WPC? 0i))%r'[D-$b)7EA -׌++Y;5c5NG9 $$)=`!O:ݡhd4'bM4ΙCAOv VM=L4W/*+lH*` ep&h,@5ې(+hЄ}kh E'EbCY%]FtBtظ/~A'ߣeMÅ5K0ɴ2{3uV9, {\cn> .5eCY}9p8V<՛d8b#\ %% ^ + 07 U:N w 4 z%  q  m 0U   z@ 0N 0 0Eo 0q 0* 0 0 01 0 0 0h 0 0 0o 0 0 0@ 0 0 0] 0  0 0[ 0 0 0#!b! 0! 0g" 0%# 0># 0!$ 0% 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0=* 02+ 0A+ 0:=, 0Yw, 0_, 0 /- 09. 0/ B*1 D/1 02 D/ 4 0O4 065 0S5 0:[6 0^6 0<6 1e/7U67U>7U*8 1u28 08 729 0N9UN: B`:}: 0< D3< D-< 0K== ASP== 0i> 0D ? AQ?\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+00 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|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   - -0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  Qi)(O$(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular d RINES COASwineyHeagertyMoncier administratrixVonBramerdispositiveLoudonDoerflingerSimhaBroughAdcroftVelsicolHollidayEppersonpretermits Evid(|3Gx$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gx$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8L!XXdd8  @ LINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#L #Ԉ &   August22,2003Session L XL!X #XXL!#JUDYCAROLYNLAWSON,NEXTOFKINANDADMINISTRATRIX  6 OFTHEESTATEOFMILDREDT.LAWSON,DECEASED  J v.CYNTHIAGALERINES,etal.XL!X   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty ^  @@No.34198DaleC.Workman,JudgebyInterchange J  FILEDDECEMBER10,_2003_ "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200202152_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A     Thisisawrongfuldeathaction.TheTrialCourtexcludedproofofthedeceasedsSocialSecurity x benefitsattrial.JudyCarolynLawson( Plaintiff)madeanofferofproofshowingonlytheamount d ofmonthlySocialSecuritybenefitsreceived.ThejuryreturnedaverdictinPlaintiffsfavor,andthe P TrialCourtgrantedPlaintiffsmotionforprejudgmentinterest.ServiceRadioCabCo.,Inc. < ( Defendant)appealstheawardofprejudgmentinterest.Plaintiffappealsregardingtheexclusion (x ofproofofSocialSecuritybenefits.Weaffirm,inpart,andreverse,inpart. d M Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt ( Affirmed,inpart;Reversed,inpart;#XXL!#XL!XCaseRemanded.     #XL!#XL!X.D.MichaelSwiney,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,J.,and !  CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,joined. t"! ChristopherD.Heagerty,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,ServiceRadioCabCo.,Inc. 8% $ HerbertS.Moncier,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,JudyCarolynLawson. '`"& .  -(- _ OPINION #XXL!] #XL!X  #XXL! #XL!X Background        ` ThiscasearisesoutofanautomobileaccidentthatcausedthedeathofMildredT. ` Lawson( theDeceased).TheDeceasedsvehiclewasstruckbyavehicleownedbyDefendant, L  ServiceRadioCabCo.,Inc.,and#XXL! #XL!XdrivenbyCynthiaGaleRines.Plaintiff,theDeceasedsdaughter 8  andadministratrixoftheDeceasedsestate,suedbothDefendantandMs.Rinesforwrongfuldeath. $ t    ` Attrial,PlaintiffattemptedtointroduceproofofSocialSecuritybenefitsthatthe  L  Deceasedwasreceivingatthetimeofherdeath.DefendantprovidedtheTrialCourtwiththis  8  CourtsmemorandumopinioninLyonsv.VonBramerassupportforthepositionthatSocialSecurity $  benefitsshouldnotbeconsideredinthecalculationofdamagesinawrongfuldeathaction.TheTrial   CourtexcludedtheproofofSocialSecuritybenefitsandPlaintiffmadeanofferofproofshowing   theamountofSocialSecuritythattheDeceasedhadbeenreceivingmonthly.#XXL! #XL!X      ` Aftertrial,thejuryreturnedaverdictagainstDefendantintheamountof$110,000. p Inaddition,theTrialCourtgrantedPlaintiffsmotionforprejudgmentinterestintheamountof \ $57,804.12.Defendantappealstheawardofprejudgmentinterest.Plaintiffraisesanissueonappeal H regardingtheexclusionofproofoftheDeceasedsSocialSecuritybenefits. 4   Discussion   \      ` Defendantraisestwoissuesonappeal:1)whethertheTrialCourterredingranting 4 prejudgmentinterestinanactionforwrongfuldeath;and2)whethertheTrialCourtabusedits   discretionbymakinganawardofprejudgmentinterestthatwasnotequitable.Plaintiffraisesone   additionalissue:whethertheTrialCourterredbyexcludingtheDeceasedsSocialSecuritybenefits  fromthejurysdeterminationofthepecuniaryvalueofherlife.Wewilladdresseachissueinturn  asnecessary.SincethedispositiveissuesonappealinvolveonlytheTrialCourtsconclusionsof  law,ourreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.OXO XXXL!Ԁ=  S.Constructors,Inc.v.Loudon l CountyBd.ofEduc.=  ,58S.W.3d706,710(Tenn.2001).#XL!X XOXO#UXO XXXL! X  #XL!X XUXO##XXL!^#XL!X   ` #XXL!I#Թ M !"#(03QXL!X   ` WebeginbyconsideringwhethertheTrialCourterredingrantingprejudgment V"  interestinanactionforwrongfuldeath.Inessence,thisissuehingesuponadeterminationof B#! whethertheTrialCourtwasauthorizedtoawardprejudgmentinterestinawrongfuldeathcase. .$~"    ` TennesseeCodeAnnotated4714123providesthatprejudgmentinterestmaybe &V!$ awarded aspermittedbythestatutoryandcommonlawsofthestateasofApril1,1979....#XXL!+#XL!XԀ &B"% Tenn.CodeAnn.4714123(2003).Thus,thefirstquestionthatmustbeanswerediswhether '.#& prejudgmentinterestwaspermittedinTennesseebystatutoryorcommonlawinwrongfuldeath ($' casesonApril1,1979. )%(   *%)    ` ThisCourthasheldthatprejudgmentinterestwasnotallowedinpersonalinjury   cases,includingwrongfuldeathcases,asofApril1,1979,and,thus,atrialcourtisnotallowedto  awardprejudgmentinterestinsuchactions.E.g.,Hollisv.Doerflinger,No.M200200222COA  R3CV,2003Tenn.App.LEXIS416(Tenn.Ct.App.June3,2003),appl.perm.appealpending; t McKinleyv.Simha,No.W200102647COAR3CV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS941(Tenn.Ct.App. ` Dec.31,2002),noappl.perm.appealfiled.Weagreewiththereasoningandholdingofthese L  opinionsconcerningprejudgmentinterest. 8     ` Unfortunately,itcanbearguedthatthisCourtmayalsohaveheldtothecontrary.  ` Broughv.Adcroft,No.W200100786COAR3CV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS46(Tenn.Ct.App.  L  Jan.17,2002),noappl.perm.appealfiled,(determininginapersonalinjuryactionthatawardsof  8  prejudgmentinterestarelefttothecourtsdiscretionandholdingthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuse $  itsdiscretion)#XXL!#XL!X;Lawsonv.State,No.03A019806BC00185,1998Tenn.App.LEXIS861(Tenn.   Ct.App.Dec.17,1998),noappl.perm.appealfiled,(holdinginwrongfuldeathactionthatTenn.   CodeAnn.98307doesnotdivestaclaimscommissioneroftheauthoritytoawardprejudgment   interestincasesagainsttheState).#XXL!]"#XL!XԀ      ` Wenote,however,thatneithertheBroughCourtnortheLawsonCourtwereasked \ toconsiderwhetheranawardofprejudgmentinterestevenisallowedinpersonalinjurycases. H Insteadthesecasesconsideredonlytheissueofwhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionand,in 4 thecaseofLawson,whetherTenn.CodeAnn.98307precludedanawardofprejudgmentinterest  p incasesagainsttheState.Thus,BroughandLawsondifferfromHollisandMcKinley,whichdealt  \ squarelywithwhetherprejudgmentinterestisallowedinpersonalinjuryactions.#XXL!$#XL!XԀ H    ` Wealsonotethatwhiledecisionsofthefederalcourtsarenotbindinguponus,the   DistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofTennesseerecentlyheld:   8  BasedupontheTennesseeGeneralAssemblysprohibitionofprejudgmentinterest  forpersonalinjuryclaimsasprovidedinTennesseeCodeAnnotated4714123and  theSixthCircuitsholdinginVelsicol,thecourtisconvincedthattheTennessee l SupremeCourtwouldholdthataplaintiffcannotrecoverprejudgmentinterestina X  personalinjuryorwrongfuldeathcase.D!   Hollidayv.Epperson,No.1:021030T,2003U.S.Dist.LEXIS19987,at*9(W.D.Tenn.Oct.1, #l! 2003). $X"    ` Tothecontrary,however,weacknowledgethatinSpencerv.A1CraneService., %0!$ Inc.,ourSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindecliningtoaward &"% prejudgmentinterestinawrongfuldeathcase.Spencerv.A1CraneServ.,Inc.,#XXL!P'#XL!X880S.W.2d938, '#& 944(Tenn.1994).Byimplication,itwouldappearthattheSpencerCourtwasstatingthat (#' prejudgmentinterestcouldbeallowedinwrongfuldeathactions.However,acarefulreadingof )$(  SpencerrevealsthattheissuesquarelybeforethatCourtdealtonlywithwhetherthetrialcourt |*%) abuseditsdiscretion,notwhetherprejudgmentinterestevenisallowedinwrongfuldeathactions.      ` Therefore,weholdthattheTrialCourterredwhenitawardedPlaintiffprejudgment  interest.However,werespectfullysuggest,inlightofthestatusofcurrentcaselaw,thattheissue t ofwhetherprejudgmentinterestisallowedinwrongfuldeathcasesisonebetteraddressedtoour ` SupremeCourtandconclusivelyresolvedbyit,ifaRule11applicationisfiled. L     ` Aswehaveheldthatprejudgmentinterestisnotallowedinwrongfuldeathcases,we $ t reversetheTrialCourtsawardofprejudgmentinterest.#XXL!l,#XL!XOurdeterminationthattheTrialCourtwas  ` notallowedtoawardprejudgmentinterestinthiswrongfuldeathcasepretermitsthenecessityof  L  consideringDefendantssecondissueregardingwhethertheTrialCourtabuseditsdiscretionin  8  makingtheprejudgmentinterestaward. $     ` WenextconsiderPlaintiffsissueregardingwhethertheTrialCourterredby   excludingtheDeceasedsSocialSecuritybenefitsfromthejurysdeterminationofthepecuniary   valueofherlife#XXL!]1#XL!X.DefendantprovidedtheTrialCourtwithourmemorandumopinion,Lyonsv.   VonBramer,assupportforthepositionthatSocialSecuritybenefitsshouldnotbeconsideredinthe p calculationofdamages.Lyonsv.VonBramer,No.03A019301CV00034,1993Tenn.App.LEXIS \ 340(Tenn.Ct.App.May4,1993),noappl.perm.appealfiled.Lyonsisdesignatedasa H MemorandumOpinionandspecificallystatesthatunderRule10oftheRulesoftheCourtof 4 Appeals:  p 8  TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm, H reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhena 4 formalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedby   memorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shall   notbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequent  unrelatedcase.   Id.at*1,n.1(quotingRule10oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppealsofTennessee)(emphasisadded). l ItwasimproperforDefendanttoprovideLyonstotheTrialCourt.SinceitappearsthattheTrial X  CourtconsideredLyonsinmakingitsdecisiontoexcludeSocialSecuritybenefits,wewillconsider D! whetheritispropertoconsiderSocialSecuritybenefitswhencalculatingdamagesinawrongful 0"  deathaction. #l!    ` InJordanv.BaptistThreeRiversHospital,ourSupremeCourtdiscusseddamages $D # inawrongfuldeathaction,stating: %0!$ 8   ` Damagesunderourwrongfuldeathstatutecanbedelineatedintotwodistinct '#& classifications.Thefirstclassificationpermitsrecoveryforinjuriessustainedbythe (#' deceasedfromthetimeofinjurytothetimeofdeath.Damagesunderthefirst )$( classificationincludemedicalexpenses,physicalandmentalpainandsuffering, |*%) funeralexpenses,lostwages,andlossofearningcapacity.h+&*   Ї8   ` Thesecondclassificationofdamagespermitsrecoveryofincidentaldamages  sufferedbythedecedentsnextofkin.Incidentaldamageshavebeenjudicially  definedtoincludethepecuniaryvalueofthedecedentslife.Pecuniaryvaluehas  beenjudiciallydefinedtoinclude theexpectancyoflife,theage,conditionofhealth t andstrength,capacityforlaborandearningmoneythroughskill,anyart,trade, ` professionandoccupationorbusiness,andpersonalhabitsastosobrietyand L  industry.Pecuniaryvaluealsotakesintoaccountthedecedentsprobableliving 8  expenseshadthedecedentlived.$ t   Jordanv.BaptistThreeRiversHosp.,984S.W.2d593,600(Tenn.1999)(citationsomitted).  L     ` InHuttonv.CityofSavannah,thisCourtconcludedthatthetrialcourtproperly $  consideredSocialSecuritybenefitswhencalculatingdamagesinawrongfuldeathaction.Hutton   v.CityofSavannah,968S.W.2d808(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).WeagreethatSocialSecuritybenefits   maybeconsideredwhencalculatingdamagesinawrongfuldeathactioniftheSocialSecurity   benefitsarereceivedasaresultofthedeceasedsown capacityforlaborandearningmoneythrough   skill,anyart,trade,professionandoccupationorbusiness#XXL!4#XL!X.Jordan,984S.W.2dat600.Itisproper p toconsiderbenefitsthatthedeceasedreceivedasaresultofhisorherownworkandthepayments \ heorshemadeintotheSocialSecuritysystembaseduponthatwork.However,SocialSecurity H benefitsreceivedasaresultofaspousescontributionsintothesystem,survivortypebenefits,do 4 notfitintothedefinitionofthedecedents capacityforlaborandearningmoneythroughskill,any  p art,trade,professionandoccupationorbusiness#XXL!D#XL!Xand,thus,itwouldnotbepropertoconsiderthese  \ typesofbenefitswhencalculatingdamagesinawrongfuldeathaction.Id.#XXL!F#XL!XԀ#XXL!G#XL!XԀ H #XXL!G#XL!X   ` Rule103oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidenceprovidesthat:   #XXL!@H#8  XL!XErrormaynotbepredicateduponarulingwhichadmitsorexcludesevidenceunless  asubstantialrightofthepartyisaffected,and...Incasetherulingisoneexcluding   evidence,thesubstanceoftheevidenceandthespecificevidentiarybasissupporting  theadmissionweremadeknowntothecourtbyofferorwereapparentfromthe  context.~    Tenn.R.Evid.103. V"     ` PlaintiffdidmakeanofferofproofshowingthemonthlyamountofSocialSecurity .$~" benefitsthattheDeceasedwasreceiving.However,therecordisdevoidofproofregardingwhether %j # thesebenefitswerereceivedasaresultoftheDeceasedsown capacityforlaborandearningmoney &V!$ throughskill,anyart,trade,professionandoccupationorbusiness,orherspouses.Id.Ifthe &B"% benefitstheDeceasedwasreceivingweresurvivortypebenefits,thenitwasproperfortheTrial '.#& Courttoexcludethem.If,however,thebenefitswerereceivedasaresultoftheDeceasedsown ($'  capacityforlaborandearningmoneythroughskill,anyart,trade,professionandoccupationor )%(  business,thenitwaserrorfortheTrialCourttoexcludesuchproof.Id.Asweareunabletotell *%) fromtheofferofproofthesubstanceoftheevidence,weareconstrainedtoaffirmtheTrialCourts  decisiontoexcludeproofoftheDeceasedsSocialSecuritybenefits.     Conclusion  `      ` ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,inpart,andreversed,inpart,andthis 8  causeisremandedtotheTrialCourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,ifany, $ t consistentwiththisOpinionandforcollectionofthecostsbelow.Thecostsonappealareassessed  ` equallyagainsttheAppellant,ServiceRadioCabCo.,Inc.,anditssurety;andAppellee,Judy  L  CarolynLawson.  8     `     h     ___________________________________ H    `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE