WPC-K  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0@9 D39 0J9w@E: 0T: 0^: 0h7; 0r; 0|< 0< 0= 1u= 0d>U6|>B)>DC> AM?U*k??@v~7BvC AOII 0DJ D/J BKV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   df|$$(G.2i$ FT!   5XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKBERKESUMMITTRhinegoldErlangerShoneyPhillipsesRinggoldQuayle("$    GGGG'dxd2 0Indent123  DDDVӀ2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  RWXYZ[\] ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dgggg7Border 1ddOhC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#f  jj   YYY FILEDjX July30,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.jAppellateCourtClerk   F!#d#f  I$f         Mr.Phillips'bloodalcohollevelwasestimatedtobe.07atthetimeoftheaccidentwhich,ofcourse,wouldraisenopresumptionofimpairmentunderT.C.A.5510408hadhebeendrivinganautomobile.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva OC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . f    78XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  g u` RikhA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@ ATKNOXVILLE  JANETPHILLIPS,Individually@ @ ) HAMILTONCOUNTY andinbehalfoftheEstate@ ) 03A019709CV00428ofJAMESPHILLIPS   @ )@ ) PlaintiffAppellee@ )   @ )  v.@ ) HON.ROBERTM.SUMMITT,@ ) @  JUDGEWATKINSMOTORLINES,INC.,and@ )MICHAELJ.BARTHOLOMEW@ ) @ ) AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSED DefendantsAppellants@ ) INPART;andREMANDEDDAVIDL.FRANKLINOFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLANTSMARVINBERKEOFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  JanetPhillips,individuallyandonbehalfoftheestateofherhusband,JamesPhillips,suesWatkinsMotorLines,Inc.,anditsemployee,MichaelJ.Bartholomew,forinjuriesreceivedbyherandthedeathofherhusbandasaresultofbeingstruckbyanautomobilebeingoperatedbyMichaelJ.BartholomewwhilecrossingRinggoldRoadinChattanooga.  AstoMrs.Phillips'claimthejuryfoundbothsheandMr.Bartholomewwere50percentatfault.AstoMr.Phillips'claimthejuryfoundMr.Phillipswas49percentatfaultandMr.Bartholomew51percent.Itfurtherawardeddamagesintheamountof$300,000forMr.Phillips'death.TheTrialJudge,inaccordancewiththeTennesseeRuleofComparativeNegligence,dismissedMrs.Phillips'claim,adeterminationwhichshehasnotappealed,andreducedthejuryverdictastotheestateto$153,000.  Onposttrialmotionhealsoordereddiscretionarycostsof$1523incidenttothetakingofadoctor'sdepositionrelativetothereasonablenessofahospitalbill,and$1007.90incidenttoavideotapedepositionofapoliceofficerrelativetohisaccidentreport.  TheDefendants'appealraisestwoissues:    @ ISSUEI  DidthetrialcourterrinoverrulingDefendant'sMotiontoEnterJudgmentinAccordanceWithMotionForDirectedVerdictand/orForANewTrial?@  ISSUEII  DidthetrialcourterrinorderingdefendantstopayforthecostsincurredbyplaintiffsinprovingthebillofErlangerHospital,andinprovingcertainmeasurementsthatwerecontainedonthepolicereport?      UponviewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothePlaintiffs,whichwemustdowhenconsideringajuryverdictapprovedbytheTrialCourt,wefindthefactsnecessarytodispositionofthisappealtobeasfollows.  Onthedateoftheaccident,October13,1992,Mr.Phillipswas68yearsofageandMrs.Phillips59.Mr.PhillipswastotallydeafinhisrightearandMrs.Phillips'abilitytowalkwasimpairedbecauseofrecentsurgerytoherleftknee.Shenormallywalkedwithacane.However,ontheoccasionoftheaccidentsheoptednottousethecanebecauseshewouldbeabletoholdontoherhusbandforsupport.  TheylefttheirhomeinChippewaLake,Michigan,andwereontheirwaytotheirwinterhomeinFlorida.Afterdrivingsome13hoursapproximatelyhalfwaytheystoppedforthenightinChattanooga,andafterwatchingtheVicePresidentialdebatebetweenVicePresidentQuayleandSenatorGore,whileconsumingaquantityofalcohol, l   ׀decidedabout8:30p.m.togotoaShoney'sRestaurantfortheireveningmeal.  TherestaurantwaslocatedonthenorthsideofRinggoldRoadandthemotelwherethePhillipseswerestayingonthesouthside.RinggoldRoadisaheavilytraveledfourlanethoroughfareandalsohasaturninglanebetweentheeastandwestboundlanes,aswellaswhatisknownasastoragelaneadjoiningthewesttwolanesonthenorthandtheeasttwolanesonthesouth.Fromcurbtocurbtheroadwayis76feetinwidth.  NotwithstandingthefactthatacrosswalkcontrolledbyatrafficlightwasavailableforcrossingRinggoldRoad,some260feettothewest,thePhillipseschosetocrossRinggoldRoadbetweenintersections.Afteralmost,ifnotentirely,crossingthefourlanesofRinggoldRoadtheywerestruckbytherightfrontcornerofthevehiclebeingdrivenbyMr.Bartholomew,whowasintheoutsidewestboundlaneandtravelingatapproximately30to35milesperhour,whichwaswithinthe40milepostedspeedlimit.Thepointofimpactwasatthesouthedgeofthestoragelaneorwithinthatlane.  Mrs.PhillipsneversawtheBartholomewvehicleand,apparently,neitherdidMr.Phillips,althoughtherewasnothingtoobstructhisvisionandnothingtoobstructhervisionexcept,perhaps,Mr.Phillips,whowaswalkingbesidehertoherrightandwasnearestthewestboundtraffic.  AlthoughMr.Bartholomew'svisionwaslikewiseunobstructed,heneversawthePhillipsesbeforeimpact.  Clearly,allthoseinvolvedwereguiltyofsomenegligence,andgivenMr.Phillips'hearingimpairmentwecannotsaythattheevidencedoesnotsupporttheallocationoffaultmadebythejury.  WerecognizethatMrs.Phillips,whowastoMr.Phillips'left,wasnotinasgoodapositiontoseetheoncomingvehicleaswashe,andanargumentmaybemadethathisfaultshouldequalorexceedthatofhers.However,wequestionwhethertheallocationoffaultastoMrs.Phillipsisproperlybeforeusasnoappealwasprosecutedastoher,butevenifshehadperfectedanappealthejurymightwellfindthatMrs.Phillips'negligenceexceededthatofherhusbandbecauseherhearingwasnotimpaired.  Insummary,wearedisinclinedtosecondguessajurywhendealingwithatwopercentdifferenceastoallocationoffault.  Astoissuetwo,thePlaintiffaskedtheDefendantstoadmitthereasonablenessandthenecessityofanErlangerHospitalbillintheamountof$20,117.98,whichwaschargedbythehospitalforthethreehoursand49minutesthathewastreatedtherebeforehisdeath.TheyalsoaskedtheDefendantstoadmittheaccuracyofcertaininformationonapolicereportmadebyanofficerwhoinvestigatedtheaccident.  TheauthorityandproprietyforadjudgingdiscretionarycostsuponapartiesfailuretoadmitiscontrolledbyRule37.03oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure:      37.03.ExpensesonFailuretoAdmit. IfapartyfailstoadmitthegenuinenessofanydocumentorthetruthofanymatterasrequestedunderRule36,andifthepartyrequestingtheadmissionsthereafterprovesthegenuinenessofthedocumentorthetruthofthematter,therequestingpartymayapplytothecourtforanorderrequiringtheotherpartytopaytherequestingpartythereasonableexpensesincurredinmakingthatproof,includingreasonableattorney'sfees.Thecourtshallmaketheorderunlessitfindsthat(1)therequestwasheldobjectionablepursuanttoRule36.01,or(2)theadmissionsoughtwasofnosubstantialimportance,or(3)thepartyfailingtoadmithadreasonablegroundtobelievethathemightprevailonthematter,or(4)therewasothergoodreasonforthefailuretoadmit.      Inthepresentcase,theErlangerHospitalbill,asalreadynoted,totaled$20,117.98forservicesrenderedMr.Phillipsduringthethreehoursand49minuteshewasapatientinthehospitalbeforehisdemise.  Webelievethat,althoughthehospitalbillwasadmittedintoevidence,theamountchargedfortheperiodinvolvedwassufficienttojustifytheDefendants'denial,andthattheycomewithintheSubsection4exceptiontotheRule.  Moreover,itappearsfromthetestimonyofthedoctorwhoattemptedtojustifythebillthathe,assetoutinthebriefoftheDefendants,"didnotknowwhetherornotthechargesforthetraumaunitandtheoperatingroomwerefortheentiredayorjusttheperiodoftimethatMr.Phillipswastreated,norwasheabletotestifyconcerningthe'supplies'thatwerechargedfor."  Astothedenialoftheaccuracyofthepolicereport,itisevidentandwasconfirmedbytheofficerpreparingitthathemistakenlydesignatednorthassouthandsouthasnorth.Thisalone,webelieve,wassufficienttoraiseaquestionincounsel'smindastotheaccuracyoftheothermattersshownonthereport.Weconcludethatastothepolicereport,subsection4likewiseappliesandcounselwasjustifiedintheirdenyingitsaccuracy.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentofthejuryapprovedbytheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthatoftheTrialJudgeawardingdiscretionarycostsisreversed.Thecauseisremandedforcollectionofthejudgmentandcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainsttheDefendantsandtheirsurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜ǛCONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.̜