T en n. R

. C t

. A p p . 1 0 st ates: 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i a l v a l u e . W h e n a c a s e i s de c i de d b y me mo r a n du m o pi n i on i t s h a l l be de s i g n at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s h a ll no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 24, 200 5 LEVO YD M. TALLEY, ET AL 

### . v. EST ATE OF ROB ERT HO DGE, J R., DEC EAS ED Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Lin coln County No. C0300158 Lee Russell, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01528-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Dece m ber 5, 2005

Plaintiffs driver a nd passeng er sued the estate of decea sed Defenda nt driver for neg lige nt operation of his vehicle. The jury found in f avor of Def

endant as to both Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiff passeng er app e a le d a ft e r the tr ia l cou rt de nie d he r mot ion fo r a ne w tri a l. We a ff ir m th e de c isi on of

tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.
W a l t e r W

. B u s s ar t , L e w i s b u r g , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , M ar y F

. T a l l e y. Wil liam A. L ockett, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the a ppellee, E state of Robert Hodg e, Jr.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
T h i s ap p e a l i n v o l v e s a

c o l l i s i o n o n a

f o u r - l a n e u n d i v i d e d h i g h w a y i n L i n c o l n C o u n t y, Tenne ssee. On A pril 29, 2000, L evoy d M. Talley and Mary

F. Ta lley , husban d an d wi fe , wer e trave ling south on the Huntsville Hig hway , when they passed a y ard sale on their right. Mr. Talley proce ede d t o t h e n ex t appropriate plac e to turn ar ound and then turne d his vehicle into the inner northbound lane of

the hig hway , in order to r eturn to the y ard sa le.-2-

Mr . a ndMr s. Ta lle y c la ime d that wh ile the y wa ite d to turn le ft int o th e y ardsa le , th e ve hic le of Robert Hodg e, J r. crosse d the cente r line of the highw ay and struck the ir vehicle . On September 3, 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Ta lley filed a Complaint ag ainst the Estate of Robe rt Ho d ge, Jr., decea sed, in the Circuit Court for Lincoln County , Tenne ssee. I t is undisput ed that ther e wa s no tu rn i n g lane on the hig hway betwee n the north and southbound lanes of tra ffic, how ever , this is where a ny ag ree ment betwee n the parti es ends. Mr. T a ll e y te s ti f

ie d th a t a f

te r h e tu r n e d n o r th o n to th e h ig h w a y , h e r e main e d s tati o n ar yin the inner northbo u n d l an e, wa iting to turn. He claimed that he chec ked his rea rview mirr or and w hen he looked forw ard a g ain, he saw Mr. Hodg e’s truc k coming toward him. Mr. Ta lley admitted that he could see approximately

one-ha lf mile in the northbound direc tion but he could not explain why he did not see Mr. Hodg e’s ve hicle sooner

. An ind e pe nd e nt w itn e ss, Mar jo ri e Simm on s, te sti fi e d th a t sh e sa w M r. Ta lle y ’s ve hic le stopped on the prope r side of the highw ay , waiting to turn. She noticed no other traff ic coming from either dire ction. She claimed that just prior to the collision, Mr. Talley ’s vehicle rema ined stationary and Mr. Hodg e fa iled to reduc e his speed. Mrs. Talley

also testified that her husband pul led i nto the proper l ane of traff ic and stopped. She claimed that she was looking down at pape rs re g arding the y ard sa le and only looked up rig ht befor e the c ollisi on occur red. Mr s. Talley testified that Mr. Talley was stopped f

or some period of time before the impact. Th e e state of

Mr . H od g e pro du c e d th re e wi tne sse s f ro m th e Te nn e sse e Hi g hw a y Pa tr ol. Trooper Scott W illiams i nvestig ated the a ccide nt and testified that he loc ated de bris fr om the collision in t he southbound direc tion of the hig hway . L ieutenant Way ne Sel l er s also investigated the ac cident. Lieutenant Sellers is trained in accide nt rec onstruction and per formed a rec onstruction of the c ollisi on. As a re sult of locating g oug e mar ks within the inner southbound lane a nd finding damag e to the passe ng er side of the Talley s’ vehicle, L ieutenant Sellers determined that the ac cident occur red w ithin the southbound l ane of the hig hway

. Further testimony

reve aled that de spite the fac t that no turning lane exis ted at the site of the acc ident, Mr. Talley

told L ieutenant Seller s that he had been waiting to turn from the turning lane when the c ollisi on occur

red. Also, Offic er Richard L ewis took Mr. Talley ’s statement following the a c c ide nt. Th e state me nt o f M r. Ta lle y pr ov ide d: On Saturday April 29, 2000 at ar ound 12:00 noon my wife a nd I

wer e g oing to a

y ard sale just the other side of

Park City . I

drove pa st the y ard sale and I drove dow n the highw ay and turne d into a dive [ sic] or l ot and turned around. I turned ba ck towar ds Park City a nd I wa s dri vin g in the ins ide la ne . Whe n Ig ot b a c k u p to the y ardsa le I pulled into the turn lane to turn lef t. I then saw the truck c oming a nd I told mywife that he wa s not going to stop. Then the lights we nt out.-3-

Th e jury re turne d a

ve rd ic t in fa vo r o f the e state of Mr . H od g e a g a ins t bo th M r. a ndMr s. Talley , finding that Mr. Hodg e wa s not neg lige nt in the operation of his vehicle. Mrs. Ta lley filed a mot ion fo r a

ne w t ri a l, w hic h w a s den ie d by the c ou rt on Ma y 3, 20 04

. Mr s. Ta lle y fi le d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l arg uin g that it

wa s e rr or fo r the tr ia l c ou rt to de ny he r mot ion fo r a ne w t ri a l be c a us e the jury ’s ver dict was in opposition to all the proof in the ca se. An appe llate court’s revie w o f t he judg ment enter ed on a jury ’s ver dict is gove rned by Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re 13 (d ), wh ic h p ro vid e s th a t “ fi nd ing s of fa c t by a jury in c ivi l a c tio ns sh a ll b e set asi de o nly if the re is n o mate ri a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the ve rd ic t.” Un de r this standard of

revie w, the Court is “not at liberty to weig h the evidenc e or to de cide whe re the preponde ranc e lies, but is limit ed to determining whether there is materia l evidence to support the verdic t.” Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Constr., Inc. , 5 7 5 S

. W

. 2 d 4 , 5 (T en n . 1 9 7 8 ) ( ci t i n g City of C ha tta no og a v . R og e rs , 2 01 Te nn . 4 03 , 2 99 S.W. 2d66 0 ( 19 56 ); D. M. Rose & Co. v . Snyder , 185 Te nn . 49 9, 20 6 S. W.2 d 8 97 (1 94 7) ; City of Chattanooga v. Ballew , 49 Tenn.App. 310, 354 S.W.2d 80 6 ( 19 61 ); Dy na mi c Mo te l M an ag e me nt, In c . v . E rwi n , 5 2 8 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 9 ( T e n n . C t

. A p p . 1 9 7 5 ) )

. In making this determination, t h e C o u rt is “requir ed to take the strong est leg itimate view of a ll the e vid e nc e in f

a vo r of the ve rd ic t, t o a ssu me the truthof a ll that te nd s to su pp ort it , a llo wi ng a ll rea sonable infe renc es to sustain the verdic t, and to discard a ll to the contrary .” Cra btre e Ma so nr y Co. , 575 S.W .2d at 5. An appellate court is not empower ed to substitut e it s own j udg ment for the jury ’s eve n i f it believes that the e vidence supported a dif fer ent re sult. Henleyv. Amac her , No. M1999-02799-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 100402, at *9 (Te nn.Ct.App. J an.28, 2002). I f the re cord contains any materia l evidence to support the verdic t, the Court must affirm the trial c ourt’s judgme nt. Crabtree Masonry Co. , 5 75 S .W .2 d at 4; Fo rre ste r v . S toc k sti ll , 869 S.W .2d 328, 329 (Tenn.1994)

. Mrs. Tal le y a s s e r ts th a t a lth o u g h M r . T a ll e y may h a v e b e e n n e g li g e n t f o r e n te r ing the southbound lane of the hig hway , Mr. Hodg e wa s also g uiltyof neg lige nce in f ailing to a v o id the resultant impact betwee n Mr. Hodg e and Mr. Ta lley ’s vehicle s. She further claims that she wa s fre e f r o mf a u l ti n t h e c o l l i s i o n a n d t h u s , s h o u l d n o tb e d e n i e d r e c o v e r y. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

c ha rg e d th e jury

a s to c omp arativ e fa

ult . Sa id the c ou rt : I n deciding this case y ou must determin e the fault, if any , of ea ch of the parties. I f y ou find more than one of the pa rties at fault, y ou will then compare the fa ult of the pa rt ie s. To do thi s, y ou wi ll n e e d to kn ow the de fi nit ion of fa ult

. A p ar ty is a t f

a u lt if y o u f

in d th a t th e p ar ty w a s n e g li g e n t a n d th at the neg lige nce w as a le g al cause of the injury or dama g e for

which a c laim is made.
F a ult ha s tw o p art s: n e g lig e nc e a ndle g a l c a us e . Ne g lig e nc e is the failu re to use re asonable car e. It is either doing something that a re asonably car eful pe rson wo uldno t do , o r the failu re to d o s ome thi ng that a re a so na bly c are fu l pe rs on wo uld do, un d er ci rcumstances similar to those shown by the evidenc e. A pe rson may-4-

assum e th a t e v e r y

o th e r p e r s o n w il l u s e r e a s o n ab le c ar e u n le s s th e c ir c u ms tance s indicate the c ontrary

to a re asonably

car eful pe rson. Th e se c on d p art

of fa ult is l e g a l c aus e . A le g a l caus e of a ny inj ury is a c a us e which, in natura l and continuous sequenc e, produc es an injury , and w i t h o u t which the injury would not have occurr ed. A s ingle injury can be cause d by

the neg lige nt a c ts o r o mis sio ns of

on e or mor e pe rs on s. I f y ou fi ndthat a pa

rt y wa s ne g lig e nt a nd that the ne g lig e nc e wa s a le g a l c a us e of the inj ury or da ma g e s for wh ic h a cla im w a s ma de , y ou ha ve fo un d th a t pa rt y to be at fault. The plaintiff has the burde n to prove the de fenda nt’s fault. I f the plaintiff fail s t o d o so, y ou should find no fault on the part of the def endant. Likewise, the defe ndant has the burden to prove the plaintiff’s f ault. I f the de fenda nt fails to do so, y ou should find no fault on the part of t he plainti ff. I f y ou find more than one person to be at fault, y ou must then de termine the pe rce ntag e of f ault char g eable to eac h of the m. Th e ve rd ic t f

orm su bmi tte d to the jury pr ov ide d in pe rt ine nt p art : VERDICT F ORM We, the jury , u na nim ou sly a ns we r the qu e sti on s su bmi tte d by the Cou rt a s f oll ow s: 1. Do y ou find the dec ease d Robert Hodg e, J r. to be at fault? (The pla intiffs have the burden of

proof.) Yes ______ No __X___
I f y our answe r is “no”, stop he re, sig n the ver dict form and r eturn to the Cou rt

. The jury answe red this first question on the ver dict form “no” and re turned its v er d i ct a c c o r d i n g l y. Having , under proper instructions, f ound that the dec ease d Mr. Hodg e wa s not guilty of any fault, no basis exists for c omparative fault, and it is immaterial that Mary F. T alley would not be char g eable with any

neg lige nce that might be c harg ed to Lev o y d M

. Talley

. Cole v. W oods , 548 S.W .2d 640 (Tenn.1977)

. We are not conce rned w ith the weig ht of the evide nce. B eca use the trial c ourt approve d the jury ’s ver dict, and that ver dict is supported by competent a nd materia l evidenc e, we are bound under Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re 13 (d ) t o a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.-5-

Cos ts o f the c a us e are a sse sse d a g a ins t A pp e lla nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE