ÿWPC· {RÝù~+>Âuð1er•ööÍŠiÃ-~„v^º‘·Áx1Ž)G+ŸŸe£òÇ8A)ÖÓý>Ó„·}Qô}œ—»Êë¹½ë=9Æ"˜ó“Ú ÆÎTæ„D꺼)´‡3Ú„†¡qEÂ$‹‡#>`·¥ÄdP©{¢{5‰3^rjÓW¶ ɪ@^p„&‘ã þ“¢¾Æ]]¤U`×Ù¥¯~z]* =á½*îo7#ND põl!Lç’Ôܨþai/CÁÕSK 4û/X Œfgá/à12Î ãÕä‚Ö§v>­Â>ÞEÎâYÁUÏàZÛ¸¯‘ö°Ö¶5¡GÊäË(b/{œ’Y-ÛÈ+s%¼F‘»;Y6Czt—üi+Ô@w<øòØ®áÛÈ]ý…´q×^6VmPrQ̰.èâ‹H4ú´»â’·¾ÞˤÜõ>¾K!g…Ыæ|!ÕKû„jÅkþý$šˆ&Á$*¼óD§ïÕj%¹’ÿoXûU£ÐÉËlб]l׌y¼Eä£0'YtÌÊn P|ŒWóÚ÷ÆØvŸñ!tE{—GÊÓÛsÏâ×–îËQ ʇú­ÂZoáQåËÁO_ùÒS°eåãpb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ D‘ ÆÕ Æ› ÆaÆ' 0DíN13o;Eªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªb¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ 0ë´´´´ BŸŸ 0¤¼ D3` D-“ 0KÀÀ AS Æ^ 0¤$ 0DÈ A« »—þ,â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*1._ID4Ö¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 :Ý ƒR,1$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Plaintiffððs€wife,€Virginia€Leigh€Jones,€joined€in€the€lawsuit€and€sued€for€loss€of€consortium.€€For€ease€ofÐ ° Ðreference,€we€will€refer€to€Plaintiffs€in€the€singular.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  eÝ ƒR,1$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€At€this€point€in€òòÔ_ÔFyeÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€inserted€footnote€number€10€which€reads:€ð ðThis€would€still€be€the€case€today,Ð ° Ðabsent€any€complicating€issues€of€comparative€fault.ðð€€- ù-(|G2,1$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥=ò»»Ô d(|3¿k$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿k$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼…»»»ÔÑ8€Y¹XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î¤î»¼…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼…»îî¤ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€26,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XY¹X»¼…ÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼…»XXY¹ò#ÔROBERT€FRED€JONES,€òòet€al.óó€v.€VICK€IDLESó óÐ Ò " ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ€XY¹X»¼…ÔAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Anderson€CountyÐ ø H Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98LA0255€€€€William€E€Lantrip,€Chancellor,€by€InterchangeÐ ä 4  ÐÌFILED€JULY€30,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¼  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<§` AßÐ ¨ø  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02833„COA„R9„CVÐ £ó  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<z` AßÐ {Ë Ðó óÓ  Óà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌRobert€Fred€Jones€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€sued€Vick€Idles€(ð ðDefendantðð)€for€damages€resulting€from€anÐ b² Ðautomobile€accident.€€Defendant€filed€a€counter„claim.€€After€a€jury€trial€on€the€issue€of€liability,€theÐ Nž Ðjury€determined€Plaintiff€was€90%€at€fault€and€Defendant€was€10%€at€fault.€€Plaintiff€filed€a€motionÐ :Š Ðfor€new€trial€on€all€claims€which€the€Trial€Court€granted€after€stating€neither€party€had€met€theirÐ &v Ðburden€of€proof.€€Defendant€appeals€only€the€granting€of€a€new€trial€to€Plaintiff€on€the€claims€raisedÐ b Ðin€Plaintiffððs€complaint.€€We€affirm.Ð þN ÐÌÌà@  ìàò òInterlocutory€Appeal€Pursuant€to€Rule€9,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.;ˆÐ  Ðà@, , ìàJudgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.ó óˆÐ ®þ ÐÌòòÌD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,Ð r  Ðóójoined,€and€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,€óódissented.Ð ^!®  ÐÌÌJerry€Shattuck,€Clinton,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Vick€Idles.Ð "$r# ÐÌÌRoger€L.€Ridenour,€Clinton,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees€Robert€Fred€Jones€and€Virginia€LeighÐ æ&6"& ÐJones.Ð Ò'"#' Ðà  àÌÐ  ª)ú$)ý Ðà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€facts€as€pertinent€to€this€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€interlocutory€appeal€are€undisputed.€Ð `° ÐPlaintiff€filed€a€lawsuit€seeking€damages€resulting€from€an€automobile€accident€which€occurred€inÐ L œ ÐAnderson€County€on€March€31,€1998.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Defendant€filed€an€answer€denying€any€liability,€and€filedÐ 8 ˆ Ða€counter„claim€seeking€damages€for€his€personal€injury€resulting€from€the€same€automobileÐ $ t Ðaccident.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€granted€a€motion€to€bifurcate€the€liability€and€damages€aspects€ofÐ è 8  Ðboth€claims.€€The€liability€phase€was€tried€to€a€jury€on€January€23,€2001.€€The€jury€found€PlaintiffÐ Ô$  Ðto€be€90%€at€fault,€and€Defendant€10%€at€fault.€€The€Trial€Court€entered€judgment€accordingly€andÐ À  Ðdismissed€the€claim€filed€by€Plaintiff€and€entered€judgment€in€favor€of€Defendant.€€Plaintiff€filed€aÐ ¬ü  Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial€and€supporting€memorandum,€neither€of€which€are€contained€in€the€record€onÐ ˜è  Ðappeal.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€During€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€newÐ „Ô  Ðtrial,€the€Trial€Court€stated,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àI€donððt€see€how€a€jury€could,€be€quite€honest€with€you,€how€aÐ H˜ Ðjury€could€have€rendered€a€verdict€for€either€party€in€this€particularÐ 4„ Ðcase.ð8ð€But€acting€as€the€13òòthóó€juror,€the€Court€finds€that€the€90Ð  p Ðpercent,€10€percent€ð8ð€I€thought€that€they€were€credible€witnesses€forÐ  \ Ðboth€sides,€to€be€quite€honest€with€you.€€And€that€it€would€have€beenÐ øH Ðan€impossible€job€for€this€jury€to€come€back€with€anything€but€aÐ ä4 Ðdefense€verdict€for€both€sides€on€the€complaint.ð8ð€For€that€reason,Ð Ð  Ðand€that€reason€alone,€the€Court€grants€a€new€trial.€€Ð¼ ` x` x ÐÌThe€above€statement€of€the€Trial€Court€was€incorporated€into€its€order€granting€a€new€trial.€€The€TrialÐ ”ä ÐCourtððs€order€also€stated€ð ðthat€neither€the€plaintiffs€nor€the€counter€plaintiff€carried€the€burden€ofÐ €Ð Ðproof€in€this€cause€and€it€would€have€been€an€impossible€job€for€the€jury€to€come€back€with€anythingÐ l¼ Ðbut€a€defense€verdict€for€both€sides.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€then€ordered€a€new€trial€on€all€issues€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðcomplaint€and€counter„complaint.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€appeals€the€Trial€Courtððs€granting€of€a€new€trial€to€Plaintiff€on€the€claimsÐ #l! Ðraised€in€Plaintiffððs€complaint.€€Defendant€does€not€challenge€the€granting€of€a€new€trial€to€theÐ $X" ÐPlaintiff€on€the€issues€raised€in€Defendantððs€counter„claim.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÐ  Ì&"% Ðà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àA€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€a€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ tÄ Ðotherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Brooks€v.€Brooks,€óó992€S.W.2d€403,€404€(Tenn.€1999).€€ReviewÐ `° Ðof€questions€of€law€is€òòde€novo,óó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSee€Nelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,Ð L œ ÐInc.,€óó8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.€1999).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€as€phrased€by€Defendant€on€appeal€is:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMay€a€trial€judge€grant€a€plaintiff€a€new€trial€when€a€jury€hasÐ è 8  Ðfound€that€Plaintiff€90%€at€fault€and€the€defendant/counter€plaintiffÐ Ô$  Ð10%€at€fault€after€the€judge€as€thirteenth€juror€has€independentlyÐ À  Ðweighed€the€evidence€and€found€that€neither€party€carried€the€burdenÐ ¬ü  Ðof€proof?Иè ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendantððs€argument€on€appeal€is€essentially€that€the€jury€found€Plaintiff€did€notÐ pÀ Ðcarry€his€burden€of€proof€when€it€assigned€90%€of€the€fault€to€Plaintiff.€€Defendant€asserts€that€evenÐ \¬ Ðthough€the€Trial€Court€acting€as€thirteenth€juror€disagreed€with€the€percentage€of€fault€allocated€toÐ H˜ ÐPlaintiff,€the€Trial€Court€nonetheless€clearly€expressed€its€agreement€with€the€jury€that€Plaintiff€didÐ 4„ Ðnot€meet€his€burden€of€proof.€€Defendant€argues€since€both€the€jury€and€the€Trial€Court€are€inÐ  p Ðagreement€that€Plaintiff€did€not€meet€his€burden€of€proof,€Plaintiff€cannot€properly€be€awarded€a€newÐ  \ Ðtrial.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€acting€as€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€independently€weigh€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence,€determine€the€issues,€and€decide€whether€the€juryððs€verdict€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€Ð ¼  ÐòòMoss€v.€Sankeyóó,€54€S.W.3d€296,€298€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)(quoting€òòOverstreet€v.€Shoneyððs,€Inc.óó,€4Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.3d€694,€717€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)).€€Although€this€Court€may€consider€comments€made€by€aÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court€during€a€hearing€on€a€motion€for€new€trial,€in€the€final€analysis€we€must€determine€whetherÐ €Ð Ðthe€trial€court€properly€reviewed€the€evidence€when€reaching€its€agreement€or€disagreement€with€theÐ l¼ Ðverdict.€€ð ðWe€cannot€review€the€accuracy€of€the€trial€courtððs€determination€as€thirteenth€juror.ðð€€òòMossÐ X ¨ Ðv.€Sankeyóó,€54€S.W.3d€296,€298€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)(quoting€òòOverstreet€v.€Shoneyððs,€Inc.óó,€4€S.W.3dÐ D!” Ð694,€718€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòTurner€v.€Jordanóó,€957€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€1997),€one€of€the€issues€addressed€byÐ $X" Ðour€Supreme€Court€was€whether€a€trial€court,€when€acting€as€thirteenth€juror,€has€the€authority€toÐ ô$D # Ðreallocate€fault€pursuant€to€comparative€fault€principles.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€a€trial€court,€whenÐ à%0!$ Ðacting€as€thirteenth€juror,€must€grant€a€new€trial€if€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€823.€€The€mechanisms€of€remittitur€and€additur€are€available€when€the€trial€courtÐ ¸'#& Ðapproves€of€the€juryððs€verdict€but€disagrees€with€the€amount€of€damages€awarded.€€The€SupremeÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCourt€went€on€to€state€in€ð ðTennessee,€our€cases€have€specifically€limited€the€statutory€procedures€ofÐ )à$( Ðremittitur€and€additur€to€correction€of€damages€and€not€liability.ð8ð€€Thus,€the€trial€court€correctlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðdetermined€that€it€lacked€the€authority€to€reapportion€the€comparative€fault€in€its€role€as€thirteenthÐ h+¸&* Ðjuror.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€824.€€Accordingly,€the€Supreme€Court€held€a€trial€court€ð ðmay€not€reallocate€theÐ ° Ðcomparative€fault€after€weighing€the€evidence€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€but€must€instead€grant€a€newÐ œì Ðtrial.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€As€noted€by€this€Court€in€òòFye€v.€Kennedyóó,€991€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998),€òòTurneróóÐ ˆØ Ðprecludes€even€a€partial€reallocation€of€the€juryððs€finding€of€comparative€fault.€€When€a€trial€judgeÐ tÄ Ðacting€as€thirteenth€juror€cannot€approve€ð ðsome€partðð€of€the€juryððs€determination€with€respect€toÐ `° Ðcomparative€fault,€the€trial€judge€ð ðis€limited€to€granting€a€new€trial.ðð€€òòFyeóó,€991€S.W.2d€at€762.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€relies€heavily€on€the€following€language€in€òòFye€v.€Kennedyóó:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIt€is€not€uncommon€for€a€trial€judge€to€approve€a€jury'sÐ ü L  Ðassessment€of€damages,€while€disagreeing€with€its€verdict€as€toÐ è 8  Ðliability.€€In€such€cases,€the€court€would,€as€Judge€Barker€did,€refuseÐ Ô$  Ðto€grant€a€new€trial€as€to€damages€but€grant€a€new€trial€as€to€liability.€Ð À  ÐPre-òòMcIntyreóó,€it€was€clear€that€a€trial€court€could€grant€a€new€trial€asÐ ¬ü  Ðto€one€party's€claim€while€denying€a€new€trial€as€to€another€party'sÐ ˜è  Ðclaim.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòNashville€Street€Railway€v.€Goreóó,€106€Tenn.€390,Ð „Ô  Ð61€S.W.€777€(1901).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòLee€v.€Melsonóó,€54€Tenn.€App.€53,€387Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€838€(1964).€€In€òòLeeóó,€this€court€made€the€following€commentÐ \¬ Ðin€justifying€just€such€a€ruling:ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàThe€guiding€principle€is€fairness€to€both€parties.€€AÐ  p Ðverdict€tainted€with€error€or€confusion€ought€not€toÐ  \ Ðstand.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€parties€are€entitled€toÐ øH Ðonly€one€day€in€court.€€Once€a€party€has€been€accordedÐ ä4 Ða€fair€trial€on€the€merits,€unaffected€by€errors€of€law,Ð Ð  Ðhe€is€not€entitled€to€another€trial€merely€becauseÐ ¼  Ðanother€party€to€the€suit€has€been€granted€a€new€trialÐ ¨ø Ðto€reverse€an€error€peculiar€to€him.Ð”ä¸ ¸  ÐÌòòFyeóó,€991€S.W.2d€at€761.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€asserts€the€present€case€involves€no€ð ðcomplicating€issues€of€comparativeÐ D!” Ðfaultðð€as€alluded€to€in€footnote€10€in€òòFyeóó.€€We€disagree.€€What€Defendant€is€asking€to€have€done€isÐ 0"€  Ða€partial€reallocation€of€fault€with€regard€to€the€juryððs€assessment€of€fault.€€This€case€does€involveÐ #l! Ða€complicating€issue€of€comparative€fault€because€the€Trial€Court€is€prohibited€from€reallocating€òòanyóóÐ $X" Ðfault.€€The€jury€returned€one€verdict€wherein€it€allocated€fault€to€both€parties.€€When€acting€asÐ ô$D # Ðthirteenth€juror,€once€the€Trial€Court€disagreed€with€the€verdict€with€respect€to€the€comparative€faultÐ à%0!$ Ðallocation,€the€only€avenue€available€to€the€Trial€Court€was€to€grant€both€parties€a€new€trial.€€òòSee€Fyeóó,Ð Ì&"% Ð991€S.W.2d€at€762.Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àTo€accept€Defendantððs€position€would€result€in€two€separate€trials€with€two€separateÐ ° Ðjuries€with€two€separate€verdicts€each€allocating€fault€in€the€same€case€to€the€same€parties.€€Such€aÐ œì Ðprocedure€would€lead€to€the€likely,€if€not€certain,€result€that€the€total€fault€allocated€to€the€parties€byÐ ˆØ Ðthe€two€juries€in€their€two€separate€verdicts€in€the€same€lawsuit€would€be€in€excess€of€100%.€€WhileÐ tÄ Ðwe€realize€that€logic€is€not€the€lifeblood€of€the€law,€such€a€result€would€be€an€absurdity.€€ApplicationÐ `° Ðof€the€rule€expressed€by€this€Court€in€òòFyeóó€limiting€a€trial€judge€acting€as€a€thirteenth€juror€to€grantingÐ L œ Ða€new€trial€if€he€cannot€approve€of€some€part€of€the€juryððs€determination€with€respect€to€comparativeÐ 8 ˆ Ðfault€prevents€such€an€absurdity€from€occurring.€€Therefore,€the€Trial€Court€reached€the€correct€resultÐ $ t Ðwhen€it€granted€both€parties€a€new€trial.€€We€affirm€the€granting€of€a€new€trial€to€both€parties.Ð  ` ÐÌòòóóà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ À  ÐCourt€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€Vick€Idles,€and€his€surety.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ ä4 Ð