WPC_% kq_X_֛- 0YH+Ws}.~#cV >aMdi= |;~ѭS- UWDzvLp5Tdf7<,:RbX< z ^ c"wo"4s""" m"UN"E"N""U@#?A# 0~$ 0D$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BB%HP LaserJet 40500(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  \  `&Times New Roman  .($USUS.,    2    _, XX Under Turner ,atrialjudge,who,inhisorherroleasthethirteenthjuror,cannotapprovesomepartofthe  jurysdeterminationwithrespecttocomparativefaultislimitedtograntinganewtrial. _Fye_ ,991S.W.2dat762.#XX ,e#), yG*h3|xU("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman  5 .($USUS.,    1    _, XXThetrialcourthasotheroptionsontheissuesofadditurandremittiturbutthoseissuesarenotbeforeusin  thiscase.#XX ,e#(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   d !USUS.,  _XX   8Xdd8    ?+ ` hp x X?# XX =# X X# \# INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @..ATKNOXVILLE 8 # XX :# X X# |# June26,2002Session ^ # XX +##XXX Xm# XXXX#XXX X# XX ROBERTFREDJONES,# XX C##XXX Xb#X .etal.# XX. ##XX X#XX Ԁv._VICK_ԀIDLES  H # XX j##XXX X؉# XXXXAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforAndersonCounty  p No.98LA0255WilliamE_Lantrip_,Chancellor,byInterchange  \  #XXX X2#(XXXXFILEDJULY30,_2002_ 4  @@*AV)) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102833_COA_ԄR9CV   AV)) ` dE<` A     @*#XXX(X,# XXXX #XXX X# ?+ ` hp x X? XXXCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,#XX X؆# XXXXdissenting#XXX X# XXXX. v #XXX X5 #      Icannotconcurinthemajoritysdecisiontoaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentgrantingthe : originalplaintiffanewtrial. &v   ItisclearthattheTennesseeConstitutionguaranteestherightoftrialbyjurywhere,ashere, N alitigantinatortactionseeksunliquidateddamages.SeeTenn.Const.art.I,(XXXXԀ#XXX(X8 #6( Thattheright : oftrialbyjuryshallremaininviolate,...).Thismeansthat,ifajuryreturnsaverdictinfavorofa & partyandthetrialjudgesubsequentlyfindsthattheverdictisnotcontrarytotheweightofthe  evidence,andtheverdictisotherwisefreeofreversiblelegalerrors,thesuccessfullitiganthasa  constitutionalrighttothatjuryverdict.Tosuggestotherwiseistoeffectivelydenythejurytrialright   soclearlysetforthintheTennesseeConstitution. !    Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtapparentlyperceivedthatitdisagreedwiththejurysverdict ^#" infavorofthedefendantontheoriginalclaimoftheplaintiff.Idisagreewiththisperception.While J$# thetrialcourtwouldhaveassignedalesserdegreeoffaulttotheplaintiffthandidthejury,i.e.,50% 6% $ insteadof90%,thisdoesnotmeanthatitlegallydisagreedwiththejurysverdictforthedefendant "&r!% onthisclaim.Onthecontrary,Ibelievethetrialcourtagreedwiththejuryverdictforthedefendant '^"& andthatthisagreementrequired!asmandatedbytheconstitutionalrequirementthattherightto 'J#' trialbyjury remaininviolate!thatthetrialcourtdenytheplaintiffsrequestforanewtrial. (6$(   Theconceptofthetrialcourtas thethirteenthjurorhasbeenembeddedinour *&* jurisprudenceformanyyears. ,XXXXTatev.Gray ,36Tenn.591,59495(1857); EastTennessee,V.& +&+ G.Ry.Co.v.Mahoney ,89Tenn.311,15_S.W._Ԁ652,654(Tenn.1890); _Baugh_Ԁv.Nashville,C.&  St.L.Ry.Co. ,98Tenn.119,38_S.W._Ԁ433,43334(Tenn.1897); Nashville,C.&St.L.Ry.Co.v.  _Neely_ ,102Tenn.700,52_S.W._Ԁ167,168(Tenn.1899); ChattanoogaElectricRy.Co.v.Finney ,105  Tenn.648,58_S.W._Ԁ540,54041(Tenn.1900).#XXX,X*#However,interestinglyenough,theterm thirteenth t jurorseemstohavebeenfirstverbalizedbytheSupremeCourtinthe1904caseof Cumberland ` ,XXXXTelephone&TelegraphCo.v._Smithwick_ ,112Tenn.463,79_S.W._Ԁ803(1904): L    8 ` Thereasonsgivenfortheruleare,insubstance,thatthecircuitjudge $ t hearsthetestimony,justasthejurydoes,seesthewitnesses,and  ` observestheirdemeanoruponthewitnessstand;that,byhistraining  L  andexperienceintheweighingoftestimony,andtheapplicationof  8  legalrulesthereto,heisespeciallyqualifiedforthecorrectionofany $  errorsintowhichthejurybyinexperiencemayhavefallen,whereby   theyhavefailed,intheirverdict,toreachthejusticeandrightofthe   case,underthetestimonyandthechargeofthecourt;that,inour   system,thisisoneofthefunctionsthecircuitjudgepossessesand   shouldexerciseasitwere,thatofathirteenthjuror.p` x` x  Id. ,79_S.W._Ԁat804. H #XXX,X#    Thecasesaddressingthetrialcourtsroleasthethirteenthjurorhaverepeatedlyfocusedon  p theroleofthetrialcourtwithrespecttothejurysverdict.Theobligationimposedonthetrialcourt  \ istoindependentlyweightheevidenceinordertodeterminewhether,inthejudgmentofthetrial H court,theverdictiscontrarytotheweightoftheevidence. _Ridings_Ԁv.NorfolkSouthernRy.Co. , 4 894S.W.2d281,288(Tenn.App.1994); Statev.Moats, 906S.W.2d431,433(Tenn.1995);    Holdenv._Rannick_, 682S.W.2d903,906(Tenn.1984); _Grissom_Ԁv.Metro.Gov.ofNashville ,817  S.W.2d679,68384(Tenn.App.1991); _Sherlin_Ԁv._Roberson_ ,551S.W.2d700,701(Tenn.App.  1976).SeealsoTenn.R.Civ.P.59.06( Ifthetrialcourtgrantsanewtrialbecausetheverdictis  contrarytotheweightoftheevidence,...).Ifthecourtdetermines,asaresultofitsindependent  reviewoftheevidence,thattheverdictiscontrarytotheweightoftheevidence,itisdutyboundto p grantanewtrial.- /#  1      ׀If,ontheotherhand,thecourtfindsthatthepreponderanceoftheevidence \  supportsthejurysverdict,itis,aspreviouslystated,boundbyconstitutionalmandatetoapprove H! theverdictanddecreeaccordingly. 4"    In McIntyrev._Balentine_ ,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),theSupremeCourtadoptedmodified  $\" comparativefault.Thecruxofthecourtsholdingisstated_thusly_: $H #   8 ` Wethereforeholdthatsolongasaplaintiffsnegligenceremainsless & "%  thanthedefendantsnegligencetheplaintiffmayrecover;insucha ' #& case,plaintiffsdamagesaretobereducedinproportiontothe  percentageofthetotalnegligenceattributabletotheplaintiff.` x` x  Id .at57.Bywayofanappendixin McIntyre ,theSupremeCourtsetforthajurychargetobe t utilized until...theTennesseeJudicialConferenceCommitteeonCivilPatternJuryInstructions ` _promulgate[d_]newstandardjuryinstructions.... Id .at58.AsstatedbytheSupremeCourt,the L  chargewastoincludethefollowing: 8    8 ` Ifyoufindfromalltheevidencethatthepercentageofnegligence  ` attributabletoplaintiffwasequalto,orgreaterthan,thepercentage  L  ofnegligenceattributabletodefendant,thenyouareinstructedthat  8  plaintiffwillnotbeentitledtorecoveranydamagesforhis/her $  injuries. ` x` x  Id .at59.ThesaidTennesseeJudicialConferenceCommitteesubsequentlyadoptedajurycharge   onthesubjectofcomparativefault.Aspresentlyconstituted,thatchargeincludesthefollowing:     8 ` Apartyclaimingdamageswillbeentitledtodamagesifthatpartys \ faultislessthan50%ofthetotalfaultinthecase.Apartyclaiming H damageswhois50%ormoreatfault,however,isnotentitledto 4 recoveranydamageswhatsoever. p` x` x _T.P.I._Ԁ3CIVILNo.3.50.Therefore,ifaclaimantisfoundbythejuryandthetrialjudgetobe H  50%ormoreatfault,heorshehasfailedtoestablisharighttorecoverandthejurysverdict 4 denyingarecoveryshouldbeapprovedbythelowercourt.     Thefocusintheinstantcaseisthusonthejurysverdict!asmemorializedinthetrialcourts  judgment!findingforthedefendantontheplaintiffsoriginalclaim.Thejuryfoundforthe  defendantonthisclaimbecauseitfoundthattheplaintiffwas90%atfault.Inotherwords,thejury  foundthattheplaintiffwas 50%ormoreatfault.Itseemstomethatitisimmaterialwhetherthe l trialcourtfoundtheplaintifftobe50%atfault,ortobeatsomehigherpercentageoffault.Thisis X  becausetheresultwouldhavebeenthesame!thetrialcourtwould,ineffect,haveagreedthatthe D! plaintiffcouldnotrecover.Therefore,asfarasIamconcerned,thetrialcourt,inlegal 0"  contemplation,hasagreedwiththejurysverdict!inotherwords,hasagreedthattheevidencedoes #l! notpreponderateagainstthejurysdeterminationthatthedefendantprevailsontheplaintiffsclaim. $X"   Themajorityopinioncorrectlyquotesfromtheopinionauthoredbymeinthecaseof _Fye_ %0!$ v.Kennedy ,991S.W.2d754(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Thatopinion,whichwasrecommendedfor &"% publicationbytheSupremeCourt,inturncorrectlyquotesfromthecaseof Leev._Melson_ ,54Tenn. '#& App.53,387S.W.2d838(1964): (#'   8 ` Theguidingprincipleisfairnesstobothparties.Averdicttainted |*%) witherrororconfusionoughtnottostand.Ontheotherhand,the h+&* partiesareentitledtoonlyonedayincourt.Onceapartyhasbeen  accordedafairtrialonthemerits,unaffectedbyerrorsoflaw,heis  notentitledtoanothertrialmerelybecauseanotherpartytothesuit  hasbeengrantedanewtrialtoreverseanerrorpeculiartohim.t` x` x 387S.W.2dat841.Ibelieve Lee remainsgoodlaw.Theplaintiffintheinstantcasehasalreadyhad L  his onedayincourt.Thatdaydidnotgowellfortheplaintiff,asdemonstratedbythejurys 8  findingthathewas90%atfault.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thereissimplynoreasonto $ t haveanothertrialontheplaintiffsoriginalcomplaint.Furthermore,andmoreimportant,anewtrial  ` fortheplaintiffonhisoriginalclaimagainstthedefendantwoulddeprivethedefendantofthatto  L  whichheisconstitutionallyentitled.  8    Idisagreequitestronglywiththemajoritysfindingthatthereare complicatingissuesof   comparativefault,quotingfromfootnote10tothe _Fye_ opinion. _Fye_ ,991S.W.2dat761n.10.   Contrarytothemajoritysopinion,thedefendantisnotseekinga _Fye_ prohibitedreallocationof   fault.Thejuryallocated100%offaultinthefirstcase;andthejuryinthenewtrialwillberequired   toallocate100%offaultatthattrial.Idoagree,asthemajorityasserts,that p   8 ` [_t]o_ԀacceptDefendantspositionwouldresultintwoseparatetrials H withtwoseparatejurieswithtwoseparateverdictseachallocating 4 faultinthesamecasetothesameparties.Suchaprocedurewould  p leadtothelikely,ifnotcertain,resultthatthetotalfaultallocatedto  \ thepartiesbythetwojuriesintheirtwoseparateverdictsinthesame H lawsuitwouldbeinexcessof100%.4` x` x Iseenothingwrongifthisbetheresult.Inmyjudgment,itmattersnotthattheallocationoffault   maybedifferentinthetwotrialsorthat,whenviewedtogether,thefaultinthetwotrialsmayexceed  100%.Whatmattersisthat100%ofthefaultbeallocatedineachtrial.Thiswillhappeninthe  retrialofthedefendantssuitagainsttheplaintiffbecausethetrialjudgeinthesubsequenttrialis  requiredtoseethatithappens.Ithasalreadyhappenedinthefirsttrial. l   Ifindnothingin _Fye_ thatcompelsthemajoritysdecisiontogranttheplaintiffanewtrialon D! hisoriginalcomplaint.Ibelievethestatementin _Fye_, _! /#  2      _Ԁuponwhichthemajorityrelies,mustberead 0"  inthecontextofthefactsin _Fye_ ,i.e.,asingleclaimbyapassengeragainstthedriverofthevehicle #l! inwhichthepassengerwasridingasopposedtothefactsoftheinstantcase,i.e.,competingclaims $X" bythedriversofthetwovehiclesinvolvedintheaccident.See NationalLifeAccidentIns.Co.v. $D # _Eddings_ ,188Tenn.512,52223,221S.W.2d695,699(1949)(quotingChiefJusticeMarshallin %0!$  Cohensv.CommonwealthofVirginia ,19U.S.(6Wheat.)264,399,5L.Ed.257,290( Itisa &"% maximnottobedisregardedthatgeneralexpressions,ineveryopinionaretobetakeninconnection '#& withthecaseinwhichthoseexpressionsare.).Furthermore,hadthetrialcourtdeniedtheoriginal (#' plaintiffanewtrial,asIbelieveitshould,therewouldhavebeennothinginthatactthatcouldbe  construedasareallocationoffault. _Fye_ issimplynoauthorityforthemajoritysdecisioninthis  case.    Comparativefaultdidnotcreatethepossibilityoffaciallyinconsistentverdictswhereone ` partyisgrantedanewtrialononeclaimandanotherpartyisdeniedanewtrialonhisorher L  competingclaim.Suchverdictscouldhaveoccurred,andalmostcertainlydidoccur,followingthe 8  adoptionoftheedictin Lee inthedaysbeforecomparativefault. $ t   Irespectfullydissent.IwouldstatefurtherthatIbelievethisissueisasignificantonethat  L  shouldberesolvedbytheSupremeCourt.Accordingly,Iencouragethatcourttograntpermission  8  toappealifaTenn.R.App.P.11applicationisfiled. $     `     h     _______________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE