ÿWPC Ûˆ<ý nd³9eX3NüŸYjZü õÉU˜ÍÏ•ˆ›ïßßp3&ÔôBÏ®•}^x(á%ÖÅòÖv 1˜r $T¿Õ÷ö—  @$†;öê&mÀ`kÇðEʪEÂt6kE¯ Çµ—Õÿu ß‚j]ø'ÌçWÖ.ãZÍ'Aɾ—Û˜tÒƒ"\{¯Goó»¬Ä™‘{4šDEûYÿ§Î‹“Ð<ðÁf–™µ»†€‰ŠØ^›— ¶%í³åùSí÷G*E&'¹F %‰ÿPY‡²<9šÊ`z7ù´‘\R‰¢ Üø£^£‰vöç©{e.†€êäl2޲Šu1F<@íZôö˜žQÄ£ù¢2 ÃCÚ¹ÿ“.`Ççs:"\¡bç{èïKŠÇ ”‚Ö%h;# Ö>9=Ál{gøYôe` \O¦Z4föñœÚNìÆÐ„õ}O¡ xbºŸgÊó™ªöÙ‘èå,H ’E¸ 1£ÆàÄŠ<#AE[;X\~;Ý(»¢Âw´Ú¡‹·†A6”Ùo‰Âã ñ•ÕÇ eÐãY¡KÚaÂäBóc²"”^'¼¢YÔê'9ÜS¡ï„:‚£Aˆ"üÊíhw”G7Åú¿H×Ýá7uð\Àb#Á\ % 0D# 0ˆg U%Nï UN= UN‹ zÙ ÒS U>% ^ c wo 4s Ƈ ÆM ÆÆÙŸN®° m²EÉÉÉËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËbÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ 0ëÛÛÖÆÆ Bœi¹ 0¤" D3Æ D-ù 0K&& ASqÆÄ 0¤Š 0D. A«r˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜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.wptô\  `‹&Times New Roman9£O-s Yo†).bk1l/£Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-(|G2ÂO$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûeò»»Ô ÌÝ ƒRÂO$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€the€deposition€is€used€for€impeachment€purposes,€however,€the€procedure€should€be€in€conformance€withÐ ° Ðthe€applicable€Rules€of€Evidence.€€òòò òó óóóòòRobert€Banks,€Jr.,€and€June€E.€Ô_ÔEntmanÔ_Ô,€Tennessee€Civil€Procedureóóòòóó€ðð€8„7(b)Ð tÄ Ð(1999).òòò òó óóó d _Ý ƒRÂO$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€Tennessee,€former€testimony€is€admissible€only€when€the€party€against€whom€it€is€offered,€and€not€merelyÐ ° Ða€predecessor€in€interest,€had€an€opportunity€and€motive€to€examine€the€declarant€under€oath.€€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð tÄ ÐTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóóòòóó€ðð€8.34[2][a].€€This€is€not€disputed€in€this€case,€and€the€record€establishes€that€Ms.€WilkesððÐ 8ˆ Ðattorney€cross„examined€Ms.€Jackson€during€the€deposition.(|3w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E-»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼E-»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î^LE-ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼E-»îî^L #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€6,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼E-ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E-»XXï#ÔJULIA€WILKES,€òòet€al.óó€v.€FREDððS,€INC.€d/b/a€FREDððS€SUPER€STORE,€òòetÐ úJ Ðalóó.Ô‡XX»¼E-Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€77842€T.D.€€€€€€Robert€A.€Lanier,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„02393„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€20,€2002Ð ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXXÔPlaintiff€slipped€and€fell€on€liquid€laundry€detergent€which€had€spilled€in€the€customer€service€areaÐ ŒÜ Ðin€Defendantððs€store.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Defendant.€€We€affirm.Ð xÈ ÐÌò òÓÈÓÔ#†XXXXÔ#ÔÔ#†¼E-»XX #ÔÔ‡XX»¼E-ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ P  ÐRemandedó óÐ <Œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E-»àX8#ÔÔ‡XX.¼E-ÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highersóó,€and€òòHollyÐ d ÐK.€Lillard,€J.J.,óó€joined.Ð P ÐÌRon€W.€McAfee,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Julia€Wilkes€and€John€Wilkes.Ð Ø( ÐÌStephen€P.€Miller€and€Evan€Nahmias,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Fredððs,€Inc.€d/b/aÐ ° ÐFredððs€Super€Store.Ð œì ÐÓâÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E-»XX#ÔÔ‡XX»¼E-ÔÐ t Ä ÐÔ#†¼E-»XX) #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼E-ÔÔ‡XXXXÔò òó óÌà  àIn€August€of€1995,€Ms.€Wilkes€was€shopping€in€Fredððs€Super€Store€(ð ðFredððsðð)€on€GetwellÐ L"œ! ÐRoad€in€Memphis€when€she€slipped€on€liquid€laundry€detergent€which€had€spilled€onto€the€floor€nearÐ 8#ˆ" Ðthe€customer€service€area€of€the€store.€€Ms.€Wilkes€had€been€standing€in€line€waiting€to€check€outÐ $$t# Ðof€the€store€when€she€stepped€out€of€line€to€check€the€price€of€an€item.€€When€she€stepped€out€of€lineÐ %` $ Ðshe€slipped€and€fell€on€the€spilled€detergent.€€As€a€result€of€the€fall,€Ms.€Wilkes€suffered€injury€to€herÐ ü%L!% Ðknee€and€required€immediate€medical€attention.€€Mr.€and€Ms.€Wilkes€filed€a€complaint€against€FredððsÐ è&8"& Ðin€April€of€1996.€€Ms.€Wilkes€alleged€that€her€injuries€were€caused€by€Fredððs€negligence€and€prayedÐ Ô'$#' Ðfor€damages€in€the€amount€of€$250,000,€plus€costs€of€future€medical€expense.€€Mr.€Wilkes€prayedÐ À($( Ðfor€damages€of€$50,000€for€medical€expenses,€loss€of€services€and€loss€of€consortium.Ð ¬)ü$) ÐÌà  àThe€cause€was€heard€before€a€jury€in€March€of€2001.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Wilkes€introduced€theÐ „+Ô&+ Ðdeposition€of€Mr.€Lee€Kyles,€the€manager€on€duty€of€Fredððs€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€which€wasÐ p,À', Ðtaken€in€May€of€1999.€€Ms.€Wilkes€introduced€the€deposition€for€the€purpose€of€authenticating€theÐ \-¬(-ý Ðpolicies€and€procedures€manual€of€Fredððs€regarding€the€clean„up€of€spills€and€the€accident€reportÐ ° Ðregarding€Ms.€Wilkesðð€fall.€€The€manual€and€accident€report€were€admitted€into€evidence.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€then€permitted€Fredððs€to€read€other€portions€of€Mr.€Kylesðð€deposition€in€which€Mr.€Kyles€saidÐ ˆØ Ðthat€Ms.€Wilkes€had€told€him€ð ð[b]asically€that€she€had€slipped€and€that€the€carrier€[sic]€had€warnedÐ tÄ Ðher€that€there€was€a€liquid€on€the€floor.ðð€€Mr.€Kyles€testified€at€deposition€that,€ð ð[s]he€(Ms.€Wilkes)Ð `° Ðrepeatedly€told€me€once€we€got€her€in€the€chair€that€the€cashier€had€warned€her€about€it€but€she€hadÐ L œ Ðjust€forgotten.ðð€€Ms.€Wilkes€objected€to€the€admission€of€additional€portions€of€the€deposition€on€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrounds€that€it€was€outside€of€the€scope€of€the€purposes€for€which€he€introduced€it.€€The€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðadmitted€the€deposition€pursuant€to€rule€32.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Mr.€KylesÐ  ` Ðwas€not€present€at€the€trial.€€€€Upon€redirect€examination,€Ms.€Wilkes€denied€making€such€aÐ ü L  Ðstatement€to€Mr.€Kyles.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Fredððs€introduced€the€telephonic€deposition€testimony€of€Ms.€LaTonya€Jackson,€theÐ À  Ðcashier€who€witnessed€Ms.€Wilkesðð€fall.€€Ms.€Wilkes€objected€to€admission€of€Ms.€JacksonððsÐ ¬ü  Ðdeposition€on€the€grounds€that€it€had€not€been€established€that€Ms.€Jackson€was€out€of€state€or€moreÐ ˜è  Ðthan€100€miles€from€the€place€of€trial€as€required€by€rule€32.01(3)(B)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ „Ô  ÐProcedure.€€The€trial€court€agreed€that€representation€by€Fredððs€counsel€was€insufficient€to€prove€thatÐ pÀ ÐMs.€Jackson€was€out€of€state,€but€held€that€since€Ms.€Jackson€had€testified€at€the€time€of€theÐ \¬ Ðdeposition€in€September€of€2000€that€she€had€been€a€resident€of€California€since€1998,€the€courtÐ H˜ Ðwould€ð ðindulge€in€the€presumption€that€she€is€where€she€resides.ðð€€The€trial€court€accordinglyÐ 4„ Ðadmitted€the€deposition€into€evidence.€€Ð  p Ðà  àÌà  àMs.€Jackson€testified€by€deposition€that€the€laundry€detergent€on€which€Ms.€Wilkes€slippedÐ øH Ðwas€spilled€by€the€woman€who€was€checking€out€ahead€of€Ms.€Wilkes,€and€that€it€had€spilled€in€frontÐ ä4 Ðof€Ms.€Wilkes.€€Ms.€Jackson€further€testified€that€she€told€Ms.€Wilkes€to€be€careful€and€to€watch€outÐ Ð  Ðfor€the€detergent.€€Ms.€Jackson€stated€that€she€ð ðcalled€the€stock€guy€to€come€clean€it€up,ðð€and€thatÐ ¼  Ðshe€thought€it€would€be€cleaned€up€by€the€time€she€had€finished€ringing€up€Ms.€Wilkesðð€purchases.€Ð ¨ø ÐAccording€to€Ms.€Jackson,€when€she€told€Ms.€Wilkes€to€be€careful,€Ms.€Wilkes€responded€that€sheÐ ”ä Ðwas€aware€of€the€detergent€because€she€had€seen€it€being€spilled.€€Ms.€Jackson€further€stated€that€Ms.Ð €Ð ÐWilkes€stepped€over€the€detergent€to€begin€checking€out,€and€began€putting€her€items€on€the€counterÐ l¼ Ðwhile€her€shopping€cart€was€behind€her.€€Ms.€Wilkes€then€moved€the€cart€backwards€in€order€to€stepÐ X ¨ Ðback€to€check€the€price€on€an€item,€and€then€slipped€and€fell€on€the€detergent.€€She€stated€that€sheÐ D!” Ðcalled€the€manager€for€assistance€after€Ms.€Wilkes€had€fallen,€and€that€she€had€no€furtherÐ 0"€  Ðinvolvement€with€Ms.€Wilkes.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àUpon€cross„examination€by€counsel€for€Ms.€Wilkes,€Ms.€Jackson€testified€that€fewer€thanÐ ô$D # Ðfive€minutes€had€elapsed€between€the€time€the€detergent€had€spilled€and€Ms.€Wilkesðð€fall.€€InÐ à%0!$ Ðresponse€to€questions€by€counsel,€Ms.€Jackson€stated€that€Ms.€Wilkes€had€stepped€over€the€puddleÐ Ì&"% Ðto€begin€checking€out,€and€started€to€check€out€with€her€shopping€cart€behind€her,€over€the€spilledÐ ¸'#& Ðdetergent.€€Ms.€Jackson€testified€that€when€Ms.€Wilkes€moved€her€shopping€cart€to€step€back€throughÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€aisle,€she€did€not€turn€around€but€stepped€backwards.€€Ms.€Jackson€stated€that€she€had€noÐ )à$( Ðconversation€with€Ms.€Wilkes€after€the€fall,€and€that€she€did€not€hear€any€conversation€between€Ms.Ð |*Ì%) ÐWilkes€and€the€manager€on€duty,€Mr.€Kyles.€€Upon€redirect€by€counsel€for€Fredððs,€Ms.€JacksonÐ h+¸&* Ðfurther€stated€that€she€planned€to€remain€in€California€and€that€she€had€a€job€in€California,€and€thatÐ ° Ðshe€would€visit€Memphis€in€either€November€or€December.Ð œì ЀÌà  àMs.€Wilkes€testified€that€she€was€not€directly€behind€the€customer€who€had€spilled€theÐ tÄ Ðdetergent,€and€that€she€did€not€see€the€detergent€spill.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€have€a€conversationÐ `° Ðwith€Ms.€Jackson€concerning€the€spill,€and€that€there€was€no€caution€sign€or€anything€to€alert€her€toÐ L œ Ðthe€spill.€€Upon€re„cross€examination,€counsel€for€Fredððs€asked,€ð ð[a]nd€I€think€earlier€you€said€youÐ 8 ˆ Ðtook€one€step€back.ðð€€Ms.€Wilkes€replied,€ð ðUh„huh.ðð€€Counsel€asked,€ð ð[a]nd€thatððs€when€you€fell?ðð€Ð $ t ÐMs.€Wilkes€answered,€ð ð[r]ight.ðð€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Fredððs€and€Ms.€Wilkes€moved€for€a€new€trial.€€In€herÐ è 8  Ðmotion,€Ms.€Wilkes€submitted€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€admit€the€deposition€testimonyÐ Ô$  Ðof€Mr.€Kyles€and€Ms.€Jackson€into€evidence,€and€that€the€verdict€was€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€Ð À  ÐMs.€Wilkesðð€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied€and€this€appeal€ensued.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIssues€Presentedó óÐ „Ô  ÐÓé&ÓÌà  àThe€issues€as€presented€by€Ms.€Wilkes€on€appeal€are:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  à(1)à0` Ð Ð àWhether€it€was€error€to€admit€the€substantive€testimony€from€the€discoveryÐ 4„ Ðdeposition€of€Lee€Kyles,€in€that€the€testimony€read€by€Defendantððs€counselÐ  p Ðwas€outside€the€scope€of€Rule€32.01(4),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ  \ Ðand€Rule€106,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.ÐøH` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€à0` Ð Ð àWhether€it€was€error€to€admit€the€deposition€testimony€of€LaTonya€JacksonÐ Ð  Ðin€that€Defendant€failed€to€meet€its€burden€of€establishing€unavailabilityÐ ¼  Ðpursuant€to€Rule€32.01(4),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€and€Rule€804,Ð ¨ø ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.Дä` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)à0` Ð Ð àWhether€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€shift€the€burden€to€Plaintiff€to€showÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€deposition€testimony€of€LaTonya€Jackson€should€not€be€admitted.ÐX ¨` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(4)à0` Ð Ð àWhether€the€weight€of€the€evidence€fails€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€theÐ 0"€  ÐDefendant€was€not€negligent.Ð#l!` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ ô$D # ÐÓF,ÓÒe°ÒÌà  àÔ#†XXXX« #ÔÔ‡XXXXÔThis€case€was€tried€before€a€jury.€€Findings€of€fact€by€a€jury€shall€be€set€aside€only€if€there€isÐ Ì&"% Ðno€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ô#†XXXXÍ,#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€€Upon€review,€this€Court€willÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€re„weigh€the€evidence,€but€will€take€the€strongest€view€possible€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprevailing€party,€and€discard€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòò òHaga€v.€Blanc€&€West€Lumber€Co.,€ó óóó666Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€61,€63€(Tenn.€1984);€òòò ò€Smith€County€v.€Eatherlyó óóó,€820€S.W.2d€366,€369€(Tenn€Ct.€App.€1991).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐWe€will€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€to€uphold€the€juryððs€verdict,€setting€it€aside€only€if€there€isÐ h+¸&* Ðno€material€evidence€to€support€it.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€This€standard€of€review€safeguards€the€constitutional€right€toÐ ° Ða€trial€by€jury.òòò òó óóó€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€in€a€jury€trial,€however,€is€ò òòòdeÐ œì Ðnovo€óóó óupon€the€record,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ô#†XXXXË-#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)Ô#†XXXX¡1#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ.€€òòò òCampbell€v.Ð ˆØ ÐFlorida€Steel€Corpó óóó.,€919€S.W.2d€26,€28€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ô#†XXXXù1#ÔÔ‡ XXXXÔThe€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€at€trialÐ tÄ Ðis€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€finding€of€abuseÐ `° Ðof€such€discretion.€€òòò òOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ô#†XXX X 2#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ L œ ÐÌÒ°e,ÒÓ  Óò òAdmission€into€Evidence€of€Deposition€of€Mr.€Kylesó óÐ $ t ÐÓR4ÓÌà  àOn€appeal,€Ms.€Wilkes€contends€that€the€deposition€of€Mr.€Kyles€is€hearsay€and€that€the€ð ðruleÐ ü L  Ðof€completenessðð€embodied€by€rule€106€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€does€not€apply€hereÐ è 8  Ðbecause€the€use€of€the€same€deposition€by€Ms.€Wilkes€was€for€the€limited€purpose€of€authenticatingÐ Ô$  Ðdocuments.€€We€disagree.€€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€Ms.€Wilkesðð€argument€by€noting€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÐ ˜è  Ðadmit€the€deposition€was€based€on€rule€32€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Rule€32.01Ð „Ô  Ðprovides:Ð pÀ ÐÌò òà8  àUse€of€Depositionsó ó[.]ò ò€ó ó€At€the€trial€.€.€.€any€part€or€all€of€a€deposition,€so€far€asÐ H˜ Ðadmissible€under€the€rules€of€evidence€applied€as€though€the€witness€were€thenÐ 8ˆ Ðpresent€and€testifying,€may€be€used€against€any€party€who€was€present€or€representedÐ $t Ðat€the€taking€of€the€deposition€or€who€had€reasonable€notice€thereof,€in€accordanceÐ ` Ðwith€any€of€the€following€provisions:ÐüLÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà0 ` à.€.€.€.€ÐÔ$` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà ` à(4)€If€only€part€of€a€deposition€is€offered€in€evidence€by€a€party,€an€adverseÐ ¬ü Ðparty€may€require€the€offering€party€to€introduce€any€other€part€which€ought€inÐ ˜è Ðfairness€to€be€considered€with€the€part€introduced,€òòò òand€any€party€may€introduce€anyÐ „Ô Ðother€partsóóó ó.€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01€(emphasis€added).€€Rule€32.01€has€been€regarded€as€primarily€a€rule€ofÐ H!˜ Ðevidence.€€òòò òSee€óóó óRobert€Banks,€Jr.,€and€June€E.€Entman,€òòTennessee€Civil€Procedureóóòòóó€ðð€8„7(b)Ð 4"„  Ð(1999).€€It€applies€to€the€use€of€deposition€testimony€for€cross„examination€and€impeachment,Ð  #p! Ðprovides€a€hearsay€exception,€and€is€a€rule€of€completeness.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Accordingly,€our€analysis€of€thisÐ  $\" Ðissue€must€encompass€both€rule€106€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€32.01€of€the€TennesseeÐ ø$H # ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure,€and€must€effectuate€the€overarching€purpose€of€the€rules.€€In€general,Ð ä%4!$ Ðdeposition€testimony€is€admissible€to€the€same€extent€that€the€testimony€would€be€admissible€if€theÐ Ð& "% Ðdeponent€was€in€court€to€testify.€òòò ò€Id.ó óóó€€The€deposition€is€admissible,€however,€only€if€the€party€againstÐ ¼' #& Ðwhom€it€is€offered€was€present€or€represented€at€the€taking€of€the€deposition,€or€who€had€reasonableÐ ¨(ø#' Ðnotice€thereof.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01.€€Thus€a€deposition€is€not€admissible€for€use€against€a€partyÐ ”)ä$( Ðwho€was€not€afforded€notice€of€the€deposition.€€ò òòòSee€id.óóó óÐ €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà  àIn€this€case,€counsel€for€Ms.€Wilkes€was€present€at€the€deposition€of€Mr.€Kyles,€had€anÐ ° Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€him€at€that€time,€and€did€in€fact€do€so.€€It€was€Ms.€Wilkes€whoÐ œì Ðintroduced€the€deposition€into€evidence.€€Although€Ms.€Wilkes€may€have€introduced€the€depositionÐ ˆØ Ðfor€the€limited€purpose€of€authenticating€the€accident€report€regarding€her€fall€and€establishing€thatÐ tÄ Ðit€was€Mr.€Kyles€who€had€prepared€the€report,€once€the€deposition€was€introduced,€Fredððs€wasÐ `° Ðentitled€to€require€Ms.€Wilkes€ð ðto€introduce€any€other€part€which€ought€in€fairness€to€be€consideredÐ L œ Ðwith€the€part€introduced,òò€ò òandóó€ó ó.€.€.€introduce€any€other€parts.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01(4)(emphasisÐ 8 ˆ Ðadded).€€òòò òSee€Sherrod€v.€Mooneyhanó óóó,€No.€03A01„9810„CV„00351,€1999€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€478€atÐ ( x Ð*16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€14,€1999),€òòò òperm.€app.€deniedóóó ó€(Tenn.€Jan.€3,€2000).€€Admissible€depositionÐ  d Ðtestimony€may€be€used€as€if€the€deponent€was€present€and€testifying€in€court.€€òòò òDargi€v.€Ô_ÔTerminixÔ_ÔÐ  P  ÐÔ_ÔIntððl.Ô_Ôó óóó,€23€S.W.3d€342,€345€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).Ð ì <  ÐÌà  àRule€32.01€provides€that€once€a€party€has€introduced€a€deposition,€the€opposing€party€mayÐ Ä  Ðseek€to€have€other€portions€presented€òòò òat€the€same€timeóó€ó ówhen€fairness€requires€the€portions€to€beÐ °  Ðconsidered€contemporaneously.€€òòRobert€Banks,€Jr.€and€June€E.€Ô_ÔEntmanÔ_Ô,€Tennessee€CivilÐ  ð  ÐProcedureóóòòóó€ðð€8„7(b)€(1999).òòò òó óóó€€In€this€sense,€the€rule€regards€the€timing€of€the€introduction€of€otherÐ ŒÜ  Ðportions€of€the€deposition€and€reflects€rule€106€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Additionally,Ð xÈ Ðhowever,€if€the€trial€court€determines€that€fairness€does€not€demand€that€the€various€portions€beÐ d´ Ðconsidered€at€the€same€time,€admissible€portions€of€the€deposition€may€be€introduced€during€theÐ P  Ðother€partyððs€case„in„chief€or€on€rebuttal.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòò òId.ó óóó€Ð <Œ ÐÌà  àIn€general,€a€party€may€raise€the€same€objections€to€the€admissibility€of€the€evidenceÐ d Ðcontained€in€the€deposition€that€could€be€raised€if€the€witness€were€testifying€at€trial.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€The€cruxÐ P Ðof€Ms.€Wilkesðð€argument€on€appeal€is:€€ð ð[a]llowing€the€Defendant€to€offer€the€hearsay€statements€ofÐ ì< Ðits€manager€was€manifestly€unfair€to€the€Plaintiff.€€Mr.€Kyles€was€not€present€and€subject€to€crossÐ Ø( Ðexamination€and€the€jury€was,€therefore,€deprived€of€its€opportunity€to€assess€the€credibility€of€theÐ Ä Ðwitness.ðð€€We€find€this€argument€unconvincing.€€As€noted€above,€Ms.€Wilkes€introduced€Mr.€KylesÐ ° Ðdeposition€into€evidence.€€Once€a€portion€of€a€deposition€is€admitted€into€evidence,€rule€32.01(4)Ð œì Ðprovides€that€other€portions€may€be€introduced€by€any€party.€€Further,€Ms.€Wilkes€had€theÐ ˆØ Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€Mr.€Kyles€when€the€deposition€was€taken,€and€could€have€subpoenaedÐ tÄ Ðhim€to€testify€at€trial€in€order€for€the€jury€to€assess€his€credibility.€€The€statements€to€which€Ms.Ð ` ° ÐWilkes€objects€are€those€concerning€her€own€statements€to€Mr.€Kyles€that€she€had€been€warned€aboutÐ L!œ Ðthe€laundry€detergent€which€had€been€spilled€on€the€floor.€€Mr.€Kyles€reiteration€of€such€statements,Ð 8"ˆ  Ðif€made€at€trial,€would€be€admissible€as€an€admission€by€a€party„opponent€under€rule€803(1.2)€of€theÐ $#t! ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ $`" Ðin€admitting€the€deposition€of€Mr.€Kyles€into€evidence.Ð ü$L # ÐÌÌÐ À'#& Ðò òÓ  ÓAdmission€into€Evidence€of€Deposition€ofó ó€ò òMs.€LaTonya€Jacksonó óÐ ° ÐÓâPÓÌà  àMs.€Wilkes€submits€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€telephonic€deposition€of€Ms.Ð ŒÜ ÐJackson€because€Fredððs€did€not€demonstrate€that€Ms.€Jackson€was€unavailable€pursuant€to€ruleÐ xÈ Ð32.01(4)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€and€rule€804(a)(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ d´ ÐEvidence.€€Ms.€Wilkes€further€contends€that€the€court€erred€shifting€the€burden€to€her€to€show€Ms.Ð P   ÐJackson€was€available€once€Fredððs€had€demonstrated€that€at€the€time€the€deposition€was€taken€Ms.Ð < Œ ÐJackson€was€a€resident€of€California.€€As€an€initial€matter,€we€note€that€the€applicable€rule€of€civilÐ ( x Ðprocedure€is€rule€32.01(3)(B),€and€will€address€this€issue€accordingly.Ð  d ÐÌà  àRule€32.01(3)(B)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€and€rule€804(a)(6)€of€theÐ ì <  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provide€that€a€deposed€witness€who€is€more€than€100€miles€from€theÐ Ø(  Ðcourt€house€at€the€time€of€trial€qualifies€as€an€unavailable€declarant.€€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð Ä  ÐTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceòòóóóó€ðð€8.32[8]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€€The€deposition€accordingly€is€admissibleÐ °  Ðas€former€testimony€under€rule€804(b)(1).€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€The€Tennessee€Rule€is€substantially€patterned€afterÐ œì  Ðrule€804(b)(1)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence.׃W×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòDavid€F.€Binder,€Hearsay€Handbookóóòòóó€ðð€33:2Ð ˆØ  Ð(4òòthóó€ed.€2001).€€The€burden€of€establishing€unavailability€is€on€the€proponent€of€the€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€ððÐ tÄ Ð33:3;€òòò òState€of€Tennessee€v.€McCoyó óóó,€No.€01-C-01-9103-CR-00090,€€1991€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXISÐ `° Ð929€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€November€21,€1991)€(òòò òno€perm.€app.€filedóóó ó).€€However,€trial€courts€haveÐ Lœ Ðconsiderable€discretion€in€determining€whether€unavailability€has€been€demonstrated.òò€€óóòòDavid€F.Ð 8ˆ ÐBinder,€Hearsay€Handbookóóòòóó€ðð€33:2€(4òòthóó€ed.€2001).òòò òó óóó€€Ð $t ÐÌà  àThe€parties€do€not€dispute€that€when€the€deposition€was€taken€in€September€of€2000,€sixÐ üL Ðmonths€prior€to€trial,€Ms.€Jackson€had€been€a€resident€of€California€for€two€years.€€In€the€absence€ofÐ è8 Ðany€offer€of€proof€or€suggestion€to€the€contrary,€we€do€not€believe€that€it€was€an€abuse€of€discretionÐ Ô$ Ðfor€the€trial€judge€to€determine€that€Ms.€Jackson€remained€a€resident€of€California€at€the€time€of€trial,Ð À Ðjust€six€months€later,€or€to€presume€that€she€in€fact€was€where€she€resided.€€The€record€supports€aÐ ¬ü Ðfinding€that€Ms.€Jackson€was€unavailable€at€the€time€of€trial.€€We€accordingly€affirm.Ð ˜è ÐÌÓ  Óò òThe€Jury€Verdictó óÐ pÀ ÐÓù\ÓÌà  àThe€final€issue€as€presented€by€Ms.€Wilkes€on€appeal€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€weight€of€the€evidenceÐ H!˜ Ðfails€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€Defendant€was€not€negligent.ðð€€Our€standard€of€review€ofÐ 4"„  Ða€jury€verdict€is€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð  #p! Ð13(d).€€Thus€this€Court€will€not€re„weigh€the€evidenceÔ#†XXXX 4#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€lies.òòò ò€Ð  $\" ÐÔ#†XXXX_#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÔ_ÔHagaÔ_Ô€v.€Blanc€&€West€Lumber€Co.óóó ó,€€666€S.W.2d€61,€63€(Tenn.€1984).€€If€there€is€any€materialÐ ø$H # Ðevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€regarding€fault,€we€must€affirm.€€òòò òId.óóó ó;ò òòò€ó óóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ô#†XXXX›_#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ ä%4!$ ÐÐ Ð& "% Ðà  àIn€an€action€for€negligence,€the€plaintiff€must€prove€five€elements:€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owedÐ ° Ðto€the€plaintiff€by€the€defendant;€(2)€conduct€by€the€defendant€constituting€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)Ð œì Ðinjury€or€loss€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€the€cause€in€fact€of€the€plaintiffððsÐ ˆØ Ðinjury;€(5)€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€the€proximate€or€legal€cause€of€the€injury.€€òòò òWaste€Mgmt.,Ð tÄ ÐInc.€of€Tennessee€v.€South€Cent.€Bell€Tel.€Co.ó óóó,€15€S.W.3d€425,€430€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ô#†XXXXó`#ÔÔ‡XXXXԀР`° ÐÌà  àThe€duty€of€care€is€a€legal€obligation€to€act€as€a€reasonably€prudent€person€to€protect€againstÐ 8 ˆ Ðharm€to€others€in€light€of€the€apparent€risk€of€harm.€€òòò òMcCall€v.€Wilderó óóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð1995).€€Once€it€has€been€determined€that€a€defendant€owed€the€plaintiff€a€duty€of€reasonable€care,Ð  ` Ðthe€issue€becomes€whether€the€defendant€has€exercised€reasonable€care€under€the€circumstances.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€Ð ü L  ÐIn€other€words,€the€question€becomes€whether€the€defendant€acted€as€a€reasonably€prudent€personÐ è 8  Ðwould€act€under€the€circumstances.€€òòò òSeeóó€òòid.€€ó óóóIf€the€defendant€has€not€exercised€reasonable€care,€thenÐ Ô$  Ðhe€has€breached€his€duty€to€the€plaintiff€and€is€liable€for€his€negligence.€€òòò òSee€id.ó óóó€at€153„54.Ô#†XXXX¾c#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Ð Ä  ÐÌà  àNegligence€is€not€presumed,€however,€merely€from€the€fact€that€an€accident€has€occurred.Ð œì  Ðòòò òArmes€v.€Hulettó óóó,€843€S.W.2d€427,€432€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€òòò òó óóó€The€plaintiff€carries€€the€burden€ofÐ ˆØ  Ðproving€that€the€accident€was€proximately€caused€by€the€defendantððs€negligence.€òòò òSpahr€v.€F.€W.Ð tÄ ÐWoolworth€Co.ó óóó,€No.€01-A-01-9303-CV-00107,òòò ò€óóó ó1993€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€573òò€óóat€*7„8€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð `° ÐSept.€1,€1993)€(òòò òno€perm.€app.€filedóóó ó).€€It€is€generally€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€determineÐ Lœ Ðwhether€the€defendant€has€exercised€reasonable€care.€òòò ò€See€Burgess€v.€Tie€Co.€1ó óóó,€44€S.W.3d€922,Ð 8ˆ Ð923-924€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€In€this€case,€the€depositions€of€Mr.€Kyles€and€Ms.€Jackson€provideÐ $t Ðmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€Fredððs€was€not€negligent.€€We€accordingly€affirm.€Ð ` ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ è8 ÐÓÀkÓÌà  àó óThe€deposition€of€Mr.€Kyles€was€admissible€under€rule€32.01(4)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ À ÐCivil€Procedure.€€The€deposition€of€Ms.€Jackson€was€admissible€as€former€testimony€under€ruleÐ ¬ü Ð804(a)(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€under€rule€32.01(3)(B)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ˜è ÐCivil€Procedure.€€The€jury€verdict€is€supported€by€material€evidence.€€We€therefore€affirm€judgmentÐ „Ô Ðfor€Fredððs.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellants,€Julia€Wilkes€and€John€Wilkes,€and€theirÐ pÀ Ðsurety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð \ ¬ ÐÌÌÌÔ#†XXXX‚g#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  $\" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE