ÿWPCÊ( D# ÈUNÓ %! 0('UHO 0l— 0D 0JGw@‘4Ñå 0Tô 0^H 0h¦b 0r 0Dˆ 0DÌ 0| 0†” 0 1uª B 0d< U >  VÞ U*4 U 6^ B)” AQ½ Æ 0DÔ 0@ 0DX D/œ BË D3èDC AM^U*«5Õ“ -¸Ê-‚C¯‡òv~y!vÓ÷"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô yUzP{E|}{~D€I‚Ó€Ft‹#Ôô„3|x2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman LÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Times< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d/0123Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó44'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd----7Border 1dd/18Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ0"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€:ÔÔ€:ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€:XÔÌÌò òDecember€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€:ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔIn€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€the€ð ðall„or„nothing€rule€of€contributory€negligenceðð€was€replaced€with€principles€ofÏcomparative€fault€so€that€ð ðso€long€as€a€plaintiffððs€negligence€remains€lessÏthan€the€defendantððs€negligence€the€plaintiff€may€recover;€in€such€a€case,Ïplaintiffððs€damages€are€to€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€the€percentage€of€theÏtotal€negligence€attributable€to€the€plaintiff.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€at€57.Ì #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔð ðWhen€the€injury€or€death€for€which€compensation€is€payable€under€theÏWorkersðð€Compensation€Law€was€caused€under€circumstances€creating€a€legalÏliability€against€some€person€other€than€the€employer€to€pay€damages,€theÏinjured€worker,€or€such€injured€workerððs€dependents,€shall€have€the€right€toÏtake€compensation€under€such€law,€and€such€injured€worker,€or€those€to€whomÏsuch€injured€workerððs€right€of€action€survives€at€law,€may€pursue€such€injuredÏworkerððs€or€their€remedy€by€proper€action€in€a€court€of€competent€jurisdictionÏagainst€such€other€person.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(a)(1991).Ì ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔ"The€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Act,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð50„6„108(a),€eliminates€any€tort€liability€on€the€part€of€theÏemployer.ðð€€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€81,€n.€2€(Tenn.Ï1996).Ì #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€complaint€in€òòRidingsóó€was€filed€over€a€year€before€the€opinion€inÏòòMcIntyreóó€was€released.Ì 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔPlaintiff€relies€primarily€on€rules€set€forth€in€òòCastleman€ConstructionÏCo.€v.€Penningtonóó,€432€S.W.2d€669€(Tenn.€1968).Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(c)€provides:ÌÌà8 à€€€€€(1)€In€[the]€event€of€such€recovery€against€such€third€personÏby€the€worker,€or€by€those€to€whom€such€workerððs€right€of€actionÏsurvives,€by€judgment,€settlement€or€otherwise,€and€the€employerððsÏmaximum€liability€for€workersðð€compensation€under€this€chapter€hasÏbeen€fully€or€partially€paid€and€discharged,€the€employer€shallÏhave€a€subrogation€lien€therefor€against€such€recovery,€and€theÏemployer€may€intervene€in€any€action€to€protect€and€enforce€suchÏlien.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€(2)€In€the€event€the€net€recovery€by€the€worker,€or€by€thoseÏto€whom€such€workerððs€right€of€action€survives,€exceeds€the€amountÏpaid€by€the€employer,€and€the€employer€has€not,€at€the€time,€paid€Ïand€discharged€the€employerððs€full€maximum€liability€for€workersððÏcompensation€under€this€chapter,€the€employer€shall€be€entitled€toÏa€credit€on€the€employerððs€future€liability,€as€it€accrues,€to€theÏextent€the€net€recovery€collected€exceeds€the€amount€paid€by€theÏemployer.ÌÌ€€€€€à8 à€€€€€(3)€In€the€event€the€worker,€or€those€to€whom€such€workerððsÏright€of€action€survives,€effects€a€recovery,€and€collectionÏthereof,€from€such€other€person,€by€judgment,€settlement€orÏotherwise,€without€intervention€by€the€employer,€the€employerÏshall€nevertheless,€be€entitled€to€a€credit€on€the€employerððsÏfuture€liability€for€workersðð€compensation,€as€it€accrues€underÏthis€chapter,€to€the€extent€of€the€net€recovery.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ À ÒÖ€*ÖØ ØÓ&€++XÐd&ÓÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ԛрÑÑ7€uMXXdÈdÈ7ќـ/ÙßR€9;8A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDecember€22,€1997Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€œJACKSONÌÌÌÌÌBILLY€CASTLEMAN,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà à(€€Madison€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€Franklin€Murchison,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ ° ÒÒ à Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Appeal€No.€02S01„9703„CV„00018Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌROSS€ENGINEERING,€INC.,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà àà à(ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appelleeóó:ÌÌT.€Robert€Hillà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€B.€Walk,€Jr.ÌRandall€J.€Phillipsà àà àà àà àà àJohn€R.€Cannon,€Jr.ÌHill,€Boren,€P.C.à àà àà àà àà àThe€Hardison€Law€Firm,€P.C.ÌJacksonà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€AFFIRMED;ÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌAFFIRMED;€CASE€REMANDED€TO€TRIAL€COURT.€à àà àà àREID,€J.ÇÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓÑ7€uMXXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€issue€of€whether,€in€aÏtort€action€for€personal€injuries,€an€employerððs€workersððÏcompensation€insurance€carrier€is€entitled€to€enforcement€of€aÏsubrogation€claim€for€benefits€paid€to€the€employee,€where€atÏtrial,€fault€was€attributed€to€the€employee€and€to€the€employer.€ÏThe€trial€court€allowed€reimbursement€for€the€entire€amount€of€theÏbenefits€paid€to€the€employee€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.€ÏThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€the€trial€court€allowingÏenforcement€of€the€subrogation€claim€pursuant€to€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€50„6„112€(1991)€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àOn€November€3,€1989,€the€plaintiff,€Billy€Castleman,€anÏemployee€of€a€subcontractor,€Jack€Castleman€d/b/a€J.E.C.€ElectricÏCompany,€sustained€a€compensable€injury€under€the€workersððÏcompensation€law,€for€which€the€general€contractorððs€workersððÏcompensation€insurance€carrier,€Hartford€Accident€and€IndemnityÏCompany,€paid€the€plaintiff€benefits€in€the€approximate€amount€ofÏ$100,000.€€ÌÌà àA€tort€action€for€personal€injuries€was€filed€by€theÏplaintiff€against€a€third€party,€Ross€Engineering,€Inc.,€onÍApril3,€1990.€€Hartford€filed€an€intervening€petition,€assertingÏa€subrogation€right€and€a€lien€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(c)(1)(1991)€on€any€recovery€by€the€plaintiff€from€RossÏEngineering.€€ÌÌà àThe€case€was€tried€on€March€4,€1993,€10€months€after€theÏrelease€of€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52Ï(Tenn.€1992).× ƒ< ××  ×€€The€case€was€submitted€to€the€jury€on€instructionsÏthat€fault€could€be€apportioned€among€the€plaintiff,€Castleman,Ïthe€defendant,€Ross€Engineering,€and€the€employer,€J.E.C.ÏElectric.€€The€jury€found€damages€of€$l,500,000,€and€attributed€68Ïpercent€of€the€fault€to€the€defendant,€16€percent€of€the€fault€toÏthe€plaintiff,€and€16€percent€of€the€fault€to€the€employer.€€TheÏcourt€entered€judgment€against€Ross€Engineering€for€$1,020,000,€68Ïpercent€of€the€$l,500,000.€€The€œplaintiff›€did€not€appeal€from€theÏjudgment€on€the€jury€verdict.€ÌÌà àOn€May€26,€1993,€the€plaintiff€acknowledged€fullÏsatisfaction€of€the€judgment,€and€the€plaintiff€received€from€RossÍEngineering€full€payment€of€the€amount€of€the€judgment€lessÏ$100,000,€which€was€retained€by€consent€pending€resolution€ofÏHartfordððs€subrogation€claim.€€By€order€entered€on€July€7,€œ1995,›ÏHartford€was€awarded€the€$100,000€claimed,€less€attorneys€fees€andÏexpenses€incurred€in€pursuing€the€third„party€claim,€a€net€amountÏof€$68,489.ÌÌà àOn€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€plaintiffÏcontested€the€subrogation€award€to€Hartford,€insisting€thatÏHartfordððs€right€to€subrogation€was€conditioned€on€the€plaintiffððsÏrecovery€of€the€damages€for€fault€attributed€to€the€employer€asÏwell€as€fault€attributed€to€Ross€Engineering.€€The€Court€ofÏAppeals€rejected€the€plaintiffððs€contention€and€affirmed€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€does€not€deny€that€Hartford€has€aÏsubrogation€claim€against€the€third€party€judgment€for€the€totalÏamount€of€workersðð€compensation€benefits€paid€to€the€plaintiff.€€ÏSection€50„6„112€(1991)€provides€that€when€the€injury€compensatedÏunder€the€Workersðð€Compensation€Law€was€caused€by€the€negligenceÏof€a€third€party,€the€injured€employee€may€pursue€an€actionÍagainst€the€third€party.× ƒ= ××  ×€€Subsection€(c)(1)€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€[the]€event€of€such€recovery€againstÏsuch€third€person€by€the€worker,€or€by€thoseÏto€whom€such€workerððs€right€of€actionÏsurvives,€by€judgment,€settlement€orÏotherwise,€and€the€employerððs€maximumÏliability€for€workersðð€compensation€under€thisÏchapter€has€been€fully€or€partially€paid€andÏdischarged,€the€employer€shall€have€aÏsubrogation€lien€therefor€against€suchÏrecovery,€and€the€employer€may€intervene€inÏany€action€to€protect€and€enforce€such€lien.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€plaintiff€insists,€however,€that€the€enforcement€of€that€rightÏis€conditioned€upon€the€employee,€as€the€subrogor,€being€ð ðmadeÏwhole.ðð€€The€plaintiff€defines€ð ðmade€wholeðð€as€being€able€toÏrecover€for€all€damages€found€by€the€jury€except€damagesÏrepresenting€fault€attributed€to€him.€€In€this€case,€recoveryÏmaking€the€plaintiff€whole€would€include€the€approximatelyÏ$240,000,000€for€damages€attributed€to€the€fault€of€the€employer,ÍJ.E.C.€Electric.× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà àAnalysis€of€the€plaintiffððs€contention€requiresÏconsideration€of€the€plaintiffððs€alternative€position,€that€thisÏis€a€transitional€case€(which€previously€has€meant€a€caseÏcommenced€before€the€opinion€in€òòMcIntyreóó€was€released)€in€whichÏhis€rights€should€not€be€unfairly€compromised€by€the€adoption€ofÏthe€principles€of€comparative€fault.€€The€Court€has€held€thatÏð ðtransitional€case[s]€...€must€be€tried€according€to€theÏprinciples€of€comparative€fault€to€the€extent€that€the€applicationÏof€those€principles€[do]€not€impose€upon€any€party€a€substantialÏinjustice.ðð€€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€80Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€The€plaintiff€asserts€that€in€this€case,Ïapplication€of€ð ðpost„òòMcIntyreóóðð€principles€would€work€a€substantialÏinjustice€to€him.€€He€relies€upon€the€decisions€in€òòOwens€v.ÏTruckstops€of€Americaóó,€915€S.W.2d€420€(Tenn.€1996)€and€òòRidings€v.ÏRalph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àThe€cases€of€òòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó€and€òòRidingsÏv.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€illustrate€the€Courtððs€approach€toÍtransitional€cases.€€In€òòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó,€the€caseÏhad€been€pending€for€more€than€three€years€when€the€opinion€in€ÏòòMcIntyreóó€was€released.€€The€plaintiff€then€sought€to€amend€hisÏcomplaint€to€add€two€additional€alleged€tortfeasors€as€defendants;Ïthose€parties€claimed€that€the€plaintiff€was€barred€from€suingÏthem€by€the€statutes€of€limitations.€€The€Court€noted€thatÏð ðapplication€of€comparative€fault€principles€in€this€case€wouldÏlimit€the€plaintiffððs€recovery€to€that€portion€of€the€damagesÏcorresponding€to€the€fault€attributable€to€[the€originally€namedÏdefendant]€without€granting€to€the€plaintiff€the€benefit€of€otherÏrights€recognized€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€and,€therefore,€could€impose€uponÏhim€a€significant€unfairness.ðð€€òòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó,Ï915€S.W.2d€at€426.€€The€Court€held€that€ð ðfairness€and€efficiencyÏmust€be€the€controlling€principles€in€adjudicating€those€casesÏcommenced€prior€to€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€which€cannot€beÏconformed€to€all€of€the€procedures€contemplated€by€the€doctrine€ofÏcomparative€fault.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€424.€€The€Court€devised€a€remedy€toÏprevent€injustice€to€the€parties,€finding,€ð ðthe€equitable€resultsÏcontemplated€by€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault€can€be€bestÏaccomplished€in€this€case€by€not€relieving€[the€named€defendant]Ïof€the€joint€and€several€liability€which€existed€when€theÏplaintiffððs€cause€of€action€against€[it]€accrued,€and€by€allowingÏ[the€named€defendant]€to€pursue€its€third„party€claims€againstÍ[the€other€two€tortfeasors].ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€434.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€of€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€the€tortÏdefendants€sought€to€assert€as€an€affirmative€defense€that€theÏemployer€contributed€to€the€employeeððs€injuries.€€The€defendantsÏargued€that€under€òòMcIntyreóó,€ð ðfault€can€be€attributed€to€theÏemployer,€and€the€liability€of€the€defendants€[could]€be€decreasedÏaccordingly,€without€the€imposition€of€liability€upon€theÏemployer.ðð€€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€at€81.€ÏThough€òòRidingsóó€was€a€transitional€case,× ƒ? ××  ×€the€Court€found€thatÏð ðapplication€of€comparative€fault€principles€to€this€case€requiresÏno€transitional€procedure€[because]€the€acts€and€omissions€of€anÏemployer€covered€by€the€workerððs€compensation€law€neither€enlargeÏnor€limit€the€rights€or€liabilities€of€any€party€to€a€tort€actionÏby€an€employee€governed€by€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€80„81.€€The€Court€concluded€that€ð ðfault€may€be€attributedÏonly€to€those€persons€against€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€ofÏaction€in€tort.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€81.€€ÌÌà àThis€holding€was€affirmed€in€òòSnyder€v.€LTGÏLufttechnische€GmbHóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1997),€where€the€CourtÍstated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à.€.€.€[T]he€employer€cannot€be€found€toÏbe€the€proximate,€or€legal,€cause€of€theÏplaintiffððs€injuries€because€the€employer€isÏimmune€from€tort€liability€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„108(a).€€By€enacting€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€50„6„108(a),€the€legislature€hasÏalready€determined€that€for€policy€reasons€theÏemployer€may€not€be€the€legal€cause€of€theÏplaintiffððs€injuries.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€___€[slip€op.€at€11].ÌÌà àA€review€of€the€proceedings€in€this€case€shows€that,Ïlike€in€òòRidingsóó,€the€plaintiffððs€rights€have€not€been€adverselyÏaffected€by€the€principles€of€comparative€fault.€€The€plaintiff,Ïbecause€he€was€covered€by€the€workersðð€compensation€law,€did€notÏhave€a€right€to€sue€his€employer€in€tort€prior€to€or€subsequent€toÏthe€adoption€of€comparative€fault.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108(a).€€His€right€to€sue€a€third€party€tortfeasor€was€notÏaffected€by€the€comparative€fault€requirement€that€the€jury€reduceÏthe€award€against€a€third€party€tortfeasor€by€the€percent€of€theÏtotal€fault€attributed€to€the€plaintiff.€€In€fact,€a€finding€byÏthe€jury€that€he€was€partially€at€fault€would€have€precluded€anyÏrecovery€by€him€prior€to€òòMcIntyreóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€at€54.ÌÌà àThe€only€way€in€which€the€plaintiffððs€right€to€recoverÏhas€been€affected€adversely€in€this€case€was€by€the€attribution€ofÏa€portion€of€the€fault€to€the€employer.€€As€discussed€previously,Ïthis€issue€was€specifically€resolved€in€òòRidingsóó,€an€opinion€whichÏwas€released€after€the€trial€in€this€case.€€Under€òòRidingsóó,€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€that€fault€could€beÏattributed€to€the€employer,€and€the€plaintiff€would€have€beenÏentitled€to€relief€from€that€error€on€appeal.€€However,€theÏplaintiff€did€not€appeal,€but€instead€accepted€payment€of€theÏjudgment€awarded€against€Ross€Engineering€as€satisfaction€in€fullÏfor€his€cause€of€action.€€Of€course,€this€Court€cannot€provideÏrelief€for€errors€that€are€not€preserved€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€decisions€governing€the€application€of€comparativeÏfault€principles€have€sought€to€achieve€fairness€to€the€partiesÏwithin€the€constraints€of€statutory€law€providing€immunity€inÏparticular€situations:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àLimiting€the€parties€to€whom€fault€may€beÏattributed€to€those€subject€to€liability,Ïaccomplishes€the€policy€objectives€of€fairnessÏand€efficiency.€€Since€liability€is€severalÏand€is€in€direct€proportion€to€legal€fault,Ïeach€defendant€will€be€liable€only€for€theÏpercentage€of€the€damages€caused€by€it.€€SinceÏfault€is€limited€to€the€plaintiff€and€thoseÍagainst€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€ofÏaction,€the€plaintiff€is€not€denied€the€rightÏto€recover€those€damages€to€which€it€isÏentitled.€€However,€the€plaintiff€will€bearÏthe€loss€for€any€liability€that€it€fails€or€isÏunable€to€assert€and€any€judgment€that€cannotÏbe€enforced.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€at€83.Ì€€€€Ìà àThe€plaintiffððs€rights€as€they€existed€prior€to€theÏrelease€of€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€have€not€been€adverselyÏaffected€by€the€adoption€of€the€principles€of€comparative€fault;Ïconsequently,€this€is€not€a€transitional€case€entitled€to€specialÏconsideration.€€ÌÌà àThis€conclusion€also€resolves€the€plaintiffððs€primaryÏcontention,€that€the€insurer€is€not€entitled€to€enforce€its€rightÏof€subrogation€because€the€plaintiff€has€not€been€ð ðmade€whole.ðð€€ÌThe€plaintiff€acknowledges€that€Hartford€has€a€subrogation€claimÏfor€benefits€paid€under€the€workersðð€compensation€law€but,Ïasserting€principles€of€equitable€subrogation,× ƒ@ ××  ×€insists€that€theÏsubrogation€claim€is€not€enforceable€unless€the€employee€hasÏrecovered€the€full€amount€of€the€damages€not€attributed€to€his€ownÍfault.€€ÌÌà àThe€statute€creating€the€subrogation€claim€does€not€byÏits€terms€condition€the€claim€upon€the€employee€obtaining€a€fullÏrecovery€of€damages€sustained.€€The€subrogation€lien€attaches€toÏð ðthe€net€recovery€collectedðð€and€secures€the€amount€ð ðpaidðð€by€theÏemployer€or€the€amount€of€the€employerððs€ð ðfuture€liability,€as€itÏaccrues.ðð× ƒA ××  ×€€It€appears€that,€under€the€statute,€the€subrogationÏlien€attaches€to€any€recovery€from€the€tortfeasor€ð ðby€judgment,Ísettlement€or€otherwise.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Consequently,€even€if€underÏequitable€principles€of€subrogation€the€employer€was€not€entitledÏto€assert€the€subrogation€lien,€the€statute€specifically€createsÏthat€right.€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€support€the€premise€on€which€theÏplaintiff€bases€his€argument,€that€he€has€not€been€made€whole.€ÏFurther,€the€plaintiff€has€asserted€no€basis€on€which€theÏsubrogation€claim€created€by€statute€should€be€denied.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌà àThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà àCosts€will€be€paid€by€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,Ì€€€€and€Holder,€JJ.