ÿWPCö Ëoû]ø5P¾ §Á¸Æ. 2rÎ1¨úBíüªV4?@Ö"ôú=ùˆ*℘2šÓòfïB.¢?m¼Bòùݶðf±kE:9=N­¸cÚ æz™CÛ ±6¤l‡Wk0\@ýœà£¶iAgã¾)7ëÎ8"ò,fR“&`V ß”]‡ + á³5€|›­B §Åz>ƒ«<•.AírD²ú æ·®8r§È †ð¨·¿øÈÚ¬0øïµ¿MžtyJÔÁà¤õ–D®ÿe{C‘щ0 n¦U6 >©ÝtÝÅ ‘XŠ•lºÖ=dpA¶„-ßåÛ­§9Áu÷·qØoàiráqY¨¬ç–QÝÇêz @>Óžðšpwà¡a’r “†Ì¨ Qý{ÓDcSmŸOoŽü„+t†”*ý4@_Û8®&µ‹ 5x>Ò‰‚«7áMÏ×¼}ír³†9ã48’QÇøŒW'E¦ˆeÒà‡>YCD¸ ×¾ßд®ËÆþ}¾ üЛÒ=¤¿C†Y/¹(cõ^Tså÷…EL['ñw~»?;¨†Z£áºÑÀ›G²¡ARö_Ûì¼­K}ŒwZÐrUyÞ’œrPûºÅ’jX\xÚÃvñòb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U>‘ ÆÏ Æ• Æ[ Æ!!NçççEéééééééééééééééééééééééébëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëë 0ëóóóó BÞÞ 0¤û D3Ÿ D-Ò 0Kÿÿ ASJÆ 0¤c 0D A«K˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»@”œ+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+.bk4© ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ &Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Èc$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ru»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷ ò»»Ô d(|3Gƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ru»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ru»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ru»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ru»»»ÔÑ8€‰XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îO¤î»¼RuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ru»îîO¤ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€September€7,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X‰X»¼RuÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ru»XX‰÷#ÔÔ_ÔCHRISTELLÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSTAGGSÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€WILLIAM€E.€SELLS,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X‰X»¼RuÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Putnam€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„329€€€€€€John€Ô_ÔTurnbullÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„03095„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ԀР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X‰XXX‰ÔThis€case€involves€a€claim€of€negligent€misrepresentation€in€the€sale€of€a€home.€€The€trial€court€foundÐ xÈ  Ðthat€Defendantsðð€statements€and€actions€constituted€negligent€misrepresentation€of€the€condition€ofÐ d´ Ðthe€property€resulting€in€$25,000.00€in€damages€to€Plaintiff.€€However,€the€trial€court€also€found,Ð P  Ðapplying€principles€of€comparative€fault,€that€Defendants€were€60%€at€fault€and€Plaintiff€was€40%Ð <Œ Ðat€fault.€€A€judgment€of€$15,000€was,€thus,€assessed€against€Defendants.€€Defendants€appeal€theÐ (x Ðcourtððs€finding€of€negligent€misrepresentations,€as€well€as€the€amount€of€damages€determined€by€theÐ d Ðcourt€to€be€suffered€by€Plaintiff.€€We€affirm.Ô#†X‰XX X‰%#ÔÔ#†¼Ru»XX‰µ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼RuÔÐ P ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ru»àX‰Œ#ÔÔ‡X‰X.¼RuÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòóóPòòATRICIAóó€J.€CòòOTTRELLóó,€J.,€andÐ ° ÐòòóóFòòRANKóó€G.€CòòLEMENTóó,€JòòRóó.,€SòòPóó.€J.,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌÔ_ÔOnnieÔ_Ô€L.€Ô_ÔWinebargerÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔByrdstownÔ_Ô,€TennesseeÔ#†¼Ru»XX‰m #ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼RuÔ,€for€the€appellants,€William€Sells€and€wife,€Betty€JeanÐ tÄ ÐSells.Ð `° ÐÌ€Daryl€A.€Ô_ÔColsonÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLivingstonÔ_ÔÔ#†¼Ru»XX‰ #ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼RuÔ,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔChristellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔStaggsÔ_Ô.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ> ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ru»XX‰" #ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼RuÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ru»XX‰ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X‰X»¼RuÔÔ‡ X‰XXX‰Ôà  àIn€1987,€Defendants/Appellants,€William€E.€and€Betty€Jean€Sells,€purchased€a€home€in€whichÐ è$8 $ Ðtheir€daughter€lived€until€1995,€when€they€placed€this€house€up€for€sale.€€Defendants€never€actuallyÐ Ô%$!% Ðlived€in€the€home,€but€lived€close€by€and€visited€their€daughter€regularly.€€Plaintiff/Appellee,Ð À&"& ÐÔ_ÔChristellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔStaggsÔ_Ô,€viewed€the€home€on€three€occasions€and€negotiated€a€purchase€price€for€the€houseÐ ¬'ü"' Ðof€$71,000.00.€€A€contract€was€signed€with€Defendants€to€purchase€the€house€for€that€amount.€€ThisÐ ˜(è#( Ðcontract€also€provided€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hatÔ_Ô€[the]€Property€has€not€been€damaged€or€affected€by€flood€or€storm€run„Ð „)Ô$) Ðoff€and€that€[the]€Property€does€/€does€not€require€flood€insurance.ðð€€The€box€next€to€the€phrase€ð ðdoesÐ p*À%* Ðnotðð€in€this€sentence€was€checked.€€No€other€explanation€was€provided€by€Defendants.€€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ýà Ðà  àAlthough€Defendants€accepted€the€offer,€they€never€saw€the€contract€and€authorized€theirÐ ° Ðâ âagent€to€sign€it€for€them.€Their€agent€never€read€the€terms€of€the€contract€to€them€and€did€not€inquireÐ œì Ðregarding€any€flooding€which€might€have€occurred€on€the€property.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€inspected€the€property€herself.€€She€also€had€the€property€appraised€and€inspectedÐ `° Ðby€professionals.€€The€appraisal€came€in€at€$71,000.00;€however,€€the€appraiser€noted€that€theÐ L œ Ðproperty€was€in€a€low€lying€area€and€could€be€subject€to€minor€flooding.€€He€recommended€havingÐ 8 ˆ Ða€surveyor€check€for€flooding,€but€issued€the€appraisal,€which€was€accepted€by€the€bank,€withoutÐ $ t Ðobtaining€a€survey€on€the€assumption€that€the€property€did€not€flood.€€A€flood€certification€wasÐ  ` Ðobtained€that€established€that€the€property,€like€the€majority€of€property€in€Putnam€County,€was€inÐ ü L  Ðflood€zone€C.€€Flood€insurance€could€be€purchased€but€was€not€required.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAt€the€closing,€Plaintiff€inquired€of€her€agent€what€ððflood€zone€Cðð€was.€€She€was€told€by€herÐ À  Ðagent€that€ð ðit€was€a€flood€zone,€but€it€is€a€low€flood€zone,€it€wasnððt€supposed€to€flood.ðð€€She€neverÐ ¬ü  Ðask€Defendants€about€any€flooding,€and€Defendants,€who€were€present€at€the€closing,€neverÐ ˜è  Ðmentioned€any€flooding€to€her.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOver€the€next€few€years,€water€came€up€flooding€the€yard€around€15€times.€€In€some€casesÐ \¬ Ðthe€flooding€was€so€severe€that€the€house€was€completely€surrounded€by€water€rendering€it€a€virtualÐ H˜ Ðisland.€€However,€water€has€never€come€into€the€house€and€has€not€yet€caused€any€structural€damageÐ 4„ Ðto€the€dwelling.€€Testimony€showed€that€no€residents€have€had€to€spend€significant€time€away€fromÐ  p Ðthe€house€since€the€water€usually€recedes€quickly,€allowing€access€to€the€house€within€a€few€hoursÐ  \ Ðand€completely€clearing€the€property€within€a€day€or€two.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€his€findings€of€fact,€the€judge€determined€that€the€paragraph€regarding€storm€run„off€andÐ Ð  Ðflood€insurance€was€marked€at€the€time€the€contract€was€signed€and€held€that,€when€DefendantððsÐ ¼  Ðagent€signed€this€contract,€a€guarantee€was€made€by€Defendants€in€that€agreement.€€Said€the€court:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àI€donððt€think€thereððs€an€intentional€misrepresentation€here.€€I€donððt€think€that€theÐ €Ð Ðproof€rises€to€that€level.€€But€I€think€it€does€rise€to€the€level€of€recklessness€when€thatÐ l¼ Ðprovision€was€in€the€contract€when€he€and€Mrs.€Sells€had€authorized€the€agent€to€signÐ X ¨ Ðthe€contract€for€them,€.€.€.€youððre€guaranteeing€that€thereððs€no€water€problem€on€thisÐ D!” Ðproperty.€€Putting€that€kind€of€authority€in€the€hands€of€the€agent€without€carefullyÐ 0"€  Ðlooking€at€the€contract€itself,€does€amount€to€recklessness[,]€and€Iððm€satisfied€thatÐ #l! Ðthere€was€a€misrepresentation.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€The€Court€finds€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Sells,€not€intentionally,€but€recklesslyÐ ¸'#& Ðthrough€their€agent,€misrepresented€that€this€property€did€not€ð!ð€was€not€affected€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðflood€or€storm€runoff.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà ` àI€find€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€representation€was€not€true.€€I€find€that€the€defendants€madeÐ ° Ðâ âthat€representation€in€this€contract€without€exercising€reasonable€care.€.€.€.€And€thatÐ œì Ðthis€did€in€fact€have€the€affect€(sic)€of€causing€Mrs.€Ô_ÔStaggsÔ_Ô€to€rely€on€it.€€ÐˆØÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[Ô_ÔF]orÔ_Ô€the€purpose€of€this€lawsuit€the€comparison€of€fault€is€appropriate.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€find€that€the€defendants€were€60€percent€at€fault,€I€find€that€the€plaintiff€wasÐ  ` Ð40€percent€at€fault.€€I€find€that€the€damages€were€suffered€in€this€matter€when€youÐ ü L  Ðconsider€all€the€proof,€including€the€photographs,€the€appraisals€and€the€testimony€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€plaintiff€was€in€the€amount€of€$25,000.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€find€that€because€of€the€fault€of€Mrs.€Ô_ÔStaggsÔ_Ô€and€her€40€percent€of€the€faultÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€judgment€must€be€reduced€to€$15,000.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àUpon€the€request€of€Plaintiffððs€counsel,€the€court€also€made€the€following€findings€regardingÐ pÀ Ðwitness€credibility:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€find€that€the€witnesses€who€testified€with€reference€to€the€nature€of€theÐ 4„ Ðflooding€prior€to€1995,€who€were€most€persuasive€to€the€Court€were€thoseÐ  p Ðindependent€witnesses.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔMableÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€Blue€who€have€[no]€dog€in€this€hunt,Ð  \ Ðwho€lived€close€in€proximity€and€who€saw€how€high€the€water€got.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àDefendants€essentially€presented€three€issues€for€review:€(1)€how€should€the€principles€ofÐ Ð  Ðcomparative€fault€be€applied€to€negligent€misrepresentation;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ ¼  Ðagainst€the€judgeððs€finding€of€negligent€misrepresentation;€and€(3)€whether€the€evidence€pre„Ð ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔponderatesÔ_Ô€against€the€amount€of€damages€found€to€be€suffered€by€Plaintiff.€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àHere,€we€are€reviewing€both€the€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€application€of€law,€thus€twoÐ l¼ Ðdifferent€standards€of€review€are€applicable.€€€€Under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(d),Ð X ¨ Ðð ðreview€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civil€actions€shall€be€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderanceÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€òòFoster€v.€Ô_ÔBueÔ_Ôóó,€749€S.W.2d€736,€741€(Tenn.€1998).€€However,€ð ðthisÐ #l! Ðpresumption€does€not€exist€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€legal€determination€or€when€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourtððs€conclusions€are€based€on€Ô_ÔuncontrovertedÔ_Ô€facts.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔNCNBÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bank€of€NC€v.€Ô_ÔThrailkillÔ_Ôóó,€856Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  ÓI.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ  Óà  àThe€trial€judge€found€that€Defendants€negligently€represented€in€the€contract€that€the€propertyÐ )à$( Ðwas€not€affected€by€flood€or€storm€runoff€and€that€this€representation€was€false.€€Tennessee€Ð |*Ì%) Ðrecognizes€the€tort€of€negligent€misrepresentation,€òòÔ_ÔTarteraÔ_Ôóó,€453€S.W.2d€at€784,€the€law€of€which€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðset€out€in€the€American€law€Institute,€Restatement€of€Torts€(Second),€section€552,€Tentative€DraftÐ ° ÐNumber€11,€as€quoted€by€the€supreme€court:Ð œì ÐÌà8  à(1)€One€who,€in€the€course€of€his€business,€profession€or€employment,€or€aÐ tÄ Ðtransaction€in€which€he€has€a€pecuniary€interest,€supplies€false€information€for€theÐ `° Ðguidance€of€others€in€their€business€transactions,€is€subject€to€liability€for€pecuniaryÐ L œ Ðloss€caused€to€them€by€their€justifiable€reliance€upon€such€information,€if€he€fails€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðexercise€reasonable€care€or€competence€in€obtaining€or€communication€theÐ $ t Ðinformation.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€The€liability€stated€in€subsection€(1)€is€limited€to€loss€sufferedÐü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(a)€By€the€person€or€one€of€the€persons€for€whose€benefit€and€guidance€he€knows€theÐ è 8  Ðinformation€to€be€intended;€andÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€Through€reliance€upon€it€in€a€transaction€in€which€it€is€intended€to€influence€hisÐ À  Ðconduct.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó;€òòSee€also,€Hunt€v.€Walkeróó,€483€S.W.2d€732,€735€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1971).€€Thus,€to€prevail,€theÐ „Ô  Ðplaintiff€must€establish€that€ð ð(1)€the€defendant€supplied€information€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€theÐ pÀ Ðinformation€was€false;€(3)€the€defendant€did€not€exercise€reasonable€care€in€obtaining€orÐ \¬ Ðcommunicating€the€information;€and€(4)€the€plaintiff€justifiably€relied€on€the€information.ðð€òòAtkinsÐ H˜ Ðv.€Kirkpatrickóó,€823€S.W.2d€547,€552€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Further,€Defendants,€as€principal,€areÐ 4„ Ðliable€for€the€negligent€misrepresentations€of€their€agent.€€òòHaynes€v.€Cumberland€Builder,€Inc.óó,€546Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€228,€232€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àEven€though€Defendants€did€not€actually€read€or€sign€the€contract€themselves,€they€areÐ ä4 Ðresponsible€for€the€actions€and€representation€of€their€agent,€who€was€authorized€to€€review€and€signÐ Ð  Ðthe€contract€on€their€behalf.€€The€court€made€a€finding€that,€at€the€time€the€contract€was€signed€byÐ ¼  ÐDefendantsðð€agent,€it€represented€that€the€property€was€not€affected€by€flood€or€storm€runoff.€€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€also€weighed€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and,€based€on€testimony€at€trial,€determined€thatÐ ”ä ÐDefendants€were€well€aware€of€the€flooding€problems€and€the€extent€thereof€at€the€time€the€contractÐ €Ð Ðwas€signed€by€their€agent.€€We€find€the€testimony€in€the€record€more€than€sufficient€to€support€theseÐ l¼ Ðfindings.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àð ð[Ô_ÔB]eforeÔ_Ô€a€seller€makes€a€representation,€he€is€required€to€exercise€reasonable€care€to€makeÐ 0"€  Ðsure€that€it€is€correct.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔAkbariÔ_Ô€v.€Hornóó,€641€S.W.2d€506,€508€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).ò òó ó€€The€statementÐ #l! Ðregarding€flooding€and€storm€runoff€was€patently€false.€€Defendantsðð€agent€had€an€obligation€to€useÐ $X" Ðreasonable€care€in€determining€that€all€representations€made€in€the€contract€were€true€and€correct.€Ð ô$D # ÐSuch€care€was€not€used,€and€Defendants,€as€the€principal,€are€now€responsible€for€the€negligence€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðtheir€agent.Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àÌà  àDefendants€also€argue€that€there€was€no€reasonable€reliance€on€the€information€supplied€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€contract€since€Plaintiff€was€free€to,€and€did,€perform€her€own€inspection€of€the€building€andÐ )à$( Ðproperty.€€However,€as€the€flooding€problem€only€occurred€during€periods€of€very€heavy€orÐ |*Ì%) Ðprolonged€rain,€it€was€not€readily€discoverable€by€visual€inspection.€€The€flood€zone€was€no€differentÐ h+¸&* Ðthan€that€of€the€surrounding€houses,€and€the€inspection€revealed€no€telltale€water€damage€to€theÐ ° Ðhouse.€€Although€the€appraiser€recommended€a€survey€due€to€the€low€lying€nature€of€the€property,Ð œì Ðthe€statement€in€the€contract€that€there€was€no€flooding€or€storm€runoff€diminished€the€necessity€forÐ ˆØ Ðsuch€survey,€and€the€appraisal€was€accepted€by€the€bank€without€question.€€Plaintiff€also€testified€thatÐ tÄ Ðshe€relied€on€the€representation€made€in€the€contract€that€the€property€was€not€affected€by€floodingÐ `° Ðor€storm€runoff,€and€the€court€accepted€her€testimony€as€credible.€€The€facts,€as€found€by€the€court,Ð L œ Ðsupport€the€courtððs€determination€that€Plaintiff€€reasonably€relied€on€the€representations€made€byÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendants,€and€this€evidence€certainly€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€negligentÐ $ t Ðmisrepresentation.Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendants/Appellants€argued€that€ò òó óTennessee€law€does€not€provide€for€applying€comparativeÐ À  Ðfault€to€negligent€misrepresentation€cases€since,€in€these€cases,€Plaintiff€must€show€that€sheÐ ¬ü  Ðjustifiably€relied€on€the€misrepresentation,€and€if€Plaintiff€was€negligent€in€performing€reasonableÐ ˜è  Ðinspections€and€inquiries,€it€cannot€be€said€that€she€justifiably€relied€on€the€representations€ofÐ „Ô  ÐDefendant.€€We€find€this€argument€unsound.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€doctrine€of€comparative€fault€in€Tennessee€is€applied€to€negligence€cases,€and€negligentÐ H˜ Ðmisrepresentation€is€an€action€ð ðin€tort€determined€by€the€general€principles€of€the€law€of€negligence.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐòòÔ_ÔTarteraÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔPalumboÔ_Ôóó,€453€S.W.2d€780,€784€(Tenn.€1970).€€ð ðIf€the€plaintiff€meets€the€burden€ofÐ  p Ðestablishing€the€defendantððs€duty€in€a€particular€case,€as€well€as€the€other€elements€of€the€negligenceÐ  \ Ðclaim,€the€trier€or€fact€must€apply€the€principles€of€òòMcIntyre€v.€Ô_ÔBalentineÔ_Ô.óóðð€€€òòBond€v.€Belle€MeadeÐ øH ÐFundóó,€No€96C„4542,€1998€WL€775662,€at€*4€(Tenn€Ct.€App.€Nov.€9,€1998).€€However,€it€is€onlyÐ ä4 Ðafter€a€plaintiff€proves€all€the€elements€of€a€€negligence€claim€that€the€principles€set€out€in€òòMcIntyreÐ Ð  Ðv.€Ô_ÔBalentineÔ_Ôóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€and€òòBond€v.€Belle€Meade€Fundóó€are€applicable.€ð ð[Ô_ÔS]oÔ_Ô€longÐ ¼  Ðas€a€plaintiffððs€negligence€remains€less€than€the€defendantððs€negligence€the€plaintiff€may€recover;€inÐ ¨ø Ðsuch€a€case,€plaintiffððs€damages€are€to€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€the€percentage€of€the€totalÐ ”ä Ðnegligence€attributable€to€the€plaintiff.ðð€€òòMcIntyre,óó€833€S.W.2d€at€57.€€€ð ðA€plaintiff€whose€negligenceÐ €Ð Ðis€less€than€that€of€a€Ô_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ô€may€now€recover€damages€reduced€by€a€percentage€of€the€plaintiffððsÐ l¼ Ðown€negligenceðð€òòBondóó,€1998€WL€775662€at€*4.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIt€is€axiomatic€that€a€plaintiff€could€commit€negligence€which€might€have€contributed€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðamount€of€damage€suffered,€but€still€have€justifiably€relied€on€the€defendantsðð€representations.€Ð #l! ÐJustifiable€reliance€is€one€of€the€elements€that€must€be€established€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€trial€judgeÐ $X" Ðby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€before€the€tort€of€negligent€misrepresentation€can€be€establishedÐ ô$D # Ðby€a€plaintiff.€€Such€a€finding€is€not€inconsistent€with€comparative€fault€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiff.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€trial€judge€found€just€such€a€situation€here,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðfinding.€€We€further€find€that€the€judge€correctly€applied€Tennesseeððs€comparative€fault€law€to€theseÐ ¸'#& Ðfacts€and€properly€reduced€the€award€of€damages€by€the€amount€of€fault€attributable€to€Plaintiff.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÔ#†X‰XX X‰ #ÔÔ‡ X‰XXX‰ÔÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓIII.Ð ° ÐÓvQÓÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àWith€regard€to€damages,€there€was€very€little€evidence€introduced€other€than€Plaintiffððs€ownÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony.€€She€testified,€pursuant€to€Rule€701€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€that€the€valueÐ tÄ Ðof€the€property€as€a€result€of€the€flooding€was€between€$32,000.00€and€$35,000.00€and€asked€theÐ `° Ðcourt€for€a€judgment€of€$38,500.00€representing€the€difference€between€what€she€believed€she€couldÐ L œ Ðsell€the€property€for€and€the€$71,000.00€she€paid.€€The€judge€also€viewed€the€very€telling€pictures,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwhich€showed€the€house€completely€surrounded€by€water€only€inches€away€from€actually€enteringÐ $ t Ðthe€house,€and€€heard€the€testimony€of€several€real€estate€agents€who€articulated€their€belief€that€theÐ  ` Ðproperty€would€be€extremely€difficult€sell.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€plaintiffs€have€a€right€to€recover€for€all€losses€proximately€caused€byÐ Ô$  Ð[defendantððs]€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_Ô€conduct.€.€.€.€ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€proper€measure€of€the€plaintiffsðð€general€damages€is€the€benefit€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€bargain€rule.€€This€measure€of€damages€allows€the€plaintiff€to€recover€theÐ „Ô  Ðdifference€between€the€actual€value€of€the€property€be€received€At€(sic)€the€time€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€making€of€the€contract€and€the€value€that€the€property€would€have€possessed€ifÐ \¬ Ð[defendantððs]€representations€had€been€true.€€The€application€of€this€measure€ofÐ H˜ Ðdamages€compels€the€defendant€to€make€good€on€the€false€representations.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðmeasure€of€damages€and€the€fixing€of€the€value€of€the€property€are€to€be€determinedÐ  p Ðas€of€the€time€of€the€transaction.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHaynes,€óó546€S.W.2d€at€233€(citations€omitted).€€òòóóThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÐ ä4 Ðfinding€of€damages€in€the€amount€of€€the€$25,000.00.Ô#†X‰XX X‰@Q#ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€foregoing€findings,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€Ruling€in€its€entirety.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE