ÿWPCã& …# VUNa %¯ 0 Dµw@ù49 M 0ˆ\ 0Dä 0@( U>h ¦ b® 0`¶ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó BWU>tU 6²œè D3„B)·DCà AM#U*p'šfÁr':™Óv~ívÓk AO>%Æ% 0DS& D/—& BÆ&˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò û üýþDÿ P PUÓ€ DÒ 3|x (8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular- ù-(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd€ ,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌOctoberÏ7,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔA€defendant's€pleading€of€comparative€fault€as€an€affirmative€defenseÏunder€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03,€triggers€the€plaintiff's€limited€opportunity€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119(a)€(1994)€to€make€any€other€alleged€tortfeasor€a€partyÏto€the€suit.€€In€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€83„84€(Tenn.Ï1996),€the€Court€explained€the€interplay€between€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€and€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119:ÌÌà8 àà àRule€8.03,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€insures€that€the€rights€andÏliabilities€of€the€parties€subject€to€suit€be€resolved€in€oneÏaction.€€Section€20„1„119€provides€the€procedure€for€joiningÏadditional€defendants,€but€it€does€not€address€the€effect€of€aÏdefendant's€failure€to€allege€that€a€nonparty€caused€or€contributedÏto€the€plaintiff's€damages€or€the€plaintiff's€failure€to€make€thoseÏpersons€defendants.€€However,€Rule€8.03€requires€that€"comparativeÏfault€(including€the€identity€or€description€of€any€other€allegedÏtortfeasors)"€be€pled€as€an€affirmative€defense.€€Failure€of€theÏdefendant€to€identify€other€potential€tortfeasors€would€precludeÏthe€attribution€of€fault€against€such€persons€and€would€result€inÏthe€defendant€being€liable€for€all€damages€except€thoseÏattributable€to€the€fault€of€the€plaintiff.€€Failure€of€theÏplaintiff€to€assert€its€cause€of€action€against€such€persons€whoÏare€alleged€by€the€defendant€pursuant€to€Section€20„1„119€to€haveÏcaused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€or€damage,€would€not€precludeÏthe€assessment€of€fault€against€such€persons€but€would€preclude€theÏaward€of€damages€against€such€persons.ÌÌÌSince€the€defendants€in€the€present€case€did€not€allege€that€Dr.€Daniell,€orÏanother€person,€caused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries,€the€issue€ofÏwhether€the€plaintiff€could€have€joined€any€third€party€defendants€pursuant€to€ððÏ20„1„119€is€not€presented€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€420,€427€(Tenn.€1996).€Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8;€òòHammett€v.€Vogue,€Inc.óó,€179€Tenn.€284,€165€S.W.2dÏ577,€579€(1942).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔòòOwens€v.€Truckstopsóó,€915€S.W.2d€420,€428€(Tenn.€1996).ÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'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  D:Lis Geneva ÒÒ  D:Lis Geneva Ò€ ‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€8XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ќԀ(Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àOctoberÏ7,€1996›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à›à àòòFORÏœPUBLICATIONóóÌ›ÌÖ€)ÖÙ€€ÙœßL€-/,;+'h|»N` à. `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌÌÌÌETHEL€FAYE€GEORGE,à àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Davidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌÒ € ÒÒ X Òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€Hon.€Marietta€M.ÏœShipley,›€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€No.€01„S01„9505„CV„00084›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCLYDE€WAYNE€ALEXANDER,€M.D.à à)ÌAND€PHILLIP€R.€JONES,€M.D.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àDefendants„Appellees.à àœ)›à àÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À Òà@ àòòò òCONCURRING€OPINIONóóó óÔ€(„ÔÌÌà@ àÔ€(XÔÌÌÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓà àI€agree€with€the€result€reached€by€theÏmajority.€€However,€resolution€of€the€importantÏprinciples€of€comparative€fault€and€rules€of€pleadingÏand€evidence€presented€in€this€case€requires,€in€myÍview,€a€more€precise€articulation€and€analysis€of€the€pleadings,€theÏfacts,€and€the€legal€issues.€€As€an€example,€the€statement€of€theÏissue€decided€in€the€majority's€introductory€paragraph€„€if€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€introduce€evidence€that€a€person€other€thanÏitself€caused€the€plaintiff's€injury€„€encompasses€various€situationsÏcontrolled€by€different€rules€and€cannot€be€decided€as€stated.€€SinceÏthe€rules€of€substantive€law,€pleading€and€evidence€are€correlated,€IÏcan€best€state€my€views€in€an€integrated€opinion€rather€than€in€aÏcommentary€on€the€majority's€opinion.€ÌÌò òòòà@ àINTRODUCTIONÔ€(„Ôóóó óÌÔ€(XÔÌà àThis€medical€malpractice€case€presents€for€review€theÏdecision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€evidence€that€the€negligence€ofÏa€non„party€proximately€caused€the€plaintiff's€injuries€wasÏadmissible€under€a€plea€of€general€denial.€€This€Court€finds€thatÏsuch€evidence€is€admissible€only€when€the€affirmative€defense€ofÏcomparative€fault€has€been€pled.ÌÌà@ àòòò òTHE€CASEóóó óà àÌÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Ethel€Faye€George,€was€admitted€to€aÏhospital€in€Nashville€in€October€1989€for€surgery€to€be€performed€byÏDr.€James€Daniell,€a€gynecologist.€€In€preparation€for€the€surgery,ÏMs.€George€was€positioned€on€her€side€for€the€administration€of€aÏspinal€anesthesia€by€the€defendant€Dr.Phillip€R.€Jones,€anÏanesthesiologist.€€When€Dr.Jones€inserted€the€needle€into€her€lowerÏback,€the€patient€reported€sharp€pain€in€her€right€leg.€€AfterÏseveral€unsuccessful€attempts€to€complete€the€procedure,€eachÏaccompanied€by€reports€of€pain,€Dr.€Jones€requested€the€assistance€ofÏanother€anesthesiologist,€the€defendant€Dr.Clyde€Wayne€Alexander.€ÏDespite€the€patient's€complaints€of€pain€each€time€the€needle€wasÏinserted,€the€procedure€was€accomplished€by€the€defendants.€ÌÌà àUnder€the€direction€of€Dr.Daniell,€surgical€nursesÏplaced€the€patient€on€her€back€with€her€legs€supported€by€stirrups,€aÏposition€known€as€a€modified€lithotomy€position,€where€she€remainedÏduring€the€surgery.ÌÌà àAfter€the€operation,€the€plaintiff€experienced€painÏextending€down€her€right€leg€and€foot,€and€since€that€time,€she€hasÏbeen€significantly€and€permanently€impaired.€€The€proof€shows€thatÍthe€plaintiff's€condition€was€caused€by€severe€damage€to€two€nerveÏroots.ÌÌà àIn€October€1990,€the€plaintiff€filed€this€suit€forÏmedical€malpractice€against€the€defendants,€Jones€and€Alexander.€€TheÏplaintiff€did€not€sue€Dr.€Daniell.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleges€that€the€defendants'€administrationÏof€spinal€anesthesia€was€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€andÏwas€the€proximate€cause€of€the€injuriesÑ€0ÑÇsustained.€€The€complaint€alleges€specifically€that€"the€injuries€toÏthe€plaintiff's€right€leg€and€foot€were€caused€by€trauma€to€nerveÏroots€and€structures€by€the€defendants€during€the€administration€ofÏspinal€anesthesia."€€The€complaint€further€charges€that€"the€injuriesÏand€damages€sustained€by€the€plaintiff€were€proximately€caused€by€theÏnegligence€and€fault"€of€the€defendants.ÌÌà àThe€defendants€filed€answers€to€the€complaint€onÏDecember5,€1990.€€They€admitted€that€they€performed€the€procedureÏbut€denied€that€their€performance€was€below€the€applicable€standardÏof€care€exercised€by€professionals€practicing€in€the€specialty€ofÏanesthesiology€in€Nashville€and€similar€communities€and€stated€thatÏthey€complied€with€that€standard€of€care.€€The€defendantsÏspecifically€denied€the€allegation€that€the€plaintiff's€injuries€wereÏcaused€by€the€procedure€performed,€and€they€specifically€denied€theÏallegation€that€the€plaintiff's€injuries€were€proximately€caused€byÏthe€manner€in€which€they€performed€the€procedure.€€In€their€answers,Ïthe€defendants€"reserve[d]€the€right€to€assert€additional€affirmativeÏdefenses€as€they€may€appear€through€discovery€and€furtherÏinvestigation."ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€propounded€to€the€defendants€anÏinterrogatory€eliciting€their€position€on€whether€the€plaintiff'sÏinjuries€had€been€caused€by€persons€other€than€the€defendants,€toÏwhich€the€defendants€responded€that€they€had€"no€definitive€opinionÏof€the€cause€or€causes€of€the€plaintiff's€complaints."ÌÌà àIn€October€1993,€approximately€one€month€before€the€caseÏwent€to€trial,€the€plaintiff€took€the€deposition€of€Dr.VaughanÏAllen,€the€neurosurgeon€who€had€treated€the€plaintiff€for€theÏinjuries€sustained€during€the€operation.€€In€the€course€of€theÏdeposition,€Dr.€Allen€explained€that€Ms.€George€had€suffered€injuriesÏto€two€separate€nerve€roots,€and€that€in€his€opinion€there€were€twoÏplausible€explanations€for€the€injuries:€€that€an€"injection€injury"Ïhad€occurred€in€the€administration€of€the€spinal€anesthesia€by€theÏdefendants;€or€that€the€injury€had€occurred€as€the€result€of€improperÏpositioning€of€the€patient€by€Dr.Daniell€during€surgery.€€Dr.AllenÏalso€testified€that€it€was€"extremely€unlikely"€that€the€plaintiff'sÏinjuries€were€caused€by€the€defendants,€and€that€"the€most€likelyÏdiagnosis"€would€be€that€the€injuries€were€caused€during€the€surgeryÏby€Dr.Daniell.€ÌÌà àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendants€filed€a€notice€of€intentÏto€introduce€into€evidence€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Allen.€€TheÏplaintiff€responded€by€filing€a€motion€to€exclude€the€testimony,Ïcontending€that€the€defendants€were€required€to€plead€comparativeÏfault€as€an€affirmative€defense€before€presenting€evidence€thatÏanother€person€caused€the€injury.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€first€day€of€the€trial,€the€plaintiff€filed€aÏsecond€motion€òòinóó€òòlimineóó,€asking€the€court€to€exclude€any€testimonyÏand€prohibit€any€questioning€with€regard€to€any€cause€of€theÏplaintiff's€injuries€other€than€the€defendants'€injection€of€€theÏspinal€anesthesia.€€In€the€second€motion€the€plaintiff€asserted€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAs€grounds€for€this€motion€plaintiff€wouldÏshow€the€Court€that€Defendants€have€not€raisedÏan€alternative€cause€as€an€affirmative€defenseÏin€their€answers€to€either€the€originalÏcomplaint€or€the€amended€complaint€and€haveÏnot€set€forth€any€alternative€cause€in€theirÏRule€26€statement€of€expert€testimony€or€inÏanswer€to€interrogatory€number€eight€of€theÏinterrogatories€propounded€on€each€defendantÏmany€months€ago.ÌÌÓÓÌThe€trial€court€denied€the€motions€to€exclude€Dr.Allen's€deposition.€ÏNo€additional€pleading€was€filed€by€any€of€the€parties,€and€onÍNovember8,€1993€the€case€went€to€trial€on€the€plaintiff's€amendedÏcomplaint€and€the€defendants'€answers.ÌÌà àThe€jury€found€for€the€defendants,€and€the€trial€courtÏentered€judgment€accordingly.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€theÏadmission€of€Dr.Allen's€testimony€was€not€error,€and€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòANALYSISóóó óà à€ÌÓ  Óà8 àÌà àEven€though€the€cause€of€action€arose€in€October,€1989,Ïthis€case€had€not€been€tried€when€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyre€v.ÏBalentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€was€released€on€May4,€1992.€ÏConsequently,€the€case€became€subject€to€the€principles€ofÏcomparative€fault,€òòid.óó€at€58,€which€significantly€altered€theÏsubstantive€and€procedural€rights€of€the€parties.€€At€that€time,€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€run€on€the€plaintiff's€claim€against€anyÏother€person,€including€Dr.Daniell.€€However,€òòMcIntyreóó€gave€theÏdefendants€a€significant€right€not€previously€available,€the€right€toÏ"allege,€as€an€affirmative€defense,€that€a€nonparty€[had]€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€injury,"€and€thus€avoid€liability€in€whole€or€inÏpart.€€òòIdóó.€€An€amendment€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03,€also€adopted€priorÍto€the€trial€of€this€case,€defined€the€procedure€for€asserting€thatÏdefense.€€ÌÌà àRule€8.03,€entitled€ð ðAffirmative€Defenses,ð ð€provides€inÏpertinent€part€that,€ð ð[i]n€pleading€to€a€preceding€pleading,€a€partyÏshall€set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€short€and€plain€terms€reliedÏupon€to€constitute€...€comparative€fault€(including€the€identity€orÏdescription€of€any€other€alleged€tortfeasors)....ð ð€€The€AdvisoryÏCommission€explained€the€1993€amendment€as€follows:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à"Comparative€fault"€is€substituted€forÏ"contributory€negligence"€in€light€of€òòMcIntyreÏv.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏNote€that€the€defendant€must€identify€orÏdescribe€other€alleged€tortfeasors€who€shouldÏshare€fault,€or€else€the€defendant€normallyÏwould€be€barred€from€shifting€blame€to€othersÏat€trial.ÌÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€Advisory€Commission€Comments€[1993].à àÌÌà àDespite€this€change€in€the€law,€the€defendants€did€notÏplead€comparative€fault€and€thus€failed€to€identify€or€describe€anyÏ"other€alleged€tortfeasors."€€The€Court€stated€in€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.ÏParsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€84€(Tenn.€1996),€that€"[f]ailure€of€theÍdefendant€to€identify€other€potential€tortfeasors€would€preclude€theÏattribution€of€fault€against€such€persons€and€would€result€in€theÏdefendant€being€liable€for€all€damages€except€those€attributable€toÏthe€fault€of€the€plaintiff."€€Consequently,€in€this€case,€theÏdefendants€were€barred€from€"shifting€blame€to€others€at€trial."× ƒ1 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€because€Dr.€Allen's€depositionÏwas€offered€for€the€sole€purpose€of€"shifting€the€blame"€for€theÏplaintiff's€injuries€away€from€the€defendants€and€onto€Dr.€Daniell,Ïthe€deposition€was€not€admissible.€€In€response,€the€defendantsÏcontend€that€they€did€not€offer€Dr.Allen's€deposition€to€show€thatÏDr.€Daniell€was€"legally€at€fault"€but€to€disprove€an€element€of€theÏplaintiff's€òòprimaóó€òòfacieóó€case,€causation€in€fact,€and€that,€therefore,ÏRule€8.03€does€not€apply.€€ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€Dr.Allen's€testimony€depends€uponÏits€relevance€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€pleadings.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€402.€€The€complaint€charges€professional€malpractice.€€TheÏdefendants€do€not€deny€two€of€the€essential€elements€of€a€cause€ofÏaction€based€on€negligence€„€duty€of€care€and€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcClenahanÏv.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€774€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€denials€stated€inÏthe€answer€put€at€issue€the€other€three€essential€elements€„€breachÏof€duty,€causation€in€fact,€and€proximate€or€legal€causation.€€InÏother€words,€the€defendants€denied€that€they€were€negligent,€thatÏtheir€administration€of€the€medical€procedure€was€below€theÍapplicable€standard€of€care;€they€denied€that€the€procedure€was€anÏantecedent€cause€of€the€plaintiff's€injuries;€and€they€denied€thatÏthe€procedure€performed€by€them€was€the€proximate€or€legal€cause€ofÏthe€plaintiff's€injuries.€€Their€pleadings€do€not€charge€that€theÏproximate€cause€of€the€plaintiff's€injuries€were€the€acts€orÏomissions€of€other€persons.€€ÌÌà àEvidence€relevant€to€any€of€the€legal€issues€raised€byÏthe€pleadings€was€admissible.€€Rule€401,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,Ïdefines€relevant€evidence€as€"evidence€having€any€tendency€to€makeÏthe€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determinationÏof€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€withoutÏthe€evidence."€€Consequently,€Dr.Allen's€testimony€was€admissible€ifÏit€tends€to€establish€the€degree€of€care€exercised€by€the€defendantsÏor€the€causal€relationship,€if€any,€between€the€procedure€performedÏby€the€defendants€and€the€plaintiff's€injuries.€€The€question,€then,Ïis€„€what€does€Dr.Allen's€testimony€tend€to€establish?€€ÌÌà àDr.Allen's€testimony€related€to€two€alternative€(notÏcommon€or€joint)€causes€„€the€administration€of€the€spinal€anesthesiaÏby€the€defendants€and€the€positioning€of€the€patient's€body€forÍsurgery€by€Dr.€Daniell.€€€As€to€the€first,€Dr.€Allen€testified€thatÏinjury€to€two€nerves€could€not€have€been€caused€by€the€injection€ofÏanesthesia€unless€the€plaintiff€had€a€ð ðconjoined€nerve€rootð ð€„„€aÏrare€anatomical€condition€in€which€two€nerves€are€enclosed€in€aÏsingle€protective€sheath.€€Dr.€Allen€discounted€this€possibility,Ïbased€on€his€analysis€of€a€myelogram€and€an€MRI€scan.€€He€concludedÏthat€although€theoretically€the€plaintiff's€injuries€could€have€beenÏcaused€by€the€spinal€anesthesia,€it€was€highly€unlikely.€€ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€other€possible€cause,€Dr.€AllenÏtestified€that€the€proper€positioning€of€a€patient's€body€during€theÏdescribed€surgery€is€crucial,€and€that€ensuring€that€the€patient€isÏproperly€positioned€is€primarily€the€responsibility€of€the€surgeonÏperforming€the€operation.€€Dr.€Allen€testified€that€having€theÏpatient's€body€in€an€improper€position€during€surgery€could€cause€aÏð ðstretch€injuryð ð€to€the€nerves€and,€conversely,€that€a€stretch€injuryÏis€highly€unlikely€if€the€patient€is€positioned€correctly.€€WithÏregard€to€this€point,€Dr.€Allen€testified€as€follows:à àÌÓÓÌÌà8 àQ:€Doctor,€do€you€have€an€opinion€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€thatÏimproper€positioning€of€Ms.€George€for€thisÏsurgery€she€had€was€the€cause€of€her€nerveÍdamage€to€her€leg?ÌÌà8 àA:€In€my€opinion€that€would€be€òòthe€mostÏplausible€causeóó,€yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 àQ:€So€that€would€be€your€opinion€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty?ÌÌà8 àA:€Yes,€it€would.ÌÌà8 àQ:€And€it€is€your€„„€do€you€have€an€opinionÏwithin€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty,€doctor,€that€improper€positioningÏof€the€patient€would€not€occur,€normally€notÏoccur€if€the€patient€was€positioned€within€theÏstandard€of€care€for€the€physicians€involved?ÌÌà8 àA:€Yes.€€As€I€have€testified€before,€unlessÏthere€was€some€underlying€anatomic€reasonÏwhich€I€donððt€believe€Ms.€George€has,€thatÏwould€be€an€accurate€statement€as€well.€à àÌà8 àÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àLater€in€the€deposition,€Dr.€Allen€responded€to€aÏquestion€about€the€lithotomy€position:ÌÌÓÓà8 àQ:€Doctor,€assuming€someone€is€properlyÏpositioned€in€the€lithotomy€position€...,€doÏyou€have€an€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degreeÏof€medical€certainty€œthat€that›€person,€if€theyÏwere€properly€positioned€in€a€lithotomyÏposition,€would€have€an€injury€such€as€Ms.ÏGeorge€has?ÌÌà8 àA:€òòIt€would€be€profoundly€unlikely€that€withÏproper€positioning€that€one€would€end€up€withÏa€nerve€injuryóó.ÌÌà8 àQ:€So€would€you€have€an€opinion€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€that€„„Ïif,€as€you€opine,€this€was€caused€by€a€stretchÏinjury,€would€you€have€an€opinion€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€thatÏthere€was€improper€positioning?ÌÌà8 àA:€Either€improper€positioning€initially€or€asÏthe€case€went€on€stretch€injury€from€involvingÏimproper€positioning€such€as€pushing€againstÏher€legs€or€something€of€that€nature,€but€myÏanswer€would€be€yes.Ìà8 àÌÌÌ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€testimony€tends€to€establish€two€conclusions€„€thatÏthe€administration€of€the€spinal€anesthesia€was€not€the€cause€in€factÏof€the€plaintiff's€injuries,€and€that€the€positioning€of€theÏplaintiff's€body€by€Dr.Daniell€for€surgery€was€the€cause€in€fact€ofÏthe€plaintiff's€injuries.€€Consequently,€Dr.Allen's€testimonyÏregarding€the€defendants'€administration€of€the€procedure€wasÏrelevant,€and,€therefore,€admissible.€€However,€his€testimonyÏregarding€the€positioning€of€the€plaintiff's€body€for€surgery€was€notÏrelevant€to€any€issue€made€by€the€pleadings,€and,€therefore,€was€notÏadmissible.€€His€testimony€with€regard€to€positioning€would€have€beenÍrelevant,€and,€therefore,€admissible,€if€the€defendants€had€pled€theÏaffirmative€defense€of€comparative€fault.ÌÌà àRule€8.03€requires€that€the€defendant€identify€orÏdescribe€other€alleged€òòtortfeasorsóó.€€It€is€applicable€where€aÏdefendant€undertakes€to€shift€the€"blame"€to€other€"tortfeasors"€whoÏ"should€share€fault."€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03€Advisory€CommissionÏComments€[1993].€€Such€allegations€raise€the€issue€of€proximateÏcause.€€In€òòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantóó,€868€S.W.2d€594€(Tenn.€1993),€theÏCourt€explained€the€difference€between€proximate€cause€and€cause€inÏfact:ÌÌÓÓà8 à"Causation€(or€cause€in€fact)€is€a€veryÏdifferent€concept€from€that€of€proximateÏcause.€€Causation€refers€to€the€cause€andÏeffect€relationship€between€the€tortiousÏconduct€and€the€injury.€€The€doctrine€ofÏproximate€cause€encompasses€the€whole€panoplyÏof€rules€that€may€deny€liability€for€otherwiseÏactionable€causes€of€harm."€Thus,€proximateÏcause,€or€legal€cause,€concerns€aÏdetermination€of€whether€legal€liabilityÏshould€be€imposed€where€cause€in€fact€has€beenÏestablished.€Ì€ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€598€(quoting€Joseph€H.€King,€Jr.,€òòCausation,€Valuation€andÏChance€in€Personal€Injury€Torts€Involving€Preexisting€Conditions€andÍFuture€Consequencesóó,€90€Yale€L.J.€l353,€l355€NSF.€7€(1981)).€ÏTherefore,€Rule€8.03€is€applicable€where€the€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€act€or€omission€of€another€was€the€proximate€cause€of€theÏplaintiff's€injury.€€ÌÌà àThis€reading€of€Rule€8.03€is€consistent€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€20„1„119(e),€which€provides:ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àThis€section€shall€not€limit€the€right€of€anyÏdefendant€to€allege€in€an€answer€or€amendedÏanswer€that€a€person€not€a€party€to€the€suitÏcaused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€for€whichÏthe€plaintiff€seeks€recovery.ÌÌÓÓÌSection€20„1„119€provides€for€the€practical€implementation€of€theÏbenefits€of€comparative€fault,€which€requires€special€pleading,€andÏit€also€protects€the€defendants'€right€to€dispute€all€the€essentialsÏof€liability€under€a€plea€of€general€denial.€€Under€a€plea€of€generalÏdenial,€and€without€affirmatively€pleading€comparative€fault,€theÏdefendants€are€entitled€to€show€at€trial€that€the€act€or€omission€ofÏanother€was€the€cause€in€fact€(as€distinguished€from€proximate€cause)Ïof€the€plaintiff's€injury.€€However,€without€pleading€affirmatively,Ïthe€defendants€cannot€attempt€to€shift€the€"fault,"€"blame,"€orÍ"liability"€to€the€other€person.€€In€order€for€the€defendants€toÏshift€all€or€part€of€the€fault,€the€defendants€must€affirmativelyÏplead€the€negligence€of€another,€or€in€other€words,€identify€orÏdescribe€other€tortfeasors€who€might€be€found€to€have€proximatelyÏcaused€the€plaintiff's€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€ParsonsÏCo.óó,€914€S.W.2d€at€83„84.ÌÌà àThe€defendants'€argument€on€this€point€(and€the€majorityÏopinion)€ignores€the€relationship€between€pleading€and€evidence.€ÏThey€acknowledge€in€their€brief€that€Dr.€Allen€testified€"that€theÏsurgical€position€of€the€patient€was€negligent€and€that€the€surgeonÏhimself€deviated€from€the€standard€of€care."€€They€continue:€€"ButÏthis€was€not€the€theory€of€the€defendants;€the€defendants€never,€atÏany€time,€contended€that€the€surgeon€was€negligent."€€This€argumentÏdefeats€the€defendants'€case.€€The€"theory"€or€"contention"€of€theÏparties€is€found€in€the€pleadings.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Under€modern€pleading,€a€partyÏis€not€required€to€set€out€in€detail€the€facts€upon€which€it€basesÏits€claim€or€defense;€however,€the€pleadings€must€afford€fair€noticeÏof€what€the€claim€or€defense€is€and€the€grounds€upon€which€it€rests.€ÍòòSeeóó€2A€James€W.€Moore,€et€al.,€òòMoore's€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð8.02€(2d€ed.Ï1995)€(citing€òòConley€v.€Gibsonóó,€78€S.Ct.€99,€355€U.S.€41,€47„48,€2ÏL.Ed.2d€80€(1957)).€€An€affirmative€defense€pleads€a€matter€that€isÏnot€within€the€plaintiff's€prima€facie€case.€€òòIdóó.€atðð8.27[1].€€Thus,Ïpleadings€give€notice€of€the€issues€to€be€tried.€€òòCastelli€v.€Lienóó,Ï910€S.W.2d€420,€429€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àThe€defendants'€pleadings€do€not€allege€that€Dr.DaniellÏwas€negligent€or€that€his€negligence€was€a€contributing€cause€of€theÏplaintiff's€injuries.€€However,€their€evidence,€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏAllen,€tends€to€establish€that€Dr.Daniell€was€negligent€and€that€hisÏnegligence€caused€the€plaintiff's€injuries.€€That€evidence€tends€toÏestablish€Dr.€Daniell€as€a€tortfeasor,€at€fault€and€responsible€forÏthe€plaintiff's€injuries.€€It€also€is€an€invitation€to€the€jury€toÏshift€the€fault€to€persons€other€than€the€defendants.€€TheÏconclusion,€of€course,€is€that€since€the€defendants€did€not€pleadÏcomparative€fault€and€identify€other€tortfeasors,€that€portion€of€Dr.ÏAllen's€testimony€which€tends€to€shift€the€fault€to€Dr.€Daniell€wasÏnot€admissible.€€ÌÌà àRelevant€evidence€of€causation€which€does€not€tend€toÍestablish€nonparties€as€tortfeasors€is€admissible€under€a€generalÏdenial.€€However,€a€defendant's€evidence€which,€as€in€this€case,Ïtends€to€show€no€causation€in€fact€by€the€defendant€is€inadmissibleÏif€it€also€shows€that€a€nonparty€was€negligent€and€that€theÏnonparty's€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€plaintiff'sÏdamages.€€In€the€present€case,€the€defendants€relied€heavily€uponÏDr.Allen's€testimony€that€the€patient€was€improperly€positioned€forÏsurgery€and€that€improper€positioning€was€the€cause€of€the€injuries.€ÏRule€8.03€requires€that€if€those€facts€are€to€be€relied€upon,€theyÏmust€be€set€forth€in€the€pleadings€in€"short€and€plain€terms."€ÏOtherwise,€testimony€regarding€those€facts€is€not€admissible.€€ÌÌà àThe€argument€that€comparative€fault€never€would€€be€pledÏoverlooks€the€above€stated€rule€of€evidence€as€well€as€significantÏpractical€factors.€€In€Tennessee,€where€the€separate,€independentÏnegligent€acts€of€more€than€one€tortfeasor€have€combined€to€cause€aÏsingle,€indivisible€injury,€liability€is€not€joint€and€several.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏConsequently,€where€the€defendant€does€not€plead€comparative€fault,Ïit€will€be€held€liable€for€100€percent€of€the€plaintiff's€damagesÏunless€it€is€absolved€of€all€liability.€€In€other€words,€where€a€soleÍdefendant€does€not€plead€comparative€fault,€there€will€be€noÏapportioning€of€liability€for€damages€even€though€the€defendant€mayÏhave€been€only€partially€at€fault.€€Evidence€which€tends€to€establishÏthe€plaintiff€or€a€non„party€as€a€tortfeasor€responsible€for€theÏdamages€alleged€is€not€admissible€unless€the€defendant€has€pledÏcomparative€fault€as€an€affirmative€defense.€€€€ÌÌà àAdmission€of€a€portion€of€Dr.Allen's€testimony€wasÏprejudicial€error€requiring€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€ÌAppeals€to€be€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€à à€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.à àÌà à€€€€€€€Ì€€ÌÌÌÌ