WPCD n+u:NaWc3M[O2`zTJ\t ]=/?"T!Nۦ9W["iFWtie;zR84Ib_{W{ؠc4eFB3Ja:vfksY=KZ}'m%keLdd&-??F-!Ɖ̲sSkC]SۍZ^UV~ԝQiAaf_*Kuؤ<ԺL^>tC^w=pP` Rz b5^޴ Z>y,n :tb0ACM3yh8ShQLbiA'!ܰG89.pԕe~9}*}!*Ua )v{⟤% zq,PJ0Dڍ%g p/D^ 0~F 0x 0k< 0k 0 0~ 0* 0 0 0 0 | 0 01 0C 0V 0n 0= 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0;U B %  0z& 0 1y 0~ b 0=s 0F 0P 1F 0 ! 0O%Ec% 0}e% 0x% 0Z& 0j& 0eQ' 0W' 0W ( 0d( 0j( 0R) 0 * 0* 0g+ 0H, 0<- 0C. 0-]/ 0@0 01 02 03 03 0N4 04 05 0\6 06 1x7/8n?8 048 B 94=9 0Q9^9 0JL::L; 0D= >>NJ? D3@U:@qAU>vBw@BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB AOBCCCC 0D D D/MD B|DV& 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)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d6S/%$(G.2I$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONBUXTONPilcherPilchers  I$  XX     1     ` TheTrialCourtobviouslymeantT.C.A.448408which,as `  pertinenttothisappeal,providesasfollows: ` 448408.DogsnotallowedatlargeException. Itis  X unlawfulforanypersontoallowadogbelongingtoorunderthecontrolofsuchperson,orthatmaybehabituallyfoundonpremisesoccupiedbytheperson,orimmediatelyunderthecontrolofsuchperson,togouponthepremisesofanother,oruponahighwayoruponapublicroadorstreet.(3$ F!   RXUXXXXRXRXUX   Ad FILEDRXUXXR   October2,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.RXRXUXAppellateCourtClerk  D I$  XX     2     ` 11.ThereisnoproofofanybreachofdutybytheDefendant, `  RobertaMoneymaker,noranyviolationofanylaw,orstatute,ifapplicable,bytheDefendantRobertaMoneymaker.GGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular g I$  XX     3     ` Mr.MoneymakertestifiedthataftertheaccidentSpecwenttothe `  sceneonthreeseparateoccasions,butreturnedtohimwhenhecalledherandthatonthelastoccasionheputthedoginthecabofthetractor.<( 9Z &Courier Regular DE ӀNC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!     70XXdd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XTX0XXXrOQ<,(j 8` `@Ea ` ttx$` rߛ@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLEKARENLYNNPILCHERand@*@@*)  ANDERSONCOUNTY x  x HUSBANDKEITHA.PILCHER h   )  03A019710CV00482 @ @*)  PlaintiffsAppellees  @*) 0  @*)@*)   `    v. `  @*)  HON.JAMESB.SCOTT,JR., (    @*)  JUDGE P  @*)@*)A.L.MONEYMAKER,JR.,and@*) H  wifeROBERTAMONEYMAKER@*)   p @*)  DefendantsAppellants@*)  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED   MICHAELW.RITTEROFOAKRIDGEFORAPPELLANTSHAROLDP.COUSINS,JR.,andGEORGEH.BUXTON,III,OFOAKRIDGEFORAPPELLEES@*   `    OPINION #"    `     h      p   Goddard,P.J. 'x'    ` A.L.Moneymaker,Jr.,andhiswifeRobertaMoneymakerappealajudgmentrenderedbytheTrialCourtagainstthemintheamountof$36,000asaresultofpersonalinjuriessustainedbyKarenLynnPilcherandlossofconsortiumofherhusband,KeithA.Pilcher.ThesuitaroseasaresultofacollisionoccurringonSeptember3,1994,about10:00a.m.,betweenafemaledognamedSpec,allegedtobeownedbyMr.andMrs.Moneymaker,andabicyclebeingriddenbyMrs.PilcheronDutchValleyRoadinAndersonCounty.   ` TheMoneymakersraisethefollowingfiveissues: (<2A A. ` WHETHERORNOTTHEREWASANEFFECTIVEWAIVEROFA `  JURYTRIAL?B. ` WASTHEREEVIDENCE,FACTUALLYORLEGALLYTO  X PREDICATELIABILITYONDEFENDANTROBERTAMONEYMAKER?C. ` DIDTHECOURTERRINALLOWINGEVIDENCEOFHABITOR  ROUTINE?D. ` ISTHEREALEGALCAUSEOFACTIONAGAINSTTHE h  DEFENDANTS?E. ` ARETHEFACTSADDUCEDATTRIALCONSISTENTWITHTHE `  JUDGMENT?   ` Thetheoriesofthepartiesmaybesuccinctlystatedasfollows.ThePlaintiffscontendthattheDefendants'dog,asithadonmanypreviousoccasions,ranintoDutchValleyRoadandthenintoabicyclebeingriddenbyMrs.Pilcher,causinghertofallandinjureherself.TheDefendantsinsistthatthedogwasneverintheroadontheoccasionofMrs.Pilcher'saccident,butwasunderatractorattachedtoahayconditionerwhichwasbeingservicedbyMr.Moneymaker.   ` TheTrialCourtinitiallyenteredamemorandumopinionand,thereafter,inresponsetoamotionforastatementoffactsandconclusionsoflaw,issuedasecondmemorandumopinion:@LLFIRSTMEMORANDUMOPINION *!+ @HH'OPINION ` TheCourthastodecidetheliability,ifany,ofadogownerandthefactssurroundingabicycleaccident.Plaintiffsclaimthatthenegligenceofthedogownerwastheproximatecauseoftheaccident.Theownerofthedogallegethatthedogdidnotgoontothehighway(thesiteofthebicycleaccident)untilaftertheaccidenthadoccurredandthedogwasnotallowedtorunatlarge. `  ` Baseduponalloftheproof,theCourtfindsthatthefactualcauseoftheaccidentwasthefailureoftheownertopreventthedogfromrunningatlargeandfailuretopreventthedogfromrunningontothehighway. ` However,thelegalcause,orproximatecause,ofthisaccidentandresultinginjuryistobeshared :81? betweenthepartiesbytheCourtfindingaproportionaldegreesoffaultbetweenthem. ` Thetotaldamagesawardedis$60,000buttheamountofdamageswillbereducedbythatdegreeoffaultassignedtoplaintiff. ` TheCourtfindsthedefendantproximatelyresponsiblefor60percentofthefaultoftheaccidentandtheplaintiffresponsiblefor40percentofthefaultoftheaccident. ` TheclerkwillsendacopyofthisOpiniontotherespectiveattorneys.@SECONDMEMORANDUMOPINION -#& @<< FINDINGSOFFACTAND@!CONCLUSIONSOFLAW@,,"FINDINGSOFFACT 2@),  ` TheCourtfindsthatthePlaintiff,KarenPilcher,waslawfullyridingherbikeonapublicway,towit:DutchValleyRoad,onSeptember3,1994inAndersonCounty,TennesseeneartherealpropertyandhomeoftheDefendants,Mr.&Mrs.A.L.Moneymaker,Jr.Defendantsdogwaswithinsightoftheownerandwithinvoicecommandoftheownerandwasallowedto  :04 runatlargeontothepublichighway.TheCourtfindsthatthedoghadrunontothehighwayonpreviousoccasionsandhadanaffinitytobicycleridersandhadchasedthesameridersonpreviousoccasionsnearoratthesamelocationonthehighwaywheretheaccidentoccurred.TheCourtfindsthattheplaintiffhadactualknowledgeandnoticeofthepropensityofthedogtochasebicyclesandthattheplaintiffsfailuretostopordismountoravertthedogwasafailuretouseduecareforherownsafetyandtherefore,shewasFortyPercent(40%)atfaultintheaccident.TheCourtfindsplaintiffknewthatthedogwasahazardforbikers.TheplaintiffKeithPilcherhasavalidclaimforhislossofconsortium.TheCourtfurtherfindsthatthetotaldamagessufferedbyplaintiffsareSixtyThousandDollars($60,000.00).   p @!CONCLUSIONSOFLAW @  ` TheCourt,inconsiderationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedXYXXTXY#TXYXXXY_#448409M K   1      ׀andtheapplicablecommonlawis  oftheOpinionthatdefendantsdogwasrunningatlargeinviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedXYXXTXY#TXYXXXY#448  409andthattheplaintiffsarebeneficiariesofthestatute.Additionally,theCourtisoftheOpinionthatthedefendantshadpriornoticeoftheirdogspropensitytorunatlargeontheroadwayadjacenttodefendantsrealpropertyandthereforearenegligentatcommonlawfortheinjuriesofplaintiffsinaccordancewithAlexv.Armstrong,385S.W.2D110 %  (Tenn.1964).Therefore,theCourtfindsthedefendants,asownersofthedog,tobeproximatelyresponsibleforSixtyPercent(60%)ofthefaultoftheaccidentandtheresultinginjuriestoplaintiffs.TheCourtholdsplaintiffsproximatelyresponsibleforFortyPercent(40%)ofthefaultoftheaccidentandtheresultinginjuriesforplaintiffs.ThetotaldamageawardedisSixtyThousandDollars($60,000.00),reducedbyFortyPercent(40%)orTwentyFourThousandDollars($24,000.00)forthatdegreeoffaultassignedtoplaintiffs.Therefore,thedamagessufferedby /p&) plaintiffsforwhichdefendants,jointlyandseverally,areresponsibleisThirtySixThousandDollars($36,000.00). ` TheclerkwillsendacopyofthisFindingsofFactandConclusionsofLawtotherespectiveattorneys.   ` TherulerelativetothefirstissueisRule39oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurewhich,aspertinenttothisappeal,providesthefollowing:@HH' RULE39  @ @ TRIALBYJURYORBYTHECOURT ` 39.01ByJury. Whentrialbyjuryhasbeen  demandedasprovidedinRule38,theactionshallbedesignateduponthedocketasajuryaction.Thetrialofallissuessodemandedshallbebyjury,unless(a)thepartiesortheirattorneysofrecord,bywrittenstipulationfiledwiththecourtorbyoralstipulationmadeinopencourtandenteredintherecord,consenttotrialbythecourtsittingwithoutajuryor(b)thecourtuponmotionorofitsowninitiativefindsthatarightoftrialbyjuryofsomeorallofthoseissuesdoesnotexistundertheConstitutionorstatutesofthestateofTennessee.   ` Itappearsthatajurydemandwasmadebothinthecomplaintandintheanswer,andthereisnothinginthetranscriptofthehearingtoshowthatthisdemandwaswaivedbytheparties.However,thereareposttrialaffidavitsfiledbybothcounselforthePilchersandthencounselfortheMoneymakerstothateffect.   ` CounselfortheDefendants,however,insiststhattheruleismandatoryand,absentawrittenstipulationororal  :04 stipulationmadeinopencourt,theDefendantsareentitledtoanewtrial.   ` IncasessuchasthiswhereAFFIDAaffidavitsofcounselfortheparties,byaffidavits,whichwesareapartoftherecordalthoughenteredsubsequenttothetrialofthecase,clearlyshowthejurywaswaived,wearenotpreparedtorequirestrictadherencetotherule.Todoso,inourview,wouldbetoexaltformoversubstance.   ` Astothesecondissue,theproofshowsthatMr.Moneymakertestifiedthatthedogwashisdog,andMrs.MoneymakerthatthedogwasMr.Moneymaker'swhenhewaspresentandherswhenhewasnot.TheproblemwiththisissueisthatareadingoftherecordpersuadesusthatitwasassumedbythepartiesduringthetrialthatitwasbothMr.andMrs.Moneymaker'sdog.Indeed,manyofthequestionsbycounselforthePlaintiffsandtheDefendantsspeakof"theMoneymakers'dog."This,coupledwiththefactthattherewasnoadvocacyofthisdefenseduringtrialnorinclosingargumentbytheDefendants'formercounsel,norevenspecificallyinthemotionfornewtrialfiledbytheirpresentcounsel,P K   2      ׀persuadesusthat 0`'* thiswasnotanissuebelow.  4 +.    ` WithregardtoissueC,thereisconsiderableproofby bicyclistsridingwiththePilchersontheoccasionoftheaccident,aswellasmanyotherbicyclistswhotraversedDutchValleyRoadbothbeforeandaftertheaccident,thatthedoginquestionrepeatedlychasedbicyclesupontheroadway.   ` TheRuleofEvidencerelieduponbytheDefendantsisRule406,whichprovidesthefollowing: ` Rule406.Habit;routinepractice. 󀄄(a) @ Evidenceofthehabitofaperson,ananimal,oroftheroutinepracticeofanorganization,whethercorroboratedornotandregardlessofthepresenceofeyewitnesses,isrelevanttoprovethattheconductoftheperson,animal,ororganizationonaparticularoccasionwasinconformitywiththehabitorroutinepractice. ` (b)Ahabitisaregularresponsetoarepeatedspecificsituation.Aroutinepracticeisaregularcourseofconductofanorganization.   ` OurunderstandingoftheTrialJudge'srulingontheadmissibilityoftheevidenceregardingthedog'sfrequentforaysontoDutchValleyRoad,isthathewasadmittingtheevidenceforthepurposeofshowingtheknowledgeoftheDefendantsregardingthedog'sactivitiesratherthantoprovethatthedogactedinthismanneronthisoccasion.   ` Inconclusion,wepointoutthattheevidencethatitwastheMoneymakers'dogwhichcausedtheaccidentiswellnighconclusive. 09/3 М   ` WesaythisbecauseofthefollowingtestimonyoftheinvestigatingofficerwhenquestioningMr.Moneymakerregardingtheaccident:   ` WesaythisbecauseofthefollowingtestimonyoftheinvestigatingofficerwhenrelatinghisquestioningofMr.Moneymakerregardingtheaccident:      ` Q DidyouquestionMr.Moneymakeraboutthe  accident? ` A. Yes,sir. P   ` Q. Whatdidhetellyou? 0   ` A. ThatthedogthatwasinthetractorS K   3      ׀wasthe p dogthattheyweretalkingabout,andthatitwashisdog,andthatthedoghadrunupintotheroadwhenthebicycleriderscameby.   ` Attrial,however,andduringhisdiscoverydepositionMr.Moneymakertestifiedthatthedogwasunderhistractorontheoccasionoftheaccident.ItthusappearsclearthattheTrialCourtdiscreditedhistestimonyandaccreditedthatoftheotherwitnessesandtheinvestigatingofficer.   ` AstoissuesDandE,ourreviewoftherecordpersuadesusthattheTrialCourtshouldbeaffirmedunderRule10(a)ofthisCourt.   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofthejudgmentandcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.andMrs.Moneymakerandtheirsurety. `6-0 ЇXYXXTXY   `     h   _______________________________ `     `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.̜#TXYXXXY;#̜  ` Pilcher   ` Wesaythisbecauseofthetestimonyofthe   investigatingofficerwhenrelatinghisquestioningofMr.Moneymakerregardingtheaccident: