WPCi% {SnZU=4k3ԭ(*^+6q%UwyRH7B6y=IAegB̟;ˁ29Ac[Il|FQ FSr\ }Vᖴqҩdc0Wl=>1/Zs'0V^} ;%F6z: Y)g9J{\\>cZ-~GX } &-|a'!Eo64 *VEB1Rvu<{Jf+^='rw2+2 %n 0roU!:nw@4+9b  0& 0D  p$UH AQq-rU:U HJ 0n nUHz9wz B 0t 0 0Dq D/EU:t B D3f U:l q U:"Q"##$X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@(JO$XqXX X&+e&X Xq  ,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@ jEkPlPmPnDoPpVqrӀ~[$f3|x~   q$XlXXX&f&XXl      2    &m5&&&fC &&m5TheCourtofAppealsfoundthat thereisoverwhelmingevidenceinthe  recordfromwhichthejurycouldfindthatthedefendantwasnegligentinsecretlyprescribingAntabuseto[the]decedent. /  #uXd#- -(f(3q$ O!XlXXX&f&XXl       0  (-$  5     q$XlXXX&f&XXl      1    &m5&&&fC &&m5Antabuseisaprescriptionmedicationwhichproducesasensitivityto  alcohol,suchthatapersonconsumingevensmallquantitiesofalcoholreceivesahighlyunpleasantreaction.Antabuseplusalcohol,eveninsmallamounts,producesthefollowingreactions:flushing,throbbingintheheadandneck,throbbingheadache,respiratorydifficulty,nausea,copiousvomiting,sweating,thirst,chestpain,palpitationdyspnea,hyperventilation,tachycardia,hypotension,syncope,markeduneasiness,weakness,vertigo,blurredvision,andconfusion.Inseverereactionstheremayberespiratorydepression,cardiovascularcollapse,arrhythmias,myocardialinfarction,acutecongestiveheartfailure,unconsciousness,convulsions,anddeath.PhysiciansDeskReference3008(52ded.1998). f  q$XlXXX&f&XXl      3    &m5&&&fX-X&&m5X-XXX-JudgeDrowotasdissentwouldholdthatwherethe  intentionalwrongdoingofapatientistheforeseeableriskcreatedbythenegligentphysician,comparisonoffaultisappropriateifthepatientisapartytothesuit.TherationalefortheTurnerdecision,that fairnessdictatesthat[a (  negligentdefendant]shouldnotbepermittedtorelyupontheforeseeableharmithadadutytopreventsoastoreduceitsliabilityissound,andtheholdingofTurnerisapplicable  x whetherthepatientisorisnotaparty.#X-XXX-#< +9Z 0Courier (WT) Regular !"#%C<< C g !n<"XlXXX&f&XXl   &f&&&f=&&f   Ad FILEDXlX=   August31,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.r XXlAppellateCourtClerk  h n<)XlXXX&f&XXl   ,cAZ"Arial Regular<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular(f3n<$ O!XlXXX&f&XXl   ݫ<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@< +9Z 0Courier (WT) Regular /#Pd#   m  q$XlXXX&f&XXl      4    Ofcourse,thepracticalimpactofthemajoritysholdingistoprecludethedefendant  fromreducinghisliabilitytotheplaintiffbypointingthefingeroffault,howeverslightly,atthedecedent.   q$XlXXX&f&XXl      5    Inanactionforwrongfuldeath,therightthatsurvivestothesurvivingspouse,thewidow  intheinstantcase,isthesamecauseofactionthedecedentwouldhavehadhadhesurvived.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.205106( Therightofactionwhichaperson,whodiesfrominjuries P receivedfromanother...wouldhavehadagainstthewrongdoer,incasedeathhadnotensued,shallnotabateorbeextinguishedbythepersonsdeathbutshallpasstothepersonssurvivingspouse....);seealsoWeathersv.Pilkinton,754S.W.2d75,78(Tenn.App.1988). dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(f3n<$ O!XlXXX&f&XXl   (f3n<$ O!XlXXX&f&XXl   ($$   1   g !n<"XlXXX&f&XXl   &&f&&&f&=&&&f   Ad FILED&XlX&=   August31,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.&r X&XlAppellateCourtClerk ''' dxd,cAZ"Arial RegularP Pd'dxd \\RA' Legal\,  AZ"Arial Regular g !n<"XlXXX&f&XXl   -&f&&&f-=&-&f   Ad FILED-XlX-=   August31,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.-r X-XlAppellateCourtClerk ,SAZ"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 O!XlXXX&f&XXl   ݛXlX&&fTR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T    =lXdd=X-XXXl 7m5&&dd7   wќ   p    x    (      0   t(>.*jx2` `@EY ` ttx$" t   p    x    (     August31,1998 8"      p    x    (     FORPUBLICATION  @0 0 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@%ATJACKSON     -XX  XX-BARBARAWHITE,asthe x   )   @8  AdministratrixoftheEstate  )   ofEarlR.White,deceased,  )        p    x   )  CarrollCircuit     Plaintiff/Appellant,  )     8"  `X     p    x   )Hon.JulianP.Guinn,Judge   p    x   )     v.   p    x   )  No.02S019701CV00007   8"      p    x   )   p    x   )   H@ WILLIAMH.LAWRENCE,M.D.,  )     p    x   )  Defendant/Appellee. x   )  @*?,XX D XXX  X?ForPlaintiffAppellant: x      T ForDefendantAppellee:  DavidL.Cooper  x      T JerryD.Kizer,Jr.  JohnM.Cannon   x      T PatrickW.Rogers  ColumbaA.Mchale  x      T Rainey,Kizer,Butler,    Cannon,Cannon&Copper,P.C.     T Reviere&Bell,P.L.C. p!h! Goodlettsville   x      T Jackson 8"0" qq@$ OPINION  @)8"+ ̜JUDGMENTOFCOURTOFAPPEALS0  x 0$$ x 0$$ x 0$$ x @*$$0 T  0TT$T$  $$M$T$T$ .'1 МREVERSED;CASEREMANDEDTOTRIALCOURT.   x      T REID,Sp.J. 8"  /(3      p Thisisamedicalmalpracticecaseinwhichtheplaintiff,BarbaraWhite,administratrixoftheestateofherdeceasedhusband,EarlR.White,appealsfromtheCourtofAppealsdecisiontoreversethetrialcourtsdenialofamotionforsummaryjudgmentforthedefendant,Dr.WilliamH.Lawrence.Theissuestobedecidedare 6/<   w7-XXd&&d7  q w7-XXd&&d7  qwhetherthedecedentssuicidewasasuperseding,interveningcause,  therebyprecludingrecoveryagainstthedefendantasamatteroflaw,andwhetherthedecedentssuicidemaybeconsideredindeterminingthefaultofthedefendantunderMcIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52   (Tenn.1992).Theconclusionsarethatthedecedentsactofsuicidewasnotasuperseding,interveningcauseofdeathasamatteroflaw,butaquestionoffacttoberesolvedattrial,andthedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidemaynotbeconsideredinassessingfaultagainstthedefendant.@* I      p Thedecedent,EarlR.White,was55yearsoldatthetime  ofhisdeath.Hewasaddictedtoalcoholandsufferedfromseveredepression.In1990,thedecedentbeganseeingthedefendant,Dr.WilliamH.Lawrence,anosteopathicphysicianwithafamilypractice,foravarietyofailments,includingbronchitis,highbloodpressure,andbackandelbowproblems.Thedefendantwasawarethroughouthistreatmentofthedecedentthatheconsumedalcoholtoexcess.Thedefendanttestifiedthatthedecedentwas prettymuchintoxicatedwheneverhesawhim,andthatthedecedents perception,conception,understandingandeverythingwasalteredbyalcohol.Thedefendantwasalsoawarethatthedecedentsufferedfromseveredepression.Whenaskedaboutthenatureofthedecedentsdepression,thedefendantstatedthatthedecedent didnthaveanydesiretolive.Thedecedentinformedthedefendantofthisfact twoorthreedifferenttimes.Thedefendantfeltthatthedecedentwasa likelycandidateforsuicide.Herepeatedlyencouragedthedecedenttoseeapsychiatrist,butwithoutsuccess.   p Afterdeterminingin1990thatthedecedentsliverandpancreashadbeendamagedbyhisexcessiveconsumptionofalcohol, 70> thedefendantreferredhimtoanotherphysicianforspecializedtreatment,butthedefendantcontinuedtotreatthedecedentforvariousailmentsuntilhisdeathonJuly14,1993.   p InMayorJune1993,thedecedentswife,BarbaraWhite,discussedwiththedefendantthedecedentsexcessiveconsumptionofalcoholandtheeffectitwashavingonhishealth.ThedefendantgavetheplaintiffaprescriptionforDisulfiram,commonlyknownas Antabuse,todiscouragethedecedentfromdrinking. -  1      כAccordingto   МMrs.White,thedefendantinstructedhertogrindthemedicationandsurreptitiouslyplaceitinthedecedentsfood.Shefollowedthedefendantsinstructionsandsecretlyadministeredthemedicationtothedecedent.Soonthereafter,onJuly13,1993,thedecedentcomplainedtohiswifeofaheadacheandfeelingcold.Shetestifiedthathedidnotappeartohavebeendrinking.However,onthefollowingday,July14,1993,thedecedentwentalonetotheemergencyroomatValleyRegionalHospitalinCamden,complainingofhotflashesandpain.Theemergencyroomrecordsindicatethatthedecedentsbreathsmelledofalcohol.Accordingtoanassessmentreport,thedecedentwasunder moderatedistress,butwasfullycooperativeandconscious.SincethedecedentdidnotknowthathehadtakenAntabuse,hedidnotadvisetheemergencyroompersonnelofthatfact.Hewasdiagnosedassufferingfromheatexhaustionand discharged.Heleftwalkingunderhisownpower.Fourhourslater, *#. thedecedentcommittedsuicidebyshootinghimselfintheheadwithapistol.    p Inresponsetotheplaintiffsallegationsthatthedecedentsdeathwascausedbythedefendantsnegligence,thedefendantassertedinhisanswerthatthedecedents comparativenegligencewouldbaranyrecovery.Thedefendantalsofiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,assertingthatthedecedentsactofsuicidewasthesuperseding,interveningcauseofdeathbarringrecoveryasamatteroflaw.   p Inresponsetothemotion,theplaintifffiledtheaffidavitofDr.J.KirbyPate,apsychiatrist,inwhichDr.Pateopinedthatthedefendants covertadministrationof[Antabuse]toanactivelydrinkingperson,alcoholicorotherwise,isentirelyinappropriate,violatesthestandardofcare,andisdangeroustothepointofrecklessness.Dr.PatealsostatedthattheuseofAntabuserequiredtheinformedconsentofthepatient,andfurther,that [i]twasreasonablyforeseeableforDr.LawrencetorealizethatsecretlyprescribingAntabusetoanalcoholicanddepressedpatientunderhiscareandcontrolwouldcauseseverephysicalsymptoms,whichisamajorriskfactorforsuicide.Dr.Pateconcludedthat [t]hecovertprescriptionandinappropriateinstructionsfortheuseof[Antabuse]byDr.LawrenceinthetreatmentofMr.Whiteprobablycaused[his]suicidedeath,sinceMr.Whitewassufferingfromchronicalcoholismanddepression....   p TheplaintiffsalsosubmittedtheaffidavitofDr.MurrayW.Smith,whowasthemedicaldirectoroftheBaptistHospitalDrugandAlcoholRecoveryCenterinNashville.Dr.Smith,likeDr.Pate,statedthatthedefendantshouldhavereasonablyforeseenthatsecretlyprescribingandadministeringAntabusetoanalcoholicand x7p0> depressedpatientwouldcauseseverephysicalproblemsandleadtothesuicideofthepatient.Dr.Smithopinedthat theinappropriateprescriptionandinstructionsfortheuseofAntabusebyDr.LawrenceinthetreatmentofMr.Whitecausedthesuicidedeathfromdepression,occurringasasideeffectoftheAntabuse.Dr.SmithfurthertestifiedthatDr.LawrenceowedadutyofcaretothedecedentnottoadministerAntabusewithoutthepatientsfullknowledge,towarnthedecedentoftheAntabusealcoholreaction,cautionhimagainstdrinkingwhiletakingthedrug,andmakehimfullyawareofpossibleconsequences,includingthefactthatreactionsmayoccurwithalcoholupto14daysafteringestingAntabuse.ThedefendantdidnotfileanyaffidavitsofexpertsinresponsetotheaffidavitsofDrs.PateandSmithsubmittedbytheplaintiff.   p Thetrialcourtdeniedthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Thecourtfoundthereweredisputedissuesofmaterialfactregardingwhetherthedecedentsactofsuicideconstitutedasuperseding,interveningcauseofdeath.Thedefendantthenfiledamotionforaninterlocutoryappeal,whichthetrialcourtgrantedwiththefollowingexplanation:8  8p!! ThecourtisledtoexerciseitsdiscretioninfavorofpermittinganinterlocutoryappealbecausethecourthasdistinguishedthiscasefromthelonglineofTennesseecases...holdingthatsuicidebyapersonwhounderstandsthenatureofhisorheractisanindependent,intervening,proximatecauseinanoncustodialsettingasamatteroflaw. phph 8  8p!! ItistheopinionofthiscourtthatthiscaserepresentsacaseoffirstimpressioninTennesseebecausethiscaseinvolvesallegationsthatthedefendantdoctorsurreptitiouslyprescribedadrugfortheplaintiffsdecedentwhich,becauseofitseffectsonhim,causedhimtocommitsuicide.Z- phph  6/=    p TheCourtofAppealsreversedandgrantedsummaryjudgmenttothedefendant.̛@tt) II  H @    p Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993).Thepartymovingfor   summaryjudgmenthastheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists,id.at210,andthisCourtmustreview  therecordwithoutapresumptionofcorrectnesssupportingthetrialcourtsjudgment.Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.  1997);Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).TheCourt  mustviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,drawallreasonableinferencesinherfavor,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence.Byrd,847S.W.2dat21011.Onlyifthe X P  factsandconclusionstobedrawnfromthefactspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusionshouldsummaryjudgmentbegranted.Robinson,952S.W.2dat426;Bain,936S.W.2dat622; %& McClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn. &( 1996).@88) III  T    H+@$.    p Thefirstissuetobeconsiderediswhethertheactofsuicidebythedecedentforeclosesrecoveryagainstthedefendantasamatteroflaw.Thedefendantisnotprecludedfromraisingthedecedentsintentionalactofsuicidetodefeatoneormoreoftheelementsoftheplaintiffsnegligencecauseofaction.SeeTurner 4-: v.Jordan,957S.W.2d815,823(Tenn.1997)( [A]negligentdefendant 6/< may,ofcourse,raiseathirdpartysintentionalacttorefute 81> elementsoftheplaintiffsclaimsuchasdutyandcausation....).Thusispresentedthefirstissueinthiscase,whichiswhetherthedecedentsactofsuicideconstitutesaninterveningcause,breakingthechainofproximate,orlegal,causation.̀Aclaimofnegligencerequiresproofofeachofthefollowingelements:adutyofcareowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff;conductfallingbelowtheapplicablestandardofcarethatamountstoabreachofthatduty;aninjuryorloss;causeinfact;andproximatecause.McClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937  S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996);McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153  (Tenn.1995).Thefocusinthiscaseisonthelastelementproximatecausation.TheCourtrecentlydiscussedthenatureofproximatecausationbycontrastingitwithcausationinfact:8  8p!! Thedistinctionbetweencauseinfactandproximate,orlegal,causeisnotmerelyanexerciseinsemantics.Thetermsarenotinterchangeable.Althoughbothcauseinfactandproximate,orlegal,causeareelementsofnegligencethattheplaintiffmustprove,theyareverydifferentconcepts.Causeinfactreferstothecauseandeffectrelationshipbetweenthedefendantstortiousconductandtheplaintiffsinjuryorloss.Thus,causeinfactdealswiththe butforconsequencesofanact.Thedefendantsconductisacauseoftheeventiftheeventwouldnothaveoccurredbutfortheconduct.Incontrast,proximatecause,orlegalcause,concernsadeterminationofwhetherlegalliabilityshouldbeimposedwherecauseinfacthasbeenestablished.Proximateorlegalcauseisapolicydecisionmadebythelegislatureorthecourtstodenyliabilityforotherwiseactionableconductbasedonconsiderationsoflogic,commonsense,policy,precedentandourmoreorlessinadequatelyexpressedideasofwhatjusticedemandsorofwhatisadministrativelypossibleandconvenient.(Citationsomitted). phph <Snyderv.LTGLufttechnischeGMbH,955S.W.2d252,256n.6(Tenn. 3,9 1997).SeealsoKilpatrickv.Bryant,868S.W.2d594,598(Tenn.  5.; 1993). 6/= Ї   p Aspointedoutbythedefendant,anindependentinterveningcausebreaksthechainofproximatecausationandtherebyprecludesrecovery.Thelawisequallyclear,however,that [a]ninterveningact,whichisanormalresponsecreatedbynegligence,isnotasuperseding,interveningcausesoastorelievetheoriginalwrongdoerofliability,providedtheinterveningactcouldhavereasonablybeenforeseenandtheconduct[oftheoriginalwrongdoer]wasasubstantialfactorinbringingabouttheharm.McClenahanv.   Cooley,806S.W.2d767,775(Tenn.1991);seealsoMcClung,937   S.W.2dat905;Haynesv.HamiltonCounty,883S.W.2d606,612(Tenn.  1994).Accordingly, aninterveningactwillnotexculpatetheoriginalwrongdoerunlessitisshownthattheinterveningactcouldnothavebeenreasonablyanticipated.McClenahan,806S.W.2dat  775.Whethersuchanactoreventconstitutesaninterveningcauseisforthejurytodetermineunlesstheuncontrovertedfactsandinferencestobedrawnfromthefactsmakeitsoclearthatallreasonablepersonsmustagreeontheproperoutcome.McClung,937    S.W.2dat905.   p ThisCourtandtheCourtofAppealshaveheldthatsuicidemayconstituteaninterveningcauseifitisawillful,calculated,anddeliberateactofonewhohasthepowerofchoice.See,e.g., ' * Lancasterv.Montesi,390S.W.2d217,22122(Tenn.1965);Jonesv. h)`", Stewart,191S.W.2d439,440(Tenn.1946);Weathersv.Pilkinton,754 *#. S.W.2d75,7879(Tenn.App.1988);Eckerds,Inc.v.McGhee,86 ,%0 S.W.2d570,575(Tenn.App.1935).However,theactofsuicideisnotalwaysviewedasaninterveningactthatrelievesthenegligentactorfromliability.See,e.g.,Cockrumv.State,843S.W.2d433, 810*6 43637(Tenn.App.1992)( Inthecustodialcontext,whentheinterveningact[ofsuicide]isitselftheforeseeableharmthatgivesrisetothecustodiansduty,thecustodian...willnotberelievedofliabilitysimplybecausetheacthasoccurred.). x7p0> Ї   p Astheexperttestimonyinthiscasedemonstrates,theforeseeabilityorlikelihoodofasuicidedoesnotnecessarilydependuponthementalcapacityofthedeceasedatthetimethesuicidewascommitted.Thefactthatthedeceasedwasnotinsaneorbereftofreasondoesnotnecessarilyleadtotheconclusionthatthesuicide,whichisthepurportedinterveningcause,isunforeseeable.Asourcasesdealingwithproximateorlegalcausationhaveindicated,thecrucialinquiryiswhetherthedefendantsnegligentconductledtoormadeitreasonablyforeseeablethatthedeceasedwouldcommitsuicide.Ifso,thesuicideisnotanindependentinterveningcausebreakingthechainoflegalcausation.Thosedecisionsholdingtothecontraryareoverruled.SeeChampagnev.U.S.,513N.W.2d75,81 80 (N.D.1994)( [W]henapatientssuicideisaforeseeableconsequenceofthemedicalprovidersnegligentcare,theactofsuicidecannotbedeemedasupersedinginterveningcause.);seealsoJacovesv.  UnitedMerchandisingCorp.,11Cal.Rptr.2d468,48283(Cal.App. xp 1992);SummitBankv.Panos,570N.E.2d960,96869(Ind.App.1991);    Cowanv.Doering,545A.2d159,16667(N.J.1988). !"    p TherecordinthiscaseshowsthatreasonablemindscouldconcludethatthedecedentsactofsuicidewasaforeseeableconsequenceofthedefendantsnegligenceinsurreptitiouslyprescribingandadministeringtheAntabuse.Therecordshowsthatleadingriskfactorsforsuicideincludephysicalillnessanddepression.Thedecedentsufferedfromboth.TheplaintiffϜpresentedmedicalproofthatthedecedentssuicidewasreasonablyforeseeablefromamedicalstandpoint,andthatthedefendantsconductwasasubstantialfactorinbringingaboutthesuicide.BothDr.PateandDr.SmithtestifiedthatthedefendantshouldhavereasonablyforeseenthatsecretlyprescribingAntabusetoanalcoholicanddepressedpatientwouldcauseseverephysicalproblemsandcouldcausethedecedenttochoosetoendhislife.Thejury x7p0> couldthusfindthatthesuicidewastheforeseeableresultofthedefendantsnegligence.̜@tt) IV       p Thesecondissuetobeconsiderediswhetherthedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidemaybeconsideredindeterminingthefaultofthedefendant.Theprecisequestioniswhetherthenegligenceofthedefendantcanbecomparedwiththeintentionalconductofthedecedentintakinghisownlifeinassessingfault.  -  2      ׀Theresolutionofthisissuehasbeenlargely  determinedbythedecisioninTurnerv.Jordan,957S.W.2d815(Tenn.  1997).TheCourtgrantedreviewinTurnertodecideanissueof  firstimpression, whetherthedefendantpsychiatristsnegligenceshouldhavebeencomparedwiththeintentionalactofthenonpartypatientindeterminingtheextentofthedefendantsliabilitytotheplaintiffs.Id.at821.Turnerinvolvedapsychiatricpatientwho X P  attackedandseverelybeattheplaintiff,anursewhoworkedatthehospitalwherethepatientwasbeingtreated.Thepatientspsychiatristknewthathewas aggressive,grandiose,intimidating,combative,anddangerouspriortotheattackonthenurse.Id.at &( 817.Nonetheless,thepsychiatristdidnothingtokeepthepatientfromposingathreattoothersinthefacility,suchasmedicating,restraining,orsecludinghim.Thenursesuedthepsychiatristfornegligence,allegingthathehadviolatedhisdutytousereasonablecareinthetreatmentofhispatient,which,inturn,createdaforeseeableandunreasonableriskofharmtoher.Thepsychiatristarguedthatcomparisonwasproperbecauseitwouldlimitorlinkhisliabilitytohispercentageoffault,oneofthegoalsofcomparative 3,8 fault.SeeMcIntyre,833S.W.2dat58.Incontrast,theplaintiff  arguedthatthepsychiatristsliabilityoughtnotbereducedbytheϛoccurrenceofaforeseeableactthathehadadutytoprevent.TheCourtheld:8  8p!! Inourview,theconductofanegligentdefendantshouldnotbecomparedwiththeintentionalconductofanotherindeterminingcomparativefaultwheretheintentionalconductistheforeseeableriskcreatedbythenegligenttortfeasor.Asothercourtshaverecognized,comparisonpresentspracticaldifficultiesinallocatingfaultbetweennegligentandintentionalacts,becausenegligentandintentionaltortsaredifferentindegree,inkind,andinsocietysviewoftherelativeculpabilityofeachact.Suchcomparisonalsoreducesthenegligentpersonsincentivetocomplywiththeapplicabledutyofcare.Moreover,whileanegligentdefendantmay,ofcourse,raiseathirdpartysintentionalacttorefuteelementsoftheplaintiffsnegligenceclaimsuchasdutyandcausation,fairnessdictatesthatitshouldnotbepermittedtorelyupontheforeseeableharmithadadutytopreventsoastoreduceitsliability. phph Ѐ   @8 ]Turner,957S.W.2dat823. !"    p Otherjurisdictionshavereachedthesameconclusionundersimilarfacts.InMcNamarav.Honeyman,546N.E.2d139,14647 H&@( (Mass.1989),thecourtstated,8  8p!!Wejoinanumberofcourtsinholdingtherecanbenocomparativenegligencewherethedefendantsdutyofcareincludespreventingtheselfabusiveorselfdestructiveactsthatcausedtheplaintiffsinjury.(Citationomitted.)Clearly,thedutyofcarethatthedefendantsowedtoaninstitutionalizedpatientsuchas[theplaintiff]includedtakingreasonablestepstopreventhersuicidewhenitwasaknownorforeseeablerisk.Toallowthedefenseofcomparativenegligenceinthesecircumstanceswouldrendermeaninglessthedutyofthehospitaltoactreasonablyinprotectingthepatientagainstselfharm. phph  x7p0> AndinTomfohrv.MayoFoundation,450N.W.2d121,125(Minn.1990),  whereapatientcommittedsuicideinhisroomatapsychiatrichospital,thecourtstated,8  8p!!Whenthejuryhasbeenasked,asitwashere,todeterminewhetherthesuicideattemptwasreasonablyforeseeable,giventhecircumstancessurroundingthepatientsadmissionandhismentalstate,itisnotonlyunnecessarybutalsoduplicativetoagainreviewthepatientsconducttodeterminewhetherthepatientsvolitionalactrequirestheapplicationofcomparativefault.Inthisspecifictypeofcase,thementalconditionofthepatientexistspriortothehospitalsnegligentact,anditisthatconditionwhichgivesrisetothehospitalsdutyofcareandwhichdefinesthescopeofthatduty. phph    p ThesameprinciplesthatwerefoundtoprecludecomparisonoffaultinTurnerapplywithequalforcetotheinstantcase.The XP defendantsliabilitymaynotbereducedbycomparinghisnegligentconductwiththedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidesincetheintentionalactwasaforeseeableriskcreatedbythedefendantsnegligence. -  3      כ !" ̜@*H*H* V  $&    p Insummary,ontherecordbeforetheCourt,reasonablemindscandifferonwhetherthedecedentsactofsuicidewasanindependentinterveningcauseofthedecedentsdeath,andthedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidemaynotbeconsideredinassessingthedefendantsfault. h.`'2 Ї   p ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.   p CostsoftheappealaretaxedtothedefendantLawrence.   p    p    x   ____________________________   p    x   LyleReid,Sp.J.̛̜Concur:Anderson,C.J.,andBirch,J.Drowota,J.Concurring/DissentingOpinionHolder,J.ConcurringandDissentingOpinionqq   Л  =lXXdXd=Ӝr$(<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx$ rߛ@INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)ATJACKSON    ?XX  X,XX D X?BARBARAWHITE,asthe 8    R )FORPUBLICATION 0 ( AdministratrixoftheEstateof R ) #    EarlR.White,deceased, 8    R ) #      0      8    R qq)     0      8    R ) #  PH   Plaintiff/Appellant,   R ) #      0      8    R ) #      0      8    R )CARROLLCIRCUIT #      0      8    R ) #  ph  Мh hv. 0      8    R ) # k 80    0      8    R )kHon.ji 0   ijJulianP.Guinn #      0      8   l R l)WILLIAMH.LAWRENCE,M.D.,   R )    0      8 m  m R )n # nNo.02S019701CV00007 #  XP  Defendant/Appellee. 8 o  o R )   @.@.?,XX D XXX  X?ӈ @ CONCURRING/DISSENTINGOPINION     0   Iagreewiththemajoritythatontherecord  beforeusreasonablemindscouldconcludethatthedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidewasaforeseeableconsequenceofthedefendantsnegligenceinsurreptitiouslyprescribingandadministeringAntabusetothedecedent.Thus,itwouldbeinappropriateforthisCourttofindthatthedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidewasasuperseding,interveningcausesufficienttoprecludeliabilityasamatteroflaw.Itwas,afterall,thedefendantsnegligencethatarguablysetinmotionthechainofeventsthatledthedecedenttotakehisownlifeinviewofhiscondition.  0 Idisagree,however,withthemajoritysconclusionthatthedecedentsintentionalactofcommittingsuicidemaynotbeconsideredindeterminingrelativedegreesoffault.Themajoritysholdingthatthenegligenceofthedefendantmayn7lXdXXd7  nnotbecomparedwiththeintentionalconductofthedecedentin 81> 7lXdXXd7  q7lXdXXd7  qo7lXdXXd7  om7lXdXXd7  ml7lXdXXd7  lk7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  kj7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  ji7lXdXXd7  7lXdXXd7  ih7lXdXXd7  htakinghisownlifeinassessingfaultisinconsistentwiththe  fundamentalprincipleofcomparativefaultoflinkingliabilitywithfault.Therefore,Irespectfullydissentfromthemajoritysdecision.  0 InMcIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),    thisCourtadoptedasystemofcomparativefaultbecauseit closelylink[ed]liabilityandfault.Id.at58.Wefelt   thatlinkingliabilitywithfaultbestachievedtheconceptsoffairnessandefficiency,thebasisofcomparativefault.See  Owensv.TruckstopsofAmerica,915S.W.2d420,424(Tenn. P 1996).Thus,wehaverejectedthenotionthatliabilityshouldbeimposedtoadegreedisproportionatetofault.McIntyre, p 833S.W.2dat58.ThisthemehasbeenreiteratedbytheCourtonmultipleoccasionsandinavarietyofcircumstances.See,  e.g.,Whiteheadv.ToyotaMotorCorp.,897S.W.2d684,693  p (Tenn.1995)( Inkeepingwiththeprincipleoflinkingliabilitywithfault,aplaintiffsabilitytorecoverinastrictproductsliabilitycaseshouldnotbeunaffectedbytheextenttowhichhisinjuriesresultfromhisownfault.);Volzv.Ledes,895S.W.2d677,680(Tenn.1995)( Webelieve #@( thatasystemwhereinaparticulardefendantisliableonlyforthepercentageoftheplaintiffsdamagesthatarecausedbythatdefendantsfaultisthesystemthatbestachievesourstatedgoalinMcIntyrev.Balentineoflinkingliabilityand 0*%0 fault.).SeealsoOwens,915S.W.2dat428( [H]avingthus +'2 adoptedarulemorecloselylinkingliabilityandfault,itwouldbeinconsistenttosimultaneouslyretainarule,jointandseveralliability,whichmayfortuitouslyimposeadegreeofliabilitythatisoutofallproportiontofault.).Inshort,itisclearthatsincetheinceptionofcomparativefaultinthisState,theguidingprinciplehasbeentolinkliabilitywithfault,unlessspecialcircumstancescompelledus 62@ totakeadifferentapproach.See,e.g.,Snyderv.LTG  LufttechnischeGmbH,955S.W.2d252(Tenn.1997)(holdingthat @ faultmaynotbeassessedagainstanimmuneemployerinanemployeestortactionagainstathirdparty).  0 Inthiscase,themajorityreliesuponTurnerv.    Jordan,957S.W.2d815(Tenn.1997),inholdingthatthe `  negligenceofthedefendantmaynotbecomparedwiththeintentionalconductofthedecedentintakinghisownlifeindeterminingrelativedegreesoffault. -  4      ׀Turnerinvolveda  psychiatricpatientwhoattackedandseverelybeattheplaintiff,anursewhoworkedatthehospitalwherethepatientwasbeingtreated.Thepatientspsychiatristknewthathewas aggressive,grandiose,intimidating,combative,anddangerouspriortotheattackonthenurse.Id.at817.Nonetheless,  thepsychiatristdidnothingtokeepthepatientfromposingathreattoothersinthefacility,suchasmedicating,restraining,orsecludinghim.Thenursesubsequentlysuedthepsychiatristformedicalmalpractice,allegingthathehadviolatedhisdutytousereasonablecareinthetreatmentofhispatientwhich,inturn,createdaforeseeableandunreasonableriskofharmtoher.̜oo ThetrialcourtinTurnerinstructedthejuryonthe (#. lawofcomparativefaultandindicatedthatthejurycouldallocatethefault,ifany,betweenthenegligenceofthepsychiatristandtheintentionalmisconductofthepatient,whowasnotapartytothesuit.ThisCourtsubsequentlygrantedreviewinTurnertodecide whetherthedefendant p0+8 psychiatristsnegligenceshouldhavebeencomparedwiththeintentionalactofthenonpartypatientindeterminingthe 3.< extentofthedefendantsliabilitytotheplaintiffs.Id.at  821.Weheldthattheconductofthenegligenttortfeasor,thepsychiatrist,couldnotbecomparedwiththeintentionalmisconductofthepatient,anonparty,inapportioningfaultbecausetheintentionalwrongdoingwasaforeseeableriskcreatedbythenegligenttortfeasor.Id.at823.      0 Turnerandtheinstantcasearedissimilarinthat   Turner,unlikethepresentcase,involvedcomparingthe 0  negligentactofapartywiththeintentionalmisconductofanonparty.Thecaseatbar,ontheotherhand,involvescomparingfaultbetweenanegligentpartyand,forallpracticalpurposes,anotherpartythedecedentwhoactedintentionallybytakinghisownlife. -  5      ׀AlthoughIreluctantly P agreedwiththeCourtsresolutionofTurner,Icannotdosoin  thepresentcasebecausethemajorityhasnowreachedapointinthedevelopmentofourcomparativefaultlawwherefaultmaynotevenbeassessedagainst apartytothelitigation .The @" majoritysapproachrepresentstoogreatadeparturefromtheguidingprincipleoflinkingliabilitywithfaultformetoaccept.̀Accordingly,inkeepingwiththegoalofcomparativefaultoflinkingliabilitywithfaultbyholdingaparticulardefendantliableonlyforthepercentageoftheplaintiffsdamagescausedbythatdefendantsfault,IwouldlimittheruleinTurnertotheintentionalmisconductofnon -(4 parties.Becausethemajorityisunwillingtodothis,andbecauseIamoftheopinionthatthetrieroffactshouldhave 0,8 theopportunitytoassessfaultagainstthedecedenttotheextentthathesharessomeofthefaultinbringingaboutthedamagesforwhichhe(hisestate)nowseekstorecover,Idissentfromthemajoritysdecision.  0   0   0      8   ________________________________oòπFrankF.Drowota,IIÌπJustice  0 @. R   o    oqqp  P pqqq*†XlXXX-Ԛ47lXXdXd7   "*US \\ (:!&)*  TR[A'Legal Red[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalTq~t,(>.*jx` `@E` ttx$  tߛ~q0 4 @44D T$ T$INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @*DATJACKSON q~r,(<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx$, rrr~qBARBARAWHITE,asthe@##/D)   Administratrixoftheestateof@##/D) v n EarlR.White,Deceased,@##/D) \T @##/D) Plaintiff/Appellant,@##/D)  CARROLLCIRCUIT (  @##/D)v.@##/D)  Hon.JulianP.Guinn   @##/D)WILLIAMH.LAWRENCE,M.D.,@##/D)  No.02S019701CV00007   @##/D) Defendant/Appellee.@##/D)  #X-XXXlʆ#+X) XXX-0 4 @]]D T$ T$ CONCURRINGANDDISSENTINGOPINION  2*  Thesoleissuebriefedandarguedinthiscasewaswhetherthedecedent'sactofsuicideisasamatteroflawanintervening,supersedingcauseofthedefendant'snegligence.Themajorityhashelditisnot,aconclusioninwhichIconcur. Themajorityhasgonefarther,however,todecidewhethertheactofsuicidecanbe"compared"withthedefendant'snegligence.Idonotagreethatthiscasepresentsanissueofcomparativefaultrequiringustodecidewhetherthedecedent'sintentionalactoftakinghisownlifeshouldbecomparedwiththenegligenceofthedefendant.First,thisdeterminationispremature.Thedefendant'sanswerdoesnotraisetheissueofthecomparativefaultofthedecedentalthoughtheanswerdoespleadthefaultoftheadministratrixoftheestatewithrespecttoherownactions.ThisCourthasheldinGeorgev.Alexander,931 r4j-1 S.W.2d517,52021(Tenn.1996),thatapartymaynotattempt,undertheguiseof R6J/3 *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  q~q*†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  q~rq*†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  *†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA' LegalT  qrqdetermining"proximatecause,"toshiftfaulttoanotherpersonunlesscomparative  faultispledpursuanttoRule8.03.BecausetheissuewasnotbeforetheCourtofAppealsandisnotsquarelybeforeus,wehavenothadqrq†TR[A' Legal[A'Legal RedA' LegalA'Legal RedT  qrqthebenefitofthebriefsofthepartiesontheissueofcomparativefaultunderthefactsofthiscase. AlthoughIwouldprefertorelyontheproceduralpostureofthiscase,Ibelievethatthestatementsofthemajorityontheissueofcomparativefaultfailtoprovideguidancetothetrialcourtsandattorneysofthisstate.Themajorityhasheldthatsuicideisnot,asamatteroflaw,anintervening,supersedingcausesoastobarthesuitonbehalfofMr.White'sestate.Ifullyconcurwiththisconclusion.Totheextentthatthemajorityisalsoholdingthattheactofsuicideshouldnotbeusedasabackdoormaneuvertobartheclaim,Iwouldalsoagree.Thedefendantshouldnotbepermittedtoallegethatthedecedentwasfiftypercentormore"atfault"solelybecauseofhisactofsuicide. Iamunclearifthemajorityisholdingthatotherfactsandcircumstancesoccurringpriortothesuicidecannotbeusedtodeterminecausation.Totheextentthatthemajoritydoessohold,Idissent.Inmyopinion,thedefendantshouldnotbeprecludedfromattemptingtoprovethatMr.White'ssuccessfulattempttoendhislifewaseithernotcausedbythesurreptitiousadministrationofAntabuseorwascausedbyotherfactors.Idonotreadthemajorityopiniontoprecludeanallegation,inanappropriatecase,ofnegligenceonthepartofthedecedent/patient.Apatient'snegligentactsoromissionshavealwaysbeenavailableasadefense.ToreadthemajorityopinionotherwisewouldbetoalterthelawofmedicalnegligenceinwaysthatIdonotbelievethemajorityintends. 704    <       T$T$MT$     <       JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE̜#X-X X+X)#q~q    q~