# FILED
June 12, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

RONDA GALE WILDER , )

) Plaintiff/Appell

ant, ) Warren Circuit

) No. 8680 VS. ) ) Appeal No. LLOYD CLINTON RAIN S, ) 01A01-9709-CV-00519

) Defendant/Appellee. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUI T COURT FOR WARREN COUNTY AT McMINNVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE CHARLES D. HASTON, JUDGE
For Plaintiff/Ap

pellant : For Defendant/Appellee : Bernard K. Smi

th B. Timothy Pirtle H. Thomas Pars ons McMinnville, Tennessee Parsons, Nichols &

Johnson Manchester, Tennessee



## AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE1 Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b) provides that The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or

modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opi nion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall notbe published, andshallnot be cited or relied upon for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. -2-



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arose from a collision on a two-lane rural road in which a vehicle travelingin one lane struck a v ehicle that was tur

ning left. The dr

iv er of the oncoming vehicle sued the driv er of the t urning vehicle in the C ircuit Court for Warren County. After a jury returned a ver dict allocating faul

t equally between th

e two drivers, the trial court entered a judgment awarding nothing to the plaintiff driver. On this appeal, the plaintiff driver assert s that the evidence do es not support the jury’s verdict. We have determined that the record contains material ev ide nce to support the jury’s verdict a nd , theref

ore, affirm the

judgment in accorda

nce with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b). 1
I.
Ronda Gale Wilder was driving to work on the morning of April

29, 1992 on Old Wells Road, a

two-lane rural r

oad in Warren Count

y. At the same time, Lloyd ClintonRains was driving in the opposite direct

ion along Old

Wells Road followi

ng an early morning of

hunting. Mr. Rains was in the pro cess of turning left

across Ms. Wilder’s lan e of travel when M s. Wilder breac hed the crest of a hi

ll and struck the front half of the pa

ssenger’s side of Mr

. Rains’s truck.
Mr. Rains testified at trial that he had stopped and had checked for oncomi ng trafficbefore he began his t urn and that he did not see Ms.Wilder’s automobile when he started his turn. Fo r her part, Ms. Wilder stated that she was driving at a safe speed and that Mr. Rains simply turned into the path of h er automobi le. A jury return ed a verdict apportioni ng fifty percent of

the fault to Ms. Wi

lder and fifty percent to Mr. Rains. In accordance with T ennessee’s m

odified co mparative fault2 See McIntyre v. Balentine , 833 S.W.2d 52, 57 (Tenn. 1992) (holding that a plaintiff may

recover only if his or her negligence either does not exceed or is less tha n the defen dant’s negligence). -3- system, 2 the trial court entered a judgment awardin g Ms. Wilder nothing. The trial courtlater

denied Ms. Wilder ’s motion for a new trial. Ms. Wilder has pe

rfected this appeal and insists that the re cord contains no

material evidence to support the verdict.
II.
We do not reweigh t

he evidence or re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses when we are called upon to review the evidentiary foundation of ajury verdict. See Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Li

n es, Inc. , 887 S.W.2d 822, 823 (Tenn. 1994); Witter v. Nesbit , 878 S.W.2d 116, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). It is irrelevant where the weight or the preponderance of t he evidence lies. See Memphis St. R y. Co. v. Norris , 108 Tenn. 632, 634, 69 S.W. 325, 326 (1902); Bynum v. Hollow ell , 656 S.W.2d 400,

402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). Our tas k is to review the rec ord to determine wh

ether it contains material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc. , 887 S.W.2d at 823. Accordingly,

we take the strongest legitimate view of

the evidence supporti

ng the verdict, see Electric Power Bd. v. St. Joseph Valley Structural Steel Corp. , 691 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tenn. 1985), and will set aside a

jury verdict only if t

here is no materia

l evidence to support i

t. See Whitaker v. Harm

on , 879 S.W.2d 865, 867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jur

y’s verdict, we conclude that there is material evidence to support the jury’s equ

al allocation of fault between Ms. Wilder and Mr. Rains. The ac cident occurred ne

ar thecrest of a hill, an d the pho tographic evidence d epicts a limited sight

distance. Taking into consideration

Mr. Rains’s testi

mony that the road wa

s clear before he

began his left turn, the point

of impact

on Mr. Rains’s tru

ck, and the damage

to both vehicles, the jury could have determin ed that Ms. Wilder was not driving ata safe speed given her limited sight distance. Both parties presen ted the jury with lit tle more than their own self-serving

accounts of the

accident. The jury heard the parties’ testimony, observed the parties as they testified, and determined that they were equally at fault. We have no basis for concluding that the record does not contain material evidence supporting the verdict.-4- III.
We affirm the j udgment and remand the case to the trial court for whatever further proceedings may be required. We tax the costs of this appea l to Ronda Gale Wilder and her surety for which execution, i f necessary, may issue.

______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
CONCUR:

__________________________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

__________________________________ WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE