ÿWPCÊ$ …# V %a 04gU:›w@Õ4 ) b8 @ 0”H 0DÜ U: 0JZ 0T¤ 0^ø 0hV 0r¾ 0|0 0†¬ 02 1u U,7 0dc BÇU,äU *B):DCc D3¦ AMÙò& 0@¸X/•?v~ÔvÓR AO%#Æt# 0D:$ D/~$ B­$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ‡[ˆ‰UŠD‹EŒUDŽÓ€›;p‚ 3|x›- ù-(D(2V$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ èÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMay€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔThe€statute€authorizes€a€total€of€eight€peremptory€challenges€per€side€when€a€civil€suitÏinvolves€more€than€one€party€per€side.€€For€example,€if€there€are€two€party€plaintiffs,€then€each€isÏentitled€to€four€peremptory€challenges.€€However,€if€there€are€more€than€two€party€plaintiffs,€theÏprecise€division€of€the€eight€peremptory€challenges€among€the€plaintiffs€is€a€matter€the€statuteÏassigns€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105.Ì %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€'ôÔSeeóó€òòSchwennen€v.€Abell›óó,€430€œN.W.2d›€98€(Iowa€1988);€òòœFeltch›€v.€General€Rental€Co.óó,€421ÏN.E.2d€67€(Mass.€1981);€òòœBrann›€v.€Exeter€Clinic,€Inc€óó,€498€A.œ2d›€334€(N.H.€1985);€òòœLantis›€v.€œCondon›óó,Ï157€Cal.€œRptr›.€22€(Cal.€App.€1979);€òòChristie€v.€Maxwellóó,€696€P.œ2d›€1256€(Wash.€App.€1985).€Ì ‹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€'ôÔòòSeeóó€òòEggert›€v.€Workingóó,€599€P.œ2d›€1389€(Alaska€1979);€òòNelson€v.€Busbyóó,€437€S.W.2dÏ799€(Ark.€1969);€òòLee€v.€Colorado€Dept.€Of€Healthóó,€718€P.œ2d›€221€(Colo.€1986);€òòMist€v.€œWestin›ÏHotels,€Inc.óó,€738€P.œ2d›€85€(œHawaiðði›€1987);€òòœRuncorn›€v.€Shearer€Lumber€Products,€Inc.óó,€690€P.œ2d›Ï324€(Idaho€1984);€òòœBlagg›€v.€Illinois€œF.W.D.›€Truck€and€Equipment€Co.óó,€572€N.E.2d€920€(Ill.€1991);ÏòòœMcGuire›€v.€œSifers›óó,€681€P.2d€1025€(œKan›.€1984)€(statutory€interpretation);€òòœThill›€v.€Modern€ErectingÏCo.óó,€170€N.W.2d€865€(Minn.€1969);€òòWhite€v.€œLunder›óó,€225€N.W.2d€442€(Wis.€1975);€òòWeaver€v.ÏMitchellóó,€715€P.2d€1361€(Wyo.€1986);€òòœQuadrone›€v.€œPasco›€Petroleum€Co.€Inc.óó,€752€P.2d€504€(Ariz.ÏApp.€1988);€òòHamm€v.€City€of€Miltonóó,€358€So.2d€121€(Fla.€App.€1978);€òòœKolkman›€v.€œFalstaff›€BrewingÏCorpóó.,€511€N.E.2d€478€(Ind.€App.€1987);€òòœTichenor›€v.€œSantillo›óó,€527€A.2d€78€(N.J.€Super.€1987);ÏòòœMaidman›€v.€œStagg›óó,€441€œN.Y.S.2d›€711€(N.Y.€A.D.€1981);€òòœScattaregia›€v.€Shin€œShen›€œWu›óó,€495€A.2dÏ552€(Pa.€Super.€1985);€òòœTurnbow›€v.€œWasden›óó,€608€œF.Supp›.€237€(œD.Nev›.€1985)€(interpretingÏNevada€law).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€¤ÁXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›œÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|<0` Å `€€Lß›à@ àà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÓÓœÌÌ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONó óóóÌœFANNIE›€TUGGLE€andà àà àà à)ÌHOYT€TUGGLE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ€ò òòòFiled:€€€May€6,€1996ó óóó›Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€CIRCUITÌœVs›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€KAY€S.€œROBILIO›,ÌALLRIGHT€PARKING€SYSTEMS,à à)à àà à€JUDGEÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà à)à àNo.€€02„S„01„9501„CV„00009ÌÌ̛̜ÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellees:óóó óÌÌCarl€Wyattà àà àà àà àà àà àœLanier›€œFogg›ÌRobert€A.€Coxà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌœGLASSMAN›,€œJETER›,€EDWARDSÌ€and€WADE,€P.C.ÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÔ€'LÔÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœANDERSON,›€C.J.ÇÓÓÑ7€¤ÁXXdæXXdæ7ÑÓ  Óà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€a€party€with€a€derivativeÏclaim€„€loss€of€consortium€„€is€entitled€to€challenges€under€the€peremptory€juryÏchallenge€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€clear€and€unambiguous€language€of€the€juryÏchallenge€statute€provides€additional€peremptory€challenges€to€a€party€with€aÏderivative€claim,× ƒ. ××  ×€and€that€a€new€trial€is€required€because€the€denial€of€thatÏstatutory€right€constitutes€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€In€the€interest€ofÏjudicial€economy,€since€a€new€trial€is€required,€we€have€also€decided€that€underÏcomparative€fault€principles,€the€recovery€of€a€spouse€claiming€loss€ofÏconsortium€will€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€or€barred€by€the€fault€of€theÏphysically€injured€spouse.€€We,€therefore,€affirm€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decisionÏreversing€and€remanding€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Fannie€Tuggle,€filed€this€personal€injury€action€for€damagesÏafter€she€fell€on€an€icy€walkway€in€a€parking€lot€operated€by€the€defendant,€ÍAllright€Parking€Systems,€Inc.€(ð ðAllrightðð).€€€Her€husband,€Hoyt€Tuggle,€joined€inÏthe€suit€alleging€loss€of€consortium.€€The€Tuggles€allege€that€Allright€wasÏnegligent€in€failing€to€clear€the€ice€from€the€walkway.ÌÌà àAt€the€first€trial€of€this€case,€the€plaintiffs€won€a€jury€verdict,€but€a€new€trialÏwas€granted.€€The€second€trial€occurred€after€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2dÏ52€(Tenn.€1992),€and€was€governed€by€its€principles.€€The€defendant€pled€thatÏboth€plaintiffs€were€barred€from€recovering€because€Fannie€Tuggleððs€fault€wasÏgreater€than€the€fault€of€Allright.€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€second€trial,€during€voir€dire€of€the€prospective€jury,€the€twoÏplaintiffs,€having€exercised€four€peremptory€challenges,€attempted€to€exercise€aÏfifth€peremptory€challenge€of€a€juror,€claiming€they€were€entitled€to€four€each,Ïand€a€total€of€eight,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105(b)(1994€Repl.).€ÏThe€trial€judge€disallowed€the€fifth€challenge,€presumably€concluding€thatÏbecause€one€of€the€plaintiffs€was€asserting€a€derivative€claim€for€loss€ofÏconsortium,€the€two€plaintiffs€were€entitled€to€a€total€of€only€four€peremptoryÏchallenges€under€the€statute.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€was€thereafter€impaneled€and€sworn,€and€following€the€proof,Ïreturned€a€verdict€for€Allright.€€They€determined€that€Allright€was€negligent,€butÏconcluded€that€Fannie€Tuggleððs€negligence€equaled€or€exceeded€50€percent€ofÏthe€total€negligence.€€The€juror€the€plaintiffs€had€attempted€to€challenge€servedÏas€foreperson€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€the€derivative€characterÏof€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€does€not€alter€the€meaning€of€the€statute€whichÏallows€eight€peremptory€challenges€in€cases€which€involve€more€than€oneÏplaintiff.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€newÏtrial.€€ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€permission€to€appeal€to€determine€whether€aÏparty€with€a€derivative€claim€is€entitled€to€additional€challenges€under€the€juryÏchallenge€statute,€and€if€so,€whether€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€allow€theÏadditional€challenges€resulted€in€prejudice€requiring€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òPEREMPTORY€CHALLENGESóóó óÌà àIn€this€Court,€Allright€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€toÏallow€the€plaintiffs€to€exercise€eight€peremptory€challenges€since€the€loss€ofÍconsortium€claim€is€derivative.€€Allright€urges€us€to€follow€decisions€from€otherÏcourts€which€hold€that€additional€challenges€should€be€awarded€òòonlyóó€if€theÏinterests€of€the€multiple€party€plaintiffs€are€antagonistic.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€Tuggles€argue€that€under€the€plain€language€ofÏthe€Tennessee€statute€they€were€each€entitled€to€four€peremptory€challengesÏbecause€this€case€involves€more€than€one€plaintiff.€ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€some€fundamental€principles.€€In€Tennessee,Ïchallenges€to€a€prospective€juror€may€be€either€peremptory€or€for€cause.€€TheÏright€to€challenge€peremptorily€is€the€right€to€exclude€the€prospective€jurorÏwithout€assigning€any€reason€for€the€challenge.€€Peremptory€challenges€areÏallowed€by€the€Legislature€as€an€act€of€grace€and€can€be€exercised€as€a€matterÏof€right€only€to€the€extent€allowed€by€statute.€€òòKunk€v.€Howellóó,€289€S.W.2d€874,Ï877€(Tenn.€App.€1956).ÌÌà àThe€Legislature€has€determined€that€peremptory€challenges€will€beÏallowed€in€civil€cases€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105€(1994€Repl.),€whichÏprovides:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(a)€Either€party€to€a€civil€action€may€challenge€four€(4)€jurorsÏwithout€assigning€any€cause.€ÌÌà8 à(b)€òòIn€the€event€there€is€more€than€one€(1)€party€plaintiff€or€moreÏthan€one€(1)€party€defendant€in€a€civil€action,€four€(4)€additionalÏchallenges€shall€be€allowedóó€to€such€side€or€sides€of€the€case;€andÏthe€trial€court€shall€in€its€discretion€divide€the€aggregate€number€ofÏchallenges€between€the€parties€on€the€same€side€which€shall€notÏexceed€eight€(8)€challenges€to€the€side,€regardless€of€the€numberÏof€parties.€€Even€when€two€(2)€or€more€cases€are€consolidated€forÏtrial€purposes,€the€total€challenges€shall€be€eight€(8),€as€hereinÏprovided.ÌÌÌ(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€determining€whether€the€statute€grants€eight€peremptory€challenges€inÏthis€case,€we€apply€well„settled€principles€of€statutory€construction,€the€mostÏbasic€of€which€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intention€and€purpose€of€theÏlegislature.€€€òòWorrall€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€545€S.W.2d€736€(Tenn.€1977).€€LegislativeÏintent€and€purpose€is€to€be€ascertained€primarily€from€the€natural€and€ordinaryÏmeaning€of€the€language€used,€without€a€forced€or€subtle€construction€thatÏwould€limit€or€extend€the€meaning€of€the€language.€€òòNational€Gas€Distributors,ÏInc.€v.€Stateóó,€804€S.W.2d€66€(Tenn.1991).€€As€early€as€1841,€this€Court€said€thatÏwhere€the€language€contained€within€the€four€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,Ïand€unambiguous€and€the€enactment€is€within€legislative€competency,€"the€dutyÏof€the€courts€is€simple€and€obvious,€œ.›..œobey›€it."€€òòMiller€v.€Childressóó,€21€Tenn.€€(2ÍHum.)€320,€321„22€(1841).€€As€to€legislative€intent,€this€Court€has€more€recentlyÏobserved€that:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[I]f€[the€legislative€intent]€is€expressed€in€a€manner€devoid€ofÏcontradiction€and€ambiguity,€there€is€no€room€for€interpretation€orÏconstruction,€and€the€judges€are€not€at€liberty,€on€consideration€ofÏpolicy€or€hardship,€to€depart€from€the€words€of€the€statute€.€.€.€.ÌÓÓÌ€òòAustin€v.€Memphis€Pub.€Co.óó,€655€S.W.2d€146,€148€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€principles€of€statutory€construction,€we€observeÏthat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105€(b)€plainly€provides€that€ð ð[i]n€the€event€there€isÏmore€than€one€(1)€party€plaintiff€.€.€.€four€(4)€additional€challenges€òòshallóó€beÏallowed€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€statute€is€free€of€ambiguity,€and€in€the€face€of€such€clearÏlanguage,€this€Courtððs€duty€is€to€apply€the€statute€as€it€is€written,€without€furtherÏinterpretation€or€construction.€€€In€this€case,€there€are€two€plaintiffs.€€Therefore,Ïthe€answer€is€clear.€€Under€the€statute,€each€of€the€plaintiffs€in€this€case€wasÏentitled€to€four€peremptory€challenges,€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€toÏgrant€the€additional€challenges.ÌÌà àFatal€to€the€defendantððs€argument€is€the€absence€of€language€in€theÏTennessee€statute€which€conditions€additional€challenges€on€the€antagonisticÏinterests€of€the€party€plaintiffs.€€The€Florida€and€Georgia€decisions€upon€whichÍthe€defendant€relies€involve€statutes€with€different€language€than€the€statute€atÏissue€here€and€are,€therefore,€inapposite.€€Moreover,€the€derivative€nature€of€aÏclaim€for€loss€of€consortium€is€irrelevant€to€the€construction€of€this€statute.€€OurÏinquiry€begins€and€ends€with€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€which€dictatesÏthe€number€of€challenges€required€when€a€case€involves€more€than€oneÏplaintiff.€ÌÌà àTherefore,€we€conclude€that€when€there€are€two€plaintiffs€in€one€lawsuit,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105€(1994€Repl.)€requires€that€each€be€afforded€fourÏperemptory€challenges.€€òòCfóó.€€òòCrawford€v.€Heabergóó,€709€S.W.2d€611€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986)(Holding€that€where€three€separate€and€independent€lawsuits€wereÏconsolidated€for€trial€by€jury,€the€plaintiffs€were€entitled€to€a€total€of€eightÏperemptory€challenges€to€be€divided€among€them€as€the€trial€judge€deemedÏappropriate).€€ÌÌà àHaving€determined€that€the€trial€court€erred,€we€must€next€considerÏwhether€the€error€requires€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€We€have€previously€stated,Ïin€the€criminal€context,€that€ð ð[t]he€Legislature,€in€its€wisdom,€certainly€has€theÏright€and€power€to€direct€the€judicial€process.ðð€€òòState€v.€€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322,Ï327€(Tenn.€€1991).€€We€also€have€emphasized€that,€ð ð[r]ules€prescribing€juryÍselection€procedures€are€intended€to€protect€the€integrity€of€the€jury€system€byÏproviding€a€uniform€and€ordered€method€that€ensures€the€accused€a€fair€andÏimpartial€jury€chosen€from€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏColemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993).€€Although€the€stakes€are€differentÏin€civil€cases,€the€power€of€the€Legislature€to€direct€the€judicial€process€isÏunchanged,€and€the€purpose€of€the€procedural€rules€is€the€same€„„€to€insureÏuniformity,€impartiality,€and€fairness€in€jury€selection.€€€While€it€is€difficult€for€anÏindividual€litigant€to€prove€that€a€deviation€from€such€procedural€rules€ð ðmoreÏprobably€than€notðð€œaffects›€the€judgment€in€a€particular€case,€it€is€clear€thatÏcompliance€with€such€rules€protect€the€integrity€of€the€jury€system€and€safeguardÏthe€administration€of€justice.€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,€such€deviations€from€prescribedÏprocedural€rules€have€been€held€to€constitute€prejudice€to€the€judicial€processÏunder€Tenn.€€R.€€App.€€P.€€36(b).€€òòCfóó.€€œòòState€v.€Colemanóó,›€òòsupraóó€(Court€commentedÏthat€defendant€had€not€been€denied€the€use€of€his€statutorily€mandated€numberÏof€peremptory€challenges€so€no€reversal€required);€œòòState€v,€Cookóó,›€òòsupraóó€(CourtÏfound€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process€and€reversed€for€a€new€trial€where€theÏdefendant€was€denied€his€statutory€right€to€have€the€jury€instructed€as€to€theÏrange€of€possible€punishments€that€would€result€from€convictions).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€Hoyt€Tuggle€was€denied€the€use€of€his€statutorily€mandatedÏnumber€of€peremptory€challenges.€€In€our€view,€denial€of€that€right,€which€wasÏdesigned€to€safeguard€the€administration€of€justice,€constitutes€prejudice€to€theÏjudicial€process€and€requires€a€reversal€in€this€case€under€Tenn.€R.€€App.€€P.Ï36(b).€€As€a€result,€we€affirm€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€that€a€new€trial€mustÏbe€granted.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCOMPARATIVE€FAULT€„€LOSS€OF€CONSORTIUMó óóóÌà àHaving€determined€that€a€new€trial€is€required,€in€the€interests€of€judicialÏeconomy,€we€deem€it€necessary€to€resolve€a€question€of€first€impression€„Ïwhether,€under€comparative€fault€principles,€the€recovery€of€a€spouse€claimingÏloss€of€€consortium€should€be€reduced€or€barred€by€the€fault€of€the€physicallyÏinjured€spouse.ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€a€brief€review€of€the€law€in€this€State€as€itÏrelates€to€loss€of€consortium.€€In€Tennessee,€ð ðdespite€being€a€separate€claimÏfrom€that€of€an€injured€spouse€for€other€damages,€loss€of€consortium€is€also€aÏderivative€claim€in€that€the€physical€injuries€or€incapacities€of€oneððs€spouse€giveÏrise€to€and€establish€the€claim.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Milleróó,€776€S.W.2d€115,€117€(Tenn.ÍApp.€1989);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSwafford€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€743€S.W.2d€174,€178Ï(Tenn.€App.€1987).€Ì€Ìà àIn€contrast€to€the€Tennessee€approach,€a€small€number€of€jurisdictionsÏview€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€as€an€essentially€different€and€independentÏcause€of€action€from€the€physically€injured€spouse.€€Based€on€that€premise,Ïthose€jurisdictions€apply€the€rule€that€the€recovery€awarded€the€spouse€claimingÏloss€of€consortium€is€not€affected€by€the€fault€of€the€physically€injured€spouse.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€clear€majority€of€jurisdictions,€however,€hold€that€a€loss€of€consortiumÏaward€must€be€reduced,€and€may€be€barred,€by€the€comparative€fault€of€theÏphysically€injured€spouse.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÌÌà àCourts€following€the€majority€rule€regard€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€asÏderivative€for€purposes€of€comparative€fault,€and€explain€their€rationale€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àœ[T]here›€must€be€a€tort€which€gives€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€thatÏmust€be€maintained€by€the€[physically]€injured€spouse€in€order€forÏthe€non„injured€spouse€to€claim€a€loss€of€consortium.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€loss€of€consortium€claim€is€dependent€upon€theÏnegligent€injury€of€the€other€spouse€who€has€the€primary€tort€causeÏof€action.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòœMist€v.€Westin€Hotels,€Inc.óó,›€738€P.2d€at€90.€€While€acknowledging€that€ð ðeachÏspouse€is€equal€and€independent€and€suffers€a€personal€loss€when€the€other€isÏinjured,ðð€these€courts€emphasize€that€ð ðdoes€not€alter€the€fact€that€the€basis€forÏrecovery€for€loss€of€consortium€is€interference€with€the€continuance€of€a€healthyÏand€happy€marital€life€and€injury€to€the€conjugal€relation.ðð€€òòœEggert€v.€Working›óó,Ï699€P.2d€at€1391.€€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€majority€of€jurisdictions,€reducing€the€recovery€of€aÏspouse€claiming€loss€of€consortium€in€proportion€to€the€fault€of€the€physicallyÏinjured€spouse€is€the€simplest€and€easiest€way€to€achieve€a€just€result€andÍinsure€that€a€loss€resulting€from€an€accident€is€distributed€among€those€whoseÏnegligence€caused€it.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àFostering€family€harmony€is€another€rationale€for€the€majority€approach,Ïwhich€was€articulated€by€the€Colorado€Supreme€Court€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àIf€a€claim€for€loss€of€consortium€were€viewed€as€totallyÏindependent€of€the€other€spouseððs€personal€injury€claim,€thereÏwould€be€no€reason€to€preclude€one€spouse€from€suing€anotherÏfor€loss€of€consortium€or€to€prohibit€the€primary€tortfeasor€sued€in€aÏconsortium€claim€from€impleading€the€spouse€who€suffered€theÏpersonal€injuries.€€Placing€one€spouse€in€an€adversarialÏrelationship€to€the€other€over€the€latterððs€claim€for€loss€ofÏconsortium€introduces€an€element€of€legal€conflict€into€theÏmarriage€that,€far€from€contributing€to€marital€harmony,€will€mostÏlikely€have€the€effect€of€fostering€discord€between€the€parties.€€TheÏderivative€approach€avoids€much€of€this€potential€for€conflict,€sinceÏthe€recovery€on€a€consortium€claim€is€dependent€solely€on€theÏdetermination€of€the€relative€degrees€of€negligence€of€theÏdefendant€and€the€spouse€who€sued€for€the€personal€injuries.ÌÌòòÌœLee€v.€Colorado€Dept.€of€Healthóó,›€718€P.2d€at€232.ÌÓÓà àÌà àBecause€we€are€persuaded€that€the€majority€rule€is€the€better€reasonedÏrule€and€is€consistent€with€prior€Tennessee€decisions€describing€a€claim€for€lossÏof€consortium€as€derivative,€and€consistent€with€our€purpose€in€adoptingÏcomparative€fault€which€was€to€achieve€fairness,€œòòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,›€833ÏS.W.2d€at€58,€we€conclude€that€the€majority€view,€which€holds€that€the€fault€ofÍthe€physically€injured€spouse€either€reduces€or€bars€recovery€on€the€otherÏspouseððs€loss€of€consortium€claim,€should€be€adopted€as€the€law€in€this€State.€ÌÌà àApplying€the€majority€rule€upon€retrial€will€result€in€a€reduction€of€HoytÏTuggleððs€recovery€for€loss€of€consortium€if€Fannie€Tuggle€is€determined€to€beÏless€than€50€percent€at€fault.€€However,€both€Hoyt€and€Fannie€Tuggle€will€beÏunable€to€recover€if€Fannie€Tuggle€is€determined€by€a€jury€to€be€50€percent€orÏmore€at€fault.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àHaving€determined€that€the€clear€and€unambiguous€language€of€the€juryÏchallenge€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„3„105(b)€(1994€Repl.),€provided€forÏadditional€peremptory€challenges€to€the€plaintiff€with€a€derivative€claim€in€thisÏcase,€and€that€the€trial€court€error€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process,Ïwe€affirm€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€reversing€and€remanding€for€a€newÏtrial.€€Upon€retrial,€any€recovery€for€Hoyt€Tuggleððs€claim€for€loss€of€consortiumÏshall€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€the€fault€of€Fannie€Tuggle€if€less€than€50Ïpercent,€and€barred€completely€if€the€jury€determines€that€Fannie€Tuggleððs€faultÏequaled€or€exceeded€œ50›€percent.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÍdefendant,€Allright€Parking€Systems,€Inc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌ̛̜Ìò òœCONCUR:ó ớ̜Drowota,›€Reid,€Birch€and€White,€œJJ.›