ÿWPC …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0lé 0DU 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv UBÚ % U6" U>X B)– DC¿ AMU*Oy B“v~°vÓ. D3 0@4 AOtÆÃ 0D‰ D/Í BüÚƒç"ÔøÔô3|x—($¡¡ ƒE„…E†‡ˆ{‰ŠD‹ŒÓ€((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òDecember€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ZAXXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€ ŠÔÙ€€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌRICHARD€VARNER€andà àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9706„CV„00238ÌTERESA€VARNER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HAMBLEN€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€KENDALL€LAWSON,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTEPHANIE€K.€PERRYMAN,à àà à)ÌFARMHOUSE€FOODS,€and€à àà àœ)€›ÌHALE€BROTHERS,à àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AND›Ìà àDefendants„Appellants.à àà àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌW.€DOUGLAS€COLLINS,€EVANS€&€BEIER,€LLP,€Morristown,€for€Plaintiffs„Appellees.ÌÌDARYL€R.€FANSLER,€STOKES,€FANSLER€&€WILLIAMS,€Knoxville,€forÏDefendants„Appellants.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€action€arising€from€a€motor€vehicle€accident,€the€Trial€JudgeÏentered€judgment€for€damages€for€plaintiffs,€and€apportioned€œfault.€€Defendant›ÏFarmhouse€Foods€(ð ðFarmhouseðð)€has€appealed.Ìà àà àOn€July€12,€1995,€Mark€Reich€was€delivering€Farmhouse€products€toÏHale€Brothers,€Incorporated€in€Morristown.€€Reich€parked€defendantððs€vehicle€alongÏthe€north€side€of€East€Main€œStreet,€a€two€lane€east„west€street,›€and€two€other€trucksÍparked€behind€Reich.€€The€evidence€establishes€that€the€nose€of€the€Farmhouse€truckÏwas€œapproximately›€seven€feet€from€the€intersection€of€East€Main€and€Cedar€Street,Ïwith€€Cedar€Street€being€a€one„way€street€that€runs€in€a€generally€north„southÏdirection.€€As€œStephanie›€Perryman€approached€the€intersection€of€East€Main€onÏCedar€Street,€the€trucks€were€parked€to€her€left€along€Main€Street.€€She€testified€thatÏshe€stopped€and€attempted€to€determine€if€it€was€safe€to€turn€left€onto€Main€but€wasÏunable€to€see€œany€westbound›€œtraffic.›€€She€further€testified€that€she€pulled€out€into€theÏintersection€in€a€normal€manner€and€was€immediately€struck€by€Plaintiff€RichardÏVarnerððs€vehicle.€€His€wife,€Teresa€Varner,€was€a€passenger.Ìœà àà àThe›€Trial€Court€determined€that€Farmhouse€was€90%€at€fault,€andÏPerryman€10%€at€fault€for€the€accident.€€The€court€assessed€Teresa€Varnerððs€damagesÏat€$31,863.02€and€Richard€Varnerððs€damages€at€$2,200.75.€€Plaintiffs€were€deniedÏdiscretionary€costs.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€findingÏappellant€90%€at€fault.€€Our€standard€of€review€œas€stated›€by€the€Supreme€œCourt,€is›€asÏfollows:€œ€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àAlthough€it€is€true€that€the€trier€of€fact€has€considerable€latitude€inÏallocating€percentages€of€fault€to€negligent€parties,€òòsee€e.g.,€Martin€v.ÏBussartóó,€292€Minn.€29,€193€N.W.2d€134€(1971),€appellate€courts€mayÏalter€those€findings€if€they€are€clearly€erroneous.€€Because€this€case€wasÏtried€without€a€jury,€our€review€of€the€issues€of€fact€is€òòde€novoóó€on€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court.€€However,€we€must€presume€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€were€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏis€otherwise.€€Tenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€27„3„103;€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(d).Ì›€à0 àœà0 àà0 àÌòòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌÓÓà àà àAs€we€read€òòWrightóó,€the€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€recordÏof€the€Trial€Court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,Íunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€WeÏnote€the€Minnesota€case€referred€to€in€òòWright›€óóin€the€same€sentence€with€the€ð ðclearlyÏerroneousðð€standard€was€a€jury€case.€€€€In€non„jury€cases,€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€standard€governs.Ìà àà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€findings.€ÏGenerally:ÌÓÓà0 àà8 àthe€percentage€of€fault€assigned€to€each€party€should€beÏdependent€upon€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€includingÏsuch€factors€as:€(1)€the€relative€closeness€of€the€causalÏrelationship€between€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€theÏinjury€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððsÏconduct€in€confronting€a€risk,€such€as€whether€the€party€knewÏof€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€the€extent€to€whichÏthe€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existingÏopportunity€to€avoid€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existenceÏof€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€a€hasty€decision;€(5)€theÏsignificance€of€what€the€party€was€attempting€to€accomplish€byÏthe€conduct,€such€as€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)Ïthe€partyððs€particular€capacities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,Ïeducation,€and€so€forth.ÌÌÓÓòòœEaton›€v.€McClainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€1994)(citations€omitted).€€Ìà àà àThis€list€is€not€exclusive€and€not€all€factors€are€applicable€in€every€case.ÏòòId.óó€at€593.€€Based€upon€all€œof€the›€evidence€and€circumstances,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€of€fault.€€Ìà àà àThe€evidence€shows€that€Reich€parked€Appellantððs€truck€close€enoughÏto€the€intersection€to€block€Perrymanððs€view.€€Perryman€testified€that€while€all€threeÏtrucks€blocked€her€view,€the€Appellantððs€truck€was€mainly€responsible.€She€alsoÏtestified€that€she€waited€at€the€stop€sign€ð ðat€least€two€or€three€minutesðð€beforeÏattempting€to€pull€into€East€Main€Street.€€She€could€not€œreverse€her€direction›€becauseÍshe€was€on€a€one€way€street,€and€although€she€could€have€presumably€turned€rightÏinstead€of€left,€there€is€no€guarantee€that€this€would€have€avoided€an€accidentÏbecause€the€her€vision€of€westbound€traffic€was€blocked.€€She€also€testified€thatÏReich€told€her€he€had€already€seen€some€ð ðnear€missesðð€at€the€intersection.€Ìà àà àThe€investigating€officer€testified€that€due€to€the€position€of€ÏAppellantððs€truck,€€ð ðthe€nose€of€your€car€would€already€be€out€in€the€intersectionÏbefore€you€could€visually€see€anything.ðð€He€testified,€without€objection,€that€heÏthought€appellantððs€truck€ð ðwas€a€definite€vision€obstruction€for€Ms.€Perryman€and€aÏprimary€contributing€factor€to€the€accident.ðð€We€find€no€basis€to€alter€the€TrialÏJudgeððs€apportionment€of€fault.Ìà àà àRichard€Varner€testified€that€he€suffered€a€bruised€abdominal€muscle€asÏa€result€of€the€accident,€and€that€he€first€experienced€pain€about€a€week€or€two€afterÏthe€accident.€€As€a€result€of€the€injury,€he€incurred€medical€bills€of€$628.75.€€TheseÏbills€were€admitted€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð24„5„113.€Ìà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€plaintiff€did€not€offer€sufficient€evidence€ofÏcausation€on€this€issue.€€Itemizing€and€attaching€bills€under€T.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113Ïconstitutes€prima€facie€evidence€that€the€charges€were€necessary€and€reasonable.€ÏHowever,€a€plaintiff€must€also€establish€that€the€charges€were€incurred€as€a€result€ofÏthe€defendantððs€negligent€conduct.€œ€€òòSee€Lindsey€v.€Miami€Dev.€Co.óó,€689€S.W.2dÏ856€(Tenn.€1985).òò›Ìà àà àóóAppellees€did€not€offer€any€expert€testimony€concerning€RichardÏVarnerððs€injuries.€€Whether€Varnerððs€testimony€that€he€received€a€bruised€stomachÍmuscle€as€a€result€of€the€accident€is€sufficient€to€prove€causation€depends€uponÏwhether€the€bruised€abdominal€muscle€is€a€sufficiently€ð ðsimpleðð€injury€to€permit€aÏlayperson€to€testify€to€œcausation.€€òòSee€American€ENKA€Corp.€v.€Suttonóó,€391€S.W.2dÏ643€(Tenn.€1965).›Ìà àà àVarnerððs€injury€is€arguably€more€complex€than€mere€cuts€and€abrasions.€ÏHowever,€a€layperson€can€obviously€testify€to€the€presence€of€a€bruise.€€AlthoughÏthere€is€no€testimony€that€the€bruise€manifested€itself€visually,€plaintiff€testified€thatÏthe€stomach€muscles€were€bruised€in€the€accident,€without€objection.€€The€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€finding€on€causation.€€T.R.A.P.€RuleÏ13(d).Ìà àà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€œaward€of€damages›€to€Teresa€œVarner€isÏagainst€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€›€Teresaððs€bills€in€the€amount€of€$1,117.57€wereÏadmitted€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€24„5„113.€€Dr.€Unferth,€a€chiropractor€who€treatedÏTeresa,€offered€the€opinion€that€the€accident€was€the€proximate€cause€of€her€injuries.€ÏAlthough€her€medical€bills€admitted€under€the€statute€address€charges€for€emergencyÏroom€visit,€x„rays€and€prescriptions,€which€were€incurred€before€her€visit€to€Dr.ÏUnferth,€all€of€the€treatment€and€tests€relate€to€the€same€basic€injuries€and€theÏdoctorððs€testimony€œfound€credible€by€the€Trial€Judge€was›€sufficient€to€establishÏcausation.€€Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Judge€awarded€Teresa€the€full€amount€of€her€medical€bills,€plusÏ$1,435.50€in€lost€wages€and€$25,000.00€for€pain€and€suffering.€€She€testified€she€wasÏemployed€by€Argo€Medical€Services€before€the€accident€but€was€unable€to€return€toÍthis€job€because€of€its€lifting€requirements.€€She€also€testified€to€the€numerousÏlimitations€her€injuries€caused.€Additionally,€her€husband€corroborated€her€testimonyÏas€to€their€limited€activities,€post„injury.€€Dr.€Unferth€was€of€the€opinion€that€sheÏsuffered€a€5%€permanent€impairment€as€a€result€of€the€accident,€with€chronic€residualÏproblems.Ìà àà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€findings.€Ïà àà àNext,€appellant€argues€the€Trial€Court€erred€by€refusing€to€reduce€theÏjudgment€against€Farmhouse€by€the€amounts€already€paid€by€defendants€HaleÏBrothers€and€Perryman€in€an€earlier€settlement,€and€relies€on€T.C.A.€ðð€29„11„105(2)(b).€€This€section€is€part€of€the€Uniform€Contribution€Among€Tortfeasors€Act,Ïand€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà0 àNo€evidence€of€a€release€or€covenant€not€to€sue€received€byÏanother€tort„feasor€or€payment€therefor€may€be€introduced€by€aÏdefendant€at€the€trial€of€an€action€by€a€claimant€for€injury€orÏwrongful€death,€but€may€be€introduced€upon€motion€afterÏjudgment€to€reduce€a€judgment€by€the€amount€stipulated€by€theÏrelease€or€the€covenant€or€by€the€amount€of€the€considerationÏpaid€for€it,€whichever€is€greater.ÌÌÓÓà àà àFirst,€it€is€necessary€to€determine€if€this€section€has€any€application€toÏthe€facts€of€this€case€after€Tennesseeððs€adoption€of€comparative€fault.€òòSee€McIntyreÏv.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€no€œreported€Tennessee›€caseÏhas€directly€addressed€this€issue,€an€Arizona€Court€of€Appeals€which€determined€thatÏa€similar€Arizona€statute€would€not€apply€under€similar€circumstances€is€persuasive.€ÏòòSee€Roland€v.€Bernsteinóó,€828€P.2d€1237€(Ariz.Ct.App.€1992).€€€Arizona€œhas›€adoptedÏcomparative€fault€by€statute.€€However,€the€òòRoland€óóCourt€articulated€compellingÍpolicy€reasons€for€its€decision:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àIn€addition,€we€believe€that€it€would€be€anomalous€to€give€the€benefitÏof€an€advantageous€settlement,€not€to€the€plaintiff€who€negotiated€it,Ïbut€to€the€non„settling€tortfeasor.€€Had€plaintiff€made€aÏdisadvantageous€settlement€,€she€would€have€borne€that€consequenceÏbecause€her€recovery€against€€[the€non„settling€defendant]€would€haveÏbeen€limited€to€[the€amount€of€the€non„settling€defendantððs€fault].€€At€aÏminimum,€symmetry€requires€that€if€the€disadvantage€of€settlement€isÏhers€so€ought€the€advantage€be.€€Beyond€that,€we€see€no€reason€why€aÏnon„settling€tortfeasor€ought€to€escape€the€liability€that€is€his€by€reasonÏof€the€faulty€assessment€of€probabilities€by€a€settling€tortfeasor.€€ÏIndeed,€such€a€rule€might€well€discourage€settlement€by€the€lastÏtortfeasor€on€the€reasoning€that€his€exposure€is€limited€to€his€degree€ofÏfault€and€even€that€might€be€reduced€by€reason€of€pre„existingÏsettlements.òòà0 àÌÌÓÓòòóóId.óó€at€1239.Ìà àà àMoreover,€other€jurisdictions€have€reached€similar€results.€òòSeeóó€òòWells€v.óóòòÏóóòòTallahassee€Memððl€Regððl€Med.€Ctr.€Inc.óó,€659€So.2d€249€(Fla.€1995);€òòThomas€v.ÏSolberg,€óó442€N.W.2d€73€(Iowa€1989);€€òòD.D.€Williamson€&€Co.€v.€Allied€Chem.ÏCorp.,óó€569€S.W.2d€672€(Ky.€1978);€òòWilson€v.€Gault,óó€668€P.2d€1104€(N.M.Ct.€App.Ï1983);€òòCharles€v.€Giant€Eagle€Markets,€óó522€A.2d€1€(Pa.€1978);€òòHaderlie€v.ÏœSondgerothóó,€866€P.2d€703€(Wyo.€1993).€Ìà àà àAppellant€contends€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòBervoets€v.ÏHardy„Ralls€Pontiac„Olds,€Inc.,€óó891€S.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€1994),€supports€applyingÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„11„105(2)(b)€in€this€case.€òòBervoets,€óóis€distinguishable€from€the€presentÏcase.€€First,€in€òòBervoets€óóthe€plaintiff€had€already€released€all€defendants.€€Thus,€theÏcase€involved€only€an€action€for€contribution€between€defendants.€€Also,€a€trier€ofÏfact€had€not€yet€apportioned€fault.€€In€the€instant€case,€appellant€was€required€to€payÏan€amount€representing€90%€of€the€total€judgment.€€Since€this€amount€correspondsÍwith€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€of€fault,€there€is€no€basis€on€this€record€to€findÏthat€the€appellant€paid€more€than€his€fair€share.€€In€òòBervoets,óó€the€driverððs€settlementÏbasically€provided€consideration€for€the€plaintiff€to€release€all€other€potentially€liableÏparties.€Thus,€the€guidelines€suggested€by€the€Court€were€appropriate€to€ensure€thatÏthe€driver€did€not€pay€more€than€his€share€of€fault.€€The€Court€noted€that€ð ðtheÏdefendant€.€.€.€is€essentially€attempting€to€recover€the€amount€paid€by€him€in€excessÏof€his€proportional€share€of€liability.ðð€òòId.óó€at€908òò.óó€€These€concerns€are€not€applicableÏto€the€present€case,€where€the€Appellant€paid€only€for€its€own€percentage€of€fault.Ì€à àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.Ìà àà àFinally,€appellees€contend€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€denying€theirÏmotion€for€discretionary€costs.€€Costs€were€requested€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure,€54.04.€€€The€Trial€Court€heard€arguments€on€the€issue€and€denied€theÏmotion.€€The€awarding€of€such€costs€is€a€matter€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏTrial€Court.€€òòLock€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.,€809óó€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1991).€€ThereÏis€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€indicate€the€Trial€Judge€abused€his€discretion.Ìà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€with€costs€of€theÏappeal€assessed€to€the€appellants.ÌÌÓÓà@ àòòà àÌóóà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.ÌÌ