ÿWPCÐ …# VU:a %› 04¡4Õéøw@ 0x@ 0D¸ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud 0dÙ U*=B)gDC AMÓ B =%Bv~gvÓå D3¸ 0@ë AO+Æz 0D@ D/„ B³˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  ÓDÒ tÔôÔô3|x¡ D‘U’P“E”•–—Ó€¡ (((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  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< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌOctober€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝProsser€and€Keeton€define€the€troublesome€concept€of€proximate€causation€asÏà àfollows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€established€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€has€in€factÏbeen€one€of€the€causes€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury,€there€remains€theÏquestion€whether€the€defendant€should€be€held€legallyÏresponsible€for€the€injury.€€Unlike€the€òòfact€of€causationóó,€with€whichÏit€is€often€hopelessly€confused,€òòthis€is€primarily€a€problem€of€lawóó.€€ItÏis€sometimes€said€to€depend€on€whether€the€conduct€has€been€soÏsignificant€and€important€a€cause€that€the€defendant€should€beÏlegally€responsible.€€But€both€significance€and€importance€turnÏupon€conclusions€in€legal€policy,€so€that€they€depend€essentiallyÏon€whether€the€policy€of€the€law€will€extend€the€responsibility€forÏthe€conduct€to€the€consequences€that€have€in€fact€occurred€...€TheÏlegal€limitation€on€the€scope€of€liability€is€[thus]€associated€withÏpolicy€„„€with€our€more€or€less€inadequately€expressed€ideas€ofÏwhat€justice€demands,€or€of€what€is€administratively€possible€andÏconvenient.ÌÌà àProsser€and€Keeton€on€Torts,€ðð€42,€36€(5th€ed.€1984)€(Emphasis€added.)€ÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÑ7€²XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Ó›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌÌÌÌETHEL€FAYE€GEORGE,à àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à)à àà àFiled:€œOctober€7,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àDAVIDSON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCLYDE€WAYNE€ALEXANDER,à àà à)à à€€€€€Hon.€Marietta€Shipley,€JudgeÌand€PHILLIP€R.€JONES,€M.D.,›à àà à)à àà àÌœà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì›à àDefendants„Appellees.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€No.€01„S01„9505„CV„00084à àÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÌR.€Stephen€Doughtyà àà àà àà àRose€P.€CantrellÌWeed,€Hubbard,€Berry€&€Doughtyà àà àGeorge€A.€DeanÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àParker,€Lawrence,ÏCantrell€&€DeanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,ÏTennesseeÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#%";+'h|Ï"` ç `€€Lß›à@ àÔ€ „ÔÌÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœCOURT›€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED.à àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÌÓÓ€€à àIn€this€medical€malpractice€case,€the€plaintiff,€Ethel€Faye€George,€appeals€from€theÏCourt€of€Appealsðð€affirmance€of€a€judgment€based€on€a€jury€verdict€in€favor€of€theÏdefendants,€Clyde€Wayne€Alexander,€M.D.€and€Phillip€R.€Jones,€M.D.€€This€case€presentsÏthe€following€issue€for€our€determination:€whether€a€defendant€in€a€negligence€case€must,Ïpursuant€to€Rule€8.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€plead€comparative€faultÏas€an€affirmative€defense€if€the€defendant€wishes€to€introduce€evidence€that€a€personÏother€than€itself€caused€the€plaintiffððs€injury.€€€We€conclude€that€the€defendant€is€requiredÏto€affirmatively€plead€comparative€fault€in€such€a€situation;€and€because€that€was€not€doneÏin€this€case,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€October€1989€the€plaintiff€was€admitted€to€West€Side€Hospital€in€Nashville€forÏgynecological€surgery.€€In€order€to€prepare€the€plaintiff€for€the€surgery,€Dr.€Jones,€anÏanesthesiologist,€began€to€administer€spinal€anesthesia.€€As€he€tried€to€insert€a€needleÏinto€her€lower€back€for€this€purpose,€however,€Ms.€George€allegedly€experienced€pain€inÏher€right€leg€and€told€Dr.€Jones€of€this€pain.€€Dr.€Jones€then€withdrew€the€needle€andÏattempted€twice€more€to€administer€the€anesthesia;€but€Ms.€George€allegedly€experiencedÏpain€in€her€right€leg€each€time.€€Thereafter,€Dr.€Jones€called€Dr.€Alexander,€anotherÏanesthesiologist,€into€the€room€to€assist€him.€€When€Dr.€Alexander€attempted€to€insert€theÏneedle,€Ms.€George€allegedly€again€experienced€pain.€€The€defendants€eventually€wereÏsuccessful€in€anesthetizing€the€plaintiff;€and€she€was€placed€in€the€ð ðlithotomy€positionðð€forÏsurgery€by€nurses€under€the€direction€of€James€Daniell,€Jr.,€M.D.,€the€surgeon.€€Dr.€DaniellÏthen€carried€out€the€surgery.€€ÌÌà àImmediately€after€the€operation,€Ms.€George€experienced€pain€extending€down€herÍright€leg€into€her€foot;€she€was€unable€to€flex€her€right€foot€and€felt€pain€when€pressureÏwas€applied€to€her€right€leg.€€It€has€since€become€clear,€and€it€is€undisputed€here,€that€Ms.ÏGeorge€suffered€damage€to€two€different€nerve€roots€during€the€operation.€€€As€a€result€ofÏthis€injury,€she€is€unable€to€flex€her€right€foot,€has€no€right€ankle€reflex,€and€continues€toÏhave€pain€and€loss€of€sensation€in€her€foot€and€portions€of€her€right€leg.€€Because€of€thisÏcondition,€she€must€wear€a€brace€and€sometimes€uses€crutches€or€a€wheelchair;Ïmoreover,€her€condition€is€permanent.ÌÌà àIn€October€1990€Ms.€George€brought€an€action€against€Doctors€Jones€andÏAlexander,€alleging€that€their€negligence€in€administering€the€spinal€anesthesiaÏproximately€caused€her€injuries.€€The€defendants€answered€the€complaint,€denying€anyÏnegligence€and€reserving€the€right€to€assert€additional€defenses€as€they€became€knownÏthrough€the€discovery€process.€€The€defendants€never€amended€their€answer€to€includeÏadditional€defenses.€€Furthermore,€the€plaintiff€propounded€interrogatories€to€theÏdefendants€asking€if€it€was€their€position€that€the€injuries€had€been€caused€by€anotherÏperson.€€The€defendants€responded€that€they€had€no€definitive€opinion€as€to€the€cause€ofÏplaintiffððs€injuries.€€This€response€was€also€never€amended.ÌÌà àIn€October€1993€plaintiffððs€counsel€€took€the€deposition€of€Vaughn€Allen,€M.D.,€theÏneurosurgeon€who€had€treated€Ms.€George€for€her€injuries.€€In€the€course€of€theÏdeposition,€Dr.€Allen€explained€that€Ms.€George€had€suffered€injuries€to€two€separateÏnerve€roots.€€Dr.€Allen€also€stated€that€in€his€opinion€there€were€two€possible€explanationsÏfor€the€injuries:€(1)€that€they€had€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€spinal€anesthetic;€and€(2)€thatÏthey€had€occurred€as€a€result€of€improper€positioning€during€surgery.€€As€to€the€firstÏpossible€cause,€Dr.€Allen€testified€that€because€the€needle€used€during€the€spinal€wasÏvery€small,€and€because€the€likelihood€of€hitting€two€separate€nerve€roots€with€the€needleÏis€negligible,€the€injury€could€not€have€been€caused€by€the€anesthetic€unless€the€plaintiffÏhad€a€ð ðconjoined€nerve€rootðð€„„€a€rare€anatomic€condition€whereby€two€nerves€areÏenclosed€in€a€single€protective€sheath.€€Dr.€Allen€discounted€this€possibility,€however,Ïbased€on€his€analysis€of€a€myelogram€report€and€an€MRI€scan.€€Thus,€Dr.€Allen€concludedÏthat€although€it€was€thereoretically€possible€that€Ms.€Georgeððs€injuries€could€have€beenÏcaused€by€the€spinal€anesthetic,€it€was€highly€unlikely.€€With€regard€to€the€other€possibleÏcause,€Dr.€Allen€first€stated€that€proper€positioning€of€a€patientððs€body€during€surgery€isÏcrucial,€and€that€ensuring€that€the€patient€is€properly€positioned€is€the€primaryÍresponsibility€of€the€surgeon€performing€the€operation.€€Dr.€Allen€testified€that€improperÏpositioning€of€the€body€could€cause€a€ð ðstretch€injuryðð€to€the€nerves,€but€that€a€stretch€injuryÏis€highly€unlikely€if€the€patient€is€actually€positioned€correctly.€€With€regard€to€the€latterÏpoint,€Dr.€Allen€testified€as€follows€when€questioned€by€the€plaintiffððs€attorney:€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà8 àQ:€Doctor,€do€you€have€an€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty€that€improper€positioning€of€Ms.€George€for€this€surgery€she€hadÏwas€the€cause€of€her€nerve€damage€to€her€leg?ÌÌà8 àA:€In€my€opinion€that€would€be€òòthe€plausible€causeóó,€yes€sir.ÌÌà8 àQ:€So€that€would€be€your€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty?ÌÌà8 àA:€Yes,€it€would.ÌÌà8 àQ:€And€it€is€your€„„€do€you€have€an€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€ofÏmedical€certainty,€doctor,€that€improper€positioning€of€the€patient€would€notÏoccur,€normally€not€occur€if€the€patient€was€positioned€within€the€standardÏof€care€for€the€physicians€involved?ÌÌà8 àA:€Yes.€€As€I€have€testified€before,€unless€there€was€some€underlyingÏanatomic€reason€which€I€donððt€believe€Ms.€George€has,€that€would€be€anÏaccurate€statement€as€well.€à àÌà8 à...ÌÌÌÌÓÓLater€in€the€deposition€Dr.€Allen€testified€as€follows€when€asked€about€the€ð ðlithotomyÍpositionðð:ÌÌÓÓà8 àQ:€Doctor,€assuming€someone€is€properly€positioned€in€the€lithotomyÏposition€...,€do€you€have€an€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty€œthat€that›€person,€if€they€were€properly€positioned€in€a€lithotomyÏposition,€would€have€an€injury€such€as€Ms.€George€has?ÌÌà8 àA:€òòIt€would€be€profoundly€unlikely€that€with€proper€positioning€that€oneÏwould€end€up€with€a€nerve€injuryóó.ÌÌà8 àQ:€So€would€you€have€an€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty€that€„„€if,€as€you€opine,€this€was€caused€by€a€stretch€injury,€wouldÏyou€have€an€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€thatÏthere€was€improper€positioning?ÌÌà8 àA:€Either€improper€positioning€initially€or€as€the€case€went€on€stretch€injuryÏinvolving€improper€positioning€such€as€pushing€against€her€legs€orÏsomething€of€that€nature,€but€my€answer€would€be€yes.ÌÌà8 à...€€€€ÌÌ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendants€subsequently€filed€a€notice€of€intent€to€offer€the€deposition€of€Dr.ÏAllen€at€trial.€€The€plaintiff€responded€by€filing€a€motion€to€exclude€the€testimony,Ïcontending€that,€pursuant€to€Rule€8.03,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€€the€defendants€had€a€duty€toÍplead€comparative€fault€as€an€affirmative€defense€if€they€wished€to€offer€evidence€thatÏanother€person€had€caused€the€injury,€and€that€the€defendants€had€failed€to€so€plead.€€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€the€plaintiffððs€motion,€and€the€videotape€of€Dr.€Allenððs€deposition€wasÏplayed€to€the€jury.€€Moreover,€the€defendantsðð€counsel€used€the€deposition€to€cap€off€hisÏclosing€argument,€contending€that:€ð ð[l]adies€and€gentlemen,€the€proof€looked€atÏdemonstrates€conclusively€through€Dr.€Allen€that€the€lithotomy€position€may€very€well€haveÏbeen€the€way€that€the€injury€was€caused€here,€the€surgery€position.€€Thank€you€very€much.Ïð ð€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€defendants;€and€the€trial€court€enteredÏjudgment€upon€that€verdict.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment.€€We€granted€the€plaintiffððs€Rule€11€application€to€address€this€issue€of€firstÏimpression€concerning€Rule€8.03,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àRule€8.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€entitled€ð ðAffirmativeÍDefenses,ðð€provides€in€pertinent€part€that:€ð ð[i]n€pleading€to€a€preceding€pleading,€a€partyÏshall€set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€short€and€plain€terms€relied€upon€to€constitute€...Ïòòcomparative€fault€(including€the€identity€or€description€of€any€other€alleged€tortfeasorsóó)€...€ðð.€Ï(Emphasis€added.)€€The€ð ðcomparative€faultðð€language€was€added€to€the€rule€in€July€1993Ïby€the€Advisory€Commission,€which€explained€the€amendment€as€follows:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àððComparative€faultðð€is€substituted€for€ððcontributory€negligenceðð€in€light€ofÏòòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòNote€that€theÏdefendant€must€identify€or€describe€other€alleged€tortfeasors€who€shouldÏshare€fault,€or€else€the€defendant€normally€would€be€barred€from€shiftingÏblame€to€others€at€trialóó.ÌÌ(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€because€the€deposition€of€Dr.€Allen€was€offered€for€theÏsole€purpose€of€shifting€the€blame€for€the€injuries€away€from€the€defendants€and€onto€Dr.ÏDaniell€„„€€the€surgeon€primarily€responsible€for€positioning€the€patient€„„€Rule€8.03Ïrequired€the€defendants€to€affirmatively€plead€Daniellððs€fault€as€a€defense.€€As€support€forÏthis€argument,€the€plaintiff€also€cites€the€following€language€from€òòMcIntyreóó:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[F]airness€and€efficiency€require€that€defendants€called€upon€to€answerÏallegations€in€negligence€be€permitted€to€allege,€as€an€affirmative€defense,Ïthat€a€nonparty€caused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€or€damage€for€whichÏrecovery€is€sought.€€In€cases€where€such€a€defense€is€raised,€the€trial€courtÏshall€instruct€the€jury€to€assign€this€nonparty€the€percentage€of€the€totalÏnegligence€for€which€he€is€responsible€...€€ÌÌòòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€58.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€response,€the€defendants€argue€that€Rule€8.03€is€triggered€only€when€theÏdefendant€seeks€to€show€that€another€person€was€òòlegally€at€faultóó€for€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€ÏBecause€negligence,€the€type€of€legal€fault€at€issue€here,€requires€proof€of€the€elements€ofÏduty,€breach€of€duty,€causation€in€fact,€proximate€causation€and€injury,€òòseeóó€òòMcClenahan€v.ÏCooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€774€(Tenn.€1991),€the€defendants€contend€that€Rule€8.03€doesÏnot€apply€unless€they€attempted€to€prove€that€Dr.€Daniellððs€conduct€satisfied€all€theseÏelements.€€The€defendants€then€contend€that€they€introduced€Dr.€Allenððs€testimony€simplyÏto€show€that€Dr.€Daniellððs€actions€were€the€factual€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€harm.€€Because,Ïthe€defendants€assert,€the€testimony€only€pertains€to€one€element€of€negligence,€that€ofÏcausation€in€fact,€and€does€not€cover€the€additional€element€of€proximate€causation,€theyÏdid€not€attempt€to€prove€that€Dr.€Daniell€was€negligent€in€a€legal€sense.€€Thus,€theyÍconclude,€Rule€8.03€did€not€come€into€play.€€ÌÌà àWhile€the€defendantsðð€position€seems€plausible€at€first€blush,€its€assumption€€thatÏproof€of€proximate€cause€is€necessary€to€ð ðshift€the€blameðð€to€another€is€unfounded.€€SinceÏproximate€cause€is€actually€just€a€policy€decision€of€the€judiciary€to€ð ðdeny€liability€forÏotherwise€actionable€causes€of€harm,ðð× ƒ& ××  ×€òòseeóó€òòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantóó,€868€S.W.2d€594,€598Í(Tenn.€1993);€Joseph€H.€King,€Jr.,€òòCausation,€Valuation€and€Chance€in€Personal€InjuryÏTorts€Involving€Preexisting€Conditions€and€Future€Consequencesóó,€90€Yale€L.J.€1353,Ï1355,€n.7€(1981),€the€defendantsðð€position€ignores€the€fact€that€ð ðblame„shiftingðð€in€aÏnegligence€context€actually€has€to€do€with€the€element€of€causation€in€fact.€€Once€theÏdefendant€introduces€evidence€that€another€personððs€conduct€fits€this€element,€it€hasÏeffectively€shifted€the€blame€to€that€person.€€Therefore,€if€the€defendantsðð€position€were€toÏbe€accepted,€any€defendant€wishing€to€transfer€blame€to€another€person€at€trial€couldÏòòalwaysóó€maintain€that€it€is€not€trying€to€show€that€the€otherððs€conduct€satisfies€the€legalÏdefinition€of€negligence,€but€that€it€is€merely€trying€to€establish€that€the€other€personððsÏconduct€actually€caused€the€injury.€€In€the€latter€situation,€however,€the€defendant€has€fullyÏaccomplished€what€Rule€8.03€was€intended€to€prevent:€it€has€effectively€shifted€the€blameÏto€another€person€without€giving€the€plaintiff€notice€of€its€intent€to€do€so.€€Therefore,€theÏpurpose€of€Rule€8.03€would€be€undermined€to€a€substantial€degree€if€the€defendantsððÏoverly€technical€argument€were€to€prevail.€€ÌÌà àThe€concurring€opinion€„„€which€accepts€the€contention€that€proximate€causation€isÏrequired€to€establish€ð ðblame„shiftingðð€„„€disputes€this€conclusion.€€In€so€doing,€it€first€citesÍthe€following€language€from€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Coóó.,€914€S.W.2d€79,€84€(Tenn.Ï1996):€ð ð[f]ailure€of€the€defendant€to€identify€other€potential€tortfeasors€would€preclude€theÏattribution€of€fault€against€such€persons€and€would€result€in€the€defendant€being€liable€forÏall€damages€except€those€attributable€to€the€fault€of€the€plaintiff.ðð€€The€concurrence€thenÏreasons€that€because€the€defendant€is€liable€for€all€damages€not€caused€by€the€plaintiff€if€itÏdoes€not€plead€under€Rule€8.03,€it€will€have€sufficient€incentive€to€identify€other€potentialÏtortfeasors€even€if€we€accept€the€defendantsðð€argument.€€Ìà àÌà àWe€readily€acknowledge€that€the€factfinder€may€not€formally€attribute€fault€to€otherÏpersons€at€trial€if€the€defendant€does€not€identify€them€under€Rule€8.03;€thus,€theÏdefendant€does€have€some€incentive€to€plead€under€the€rule.€€This,€however,€does€notÏchange€the€fact€that€if€the€position€advocated€by€defendants€and€the€concurrence€were€toÏprevail,€then€the€defendant,€by€carefully€limiting€its€evidence€of€another€personððs€role€inÏcausing€the€injuries€to€the€element€causation€in€fact,€could€completely€and€effectively€shiftÏthe€blame€to€that€person€without€affording€the€plaintiff€any€notice€whatsoever€of€its€intent.€ÏA€defendant€would€still€be€justified€in€totally€surprising€the€plaintiff€and€foisting€the€blameÏon€other€persons,€a€result€that€violates€the€purpose€of€Rule€8.03.€€ÌÌà àOne€final€argument€advanced€by€the€defendants€remains€to€be€addressed.€€TheyÏargue€that€the€purpose€of€Rule€8.03€was€not€violated€in€this€case€because€the€plaintiff€wasÏclearly€aware€of€the€possibility€that€Dr.€Daniell€had€caused€the€injury.€€The€defendantsÏpoint€out€that€the€plaintiffððs€counsel€actually€elicited€the€quoted€testimony€from€Dr.€Allen;Ïthey€also€contend€that€the€plaintiffððs€counsel€met€with€Dr.€Daniell€well€before€trial€toÏdiscuss€whether€he€should€be€included€in€the€suit.€€The€defendants€conclude€that,Ïbecause€the€plaintiff€knew€all€the€facts€regarding€Dr.€Daniellððs€involvement,€and€had€theÏopportunity€to€include€him€in€the€suit€but€simply€chose€not€to€do€so,€their€failure€to€raiseÏcomparative€fault€as€an€affirmative€defense€did€not€prejudice€the€plaintiff.ÌÌà àWe€decline€to€accept€this€ð ðharmless€errorðð€argument.€€Rule€8.03€is€a€prophylacticÏrule€of€procedure€that€must€be€strictly€adhered€to€if€it€is€to€achieve€its€purposes.€€It€isÏdesigned€to€obviate€the€need€for€appellate€courts€to€look€into€the€record€for€actualÏprejudice€each€time€a€defendant€introduces€proof€at€trial€of€an€unpleaded€defense.€€ToÏaccept€the€defendantsðð€argument€on€this€point€would€invite€evasion€of€a€clearly„stated€ruleÏof€procedure€that€is€crucial€to€the€equitable€and€efficient€administration€of€a€comparativeÍfault€system.ÌÌà àBecause€the€defendants€contravened€Rule€8.03€by€attempting€to€shift€the€blame€toÏanother€person€at€trial€without€affirmatively€pleading€comparative€fault,€the€judgment€of€theÏlower€courts€is€hereby€reversed,€and€the€cause€remanded€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à€______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,ÌAnderson,€€White,€J.ÌÌReid,€J.€„€Separate€Concurring€Opinion.