## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May10, 200 4 S es sio n SU SA N C HARLES an d JAM ES C HARLES,v. RUTHLA THA M and RALPH LATH AM Direct Appeal fromthe Circuit Court for Blou nt County No. E-17434 Hon. W. Dale Young, Circuit Jud ge

No. E2003-00852-COA- R3-CV- F ILED AUGU ST 25, 2004

In a dis puteov er an e a sement, the Trial Court awa rde d damag e s to p laintif

fs for i nterf

erenc ewi th use of e asement, nuisance and punitive damag es. On appeal, we af firm the aw ard of

compensatory dama g e s , b u t v ac ate th e aw ard o f p u n i ti v e d am ag e s an d re m an d to a s s e s s p u n i ti v e d ama g e s in acc ordanc e with Hodges v . Toof &Co., 833.S.W .2d 896 (Tenn. 1992)
.
Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 Ap p eal as of Righ t; Judgm ent of theCi r cuit

Co urt A ffirme d in Part and Vacated in Part.
H ER SCH EL 

### P I CKE N S 

### FRAN KS 

### , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES 

### D. S US ANO 

### , J R 

### ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL 

### S WI NEY 

### , J ., joined.
H. Al len B ray , M aryvil le , T e nn e sse e , f or Appellants
. CraigL . G arrett, Ma

ryvil le , T e nn e sse e , f

or Appelle e s.

OPIN ION In this ac tio n, the pa

rtie s are adjo ini ng prop erty ow ners , an d plaintif fs brou ght s uit seekingdama ges fo r th e def endants’ denial of the use of their ea sement, threats and intimi dation, damag e to the right of way , and ac cumulatingjunk and wastematerials “alongthe front and side b o rd er s ” o f

th ep l ai nti f

f s ’ p ro p erty. Followingan evidentiary hearing, theTrial C o u rt awarded c ompensatory damag es to theplaintiffs in theamount o f $ 17 ,4 00 .0 0 f or damag eto andinterf

erenc ewi th theus eof

their

### -2-

right of way

easement , and further awarded plaintiffs c ompensatory damag es in the amount of $ 1 7 , 0 0
. 0 0 f

o r intenti o n al h ar a s s ment an d nu is an c e , p lu s p u n itiv e d amag e s in theamount of $25,000.00. The Trial Court require d the plaintiffs to remove a disputed fence across the f ront of the boundary t o their property , and permanently enjoined the defendants from harrassingthe p l ai nti f f s o r i nterf eri n gw i thth e i r

qu i etan dp er s o n ale n

j o yme nto f

th e i r p ro p erty. Defend ants haveapp e ale d raisi ngthe seiss ue s: 1. The Tr i a l Cour t s houl d ha ve s us t a i ne d the M ot i on t o Di s mi s s a s t o De f e nda nt App e l l a ntRu t h L a t ha m. 2. Th e Tr i al C ou r terr ed in t he aw ar d o f pu nit i ve d am ag es. 3. The pr oof

a ttr i a l do e s no ts us t a i n u nl a wf ul c ondu c tby Def

e nda nt s de ny i ng u se o f the ea sem en t. 4. The pr oof

a ttr i al is insuff

i ci e ntt o s us t a i n a j udg men tf or ha r a s s men t a nd n u is a n c e . O ur r eview i n a no n-j ury case i s de n ovo u po n t he r e c or d of t he p r oc e e di ng s b e l ow, a c c ompa ni e d b y apr e s umpt i on of c orr e c t ne s s of

t he l owe rc our t ’ s f

a c t s a nd f

i ndi ng s . T e nn. R. App. P. 13 ( d) ; Uni on Car bi de Cor p. v . Huddl e s t on, 8 5 4 S.W
. 2 d 8 7 , 9 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e T ri al C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n s o f

law , h o w e v e r, a re n o t a f f o rd e d th is d e f

e re n c e . C a m

p b e ll v. F lo r id a S te e l C o r p ., 91 9 S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 , 3 5 ( T en n . 1 9 9 6 ).

A pp el l ants’ f

i r sti ssue i s t hat the T r i al C ou r t err ed i n deny i ng t heirm oti on t o d i sm i ss Def e nda ntRut h L a t ha m. T he pr oof a ttr i a l wa s t ha tM r s . L a t ha m c o- owns t he pr ope r t y wi t h Ra l ph L a t ha m a s t e na nt s by t he ent i r e t y , a nd t ha ts he wa s a war e of M r . L a t ha m’ s a c t i vi t i e s a nd t he co n d it ion o f

the p rop erty
. Sh e o cca sio n ally v isit ed the farm , b u t sh e h ad n o activ e inv o lve m en t i n a c ts o f n u is a n c e o r h a ra s s m e n t o f th e p la in tif

fs . A f t ert he d i spu t e ar ose b et w een the par t i es, R al ph L at ham emb ar ked up on a r el entl ess c a mpa i g n a g a i ns tt he Cha r l e s . He s e thi s g r a de rbl a de on e nd a nd dug a t r e nc h i n t he m i ddl e of t he por t i on of

t he r i g htof way us e d onl y by t he pl a i nt i f fs , a nd whe n Cha r l e s woul d a t t e mptt o r e pa i ra nd f i l l po tho l e s , L a t ha m woul d r e move t he f i l l i ng , a nd t he n b ui l ta speed bu m p 2 t o 3 f e e thi g h o n pl a i nt i f fs ’ pa r tof t he r i g ht of way . Cha r l e s a t t e mpt e d t o r e duc e t he s e ve r i t y of t he bu mp by a ddi ng s ha l e g r a ve l t o l e ve l i t , bu twhe n h e br oug ht t he s ha l e i n, L a t ha m bl oc ke d h i m i n the r oa dwa y a nd app r oach ed hi m w i t h a cl ub m ade f r om a 4-f tsl edge ham m erhan dle and sai d “y ou j ust ca n’tg etov er th e f a c t th a t th is is n o t y o u r d riv e w a y .” Late r, L a th a m sc ra p e d aw a y th e sh a le w ith h is grad e r.

L a t ha m s pe ntm a ny hour s hau l i ng i t e ms of j unk a nd de br i s f

r om a l l ov e rhi s f

a r m a nd deli berat el y po si t i on i ng i tal on g t he f ence i n f r on tof t he C harl es propert y , i nclud i ng such i t em s as an o ld truc k b ed an d cab , co n crete, h o g f eed er, a n o ld tr acto r tir e, ru sted o u t w ash ing m ach ine , ti n can s, an ti f

reeze jugs, an d e n o rm o u s am o u n ts o f scrap m etal. A ru sted 5 5 g allon d rum li n ed w it h

### -3-

con cr et e, est i m at ed ab ou t50 0 lbs. w as du m ped i n P l ai nti f fs’ f i el d, and La th a m hu ng a com m od e, to ile t se a t, o ld tin ca n s an d an tif re e z e ju gs fro m a tre e in v ie w o f P la in tif fs ’ h o m e . A p p ellan ts co n ten d that M rs. L ath am can n o t be h eld li ab le, b u t th ey cit e n o leg al au tho ri ty f o r this p o siti o n . C o u rt s rou ti n ely h o ld th at the failure t o cite relev an t au tho ri ty in su p p o rto f their a rgu m e n t as req u ire d b y T e n n . R
. A p p . P . 2 7 (a )(7 ) co n s titu te s a w a iv e r o f th e iss u e . Be an v . Be an, 4 0 S.W
. 3 d 5 2 , 5 5 - 5 6 (Te n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Wi l hi t e v . Br owns v i l l e Conc r e t e Co. , I nc . , 79 8 S
. W
. 2d 772, 77 5 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 1990 )
. Howe ve r , t he Cour tma y s us pen d t he r e qui r e men t s orpr ovi s i ons o f th e ru le s in a giv e n ca s e . Be an .

I n this j uri sdict i on , a la nd ow ner i s no tl i able f or a nu i sance un l ess he or she h as ac t ual o r c o n s tru c tio n k n o w le d ge o f it, o r it w a s cre a te d b y h is o r h e r au th o rity
. Gra ntv . Lo ui s v i l l e & N. R. C o ., 1 65 S. W
. 96 3, 96 4 (Tenn
. 19 14 )
. W hil e Gra nt i nvol ve s di f f e r e nt fa c t s , unde rt he rul e i n Gra nt M r s . L a t ha m is l iab le be cau se th e ev ide n ce sh o w ed sh e d id in f act h av e k n o w led ge of

M r. L ath am ’s a c tio n s an d th e co n f

lic ts w ith th e p la in tif

fs . S e e a ls o , 5 8 A m . J u r.I I , N u is a n c e s , § 1 1 7 -1 1 9
. M or e ove r , a de f

e nda nt may be l i a bl e by vi r t ue of t he s t a t us r e l a t i onsh i p to t he prop er t y i f t he pl ai nti f

f prov es co-ow nership or op er at i on of t h e p ro p e rty
. Uni t e d Stat e s v . R
. W. M e y e r, In c ., 8 8 9 F
. 2 d 1 4 9 7 , 1 5 0 7 ( 6 th C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ); M e m p h is Za n e M a y A s s o c ia te s v. IB C M fg . C o ., 9 5 2 F. Su p p . 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 W
. D
. Te n n . 1 9 9 6 ); B e n n is v. M ic h ig a n , 51 6 U. S. 44 2, 44 9, 11 6 S
. Ct
. 99 4, 9 9 9 (U .S . M ic h .1 9 9 6 ).

T h e c a s e o f Schmidt v. Pa u l, 5 5 4 S.W
. 2 d 4 9 6 ( M o . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 7 ) inv o lve d f acts s i mi l a r t o t he c i r c ums t a nc e s i n thi s c a s e . I n S c h m id t, th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d th e w if e d id n o t en gage i n a ny a c t i vi t y c ausi ng da mag e t o the pl a i nt i f fs ’ pr ope r t y . T he Cour tf ound the l a w r e g a r di ng t he c ont i nua t i on a nd mai nt e na nc e of a nu i s a nc e wa s app l i c a bl e , a nd by vi r t ue of t he j oi ntpo s s e s s i on a nd owne r s hi p o f

t he l a nd, t he wi f

e wa s j oi nt l y l i a bl e wi t h the hu s ba nd f ort he nu i s a nc e creat ed a nd m a in ta in e d b y h im
.

M r s . Rut h L a t ha m’ s t e s t i mony e s t a bl i s he d tha ts he kn e w a boutt he j unk pi l e d a l ong th e f e n c e in P la in tif

fs ’ v ie w , th a t sh e co -o w n e d th e p ro p e rty , an d th a t sh e o c c a s io n a lly v is ite d it. W e f in d n o erro r in th e T ria l C o u rt’s d e n y in g th e M o tio n to D is m is s .

D ef end ants a r g ue tha tthe e vi de nc e do e s no te s t a bl i s h tha tapp el l ants denied plai nti f fs’ u s e o f th e ea s e m e n t. An e a s e men ti s a pr ope r t y i nt e r e s tt ha tc onf e r s t o t he ho l de ra n e nf

or c e a bl e l e g a l r i g ht to so m e law f

u l u s e o f th e re a l p ro p e rty o f

an o th e r. Fo w l er v. Wi l ba nks, 48 S. W
. 3d 738, 74 0 ( Te nn. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Bradl e y v . M c Le od, 98 4 S
. W
. 2d 929, 93 4 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 19 98)
. The owne rof t he s ubs e r vi e nte s t a t e ha s no l e g a l r i g htt o i nt e r f e r e w i t h an ea s e men tho l de r ’ s e nj oy men ta nd us e of t he e a s e m e n t. C ooper v. Po l os, 8 9 8 S.W
. 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ).

The t y pe of

injur y t ha tma y be s us t a i ne d f r om awr ong f

ul i nt e r f e r e nc e wi t h the e a s e men t , i nc l ude s i nj ur y t o the l a nd i t s e l f a nd di mi nut i on of

t he e a s e men t ’ s ho l de r ’ s us e a nd

### Th e Trial Court properly re je c te d out of hand de fend ant’ s claim that he plac e d the seitems 1 

### therefor the pur

poses of patchingholes in his fencethat border s plaintiffs’ property
. Plaintif fs of fere d evide nc evia

vide o ta pe , whereLatham app e ars g le e fu lly andinte ns e ly 2 

### laboringwith his front end loader, ca rrying enormous amounts of junk and arra n gi n g i t alongthe fenc e line. Heocca sionally dism o u n t s an dphy sically labors to shove larg e piec es of junk into a heap. -4- e n jo ym e n t o f

h is o w n p ro p e rty , o r th e u s e o f th e ea s e m e n t. R e c to rv. Ha llib u r to n , 2 0 0 3 WL 5 3 5 9 2 4 , * 1 0 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), c itin g , E x p r e s s w a y A s s o c . II v . F r ie n d ly Ice C r e a m C o r p ., 59 0 A .2 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 3 (C o n n . 1 9 9 1 ).

L a ndowne r s a r e not pe r mi t t e d t o u s e t he i rl a nd i n a nywa y t he y c hoos e i rr e s pe c t i ve o f th e eff e c t o n o th e r lan d o w n e rs . Oak l e y v . Si mm ons , 79 9 S
. W
. 2d 669, 67 0- 71 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 1990 )
. I n t hi s ca s e , t he i t e ms pl a c e d i n a “ s t r a t e g i c l oc a t i on” wer e rus t e d o utol d s he ds , a tr uc k c a b, tru ck b ed , r ef

ri ger ato r, co m m o d e, h u ge old ru sted b arrel, tr acto r ti re, w ash ing m a ch ine , o ld deter i orat ed eq uipm ent, cans, and m i scel l aneo us u niden t i f i a ble j un k an d d ebri s. The eviden ce 1 e s t a bl i s he s jun k was a c c umul a t e d f r om a l l ov e rt he de f

e nda nt s ’ f

a r m a nd i nt e nt i ona l l y du mpe d. L ath am testi f

ied that itw as to agg rav ate the p lainti ffs a n d w a s a n ex p ressio n o f h is f ree sp eec h to s e nd t he pl a i nt i f

fs a mes s a g e . Cl e a r l y , t he di g g i ng up t he r i g htof wa y , bu i l di ng a s pe e d b r e a k, a nd s a bot a g i ng t he plai nti f

fs’ e f f or t s t o r e pa i rt he r oa d wa s a bl a t a nti nt e r f e r e nc e wi t h the i rus e a nd e n jo y m e n t o f

th e righ t o f

w a y . A nui s a n c e i s a n y t h i n g w h i c h a n n o y s o rd i s t u rb s t h e f r e e u s e o f

o n e ' s p r o p e r t y , or w h ic h ren d e rs its o rd in a ry u s e o r p h y s ic a l o c c u p a t i o n u n c o m f o rta b le
. C a ldw ell v. Kn o x C o n cre te P r o d u c ts , In c ., 3 9 1 S
. W
. 2 d 5 (Te n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 6 4 ). I t ex ten d s to ev ery thin g tha t end an ger s h ealth o r li f e, o f f en d s th e sen ses , v iolates the law s o f d ece n cy , o r o b struc ts t h e reaso n ab le an d co m f o rt ab le u se o f p rop erty
. P a te v. C it

y o f M a rtin , 6 1 4 S.W
. 2 d 4 6 , 4 7 ( T en n . 1 9 8 1 ); Wi l s on v . Farme rs Ch e m. As s ’ n, 4 4 4 S.W
. 2 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 7 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 19 6 9 ).

A pri vate nuisance i s cr eat ed w here a l and ow ner uses his prop er t y i n such a m ann er as t o un r eason ably i nter f er e w i t h pla i nti f

f ’ s use or enjoy m ent of his ow n pr op er ty
. M et ropo l i tan G ov’tof Nash vi l l e & D avidso n C ou nty v. C ou nts, 54 1 S
. W
. 2d 13 3, 13 8 (Tenn . 1 97 6). “ Th e key e le m e n t o f

an y n u is a n c e is th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s co n d u c t u n d e r th e circ u m s ta n c e s .” Sa dler v
. State , 56 S. W
. 3d 508, 511 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 2001
. ) I f t he a c t i on i s t a ke n s ol e l y f ort he pu rpo se of

hara ssi ng t he p r op er t y ow ner, and is n ot a r eason able u se o f the prop er t y , i ti s a nu i sance. I d. , c i t i ng, Re av e rv . M ar t i n T he at r e s of

Fl or i da , 52 So. 2d 682 ( Fl a . 1951 )
. The nu i s a nc e ne e d n ot b e p laced o n the p laintif f ’s p rop erty
. I t m ay co n sist of so m eth ing loc ated o n the d ef en d an t’ s p rop erty o r a u s e o f o n e ’s p ro p e rty th a t h a s an eff e c t u p o n th e ad

jo in in g o w n e r. Willia m s v. C r o s s , 65 S. W
. 2d 1 9 8 , 2 0 1 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 3 2 ); P a te v. C ity o f M a r tin , 61 4 S
. W
. 2d 46 ( Te nn. 19 81) ( c i t a t i on a nd qu otat i on m ar ks o m i t t ed); The Restate m ent ( Seco nd ) of To rts § 821F ( 1979 ) ; Al s o s ee, Jenki ns v. C SXTr a n s

p o r ta tio n , In c ., 90 6 S
. W
. 2d 460, 46 2 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 1 995)
. Cl e a r l y , t he de f e nda nt d elibe rately am ass ed the ju n k in a lo n g stretch alon g the p arti es’ b o rde r. 2

### -5- The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l yp r e p o nde r a t e s i n f a vorof t he Tr i a l Cour t ’ s Jud g men ton t he i s s ue o f co m p e n s a to ry d a m a ges .

M or e ove r , t he e vi de nc e s uppor t s an aw a r d o f pu ni t i ve da mag e s ba s e d u pon t he eg r eg i ou sness of

L at ham ’ s actio n s . H o w ever, w hether t he T r i al C ou r thas uti l i zed the proper mea s ur e of

da mag e s i s a qu est i on o f la w s ubj e c tt o de n ovo r e vi e w, wi t h n o p r e s umpt i on of c o rre c tn e s s . T h e a m o u n t o f d a m a ges a c tu a lly a w a rd e d is a q u e s tio n o f f a c t, B e a ty v. M c G r a w , 15 S .W .3 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 8 -8 2 9 (T e n n . C t. A p p .1 9 9 8 ).

Hodge s v. Toof

& Co. , 833 S. W
. 2d 896 ( Te nn. 19 92) i s t he l e a di ng c a s e s e t t i ng t he param et er s f

or pu nit i ve d am ag es i n this j uri sdict i on . The O pinion st at es: I n Te n n ess ee, th eref

o re, a co u rtm ay h en c e f o rt h aw ard p u n it ive d am ages o n ly if it fi n d s a d e fe n d a n t h a s a c t e d e i t h e r ( 1 ) i n t e n t i o n a l l y, ( 2 ) fra u d u l e n t l y, ( 3 ) m a l i c i o u s l y, o r(4 ) re c k l e s s l y. A p erso n acts inten ti o n ally w h en itis th e p erso n ' s co n scio u s o bjective o r d esire to en gag e in the co n d u ct or cau se th e resu lt
. C f. T .C .A . § 3 9 -1 1 -3 0 2 (a ) (1 9 9 1 ) ( cr i m i nal d e fin it ion o f

"i n ten ti o n al")
. . . . A p erso n acts m aliciou sly w h en the p erso n is m o tiv a te d b y ill w ill, h a tre d , o r p e rs o n a l sp ite
. . . Fur t he r , be c a us e pu ni t i ve da mag e s ar e t o be awa r de d onl y i n the mos te g r e g i ous of c a s es, a plai nt i f

f mus tpr ove t he de f

e nda nt ' s i nt e nt i ona l , f

r a udul e nt , ma l i c i ous , or r e c kl e s s c ondu c t by c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . [ FN 3] T hi s hi g he rs t a nda r d o f proo f i s app r op r i at e g i ven t he twin purpo ses of pu nishm ent and deterr ence: fai r ness r e qui r e s t ha ta de f

e nda nt ' s wr ong be c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d be f or e puni s hme nt , as s uc h, is i m p o sed ; a w ar di ng puniti v e d am ages o n ly in clearly ap p rop ri ate cas es b etter ef f ects deterr ence. FN3. Cl e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e me a ns e vi de nc e i n whi c h the r e i s no s e r i ous or sub st anti al do ub tabo ut the co rr ect ness of the con cl usion s d r aw n f r om the eviden ce. I n a tr ial w h ere p u n it ive d am ages are so u ght, the co u rt , u p o n m o ti o n o f d ef en d an t, s ha l l bi f ur c a t e t he tr i al
. Dur i ng t he f i r s tph a s e , t he f

a c t f i nde rs ha l l de t e r mi ne ( 1) l i a bi l i t y f or , a nd t he a mountof, compe ns a t or y dama g e s and ( 2) l i a bi l i t y f orpu ni t i ve dam ag es i n accordan ce with t he sta nd ar ds an no un ced abo ve. D uri ng t his ph ase, e vi de nc e of

a de f e nda nt ' s f

i na nc i a l a f

fa i r s , f i na nc i a l c ondi t i on, orne twor t h i s no t adm i ssi ble. I f t he fa c t f i nde r f i nds a de f

e nda nt l i a bl e f

or puni t i ve da mag e s , t he a mount of such d am ages sh all the n b e d eterm ine d in an im m ed iate, sep arate p roc eed ing. D u ri n g this s e c ond pha s e , t he fa c t f i nde r s ha l l c ons i de r , t o t he e xt e nt r e l e va nt , a t l east t he f o ll o w ing:

### -6- (1) T h e d ef

en d an t' s f

ina n cial af

fairs, f ina n cial co n d it ion , an d n et w o rt h ; ( 2) The n at ure a nd r eprehen si bil i t y of def end ant' s w r on g do i ng, f

or exam ple (A ) T h e im p act o f

d ef en d an t' s co n d u ct on the p laintif f, o r (B ) T h e relati o n sh ip o f

d ef en d an t t o p laintif

f ; ( 3 ) T h e d e fe n d a n t 's a w a r e n e s s o f t h e a m o u n to f h a r m b e i n g c a u s e d a n d d e fe n d a n t 's m o ti v ation in cau sin g the h arm ; (4) T h e d u rati o n o f

d ef en d an t' s m isco n d u ct an d w h et h er de f en d an t at tem p ted to co n cea l th e co n d u ct; (5) T h e ex p en se p laintif f h as b o rne in th e attem p t t o r eco v er t h e los ses ; ( 6) W hether def

end ant pr of

i t ed f r om the act i vit y , an d i f

d ef end ant di d p r of

i t , w hether the p u n it ive aw ard sh o u ld b e in ex ces s o f the p rofi t i n o rde r to d eter sim il ar f u ture b eh av ior; ( 7) W he the r , a nd t he e xt e ntt o whi c h, def e nda ntha s be e n s ubj e c t e d t o p r e vi ous p u n it ive d am age aw ard s b ase d u p o n the s am e w ron gf u l act; ( 8) W he t he r , on c e t he mi s c ondu c tbe c a me known t o d e f e nda nt , de f

e nda ntt ook r e med i a l a c t i on or a t t e mpt e d t o mak e a men ds by of f e r i ng a pr ompta nd fa i rs e t t l e men t f ora c t ua l ha r m c a us e d; a nd ( 9) Any othe rc i r c ums t a nc e s s hown b y t he e vi de nc e t ha tbe ar o n dete r mi ni ng t he p ro p e r am o u n t o f

th e p u n itiv e aw a rd
.

. . . H od ges 90 1 - 902.

Sub s e que ntt o H od ges, the Su p rem e C o u rt h eld tha t the req u ir em en t o f a tr ial co u rt t o m a k e f

in d in gs o f

f a c t an d co n c lu s io n s o f

law is e s s e n tia l in n o n -ju ry trials
. Cul br e at h v. Firs t T en n ess ee Ba n k Na t’ l Ass ’n , 44 S. W
. 3d 518, 528 ( Te nn. 2001)
. W i t houta f i ndi ng a s t o e a c h o f

t he relev an t H od ges c rite ria , an ap p e lla te co u rt ca n n o t ad e q u a te ly rev ie w a p u n itiv e d a m a ges aw a rd
. I d. a t 5 2 9
. Th e C u lbr ea th Cour tf ound t ha tt he r e c or d am ply su ppor t e d the i mpos i t i on of pu ni t i ve dam ag es, bu tbecause the f i nd i ngs did n ot address each of t he H od ges facto rs s ep arately they w ere i nsu f f i ci e n t to s u p p o rtt he am ou nt of dam ag es, and t he C ou r tr em and ed the case f or cor r ect a ppl i c a t i on of

t hos e f a c t or s . L e a vi ng no do ubtr e g a r di ng i t s po s i t i on, t he Cour ts a i d: I n o rde r to ‘ c le a rly d em o n strate a co n sid eration o f all r elev an t f

acto rs, ’ the co u rt ’s f ind ings o f

f act an d co n clu sio n s o f

law s h o u ld ex p li citl y ref er to e ach o f

the facto rs l i s t e d i n H od ges, a s we l l a s t o a ny othe rf a c t or s s uppo r t i ng the aw ar d o f pu ni t i ve

### -7- dam ag es. I d. at 52 9. Accord, K i m ery v . Unicoi I ns. Ag ency, 2 0 0 3 W L 2 1 2 9 7 3 1 4 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). Appe l l a nt s obj e c t e d t o the a dmi s s i on of e vi de nc e pe r t a i ni ng t o t he i r f i na nc e s du r i ng the li ab il it y p h ase o f

tr ial. T h e T ri al C o u rtstated that itco u ld k eep the tw o issu es se p arate b u t did not f ol l ow t he pr oc e dur e a s s e tf or t h i n H od ges a nd Cul br e ath. A c c or di ng l y , we c onc l ude a r e man d i s ne c e s s a r y t o d e t e r mi ne t he a mountof pu ni t i ve da mag e s , by ma ki ng e xpl i c i tf i ndi ng s o n e a c h o f t he f a c t or s l i s t e d i n H od ges a s re q u i r e d b y C u lb r e a th , a nd a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e maybe of f e r e d o n the i ssue. W e vacat e the J ud g em ent of pu nit i ve d am ag es bu taf f i r m t he T r i al C ou r to n al l other issu es, an d rem an d f

o r the T ri al C o u rt to estab li sh p u n it ive d am ages in acco rd w it h the req u ir em en ts o f H od ges. The c os tof t he a ppe a l i s a s s e s s e d t o Rut h a nd Ral ph L a t ha m, a nd t he c a us e r e man de d.



### ______________________________ H ER SCH EL 

### P I CKE N S 

### FRAN KS 

### , P
. J.