«L»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular;k)â 9?Æ(¨âH, ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀHLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular8 ÈCSY_ekqw}Numbers 2Numbers1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)  Ý ƒRªy$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÄò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€this€case€the€jury€foreman€related€to€the€other€jurors€information€presumably€acquired€from€his€wife,€aÐ ° Ðsurgical€nurse.(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0 IÝ ƒRªy$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÄò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€entire€text€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€Rule€606(b)€is:€€Ð ° Ð(b)€Inquiry€Into€Validity€of€Verdict€or€Indictment.€Upon€an€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€or€indictment,€a€jurorÐ xÈ Ðmay€not€testify€as€to€any€matter€or€statement€occurring€during€the€course€of€the€jury's€deliberations€or€to€the€effect€ofÐ @ Ðanything€upon€any€juror's€mind€or€emotion€as€influencing€that€juror€to€assent€to€or€dissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictmentÐ X Ðor€concerning€the€juror's€mental€processes,€except€that€a€juror€may€testify€on€the€question€of€whether€extraneousÐ Ð  Ðprejudicial€information€was€improperly€brought€to€the€jury's€attention,€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperlyÐ ˜è Ðbrought€to€bear€upon€any€juror,€or€whether€the€jurors€agreed€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotient€or€gambling€verdictÐ ` ° Ðwithout€further€discussion;€nor€may€a€juror's€affidavit€or€evidence€of€any€statement€by€the€juror€concerning€a€matterÐ ( x Ðabout€which€the€juror€would€be€precluded€from€testifying€be€received€for€these€purposes.€€Ð ð @ ÐTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€606(b).€€ —Ý ƒRªy$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÄò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔT.R.€p.€213,€lines€15„18.- ù-(|G2ªy$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ðŒ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÄò»»Ô d(|3¹'$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ðŒ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¹'$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ðŒ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ðŒ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ðŒ»»»ÔÑ8€à›XXdð»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÓ'ÈDp¼ ™X°œX'Óà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îªÿðŒÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ðŒ»îîªÿ3#ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓMay€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡Xà›X»¼ðŒÔÌò òÔ#†¼ðŒ»XXà›#ÔSARAH€ANITA€JAMESòòóó€v.€SUSAN€KAY€SWINDELLÔ‡Xà›X»¼ðŒÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96CV1979€€€€€€L.€Marie€Williams,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌFILED€AUGUST€23,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ è 8  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02407„COA„R3„CV€Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€arises€out€of€an€automobile€accident.€€The€Defendant€lost€control€of€her€vehicle,€crossedÐ ¶ Ðthree€lanes€of€traffic,€and€hit€Plaintiff's€vehicle.€€Plaintiff€suffered€injuries€and€sued€Defendant€forÐ ¦ö Ðdamages.€€A€jury€trial€ensued.€€The€jury€found€Defendant€to€be€100%€at€fault€and€awarded€$15,000Ð –æ Ðin€damages€to€Plaintiff.€€The€Plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€alleging€juror€misconduct€andÐ †Ö Ðpresented€a€juror's€affidavit€in€support€of€her€position.€€The€Defendant€untimely€presented€counterÐ vÆ Ðaffidavits€by€jurors.€€The€trial€court€judge€granted€a€new€trial€based€on€juror€misconduct.€€At€theÐ f¶ Ðsecond€trial€the€jury€found€the€Defendant€100%€at€fault€and€awarded€Plaintiff€$27,608.60€€inÐ V¦ Ðdamages.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€DefendantððsÐ F– Ðmotion€for€a€directed€verdict€and€in€granting€a€new€trial.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court's€denial€of€aÐ 6† Ðdirected€verdict€for€the€Defendant€€and€reverse€the€trial€court's€granting€of€a€new€trial€based€on€jurorÐ &v Ðmisconduct.€€We€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€the€reinstatement€of€the€jury€verdict€at€the€firstÐ f Ðtrial.Ð V ÐÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð æ6 ÐReversed€in€Part;€and€Remandedó óÐ Ö& ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ðŒ»àXà›‡#ÔÔ‡Xà›X.¼ðŒÔHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ ¶!  ÐòòCharles€€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ¦"ö! ÐÌSteven€W.€Kreitzer€of€Rossville,€GA€for€the€defendant„appellant,€Susan€Kay€SwindellÐ †$Ö# ÐÌWilliam€H.€Horton€of€Chattanooga,€TN€for€the€plaintiff„appellee,€Sarah€Anita€JamesÐ f&¶!% ÐÓÖ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ðŒ»XXà› #ÔÔ‡Xà›X»¼ðŒÔÐ F(–#' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ðŒ»XXà›ñ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xà›X»¼ðŒÔà  àThis€cause€of€action€arises€out€of€an€automobile€accident€that€occurred€on€October€3,€1995,Ð &*v%) Ðon€Hixson€Pike€in€Chattanooga,€Tennessee.€€It€had€been€raining€heavily€shortly€before€the€accident.€Ð +f&* ÐPlaintiff€was€driving€a€vehicle€owned€by€her€employer,€the€Electric€Power€Board,€at€the€time€of€theÐ ,V'+ Ðaccident.€€Plaintiff€was€driving€south€in€the€outside€lane€of€a€four€lane€highway.€€Defendant€wasÐ ö,F(, Ðtraveling€north€in€the€outside€lane,€when€she€crossed€€three€lanes€of€traffic€and€entered€Plaintiffððs€laneÐ æ-6)-ý Ðof€traffic.€€Defendant€barely€missed€a€CARTA€bus,€which€was€immediately€in€front€of€PlaintiffððsÐ ° Ðvehicle.€€Defendant€struck€Plaintiffððs€vehicle€head€on,€spun,€€and€€then€€hit€Plaintiffððs€vehicle€againÐ  ð Ðwith€the€driverððs€side€of€Defendantððs€car.Ð à ÐÌà  àAfter€the€accident,€another€vehicle€traveling€the€same€route€as€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€slidÐ pÀ Ðslightly€in€the€same€area€where€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€slid,€but€the€vehicle€remained€in€its€lane€ofÐ ` ° Ðtraffic.Ð P   ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€was€injured€in€the€accident.€€She€suffered€a€fractured€rib€and€injuries€to€her€ankle,Ð 0 € Ðneck,€lower€back€and€hip€and€underwent€surgery€in€an€effort€to€alleviate€her€back€pain.€€SheÐ  p  Ðcontinued€to€have€problems€at€the€time€of€both€the€first€and€second€trial.€€Due€to€her€inability€toÐ `  Ðperform€her€job€duties€after€the€accident,€she€had€to€change€positions€with€her€employer.€€She€hadÐ P  Ða€greater€earning€potential€with€her€prior€job€than€the€new€position€she€took.€€Her€daily€activities€areÐ ð@  Ðlimited.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àShe€sued€for€damages€for€personal€injuries€she€suffered€in€the€automobile€accident.Ð À ÐÌà@è è ìàI.€€ACTION€OF€THE€TRIAL€COURTˆÐ  ð ÐÌà  àThe€first€trial€of€this€case€was€held€on€November€12,€1997.€€At€the€trial,€the€DefendantÐ €Ð Ðcontested€both€liability€and€the€amount€of€damages.€€The€jury€found€that€the€Defendant€was€100%Ð pÀ Ðat€fault€and€awarded€the€Plaintiff€€compensatory€damages€of€$15,000.€€The€Plaintiff€filed€a€motionÐ `° Ðfor€a€new€trial,€or€for€an€additur,€based€upon,€òòinter€alia,óó€juror€misconduct€in€that€the€defense€counselÐ P  Ðinterjected€extraneous€matters€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€In€support€of€her€motion,€Plaintiff€filed€Ð @ Ðthe€affidavit€of€Arthur€Hart€averring€the€following:Ð 0€ ÐÌà8  àà ` àI,€Arthur€I.€Hart,€give€this€affidavit€of€my€own€personal€knowledge€andÐ ` Ðhereby€affirm€as€follows:ÐPÐ Ð  ÐÓ€ ( È93ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£PÝÔ2 ÈÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝI€am€over€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€and€competent€to€testify€to€all€mattersÐ ð@ Ðherein.݃3£P‰ÝŒÐà0` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£“ÝÔ2 ÈÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝI€served€as€a€juror€in€the€trial€of€Sarah€Anita€James€v.€Susan€Kay€Swindell,Ð Ð  ÐCase€Number€96„CV„1979,€which€was€held€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€HamiltonÐ À! ÐCounty,€tennessee€on€November€12€and€November€13,€1997.݃3£“Ì݌а" ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£dÝÔ2 ÈÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝDuring€deliberations€of€the€jury,€one€of€the€jurors€mentioned€that€the€plaintiff,Ð  #ð! ÐMs.€James,€probably€received€workerððs€compensation€benefits€or€otherÐ $à" Ðinsurance€benefits,€which€paid€for€her€expenses€and€would€provide€for€herÐ €%Ð # Ðfuture€medical€expenses.݃3£dÝŒÐp&À!$` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£yÝÔ2 ÈÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝI€assumed€the€plaintiffððs€medical€expenses€and€lost€wages€had€been€paid€byÐ `'°"% Ðworkerððs€compensation€insurance€and€that€such€insurance€would€pay€for€herÐ P( #& Ðexpenses€in€the€future.݃3£y²ÝŒÐ@)$'` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£0 ÝÔ2 ÈÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝI€was€not€aware€that€the€workerððs€compensation€carrier€had€a€right€to€beÐ 0*€%( Ðreimbursed€out€of€any€recovery€that€Ms.€James€received€in€the€trial€againstÐ  +p&) ÐMrs.€Swindell.݃3£0 i ÝŒÐ,`'*` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£Û!ÝÔ2 ÈÔÚ  Ú6Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝIf€I€had€been€given€all€of€the€facts€regarding€workerððs€compensation€and€hadÐ ° Ðbeen€instructed€that€I€should€not€consider€the€effect€of€workerððs€compensationÐ  ð Ðon€the€trial,€it€would€have€influenced€my€decision€as€a€juror€in€the€trial€of€thisÐ à Ðcase.݃3£Û!"݌ЀÐ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àBased€upon€the€affidavit,€the€trial€court€granted€the€Plaintiffððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€theÐ ` ° Ðbasis€of€juror€misconduct€in€the€consideration€of€insurance€and€the€effect€of€that€consideration€uponÐ P   Ðthe€verdict€of€at€least€one€juror.€€The€Defendant€appealed€from€the€order€of€the€trial€court.€€This€courtÐ @  Ðdismissed€the€appeal€as€not€being€a€final€judgment€from€which€a€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ 0 € ÐAppellate€Procedure€appeal€can€be€taken.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€forÐ P  Ðreconsideration€of€the€granting€of€a€new€trial.€€The€Defendant€submitted€affidavits€of€four€jurors€thatÐ ð@  Ðwhile€workers€compensation€was€mentioned€in€the€jury€room,€it€had€no€impact€on€the€jurorððsÐ à0  Ðdecision€concerning€the€jury€verdict.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion€forÐ Ð  Ðreconsideration€of€its€order€granting€a€new€trial.Ð À ÐÌà  àAt€the€second€trial€the€jury€again€found€that€the€Defendant€was€100%€at€fault€and€awardedÐ  ð Ðthe€Plaintiff€$27,608.60€for€compensatory€damages.€€The€Defendant€then€filed€this€appeal.Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àII.€€ISSUESÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€following€issues€are€presented€for€our€review€by€the€appellant:Ð @ ÐÌ1.à0  àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€Defendantððs€Motion€for€Directed€Verdict€atÐ  p Ðthe€end€of€Plaintiffððs€proof€in€the€first€trial?Ð`(#(# ÐÌ2.€à0  àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Plaintiffððs€Motion€for€New€Trial€on€the€allegationÐ ð@ Ðof€juror€misconduct€following€the€conclusion€of€the€first€trial?Ðà0(#(# ÐÌÌà@ìàIII.€€LAW€AND€DISCUSSIONˆÐ °"  ÐÌÌà  àOur€standard€of€review€as€to€findings€of€fact€by€a€jury€in€a€civil€action€is€limited€toÐ €%Ð # Ðdetermining€whether€or€not€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€Rule€13(d),Ð p&À!$ ÐT.R.A.P.€€€€The€appellate€courts€do€not€determine€the€credibility€of€witnesses€or€weigh€evidence€onÐ `'°"% Ðappeal€from€a€jury€verdict.€€Where€the€record€contains€material€evidence€supporting€the€verdict,€theÐ P( #& Ðjudgment€based€on€that€verdict€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.ò ò€€òòó óReynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,Ð @)$' ÐInc.óó,€887€S.W.2d€822€(Tenn.€1994).€A€trial€court's€conclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novo€review.óó€Ð 0*€%( ЀòòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.óó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€28€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ð  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Ðà@¾¾ ìàA.€€Directed€VerdictˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€first€issue€addressed€to€us€for€determination€is€whether€at€the€first€trial,€the€trial€courtÐ à Ðerred€in€not€directing€a€verdict€for€the€Defendant€at€the€close€of€the€Plaintiffððs€proof.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€standard€to€be€used€in€determining€whether€a€verdict€should€be€directed€has€been€wellÐ ` ° Ðsettled€in€Tennessee.€€Courts€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence€or€reevaluate€the€witness'€credibilityÐ P   Ѐwhen€they€rule€on€a€T.€R.€Civ.€P.€50€€motion.€€òòHolmes€v.€Wilsonóó,€551€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.Ð @  Ð1977);€€òòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Elec.€Coop.óó,€868€S.W.2d€630,€638-39€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àIn€ruling€on€a€€motion€for€a€directed€verdict,€the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ `  Ðof€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non-moving€party.€€In€other€words,€the€court€must€remove€any€conflictÐ P  Ðin€the€evidence€by€construing€it€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non-movant€and€discarding€allÐ ð@  Ðcountervailing€evidence.€€The€court€may€grant€the€motion€only€if,€after€assessing€the€evidenceÐ à0  Ðaccording€to€the€foregoing€standards,€it€determines€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€theÐ Ð  Ðconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòConatser€v.€Clarksville€Coca-Cola€Bottling€Co.,óó€920Ð À ÐS.W.2d€646,€647€€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€òòWilliams€v.Ð ° ÐBrownóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòCecil€v.€Hardinóó,€575€S.W.2d€268,€271€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð  ð ÐThe€motion€is€granted€only€when€the€evidence€can€reasonably€support€but€one€conclusion.€€òòCrosslinÐ à Ðv.€Alsupóó,€594€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1980);€€òòHolmes,óó€551€S.W.2d€at€685;€€òòGrissom€v.€MetroÐ €Ð ÐGovernment€of€Nashvilleóó,€817€S.W.2d€679,€683€n.€2€(Tenn.€App.1991).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àA€case€should€go€to€the€jury,€even€if€the€facts€are€undisputed,€when€reasonable€persons€couldÐ P  Ðdraw€conflicting€conclusions€from€the€facts.€€òòGulf,€M.€&€O.€R.€R.€v.€Underwoodóó,€182€Tenn.€467,Ð @ Ð474,€187€S.W.2d€777,€779€(1945);€€òòPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882€S.W.2d€783,€788€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àIn€the€first€trial,€the€Plaintiff€presented€her€last€witness,€Mr.€Wesley€James,€and€rested.€Ð ` ÐDefendantððs€counsel€did€not€make€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€Plaintiffððs€proof.€Ð P ÐWhen€the€Plaintiff€rested€as€to€presenting€evidence,€the€Defendant€presented€Detective€D.€J.€Iles€asÐ ð@ Ðits€witness.€€Before€the€adjournment€of€the€court€on€the€first€day€of€trial,€at€the€end€of€Detective€IlesÐ à0 Ðtestimony,€counsel€for€the€Defendant€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€which€was€denied€by€€JudgeÐ Ð  ÐWilliams.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€second€day€of€the€hearing,€counsel€presented€testimony€by€the€Defendant.€€TheÐ À! ÐPlaintiff€presented€no€rebuttal.€€Counsel€did€not€renew€his€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€closeÐ °"  Ðof€the€proof.Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€defendants€waive€their€right€to€rely€on€the€error€of€the€trialÐ €%Ð # Ðjudge€in€the€denial€of€their€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€made€at€the€end€of€plaintiffsðð€proof€if€theyÐ p&À!$ Ðgo€forward€with€their€own€proof€rather€than€resting€on€the€motion.€€òòSee,€e.€g.€óóòòSeale€v.€Bryantóó,€713Ð `'°"% ÐS.W.2d€62,€65€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€ex€rel.€Commissioner,€Dept.€of€Transportation€v.€Bryantóó,€786Ð P( #& ÐS.W.2d€944,€949€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Defendants€must€renew€their€motion€at€the€end€of€all€theÐ @)$' Ðproof,€or€it€is€waived.€€òòSee,€e.g.€óó€òòJohn€Gerber€Co.€v.€Smithóó,€150€Tenn.€255,€263€S.W.€974€(1924);€Ð ° ÐòòSadler€v.€Draperóó,€46€Tenn.€App.€1,€14,€326€S.W.2d€148,€154€(1959).€€In€this€instance,€the€DefendantÐ  ð Ðdid€not€move€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€end€of€Plaintiffððs€proof,€nor€at€the€end€of€the€DefendantððsÐ à Ðproof€€ð!ð€only€in€the€middle€of€Defendantððs€proof.€€While€we€have€not€found€a€case€directly€in€pointÐ €Ð Ðwith€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€in€the€middle€of€Defendantððs€proof,€the€court€inÐ pÀ ÐòòSearle€v.€Bryantóó,€713€S.W.2d€62€at€65,€in€òòdictaóó€stated€that€it€thought€it€improper€for€the€trial€courtÐ ` ° Ðto€direct€a€verdict€during€the€defendantððs€presentation€of€his€proof,€even€if€it€was€correcting€itsÐ P   Ðoriginal€denial€of€the€motion€at€the€end€of€plaintiffððs€proof.€€€€€Rule€50€of€the€Rules€of€CivilÐ @  ÐProcedure€provides€that€a€ð ðmotion€for€a€directed€verdict€may€be€made€at€the€close€of€the€evidenceÐ 0 € Ðoffered€by€an€opposing€party€or€at€the€close€of€the€case.ðð€€€It€does€not€provide€that€the€Defendant€mayÐ  p  Ðpresent€it€in€the€middle€of€his€proof.Ð `  ÐÌà  àEven€if€the€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€had€been€presented€properly,€our€review€of€theÐ ð@  Ðrecord€persuades€us€that€the€record€contains€material€evidence€supporting€the€essential€of€the€causeÐ à0  Ðof€action€as€claimed€by€the€Plaintiff€and€that€the€Defendant€was€liable€for€damages€for€PlaintiffððsÐ Ð  Ðpersonal€€injuries.€€Clearly,€therefore,€a€directed€verdict€in€Defendantððs€favor€was€not€warranted€inÐ À Ðthis€case.Ð ° ÐÌà@‡‡ ìàB.€€€Juror€MisconductˆÐ à ÐÌà  àThe€next€issue€to€be€addressed€is€whether€juror€misconduct€occurred€at€the€first€trialÐ pÀ Ðjustifying€a€new€trial.€€€The€Defendant€avers€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Plaintiffððs€motionÐ `° Ðfor€a€new€trial€on€the€grounds€of€juror€€misconduct€following€the€conclusions€of€the€first€trial.€€WeÐ P  Ðagree.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àSubsequent€to€the€jury€rendering€a€verdict€of€$15,000€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiff,€the€PlaintiffÐ  p Ðfiled€the€affidavit€of€Arthur€Hart€averring€during€the€deliberations€of€the€jury,€as€already€set€out,€oneÐ ` Ðof€the€jurors€mentioned€that€the€Plaintiff€probably€received€workerððs€compensation€benefits€or€otherÐ P Ðinsurance€benefits,€which€paid€for€her€expenses€and€would€provide€for€her€future€medical€expenses.€Ð ð@ ÐAdditionally,€he€averred€€that€he€was€not€aware€that€the€workerððs€compensation€carrier€had€a€rightÐ à0 Ðto€be€reimbursed€out€of€any€recovery€that€Plaintiff€€received€in€the€trial€against€€Defendant€and€thatÐ Ð  Ðif€he€had€been€given€all€of€the€facts€regarding€workerððs€compensation€and€had€been€instructed€thatÐ À! Ðhe€should€not€consider€the€effect€of€workerððs€compensation€on€the€trial,€it€would€have€influenced€hisÐ °"  Ðdecision€as€a€juror€in€the€trial€of€the€case.€€Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€the€jurors'€affidavits€is€governed€by€Rule€606(b)€of€the€Tenn.€R.€of€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.,Ð €%Ð # Ðwhich€limits€jurors'€testimony€to€three€areas:€(1)€extraneous€prejudicial€information€being€broughtÐ p&À!$ Ðto€the€jurors€attention,€(2)€outside€influence€being€improperly€brought€to€bear€upon€any€juror,€andÐ `'°"% Ðâ â(3)€agreements€made€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotient€or€gambling€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.Ð P( #& Ð606(b).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€This€Court€has€previously€noted€several€"internal"€influences€that€cannot€serve€as€groundsÐ ° Ðâ âto€overturn€a€jury€verdict€include:€"(1)€discussions€among€jurors,€(2)€intimidation€or€harassment€ofÐ  ð Ðone€juror€by€another,€(3)€a€juror's€personal€experiences€not€directly€related€to€the€litigation,€and€(4)Ð à Ða€juror's€subjective€thoughts,€fears,€and€emotions."€€òòÔ_ÔCaldararoÔ_Ô€v.€Vanderbilt€Universityóó,€794€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð738,€742€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).׃` ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà ` àJurors€must€render€their€verdict€based€on€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial.€òòSeeóóÐ P   ÐòòCitizens'€St.€Ry.€v.€Burkeóó,€98€Tenn.€650,€653,€40€S.W.€1085,€1085€(1897);€òòStone€v.Ð @  ÐÔ_ÔO'NealÔ_Ôóó,€19€Tenn.€App.€512,€519,€90€S.W.2d€548,€552€(1936).€However,€they€areÐ 0 € Ðpermitted€to€weigh€the€evidence€in€light€of€their€own€knowledge€and€experience.€òòSeeóóÐ  p  ÐòòHigh€v.€Ô_ÔLenowÔ_Ôóó,€195€Tenn.€158,€168,€258€S.W.2d€742,€746€(1953).€Thus,€trial€courtsÐ `  Ðroutinely€instruct€juries,€as€the€trial€court€did€in€this€case,€that€"you€are€not€requiredÐ P  Ðto€set€aside€your€common€knowledge€.€.€.€as€you€have€the€right€to€weigh€the€evidenceÐ ð@  Ðin€light€of€your€own€observations€and€experiences."€òòSeeóó€8€Tenn.€Ô_ÔPracÔ_Ô.€TennesseeÐ à0  ÐPattern€Jury€Instructions€-€Civil€1.15.€€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€virtually€impossible€to€shield€jurors€from€every€contact€or€influence€thatÐ ° Ðmight€theoretically€affect€their€vote.€€€òòSmith€v.€Phillipsóó,€455€U.S.€209,€217,€102€S.€Ct.Ð  ð Ð940,€946,€71€L.€Ed.€2d€78€(1982).€Thus,€it€would€be€unreasonable,€and€perhapsÐ à Ðunwise,€to€expect€juries€to€be€completely€sterilized€and€free€of€any€externalÐ €Ð Ðinfluences.€The€jurors'€various€attitudes,€philosophies,€experiences,€and€backgroundsÐ pÀ Ðare€the€"very€human€elements€that€constitute€one€of€the€strengths€of€the€jury€system."€Ð `° ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔMcKinneyÔ_Ôóó,€429€F.2d€1019,€1022-23€(5th€Cir.€1970),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð P  Ð401€U.S.€922,€91€S.€Ct.€910,€27€L.€Ed.€2d€825€(1971).€€€€Ð@Ð Ð  ÐÔ‡Xõ XXXà›ÔÌà8  àà ` àAccordingly,€jurors€are€not€required€to€be€completely€ignorant€about€a€case,Ð l Ðand€a€verdict€will€not€be€overturned€because€of€jurors'€generalized€knowledge€of€theÐ X Ðparties€or€of€some€other€aspect€of€the€case.€òòGovernment€of€Virgin€Islands€v.€Ô_ÔGereauÔ_Ôóó,Ð ôD Ð523€F.2d€at€151;€òòGarcia€v.€Stateóó,€777€P.2d€603,€608€(Wyo.€1989).€A€juror's€personalÐ à0 Ðexperiences€unrelated€to€the€litigation€are€not€external€information.òò€€Martinez€v.€FoodÐ Ì ÐCity,€Inc.óó,€658€F.2d€at€374;€òòUnited€States€v.€Duzacóó,€622€F.2d€at€913.6€However,€aÐ ° Ðjuror's€personal€experiences€directly€relating€to€the€parties€or€events€directly€involvedÐ œì Ðin€the€litigation€may€be.€€òòHard€v.€Burlington€Northern€R.R.óó,€870€F.2d€1454,€1462€(9thÐ ˆØ ÐCir.€1989).€€Ô#†Xà›X XXõ iY#ÔÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌòòCaldararo€v.€Vanderbilt€Universityóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€743„744.Ð P   ÐÌà  àIn€òòStrawn€v.€SCOA€Industries,€Inc.óó,€804€S.W.2d€80€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990),€this€courtÐ 0 € Ðaddressed€the€issue€of€juror€misconduct€supported€by€three€jurorsðð€affidavits.€€In€that€case,€theÐ  p Ðaffidavits€stated€that€the€jury€discussed€that€the€Plaintiffs€would€have€to€pay€their€attorneyððs€fee€outÐ  `  Ðof€any€judgement€awarded€to€them.€€The€court€then€found€that€the€affidavits€were€not€competentÐ P  Ðevidence.€Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€mention€by€a€juror€during€deliberations€in€the€jury€room€of€workersððÐ Ð  Ðcompensation€is€not€extraneous€and,€therefore,€the€jurorððs€affidavit€is€not€competent€evidence.€€Thus,Ð À  Ðwe€cannot€consider€as€grounds€for€a€new€trial€the€Plaintiffððs€assertions€of€error€that€the€jury€basedÐ ° Ðthe€verdict€on€the€theory€that€workersðð€compensation€had€paid€all€or€a€portion€of€the€PlaintiffððsÐ  ð Ðexpenses.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€granting€a€new€trial€is€reversed.Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àIV.€€CONCLUSIONÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiff„appellee€€requested€that€this€be€determined€a€frivolous€appeal.€The€Defendant„Ð P  Ðappellant€filed€an€objection€to€the€Plaintiff„appelleeððs€request.€The€issue€was€reserved€and€was€to€beÐ @ Ðpresented€to€us€for€consideration.€€Because€this€Court€determined€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€grantingÐ 0€ Ðthe€motion€for€a€new€trial,€we€do€not,€of€course,€Ô% € Ô€find€that€this€is€a€frivolous€appeal€and€the€PlaintiffððsÐ  p Ðrequest€is€denied.Ð ` ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.€This€case€isÐ ð@ Ðremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€reinstatement€of€the€jury€verdict€on€the€first€trial,€€for€such€otherÐ à0 Ðaction€deemed€appropriate€by€the€trial€court,€and€collection€of€costs€below,€which€are,€as€are€costsÐ Ð  Ðof€appeal,€adjudged€against€the€Plaintiff,€Sarah€Anita€James,€and€her€surety.Ð À  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð #à! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ €$Ð" Ð