ÿWPC¯ ^lš©òoó¨œàÕ½ Þ ¼©a£t™Á×¢FÍ„ <'gƒÂ‹AÈ&Çb³âÔB8¬·ybB$ZàÙ#¨ ×d‹ôÒ·ú‡ªVU´Åûm$ÁÒXó–ŒÓdTªN@‹ø]°Ý‘vöÑÛ£­ò׿3ôJ“±*ŽÉÉ/µº×E"& q¯ø×Iô}í’KŠ¿–¦¦B›ä«X0Ý%Ùz˜'é3¾ºG/¡€šZ[‹+ÑÞÔF\Õ‘=rŽûÓdYŠ|Ⱥqyç]·0GÍøX«£ÖíU'ÃtA¢p×ô–ªOg’’ΞÇÌ´¸qó‡ø‰Hݹdºyñ×MÊ"j®Íâ÷2ÿ5Ý#d…Ú9°Ñ¥--™¹[%û„n4Os­U€­×}v–‡g“/ä¯&ò$Ók.±›^ð¢7ûu%›@¾×²'vëŸæ^àÓv…Áº¾ëgº¼êÓÎ ÜaP¬uaZ½½FA˜1Ïå~Mé¼mé1{R³àt’œÈu¤¡´:$õqèxÚdV6ðÝ~aÆü›ÈË»äƒ Z.Ø¥“ä‡eKgQòõYˆÜݻحùv2ü‹€­Í±Ë6µ&q› p¸u¼œ^o®©1×Å[Eb#Á\ % U @# 0ˆc U Në ^ 9 wE zI Òà 4• © ¸ mº ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#n­éN–N˜šE¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢b¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 0묬¬¬ B—— 0¤´ D3X D-‹ 0K¸¸ ASÆV 0¤ 0DÀ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular xE)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ;)la£äúœ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ - ù-(|G2â$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôð ò»»Ô d(|3Gx$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gx$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼F5»»»ÔÑ8€™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼F5»»¼F5Ôà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îƒõF5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼F5»îîƒõ+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€7,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X™X»¼F5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼F5»XX™#ÔROBERT€A.€MALLARD,€DECEASED,€òòet€al.óó€Ð úJ Ðv.€THOMAS€E.€Ô_ÔTOMPKINSÔ_Ô,€M.D.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X™X»¼F5Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98C„870€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00162„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€5,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€entered€judgment€on€a€jury€verdict€for€the€defendant.€€The€plaintiff€argues€on€appealÐ ŒÜ Ðthat€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€failing€to€exclude€from€the€jury€a€woman€whoÐ xÈ Ðrevealed€that€she€knew€some€members€of€the€defense€attorneyððs€family.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð d´ ÐÓ&ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð <Œ ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼F5»àX™ã#ÔÔ‡X™X.¼F5ÔBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÐ P ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌDavid€W.€Piper,€Woodbury,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants€Robert€A.€Mallard,€Deceased,€and€MyrtleÐ Ä ÐMallard€Oldham.Ð ° ÐÌThomas€A.€Ô_ÔWisemanÔ_Ô,€III€and€Margaret€J.€Moore,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€ThomasÐ ˆØ ÐE.€Ô_ÔTompkinsÔ_Ô,€M.D.;€Nashville€Orthopaedic€Associates,€P.A.,€d/b/a€Tennessee€OrthopaedicÐ t Ä ÐAssociates,€P.A.;€and€a/k/a€Tennessee€Orthopaedic€Alliance,€P.A.Ð `!°  ÐÓ8ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼F5»XX™g#ÔÔ‡X™X»¼F5ÔÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼F5»XX™‹ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X™X»¼F5Ôà@ ìàò òI.€€òòTrial€and€Verdictóóó óˆÐ %` $ ÐÌà  àIn€1995,€Robert€Mallard€and€his€wife€Myrtle€brought€a€medical€malpractice€suit€against€Mr.Ð è&8"& ÐMallardððs€orthopedic€surgeon,€the€surgeonððs€practice€group,€and€Baptist€Hospital.€€They€claimed€thatÐ Ô'$#' Ðnegligence€by€the€defendant€surgeon€during€the€replacement€of€Mr.€Mallardððs€artificial€knee€jointÐ À($( Ðcaused€him€to€suffer€circulatory€problems€that€ultimately€resulted€in€the€amputation€of€his€leg.€€TheÐ ¬)ü$) Ðplaintiffs€took€a€voluntary€non„suit€on€March€27,€1997.€€Robert€Mallard€died€the€following€year€fromÐ ˜*è%* Ðunrelated€causes.€€His€widow€Ô_ÔrefiledÔ_Ô€the€malpractice€complaint€on€March€27,€1998.€€Baptist€HospitalÐ „+Ô&+ Ðwas€dismissed€by€an€agreed€order€on€May€28,€1999.Ð p,À', ÐÐ \-¬(-ý Ðà  àThe€trial€of€the€case€began€on€October€4,€1999.€€After€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€theÐ ° Ðdefendants,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€In€her€motion,€she€claimed€that€the€jury€in€thisÐ œì Ðcase€was€constitutionally€defective,€because€it€was€tainted€by€the€likelihood€of€bias€or€prejudice€onÐ ˆØ Ðthe€part€of€one€of€the€jurors.€€The€trial€judge€heard€argument€on€the€motion,€but€he€denied€the€MotionÐ tÄ Ðfor€New€Trial.€€He€also€Ô_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ô€directed€a€verdict€for€the€defendant,€on€a€finding€that€noÐ `° Ðreasonable€jury€could€find€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€and€that€the€evidence€preponderated€in€favor€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€defendant.€€This€appeal€followed.€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@ŠŠ#ìàò òII.€€òòVoir€Direóóó óˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffððs€problems€began€on€the€first€day€of€voir€dire,€when€her€attorney€handed€up€aÐ è 8  Ðlist€of€four€peremptory€challenges€to€jurors€he€wished€to€exclude.€€The€list€was€hand„written€and€usedÐ Ô$  Ðonly€the€last€names€of€the€challenged€jurors.€€The€fourth€name€was€undecipherable,€but€the€trial€judgeÐ À  Ðthought€he€could€make€it€out,€and€printed€the€name€that€he€mistakenly€believed€it€to€be.€€AfterÐ ¬ü  Ðreturning€the€challenge€slips€to€the€attorneys,€he€€announced€the€names€of€the€four€jurors€to€be€struck.Ð ˜è  ÐAs€a€result,€one€juror€that€the€plaintiff€wanted€on€the€panel€was€excluded,€and€one€that€she€wishedÐ „Ô  Ðto€exclude€was€allowed€to€remain.€€However€the€plaintiffððs€attorney€did€not€bring€the€error€to€theÐ pÀ Ðattention€of€the€court€until€the€end€of€the€first€dayððs€proceedings,€and€the€trial€judge€declined€to€grantÐ \¬ Ðhim€an€additional€peremptory€challenge.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àVoir€dire€had€begun€with€thirteen€prospective€jurors€in€the€jury€box,€and€seven€others€on€aÐ  p Ðbench€behind€the€counsel€table€for€the€plaintiffs.€€Another€twenty€prospective€jurors€were€seated€inÐ  \ Ðthe€back€of€the€courtroom.€€The€trial€judge€instructed€the€attorneys€to€address€their€questions€to€thoseÐ øH Ðin€the€jury€box€and€behind€the€counsel€table.€€Those€in€the€back€of€the€courtroom€were€not€requiredÐ ä4 Ðto€answer€the€questions€posed€by€the€attorneys.€€The€attorneys€asked€whether€the€prospective€jurorsÐ Ð  Ðknew€any€of€the€parties€or€their€attorneys.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àJennifer€Murphy€had€been€seated€in€the€back€of€the€courtroom€during€the€first€day.€€She€wasÐ ”ä Ðcalled€to€the€jury€box€the€following€day,€and€another€attorney€resumed€questioning€on€behalf€of€theÐ €Ð Ðplaintiff.€€He€asked€her€whether€she€could€be€fair€to€both€sides,€and€she€answered€that€she€could.€€HeÐ l¼ Ðalso€asked€whether€she€had€friends€or€family€members€who€were€physicians.€€Ms.€Murphy€was€notÐ X ¨ Ðasked€if€she€knew€the€parties€or€their€attorneys.€€She€was€eventually€chosen€for€the€jury€and€swornÐ D!” Ðin.€€€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€plaintiffððs€attorney€completed€his€opening€argument,€Ms.€Murphy€sent€a€note€upÐ $X" Ðto€the€judge,€revealing€that€she€knew€some€family€members€of€one€of€the€attorneys€involved€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðcase.€€The€judge€called€a€jury„out€hearing,€in€which€he€and€the€attorneys€for€both€sides€questionedÐ à%0!$ ÐMs.€Murphy.€€She€stated€that€she€knew€the€parents€of€Thomas€Ô_ÔWisemanÔ_Ô€III,€the€defendantððs€leadÐ Ì&"% Ðattorney.€€She€also€revealed€that€she€and€his€wife€belonged€to€the€same€church,€and€that€she€hadÐ ¸'#& Ðplayed€tennis€with€his€sister€a€few€days€earlier.€She€explained€that€she€did€not€come€forward€earlierÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwith€this€information€because€she€was€not€asked,€and€she€was€not€sure€that€it€was€relevant.€€She€saidÐ )à$( Ðthat€she€did€not€know€Mr.€Ô_ÔWisemanÔ_Ô€himself,€and€he€said€that€he€did€not€know€her€personally.€€€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àMr.€Ô_ÔWisemanÔ_Ô€asked€Ms.€Murphy€whether,€despite€her€connections€with€his€family,€she€couldÐ ° Ðlisten€to€the€evidence€and€be€a€fair€and€impartial€juror.€€She€responded€ð ðIððd€like€to€think€that€I€could,Ð œì Ðyes.ðð€€At€this€point,€the€plaintiffððs€attorney€moved€that€she€be€dismissed€for€cause.€€The€judge€saidÐ ˆØ Ðthat€her€answer€was€not€sufficient,€and€he€questioned€her€further€about€whether€she€could€judge€theÐ tÄ Ðcase€impartially.€€She€unequivocally€answered€that€she€could,€and€the€judge€denied€the€plaintiffððsÐ `° Ðmotion.€€Ms.€Murphy€was€ultimately€elected€foreperson€of€the€jury€that€returned€the€verdict€for€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@àà$ìàò òIII.€€òòAppealóóˆÐ  ` ÐÌà@¯¯ìàa.€€Peremptory€Challengeó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€striking€the€wrong€juror,€and€then€byÐ À  Ðrefusing€to€grant€an€additional€peremptory€challenge€to€replace€the€one€that€was€erroneouslyÐ ¬ü  Ðexercised.€€We€believe,€however,€that€the€attorney€waived€this€objection€by€failing€to€bring€it€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðcourtððs€attention€in€a€timely€fashion.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€appellantððs€brief€recites€that€only€twelve€seconds€elapsed€between€the€time€the€CourtÐ \¬ Ðofficer€returned€the€challenge€slips€and€the€time€the€last€challenged€juror€was€dismissed.€€But€evenÐ H˜ Ðif€the€plaintiffððs€attorney€could€not€react€quickly€enough€to€prevent€the€trial€court€from€striking€theÐ 4„ Ðwrong€juror,€he€could€have€informed€the€judge€of€his€error€as€soon€as€he€became€aware€of€it.€€A€partyÐ  p Ðis€not€entitled€to€relief€for€an€error€for€which€the€party€is€responsible.€€Rule€36(a),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P..Ð  \ ЀÌà@^^ ìàò òb.€€An€Unbiased€Juryó óˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€constitutional€right€to€a€jury€trial€necessarily€implies€the€empaneling€of€an€unbiased€jury,Ð ¼  Ðand€bias€may€result€from€a€jurorððs€association€with€a€party€or€a€partyððs€attorney.€Ð ¨ø ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌà ` àð ðThe€courts€have€.€.€.€excluded€from€service,€as€subject€to€bias,€those€whoseÐ €Ð Ðintimate€associations,€experiences,€and€contingent€interests,€financial€or€social,€wereÐ l¼ Ðsuch€as€to€warp€or€sway,€in€prejudice€or€passion,€the€judgment€in€the€case€on€trial,€inÐ X ¨ Ðresponse€to€those€natural€and€human€instincts€common€to€mankind.ððÐ D!” ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌòòDurham€v.€Stateóó,€188€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1945).€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€case€of€€òòHyatt€v.€Stateóó,€430€S.W.2d€129€(Tenn.€1967)€involved€a€prosecution€for€Ð ô$D # Ðbootlegging.€€During€jury€deliberations,€one€juror€discovered€that€one€of€the€defendants€was€the€sameÐ à%0!$ Ðwoman€against€whom€he€had€once€procured€a€search€warrant.€€The€jurorððs€son„in„law€had€beenÐ Ì&"% Ðhauling€white€whisky€for€her,€and€he€wished€to€put€a€stop€to€it.€€The€defendant€had€been€going€by€aÐ ¸'#& Ðdifferent€name€when€the€juror€swore€out€the€warrant,€and€he€did€not€recognize€her€at€trial.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSupreme€Court€reversed€the€jury€verdict€because€the€record€supported€a€finding€that€the€juror€wasÐ )à$( Ðhostile€to€at€least€the€one€defendant.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àEven€without€a€showing€of€actual€bias,€a€jurorððs€failure€to€truthfully€answer€questions€aboutÐ ° Ðthe€jurorððs€association€with€a€party,€a€witness,€or€one€of€the€attorneys€may€raise€a€presumption€ofÐ œì Ðbias.à  àIn€òòTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€v.€Greeróó,€682€S.W.2d€920€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)Ð ˆØ Ðthe€potential€jurors€were€asked€on€voir€dire€if€they€or€any€members€of€their€families€might€know€orÐ tÄ Ðmight€be€related€to€any€of€six€named€witnesses.€€No€potential€juror€gave€an€audible€answer€to€theÐ `° Ðquestion.€€During€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€chancellor€became€aware€that€one€of€the€jurors€wasÐ L œ Ðfamiliar€with€a€witness€because€her€son€worked€with€him,€but€the€chancellor€did€not€let€the€attorneysÐ 8 ˆ Ðknow€about€this€fact.€€On€appeal,€this€court€noted€that€deliberate€withholding€of€information€amountsÐ $ t Ðto€false€swearing,€and€raises€a€presumption€of€bias€and€partiality.€€We€found€that€the€trial€courtÐ  ` Ðcommitted€reversible€error€by€not€informing€the€attorneys€about€the€jurorððs€relationship€to€theÐ ü L  Ðwitness,€and€by€failing€to€take€whatever€action€was€necessary€to€insure€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòLewis€v.€Ô_ÔPendergrassÔ_Ôóó,€No.€03A01„9510„CV„00369€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€at€Knoxville,€filedÐ À  ÐApril€3,€1996),€potential€jurors€were€asked€if€they€had€ever€been€represented€by€the€plaintiffsððÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney.€€One€juror€had€in€fact€been€recently€involved€in€a€client/attorney€relationship€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiffsðð€attorney,€but€after€the€question€was€asked€he€remained€silent.€€The€plaintiffs€prevailed,€andÐ „Ô  Ðthe€defendants€raised€the€issue€of€the€jurorððs€relationship€with€the€attorney€on€Motion€for€New€Trial.Ð pÀ ÐThe€trial€court€subpoenaed€the€juror,€who€denied€any€partiality,€and€testified€that€he€did€notÐ \¬ Ðremember€the€defendantsðð€attorney€asking€whether€plaintiffsðð€attorney€had€ever€represented€him.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðtrial€court€denied€the€Motion€for€New€Trial,€but€was€reversed€by€this€court,€which€stated€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]eÔ_ÔÐ 4„ Ðdo€not€believe€that€the€presumption€created€by€the€false€swearing€of€the€juror€was€overcome.ðð€€Ð  p Ðà  àÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔToombsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€270€S.W.2d€649€(Tenn.€1954),€two€defendants€were€convicted€of€theftÐ øH Ðof€personal€property€that€was€owned€by€a€Mr.€Hartman.€€On€appeal,€they€argued€that€the€jury€wasÐ ä4 Ðbiased€because€one€of€the€jurors€was€the€first€cousin€of€Mr.€Hartmanððs€wife,€and€the€two€families€hadÐ Ð  Ðclose€and€friendly€relations,€facts€that€did€not€come€to€light€until€after€the€trial€was€over.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€initially€determined€that€as€a€matter€of€public€policy,€the€defendants€wereÐ ”ä Ðnot€entitled€to€a€new€trial,€€because€the€juror€was€not€asked€during€voir€dire€if€he€was€related€to€anyÐ €Ð Ðof€the€parties€in€the€litigation.€€After€the€defendants€filed€a€Petition€to€Rehear,€the€Court€reversedÐ l¼ Ðitself,€reasoning€that€since€the€potential€jurors€were€asked€if€there€were€any€reason€that€they€couldÐ X ¨ Ðnot€give€both€sides€a€fair€trial,€the€jurorððs€silence€about€the€relationship€raised€a€presumption€that€heÐ D!” Ðhad€an€ulterior€motive€for€remaining€silent,€which€stemmed€from€a€partiality€in€favor€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðprosecution.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àLike€the€juror€in€the€òòÔ_ÔToombsÔ_Ô€caseóó,€Ms.€Murphy€was€asked€if€she€could€be€fair€to€both€sides,Ð ô$D # Ðbut€was€not€asked€about€any€relationship€she€might€have€to€any€of€the€parties€involved€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðlitigation.€€In€the€òòÔ_ÔToombsÔ_Ôóó€case,€however,€as€in€the€other€cases€we€discussed€above,€the€informationÐ Ì&"% Ðfrom€which€the€presumption€of€partiality€arose€was€not€disclosed€until€after€the€jury€reached€itsÐ ¸'#& Ðverdict.€€Thus€there€was€no€opportunity€for€the€defense€attorney€to€challenge€the€juror€for€cause,€orÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€ask€questions€that€might€confirm€or€refute€the€presumption€of€bias.Ð )à$( Ðâ  €Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€Ms.€Murphy€voluntarily€revealed€her€connections€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔWisemanÔ_ÔððsÐ ° Ðâ âfamily€after€the€jury€was€sworn,€but€before€trial€and€deliberations,€because€she€ð ðfelt€guiltyðð€about€herÐ œì Ðearlier€silence.€€The€attorneys€and€the€court€had€the€opportunity€to€ask€her€questions€about€the€natureÐ ˆØ Ðand€depth€of€the€relationship,€and€explore€her€reasons€for€not€volunteering€the€information€earlier.Ð tÄ ÐThe€judge€considered€the€motion€to€dismiss€her€for€cause,€but€overruled€it,€because€he€was€satisfiedÐ `° Ðthat€she€would€be€able€to€render€an€impartial€verdict.€€€€€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€present€case€more€closely€resembles€òòÔ_ÔCarneyÔ_Ô€v.€Coca„Cola€Bottling€Works€of€Ô_ÔTullahomaÔ_Ôóó,Ð $ t Ð856€S.W.2d€147€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),€than€it€does€any€of€the€cases€cited€by€the€appellant.€€InÐ  ` ÐòòÔ_ÔCarneyÔ_Ôóó,€this€court€reviewed€a€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€excuse€a€juror€for€cause.€€The€defendant€hadÐ ü L  Ðused€all€its€peremptory€challenges€before€the€juror€revealed€that€her€husband€had€worked€for€theÐ è 8  Ðplaintiffððs€family€for€twenty€years.€€The€defendantððs€attorney€was€allowed€to€question€the€juror€atÐ Ô$  Ðlength,€after€which€the€judge€overruled€the€motion.Ð À  ÐÌà  àWe€ruled€that€whether€friendship€or€personal€acquaintance€with€one€of€the€parties€results€inÐ ˜è  Ðdisqualification€depends€on€the€facts€of€each€case,€and€that€the€ultimate€determination€is€within€theÐ „Ô  Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€856€S.W.2d€at€149.€€We€have€reviewed€the€original€voir€dire€of€Ms.Ð pÀ ÐMurphy€as€well€as€the€questioning€that€occurred€after€she€revealed€her€relationship€with€membersÐ \¬ Ðof€Mr.€Ô_ÔWisemanÔ_Ôððs€family,€and€we€are€convinced€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ H˜ Ðoverruling€the€plaintiffððs€challenge€for€cause.€€€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà@]]"ìàò òc.€€Other€Issuesó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àMrs.€Mallardððs€attorney€filed€a€Motion€for€a€Continuance€two€weeks€before€the€trial€wasÐ ä4 Ðscheduled€to€begin.€€He€argued€that€he€needed€additional€time€to€either€find€a€particular€x„ray€of€Mr.Ð Ð  ÐMallardððs€leg€that€he€claimed€would€support€his€theory€of€negligence,€or€to€explore€the€reason€thatÐ ¼  ÐBaptist€Hospital€said€the€x„ray€had€been€destroyed.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€AppellantÐ ¨ø Ðargues€here€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€Motion€for€Continuance€constitutes€reversible€error.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€the€Motion€for€New€Trial,€however,€and€it€thereforeÐ l¼ Ðmust€be€deemed€to€have€been€waived,€under€Rule€3(e)€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€whichÐ X ¨ Ðreads€in€pertinent€part,€€Ð D!” ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌà ` àIn€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicatedÐ #l! Ðupon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€orÐ $X" Ðrefused,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€other€action€committed€orÐ ô$D # Ðoccurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€isÐ à%0!$ Ðsought,€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€new€trial;€otherwiseÐ Ì&"% Ðsuch€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌà  àBut€even€if€Mrs.€Mallard€had€raised€the€issue€of€the€continuance€in€her€Motion€for€New€Trial,Ð )à$( Ðwe€do€not€believe€she€would€be€entitled€to€prevail€on€appeal.€€The€decision€of€a€trial€court€to€grantÐ |*Ì%) Ðor€deny€a€continuance€is€within€the€courtððs€discretion,€and€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€clearÐ h+¸&* Ðshowing€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.òò€Russell€v.€Ô_ÔCrutchfieldÔ_Ôóó,€988€S.W.2d€168€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).Ð ° ÐIn€view€of€the€interest€of€our€court€system€in€resolving€cases€as€quickly€and€expeditiously€as€possible,Ð œì Ðand€of€the€fact€that€the€appellant€did€not€even€request€copies€of€the€more€than€four„year„old€x„raysÐ ˆØ Ðuntil€a€few€weeks€prior€to€trial,€we€do€not€think€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€refusingÐ tÄ Ðthe€continuance.€€€€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àAppellant€also€argues€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendants,€without€a€renewed€motion€for€directed€verdict€having€been€filed€in€accordance€with€theÐ $ t ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€50.01.€€She€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€action€wasÐ  ` Ðan€attempt€to€prevent€her€from€obtaining€a€new€trial,€in€the€event€that€this€court€or€the€Supreme€CourtÐ ü L  Ðdetermined€that€the€jury€that€was€empaneled€was€constitutionally€defective.€€Since€we€have€not€foundÐ è 8  Ðthe€jury€to€be€defective,€this€argument€has€become€irrelevant,€and€we€need€not€rule€on€it.€€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Circuit€Court€ofÐ „Ô  ÐDavidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€toÐ pÀ Ðthe€appellant,€Myrtle€Mallard€Oldham.Ð \¬ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.