WPCA jRf~,}\3u/ς*KF9l-VWϔi^z'1Kf,RމcrrGf9jvA fѨG X{`/Obi6r?c a}J%bz:3 v*g@\bWSO439FG% 5@jQ=1ѐvB5H1+>N^]LNV[p55#L@n *gކaDRT"V+e޲P Ӝ1-2ž$B}~z&'T_5LAer(F6fB+nC'/pQ) cUY]bu 3L7=wѦB0kr>()63}b %\UNb 0UN8^ } w z  4   m    g 0D-Nq#ssE444444444444444444444444b666666666666666666666666666666666666 0>>>> B)) 0F D3 D- 0KJJ AS 0 0DR A(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular R&$      1  t   _Appellantsassertsthatonly16statesallowclaimsforlossofparentalconsortiuminpersonalinjuryactions.vh+  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.wptm~g+ 3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0- -(|G2&$ !.8d d 8         0  aX d(|3E$ !.8d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3E$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8d d8     _  8plXXdd 8  @ MINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#M #Ԉ &   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSJULY11,2001 L XX #XX#LINDSAYTAYLOR,RACHELTAYLORANDBRADFORDTAYLORv. J ALBEARDANDSOUTHEASTERNMOTORFREIGHTCOMPANYXX   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  ^ @@No.84505T.D.;TheHonorableRobertL.Childers,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200100347_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember5,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealinvolvesagrantofsummaryjudgment,whichdismissedlossofparentalconsortium  claimsbroughtbythechildrenofaparentinjuredinanautomobileaccident.Thechildrenseek x reviewofexistingTennesseeprecedentthatfailstorecognizelossofparentalconsortiumcausesof d actionresultingfromthepersonalinjuryofaparent.Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirmthe P decisionofthetrialcourtanddeclinetocreateanewcauseofaction. < #XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  P   #X#XX.AlanE._Highers_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly ( Kirby_Lillard_,J.,joined.  LarryE._Parrish_,Memphis,TN,forAppellants  TimWade_Hellen_,Memphis,TN,forAppellees t   OPINION #XXL#XX L"! #XXc #XX  @FactsandProceduralHistory $$t#   OnOctober17,1995,AlBeardcollidedwithanothervehiclewhileoperatingatruckforhis %L!% employer,SoutheasternMotorFreightCompany,Inc.(AlBeardandSoutheasternMotorFreight &8"& Company,Inc.willhereinafterbejointlyreferredtoas Appellees.)Thecollisionresultedinan '$#' impactwithathirdvehicleoccupiedbyPamelaTaylorandherdaughter,LindsayTaylor.The ($( Taylorsvehicle,inturn,struckafourthvehicleandexitedtheroadway.LindsayandPamelaTaylor )$) sufferedinjuriesintheaccident. *%*   Theproceduralbackgroundofthiscaseissomewhatpeculiar.Afternegotiations,Appellees p,', andLindsayTaylorfiledaJointPetitionforApprovalofMinorsSettlementdatedJanuary17,1997 \-(- withthecourt,seekingratificationofasettlementagreementreachedbetweenAppelleesandLindsay  Taylor.However,approximatelyoneyearlater,beforeasettlementhadbeenapproved,aFirst  AmendmenttoJointPetitionforApprovalofMinorsSettlement( Amendment)wasfiledby  LindsayTaylor.TheAmendmentsubstantiallyalteredthecourseoflitigation. t   AlthoughLindsayTaylorwastheonlyplaintiffintheoriginalpetition,theAmendment L  soughttoaddseveralnewpartiestothelitigationincludingLindsayTaylorssiblings,RachelTaylor 8  andBradfordTaylor(Lindsay,RachelandBradfordTaylorwillhereinafterbejointlyreferredtoas $ t  Appellants.)TheAmendmentalsosoughttorenametheoriginalpetition ComplaintforPersonal  ` InjuryandLossofServicesanddemandedajury.Further,consistentwiththenewname,the  L  Amendmentaddednewcausesofaction.Theaddedcauseofactionatissueinthisappealconcerns  8  consortiumdamages;theAppellantsdemandeddamagesforlossofconsortiumresultingfromthe $  personalinjuriessufferedbytheirmother,PamelaTaylor,intheaccident.     AppelleesfiledamotiontoquashtheAmendmentanddismisstheoriginalpetition.After   thecourtheardargumentsonthematter,thecourtenteredanOrderSubstitutingComplaintforJoint   Petition.Pursuanttothecourtsorder,theoriginalpetitionwasdeemeddismissedwiththe p Amendmenttakingitsplace.Further,thecourtorderedthattheAmendmentshouldbeconsidered \ acomplaintasopposedtopartoftheoriginaljointpetition. H   Appelleesfiledananswer,amotiontodismisstheclaimsofRachelTaylorandBradford  p Taylor,andamotionforsummaryjudgmentastotheclaimsofallAppellantsforlossofconsortium  \ stemmingfromtheirmotherspersonalinjuries.ThecourtgrantedAppelleesmotionforsummary H judgmentandthecaseproceededtotrial.AjuryreturnedaverdictinfavorofLindsayTaylorand 4 awardedher$411,320.00ontheremainingclaims.     Onappeal,AppellantsallegethatthetrialcourterredingrantingAppelleesmotionfor  summaryjudgment,whichdismissedAppellantsclaimsforlossofparentalconsortium.ThisCourt  hasbeenaskedtodeterminewhetheraclaimforlossofconsortiumbroughtbyachildforpersonal  injuriestothechildsparentshouldberecognizedunderTennesseelaw.Appellantsarguethatthe l recentevolutionofpoliciesguidingTennesseelawreflectsaneedforthisCourttoextend X  consortiumdamagestothechildrenofparentswhosufferpersonalinjury.Wedisagreeand,forthe D! followingreasons,affirmthejudgmentbelow. 0"     @  @`  @  @  @h StandardofReview $X"       Summaryjudgmentisappropriateifthe_movant_Ԁdemonstratesthatnogenuineissuesof %0!$ materialfactexistandthatheisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P. &"% 56.03.Wemusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowing '#& allreasonableinferencesinhisfavoranddiscardingallcountervailingevidence.See_Shadrick_Ԁv. (#' _Coker_,963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998)(citingByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn. )$( 1993)).Withregardtoquestionsoflaw,wereviewtherecorddenovowithnopresumptionof |*%) correctnessofthejudgmentbelow.SeeTenn.R.App.P.13(d);_Bain_Ԁv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622 h+&* (Tenn.1997). Becausethisappealinvolvesonlyanissueoflaw,wewillconductadenovoreview  oftheissuesetforthwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.     LawandAnalysis x      ThisCourthaspreviouslyaddressedtheissueofwhetheracauseofactionforlossof P  consortiumexistsforchildrenwhoseparentsareinjuredbythe_tortious_Ԁactsofathirdparty.InStill <  v.BaptistHospital,755S.W.2d807,808(Tenn.Ct.App.1988),thisCourtheldthatclaimsforloss ( x ofparentalconsortiumare,andalwayshavebeen,unknowntoTennesseescommonlaw.  d Accordingly,forthisCourttoholdthatsuchacauseofactionnowexists,wewouldbeforcedto  P  overruleourdecisioninStillandcreatethecauseofactionourselves.  <    Becauseanewcauseofactionhasbeenrequested,ouranalysismustbeginwithadiscussion   ofthisCourtsroleindefiningthepublicpolicyofTennessee.Weacknowledgethatablind   followingofarcaneprinciplesofcommonlawsimplybecauseofstare_decisis_shouldnotbe   consideredthemissionofthisCourt.However,wemustalsoacknowledgethatAppellantsrequest   isnotaimedatremovingobsoletelawfromourprecedentorrefiningexistingprinciplesoflaw. t Rather,Appellantsseekthejudicialcreationofnewlawthroughadeclarationofpublicpolicynot ` yetassertedbyourGeneralAssembly. L   InSmithv.Gore,728S.W.2d738,747(Tenn.1987),theTennesseeSupremeCourt $t recognizedthedifferencebetweenmeredevelopmentofthecommonlawand positivelydeclaring ` thepublicpolicyofthestate.ThedistinctionisevenmoreapparentwhentheCourtmust L  determinewhichofseveralcompetingpublicpoliciesrepresentsthemostcompellingand 8 controllingpublicpolicyforthisState.Id.Whensuchindefinitenesssurroundsanissueand $ proponentsrestuponpublicpolicyinaskingthisCourttodefinethelaw,wemustbeawareof  possible usurpationofthepowersofthelegislature.Id.(quoting_Cavender_Ԁv._Hewitt_,239_S.W._  767,768(Tenn.1921)).    ThisCourt,inStill,followedtheseprincipleswhenrefusingtocreateacommonlawclaim p forlossofparentalconsortium.Westatedthatdeferencetothelegislatureismorelikelyappropriate \  wherefarreachingconsequenceswouldresultfromthecreationofnewlaw.Still,755S.W.2dat H! 812.Wefindnoreasontonowchangeourstance.ThepoliciessuggestedbyAppellantsstillremain 4"  highlydebatable #  1      ׀andourdecisiontoadoptthemasthepublicpolicyofthisStatewouldindeed  #p! haveconsiderableconsequences.  $\"   AppellantsarguethattwodecisionsoftheTennesseeSupremeCourthandeddownsinceStill %4!$ havegrantedthisCourttheprerogativetochangetheindigenouscommonlawofTennessee. & "% However,wefindthisargumenttobewithoutmerit.InbothcasescitedbyAppellants,Hanoverv. ' #& _Ruch_,809S.W.2d893(Tenn.1991)and_Dupuis_Ԁv.Hand,814S.W.2d340(Tenn.1991),our (#' SupremeCourtmerelyfollowedthepronouncementsofpublicpolicyasstatedbyourGeneral )$( Assembly.Neithercasesuggeststhattheintermediateappellatecourtsinthisstatehavethe  authoritytocreatebrandnewcausesofactionongroundsofpublicpolicy.    BothHanoverand_Dupuis_involvedcommonlawtortsthatthegeneralassemblyhadchosen t tolegislativelyabolish.However,becauseoftheconstitutionallimitationsplaceduponthegeneral ` assembly,claimsfiledbeforetheeffectivedateofthelegislationwerenotaffected.Whencasesfiled L  beforetheeffectivedatereachedourSupremeCourt,thecourtdecidedthatthelawspassedbythe 8  generalassemblycouldproperlybeconsideredthepublicpolicyofthisStateandchosetojudicially $ t extinguishpreviousprecedentallowingtheclaims.Thus,thesecasesinnowaygrantthisCourta  ` licensetocreatenewlaw.  L    AppellantsfurtherarguethattheTennesseeSupremeCourtinJordanv.BaptistThreeRivers $  Hospital,984S.W.2d593(Tenn.1999)openedthedoorforthisCourttoexaminetheneedfora   causeofactionforlossofparentalconsortiumwhereapersonalinjuryhasoccurred.Wealsofind   thisargumenttobewithoutmerit.Jordandealtwithanexpansionofconsortiumdamagesunder   Tennesseeswrongfuldeathstatute,notunderthecommonlaw.However,indicta,thecourtstated,    Weexpressnoopinionastowhetherthelossofparentalconsortiummayberecoveredinpersonal p injuryactionsinwhichtheparentorparentssurvive.Thatissuewillbeaddressedinanappropriate \ case.Id.59596.Wefailtoseehowsuchdictacreatestheauthorityforthisintermediateappellate H courttocreatenewlaw. 4   Believingourroletobelimitedinthiscause,wealsofailtoseetheutilityinreassessing  \ thepolicyconsiderationswepreviouslycontemplatedinStill.Westandbyourpreviousassessment H inagainrefusingtocreateanewcauseofactionforlossofparentalconsortiuminpersonalinjury 4 actions.      Conclusion       Foralloftheaforementionedreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costson  appealaretaxedtoAppellants,LindsayTaylor,RachelTaylorandBradfordTaylor,forwhich l executionmayissueifnecessary. X    #XX #XX D!    `     h     ___________________________________ $D #    `     h     ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGE