ÿWPCi …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0Jé 0T3 0^‡ 0hå 0rM 0|¿ 0†; 0Á 1uQ 0dÆ UB* %l U6r U>¨ B)æ DC AMR U*Ÿ É v~ã BavÓ~ D3Q 0@„ AOÄÆ 0DÙ D/ BLÚƒç"ÔøÔô3|x£($¡¡ _ee‘’D“”•D–—D˜Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òNovember€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Ú|XXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ŠÔœÙ€€ÙßR€!# A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌKENNETH€F.€TAGGART€and€wife,à à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9707„CV„00262ÌTONI€CORWIN,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€SULLIVAN€LAWÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€RICHARD€E.€LADD,€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBART€A.€RICHARDS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBLUE€CROSS€BLUE€SHIELD€OFà à)ÌTENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)€AFFIRMEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€ANDÌà àIntervening€Plaintiff.à àà à)€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€E.€BREWER,€LESLIE€A.€MUSE€and€STEVEN€W.€TERRY,€BREWER€&ÏTERRY,€P.C.,€Morristown,€for€Plaintiffs„Appellants.ÌÌJAMES€K.€HORSTMAN,€BARRY€L.€KROLL,€ALTON€C.€HAYNES,€LLOYD€E.ÏWILLIAMS,€JR.,€WILLIAMS€&€MONTGOMERY,€LTD.,€Chicago,€and€EDWIN€L.ÏTREADWAY,€HUNTER,€SMITH€&€DAVIS,€LLP,€Kingsport,€for€Defendant„Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€is€an€action€for€damages€for€personal€injuries€allegedly€occurringÏon€April€9,€1993€in€the€early€evening,€when€the€vehicle€operated€by€the€plaintiff€wasÏstruck€by€a€vehicle€operated€by€the€defendant.€€Upon€trial,€a€jury€returned€a€verdictÍfor€the€plaintiff€establishing€damages€at€$8,445.00€and€further€determined€thatÏdefendant€was€51%€at€fault€for€the€accident.€€The€Trial€Judge€approved€the€verdictÏand€plaintiffs€have€appealed.€€Ìà àà àPlaintiff€insists€on€appeal€that€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€supportÏthe€amount€of€the€jury€verdict,€or€the€juryððs€finding€that€he€was€49%€at€fault€for€theÏaccident.€€Also,€they€maintain€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððsÏfinding€that€plaintiffððs€wife€suffered€no€loss€of€consortium.€€Ìà àà àImmediately€following€the€accident,€plaintiff€was€taken€by€his€wife€toÏthe€emergency€room€of€a€local€hospital,€where€a€laceration€in€his€hand€was€sewed€upÏand€x„rays€were€taken€of€his€hand€and€neck.€€He€was€sent€home.€€The€next€morningÏhe€received€a€call€from€a€physician€at€the€hospital,€who€asked€that€he€œreturn›€to€theÏhospital.€€At€the€hospital€plaintiff€was€informed€that€the€x„rays€of€his€neck€reflectedÏthe€absence€of€bone€at€the€odontoid€process,€with€some€subluxation€of€€the€cervicalÏspine.€€The€hospital€referred€him€to€Dr.€Gregory€Corradino,€a€board€certifiedÏneurosurgeon.€€€Dr.€Corradino€saw€the€plaintiff€on€April€20,€and€diagnosed€theÏplaintiff€with€having€a€cervical€strain€and€ð ðthe€absent€odontoid€processðð,€which€heÏopined€was€congenital,€but€needed€surgical€repair€ð ðvery€quicklyðð.€€Plaintiff€next€sawÏDr.€Corradino€on€June€2,€where€surgery€was€discussed€and,€according€to€plaintiff,€heÏdecided€to€get€a€second€opinion.€€He€then€visited€Dr.€Joe€Beals,€a€neurosurgeon,€inÏKnoxville€on€June€16,€1993,€who€also€recommended€surgery.€€Dr.€Beals€and€anotherÏdoctor€performed€the€surgery€on€February€3,€1994.€€The€surgery€involved€theÏremoval€of€bone€from€plaintiffððs€hip,€which€was€placed€in€the€neck€and€secured€in€theÍarea€between€C1€and€C2.€€Plaintiff€did€well€postoperatively€and€for€approximatelyÏthree€months€following€surgery,€was€required€to€wear€a€halo€brace€at€all€times.€€DueÏto€the€brace,€plaintiffððs€wife€had€to€attend€to€his€personal€hygiene€and€care€for€theÏbrace€and€other€needs.Ìà àà àIt€is€plaintiffððs€position€that€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€theÏjuryððs€award€of€damages€where€the€parties€had€stipulated€that€the€amount€of€medicalÏexpenses€incurred€by€plaintiff€totaled€$37,314.70.€€We€are€required€to€affirm€theÏjudgment€unless€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€Rule€13(d)ÏT.R.A.P.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€tried€this€case€before€a€jury,€on€the€theory€that€the€conditionÏrequiring€surgery€was€caused€by€the€accident.€€He€offered€the€expert€medical€opinionÏof€Dr.€Joe€Beals,€who€opined€that€the€accident€was€the€cause€of€this€conditionÏrequiring€surgery.€€The€defendant€offered€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Corradino,€whoÏtestified€that€the€initial€x„ray€ð ðshowed€what€appeared€to€be€an€absence€of€a€bone€atÏthe€upper€part€of€the€cervical€spine€known€as€the€odontoid€process€and€someÏsubluxation,€which€is€a€partial€dislocation€of€the€first€and€second€vertebra.ðð€€He€wasÏof€the€firm€opinion€as€of€April€23,€1993,€that€the€absent€odontoid€process€was€eitherÏð ðcongenital€or€an€acquired€abnormalityðð.€€œHe›€was€of€the€firm€opinion,€however,€thatÏð ðit€is€almost€certainly€of€long„standing€duration€and€not€related€to€his€recentÏaccidentðð.€€The€foregoing€constitutes€material€evidence€that€the€condition€predatedÏthe€accident.€€However,€there€is€other€evidence€in€the€record€which€no€doubtÏimpacted€heavily€upon€the€triers€of€fact€and€against€the€plaintiffððs€position.Ìà àà àOn€the€plaintiffððs€June€3€visit€to€Dr.€Corradino,€he€brought€x„rays€fromÏa€VA€Hospital€which€had€been€taken€of€his€head€and€the€upper€part€of€the€neck€onÏSeptember€19,€1989,€due€to€a€sinus€condition.€€Dr.€Corradino€examined€these€x„raysÏwhich€he€said€showed€the€odontoid€process€was€absent€in€1989.€€The€plaintiff€tookÏthe€x„rays€with€him€and€apparently€did€not€show€them€to€Dr.€Beals,€who€performedÏthe€surgery,€and€whose€opinion€was€formulated€without€the€benefit€of€these€x„rays.€ÏThe€1989€x„rays€and€Dr.€Corradinoððs€opinion€of€what€they€show€is€neither€counteredÏœnor›€œconfronted›€œin€this€record.€€There€are€other€inconsistences€in€plaintiffððs€testimonyÏand€the€trier€of€fact€was€justified€in€concluding€that€the€accident€was€not€the€cause€ofÏthe€condition€or€surgery.€€òòSee€Buchanan€v.€Harrisóó,€902€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995).€€Ìà àà àPlaintiff€argues€on€appeal,€that€the€pre„existing€condition€wasÏaggravated.€€This€is€simply€not€the€theory€upon€which€the€case€was€tried,€and€as€forÏthe€claim€for€consortium€by€plaintiffððs€wife,€there€is€material€evidence€that€theÏelements€of€her€claim€are€predicated€upon€plaintiffððs€disability€arising€from€theÏsurgery,€convalescence€and€treatment€of€what€the€jury€concluded€pre„existed€theÏaccident.€€These€issues€are€resolved€against€plaintiffs.Ìà àà àFinally,€plaintiff€insists€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€theÏapportioning€of€fault€by€the€jury.€€A€jury€has€considerable€latitude€in€allocating€theÏpercentage€of€fault€in€negligence€cases,€but€we€may€alter€the€juryððs€findings€if€theyÏare€ð ðclearly€erroneousðð.€€òòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€We€observe€at€the€outset,€that€since€the€jury€found€plaintiffððs€credibilityÍflawed,€it€would€be€justified€in€not€giving€any€weight€to€his€version€of€how€theÏaccident€occurred.€€The€evidence€is€conflicting€about€how€the€accident€occurred.€€ItÏis€undisputed€that€it€was€near€darkness€in€the€early€evening€and€it€was€raining,Ïcausing€poor€visibility.€€Defendant€testified€that€he€was€proceeding€within€the€speedÏlimit€at€a€speed€of€approximately€40€to€45€miles€per€hour,€and€at€the€time€he€struckÏthe€rear€corner€of€plaintiffððs€vehicle,€he€had€slowed€significantly€and€the€impact€wasÏslight.€€Defendant€observed€the€plaintiffððs€vehicle€in€the€roadway€as€he€came€over€aÏrise,€which€was€either€stopped€in€the€road€or€moving€slowly.€€It€is€unclear€from€theÏrecord,€what€signals,€if€any,€plaintiff€gave.€€Defendant€testified€there€was€oncomingÏtraffic€in€the€other€lane,€and€that€when€he€was€approximately€150€feet€from€plaintiffððsÏvehicle,€he€realized€that€the€plaintiffððs€vehicle€ð ðwas€not€movingðð€and€applied€hisÏbrakes.€€He€concluded€plaintiff€ð ðhad€spent€a€very€long€lengthy€period€of€time€in€theÏlane€of€traffic,€not€moving€or€moving€slowly,€I€couldnððt€tellðð.€€The€plaintiff€offered€noÏexplanation€for€why€he€was€stopped€or€moving€slowly€in€defendantððs€lane€of€travel.€ÏUnder€the€circumstances€and€the€road€conditions€and€taking€into€account€plaintiffððsÏcredibility€on€this€issue,€we€cannot€say€the€juryððs€assessment€of€liability€is€Ìð ðclearly€erroneousðð.Ìà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÏand€remand€with€costs€of€appeal€assessed€to€the€appellants.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòà àÌóóà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ì