WPCC ~)ĴNsP6b#W>G\2@S[7㇑9"Ҵ2 4aNtT8y10yUCᐚ񾶖fqwOЇ IJ#v(gGvO@iv Ӭ#9z%WybeI~\WiPF ҂Q2Yw> R Pe.M64 GwWFz,A;R*}\F8v'${dDDf-ZVdwG}QKASl{ [8 .?}Q;b0`On"T0 8^ e 4>dUPX=6?m1% ˂Hi8|L>n7iE)ŠA }!MRُ>G/֝ۜCT!j6V qq}/kb{w4W6!bk?$* b#\ %  0# U,N ^ w z  4U i x mz  W   0DN"E7 0R#@c 0aaanL$$$$$ 0K) 03* 0+ 0+ 0, 0-b. 0. 0l/ 0H0 0!1 01 02 03 0g4 015 05 06 07 0o8 0D9 0: 0: 0; 0z< 0@=@=@=@=@=@=>>>>>>>>>>> 0>>>> B?? 0"? D5? D-? 0K(@(@ ASs@@ 0A 0D0B AtBHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(`U$..8XXdd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularxD)  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.wpt ;)3|x ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0     R$      1  XiXԀ  __ XXiTheevidenceinthiscaseindicatesthatsepsisisabacterialinfection.Externalsymptomsofsepsisinclude  fever,hyperventilation,skinrash,anddecreasedurineoutput.Bloodculturesofindividualsinfectedwithsepsismay  revealthepresenceofbacteriaoralowwhitebloodcellcount.Onceadiagnosisofsepsisissuspected,itisgenerally ` recommendedthatintravenousantibiotictherapybeinitiatedasquicklyaspossible.Inaddition,administrationof $t intravenousfluidsisusedtocomplementtheantibiotictreatment. - R$      6  XiXԀ  _ XXiAgain,anexampleillustratesthisproposition.Anemployeemaybringacauseofactionagainsttwo  tortfeasors,oneofwhomsuccessfullyraisesasadefense,therunningofthestatuteoflimitations.Whiletheemployee  cannotrecoverdamagesfromthistortfeasor,thejuryisstillfreetoallocatefault_to_Ԁthisnonparty.2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2    R$      2  XiXԀ  _ XXiTheterm _defendantsrefers_ԀcollectivelytoDr.Whitney,Dr.Barnes,andLeBonheur.  R$      3  XiXԀ  _ XXiAlthoughgenerallyusedtopreventnegligentplaintiffsfromrecovery,contributorynegligencewassubject  toanumberofexceptionsthatmitigatedtheharshnessofthe allornothing_rule_.SeeMcIntyrev.Balentine,833  S.W.2d52,55(Tenn.1992).2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   d R$      4  XiXԀ  _ XXiWhilevirtuallyalljurisdictionshaveadoptedsome_form_Ԁof_comparativefault_,fivejurisdictionsretainthe  traditionalsystemofcontributorynegligence.SeeWilliamsv.DeltaIntlMach.Corp.,619So.2d1330(Ala.1993);  Holmesv._Amerex_ԀRentACar,710A.2d846(D.C.1998);Harrison_v._ԀMontgomeryCountyBd.ofEduc.,456A.2d ` 894(Md.1983);Jones_v._ԀRochelle,479S.E.2d231(N.C.Ct.App.1997);Gravittv.Ward,518S.E.2d631(Va.1999).  R$      7  XiXԀ  _ XXiSee,e.g.,Ariz.Rev.Stat.122506A(1998);DaFontev.UpRight,Inc.,828P.2d140,141(Cal.1992);  Painter_v._ԀInland/_Riggle_ԀOilCo.,911P.2d716,719(Colo.Ct.App.1995);Y.H.Inv.,Inc.v.Godales,690So.2d1273,  1278(Fla.1997);Espaniolav.CawdreyMarsJointVenture,707P.2d365,37273(Haw.1985);_PocatelloIndus._ԀPark ` Co.v.SteelWestInc.,621P.2d399,403(Idaho1980);Bofmanv.MaterialServ.Corp.,466N.E.2d1064,1071(Ill. $t App.Ct.1984);_Ind._ԀCode345127(b)(1)(1999);Brownv.Keill,580P.2d867,(Kan.1978);_La._ԀCiv.CodeAnn. 8 _art_.2323(West1997);Lines_v._ԀRyan,272N.W.2d896,90202(Minn.1978);EstateofHunter_v._ԀGeneralMotorsCorp.,  729So.2d1264,(Miss.1999);Senav.N.M.StatePolice,892P.2d604,607(N.M.Ct.App.1995);_Haff_Ԁv._Hettich_, p  593N.W.2d383,388(N.D.1999);Bode_v._ԀClarkEquip.Co.,719P.2d824,826(Okla.1986);_UtahCodeAnn._Ԁ7827 4  9 38(Supp.1999);Wash.Rev.CodeAnn.4.22.070(1)(1999);Clinev.White,393S.E.2d923,925(W.Va.1990);  Connarv.WestShoreEquip.ofMilwaukee,Inc.,227N.W.2d660,662(Wis.1975);BoardofCountyCommrsv. t Ridenour,623P.2d1174,1191(Wyo.1981).  R$      5  XiXԀ  __ XXiByadoptingthenonpartydefense,weimplicitlyrejectedtheminoritypositionpermittingallocationof_fault_  onlytopartiesbeforethecourt.See,e.g.,AlaskaStat.09.17.080(Michie1999);Bradfordv.Herzig,638A.2d608,  612(Conn.App.Ct.1994);Schwennenv.Abell,430N.W.2d98,102(Iowa1988);Bencivengav.J.J.A.M.M.,Inc.,609 ` A.2d1299,1303(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1992);_Eberly_Ԁv.APControls,Inc.,572N.E.2d633,638n.5(Ohio1991); $t Brown_v._ԀWashingtonCounty,987P.2d1254,1262(Or.Ct.App.1999);Kelly_v._ԀCarborundumCo.,453A.2d624,627 8 (Pa.Super.Ct.1982);_Tex._ԀCiv.Prac.&Rem.CodeAnn.33.003(West1997).2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  - -2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2     (|I2$ U!.8iXXdd8         0  XiXԀ d(|3Q$ U!.8iXXdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Q$ U!.8iXXdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK U!.8iXXdd8     _PGDPGP@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON & #PGD#  November1999SessionGDP L #PGD#x   JAMESCARROLL,etal.v.CAROLYNWHITNEY,M.D.,etal.XiXP   p @  AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,WesternSection  p   CircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  \ @ No.68714Hon.JaniceM.Holder,Judge  H @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.W199700246SCR11CV #PXXiT#XiXP#PXXif#XiXP 򀄀FiledOctober4,_2000_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<` A    #PXXi#XiXP   `     h      p       ThisisanappealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCountywhichallowedajury,inanaction v allegingmalpractice,toallocatefaulttoresidentphysicianswhowereimmunefromsuit.TheCourt b ofAppealsreversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtandconcludedthatthetrialcourtshouldnothave N permittedthejurytoapportionfaulttotheresidentsbecausetheywereimmune.Wethengranted : thisappealtodecidewhetherthetrialcourterredinallowing_nonparties_Ԁwhowereimmunefromsuit &v toappearonajuryverdictform.Afterexaminingtherecord,consideringtheargumentsofthe b partiesandamicuscuriae,andanalyzingtheapplicablelaw,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnot N errinallowingtheimmune_nonparties_Ԁtoappearonthejuryverdictform.Accordingly,forthe : reasonsherein,wereversetheCourtofAppealsandreinstatethejudgmentofthetrialcourt. & #PXXi#XiXP   Tenn.R.App.P.11ApplicationforPermissiontoAppeal;Judgmentofthe  CourtofAppealsReversed   ) WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,and r  _Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.#PXi #XiX.P,JJ.,joined.E.RileyAnderson,C.J.,filedadissentingopinion.Janice ^!  M.Holder,J.,notparticipating. J"! Robert_L.J._ԀSpence,Jr.andChapmanSellersMorrow,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellants, "$r# CarolynWhitney,M.D.,andGroverW.Barnes,M.D.,P.C.;ThomasR._Prewitt_,RobertsonM. %^ $ _Leatherman_,and_Parke_ԀS.Morris,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_LeBonheur_ԀChildrens %J!% MedicalCenter,Inc. &6"& CarlI.JacobsonandRoss_Higman_,MemphisTennessee,fortheappellees,JamesCarroll,_Forestine_ ($( Carroll,andJamesCarrolland_Forestine_ԀCarrollfortheuseandbenefitoftheestateofJessicaRenee )$) Carroll,aminor,deceased. *%* JerryE.MitchellandJohnH._Dotson_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheAmicusCuriae,UTMedical n,', Group,Inc. Z-(-? GP G  G  _#PXXi #XiXP@66'  OPINION  $   JessicaReneeCarroll,afourteenmontholdchild,diedofsepsis #  1      ׀andpneumoniaonMarch  23,1992,whileshewasapatientatLeBonheurChildrensMedicalCenter(LeBonheur).The   previousday,becauseJessicawasvomitingandrunningafeverbetween100and105degrees,her   mother,ForestineCarroll,contactedDr.CarolynWhitney,Jessicaspediatrician.Laterthatday, p  Jessicastemperaturebegantofallandhervomitingceased.AlthoughDr.Whitneyagreedtosee \  Jessicainherofficethenextday,sheadvisedMrs.CarrolltotakeJessicatotheemergencyroomif H   Jessicabeganhavingmoreproblemswithhertemperatureorvomiting. 4    WhenDr.WhitneyexaminedJessicathenextday,March23,1992,shefoundhertobe  \  nonresponsivewithalowwhitebloodcellcountalthoughshehadonlyaslightfever.Inaddition, H  Dr.WhitneydiagnosedJessicaassufferingfromtonsillitis,aheartmurmur,anddehydration.Jessica 4  wasadmittedtoLeBonheur,andDr.Whitneyorderedthatshebeadministeredantibioticsand   intravenousfluids.AlthoughDr.WhitneydidnotincludeinformationconcerningJessicaslow   whitebloodcellcountinheradmissionorders,shediddirectthatacompletebloodcountbe  performed.    AtLeBonheur,Jessicawasexaminedatapproximately1:00p.m.byDr.ReggieLyelland l Dr.AzraSehic,UniversityofTennesseeresidentphysicians.Dr.Lyellwasafirstyearresident X physician,andDr.Sehicwasthesupervisingresident.Dr.SehicwasconcernedthatJessicamight D besufferingfrompneumoniawithpossiblesepsis,andsheorderedbloodteststobeconducted.Dr. 0 LyellcalledandnotifiedDr.WhitneythatJessicasconditionwasstable.BothDr.LyellandDr. l SehicwereawareofthetreatmentorderedbyDr.Whitney,andDr.Sehiclaterconcededthat X antibiotics,oncerecommended,shouldbeadministeredwithinthirtyminutes. D   Around3:30p.m.,Dr.LyellwasnotifiedthatthetestsperformedonJessicasbloodrevealed  thepresenceofbacteriainherblood.Dr.LyellthencontactedDr.Sehictoinformheroftheresults.  AlthoughmorethantwoandonehalfhourshadpassedsincetheinitialexaminationofJessicaat   LeBonheur,JessicastillhadnotreceivedtheantibioticsandintravenousfluidsorderedbyDr. ! Whitney.Dr.SehicagainexaminedJessicaandconcludedthatsheneededtoreceiveintravenous |"  fluidsandshouldbetransferredtotheintensivecareunit.Shortlythereafter,Jessicasuffereda h#! seizureandlapsedintounconsciousnessthatlasteduntilherdeatharound6:30p.m.Thecauseof T$" Jessicasdeathwasultimatelydeterminedtobepneumoniaandsepsis. @% #  ,&|!$   AfterJessicasdeath,JamesandForestineCarroll(theplaintiffs),broughtamedical  malpracticeactionagainstthefollowingparties:LeBonheur,Dr.Whitney,Dr.GroverW.Barnes,  Dr.Whitneysemployer, #  2      ׀andDr.SehicandDr.Lyell(theresidents).Theresidentsfiledamotion  todismissarguingthat,asstateemployees,theywereimmunefromsuitpursuanttoTennesseeCode t Annotatedsection98307.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotion,andtheplaintiffsvoluntarily ` dismissedtheactionagainsttheremainingdefendants. L    Theplaintiffsthenrefiledthisactionagainstthenonimmunedefendants.Inaddition,the $ t plaintiffsfiledaclaimagainsttheStateofTennesseeintheClaimsCommissionfortheactionsof  ` theresidents.DuringthetrialintheShelbyCountyCircuitCourt,thedefendantsreferredtothe  L  claimagainsttheState,andtheyarguedthattheresidentsnegligence,ratherthantheirownconduct,  8  wasthecauseofJessicasdeath.Attheconclusionofthetrial,thejudgeinstructedthejuryto $  apportionfaultamongthedefendants,theresidents,andForestineCarroll.Thejuryapportioned   70%faulttoDr.Lyell,30%faulttoDr.Sehic,and0%faulttothedefendantsandForestineCarroll,   andthetrialcourtenteredjudgmentconsistentwiththejuryverdict.     TheCourtofAppealsreversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtandconcludedthatthejury p shouldnothavebeenpermittedtoapportionfaulttotheresidentsbecausetheywereimmunefrom \ suit.TheCourtofAppealsalsoheldthatpermittingthejurytoapportionfaulttotheresidentswas H notharmlesserror,becauseitwasunclearwhetherthejurywouldhaveassigned0%faulttothe 4 defendantshaditnotbeeninstructedthatitcouldalsoallocatefaulttotheresidents.Thedefendants  p thenfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappeal,whichwegranted.   \   DISCUSSION  4 )  Innegligenceactionspriorto1992,Tennesseecourtsappliedthecommonlawdoctrineof   contributorynegligence.Underthisdoctrine,aplaintiffwhoseownnegligenceinanyway  contributedtotheinjurywasbarredfromrecovery.SeeBejachv.Colby,214S.W.2d869,870  (Tenn.1919);Kelleyv.Johnson,796S.W.2d155,15859(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).| #  3      ׀InMcIntyrev.  Balentine,833S.W.2d52,56(Tenn.1992),thisCourtadoptedamodifiedsystemofcomparative l faultbywhichaplaintiffcouldrecoverdamagesiftheplaintiffsnegligencewaslessthanthatofthe X  defendant.Seeid.at5657. #  4      ׀AccordingtotheCourt,fairnesstoplaintiffsjustifiedtherejectionof D! contributorynegligence. Justicesimplywillnotpermit...continuedadherencetoarulethat,in 0"  thefaceofajudicialdeterminationthatothersbearprimaryresponsibility,neverthelesscompletely  deniesinjuredlitigantsrecompensefortheirdamages.Id.at56.    Also,fairnesstodefendantsledtheCourttoconcludethattheadoptionofcomparativefault t renderedobsoletethedoctrineofjointandseveralliability.Seeid.at58.Byrejectingcontributory ` negligence,theCourtsoughtatighterfitbetweenliabilityandfault.AccordingtotheCourt, it L  wouldbeinconsistenttosimultaneouslyretainarule,jointandseveralliability,whichmay 8  fortuitouslyimposeadegreeofliabilitythatisoutofallproportiontofault.Id.at58.Wesurmised $ t thatunderthenewsystem,adefendantwouldonlybeliableforthepercentageofdamagescaused  ` bythatdefendantsnegligence.Seeid.Topermitthedefendanttotakeadvantageofthisnew  L  systemlinkingmorecloselyliabilitytofault,theCourtadoptedanonpartydefense.# #  5      ׀AsthisCourt  8  explained: $   X X[F]airnessandefficiencyrequirethatdefendantscalledupontoanswerallegations   innegligencebepermittedtoallege,asanaffirmativedefense,thatanonpartycaused   orcontributedtotheinjuryordamageforwhichrecoveryissought.Incaseswhere   suchadefenseisraised,thetrialcourtshallinstructthejurytoassignthisnonparty p thepercentageofthetotalnegligenceforwhichheisresponsible. \  X3 X3Id. H   Significantly,theCourtdidnotrequirethatacauseofactionbeavailablebeforeajurycould  p apportionfaulttononparties.TheCourtstatedinMcIntyrethat  \  X Xinorderforaplaintifftorecoverajudgmentagainstsuchadditionalperson,the 4 plaintiffmusthavemadeatimelyamendmenttohiscomplaintandcausedprocess   tobeservedonsuchadditionalperson.Thereafter,theadditionalpartywillbe   requiredtoanswertheamendedcomplaint.   X6 X6Id.Aplaintiffsabilitytobringacauseofactionwasonlyimportant"totheextentthatitmattered  atallintheCourtsanalysis"indeterminingwhethertheplaintiffcouldrecoverdamages,not l whetherajurycouldapportionfaulttoanonparty. X    Whileweattemptedtoprovideguidanceonhowtoimplementcomparativefault,we 0"  explicitlyleftthetreatmentofnonpartytortfeasorstoanotherdayandan appropriatecontroversy. #l! Seeid.at60.ItwasnotuntilRidingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996), $X" thattheCourtaddressedthisissue.InRidings,theplaintiffbroughtanegligenceactionafterhefell $D # fromaladderduringthecourseandscopeofhisemployment.RelyinguponMcIntyre,the %0!$ defendantsattemptedtoassertasanaffirmativedefensethatanonparty,theplaintiffsemployer,  causedorcontributedtotheplaintiffsinjuries.Theplaintiff,however,couldnotmaintainacause  ofactionfordamagesagainsthisemployerbecauseoftheexclusiveremedyprovisionsofthe  WorkersCompensationLaw. t   Inexaminingwhetheradefendantinanegligenceactioncouldassertthatanimmune L  nonpartycausedorcontributedtotheplaintiffsinjuries,thisCourtpurportedtorelyonthepolicy 8  considerationsandrationaleofMcIntyre.TheCourtexplained: $ t  X XThedesignation nonparty,usedinMcIntyre,isnotatermofart;itmeans nota  L  party.However,itisgivenaparticularmeaningbythedecisioninMcIntyre,  8  whereintheCourtfoundthat,uponadefendant'sallegationthatapersonnotaparty $  tothesuit,a nonparty,causedorcontributedtotheplaintiff'sinjuries,theplaintiff,   byamendmenttothecomplaintandserviceofprocess,maymakethe nonpartya    partythatisanswerabletotheplaintiffinactionsfordamagesaccordingtothe   RulesofCivilProcedure.Consequently,onlyanonpartyagainstwhomtheplaintiff   hasacauseofactioncanbemadeaparty.Sincetheplaintiffsemployercannotbe p madeapartytotheplaintiffsforpersonalinjuriessustainedinthecourseandscope \ ofhisemployment,therationaleofMcIntyre,bothastoprincipleandprocedurewill H notpermitfaulttobeattributedtotheplaintiffsemployer.Q=` hp x (#%'0*,.XQ 4  X'? X?Id.at8182.Ourconclusionwassupportedby [t]herationaleofMcIntyre[which]postulatesthat  \ faultmaybeattributedonlytothosepersonsagainstwhomtheplaintiffhasacauseofactionintort. H Seeid.at81. 4     AcarefulreadingofMcIntyre,however,suggeststhatneithertheholdingofthecasenorits   underlyingrationalelimitstheattributionoffaultonlytopersonsagainstwhomtheplaintiffhasa  causeofactionintort.OurtreatmentofnonpartiesinMcIntyresimplyexaminedaplaintiffsability  torecoverdamagesfromanonparty,andourholdingwaslimitedaccordingly.SeeMcIntyre,833  S.W.2dat60(denyingplaintiffspetitionrequestingargumentonthetreatmentofnonparty l tortfeasors).Inaddition,defendantsalsobenefittedfromthisfairersystemoffaultallocation X  throughtheabolitionofjointandseveralliabilityandtheadoptionofthenonpartydefense.Seeid. D! at58. 0"    TheCourtsdecisioninRidingswaschallengedinSnyderv.LTGLufttechnischeGmbH, $X" 955S.W.2d252(Tenn.1997).InresponsetothedefendantsargumentthatRidingswas $D # inconsistentwithMcIntyresobjectiveoffairness,weexaminedwhetheradefendantinanegligence %0!$ actioncouldintroduceevidencethattheconductoftheplaintiffsemployerproximatelycausedor &"% contributedtoaplaintiffsinjury.Seeid.at252.Weconcludedthatadefendantcouldnotintroduce '#& suchevidencebaseduponourstatementinRidingsthat aplaintiffsrighttorecoveronallegations (#' ofnegligence...isdeterminedwithoutreferencetothe[immunenonpartys]conduct.Ridings,914 )$( S.W.2dat84(emphasisadded).Indeed,wereaffirmedourdecisioninRidings: |*%)  X X h+&* ThereisnoquestionthattheCourtinRidingsconsideredthe fairnessarguments  advancedherebythedefendantsandmadeapolicydecisiontoleaveimmune  [nonparties]outoftheassessmentoffault.Wethusdeclinethedefendants  invitationtoreverseRidingsorotherwisedepartfromtheruleadoptedinthat t decision. `  X