ÿWPCY/ ;# JU:U % 0(•w@½4ý  0D( 0Jl 0T¶ 0^  0hh 0rÐ 0|B 0†¾ 0DD 0ˆ 1u 0d U*ñ B) DCD AM‡ bÔ 0 §Ü ƒ ´™ BMåj€OœÏ¦kz e©"‚($v~ª%vÓ(' AQû,ÆL- 0D. 0@V. 0D–. D/Ú. B / D3&/˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ æ$é$ê$ë$ì$Dí$î$ï$<eð$Ó€ú$ê‚_#“yÌ"òþÔpTÔô3|xú$(#Ã$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  Ô(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd24Cþÿ << Gÿÿ- ù-(W(2¯$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôˆôXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ3"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌDecember€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Oral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€April€8,€1997,€in€Union€City,€Obion€County,ÏTennessee,€as€part€of€this€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourt€ò òAó ódvancing€ò òLó óegal€ò òEó óducation€forÏò òSó ótudents)€project.Ì d ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Prior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€had€overruled€the€plaintiffððs€motion€in€limine€asking€that€theÏnegligent€conduct€of€the€defendant€not€be€compared€with€the€intentional€act€of€Williams.€€At€trialÏthere€was€no€allegation€or€proof€that€the€plaintiff€herself€was€negligent€in€any€way.Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€this€regard,€we€observe€that€the€analysis€of€duty€and€proximate€cause€is€similar.€€AsÏProsser€has€noted,€ð ðit€is€quite€possible€to€state€every€question€which€arises€in€connection€withÏððproximate€causeðð€in€the€form€of€a€single€question:€was€the€defendant€under€a€duty€to€protect€theÏplaintiff€against€the€event€which€did€in€fact€occur?ðð€€Prosser€ðð€42€at€274„75.€€Thus,€while€duty€andÏproximate€cause€are€separate€components€of€a€negligence€claim,€the€analysis€for€each€mayÏrequire€consideration€of€foreseeability€principles€and€public€policy€matters.€€Prosser€ðð€42€and€ðð€53Ïat€273„76,€356„358;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€625€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€As€we€have€said,€a€physician/patient€relationship€is€necessary€for€a€medical€malpracticeÏclaim€but€not€a€negligence€action.€€òòBradshawóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€870;€òòPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óó,€890ÏS.W.2d€at€430.€€Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòLipari€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€&€Co.óó,€497€F.€Supp.€185€(D.€Neb.€1980);€òòHamman€v.ÏCounty€of€Maricopaóó,€775€P.2d€1122€(Ariz.€1989);€€òòPerreira€v.€Stateóó,€768€P.2d€1198€(Col.€1989);ÏòòNaidu€v.€Lairdóó,€539€A.2d€1064€(Del.€1988);€òòDurflinger€v.€Artilesóó,€673€P.2d€86€(Kan.€1983);ÏòòMcIntosh€v.€Milanoóó,€403€A.2d€500€(N.J.€1979);€òòPetersen€v.€Stateóó,€671€P.2d€230€(Wash.€1983);€ÏòòSchuster€v.€Altenbergóó,€424€N.W.2d€159€(Wis.€1988).€Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€defendant€relies€on€cases€which,€in€finding€no€duty€existed,€emphasized€theÏpatientððs€outpatient€status€and/or€the€absence€of€a€threat€to€a€specific€victim.€€òòKing€v.€Smithóó,€539ÏSo.2d€262€(Ala.€1989)(emphasizing€therapistððs€minimum€control€over€a€voluntary€outpatient);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòBrady€v.€Hopperóó,€751€F.2d€329€(10th€Cir.€1984)(unknown€victim);€òòHasenei€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï541€F.€Supp.€999€(D.€Md.€1982)(insufficient€control€over€outpatient);€òòBurchfield€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï750€F.€Supp.€1312€(S.D.€Miss.€1990)(voluntary€patient;€unforeseeable€victim).€€Like€the€majority€ofÏcases,€however,€we€view€these€factors€as€relevant€to€but€not€dispositive€of€the€determination.€Ì pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€support€of€this€contention,€the€plaintiffs€rely€on€a€series€of€cases€holding€that€aÏpsychiatrist€who€owes€a€duty€of€care€to€a€patient€may€not,€if€sued€for€negligence€by€or€on€behalf€ofÏa€patient,€rely€upon€the€self€destructive€or€suicidal€act€of€the€patient€to€reduce€the€psychiatristððsÏliability.€€òòTomfohr€v.€The€Mayo€Foundationóó,€450€N.W.2d€121€(Minn.€1990);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMcNamara€v.ÏHoneymanóó,€546€N.E.2d€139€(Mass.€1989);€òòCowan€v.€Doeringóó,€545€A.2d€159€(N.J.€1988).€€TheseÏcases,€while€analogous€to€a€degree,€are€not€persuasive€because€they€involve€comparison€of€faultÏbetween€a€plaintiff€and€a€defendant€and€not,€as€here,€a€defendant€and€a€third€party.Ì [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Florida€courts,€in€reaching€the€same€conclusion€as€a€matter€of€statutory€construction,Ïhave€echoed€these€public€policy€concerns:€ð ðReducing€the€responsibility€of€a€negligent€tortfeasorÏby€allowing€that€tortfeasor€to€place€the€blame€entirely€or€largely€on€the€intentional€wrongdoerÏwould€serve€as€a€disincentive€for€the€negligent€tortfeasor€to€meet€its€duty€to€provide€reasonableÏcare€to€prevent€intentional€harm€from€occurring.ðð€€òòWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€McDonaldóó,€676€So.2dÏ12,€22€(Fla.€App.€1€Dist.€1996),€òòaffððdóó,€òò€€€€óóSo.2dòò€€€€€óó€(Fla.)(1997€WL€746290).€€òòSlawson€v.€Fast€FoodÏEnterprisesóó,€671€So.2d€255€(Fla.€App.€4€Dist.€1996).Ì ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€do€not€reach€the€issues€of€whether,€and€under€what€circumstances,€a€negligentÏdefendant€may€be€entitled€to€contribution€or€indemnity€from€the€intentional€actor.€€òòSeeóóÏRestatement€of€Restitution,€ðððð€94€and€97.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Our€holding€does€not€preclude€the€trial€court€from€reallocating€comparative€faultÏpursuant€to€an€appropriate€motion€to€alter€or€amend€following€a€bench€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.02.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò23456Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó77'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd%%%%'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ћр!ÑÑ7€ç¢XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌ€à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ à(HEARD€AT€UNION€CITY)ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌEMMA€D.€TURNER€andà àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€December€29,€1997ó óóóÌRUFUS€L.€TURNER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€à àAppellants/Cross„Appellees,à à)à à€€€€€€€DAVIDSON€LAWÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WALTER€C.€KURTZ,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€JUDGEÌHAROLD€W.€JORDAN,€M.D.,à àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee/Cross„Appellant.à àà à)à àNo.€€01„S„01„9609„CV„00179ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellants/Cross„Appellees:à àà àFor€Appellee/Cross„Appellant:ó óóóÌÌWilliam€D.€Leader,€Jr.à àà àà àà àW.€Warner€McNeilly,€Jr.ÌEugene€N.€Bulso,€Jr.à àà àà àà àWATKINS,€McGUGIN,€ÌBOULT,€CUMMINGS,€CONNERSà àà à€€€McNEILLY€&€ROWANÌ€€&€BERRY,€PLCà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÙ€2ÙœßR€ #A1-j|Q` ç `€€@ÿRß›Nashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€à àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÌPART;€œAND€REMANDED›€TO€TRIAL€œCOURT.›ÌÇÑ  ÑÓÓà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€a€psychiatrist€owed€a€dutyÏof€care€to€protect€a€hospital€nurse€from€the€violent€and€intentional€acts€of€aÏhospitalized€mentally€ill€patient.€€If€such€a€duty€is€owed,€the€next€issue€to€beÏdecided€is€whether€the€patientððs€intentional€conduct€should€be€considered€inÏdetermining€comparative€fault€under€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€The€final€issue€is€whether,€after€finding€that€the€jury€verdict€as€toÏfault€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€may€reallocateÏcomparative€fault€in€lieu€of€ordering€a€new€trial.× ƒ$ ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€psychiatrist€in€this€case€owed€a€duty€ofÏcare€to€the€nurse,€and€instructed€the€jury€to€consider€the€intentional€conduct€ofÏthe€patient,€a€non„party,€in€determining€the€psychiatristððs€comparative€fault.€€TheÏjury€returned€a€verdict€for€the€nurse€in€the€amount€of€$1,186,000.€€It€allocated€theÏfault€as€100€percent€to€the€psychiatrist€and€zero€percent€to€the€patient.€€The€trialÏcourt€approved€the€juryððs€verdict€except€as€to€the€allocation€of€fault,€and€grantedÏa€new€trial.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed,€finding€that€a€duty€was€owed,€thatÏthe€patientððs€intentional€conduct€should€be€compared€with€the€psychiatristððsÏnegligence,€and€that€a€new€trial€should€have€been€granted.ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€psychiatrist€owed€a€duty€of€care€because€he€knew€orÏshould€have€known€that€his€patient€posed€an€unreasonable€risk€of€harm€to€aÏforeseeable,€readily€identifiable€third€party.€€We€have€also€determined€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€to€compare€the€patientððs€intentionalÏconduct€with€the€defendantððs€negligence€in€allocating€fault.€€We,€however,Ïconsider€the€error€harmless€because€the€jury€allocated€100€percent€of€the€faultÏto€the€negligent€defendant€psychiatrist.€€€Finally,€although€not€applicable€here,€inÏview€of€our€result€we€have€decided€that€the€trial€court€may€not€reallocateÏcomparative€fault€after€weighing€the€evidence€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€but€mustÏinstead€grant€a€new€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€partÏand€affirm€in€part,€and€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€a€judgmentÏon€the€juryððs€verdict.ÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àIn€March€of€1993,€the€plaintiff,€Emma€Turner,€a€nurse€at€Hubbard€HospitalÏin€Nashville,€was€attacked€and€severely€beaten€by€Tarry€Williams,€a€psychiatricÏin„patient€at€the€hospital.€€The€defendant,€Harold€Jordan,€M.D.,€was€theÏattending€psychiatrist.ÌÌà àWilliams,€who€had€been€diagnosed€as€bipolar€and€manic,€had€been€aÏpatient€at€Hubbard€on€five€prior€occasions;€three€of€these€times€he€was€found€toÏbe€a€danger€to€himself€or€others€and€was€committed€to€the€Middle€TennesseeÏMental€Health€Institute.€€€On€one€occasion,€in€April€of€1990,€Williams€tried€toÏattack€Dr.€Jordan€with€a€table€leg,€but€hospital€staff€intervened.à àÌÌà àOn€March€4,€1993,€Williams€was€again€admitted€to€Hubbardððs€psychiatricÏward€and€examined€by€a€resident€physician.€€Williamsððs€history€indicated€that€heÏhad€not€taken€his€prescribed€lithium,€which€was€used€to€control€his€bipolarÏdisorder,€for€over€a€week.€€Williams€also€reported€that€he€had€met€withÏð ðGorbachev€and€Saddam€Husseinðð€and€that€he€had€ð ðclassified€informationððÏabout€space€flights€and€nuclear€science.€€The€resident€physician€determinedÏthat€Williams€had€illogical€and€disorganized€thinking,€flight€of€ideas,€grandiosity,Ïand€delusional€thinking.€€Lithium€was€prescribed,€which€takes€five€to€seven€daysÏto€reach€a€therapeutic€level.ÌÌà àThe€next€day,€on€March€5,€1993,€Dr.€Jordan€reviewed€and€approved€theÏresident€physicianððs€orders.€€He€and€members€of€a€treatment€team€thenÏattempted€to€interview€Williams,€who€refused€to€cooperate€and€left€the€interview.€ÍThe€treatment€team€then€discussed€the€case€for€thirty€to€forty„five€minutes,€afterÏwhich€Dr.€Jordan€wrote:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThis€patient€presents€no€behavior€or€clinical€evidence€suggestingÏthat€he€is€suicidal.€€He€is€òòaggressive,€grandiose,€intimidating,Ïcombative,€and€dangerousóó.€€We€will€discharge€him€soon€byÏallowing€him€to€sign€out€AMA€[Against€Medical€Advice].ÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€That€evening,€according€to€notes,€Williams,€although€quietÏand€non„disruptive,€had€an€ð ðangry€and€hostileðð€affect.€€Around€11:30€p.m.,€afterÏrequesting€a€cigarette€and€asking€the€nurse,€Emma€Turner,€about€beingÏdischarged,€Williams€attacked€Turner,€inflicting€severe€head€injuries.€€€€ÌÌà àThereafter,€Emma€Turner€sued€Dr.€Jordan€for€medical€negligence,Ïalleging€he€violated€his€duty€to€use€reasonable€care€in€the€treatment€of€hisÏpatient,€which€proximately€caused€her€injuries€and€damages.€€At€trial,€Dr.€DavidÏSternberg,€a€psychiatric€expert€witness,€testified€that€Jordanððs€failure€toÏmedicate,€restrain,€seclude€or€transfer€Williams€fell€below€the€standard€of€careÏfor€psychiatrists.€€He€explained:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€standard€of€care€in€a€case€like€this€requires,€first,€anÏevaluation€of€whether€the€patient€is€a€danger€to€himself€or€others.€ÏAnd,€indeed,€Dr.€Jordan€determined,€it€seems€to€me€from€theÏrecord,€both€his€deposition€and€from€the€records€from€the€hospital,Ïthat€the€patient€was,€indeed,€dangerous.€€Then€the€standard€ofÍcare€requires,€if€a€patient€is€found,€in€fact,€to€be€dangerous,€that€theÏpatient€be€prevented€from€acting€on€that€dangerousness;€that€staffÏbe€informed,€of€course,€about€the€patientððs€dangerousness;€thatÏthe€patient€be€medicated,€if€necessary,€to€prevent€acting€on€theÏdangerousness,€or€be€restrained€or€secluded;€or€that€the€patientÏbe€transferred€to€another€treatment€setting€which€could€handle€aÏpatient€who€is€of€that€severe€dangerousness.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€his€own€defense,€Dr.€Jordan€testified€that€he€did€not€rememberÏWilliams€or€any€information€about€his€dangerousness€prior€to€the€attack€onÏEmma€Turner.€€He€agreed€that€had€he€known€about€Williamsððs€priorÏdangerousness,€he€would€have€discharged€him.€€However,€Dr.€JordanððsÏdischarge€summary€written€after€the€incident€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àRealizing€that€this€patient€had€been€hospitalized€on€this€issueÏbefore€and€exhibited€some€hostile€and€violent€behavior€andÏquestioning€the€veracity€of€his€statement€that€he€was€suicidal,€weÏwrote€an€order€indicating€that€[Williams]€could€be€encouraged€toÏsign€out€and€be€allowed€to€sign€out€on€request.€€òòWe€consideredÏdischarging€him€outright€because€of€his€history€of€violent€behavioróó.€€ÌÌÌÓÓIn€addition,€Linda€Lawrence,€nursing€coordinator€at€Hubbard€Hospital,€testifiedÏthat€Williamsððs€past€violent€behavior,€including€the€attempted€attack€on€JordanÏin€1990,€had€been€discussed€during€the€treatment€team€meeting€on€March€5,Ï1993.ÌÌà àAfter€the€completion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€theÏlaw€of€comparative€fault,€and€it€provided€the€jury€with€a€verdict€form€indicating€itÏcould€allocate€the€fault,€if€any,€between€the€alleged€negligence€of€Dr.€JordanÏand€the€alleged€intentional€conduct€of€patient€Williams.× ƒ& ××  ×€€The€jury€returned€aÏverdict€for€the€plaintiffs,€Emma€and€Rufus€Turner,€allocating€100€percent€of€theÏfault€to€defendant€Jordan.€€The€trial€court€approved€all€of€the€juryððs€verdict€exceptÏthe€allocation€of€fault.€€As€a€result,€it€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,Ïbut€thereafter€granted€an€interlocutory€appeal.€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.€€ÌÌà àWe€granted€the€appeal€to€consider€the€important€questions€of€duty,Ïcomparison€of€fault€between€a€negligent€actor€and€an€intentional€actor,€and€theÏtrial€courtððs€authority€to€reallocate€fault€in€lieu€of€granting€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òòòLEGAL€DUTYó óóóÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€psychiatrist€asserts€that€the€lower€courts€erred€inÏdetermining€that€he€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€protect€the€plaintiff€nurse€theÏunforeseeable€and€uncontrollable€acts€of€his€patient.€€The€nurse,€however,€Íargues€that€the€psychiatrist€had€a€duty€of€care€to€protect€her€from€foreseeableÏrisks€of€harm€posed€by€his€hospitalized€mentally€ill€patient.ÌÌà àTo€determine€whether€a€duty€exists,€we€turn€first€to€familiar€principles€ofÏnegligence€enunciated€by€our€earlier€cases.€€A€claim€for€negligence€requiresÏthe€following€elements:€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;Ï(2)€conduct€by€the€defendant€falling€below€the€standard€of€care€amounting€to€aÏbreach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€in€fact;€and€(5)€proximateÏor€legal€cause.€€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àThe€existence€of€a€duty€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€court€which€requiresÏconsideration€of€whether€ð ðsuch€a€relation€exists€between€the€parties€that€theÏcommunity€will€impose€a€legal€obligation€upon€one€for€the€benefit€of€others„„€or,Ïmore€simply,€whether€the€interest€of€the€plaintiff€which€has€suffered€invasionÏwas€entitled€to€legal€protection€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€870,Ïquoting,€W.€Keeton,€òòProsser€&€Keeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó,€ðð37€at€236€(5th€ed.Ï1984).€€The€imposition€of€a€legal€duty€ð ðreflects€societyððs€contemporary€policiesÏand€social€requirements€concerning€the€rights€of€individuals€and€the€generalÏpublic€to€be€protected€from€anotherððs€act€or€conduct.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€870.€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€a€duty€is€owed€in€a€particular€case,€we€haveÏgenerally€used€a€balancing€approach€consistent€with€principles€of€fairness.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòMcClung€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Partnershipóó,€937€S.W.2d€891,€901€(Tenn.Ï1996)€(summarizing€our€cases€on€ð ðdutyðð€component).€€In€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913ÏS.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995),€we€explained€that€ð ð[a]€risk€is€unreasonable€andÏgives€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeable€probability€and€gravityÏof€harm€posed€by€defendantððs€conduct€outweigh€the€burden€upon€defendant€toÏengage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€the€harm.ðð€€Among€theÏseveral€factors€which€must€be€considered€areÌÓÓÌà8 àthe€foreseeable€probability€of€the€harm€or€injury€occurring;€theÏpossible€magnitude€of€the€potential€harm€or€injury;€the€importanceÏor€social€value€of€the€activity€engaged€in€by€defendant;€theÏusefulness€of€the€conduct€to€defendant;€the€feasibility€ofÏalternative,€safer€conduct€and€the€relative€costs€and€burdensÏassociated€with€that€conduct;€the€relative€usefulness€of€the€saferÏconduct;€and€the€relative€safety€of€alternative€conduct.ÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€153.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMcClungóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€901.× ƒ' ××  ×€€In€general,€ð ðthe€degree€ofÏforeseeability€needed€to€establish€a€duty€of€care€decreases€in€proportion€to€theÍmagnitude€of€the€foreseeable€harm.ðð€€òòPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óó,€890€S.W.2d€425,Ï430€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlthough€we€have€generally€held€that€a€person€has€a€duty€to€useÏreasonable€care€to€refrain€from€conduct€that€will€foreseeably€cause€injury€toÏothers,€òòDoe€v.€Linder€Construction€Co.óó,€845€S.W.2d€173,€178€(Tenn.€1992),€thisÏduty€does€not€extend€to€the€protection€of€others€from€the€dangerous€conduct€ofÏthird€persons€òòunlessóó€the€defendant€ð ðstands€in€some€special€relationship€toÏeither€the€person€who€is€the€source€of€the€danger,€or€to€the€person€who€isÏforeseeably€at€risk€from€the€danger.ðð€€òòBradshawóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€871,€citing,ÏRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€315€(1964).€€As€we€said€in€òòBradshawóó,€ð ðwhileÏan€actor€is€always€bound€to€prevent€his€acts€from€creating€an€unreasonable€riskÏto€others,€he€is€under€the€affirmative€duty€to€act€to€prevent€another€fromÏsustaining€harm€only€when€certain€socially€recognized€relations€exist€whichÏconstitute€the€basis€for€such€legal€duty.ðð€€854€S.W.2d€at€871,€quoting,€Harper€&ÏKime,€òòThe€Duty€to€Control€the€Conduct€of€Anotheróó,€43€Yale€L.J.€886,€887€(1934).ÌÌà àIn€òòMcClungóó,€for€example,€we€joined€the€vast€majority€of€jurisdictions€inÏrecognizing€that€a€business€has€an€affirmative€duty€to€take€ð ðreasonableÏmeasures€to€protect€their€customers€from€foreseeable€criminal€attacksðð€if€theÍbusiness€ð ðknows,€or€has€reason€to€know,€either€from€what€has€been€or€shouldÏhave€been€observed€or€from€past€experience,€that€criminal€acts€against€itsÏcustomers€on€its€premises€are€reasonably€foreseeable.€.€.€.ðð€€937€S.W.2d€at€901„902.€€The€determination€of€whether€a€duty€is€owed€requires€a€balancing€of€theÏforeseeability€and€gravity€of€the€potential€harm€against€the€burden€imposed€inÏprotecting€against€that€harm.€€òòIdóó.€at€902.€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€have€also€employed€this€analysis€in€the€context€of€a€physician/patientÏrelationship.× ƒ( ××  ×€€In€òòBradshawóó€we€held€that€the€physician/patient€relationship€wasÏsufficient€to€impose€an€affirmative€duty€on€the€physician€to€warn€identifiableÏpersons€in€the€patientððs€family€against€foreseeable€risks€related€to€the€patientððsÏillness.€€854€S.W.2d€at€872.€€Similarly,€in€òòWharton€Transport€Corp.€v.€Bridgesóó,Ï606€S.W.2d€521,€526€(Tenn.€1980),€we€held€that€a€physician€owed€a€duty€to€aÏthird€party€who€had€been€injured€by€a€truck€driver€the€physician€had€negligentlyÏexamined€and€certified.€€In€contrast,€in€òòPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óó,€òòsupraóó,€we€heldÏthat€a€physician€did€not€owe€a€duty€to€a€non„patient€where€it€was€not€reasonablyÏforeseeable€that€the€non„patient€would€take€medication€prescribed€for€theÏphysicianððs€patient.€€890€S.W.2d€at€430.ÌÌà àThese€same€principles€apply€in€addressing€whether€a€psychiatrist€has€aÏduty€to€protect€a€third€party€from€the€violent€acts€of€a€patient.€€In€òòBradshawóó€weÏcited€with€approval€òòTarasoff€v.€Regents€of€University€of€Californiaóó,€17€Cal.€3dÏ425,€131€Cal.€Rptr.€14,€551€P.2d€334€(1976),€in€which€the€California€SupremeÏCourt,€citing€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð315,€held€that€a€psychotherapistÏhad€an€affirmative€duty€of€care€to€protect€a€foreseeable€third€party€from€hisÏpatient€who€presented€a€serious€threat€of€danger.€€The€court€explained€that,Ïdepending€on€the€nature€of€the€case,€the€duty€of€care€may€require€warning€theÏvictim,€notifying€the€police,€or€whatever€other€steps€are€reasonably€necessary€toÏprotect€the€third€party.€€17€Cal.3d€at€430,€131€Cal.€Rptr.€at€20,€551€P.2d€at€340.€€€à àÌà àThe€majority€of€courts,€applying€òòTarasoffóó€principles,€have€held€that€whereÏa€psychiatrist,€in€accordance€with€accepted€standards€of€the€profession,€knowsÏor€reasonably€should€know€that€a€mentally€ill€patient€poses€an€unreasonableÏrisk€of€harm€to€a€foreseeable€third€party,€he€or€she€must€take€reasonable€stepsÏto€prevent€that€harm.× ƒ) ××  ×€€In€òòNaidu€v.€Lairdóó,€for€example,€the€Delaware€SupremeÏCourt€explained€the€basis€for€imposing€a€duty€in€òòTarasoffóó€situations:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€special€relationship€which€exists€between€mental€healthÏprofessionals€and€a€patient€provides€the€underlying€basis€forÏimposition€of€an€affirmative€duty€owed€by€such€professionals€toÏpersons€other€than€the€patient.€€That€duty€is€to€take€whatever€stepsÏare€reasonably€necessary€and€available€to€protect€an€intended€orÏpotential€victim(s)€of€the€patient€when€the€psychiatrist€determinesÏor€should€have€determined,€in€keeping€with€the€professionalÏstandards€of€the€community,€that€the€patient€presents€anÏunreasonable€danger€to€that€person(s).ÌÌÌÓÓ539€A.2d€at€1075.€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€in€òòHamman€v.€County€of€Maricopaóó,€the€Arizona€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€a€psychiatrist€owed€a€duty€where€he€denied€hospital€admittance€to€aÏschizophrenic€patient€with€a€lengthy€history€of€violent€behavior€who,€the€CourtÏsaid,€assaulted€and€severely€injured€his€step„father:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àWe€reject€the€notion€that€the€psychiatristððs€duty€to€third€persons€isÏlimited€to€those€against€whom€a€specific€threat€has€been€made.€ÏWe€hold€that€the€standard€originally€suggested€in€òòTarasoffóó€isÏproperly€applicable€to€psychiatrists.€€When€a€psychiatristÏdetermines,€or€under€applicable€professional€standardsÏreasonably€should€have€determined,€that€a€patient€poses€aÏserious€risk€of€violence€to€others,€the€psychiatrist€has€a€duty€toÏexercise€reasonable€care€to€protect€the€foreseeable€victim€of€thatÏdanger.€€The€foreseeable€victim€is€one€who€is€said€to€be€within€theÏzone€of€danger,€that€is€subject€to€probable€risk€of€the€patientððsÏviolent€conduct.ÌÌÌÓÓ775€P.2d€at€1127„28.€€Likewise,€in€òòPerreira€v.€Stateóó,€the€Colorado€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€a€psychiatrist€owed€a€duty€where€a€patient€with€a€long€history€ofÏmental€illness€and€psychotic€behavior€was€released€from€involuntary€treatmentÏand€then€shot€a€police€officer.€€The€court€considered€ÌÓÓÌà8 àthe€existence€of€a€special€relationship€between€a€psychiatrist€andÏan€involuntarily€committed€mental€patient€and€the€resulting€degreeÏof€control€which€the€psychiatrist€has€over€the€patient€as€a€result€ofÏthat€relationship;€the€foreseeability€of€harm€to€others€from€theÏfailure€of€the€psychiatrist€to€take€protective€action€for€the€benefit€ofÏothers;€the€social€utility€of€the€psychiatric€decision€to€release€anÏinvoluntarily€committed€patient;€the€magnitude€of€the€burden€ofÏguarding€against€violent€acts€committed€by€an€involuntarilyÏcommitted€mental€patient€subsequent€to€release;€and€the€practicalÏconsequences€of€placing€that€burden€upon€the€psychiatrist.ÌÌÌÓÓ768€P.2d€at€1214„15.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPetersen€v.€Stateóó,€671€P.2d€at€237.ÌÌà àHere,€the€plaintiffs€argue€that€Dr.€Jordan€had€a€duty€of€care€because€heÏknew€or€should€have€known€that€Williams€posed€an€unreasonable€risk€andÏbecause€the€plaintiff,€as€a€nurse€on€the€psychiatric€unit,€was€a€foreseeableÏvictim.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€no€duty€existed€because€Williams€was€aÍvoluntary€patient€who€did€not€specifically€threaten€the€plaintiff€or€present€anÏunreasonable€or€foreseeable€risk€of€harm.× ƒ* ××  ×€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals,€like€the€trial€court,€found€that€a€duty€existed€underÏthe€facts€of€this€case.€€The€intermediate€court€said:€ð ðDr.€Jordanððs€duty€to€protectÏthird€persons€from€foreseeable€bodily€harm€exist[ed]€beyond€those€whom€Mr.ÏWilliams€specifically€threatened€to€those€persons€who€[were]€members€of€aÏclass€of€persons€whose€safety€would,€with€reasonable€foreseeability,€be€placedÏat€risk€by€Mr.€Williamsðð€uncontrolled€actions.ððÌÌà àAs€the€Court€of€Appeals€observed,€the€òòTarasoffóó€cases,€like€our€decision€inÏòòBradshawóó,€òòsupraóó,€emphasized€the€presence€of€a€special€relationship,€that€is,€theÏpsychiatrist/patient€relationship.€€The€cases€further€consider€the€factors€we€haveÏtypically€balanced€in€determining€whether€a€duty€exists:€the€foreseeability€andÏseverity€of€potential€harm;€the€nature€of€the€defendantððs€conduct;€and€theÍavailability,€safety€and€effectiveness€of€alternatives.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcCallóó,€913€S.W.2d€atÏ153.€€€€ÌÌà àApplying€these€factors,€we€agree€that€Dr.€Jordan,€as€Williamsððs€attendingÏpsychiatrist,€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€the€plaintiff,€a€nurse€on€the€psychiatric€unit.€ÏHe€knew€of€Williamsððs€prior€violent€conduct€while€hospitalized,€including€oneÏoccasion€in€which€Williams€attacked€a€member€of€the€hospital€staff€(indeed,ÏJordan€himself).€€Dr.€Jordan€was€also€well€aware€of€Williamsððs€presentÏdangerousness„„€he€described€Williams€as€ð ðaggressive,€grandiose,€intimidating,Ïcombative,€and€dangerous.ðð€€Although€this€unreasonable€risk€of€harm€wasÏreasonably€apparent,€Dr.€Jordan,€who€had€the€ability€to€control€Williams€in€theÏinpatient€psychiatric€ward,€took€no€action€other€than€to€recommend€Williams€beÏencouraged€to€request€discharge€against€medical€advice.€€Although€theÏdefendant€now€contends€that€he€had€no€control€over€Williams€and€that€he€wasÏobligated€to€apply€the€least€restrictive€means€of€treatment,€the€record€indicatesÏthat€he€never€considered€other€reasonable€measures€to€prevent€the€riskÏWilliams€posed€to€other€patients,€staff€members,€or€other€readily€identifiableÏforeseeable€victims.ÌÌà àWe€stress€that€we€are€not€requiring€psychiatrists€or€physicians€to€possessÏperfect€judgment€or€a€degree€of€clairvoyance€in€determining€whether€a€patientÏposes€a€risk€of€harm€to€a€third€person.€€Instead,€we€merely€hold€that€a€duty€ofÏcare€may€exist€where€a€psychiatrist,€in€accordance€with€professional€standards,Ïknows€or€reasonably€should€know€that€a€patient€poses€an€unreasonable€risk€ofÏharm€to€a€foreseeable,€readily€identifiable€third€person.€€The€courts€belowÏcorrectly€held€that€the€facts€in€this€case€met€this€standard.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCOMPARATIVE€FAULTó óóóÌà àHaving€determined€that€a€duty€of€care€exists€in€this€case,€we€now€turn€toÏthe€issue€of€whether€the€defendant€psychiatristððs€negligence€should€have€beenÏcompared€with€the€intentional€act€of€the€non„party€patient€Williams€inÏdetermining€the€extent€of€the€defendantððs€liability€to€the€plaintiffs.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffsðð€argument€is€twofold:€a€psychiatristððs€liability€should€not€beÏreduced€by€the€occurrence€of€a€foreseeable€act€he€had€the€duty€to€prevent;× ƒ+ ××  ×€andÍas€a€matter€of€practice€and€policy,€the€negligent€act€of€a€tortfeasor€should€not€beÏcompared€to€the€intentional€act€of€another€tortfeasor.€€The€defendant€maintainsÏthat€comparison€is€proper€because€it€limits€his€liability€to€his€percentage€of€faultÏin€causing€harm€to€the€plaintiff.ÌÌà àIn€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€we€adopted€a€modified€form€of€comparative€faultÏunder€which€a€plaintiff€whose€negligence€is€less€than€that€of€a€defendant€mayÏrecover€damages€in€an€amount€reduced€in€proportion€to€the€percentage€of€theÏplaintiffððs€own€negligence.€€833€S.W.2d€at€57.€€Based€on€notions€of€fairness€andÏjustice,€we€abolished€the€outdated€doctrine€of€contributory€negligence€and€yetÏstressed€that€ð ða€particular€defendant€[is]€liable€only€for€the€percentage€of€aÏplaintiffððs€damages€occasioned€by€that€defendantððs€negligence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€58.€ÏMoreover,€to€provide€guidance€in€future€cases,€we€said€that€a€defendant€isÏpermitted€to€show€that€a€non„party€caused€or€contributed€to€the€damages€forÏwhich€the€plaintiff€seeks€recovery.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àSince€òòMcIntyreóó,€we€have€clarified€the€distinction€between€comparativeÏòònegligenceóó€and€comparative€òòfaultóó.€€The€former€is€the€ð ðmeasure€of€the€plaintiffððsÏnegligence€in€percentage€terms€used€for€the€purpose€of€reducing€the€plaintiffððsÍrecovery€from€the€defendant.ðð€€The€latter€is€defined€as€ð ðthose€principles€whichÏencompass€the€determination€of€how€to€apportion€damage€recovery€amongÏmultiple€or€joint€tortfeasors€according€to€the€percentage€of€fault€attributed€toÏthose€actors€after€reduction€for€the€plaintiffððs€percentage€of€negligence.ðð€€òòOwensÏv.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó,€915€S.W.2d€420,€425€n.€7€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€in€determining€comparative€fault,€we€have€considered€casesÏin€which€the€negligence€of€a€tortfeasor€was€compared€with€the€negligence€ofÏother€tortfeasors.€€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€895€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€1995);€òòBervoets€v.ÏHarde€Ralls€Pontiac„Old,€Inc.óó,€891€S.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€have€alsoÏconsidered€the€question€of€comparing€the€negligence€of€a€defendant€with€theÏstrict€liability€of€third„party€defendants.€€òòOwens€v.€Truckstops€of€Americaóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€at€431„33.€€This€case€presents€our€first€opportunity€to€determine€whetherÏthe€negligent€act€of€a€defendant€should€be€compared€with€the€intentional€act€ofÏanother€in€determining€comparative€fault.ÌÌà àOther€jurisdictions€have€addressed€the€issue.€€In€òòVeazey€v.€ElmwoodÏPlantation€Assoc.,€Ltd.óó,€650€So.2d€712€(La.€1994),€the€plaintiff€was€sexuallyÏassaulted€by€an€intruder€and€filed€a€negligence€action€against€her€apartmentÏcomplex€for€failing€to€maintain€adequate€security;€the€defendant€apartmentÍcomplex,€in€turn,€defended€on€the€basis€of€the€intentional€act€by€the€assailant.€ÏThe€Louisiana€Supreme€Court€declined€to€compare€the€negligent€act€of€theÏdefendant€with€the€intentional€act€of€the€third€party€primarily€because€it€believedÏthe€negligent€defendant€should€not€be€allowed€to€reduce€its€fault€by€relying€onÏan€intentional€act€it€had€the€duty€to€prevent.€€òòIdóó.€at€718.€€It€also€expressed€severalÏpublic€policy€concerns€that€supported€its€conclusion:€that€comparison€wouldÏreduce€the€plaintiffððs€recovery€because€juries€will€likely€allocate€most€if€not€allÏfault€to€the€intentional€actor;€that€allocating€fault€to€the€intentional€party€mayÏreduce€the€incentive€for€the€negligent€actor€to€act€with€due€care;€and€thatÏcomparison€is€impractical€because€intentional€and€negligent€torts€are€differentÏð ðnot€only€in€degree€but€in€kind,€and€the€social€condemnation€attached€to€it.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ïat€719,€quoting,€Prosser€ðð€65€at€462.€€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMarceaux€v.€Gibbsóó,€680€So.2dÏ1189€(La.€App.€1996),€òòaffððdóó,€699€So.2d€1065€(La.€1998)€(following€òòVeazeyóó).× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€another€sexual€assault€case,€òòKansas€State€Bank€&€Trust€Co.€v.ÏSpecialized€Transportation€Services,€Inc.óó,€819€P.2d€587€(Kan.€1991),€theÍparents€of€a€child€who€was€sexually€assaulted€by€a€school€bus€driver€filed€aÏnegligence€suit€against€the€school€and€the€bus€company.€€The€KansasÏSupreme€Court€held€that€a€negligent€defendant€should€not€be€permitted€toÏreduce€its€liability€by€intentional€acts€they€had€a€duty€to€prevent.€€ÌÌà àThe€Kansas€Supreme€Court€followed€its€holding€in€òòGould€v.€Taco€Bellóó,Ï722€P.2d€511€(Kan.€1986),€in€which€it€said€the€question€of€comparing€negligentÏand€intentional€acts€depends€on€ð ðthe€nature€of€the€duty€owed€in€each€instance.ðð€ÏIn€òòGouldóó,€an€assailant€physically€and€verbally€abused€the€plaintiff€in€a€restaurantÏin€full€view€of€the€restaurantððs€managers.€€The€court€held€that€the€restaurantððsÏnegligent€failure€to€maintain€security€under€the€facts€of€the€case€should€not€haveÏbeen€compared€with€the€intentional€conduct€of€the€assailant.€€722€P.2d€at€513.ÌÌà àA€similar€approach€was€suggested€by€the€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€inÏòòBlazovic€v.€Andrichóó,€590€A.2d€222€(N.J.€1991).€€There€the€jury€was€permitted€toÏcompare€the€negligence€of€a€restaurant€owner€in€failing€to€maintain€adequateÏlighting€and€security€in€the€parking€lot€with€the€intentional€act€of€a€patron€whoÏattacked€the€plaintiff.€€While€the€court€upheld€the€comparison,€it€recognized€thatÏapportionment€of€fault€between€tortfeasors€may€be€precluded€ð ðwhen€the€duty€ofÏone€encompassed€the€obligation€to€prevent€the€specific€misconduct€of€theÍother.ðð€€It€distinguished€the€facts€before€it€on€the€basis€that€ð ðthe€events€thatÏallegedly€took€place€in€the€parking€lot€neither€were€sufficiently€foreseeable€norÏbore€an€adequate€causal€relationship€to€[the€negligent€defendantððs]€allegedÏfault€to€justify€the€imposition€on€[the€defendant]€of€the€entire€responsibility€for€theÏresultant€injury.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€233;€òòcompareóó€òòGouldóó,€722€P.2d€at€511„13.ÌÌà àOther€courts€take€a€different€view.€€In€òòReichert€v.€Alteróó,€875€P.2d€379€(N.M.Ï1992),€a€bar€patron€was€killed€when€assaulted€by€another€customer.€€The€barÏowners€were€sued€for€failing€to€provide€adequate€security,€and€the€bar€ownersÏrelied€on€the€intentional€act€of€the€third€party€to€reduce€their€liability.€€The€courtÏheld€that€the€bar€owner€may€reduce€his€liability€by€the€percentage€of€faultÏattributable€to€a€third€party.€€They€reasoned€that€this€principle€was€mostÏconsistent€with€the€rejection€of€joint€and€several€liability€in€comparative€faultÏcases€and€that€each€individual€tortfeasor€should€be€held€responsible€only€for€hisÏor€her€percentage€of€fault.€€òòId.óó€at€381.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBarth€v.€Colemanóó,€878€P.2d€319Ï(N.M.€1994)(following€òòReichertóó).ÌÌà àLikewise,€in€òòWeidenfuller€v.€Star€&€Garteróó,€2€Cal.€Rptr.2d€14€(Cal.€App.€4ÏDist.€1991),€an€assault€victim€sued€a€bar€owner€for€failing€to€have€adequateÏlighting€and€security.€€The€jury€allocated€75€percent€of€the€fault€to€the€assailant.€ÍOn€appeal,€the€court€said€that€the€argument€that€negligent€acts€should€not€beÏcompared€with€intentional€acts€ð ðviolate[d]€the€common€sense€notion€that€a€moreÏculpable€party€should€bear€the€financial€burden€caused€by€its€intentional€act.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€16.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMartin€by€and€through€Martin€v.€United€Statesóó,€984€F.2dÏ1033€(9th€Cir.€1993)€(following€òòWeidenfulleróó);€òòNatseway€v.€City€of€Tempeóó,€909ÏP.2d€441€(Ariz.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€concern€in€cases€that€compare€the€negligence€of€aÏdefendant€with€the€intentional€act€of€a€third€party€is€not€burdening€the€negligentÏtortfeasor€with€liability€in€excess€of€his€or€her€fault;€conversely,€the€primaryÏconcern€in€those€cases€that€do€not€compare€is€that€the€plaintiff€not€be€penalizedÏby€allowing€the€negligent€party€to€use€the€intentional€act€it€had€a€duty€to€preventÏto€reduce€its€liability.€ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€the€conduct€of€a€negligent€defendant€should€not€beÏcompared€with€the€intentional€conduct€of€another€in€determining€comparativeÏfault€where€the€intentional€conduct€is€the€foreseeable€risk€created€by€theÏnegligent€tortfeasor.€€As€other€courts€have€recognized,€comparison€presentsÏpractical€difficulties€in€allocating€fault€between€negligent€and€intentional€acts,Ïbecause€negligent€and€intentional€torts€are€different€in€degree,€in€kind,€and€inÍsocietyððs€view€of€the€relative€culpability€of€each€act.€€Such€comparison€alsoÏreduces€the€negligent€personððs€incentive€to€comply€with€the€applicable€duty€ofÏcare.€€Moreover,€while€a€negligent€defendant€may,€of€course,€raise€a€thirdÏpartyððs€intentional€act€to€refute€elements€of€the€plaintiffððs€negligence€claim€suchÏas€duty€and€causation,€fairness€dictates€that€it€should€not€be€permitted€to€relyÏupon€the€foreseeable€harm€it€had€a€duty€to€prevent€so€as€to€reduce€its€liability.€ÌÌà àOur€holding€also€comports€with€the€principles€underlying€òòMcIntyreóó.€€TheÏplaintiff€here€was€not€negligent.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€defendant€wasÏnegligent,€and€his€breach€of€care€led€to€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€€Thus,€theÏdefendantððs€liability€to€the€plaintiff€is€linked€to€his€degree€of€fault€as€required€byÏòòMcIntyreóó,€and€he€should€not€be€permitted€to€reduce€his€liability€by€relying€on€theÏoccurrence€of€the€foreseeable€risk€of€harm€he€had€a€duty€to€prevent.€€As€oneÏcommentator€has€written:€ð ðthe€òòMcIntryeóó€principle€of€holding€the€tortfeasor€liableÏfor€only€his€own€percentage€of€fault€is€not€abrogated€by€nonapportionment€whenÏthe€nature€of€the€tortfeasorððs€breach€is€that€he€created€the€risk€of€the€secondÏtortfeasorððs€[intentional]€act.ðð€€Entman,€òòThe€Nonparty€Tortfeasoróó,€23€Mem.€St.€U.ÏL.€Rev.€105,€107€(1992).× ƒ- ××  ×ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€lower€courts€incorrectly€determinedÏthat€the€negligence€of€the€defendant€should€have€been€compared€with€theÏintentional€act€of€the€defendantððs€patient.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€error€wasÏharmless€in€that€the€jury€apportioned€100€percent€of€the€fault€to€the€defendant.€ÏThus,€we€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€a€judgment€consistentÏwith€the€juryððs€verdict.ÌÌà@ àò òòòAUTHORITY€TO€REALLOCATE€FAULTó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€moved€for€a€new€trial,€and€the€trial€court,€afterÏindependently€weighing€the€evidence,€granted€a€new€trial€because€itÏdisapproved€of€the€juryððs€failure€to€allocate€some€percentage€of€fault€to€theÏpatient€who€had€intentionally€injured€the€plaintiff.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€argued€that€the€trial€court€had€the€authority€to€reallocate€theÏpercentage€of€fault€instead€of€granting€a€new€trial,€in€the€same€manner€as€it€canÏsuggest€an€additur€or€remittitur.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€a€new€trial€wasÏthe€only€appropriate€remedy€because€allocation€of€fault€lies€within€the€exclusiveÏprovince€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àAs€the€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€court€must€grant€a€new€trial€if€the€verdict€isÏcontrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.06.€€If€the€trial€courtÏapproves€of€the€juryððs€verdict€with€the€exception€of€the€amount€of€damages,€itÏmay€suggest€an€adjustment€to€the€verdict.€€If€the€plaintiff€does€not€consent€to€aÏdecreased€award€(remittitur),€or€the€defendant€does€not€consent€to€an€increasedÏaward€(additur),€the€trial€court€must€grant€a€new€trial.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„10„101€&€102.€€The€purpose€is€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€revise€and€correct€errorsÏrelating€to€the€size€of€a€juryððs€verdict€ð ðwithout€the€costly€and€time„consumingÏprocess€occasioned€by€the€granting€of€a€new€trial.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòThrailkill€v.€Pattersonóó,Ï879€S.W.2d€836€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlthough€we€have€not€addressed€the€exact€issue,€other€jurisdictions€haveÏheld€that€the€mechanisms€of€additur/remittitur€do€not€apply€to€alter€the€juryððsÏallocation€of€comparative€liability.€€In€òòRowlands€v.€Signal€Const.€Co.óó,€549€So.2dÏ1380€(Fla.€1989),€the€Florida€Supreme€Court€€rejected€the€use€of€remittitur€toÏcorrect€the€juryððs€assignment€of€comparative€fault€because€the€ð ðapportioning€ofÏliability€is€a€matter€peculiarly€within€the€province€of€the€jury.ðð€€The€courtÏconcluded:ÌÓÓÌà8 àSince€liability€is€inextricably€bound€up€with€the€apportionment€ofÏdamages€under€the€doctrine€of€comparative€negligence,€thisÏmatter€must€be€left€to€the€jury.€€When€the€percentages€of€liabilityÍare€contrary€to€the€manifest€weight€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€courtÏmust€treat€this€defect€as€an€error€in€the€finding€of€liability€itself.€€TheÏonly€remedy€is€to€order€a€new€trial€on€all€issues€affected€by€theÏerror.ÌÌÌÓÓ549€So.2d€at€1382„83;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòArkermanis€v.€Sea„Land€Service,€Inc.óó,€688€F.2dÏ898€(2d€Cir.€1982)(ð ðremittitur€a€limited€exception€to€jury€fact€findingðð);€òòState€v.ÏKaatzóó,€572€P.2d€775€(Alaska€1977)€(ð ðapportionment€of€negligence€is€part€of€theÏliability€phase€of€a€case,€not€the€damages€phaseðð).ÌÌà àReaching€a€different€result,€the€Rhode€Island€Supreme€Court,€in€òòCotronaÏv.€Johnson€&€Wales€Collegeóó,€501€A.2d€728€(R.I.€1985),€said€that€ð ðtheÏmechanisms€of€remittitur€and€additur€shall€be€available€in€the€future€to€trialÏjustices€not€only€to€reassess€an€erroneous€damage€award€but€also€to€correct€aÏjuryððs€misapportionment€of€liability€as€it€may€relate€to€comparative€negligence.ðð€ÏIn€the€courtððs€view,€these€means€would€ð ðprevent€the€burdensome€costs,€delaysÏand€harassments€that€accompany€re„litigation€of€the€same€issues€while€at€theÏsame€time€assuring€the€litigants€substantial€justice.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€733„34.ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€our€cases€have€specifically€limited€the€statutoryÏprocedures€of€remittitur€and€additur€to€correction€of€damages€and€not€liability.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBurlison€v.€Roseóó,€701€S.W.2d€609€(Tenn.€1985)(remittitur€is€notÍproper,€and€a€new€trial€must€be€granted,€when€the€trial€judge€disagrees€with€theÏjury€on€questions€of€fact€other€than€the€amount€of€damages);€òòSpence€v.€AllstateÏIns.€Co.óó,€883€S.W.2d€586,€594€(Tenn.€1994)€(suggestion€for€additur€applies€toÏdamages).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€it€lacked€the€authorityÏto€reapportion€the€comparative€fault€in€its€role€as€thirteenth€juror.× ƒ. ××  ×€€€€ÌÌà àOur€opinion€in€òòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177€(Tenn.€1995),Ïcited€by€both€parties,€does€not€require€a€different€conclusion.€€€òòWrightóó€was€basedÏon€our€appellate€court€standard€of€review€of€factual€findings€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€non„jury€cases:€ð ðreview€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civil€actionsÏshall€be€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€By€comparison,€the€standard€ofÏreview€governing€jury€findings€of€fact€in€a€civil€action€is€completely€different.€ÏThose€findings€of€fact€may€be€set€aside€only€if€there€is€no€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€verdict.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€òòWrightóó€does€not€allow€the€trial€court€to€reallocateÏfault€between€the€parties€in€a€jury€case€in€its€role€as€thirteenth€juror.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€defendant€psychiatrist€owed€a€duty€of€care€to€theÏplaintiff€nurse€because€he€knew€or€should€have€known€that€his€patient€posed€anÏunreasonable€risk€of€harm€to€a€foreseeable,€readily€identifiable€third€party.€€WeÏalso€conclude€that€the€lower€courts€erred€in€ruling€that€the€defendantÏpsychiatristððs€negligence€should€be€compared€with€the€intentional€conduct€ofÏthe€non„party€patient€in€allocating€fault.€€We€consider€this€error€harmlessÏbecause€the€jury€allocated€100€percent€of€the€fault€to€the€negligent€defendantÏpsychiatrist.€Finally,€although€not€applicable€here,€in€view€of€our€result€we€haveÏdetermined€that€the€trial€court€may€not€reallocate€the€comparative€fault€afterÏweighing€the€evidence€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€but€must€instead€grant€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed€in€part€andÏaffirmed€in€part,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€judgmentÏon€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant/appellee,Ïfor€which€execution€shall€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó ó€€ÌÌDrowota,€Reid,€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌBirch,€J.,€Not€ParticipatingÌÌ