Ap pel l ant ’ s coun s el was not t r i al coun s el i n t hi s ca s e. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Jul y 20, 200 4 S es sio n ROSET TA WI LLI S v . MIKE SETT LE, ET AL
A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. C-00- 279 The Hon orable Roger A. P age, Judge

No. W2004-00636-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Septem ber 20, 2004
This is an appea l from a judg ment enter ed on a jury verdic t for Plainti ff

/ Ap p ellee. Plaintiff/Appellee wa s taken hostag e by a prisoner

who esc aped f

rom the control a nd custody of Def endant/Appe llant, a privatecorpor ation contra cting with the State of Tenne ssee to provide p rison security . Def

endant/Appe llant asserts that it is entitled to immunit y under the Public Duty Doctrine , that there was no mate rial evide nce on w hich the jury could have based its ver dict, that the awa rd of compe nsatory

damag es wa s ex ce ssive and not supported by the evidenc e, that Def endant/Appe llant cannot be he ld responsible for the actions of i ts employ ees unde r the doc trine of re spondeat superior, and that the tria l court er red in not g ranting a mistrial. We affirm.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
J ames I . Pentecost and William B. M au l d i n of Jackson for Appe llant, Correc tions Corporation of Americ a 1
Da vidW. Ca mp o f Ja c ks on fo r A pp e lle e , Ro se tta Willi s OP IN ION Correc tions Corporation of Americ a (“CCA,” “De fenda nt” or “Appe llant”) is a private, forprofit cor poration that contra cts with the State of Tenne ssee to pr ovide manag ement of the State’s corr ectional f

acilities. CCA operate s numerous fa cilities, including the prison located in Whi teville, Har deman County , Tenne ssee, known a s the Har d em an CountyCorrec tional Fac ility(“H CCF”). On Aug ust 16, 1999, Office r L ee V andiver (“V andiver ”) a nd Offic er Shannon Crow der ( “ Cr owder ”) wer e Corre ctional Off

icer s employ ed by

CCA.A c c o rd ing to trial E x h ib it 3 , S e ttl e p le d g u ilt y to tw o c o u n ts o f ro b b e ry, fo u r c o u n ts o f ag g ra v a te d ro b b e ry, 2

an d on e cou n t of

t h ef t ov er $1, 000.
V and i ver ackno wl ed ged t hat Sett l e m ust ha v e h a d a hand cuf f key hi d d en o n hi s p ers o n i n ord er t o have 3 enab l ed hi m t o remo ve t he l eg i ron. -2- Mike Settle (“Settle”) is a medium security inmate, housed at HCCF. On Aug ust 14, 1999, 2 Settle was brought to the J ackson- Madison County Gene ral Hospital for an appa rent drug overdose

. On Aug ust 16, 1999, Vandiver and Crowder wer e assig ned to pr o v i d e s ec u rity for Settle. That morning , Crowder left Settle’s room to obta in a meal ticket for himself and Vandiver

. Af ter Crowder left the room, Settle informe d Vandiver that he had to use the bathroom immediately . At that time, Settle was ly ing in bed with an I .V. i n eac h arm a nd a catheter inserted. One of Settle’s leg s was locke d in a leg iron and the othe r end of the leg iron was attached to the hospital be d. Vandiver was a war e that Settle had be en g iven tar a nd a laxative to he lp him pass the tar . Vandiver had also be en told by

hospital staff that it would be the r esponsibilityof the Corre ctional Off icer s to ge t Settle up and to the bathroom whe n the laxative took effe ct. To that end, Vandiver unlocked the leg iron from the be d but did not reattac h it to Settle’s other leg. Wit h the leg iron dang ling f rom one leg , Settle g ot out of bed and st arte d toward the bathroom wit h an I .V. pole in ea ch hand and the cathe ter ba g also in his left hand. As Settle a pproac hed the bathroom, he droppe d the catheter ba g a ndbe nt o ve r t o p ic k it

up . H e the n r a mme d V a nd ive r and hit him in the g ro in wi th his fi st. Se ttl e g rabbe d Vandiver ’s wea

pon, threatened the of

fic e r w it hp h y s ical harm, gr abbed a pair of te nnis shoes and ra n from the hospital room. Va ndiver g ave chase but stoppe d once Settled rea ched the doorwa y leading to the s t ai rw ell . Vandiver then re turned to the nurse s’ station where he notified hospital security that Settle had escape d and also notified the War den at HCCF. Settle r emoved the c atheter bag and the leg iron, and put on his shoes. 3
At the sa me tim e a s the e sc ape , Ros e tta Willi s (“ Willi s, ” “ Pla int if f, ” or “ Ap pe lle e ” ) w a s in the pay roll d ep ar t m en t of the hospital to make sure that her pay chec k acc urate ly ref lected the ov e rt ime sh e ha d w or

ke d. Se c urity

c a me ra s p ho tog ra

ph e d Se ttl e du ri ng his e sc ape fr om the ho sp ita l. Stil l photogr aphs we re taken fr om the security came ra videotape and admitted as Exhibi t 8 during the t rial. These photogr aphs show Settle leaving the hos pital with Vandiver ’s gun i n his right ha nd. Upon re aching the parking lot, t he photos show Settle approa ching Wil lis as she beg ins to open her car door. At this point, S ettle put Vandiver ’s gun t o Wil lis’ side and she sc rea med. Settle told her to s hu t up a ndthe n f

or c e d h e r i nto the c ar w ith him

. Although Willis was unawar e at the t ime, her sc rea m was hea rd by a hospital employ ee w ho called se curity

to r eport the incident and g ave a description and license plate number of Will is’ car

. Settle ordere d Wil lis to drive him awayfrom the hospital. She drove on West Forest towa rd Ho lly wo od . Sh e t h e n t u r n e d o n t o H o l l y w o o d a n d g o t o n t h e B yp a s s . S h e t o o k t h e B yp a s s to Airwa y s and turned onto Air way s heading toward the airport. This road would eventua lly take he r to E xit 66 a t I nte rs ta te 40

. Willi s g ot on to I nte rs ta te 40 a nd be g a n to h e a d w e st t ow ardMe mph is. Fr om this point, a car

chase ensued. Tr ooper G reg Reg an, of the Tenne ssee Hig hway Patrol testified, in releva nt part, as f

ollows conce rning this chase:-3- Q. Would y ou relate to the ladies and g entlemen of the jury , please , what y our re collection is of the incident and events that occur red that morning as it conce rns the interc eption of that automobile.

*** A. Som e wh e re aro un d 7 :30 a nd8:0 0 I c a n’ t sp e c if

ic a lly sa y e xac tly wh a t ti me fr a me , I

wa s r a dio e d b y

dis patch th at th e re wa s a pu rs uit involving a ve hicle, esc aped prisoner, fr om J ackso n that had a ho sta g e in the ve hic le a nd I wa s to pr oc e e d to the int e rs ta te to h e lp i n appre hension of the ve hicle and the suspect, so I and anothe r trooper – a fe w more troope rs went to th e co unty line wher e Shelby

and Fay ette County

line is somewhere around the 28 mile marke r on I -40 and wa ited for the ve hicle. A f ew minutes later

I saw some blue lig hts a nda

ve hic le c omi ng up so Ipu lle d o ut i nto tr a ff ic to t ry to slo w the ve hic le do wn . T he ve hic le go t be hin d me , I wa s try ing to block him in and somehow he g ot in the median and come back out of the media n and passe d me and c ontinued on. At that time I noticed a F a y e tt e Co u n ty D e p u ty p a s s me , w h ic h w a s b e h in d th e suspect ve hic le , a nd the y

c on tin ue d f

or wa rd . I do n’ t kn ow e xac tly

wh a t mi le mark e r it wa s. Th e F a y e tte Cou nty De pu ty pa sse d th e su sp e c t ve hic le and the ve hicle wa s betwee n me and the Fay ette County Deputy in the inside lane. The F ay ette County Deputy slowed down. The suspect vehic le s tr

u c k th e d e p u ty ’ s v e h ic le in th e r e ar , a n d th e n went on around in the outside lane and the deputy slowed down a littl e bit. I proce eded to c atch up with t h e v ehicle, got be hind the vehicle and pulled into – he was in the outsi de lane. I pulled into the inside lane and g ot up beside the ve hicle and that’s when I noticed – I s aw the hostag e in the back and I

could see the suspect did have a we apon on him and he wa s rea ching back in the ba ck seat and pushing the vic ti m’ s h e a d b a c k d o w n in th e f lo o r b o ar d

. A t th a t ti me w hen he seen me beside of him – when he seen me pull up b es i d e o f h i m he rea ched his we apon ar ound – the window wa s up but he was pointing the gun at me and that’s when I , without hesitation, pull ed my service wea pon out and then Islowed bac k down. Somewher e about – a few se c on ds la te r h is c ar s tart e d ov e rh e a tin g or los ing so me ra diator fl uid and it was slowing down and at that time I – we we re c oming up on so me wh e re ar o u n d t h e 2 2 –2 2 o r 2 3 m i l e m ark e r

a n d i tw a s ru sh hour traf fic in Memphis and I

knew if he g o t t o t he 18 mile marke r that we wa s g oing to ha ve proba bly a catastrophe on our hands so at that time I tried to ea se over and I

was a bout to bump him off the r oad when all of a sudden he just ve ere d off onto the emer g ency shoulder and we nt down and stopped in what I like to call smal l b ru sh, like-4- brie rs a nd stu ff lik e that, i n a br us hy are a , a ndhe jumpe d –

I we nt i n front of him and he had st opped and he jum ped out of the vehicle a nd takes off in the woods and that’s w hen I beg an foot pursuit af

ter the esca ped prisoner

and he r an for

sever al – I don’t know, seve ral hundred y ards a nd I

lost sight of hi m , and that’s whe n I called dispatch to have them g et a se arc h unit out so we coul d fi n d the esca ped prisoner

.

*** Q. During the cour se of the c hase w ere y ou able to record or clock the sp e e ds that y ou we re tr a ve lin g wh e n y ou pu lle d a lon g sid e the ve hic le that w a s b e ing drive n at th a t ti me , I be lie ve , b y

the su sp e c t? A. I wa s n ’t exactly

clocking the vehicle . I did notice we w ere trave ling in excess of 110 miles an hour at t imes and then we tried – we we re trying to block him to kee p him out of the Memphis traffic , or to slow him down and we wer e trave ling sometimes ove r 110 and sometimes as low as 90 but I don’t think we got below 75 or 80 miles an hour until he we nt off the r oad. Q. I s there any

doubt in y our mind that it was the suspect, Mr. Settle, that was a ctually driving the vehicle at or a round the time y ou picked it up?
A. Ye s, sir , it

wa s h im. Q. Where w as Ms. Wil lis located in the ca r then?
A. Whe n I

se e n th e vic tim

sh e wa s in the ba ck seat andhe wo uld push her down in the ba ck seat. Severa l times, Idon’t kno w how ma ny tim e s h e wa s p us hin g he r d ow n in the ba c k s e a t. Con c e rn ing Ms. Willi s’ c on dit ion wh e n the tr oo pe rs g ot to the c ar af te r Settle fl e d, Se rg e a nt W. P. Son ny Tay lor , o f theF a y e tte Cou nty She rrif f’ s D e pa rt me nt, te sti fi e d, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Q. At the ti me th a t th e c ar e v e n tu a ll y

s to p p e d o r

th e a c c id e nt occur red, w ere y ou – did y ou actua lly stop at that point in t ime, along wi th the re st o f the tr oo pe rs ? A. Yes, sir? I

jumped out with the other trooper that he [Settl e] was try ing to h it h is c ar w ith – th a t he pu ll ed the we apo n o n. We b oth jumped out of our vehicles and went running down the t ree line. TheSet t l e wa s an ori gi nal D ef endan t i n t hi s s ui t

. H owever , on Febr uar y 21, 200 3, t he t r i al cour t en t er ed an “ O r der 4

o f D ism issa l f

o r F a ilure to P ro se c u te a s to D e fen d a n t M ike S e ttl e .” S e ttl e is no t a p a rty to this a p p e a l. -5- trooper took of

f af ter him and I

pulled the lady

out of the ca

r. She [ W i l l i s ] was about to go in shoc k and by that time some other troopers pulled up and there was a fema le t rooper there and Itook her over a nd asked the fema le trooper to watch he r. I

set her dow n beca use she was fix ing to – she was in bad sha pe. She wa s shaking all over. Q. Can y ou gi v e us a – y ou are g iving a littl e bit of g ener al de sc ri pti on a s to Ms. Willi s. A. Yes, sir. Q. Can y ou g ive me y our best phy sical desc ri p t i o n o f what she looked like at the e nd of that cha se, if y ou can? A. I mean, she was a nervous wrec k. The only thing I could see , y ou know, phy sically , she wa s s h ak ing a ll over and she was c ry ing and, y ou kn ow , the on ly thi ng I c ou ld te ll wa s th inking sh e wa s g oin g int o shock, beca

use she was rea lly addled at the time. She didn ’t k now what to do and he was hunke red up in the car and I wanted to g et her a w a y f r o mt h e c ar

r i g h ta w a y. Wil lis was taken ba ck to J ackson to the hospital, whe re she was treated a nd rele ased that same da y . On Aug ust 17, 1999, W illis had her firs t ap p o intment with Dr. Richard Spring , a psy cholog ist. W illis continued to see Dr. Spring throug h November of 2001. On Aug ust 14, 2000, Wil lis filed sui t ag ainst Settle and CCA. Wil lis specifica lly asserted 4 that CCA ha d b re a c he d th e du ty it o we d to Willi s in the fo llo wi ng way s: a) F ailure to prope rly

supervise inmate , Mike Settle. b ) F a i l u r e t o k e e p a

k n o w n v i o l e n tf

e l o n i n c u s t o d y. c) B y failing to protect the ge nera l public and the plaintiff by keeping [ S e t t l e ] i n c u s t o d y. d) B y removing the def

endant f rom a lockdow n fac ilityand taking this defenda nt to a p u b l ic hospital where there was an incre ased likelihood of harm being cause d to the public at larg e. e) F ailing to take adequate pre cauti o n t o p rotec t the plaintiff from ha rm .-6-

Willi s p ray e d f

or bo th c omp e ns a tory

a ndpu nitive da ma g e s st e mmi ng fr om m e dic a l bi lls , lo st earnings, a nd sever e emotional and psy cholog ical injury . CCA filed its Answer on September 26, 2000, in which it denied any brea ch of duty . The c ase w as tried to a jury o n Fe b ruary

20 and 21, 2003. The jury found CCA liable to Willis and assessed damag es at F ive Hundre d Thousand Dollar s ($500,000). Judgment was enter ed for Wil lis in this a mount on Marc h 3, 2003. On April 2, 2003, CCA filed its “Motion for Direc ted Ver dict or Alternatively for Ne w Trial,” along with a Memorandum of

L aw in support there of. Wil lis filed her Response t o CCA’s Motion on J uly 22, 2003. CCA’s Motion was denied by Orde r of F ebrua

ry 3, 2003. CCA appeals a nd raises f ive (5) issues f

or re view as state d in its brief: 1. Whe the r o r n ot the Pub lic Du ty Do c tr ine app lie s to De fend a nt, Correc tions Corporation of Americ a and spe cifica lly , whether or not De fe nd a nt o nly

ow e s a du ty to the pu bli c a s a wh ole a ndno t to specific individuals, such as the Plaintiff. 2. Whether the jury

err ed in g ranting a ver dict to the Plaintiff when t h e i n jury inflicted upon the Plaintiff wa s not forese eable

. Ad dit ion a lly , CC A, wa s n ot s ho wn to b e ne g lig e nt or at faul t in g uarding the prisoner at the time of the incide nt at issue in this m atter or as to the pr operly

enac ted pol icies and pr ocedur es. Ther efor e, C C A s h o u l d n o th av e b ee n l i ab l e i n t h i s ru l i n g. 3. Whether the jury

awa rd wa s ag ainst the we i gh t o f t he evide nce pr e se nte d at tria l a ndwa s n ot w ith in the rang e of re a so na ble ne ss. 4. Whether the jury awa

rd of compensable da mag es to Plaintiff was excessive. 5. Whether t he trial court erre d in not gr anting Def endant’ s Motion fo r a Mis tr ia l. We first note that our re view of t he judg ment enter ed on the jury ’s ver dict is gove rned by Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), whic h provides that “[f]indings of fa ct by a jury in civil actions shall be set aside only if there is no material evide nce to support the ve rdict.” U nder this standar d of re view, we “ar e not at liberty to w eig h the evidenc e or to de cide wher e the preponde ranc e lies, but are limit ed to de termining whether there is material e vidence to support the verdic t.” Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Co nstr

., Inc ., 575 S.W .2d 4, 5 (Tenn.1978)

. I n making this determination, we are “ require d to take the str on g e st le g iti ma te vie w of a ll the e vid e nc e in f

a vo r o f the ve rd ic t, t o a ssu me the truth of all that tends to support it, allowing a ll reasona ble infer ence s to sustain the verdict, and to disca rd all to the contra

ry .” Id. I f the re c or d c on ta ins a ny ma te ri a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the ve rd ic t, w e mus t aff irm the trial court’s judgme nt. See id. ; ac c or d Fo rres ter v. Stoc ks til

l , 869 S.W .2d 328, 329 (Tenn.1994)

.-7- Whether or

not the P ubl ic Duty Doc trine applies to Defendan t, Corr ections Corporation of Am eric a and s pecifically, w hether ornot De fend ant

onl y o wes a dut y t o t he publi c as a whol e and no t t o s pe c if icin di v id ua ls , s uc h a s t he P la in t if f. CCA di d no t rai se the de fe ns e of the Pub lic Du ty

Do c tr ine in i ts A ns we r, a t tria l, o r i n it s po st- tr ia l mo tio ns , but it

no w a sse rt s th a t, a s a

private c on tr a c tor

a ssu min g a

state fu nc tio n, it i s imm un e fr om l ia

bil ity to Wi lli s. Th e qu e sti on of wh e the r s ov e re ig n im mun ity ex ten ds to p ri vate priso n c on tr a c tor s h a s b e e n s e ttl e d b y the le g isl a tur e . In T. C.A . § 47 -2 4- 10 8( b) , Te nn e sse e c le arl y de c lin e s to e xten d s ov e re ig n im mun ity to p ri vate priso n o pe rator s, to w it: The sover eig n immunit y of the state sha ll not apply to the contra ctor. Neither the contra ctor nor the insuror of the c ontrac tor may plead the defe nse of sover eig n immunit y in any action arising out of the pe rf orma nc e of

the c on tr a c t. Id. ; ac c or d Ric har ds on v . M c Knight , 5 21 U. S. 3 99 , 4 12 (1 99 7) ; Martin v. S tate of Tennessee , No. M1999-01642-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 747640 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul y 5 , 2 0 0 1 ). I n the abse nce of so ve re ig n im mun ity , w e de c lin e to add res s th e qu e sti on of wh e the r C CA is e nti tle d to imm un ity under the Public Duty Doctrine

. The Public Duty Doctrine is a n aff irmative defe nse. Chas e v . City of Me mphis , 9 71 S.W. 2d 38 0, 38 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 8) . T e nn . R. Civ . P. 8. 03 re qu ir e s th a t “ a pa rt y sh a ll set forth af

fi rm at i v el yfac ts in short and plain terms relied upon to c onstitut e ... an avoidance or aff irmative def

ense.” The Rules of Civil Procedure als o p ro v i de for the waive r of suc h a def

ense. Rule 12.08 states that “[a] pa rty waives all defe nses and objections which the pa rty does not prese nt either by motion as hereina

bove provide d, or, if the pa rty has made no motion, in the party ' s answer or re ply .” As noted a

bove, C C A did not raise the Public Duty Doctrine in its Answer, or at trial. Consequent l y , CCA waived the de fense . Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.08. F urthe rm or e , CC A d id n ot s e t ou t a ny a lle g e d e rr or , c on c e rn ing the Pub lic Du ty Do c tr ine , in its Mo tio n f or Ne w T ri a l. T e nn .R. Ap p. P. 3 (e ) p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p a rt : Provided, howeve r, that in all case s tried by a jury , no issue prese nted for r eview sha ll be predic ated upon e rror in the admiss i o n or exclusion of evidence , jury i n s tructions g rante d or re fused, misconduct of jurors, pa

rties or counsel, or other action committed or occur ring during the tri al of the c ase, or other g round upon which a new tria l is sought, u n les s the sa me wa s sp e c if ic all y sta te d in a m otion for a n ew trial ; otherwise suc h issu es will be treated as waived. ... (Emphasis adde d).-8-

Be cause the motion for new trial filed by CCA does not specifica lly set out any

alleg ed er

ror conce rning the Public Duty Doctrine , under Te nn. R. App. P. 3( e), this issue is w aived. We now turn to A pp e lla nt’ s r e ma ini ng iss ue s.

W he t he rt he j ur y e r r e d i n g r a nt in g a v e r di c t t o t he P la in t if

f wh en the injury inf

licted upon the P laintif

f w as not f

orese eable. Addition ally, CCA, was n ot show n to be negligent or at fault in g uar ding th e pr iso ne rat th e ti m e of t he inc ide nt at iss ue in t his m atte r or as t o the properly e nacted policies and p roce dures. Therefore, CC A shoul d not h ave been liable in th is rulin g. A neg lige nce c laim require s a plaintiff to prove the following elements: (1) a duty of ca re owed by the def endant to the plaintiff; ( 2) conduc t by the def endant f alling be low the standar d of car e amounting to brea ch of the duty ; (3) an injury or loss; (4) causation in fact; and ( 5) proxi mate ca

usation. See, e.g., Bradshaw v. Daniel , 854 S.W .2d 865, 869 (Tenn. 1993) . The duty element is a que stion of law re quiring the court to determine " whether the intere st of the plaintiff which ha s suffer ed invasion wa s entitled to leg al protec tion at the hands of the defe nd ant ." Id . at 870 (quoting W. P ag e Ke eton, Prosser & Kee ton on Torts, § 37 at 236 (5th ed. 19 84 )) . Co ns e qu e ntl y , w e mus t r e vie w the iss ue of wh e the r C CA ’s ow e d a

du ty to Wi lli s de novo up on the re c or d w ith no pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. The Complaint alleg es that CCA “had a responsibility , duty

and oblig ation to secure , protec t and g uard the prisoner w ho was be ing tr eate d at J ackson- Madison CountyGene ral Hospital.” I n Parag raph 11 of its Answer, CCA admits that it “was re sponsible for tra nsporting I nmate Settle to J ackson- Madison CountyGene ral Hospital, and that it was responsible for providing security

for Inmate Settle during his stay at J ackson- Madison CountyGene ral Hospital.” The spe cific r esponsibiliti es of the CCA off icer s, in carry ing out this duty , are more fu lly ou tli ne d in the Pos t O rd e r, a dmi tte d in to e vid e nc e a s E xhibi t 1. Th e Pos t O rd e r r e a ds , in pe rt ine nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: I. RE QU IR EM EN T: One ( 1) or two ( 2) cor

rec tional office rs as a

ppropriate

. * * * IV. P RE F AC E: Whe n p e rf

ormin g du tie s in a n o uts ide ho sp ita l, y ou a s th e of fi c e r i n char g e, ar e e xp e c te d to p r o v id e a s a f e a n d s e c u r e e n v ir o n me n t f or inmate patients in y our cha rg e and the g ener al public...
* * *It is un d isp u te d tha t S e ttl e w a s c la ssified a s a m e d ium se c u rity inm a te

. 5
-9- VI . SP EC IF IC DU TIES : A. Sup e rv isi on of

inm a te s in ou tsi de ho sp ita ls w ill be a s f oll ow s: * * * 2. Minimum restric ted throug h maxi mum custody inmates re qu ir e tw o ( 2) arm e d c or re c tio na l of

fi c e rs pe r i nmate wi th r e str a int s (leg irons) re quired, unless medic ally prohibited. 5
* * *
H. You are to rema in with the i nmate at all times. Shoul d the doctor tell y ou to leave the inmate, y o u wi ll inform the doctor that y ou[r] ins truc tio ns re qu ir e y ou r p res ence at all t ime s. I f the do c tor sti ll insists that y ou leave the inmate, y ou will contac t the instit ution for fu rthe r i ns truc tio ns . I . A ll i nmate s sh all be sh ackle d to the ir be ds a s a n a dd e d s e c urity measure . Shackles will not be re moved unt i l approva l is rece ived from the shift super visor or hig her. When a pproval is re ceive d, y ou wi ll r e mov e the sh a c kle s ju st p ri or to t reatment , a ndre app ly imm e diate ly

u p o nc o mp le tio n o f t

re a tme nt. I f r e str a int s a

re me dic a lly prohibited, y ou will ge t authorization from the shift s u p ervisor, or highe r, bef

ore le aving the re straint s off. I f re straints need to be re mov e d, on e (1 ) c or

rect ion a l of

fi c e r w ill g ive his /he r w e apo n w ith the ac tion open to the other c orre ctional offic er be fore taking off the re str a int s. * * * K. When y ou require per sonal relief , the re lief per son will be a corr ectional of

fice r. * * *
N. Yo u a re to r e main i n th e ro om oc c up ie d by the inm a te a t a ll t ime s. Yo u a re to n e ve r l e a ve the inm a te un a tte nd e d. Th e of fi c e r s ho uld po sit ion him se lf

/he rs e lf in a ma nn e r that wil l pro vid e se c urity to I nmate s w hil e be ing ob se rv a nt t o in div idu a ls e nte ri ng the ro om.-10- * * * Q. Se c urity

of Wea po ns : a. Of fice rs assig ned a f

irea rm or other s ec urity

type equipment shall be c onstantly alert to the possib i l i ty of pe rs on a l a ssa

ult by the inm a te or oth e r ne arby pe rs on s. Offi c e r s a s s ig n e d th e s e ty p e s o f e q u ip me n t s h a ll b e on continu o us g uard f

or such e vents and limit, as much as po ssi ble , c los e c on ta c t w ith the inm a te s a ndoth e rs . b. Re vo lve rs sh a ll re ma in se c ur e d in the ho lst e r w ith the re taini n g strap buckle d. The holster sha ll be fastene d to the belt in a manner that d o es not allow t h e h o l s t e r

t o b e p u l l e d ap arto r

a w a y f r o mt h e b o d y. c. When escorting an inmate or g roup of inmates, the arme d o ff

ic e r( s) sh a ll p os iti on him se lf /he rs e lf to re d u c e e xp o s u r e o f

th e w e ap o n to w ar d the inmate(s)....
* * * VI II. K EY CO NT RO L: A. Ha nd lin g of

Se c urity Ke y s: * * *
7. Do not pe rmit a n inmate to handle any security key s under a ny c ir c ums ta nc e s. * * * XIV. SUMM ARY: A. It is essential for ea ch em ploy ee to ha ve a g ood working kn ow le dg e of

the se po st o rd e rs . T he e mpl oy e e mus t stud y the m, un de rs ta ndthe m, andimp le me nt the m. B . Po st o rd e rs c ite g e ne ra l a ndsp e c if ic du tie s f

or op e ratio n o f thi s post. They cannot, howeve r, cover every incident or situation which may occur . The e mp l o y ee assig ned to this post shall use good-11- judgme nt, tact, and gi ve ca ref ul attention to detail in discharg ing his /he r d uti e s w he the r r e fe re nc e d in po st o rd e rs or no t. C. I f an e mpl oy e e is u nc le ar w hat th e po st or de rs re qu ir e , h e /sh e sh a ll contac t their supervisor a nd obtain clarification.
D. No employ ee shall be allowed to w ork this post before they have rea d and understood the post or ders and have signe d the s i gnature sheet... We now turn to the rec ord to determine whether there is any

materia l evidence on which the jury could have found that CCA, throug h its employ ees, br eac hed a duty . Offic er Crow der te sti fi e d, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Q. Now, Mr. Crowder, y ou left the room at some point in t ime prior to M r. Se ttl e e sc apin g , is n’ t th a t c or re c t? A. Yes, sir.
* * * Q. An d it wa s re qu ir e d that tw o of y ou [co rr e c tio na l of fi c e rs ] re ma in in the ro om w ith him

[Settle ] at

a ll t ime s, wa sn ’t

it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, so, knowing that that was a re quirement of y our fa cility y ou le ft Mr . V a nd ive r the re a lon e wi th M r. Se ttl e ? Do y ou re c a ll that? A. Ye s. * * * Q. Exhi bit 1 [ the Post Order]. Do y ou see wh er e it specifies “Specif ic duties”? A. Yes, sir. Q. Al l r ig ht. Do y ou see whe re it s a y s “ Sup e rv isi on of inm a te s in ou tsi de ho sp ita ls w ill be a s f oll ow s:” A. Yes, sir.-12- Q. Read f

or us, if y ou would, A-2. A. Minimum restricted throug h maxi mum cust o d y inmates requir e two (2) a rmed c orre ctional offic ers per i nmate with re straints (leg irons) re quired, unless medic ally prohibited. Q. I t doesn’t say

two unless somebody

g ets hung ry

and wa nts a meal tic ke t, d oe s it ? A. No, sir. Q. And, it doesn’t say

that y ou are permitted to leave the fa cility or to l e a ve that priso ne r w ith on e g ua rda t a ny g ive n ti me , d oe s it ? A. No, sir.
* * * Q. So y ou ag ree with me t hen, Mr. Crowder , that y ou violated y our own c o mp a n y ’ s p o li c y w h e n y o u ma d e th e d e c is io n to le a v e Mr. Va nd ive r the re a lon e to g o d ow n a nd g e t a me a l ti c ke t? A. Yes, sir. Of fi c e r V a nd ive r’ s te sti mon y ind ic a te s n ume ro us po lic y vio la tio ns : Q. So, what typ e of training do y ou have a s it relates to the prope r pr oto c ol andpr oc e du re a s far a s c arry ing fi re arm s a ro un d p ri so ne rs ? A. I n this hospital duty , we are supposed to hand our w eapons ove r to the other off

icer if we g et close to the inmate s [pursuant to S ection V I ( I ) o f th e Po s t O r d e r ].
* * * Q. And, wher e was y our revolve r when y ou unleashe d or unshac kled Mr. Settle?
A. I still had it [t he re volver] on. Q. And , whe re w as it prec isely on y our per son? A. Right side.-13- Q. An d, wa s it

str app e d [pu rs uant t o Se cti on VI (Q )( b) of the Pos t O r d e r ]?
* * * A. No, it was– Q

. W a s i ts tr ap p e d o n t h i s p ar t i c u l ar d a y? A. No, sir, ther e wa sn’t no strap on the we apon holder

. * * * Q. Mr. Va ndiver, at the time Mr. Crowder left to g et the mea l ticket was M r . Se tt le c h a in e d to th e b e d [p u r s u a n t to Se c ti o n V I ( I ) o f the Po s t O r d e r ]? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, how e x actly

was he secur ed to the bed? A. One le g to the foot of the be d....
* * * Q. I t [th e Pos t O rd e r] say s “Al l in ma te s sh a ll b e sh a c kle d to the ir beds.... Shackles will not be remove d until approval is rec eived f rom the shift supe rvisor or highe r.”... Y ou [Vandiver] never soug ht to ge t approva l prior to rele asing Mr. Settle from the be d, did y ou? A. No, sir. Q. So, w ould y ou ag ree with me, then, as it relates to that provision of y our fa cility policy that y ou violated it, as well whe n y ou rele ased Mr. Settle? A. Yes, sir.
* * * Q. M r . V a n d iv e r , d idit e v e r o c c u r to y o u th a t y o u w e r e p u tt ing y ourself at risk as well as other people at t he hospi tal when y ou made that decision to unshackle this prisoner with no strap on y our holster-14- and y ou the only

g uard in the room at the time? Did that ever occur to y ou a t a ll?
A. Ye s, sir . I

tho ug ht a bo ut i t. Q. B ut in spit e of ha vin g tho ug ht ab ou t it y ou we nt a he a d a nddidit a n yw a y? A. Yes, sir.
F ro m th is t e sti mon y , th e re is a mpl e e vid e nc e fr om w hic h th e jury c ou ld h a ve fo un d th a t a

du ty was bre ache d.
F orese eability
I n o rd e r t o e sta

bli sh pr oximate c a us a tio n a nd , u lti ma te ly , n e g lig e nc e , th e c la ima nt mus t show that “the ha

rm g iving rise to the ac tion could have r easona bly been f orese en or a nticipated by a per son of ordinary

intelligenc e and pr

udence .” McClenahan v. Cooley , 806 S.W .2d 767, 775 (Tenn.1991) . As stated in Ray Carter, Inc. v. Edwards , 436 S.W .2d 864, 867 (Tenn. 1969) , “an injury which could not have been f orese en nor r easona

bly anticipated a s a proba

ble re sult of an ac t or omission i s not actionable, a nd such an a ct is either the r emote ca use or no c ause of

the injury .” As the Supre me Court stated in McClenahan , th e fo re se e abil ity re qu ir e me nt is not so st rict as to require the tortfea sor to fore see the exact manner in which the injury

takes plac e, provi d ed i t is determined that the tortf e a so r c ou ld f

or e se e , o r thr ou g h th e e xer c ise of re a sona ble diligenc e should have fore seen, the g ener al manner in which the injury or loss occur

red. [citations omitt ed] "The fac t that an ac cident may be fr eakish doe s not per se make it unpr edictable or unfor esee n." City of Elizabeth ton v. Sluder , 5 3 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 ( T e n n . 1 9 7 6 )

. It is sufficient that harm in the abstrac t could rea sonab l ybe for esee n. Shell Oil Co. v. Blanks , 46 Tenn.App

. 539, 330 S.W .2d 569, 572 (1959). McClenahan , 806 S.W .2d at 775. For esee ability is a question of fa ct to be dete rmined by the jury

. City of Elizabeth ton v. Slu der , 534 S.W .2d 115 (Tenn. 1976)

. Fr om our revie w of the e ntire re cord in this case , we f ind that it was fore seea

ble that Se ttl e c ou ld e sc ape a nd , h a vin g e sc ape d, it w a s f or e se e able that he c ou ld t ake a ho sta g e . It is un dis pu te d th a t Se ttl e wa s a me diu m se c urity

priso ne r at a ll t ime s p e rt ine nt t o th is c a se . It is a lso uncontested that CCA required its offic er to ke ep leg irons on Settle at all times, unless the office r obtained pe rmission from his or her supe rvisor prior to re moving the sha ckles. As discussed in detail, su

pr a , th e re we re nu me ro us pr e c a uti on ary po lic ie s in pla c e a ll f

or the pu rp os e-15-

of ins uring that th is p ri so ne r w ou ld n ot e sc ape . G ive n th e natur e of the se po lic ie s, it i s rea sonably

fore seea ble that, should any

of them be disre g arde d, as in this case, the prisoner mig ht esca pe. Once Settle esca

ped, g iven the fa ct that he ha d Offic er V andiver ’s wea pon, it was rea sonably

fore seea ble that he mig ht use that wea pon ag ainst someone. I n his testimony , Offic er Vandiver admits that the situation that occurre d with Wi llis was forese eable : Q. Mr. Va ndiver, wa s it not foresee able, sir, that he [S ettle] had the wea pon pointed at y our hea d that he could ha ve also ha ve take n the wea pon and pointed it at someone e lse’s hea d, such as a n e mpl oy e e of

the ho sp ita l , s uc h a s so me bo dy lik e Ms. Willi s? A. Yes, sir, that’s the re ason I didn’t forc e him to shoot me he would have be en out shooting the rest of the way down the h a l l w a y. We find that the rec ord supports the jury ’s finding that the eve nts of Aug ust 16, 1999 wer e for esee able. We now a ddress the e lements of ca use in fac t and proxim ate c ausation. “Causation, or c ause in fa ct, means that the injury or harm would not have occ urre d ' but for ' the d efen dan t's n egli gent c on du ct. " Kilp atr ic k v . Br y ant , 868 S .W .2d 594, 598 (Tenn.1993)

. "Proximate causation is a jury question unless the uncontrove rted fa cts and infe renc es to be draw n from them make it so clear that all rea sonable pe rsons must ag ree on the prope r outcome." McClenahan v. Cooley , 806 S.W .2d 767, 775 (Tenn.1991)

. In Kilp atr ic k v . Br y ant , 8 68 S.W. 2d59 4 ( Te nn .1 99 3) , o ur Sup re me Cou rt

sa id: Causation and proximate cause are distinct el em ents of neg lige nce, and both must be proven by the plaint i ff by

a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e. B radsha w [v. Daniel ], 854 S.W .2d [865, 869 (Tenn.1993) ]; Mc Cle naha n v . Co ole y , 8 06 S.W. 2d 76 7, 77 4 (T e nn .1 99 1) ; Smi th v. Go re , 7 28 S.W. 2d73 8, 74 9 ( Te nn .1 98 7) . " Caus a tio n ( or c a us e in fac t) is a very

differ ent conc ept from that of proxi mate cause. Causation ref

ers to the cause and eff

ect relationship betw ee n the tortio us con du ct andthe inj ury . T he do c tr ine of pr oximate c a us e encomp asses the w hole panoply of rules that may

deny liabilityfor otherwise a ctionable c au ses of ha rm." King , Causation, Valuation, and Chanc e in Personal Injury Torts I nvolvi n g P reex isting I njuries a ndF utu re Con se qu e nc e s, 90 Ya le L .J. 1 35 3, 13 55 n. 7 ( 19 81 ). Th us , proxi mate ca

use, or leg al cause, concerns a determination of whe ther leg al liabilityshould be imposed wher e ca use in fac t has bee n establi s h ed . McKe llips v. S aint Fr ancis Hosp., 741 P.2d 467-16- (Okla.1987) . "Cause i n fac t, on the ot her hand, deals with the ' but for' conseque nces of

an ac t. 'T he def

en d an t 's conduct is a c ause of the event if the event would not have occur red but for

that conduct.' " I d. a t 47 0 ( qu oti ng Pr os se r andKe e ton , T he L a w o f T orts 26 6 ( 5th ed.1984))

. Id . at 598.
I n Tenne ssee, ther e is a thre e-pr ong ed test for proxi mate ca

usation: (1) the tortfe asor' s conduct must have bee n a " substantial fac tor" in bring ing a bout the harm be ing c omplained of; and ( 2) there is no rule or policy

that should relieve the wrong doer f rom liabilitybeca

use of the ma nner in w hic h th e ne g lig e nc e ha s r e su lte d in the ha rm ; a nd(3 ) the ha

rm g ivi ng ri se to the a c tio n c ou ld have r easona

bly been f orese en or a nticipated by

a per son of ordinary

intelligenc e and pr

udence

. McClenaha n v. Cooley , 806 S.W .2d 767, 775 (Tenn.1991)

. We find that the rec ord in this case supports the jury ’s finding that the ac tions of CCA’s e mpl oy e e s w e re bo th the c a us e in f a c t a ndthe pr oximate c a us e of Willi s’ inj urie s. Respondeat Sup erior CCA c on te nd s th a t it

c a nn ot b e he ld r e sp on sib le fo r the a c tio ns /in a c tio ns of its employ ees, V andiver

and Crowde r, under

the doctrine of re spondeat superior, bec ause O ffice rs Vandiver and Crowde r deviated from the c ourse a nd scope of their employ ment by

acting outside the policies and pr ocedur es set in place by CCA. W e disag ree . The g ener al rule in Te nnessee is that a principal is liable for the neg lige nce or

wrong ful ac t s o f h i s age n tac t i n g wi t h i n t h e a ct u al o r a p p ar en ts co p e o f h i s em p l o y m en ti n t h e p ri n ci p al 's service

. See, e.g. , 1 Te nn . Jur is. , A g e nc y , § 47 (1 98 2) ; V .L. N ic hol so n Co. v . T

ra nsc on I nv . a nd Fin ancial Ltd., In c. , 5 95 S.W. 2d47 4, 48 3 ( Te nn .1 98 0) ; McGe e v. County of Wilson , 574 S.W .2d 744, 746- 47 (Te nn. Ct. App.1978). This respondeat superior liability exis ts where the principal ha s a rig ht to control the ag ent. See Doane Agric. Serv., Inc. v . Colem an , 254 F.2d 40, 43 (6t h C ir .1 95 8), cert . d eni ed, 35 8 U. S . 8 18 (19 58 ). O ur S up rem e C ou rthas reco gniz ed t hat "a serva nt, acting within the ge nera l scope of his authority , makes the ma ster re sponsible, even th ou gh he act wi th ou t i ns tr uct io ns , o r ex ceed h is in st ruct io ns ." Lo uisv ill e & N .R. Co. v . M

ar lin , 186 S.W . 595, 596 (Tenn.1916) . This responsibilityon the part of the principa l exi sts even whe re the injured pa

rty is "wholly

a strang er" to the principal. Id . The que stion of whether an ag ency relationship ex ists and the scope of the ag ent' s authority

are questions of fac t. See Mays v
. Bri ght on Ba nk , 8 32 S.W. 2d34 7 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp .1 99 2) ; Board of Directors of City of Harrim an School Dist

. v. South western Petroleum Corp. , 757 S.W .2d 669 (Tenn. Ct. App.1988). The g rava men of re spondeat superior is that the master may be sued e ven thoug h the master is not persona lly

at fault. See, e.g., Rankhorn v. Sealtest F oods , 479 S.W .2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971). Her e, CCA had policies in plac e to pre vent the esc ape of prisoners. While we-17-

may conce de that Of

fice r Crowde r wa s outside the scope of his employ ment when he left Settle’s ho sp ita l r oo m to re tr ie ve the me a l ti c ke ts, a t a ll t ime s p e rt ine nt t o th is c a se , th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that O ff ic e r V a nd ive r w a s a t hi s p os t. T he fa c t th a t V a nd ive r d isr e g ard e d CC A p oli c ie s in c arry ing ou t hi s d uti e s d oe s n ot r e mov e him fr om the sc op e of

his e mpl oyme nt. Ra the r, it evince s neg lige nce in the pe rformance of those duties, which makes CCA answer able f or Vandiver ’s ac tions under the doctrine of re spondeat superior. We will now address Appe llant’s second a nd third issues, conce rning the awa rd of damag es, tog ether . We first note that counsel f or Will is withdrew the que stion of punitive damag es prior to the tria l. Concerning its award of damag es, the jury

was instructe d, in releva nt pa rt , a s f oll ow s: P ERSONAL INJURY–P AIN AND SUF F ERING
P l ai n t i ff m ayb e a wa rd ed t h e f o l l o wi n g e l e m en t s o f d am age e xpe ri e nc e d in the pa st: Phy sical pain a nd suffe ring Mental or e motional pain and suffe ring L oss of ca

pacity for the e njoy ment of life You may also awa rd compe nsation for the pr esent c ash value of: Phy sical pain a nd suffe ring Mental or e motional pain and suffe ring L oss o f capa city

for the e njoy ment of life r easona bly certain to be experience d by

the Plaintiff in the future. Pain and suffe ring encompa sses the phy sical discomfort caused by an injury . Mental or emotional pain and suff ering encompa sses ang uish, dis tr e ss, fe ar, hu mil ia tio n, g ri e f, sh a me or wo rry . Da ma g e s for los s of enjoy ment of life compensate the injured person f or the limitations place d on the ability

to enjoy the pleasur es of life

. Th e re is n o mathe ma tic a l f ormul a fo r c omp uti ng re a so na ble compensation for [phy sical pain and suff ering ] [ mental or e motional pa in andsu ff

e ri ng ] [loss of c apa c ity fo r the e njo y me nt o f l if e ], no r i s the opinion of any

witness requi re d as to the amount of suc h compensation. I n ma kin g a n a wa

rdfo r s uc h d a ma g e s, y ou mus t us e y ou r b e st judgme nt and establish an am o unt of damag es that is fair and rea sonable in lig ht of the evide nce be fore y ou. Th e jury a wa rd e d Wil lis $5 00 ,0 00 in c omp e ns a tory da ma g e s. CCA a sse rt s th a t th is a wa rdis above the rang e of r easona bleness and, a s such, is not supported by the evidenc e. I n a per sonal injury case s, the amount of dama g es to be a war ded is primarily for the jury . Bro wn v . N

ull , 863 S.W. 2d42 5, 43 0 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp .1 99 3) ; Cla rk v . Eng e lbe rg , 4 36 S.W. 2d46 5, 46 8 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 1968). It is not wit hin the appellate court’s pr ovince to substitute its j udg ment for that of-18-

the jury

. Id . No ver dict is valid until it is approved by the trial court judge

. Se e Cumbe rla nd Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Sm ithw ick , 7 9 S

. W

. 8 0 3 , 8 0 5 (T en n . 1 9 0 4 ). W h er e, as i n t h i s ca s e, t h e j u d ge simplyapprove s the jury ' s verdict without furthe r comment, the a ppellate c ourt presume s that the trial judg e ade quately

perf ormed his or he r func tion as thirteenth juror. See Holden v. Ranni ck , 6 8 2 S

. W

. 2 d 9 0 3 (T en n . 1 9 8 4 ) ( ci t i n g Central Tru ckaway Sys. v. Waltner , 36 Tenn.App. 202, 253 S.W. 2d98 5, 99 1 ( 19 52 )) . Wh e n th e tr ia l c ou rt ha s a pp ro ve d th e ve rd ic t, o ur

re vie w i s su bje c t to the rule that if there is a ny materia l evidence to support the jury ’s awa rd, it should not be disturbed. See Ellis v. Whi te Freightli ner Corp. , 6 03 S.W. 2d12 5, 12 9 ( Te nn .1 98 0) ; Benson v. Tennessee V

alley Elec. Coop ., 86 8 S. W.2 d 6 30 , 6 40 (T e nn . Ct . A pp .1 99 3) ; Coy le v . P rie to , 822 S.W. 2d59 6, 60 1 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp .1 99 1) ; Car y v . Ar ro wsmith , 7 77 S.W. 2d8, 23 (T e nn . Ct

. App.1989). As state d in Elli s , [e] ach c ase must depe nd upon its own f acts and the test to be applied by us is n o t wh at amount the member s of the court would have a wa rd e d h a d th e y

be e n o n the j ury , o r w hat th e y , a s a n a pp e llate c ou rt , th ink

sh ou ld h a ve been aw ard e d, bu t w he the r the ve rd ic t is patently excessive. Elli s , 603 S.W .2d at 129. Although CCA conte nds that Wi llis’ damag es should have be en limited to her medica l expenses ($3,462) a nd her lost wag es ($1,202) , as noted a bove, the jury

was c lear ly

instructed that compensatory

damag es may

include “me ntal or emotional pain a nd suffe ring ” and “ loss of capa city for the e njoy ment of life.” As furthe r noted in the jury instructions, there is no mathematica l formula to place a pric e on the trauma Will is suffer ed at the hands of Settle or on the long term ef

fec ts of that experience

. Con c e rn ing the e ve nts of

Au g us t 16 , 1 99 9, Willi s te sti fi e d, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Q. Ms. Wil lis, describe f

or these f olks on the J ury , if y ou will please, when is the fir st tim e y o u n o t i ced Mr. Mike Settle that morning of Aug ust 16, 1999? A. As I was wa lking to my

car I happene d to look back an d I seen this man coming up but I

just walked to my

car as I usually do and g et in my car and he c ame up be hind me and said “ Sist er, le t me have y our ca r.” I said “My car ? ” and he said “That’s all rig ht. I don’t nee d y our ca r, y ou can dr

ive.” And I said “Drive wher e? ” He said “I need to g e t to Me mph is. ” “ I do n’ t kn ow ho w t o g e t to Me mph is. ” He sa id “We’ll find a way how to g et to Me mphis.” I said “B ut I don’t know how. I just don’t know how.” And he said “We will find our wa y .” By t hat time he came out with his gun a nd put it up to m y head and I ho lle re d o ut “ Oh , h e lp me ple a se .” An d he tol d me “ Do n’ t do that.-19- You do it ag ain and there will be a very big problem.” I didn’t want to ge t hurt so I

g ot in the car

and did not g o on the passeng er side. He g ot in whe re I

was driving on the driver ’s side, so he took the g un and he pu t it to m y he a d a nd the n he pu t it in m y ri bs a ndhe g ra

bb e d my arm a nd said “Ge t in the car .” And by that time I had starte d crying and he said–“Stop crying, the re’ s g oing to be a proble m if y ou don’t.” So I – Her e, a br eak w as take n to allow Ms. Wi llis t o compose he rself. H er te stimonycontinued a s f oll ow s: Q. Where w as he [Settle] in the ca r wi t h y o u at the time that y ou

we re le a vin g the ho sp ita l? A. He w as on the pa sseng er side. Q. Okay , wher e wa s the g un? A. Sticking in my

side. Q. At that point did y ou fee l that he was–that y ou we re in fea r of y our life?
A. Ye s, I wa s. Q. And, as y ou wer e driving out of the parking g ara g e did he shout or y e ll i ns truc tio ns to y ou a t th a t po int ? A. He sa id “Hurry , back out. Bac k out.” So I was trying to ba ck out and almost bac ked into another car and he sa id “Strai gh ten up. Strai gh t en u p this car. Ac t normal, I said, bec ause if y ou g ive attention to us there’ s g oing to be a proble m. I t’s g oing to be y ou.”
* * * Q. When y ou wer e first a

pproac hed by

Mr. Settle–I

meant to ask y ou that–in the hospital parking g ara g e, as y ou testified bef ore the brea

k, that y ou sc re a me d a ndhe tol d y ou no t to do that. A

. H e s a i d i f

I d i d i ta g a i n I w a s g o i n g t o b e v e r y s o rr y. Q. Di d y ou kn ow wh e the r o r n ot any on e he ardy ou sc re a m? A. No , I did n’ t.-20- Q. As y ou wer e driving out of t he gar ag e did y ou fee l like any body kn e w w he re y ou we re or

wh a t w a s g oin g on a t a ll?
A. No , I did n’ t. * * * Q. Was he telling y ou how to drive?
A. Ye s, he was “ Drive fa ste r, drive fa ste r. ” I sa id “ I wi ll g e t a ticket.” He said “You are g oing to g et more than that if y o u d on’t drive fa ster.” Q. Did he c ontinue to use the g un as a w ay – A. He ke pt shoving it in my side, y es, he did.
* * * Q. And, as y ou we re driving a long I -40 g oing to Me mphis did y ou notice any

police at that point in time just as y ou g ot on the interstate?
A. Ye s , as I

g ot on the interstate I

seen a police pull off to the side l i k e he wa s re s t i n g o r so m et h i n g. I d o n ’t k n o w wh at h e w a s d o i n g, but it was a police c ar sitting to t h e s i d e an d Michae l [ Settle] kept shoving the g un in my side and telli ng me t o drive faster and as Iwas drivin g f a s te r I s e e n a s tate tr o o p e r

o n th e s id e o f

th e h ig h w a y

a nd then as we g ot a li ttle further on down t he highway a st ate troope r wa s coming from–like fr om Memphis and he passe d rig ht bes i d e m e on the driver ’s side and he turned a round and by

that time Michael [Settle ] loo ke d b a c k a ndhe sa id “ Th e re is going to b e a pr ob le m. Drive, drive.” And he kept shoving the g un into myside.
* * * Q. All rig ht. At some point in t ime while y ou wer e driving down the interstate did Mr. Settle bec ome ang ry with y ou and upset a

bout the way y ou wer e continuing to drive?
A. Ye s. Q. Wha t di d h e do to t ake c are of that pr ob le m?-21- A. He took a nd stuck h i s fee t on top of my fee t, on top of the g as pedal, a nd pushed it to the floor? Q. And, y ou wer e trying to stee r the c ar? A. I was trying to stee r the c ar a nd t h en as Iwas trying to stee r the car and he took–we wer e like g oing dow n an embankment as we was g oing into Memphis, and I was thi n k i n g the ca

r wa s g oing to turn over a nd I was shaking by the[n] and he g rabbe d the ca r–g rabbe d the steering whee l and straig htened i t back up and by the time I

seen some state troope rs and he said “It’s g oing to be a proble m; it’s going to be a ve ry big problem.” J ust like that and as I noticed to the side of me I seen a Fay ette C ounty

state trooper

was pulling up by

side of us and he [Settle] seen him and he told that state t rooper to ge t back, there was g oing to be a big problem. He took the g un and he pointed it. He said “It’s g oing to be a problem. Going to be a big problem.” And by that time the s t at e t ro o per kind of slowe d down to back of f fr o m u s a n d th e n I s ta

r te d d r iv in g a g a in a n d h e s a id “ Y o u ’ r e not driving fast enoug h.” And he put his foot back on my foot t o make it drive faste r then a ll of a sudden he ju s t j u m p ed over me and knocked me into the door and jum ped in my lap and he said “You are g oing to g et in the bac k.” And a bout that time he could see more state tr oo pe rs ha d a

pp ro a c he d u s a nd he ma de me g e t in the ba c k s e a t. Q. So he switched pla ces w ith y ou? A. Ye s. Q. Di d h e a t a ny

tim e slo w the c ar d ow n at a ll?
A. Na w, he wa s d ri vin g wi th o ne ha nda ndke e ping th e g un on me with the other hand and told me to “ Get in the back; g et in the back,” jus t li ke that so I

did . I we nt o ve r i n th e ba c k s e a t. Q. W h en y o u go t into the back se at of the c ar did y ou sit up in t he back se at or whe re w ere y ou as– A

. A t th e ti me I w a s s itti n g d o w n a n d h e g r ab b e d my head a nd pushed it down and then as I went to r aise up he pushed me a g ain and he said “ I am not g oing out like this , I am not g oing out like this. I am not g oing out like this.” And I could hea

r hi m like cocking the g un and that’s whe n he jus t–seemed like he took off and he said “I am not going out like this. Iam not g oing out like this.”-22- * * * Q. Can y ou describe for the J ury how it [ the cha se] ended? A. Well, th e s t at e troopers had us like blocke d in both way s and so me kin d of way he g ra

bb e d the ste e ri ng wh e e l a ndwh e e le d o ut i n front of all of the state troopers and something exploded i n m ycar and we nt “whoof,” something like that, and he lost control of the ca r a ndthat’ s w he n w e we nt i nto the wo od s. Q. W h en the ca

r ca me to rest we re y ou able to see from whe re y ou wer e in the ca

r– A. I wa s d ow n o n th e fl oo r of the c ar. I wa s o n th e fl oo r o f the c ar i n the back seat. I was down on the floor and as he g ot out of the ca r he said “I am not g oing out like this.” And I was trying to ope n the door but I couldn’t g et it open and a s they [t he t ro o p ers] approa ched the door fe ll open and I fell out on the g round and that’s when the othe r state trooper s approa ched me with they [si c] guns on me. Q. Di d y ou fe e l li ke e ve n th e n, a ft e r the c ar c a me to a c omp le te re st, that y ou may

still be in dang er? A. Yes, I did. Q. Di d y ou kn ow wh e re he [Settle ] w a s or wh a t ha d h app e ne d to him or whe re he had g one? A. No , s ir , I

didno t. Con c e rn ing he r s y mpt oms a ndthe dis ru pti on to h e r l if e sin c e Au g us t 16 , 1 99 9, Willi s te sti fi e d, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Q. Ms. Willis, what w ere some of the pr oblems y ou wer e having that ma de y ou wa nt t o s e e Dr . Sp ri ng ov e r the tim e that y ou sa w h im?
A. I wa s h a vin g nig htm are s. I wo uldwa

ke up c rying a nde ve ry

tim e I hear a noise I

was jumping and I

sometimes I

didn’t g o to sleep. I wo uldsit up a ll n ig ht.
* * *-23- Q. Prior to Aug ust 16, 1999, had y o u ev er neede d counseling or the ra py or se ssi on s o f any

ty pe lik e that a t a ll?
A. No. Q. What effe ct did the incident of A ug ust 16, 1999, have on y our–on y our just aver ag e daily

life?
A. Ib ega n t o stay in the house. I didn’t want to ta lk to nobody

. I wo uldloc k the do or s a nd stay in the ho us e a ll the tim e . I did n’ t ta lk to nobody on the phone. I

stay ed in the house a ll the time.
* * * Q. An d, e ve n th ou g h y ou ha ve be e n a ble to g o w ith ou t ha vin g to c on tin ue to se e him [Dr . Spr ing ] fo r som e pe ri od of tim e , ar e y ou sti ll continu i n g to have pr oblems dealing with what happe ned to y ou on Aug ust 16, 1999? A. Som e tim e s. Q. Whe n a

re the tim e s th a t it

is the wo rs t? A. Mostly like when I

walk at wor

k and wa lking down the hall I look be hin d me . I

loo k b e hin d to se e wh o is it o r s ome thi ng lik e that, be c a us e wh e n I we nt ba c k to wo rk I ha d to ha ve se c urity to e sc ort me to m y c ar e ve ry nig ht.
* * * Q. Ok ay , M s . Wil lis, is t here any other thing s in y our life now that are differ ent t han they

wer e bef ore A ug ust 16, 1999–that are dif fer ent beca use of what happene d on Aug ust 16, 1999? A. I am still a lit tle afr aid. A lot of thing s I u s ed to do I don’t do them like I

used to. I

still kind of shy

off a nd stay

at home. CCA points , int e r a lia , to the fac t that Wi llis has not required r eg ular sessions with Dr. Spring fo r s ome tim e , a nd to the no ta tio n th a t D r. Spring ma de in F e br ua ry 20 01 that “ F ina lly may be throug h with it. L ife norma l now,” for the proposition that Wi llis i s no longe r suffe ring the ef fec ts of Aug ust 16, 1999. W e disag ree . A closer examination of Dr. Spring ’s testimony indicates that, a lthough Willis g oes throug h periods of normalcy , certain events c an trig g er a re c ur re nc e of he r s y mpt oms a t a ny

tim e , to wi t:D r . Spri ng t es t i f i ed t hat W i l l i s does not s uf fer f r om f ul l P ost

- T r aumat i c St r es s D i s order ( “ P T SD ”)

. Rat her 6 sh e ha s “re sid u a l vu lne ra b ili ty,” o r “P a rtia l P T S D ”

. -24-

Q. Okay . What does that [t he time betwe en sessions] indi cate to y ou, Doctor, as it r elates to the prog ress or rec overy that Ms. Wi l l i s was showing at that time.
A. Wel l, thi s h a s r e a lly

be e n kindof

a re c ur ri ng the me . A ny

tim e that we ha d a long g ap betwee n meeting s the rea son that we did wa s beca use I felt that she had re ache d a pre tty g ood point in resolution of the sy mpt oms a nd the n what wou ld happ e n is tha t so me thi ng wo uld c ome a lon g a ndtr ig g e r i t a g a in a nd re ve a l the fa c t th a t c on tr ary to m y wi sh e s t h e r e w a s a r e s i d u a l v u l n e r ab i l i t y a n d i t w a s s t i l l p o s s i ble to mob ili ze the sy mpt oms to a pre tty hig h le ve l. T hat ha

pp e ne d a g a in and ag ain. Q. Okay . What doe s it indicate to y ou as a c linical psy cholog ist as it r e la te s to Ms. W il li s’ con dit ion a ndthe sy mpt oms that sh e is ex h i b i t i n g? A. Well, I g uess rea lly I

think this . I

think on the one hand that she m a d e a l o t o f p r o g r e s s a n d s h o w e d a n ab i l i t y t o b e n e f i tf r o mt h e r ap y. At the same time [it] just doesn’t disappear and this is something that is persisting. Esse ntially

it goe s into a latent state whe n conditions are ri gh t and then unde r conditions wher e something stimul ates or trig g ers the traumatic process then once ag ain we g et a resur g ence of sy mpt oms . * * * Q. Doctor , what has be en y our experienc e as i t re lates to treatment of patients who a

re dia g nosed with Post Tra umatic Stress Disorder? Have y ou treated seve ral patients with that condition? 6 A. Oh, y es, quite a f

ew. Q. An d, is there any way to r e a lis tic a lly

de te rm ine wh e n o r i f someone is g oing to be able to “be cured,” for lac k of a be tter term f or that type of c ondition? I s that even possible?-25- A. We l l , I a l w a y s h o p e t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e , b u t I h a v e t o sa yin thinking bac k, I am not a

ble to pull up a picture of any one I fee l was completely

cure d. We h a ve re vie we d th e e nti re re c or d in thi s c a se a ndwe fi ndthat th e re is m a te ri a l e vid e nc e to s u p p o r tt h e j u r y’ s a w ar d o f $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n c o m p e n s a t o r y d a m a g e s . T h e v e r d i c ti s s u p p o r t e d b y, among other thing s, evidenc e of the following : the trauma Willis ex perie nced during the actua l events of A ug ust 16, 1999; her pain and suf fering; the de g ree of permanent impairment; and the impact of the injury

upon her a

bilityto work and move about. As discussed su pr a , Wil lis wi ll likely continue to experienc e set-ba cks and r ecur rent sy mptoms. I t is well-settled that a ne g lige nt pa rt y take s a plaint if f a s th e de fe nd a nt f

ind s h im o r h e r, a ndthe inj ur e d p la int if f i s e nti tle d to rec over a ll damag es proximately cause d by

the ac ts of the re sponsible party

. Haws v. Bu llock , 59 2 S. W.2 d 5 88 , 5 91 (T e nn . Ct . A pp .1 97 9) ; Full e r v . Sp e igh t , 5 71 S.W. 2d84 0, 84 1 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. 19 78 ). Al tho ug h s ome ind ivi du a ls m ig ht r e c ov e r q uic kly fr om a tr a umatic e xpe ri e nc e of

thi s nature , the evidenc e does not sug g est that Wil lis is among this g roup. We find that the jury ’s ver dict is supported by materia l evidence , Elli

s , 603 S.W .2d at 129, and that the a war d is not so ex cessive a s to indicate that it was influenc ed by passion, pr e jud ic e , o r c apric e . F ind ing ma te ri a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the jury ’s ve rd ic t, w e de c lin e to s e t it aside or to g rant a

remittitur.
Whether t he trial court

err ed in n ot granting De fend ant ’s M ot ion fora M ist r ial . CCA asserts that Will is’ show of “e x cessive e motion” at sever al points during the trial prejudice d the jury

and should have resulted in a mistrial. I n the instant case , the trial court took prec autions (i.e. aske d counsel to switch tables) so that Wi llis would not be in the jury ’s direc t line of vision. When W illis became emotional on the stand, the tria l court immediately stopped te sti mon y a ndins truc te d Wil lis , d uring a br e ak, that sh e wo uldha ve to k e e p h e r e mot ion s in chec k. There wer e no further incide nts following this instruction.
I t is well settled that the decision of whe ther to g rant a motion for mistrial is wit hin the sound discretion of the trial court. See State v. McKinney , 929 S.W .2d 404, 405 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996) . This court will not disturb a trial court' s denial of a motion for mistrial absent a n abuse of

discretion. Sta te v . Ad

kin s , 7 86 S.W. 2d64 2, 64 4 ( Te nn .1 99 0) ; State v. W i l l i a ms , 929 S.W .2d 385, 388 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996)

. I n the instant case , the trial court was in a be tter position than this C ourt to observe the extent of W illis ’ emotions and the e ffe ct, if any , Wil lis’ behavior ha d upon the jury . Fr om the re c or d b e fo re us , w e c a nn ot s a y that Will is’ e mot ion s w e re so e xce ssi ve or so pr e jud ic ia l a s to ind ic a te a n a

bu se of dis c re tio n b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

in n ot g ranti ng a

mis tr ia l.-26-

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e Judg me nt o n th e jury ve rd ic t. C os ts o f this appea l are assessed to the A ppellant, Corre ctions Corporation of Ame rica , and its surety

.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK

CRA WF OR D, PRE SI DINGJUDG E, W.S.