ÿWPCR Z@i­"’· fJà šÏ?Pyø!¶…FfÅnæ4±nõsý*i`ë>áçùÓ?mÎä/jÆ gÑ]+ùÂÿØ,Mä¾+¿lÆb”‡GÁË—C£ë„¿44 ÷§‚“Xfe¸F÷%aD”îÚYÙÿªåyÿä&Ž×ý3Û}ÖHl¡žAψyGµËÄœíw¯¿>^WÊ`˜lÜ]|6"_ ÏuiIôTö ”oû†¯³Œ0y8­õJóm ôá-A>jWդÚ ÃÔ†„À /â:ðk0ü£’ég´ÎÕƒÝo8Çkà Ý+b/æÁƒ÷A#na áTS®æwÂ3(ãâ™S…ìϨ ‹Ôܯ4wÙ¤Õ+î^[ ¹ ‚® †C`'yŽN¿ÖEØqETÒŠ!ÜØ8”±°ü¡Žh pš\6Ýõx¨(à–§š=ãﱬÿ~3«P¦yˆØB˜gú¶DóÉš ÝUu‡¯v »œö[' …pbÏÓ»Ÿ—xëZï,ÿœ…2¯­Xg€¬Âä|D'§œ¼$¡Ä†öÕä#5T¿y›~ëž*_²‘GJÛ ÞR|™xÇMó0’µ@¨T2ú3_c3GtyûÚò*þe¬Õb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;==EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0ëOOOO B:: 0¤W D3û D-. 0K[[ AS¦Æù 0¤¿ 0Dc A«§˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 »¦kI+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+ê:i¢Ø+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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó - ù-(|G2¬¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DD»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X24X»»Ô d(|3ù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DD»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DD»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ¼·»» »ÔÑ8€-´XXdê»»d 8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ZZìàAugust€30,€2001€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡ X[ÃX» ¼·ÔÌò òÔ#† ¼·»X X[á#ÔÓ  ÓMARTHA€McELROY€v.€NORMA€SHARP€and€VICTORIA€L.€SHARPòòóóÔ‡ X[ÃX» ¼·Ôó óÐ Ò" ÐÓçÓÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@Ö Ö ìàNo.€I„763„99€€€€€€Hon.€Dale€C.€Workman,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ ¾  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€OCTOBER€8,€2001Ð – æ  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2000„02708„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óÌÌThe€Trial€Court€allocated€fault€between€vehicle€operators€involved€in€the€accident.€€DefendantsÐ <Œ Ðappeal€the€allocation.€€We€affirm.Ð (x ÐÔ#† ¼·»X X[Ã,#ÔÔ‡ X[ÃX» ¼·ÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#† ¼·»à X[Ãm#ÔÔ‡ X[ÃX. ¼·Ô,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Houston€M.€Goddard,Ô#† ¼·»à X[Ã3#ÔÔ‡ X[ÃX. ¼·ÔÐ Ø( ÐP.J.,óó€andòò€D.€Michael€Swiney,Ô#† ¼·»à X[ÃÁ#ÔÔ‡ X[ÃX. ¼·Ô€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJerry€M.€Martin,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellants.Ð œì ÐÌB.€Chase€Kibler,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð tÄ ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#† ¼·»X X[Ã:#ÔÔ‡ X[ÃX» ¼·ÔˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€action€arising€from€a€motor€vehicle€accident,€the€only€issue€raised€on€appealÐ !`  Ðis€whether€the€Trial€Judge€properly€allocated€the€percentage€of€fault€to€the€respective€motor€vehicleÐ ü!L! Ðoperators.Ð è"8" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€were€involved€in€a€motor€vehicle€accident€on€January€31,€1998.€€PlaintiffÐ À$ $ Ðwas€backing€out€of€a€private€driveway€onto€a€two€lane€main€road,€intending€to€travel€in€a€westboundÐ ¬%ü % Ðdirection.€€She€stopped€and€looked€in€both€directions€before€backing€out,€but€did€not€see€defendantsððÐ ˜&è!& Ðvehicle€approaching€from€the€east.€€Plaintiffððs€vision€toward€the€east€was€obstructed€by€a€large€bush.€Ð „'Ô"' ÐDefendant€was€traveling€eastbound€on€the€main€road€at€45€miles€per€hour,€where€the€speed€limit€wasÐ p(À#( Ð40€miles€per€hour.€€Sharp€was€looking€down€to€insert€a€cassette€into€a€tape€player€and€did€not€seeÐ \)¬$) Ðplaintiffððs€vehicle€before€impact.€€She€stated€to€the€investigating€officers€that€she€was€not€payingÐ H*˜%* Ðattention€when€the€impact€occurred.€€She€did€not€attempt€to€swerve€or€brake€prior€to€the€impact,€andÐ 4+„&+ Ðneither€driverððs€view€of€the€other€was€obstructed.Ð  ,p', ÐÐ  -\(-ý Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiff€sued€for€her€damages€and€defendant€counter„claimed€for€her€damages.€€TheÐ ° ÐCircuit€Court€determined€that€plaintiff€was€45%€at€fault€and€defendants€were€55%€at€fault€for€theÐ œì Ðaccident,€and€judgment€was€entered€for€plaintiff€in€accordance€with€the€formula€for€recovery€underÐ ˆØ Ðthe€comparative€negligence€doctrine.€€Defendants€have€appealed.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€scope€of€our€review€in€non„jury€cases€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€ofÐ L œ Ðcorrectness€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòCrossÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€City€of€Memphisóó,€20€S.W.3d€642,€644€(Tenn.€2000);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Generally,€theÐ $ t Ðdetermination€of€proximate€causation€is€a€question€of€fact.€€However,€the€issue€may€be€determinedÐ  ` Ðby€the€court€as€a€matter€of€law,€in€situations€ð ðwhere€the€facts€are€established€by€evidence€free€fromÐ ü L  Ðconflict,€and€the€inference€from€the€facts€is€so€certain€that€all€reasonable€men,€in€the€exercise€of€freeÐ è 8  Ðand€impartial€judgment,€must€agree€upon€it.ðð€€òòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð Ô$  ÐBut€cases€are€rare€where€comparative€negligence€is€reviewed€as€a€matter€of€law.€€57B€òòAm.Jur.2dÐ À  ÐNegligenceóó€ðð1282€(1989).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àEvidence€weighing€against€the€defendant€in€this€case€was€the€failure€of€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðoperator€to€keep€a€proper€lookout€ahead€and€to€see€what€was€to€be€seen€and€take€proper€action.€Ð pÀ ÐòòHogan€v.€Reeseóó,€1998€WL€430627,€Tenn.€Ct.€App.€No.€01„A„01„9801„CV„00023,€July€31,€1998.€Ð \¬ ÐMoreover,€the€consequences€of€a€driverððs€momentary€diverting€attention€from€the€road€has€been€heldÐ H˜ Ðto€be€a€factor€of€proximate€causation.€€òòHadley€v.€Morrisóó,€249€S.W.2d€295,€298€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 4„ Ð1951).Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€allocation€of€fault,€the€òòEatonóó€court€outlined€general€principles€to€guide€juries€andÐ øH Ðtrial€courts:Ð ä4 ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à[T]he€percentage€of€fault€assigned€to€each€party€should€be€dependent€upon€all€theÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances€of€the€case,€including€such€factors€as:€(1)€the€relative€closeness€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðcausal€relationship€between€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€the€injury€to€theÐ ”ä Ðplaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€conduct€in€confronting€a€risk,€such€asÐ €Ð Ðwhether€the€party€knew€of€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€the€extent€toÐ l¼ Ðwhich€the€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existing€opportunity€to€avoid€theÐ X ¨ Ðinjury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€a€hastyÐ D!” Ðdecision;€(5)€the€significance€of€what€the€party€was€attempting€to€accomplish€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðconduct,€such€as€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)€the€partyððs€particularÐ #l! Ðcapacities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education€and€so€forth.Ð$X"` (#` (# ÐÌòòEatonóó,€at€892€S.W.2d€at€592.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€fact€that€one€driver€has€the€right„of„way€is€not,€by€itself,€sufficient€to€groundÐ ¸'#& Ðliability€of€the€non„yielding€driver€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Right„of„way€is€a€factor,€but€not€the€soleÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdeterminative€issue€of€proximate€cause.€€Each€driver€has€a€duty€to€exercise€due€care€in€the€operationÐ )à$( Ðof€their€vehicle,€and€the€negligence€of€both€drivers€may€combine€together€to€proximately€cause€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðaccident.€€òòNash„Wilson€Funeral€Home,€Inc.,€v.€Greer,óó€417€S.W.2d€562€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1966).€Ð h+¸&* ÐExercise€of€due€care€requires€a€driver€to€keep€a€reasonably€careful€lookout,€so€as€to€avoid€collisionÐ ° Ðwith€persons€and€other€vehicles:Ð œì ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àIf€the€party€coming€out€of€the€driveway€is€violating€the€law,€and€the€party€driving€theÐ tÄ Ðautomobile€along€the€highway€is€likewise€violating€the€law,€by€not€keeping€a€lookoutÐ `° Ðahead,€or€by€not€driving€his€car€in€a€careful€manner,€.€.€.€and€both€violations€occur€atÐ L œ Ðthe€time€of€the€injury,€this€constitutes€a€jury€question,€and€not€one€in€which€the€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðshould€direct€a€verdict,€because€even€though€both€parties€be€violating€the€law,€it€isÐ $ t Ðstill€a€question€for€the€jury€to€determine€what€the€proximate€cause€of€the€collisionÐ  ` Ðresulting€in€the€injury€was,€and€the€violation€of€which€one€constituted€the€proximateÐ ü L  Ðcause,€.€.€.Ðè 8 ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.Ð À  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€driver€of€a€motor€vehicle€has€the€duty€to€keep€a€proper€lookout€and€watch€whereÐ ˜è  Ðhe€is€driving,€even€though€he€is€rightfully€on€the€highway€and€has€the€right€of€way;€Ð „Ô  Ðhe€is€bound€to€take€notice€of€the€road,€to€observe€conditions€along€the€way,€and€toÐ pÀ Ðknow€what€is€in€front€of€him€for€a€reasonable€distance.€€He€must€look€not€onlyÐ \¬ Ðstraight€ahead,€but€laterally,€to€discover€whether€there€is€danger€of€collision€with€theÐ H˜ Ðside€of€his€car.€€Am.Jur.€5A€Section€265.Ð4„` (#` (# ÐÌòòLowe€v.€Irvinóó,€373€S.W.2d€623,€629,€632€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1963).€€Similarly,€failing€to€keep€a€properÐ  \ Ðlookout€and€to€take€action€to€avoid€the€consequences€of€another€driverððs€negligence,€has€been€heldÐ øH Ðto€be€a€failure€to€exercise€due€care.€òò€See€Hale€v.€Rayburnóó,€264€S.W.2d€230€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1953).€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trier€of€fact€has€considerable€latitude€in€the€allocation€of€the€percentage€of€faultÐ ¼  Ðin€negligence€cases.€€òòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995);€òòalso€see€GriggsÐ ¨ø Ðv.€Mixonóó,€1996€WL€44104,€No.€02A01„9504„CV„00087€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€6,€1996).€€In€theÐ ”ä Ðinstant€case€the€Judge,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€onerated€defendant€with€55%€of€the€fault€for€the€accident.€Ð €Ð ÐDefendantððs€attention€was€diverted€by€her€attempt€to€insert€a€cassette€tape.€€She€admitted€to€theÐ l¼ Ðofficer€that€she€wasnððt€paying€attention.€€She€made€no€attempt€to€brake€or€swerve€to€avoid€McElroyððsÐ X ¨ Ðvehicle.€€Thus,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€that€despite€plaintiffððsÐ D!” Ðnegligence€in€failing€to€yield€to€an€oncoming€driver,€defendantsðð€negligence€was€the€greater€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðtwo.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€allocation€of€fault.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€affirm€the€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand,€with€the€cost€of€the€appealÐ ô$D # Ðassessed€to€the€defendants,€Norma€and€Victoria€L.€Sharp.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÌÔ#† ¼·»X X[ÃW#ÔÔ‡ X[ÃX» ¼·ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.óó